dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
67241

telcodad
MVM
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ

telcodad

MVM

Re: Say goodbye to ClearQAM

An article on the Multichannel News site this afternoon with the latest news about this issue:

Big MSOs Commit To Make Encrypted Basic Tiers Available To IP Devices
NCTA Tells FCC Six Largest Operators Will Offer Options for Accessing Encrypted Basic Tier Programming

By Todd Spangler, Multichannel News - July 25, 2012
»www.multichannel.com/art ··· ices.php

The letter from the NCTA to the FCC: »www.ncta.com/DocumentBin ··· ?id=1050
telcodad

telcodad

MVM

The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) has now responded to the NCTA's proposal, telling the FCC that it is "flawed" and "utterly insufficient":

CEA Calls NCTA Encryption Proposal 'Utterly Insufficient'
Boxee Also Says Cable Group's Options to Access Encrypted Basic-Tier Programming 'Fall Short'

By Todd Spangler, Multichannel News - August 2, 2012
»www.multichannel.com/art ··· ent_.php

The CEA's letter to the FCC: »apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/docume ··· 21995418
GTFan
join:2004-12-03
Austell, GA

GTFan

Member

I love this part at the end:

Meanwhile, the FCC has a separate proposed rulemaking, issued in April 2010, dubbed "AllVid," that would require all pay-TV providers to conform to a standard technical way of making video programming available to third-party devices.

The AllVid proceeding remains technically open, but several sources said the idea is all but dead after opposition from the NCTA and satellite operators. Pay-TV providers say such a regulation would impose significant costs even as they open up their services to an array of IP-based devices through business deals.

"Given the advent of smart TVs, it's harder for CE to argue that the cable operator needs to modify its set-top or other connection," said a communications lawyer who asked to remain anonymous.


So AllVid is 'all but dead' because the FCC rolls over when the MSOs them to go pound sand? If this doesn't show how folks get bought and paid for, nothing will. And how is a 'smart TV' going to access cable content without a standard beyond the craptacular Cablecard, Mr. Anon Lawyer?

The cable decryption 'proposal' is yet another one-off attempt to keep the CEA et al from getting any control over how content is presented. Cable wants to own the user experience, period.
patryan9
join:2004-06-16
Bolton, CT

patryan9 to andyross

Member

to andyross
What's annoying to me is when I called Comcast the other day and the rep on the line insisted that if I rescanned with my QAM tuner equipped TV that I'd still be able to get basic cable (and most importantly the HD versions of the local channels). I was pretty sure he was mistaken and I saw a Comcast tech the next day and asked him and he confirmed with me that it was untrue.

Why can't these phone reps get some training and know what's going on out in the field? Especially when I specifically asked him if he was sure because I thought we had received a notice that said we were required now to have a box to get any TV at all. He said he was sure and that I just needed to rescan.

DocDrew
How can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900

DocDrew to GTFan

Premium Member

to GTFan
said by GTFan:

And how is a 'smart TV' going to access cable content without a standard beyond the craptacular Cablecard, Mr. Anon Lawyer?

A "smart TV" is going to access cable content using a net connection through an app downloaded to the TV, just like Comcast is right now doing with Xboxes and TWC is doing with iPads/PCs.

Why the hell do you want another proprietary, AllVid, box you'll have to rent from the cable company hanging off the TV? Even if AllVid became a standard right now, and it's FAR from it, you wouldn't see any real devices for a couple years.
GTFan
join:2004-12-03
Austell, GA

GTFan

Member

Because AllVid was intended as a standard for all providers (including sat and U-Verse), not limiting you to whatever cable feels like setting as a so-called 'standard'. Downloading apps is NOT a standard, it locks you into the same tired model where they control the user experience (including force-feeding of ads etc.).

It's a whole lot better to rent a gateway that can provide, say, six streams at a time (what the FCC proposed I think) of raw video that the CEA can use to present however it wants to any device in your house, not under the thumb of the MSO.

IMO.

telcodad
MVM
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ

telcodad

MVM

Speaking of AllVid, this news item just appeared on the Multichannel News site this afternoon:

Google, Best Buy, Sony, Intel And Others Still Pushing For 'AllVid'
Alliance Urges FCC to Mandate a National IP-Based Interface for All Pay-TV Providers

By Todd Spangler, Multichannel News - August 8, 2012
»www.multichannel.com/art ··· Vid_.php

DocDrew
How can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900

2 edits

DocDrew to GTFan

Premium Member

to GTFan
said by GTFan:

Because AllVid was intended as a standard for all providers (including sat and U-Verse), not limiting you to whatever cable feels like setting as a so-called 'standard'. Downloading apps is NOT a standard, it locks you into the same tired model where they control the user experience (including force-feeding of ads etc.).

The apps are the client, not the standard. The standard defines things like how the content is distributed; how encryption, authentication, and billing are handled between the service provider and the end user; and how the client app interacts with the content servers. Something like TV Everywhere has this all figured out and companies are using it. While TV Everywhere is not a fully recognized standard by some governing body, it's actually getting content distributed by cable providers, satellite providers, and content owners to their customers without need for a proprietary box. NOTHING is keeping sat or U-verse from using it either.

Oh wait, AT&T is already started getting in to it:
»www.padgadget.com/2012/0 ··· erience/
As is satellite:
»www.directv.com/DTVAPP/c ··· erywhere

By the time an AllVid product ever gets out into public hands, everyone is going to be scratching their heads asking themselves:
"what was this for again? I plug this box in so I can order channels through my TV interface? But I've been doing that for years without a box..."
or
"this stupid new box isn't compatible with my TV, so now I have to get a new TV".
said by GTFan:

It's a whole lot better to rent a gateway that can provide, say, six streams at a time (what the FCC proposed I think) of raw video that the CEA can use to present however it wants to any device in your house, not under the thumb of the MSO.

The distribution of digital "raw video" in the home will cause a HUGE problem with the MPAA and content owners.

If it isn't encrypted all the way to the end device, it more than likely will never happen.

A "gateway" device would have to put out encrypted streams, probably IP based, that the end device will have to be authorized for and decrypt. So in the end it still comes down to an end device or an app the service provider can communicate with and control in some way.

The CEA had almost 10 years to put the face they wanted on CableCARD. Only Tivo, Moxi, and a couple other REALLY tried. The rest gave up when they realized how much extra work and money creating a acceptable, usable interface to deal with hundreds of channels actually was. I can see AllVid running down this same road.
GTFan
join:2004-12-03
Austell, GA

1 edit

GTFan

Member

Very simplistic answer about CableCARD - there are many reasons why it failed, not least of which was the abject failure of cable to adequately support it until the FCC cracked down on them.

And of course the AllVid streams would be encrypted and authenticated, that's what DTCP-IP is for. I didn't mean 'raw video' was unsecured.

I agree that providing a UI for all those channels (and a program guide, I suppose) is real work. Never said it would be easy, or that the CEA members would want to do it. But Tivo has and if they can others can, and they want AllVid to open up the whole market, not just cable.
GTFan

GTFan to telcodad

Member

to telcodad
said by telcodad:

Speaking of AllVid, this news item just appeared on the Multichannel News site this afternoon:

Google, Best Buy, Sony, Intel And Others Still Pushing For 'AllVid'
Alliance Urges FCC to Mandate a National IP-Based Interface for All Pay-TV Providers

By Todd Spangler, Multichannel News - August 8, 2012
»www.multichannel.com/art ··· Vid_.php

Thanks for that, sums up what I've been saying here. Too bad it probably won't go anywhere, and we'll get stuck with every provider's idea of some stupid IP streaming app and all the ad-ware that goes with it.

markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA

markofmayhem

Premium Member

The MPAA already came out against AllVid, official statement to the FCC stating it was "insecure" and unable to "alleviate copyright infringement concerns". AllVid is dead until something with more power and authority dethrones the MPAA from "keeper of the ear" at the FCC.

DocDrew
How can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900

2 edits

DocDrew to GTFan

Premium Member

to GTFan
said by GTFan:

And of course the AllVid streams would be encrypted and authenticated, that's what DTCP-IP is for. I didn't mean 'raw video' was unsecured.

So what devices can use DTCP-IP? Most video devices with IEEE-1394 connections can handle DTCP, but that's not specifically over Ethernet or wireless. How many can really DTCP-IP connections?

BTW, Verizon FIOS just launched Samsung SmartTV TV Everywhere apps:
»forums.verizon.com/t5/Ve ··· p/466455


By the time AllVid sees the light of day, if ever, it's way too little, way too late. All the major providers or services and channels will be using direct to device apps that skip any need for something like AllVid.

If the CEA wants control of presentation they should make deals with the content providers and create their own apps. Samsung has already been doing that, other CEA members can too.
GTFan
join:2004-12-03
Austell, GA

GTFan

Member

said by DocDrew:

said by GTFan:

And of course the AllVid streams would be encrypted and authenticated, that's what DTCP-IP is for. I didn't mean 'raw video' was unsecured.

By the time AllVid sees the light of day, if ever, it's way too little, way too late. All the major providers or services and channels will be using direct to device apps that skip any need for something like AllVid.

All because the FCC abandoned the idea almost immediately after proposing it 2+ years go. The idea wasn't bad, but I agree that it's probably going nowhere now. Just like tru2way at retail and a host of other proposals to get past the hated CableCARD (yes, I know tru2way still used cards).

DocDrew
How can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900

DocDrew

Premium Member


First page from the FCCs original Notice of Inquiry
said by GTFan:

All because the FCC abandoned the idea almost immediately after proposing it 2+ years go.

2 years ago it was an IDEA proposal, looking for a method to make it work. After 2 years most realized it wouldn't work and in the meantime other solutions have made it to market.

FCC AllVid Notice of Inquiry:
»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_ ··· 60A1.pdf
logger
join:2012-06-14
Carmel, NY

logger to patryan9

Member

to patryan9
said by patryan9:

What's annoying to me is when I called Comcast the other day and the rep on the line insisted that if I rescanned with my QAM tuner equipped TV that I'd still be able to get basic cable (and most importantly the HD versions of the local channels). I was pretty sure he was mistaken and I saw a Comcast tech the next day and asked him and he confirmed with me that it was untrue.

What is the actual result when you do a rescan?

According to Comcast(»customer.comcast.com/hel ··· ation/): "In either area, a TV with a QAM tuner will receive Limited Basic channels without a digital device."

The two areas are those where all channels are digital (there are no analog TV signals on the cable) and where the Expanded Basic and above channels are only in digital.

The story would be different if Comcast had gotten a waiver from the FCC that allowed Comcast to encrypt the signals of basic service channels.

Of course, Comcast is not above fouling up the digital signal configuration in ways that a QAM tuner in a subscriber owned device cannot reliably tune to all the unencrypted digital TV signals on the cable.
GTFan
join:2004-12-03
Austell, GA

GTFan to DocDrew

Member

to DocDrew
said by DocDrew:

said by GTFan:

All because the FCC abandoned the idea almost immediately after proposing it 2+ years go.

2 years ago it was an IDEA proposal, looking for a method to make it work. After 2 years most realized it wouldn't work and in the meantime other solutions have made it to market.

It would work if the FCC cared enough to make it happen, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

DocDrew
How can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900

1 edit

DocDrew

Premium Member

said by GTFan:

It would work if the FCC cared enough to make it happen...

Just like the FCCs support of CableCARD and tru2way made those "work".

The FCC can mandate the cable providers use a specific tech but doesn't mean the CEA will adopt it. Although the cable companies now have millions of tru2way cable boxes deployed, CEAs got zero boxes available retail.
GTFan
join:2004-12-03
Austell, GA

GTFan

Member

Which, again, is a simplistic answer because cable wanted to shove their UI down the CEA's throat in return for tru2way.

As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree, but the AllVid alliance link posted by telcodad clearly shows that large companies care which way they go. Whether it sees the light of day or not at retail doesn't mean that it's a bad idea.
patryan9
join:2004-06-16
Bolton, CT

patryan9 to logger

Member

to logger
I actually didn't rescan (sorry, was away). I'll do it today and report back with my results. Either the phone rep online was wrong or the field tech... let's see (hoping it was the field tech but they are usually the ones who are right).
jeffnyc
join:2004-06-09
Atlanta, GA

jeffnyc to andyross

Member

to andyross
I am about to sign up for tv in the Atlanta area. I am still debating btwn Comcast or Uverse. The comcast mentioned something about free adapters. What exactly do they do? I should have asked.

Anyone, anyone know if clear qam still works in atl area for both uverse and comcast?

DocDrew
How can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal

DocDrew

Premium Member

ClearQAM never worked on Uverse. Wrong technology
jeffnyc
join:2004-06-09
Atlanta, GA

jeffnyc

Member

But as of today its working with Comcast?

telcodad
MVM
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ

telcodad to jeffnyc

MVM

to jeffnyc
said by jeffnyc:

I am about to sign up for tv in the Atlanta area. I am still debating btwn Comcast or Uverse. The comcast mentioned something about free adapters. What exactly do they do? I should have asked.

See: »customer.comcast.com/hel ··· adapter/
jeffnyc
join:2004-06-09
Atlanta, GA

jeffnyc

Member

said by telcodad:

said by jeffnyc:

I am about to sign up for tv in the Atlanta area. I am still debating btwn Comcast or Uverse. The comcast mentioned something about free adapters. What exactly do they do? I should have asked.

See: »customer.comcast.com/hel ··· adapter/

thanks - but basically if you have a tv with a qam tuner you dont need that (for now)

DocDrew
How can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal

DocDrew

Premium Member

Only OTA broadcast networks are commonly available by clearQAM. Analog channels are also available in most areas without a box. Anything else usually needs a box.

telcodad
MVM
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ

1 edit

telcodad to jeffnyc

MVM

to jeffnyc
Currently, except in those areas where they may have obtained a waiver, Comcast must still abide by FCC rules that require them to provide the basic-tier digital channels in clear QAM so that the latest TVs with QAM tuners can still receive them.

However, the FCC has proposed eliminating this requirement (the subject of this thread, see: »www.multichannel.com/art ··· _Ban.php ) so that sometime soon, along with the "digital migration" that eliminates all the analog channels, you will most likely need to use a box of some kind to receive any TV service.
jeffnyc
join:2004-06-09
Atlanta, GA

jeffnyc

Member

said by telcodad:

Currently, except in those areas where they may have obtained a waiver, Comcast must still abide by FCC rules that require them to provide the basic-tier digital channels in clear QAM so that the latest TVs with QAM tuners can still receive them.

However, the FCC has proposed eliminating this requirement (the subject of this thread, see: »www.multichannel.com/art ··· _Ban.php ) so that sometime soon, along with the "digital migration" that eliminates all the analog channels, you will most likely need to use a box of some kind to receive any TV service.

Yeah with TWCNYC I was getting NY1 (the cable news channel) and TBS-HD plus some other random news channels.
GTFan
join:2004-12-03
Austell, GA

GTFan to jeffnyc

Member

to jeffnyc
said by jeffnyc:

But as of today its working with Comcast?

Yes
logger
join:2012-06-14
Carmel, NY

logger to jeffnyc

Member

to jeffnyc
said by jeffnyc:

But as of today its working with Comcast?

Not where I live, as of I when I stopped being a customer of Comcast earlier this year.

Early last year, the local Comcast system changed the digital signal configuration to one where for some QAM TV tuner channel numbers there were two digital signals that could be validly tuned to.

I was not able to reliably tune to those signals with a QAM TV tuner. I had been able to reliably tune to all the in-the-clear QAM signals with previous digital signal configurations.
ViRGE
join:2002-10-25

ViRGE to andyross

Member

to andyross
Well I just got my Dear John letter from Comcast today. Salem, OR will be going all digital on October 9th. So we'll see if they keep ClearQAM around after that, considering we were one of the first areas to go encrypted DTA for expanded basic.