 andyrossPremium,MVM join:2003-05-04 Schaumburg, IL | Say goodbye to ClearQAM quote: NCTA to FCC: Let All-Digital MSOs Encrypt Basic Tier
»www.multichannel.com/article/477···Tier.php |
|
 | If they do indeed pass this, and my local Comcast decides to start encrypting locals, I'm dumping them for sure. This is the only reason i still have Comcast - i like being able to watch locals without signal dropouts. I pay for HSI + Basic. If they do this, Hello Century Link + Antenna.
FYI i don't want a box connected to my Flat Panel, it looks nice and clean on the wall by itself  |
|
 moes join:2009-11-15 Indianapolis, IN | Mount box to tv with mounting kit and using IR blaster, problem solved. |
|
 ddrant join:2010-03-02 Womelsdorf, PA | reply to andyross Not everyone wants a box on every TV (which I'm sure Comcast will charge for). Personally, I've got 1 full box, and one DTA on a non HD tv, but 3 other HDTV's are just hooked up to unencrypted basic locals. |
|
 markofmayhemWhy not now?Premium join:2004-04-08 Pittsburgh, PA kudos:5 Reviews:
·Comcast
| The commission officially voted Oct. 13 to propose that change and put it out for comment. "We tentatively conclude that allowing cable operators to encrypt the basic service tier in all-digital systems will not substantially affect compatibility between cable service and consumer electronics equipment for most subscribers," the commission said. The FCC has already granted several waivers -- most prominently to Cablevision -- and more are in the hopper from cable operators.
The FCC conceded there was an issue with consumers with basic-only digital who accessed it without set-tops, or second or third sets without digital boxes that would now need new equipment to unscramble a signal. It proposed adopting the conditions it put on the waiver it gave Cablevision to encrypt its basic service in New York.
Those conditions include requiring cable operators to offer "current basic-only subscribers up to two set-top boxes or CableCARDs without charge for up to two years, (b) digital subscribers who have an additional television set currently receiving basic-only service one set-top box or CableCARD without charge for one year, and (c) current qualified low-income basic-only subscribers up to two set-top boxes or CableCARDs without charge for five years." But it also asked whether this was adequate of whether the Cablevision time frames are appropriate. NAB is asleep on this, their website has nothing. The only "active voice needed now" campaign is in regards to property valued airwave spectrums.
No counter arguments listed: »www.nab.org/
Current "contact Congress now for action" campaign: »www.thefutureoftv.org/
Help Wanted: Pro-Consumer FCC Lobyists -- Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix |
|
|
|
 PaulGo join:2005-01-29 Gaithersburg, MD | The cable companies really want this. This way they can control the service with sending someone to physically disconnect or connect the service. Just like in the Outer Limits TV show - they want full control! |
|
 bohratomJersey Shore will rise again join:2011-07-07 Red Bank NJ | reply to andyross Correct me if I am wrong but Fox and other local broadcast stations are charging providers now for the content. In this case, local broadcasts use to be free to the cable companies, now they are charged for those rights. I see nothing wrong with a company protecting its financial interest by encrypting those broadcasts to assure only paying customers receive them. I own a small business in Jersey and if I was forced to pay for something that I was receiving for free, I would change the way I sell that product in order to assure a profit.
The anger should really be vented at the local broadcasters who are forcing the cable companies hand. |
|
 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to andyross I can't wait for this. I hope cable providers hurry up and implement this as quickly as possible. Maybe this will force the cable providers to invest in better ways of carrying the signal and either compress the signal less, or use a better compression method like MPEG4/H.264 for better picture quality. |
|
 | reply to bohratom said by bohratom:Correct me if I am wrong but Fox and other local broadcast stations are charging providers now for the content. In this case, local broadcasts use to be free to the cable companies, now they are charged for those rights. I see nothing wrong with a company protecting its financial interest by encrypting those broadcasts to assure only paying customers receive them. I own a small business in Jersey and if I was forced to pay for something that I was receiving for free, I would change the way I sell that product in order to assure a profit.
The anger should really be vented at the local broadcasters who are forcing the cable companies hand. I believe the rules for location stations are that, if the station demands it be carried, the cable company must comply and carry the channel, but it (the station) can't charge the cable co for it. IF the channel wants to be paid per subscriber, then it can negotiate with the cable company and they (Comcast in this case) isn't forced to carry it.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry
Besides that, i DO pay for basic service and like not having a box. I have a digital tuner is my computer for recording locals - that will soon be useless.
I honestly can't believe there is a huge market for pirating local TV with illegal cable hookups.
Not trying to start a flame war, this is my opinion. I pay for Local TV, i like the way it is now. |
|
 | reply to Mike Wolf said by Mike Wolf:I can't wait for this. I hope cable providers hurry up and implement this as quickly as possible. Maybe this will force the cable providers to invest in better ways of carrying the signal and either compress the signal less, or use a better compression method like MPEG4/H.264 for better picture quality. I doubt it, cable providers can already goto MPEG4/H264... almost none of STB they have support it, that's why MPEG2 is still alive and kicking. Has nothing to do with local channels being unencrypted. |
|
 scanpaPremium join:2006-09-06 Lebanon, PA | reply to andyross This is good news.
 |
|
 | reply to MN Comcast true but companies are wierd like that and usually uses something unrelated to justify something else. |
|
 rody_44Premium join:2004-02-20 Quakertown, PA Reviews:
·Comcast
2 edits | reply to andyross Its going to go away. Just like it being free for the cable companies to transmit has already gone away. What use to be free is now costing the cable companies over 2.50 per month per subscriber. The fox stations alone get well over half of that. When abc, cbs , and nbc see how well fox made out they will be right behind fox on them demands. The only hope is maybe nbc will hold out since they are affiliated with comcast. Other than that we are all SOL. The cable companies have no choice but to just pay what the networks want. Its pay up or dont transmit it. Yea, like any cable company could give up abc, cbs, nbc, or fox. Just the way its going to be. Time to go back to the old satellite model where the locals were pulled in OTA. Its especially hard on the small cable companies left out there. They have no negotiating power at all. The only thing they can do is pay up or fold up. Its only the beginning. |
|
 | All I know is that if they take away clear HD QAMs from my secondary sets, I better get a couple of HD DTAs for free to replace the crappy SD DTAs I have now.
But there's been no news on the HD DTA front... |
|
 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to rody_44 I don't know the last time the affiliate stations were ever free. I mean the very fact that there have been contract disputes between Fox and ABC with various service providers such as Time Warner, Brighthouse, Cablevision, DISH network, DirecTV (all of which can be brought up with a quick Bing search) over carriage fees proves that everyone wants to get paid.
Pretty sure NBC is going to be the first to do the encryption on Comcast for that fact that they are owned by Comcast, and I think the same can be said by other channels who are owned by cable providers like how Time Warner Cable which is owned by Time Warner owns 50% of The CW. |
|
 | reply to markofmayhem well maybe they should add if they do encrypt then YOU MUST let people buy cable boxes (the same ones that you rent) with no outlet fees. |
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN kudos:7 | reply to bohratom said by bohratom:Correct me if I am wrong but Fox and other local broadcast stations are charging providers now for the content. In this case, local broadcasts use to be free to the cable companies, now they are charged for those rights. Local full power stations have must-carry privilege that can force a local cable company to carry their signal. In exchange for being must-carry, the local station can not charge a fee for carrying their signal.
However, they can opt to charge a fee, but then they lose their must-carry privilege and the cable company can tell them to go fly a kite. Most cable companies will want to carry the local stations as they would be in demand, but if the station wants too much they don't have to carry them. That's why there have been more and more disputes in recent years where the cable companies drop a local station for a short period because they can't work out a contract, or the television station runs a crawler that says "You might lose this station next week because cableco refused to pay a fair amount for you to be able to watch this station..." |
|
 amungusPremium join:2004-11-26 America Reviews:
·KCH Cable
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to andyross I can understand the benefits of fully controlling their lines remotely, and leaving things hooked up - it's bound to save them a boatload of money.
Here's the thing though - they (ALL cable companies that do this) need to offer the following in return to paying customers:
1) Ability to BUY a cablecard - If I still had cable, I'd be getting a new tuner for my HTPC. Those with Tivo also have to get a card... Renting a card is absurd for OWNED equipment, and it's already a rather "standardized" thing.
2) Ability to BUY a dirt cheap HD"DTA" box of some type, or rent one dirt cheap (under $5/mo, or less than their standard boxes).
I'm not at all opposed to Comcast, or any cable company wanting to do this. I am, however, opposed to the forced rental of one of their boxes to get ANY channels, and the forced rental of a simple card that allows access.
A person can buy a pretty much "idiot proof" Tivo these days (granted, you'd have to either buy 'lifetime' or monthly 'service' to go with it, which I still find slightly absurd, but that's beside the point), why can a person not buy the darn card for $10 or something? |
|
 camperPremium join:2010-03-21 Bethel, CT Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to ddrant said by ddrant:Not everyone wants a box on every TV (which I'm sure Comcast will charge for). Personally, I've got 1 full box, and one DTA on a non HD tv, but 3 other HDTV's are just hooked up to unencrypted basic locals.   I would change your first sentence to: Not everyone wants a power-wasting box on every TV (which I'm sure Comcast will charge for). |
|
 camperPremium join:2010-03-21 Bethel, CT Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to bohratom said by bohratom:Correct me if I am wrong but Fox and other local broadcast stations are charging providers now for the content. ...   You are wrong.
If anyone pays, it is usually the local broadcasters who have to pay the cable companies to carry their signals.
What you are thinking of is the satellite-based content providers for the basic and semi-basic cable packages. |
|