dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
65482
share rss forum feed


DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:16
reply to jeffnyc

Re: Say goodbye to ClearQAM

ClearQAM never worked on Uverse. Wrong technology

jeffnyc

join:2004-06-09
Atlanta, GA
But as of today its working with Comcast?


telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15
reply 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/help-and-su···adapter/

jeffnyc

join:2004-06-09
Atlanta, GA
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/help-and-su···adapter/

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


DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:16
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
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15

1 edit
reply 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/article/474···_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
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/article/474···_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
reply to jeffnyc
said by jeffnyc:

But as of today its working with Comcast?

Yes

logger

join:2012-06-14
Carmel, NY
reply 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.

ViRGEdx

join:2002-10-25
reply 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.

andyross
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-04
Schaumburg, IL
So far, I don't think Comcast has encrypted Limited Basic channels anywhere, except possibly a few very small areas with high theft issues.

rody_44
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA
Yes they have.


Scree
In the pipe 5 by 5

join:2001-04-24
Mount Laurel, NJ
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to DrDrew
said by DrDrew:

Only OTA broadcast networks are commonly available by clearQAM.

I understand if they eliminate every other channel they may carry on CQ, but they can't stop OTA CQ by law, right? Will that change?


telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15

1 edit
reply to andyross
According to this article on the Multichannel News site today, it looks like the end (of Clear QAM) is near:

FCC Circulates Order Lifting Basic Encryption Ban
Said to Incorporate Cable Proposal on IP-Enabled Devices

By John Eggerton, Multichannel News - August 30, 2012
»www.multichannel.com/article/488···_Ban.php


motorola870

join:2008-12-07
Arlington, TX
kudos:3
said by telcodad:

According this article on the Multichannel News site today, it looks like the end is near:

FCC Circulates Order Lifting Basic Encryption Ban
Said to Incorporate Cable Proposal on IP-Enabled Devices

By John Eggerton, Multichannel News - August 30, 2012
»www.multichannel.com/article/488···_Ban.php

but this is only for 100% digital systems only right? and they cannot encrypt everything until the IP adapters are proven right along with making sure that all TVs have a box?


motorola870

join:2008-12-07
Arlington, TX
kudos:3
There are so many things wrong with encrypting limited basic how about we just trash all of our built in QAM TV tuners

Also how about the fact that consumers sometimes do use clear QAM legally for viewing Picture in Picture as well as a third tuner.

How about all of the devices that are about to be junk:

Silicondust (clear QAM tuner)
QAM PC tuners
QAM tuners in TVs.

This does not add up.

They should actually be supporting clear QAM now that they are going all digital instead of trying to lock everything down to where we need a box at every outlet not to mention how much more electricity is going to be needed to power all of the DTA's, boxes, and IP devices.

Also what about current basic subscribers with clear QAM tvs are they going to lose out if they get the encryption okay? How about supplying 2 free HD boxes per subscriber for life to cover this upgrade.


telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15
reply to motorola870
said by motorola870:

but this is only for 100% digital systems only right? and they cannot encrypt everything until the IP adapters are proven right along with making sure that all TVs have a box?

Well, as was stated in the Multichannel News article at the start of this thread - "The National Cable & Telecommunications Association has urged the Federal Communications Commission to allow cable operators that have gone all digital to encrypt their basic tier" - that would appear to be the case.

However, for those cable systems that still provide the set of basic-tier channels in analog format, subscribers can still access those channels on their TVs without a set-top box, so encryption of all the digital channels in that case is not a concern.


motorola870

join:2008-12-07
Arlington, TX
kudos:3
said by telcodad:

said by motorola870:

but this is only for 100% digital systems only right? and they cannot encrypt everything until the IP adapters are proven right along with making sure that all TVs have a box?

Well, as was stated in the Multichannel News article at the start of this thread - "The National Cable & Telecommunications Association has urged the Federal Communications Commission to allow cable operators that have gone all digital to encrypt their basic tier" - that would appear to be the case.

However, for those cable systems that still provide the set of basic-tier channels in analog format, subscribers can still access those channels on their TVs without a set-top box, so encryption of all the digital channels in that case is not a concern.

so my area won't have to worry for several years

I know right now we are doing great with SDV in North Texas on TWC as they have 24 QAM frequencies set aside for SDV and 117 HD channels are SDV enabled we have a total of 137 HD channels.


telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15
said by motorola870:

said by telcodad:

said by motorola870:

but this is only for 100% digital systems only right? and they cannot encrypt everything until the IP adapters are proven right along with making sure that all TVs have a box?

Well, as was stated in the Multichannel News article at the start of this thread - "The National Cable & Telecommunications Association has urged the Federal Communications Commission to allow cable operators that have gone all digital to encrypt their basic tier" - that would appear to be the case.

However, for those cable systems that still provide the set of basic-tier channels in analog format, subscribers can still access those channels on their TVs without a set-top box, so encryption of all the digital channels in that case is not a concern.

so my area won't have to worry for several years

Well as I said, in that case, I think the cable company is allowed to encrypt all their digital channels, as long as they still provide a set of basic-tier channels in analog format. Unfortunately, those analog channels will only be in SD, not in HD when Clear QAM digital versions of those channels are provided.


motorola870

join:2008-12-07
Arlington, TX
kudos:3
said by telcodad:

Well as I said, in that case, I think the cable company is allowed to encrypt all their digital channels, as long as they still provide a set of basic-tier channels in analog format. Unfortunately, those analog channels will only be in SD, not in HD when Clear QAM digital versions of those channels are provided.

The proposal only mentioned all digital 100% no analogs on system encryption and any system that has analogs still has to comply with keeping the Clear QAM channels unencrypted.


motorola870

join:2008-12-07
Arlington, TX
kudos:3
reply to telcodad
said by telcodad:

Well as I said, in that case, I think the cable company is allowed to encrypt all their digital channels, as long as they still provide a set of basic-tier channels in analog format. Unfortunately, those analog channels will only be in SD, not in HD when Clear QAM digital versions of those channels are provided.

the term all digital in this case means 100% percent digital and no digital simulcast does qualify for 100% digital the system has to have 0 analogs to be able to encrypt everything legally according to the planned ruling.


telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15
I may be confused, but when you said, "so my area won't have to worry for several years" I thought you were saying that since your system still has analog (basic-tier?) channels, then your cable company will still be required to provide Clear QAM basic-tier digital channels.

But the current restriction is only for 100% digital systems, so that currently, those mixed analog/digital systems have been allowed to encrypt all their digital channels and do not have to provide any in clear QAM right now.


motorola870

join:2008-12-07
Arlington, TX
kudos:3
said by telcodad:

I may be confused, but when you said, "so my area won't have to worry for several years" I thought you were saying that since your system still has analog (basic-tier?) channels, then your cable company will still be required to provide Clear QAM basic-tier digital channels.

But the current restriction is only for 100% digital systems, so that currently, those mixed analog/digital systems have been allowed to encrypt all their digital channels and do not have to provide any in clear QAM right now.

the current restrictions have been in place for systems that are hybrids.

By law they have to provide Clear QAM on systems with analog and digital if:

#1 they have digital simulcast of the limited basic tier

#2 carry over the air Subchannels in SD or HD in a digital manor.


telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15

1 edit
OK, I didn't realize that. Thanks for clearing that up for me!

EDIT: I found this old Multichannel News article about the "Dual Must-Carry" order by the FCC that you cited: »www.multichannel.com/article/827···ears.php

However, this recent article says the FCC is now allowing the order to sunset this December: »www.multichannel.com/article/485···rder.php

Quoting from this article:

The Federal Communications Commission made it official Tuesday [June 12th], releasing the final order sunsetting this December its requirement that cable operators with hybrid analog/digital systems deliver must-carry TV stations in both formats.
:
Cable operators must still provide dual carriage for a six-month transition period and give customers 90 days of warning before they end their analog transmissions. They also face potential reinstatement of the analog signals if there are too many consumer complaints.


pommehomme

join:2009-06-22
reply to ViRGEdx
Same here for Saratoga, CA. I have our basic cable connected directly to a digital TV in a bedroom; it receives basic channels now. Comcast wants me to rent a converter at $8.75/month and a digital adapter for $1.99/month. For the few times that we use that TV, could I just buy a digital converter box for about $40 and connect it between the cable and TV?

dishrich

join:2006-05-12
Springfield, IL
said by pommehomme:

For the few times that we use that TV, could I just buy a digital converter box for about $40 and connect it between the cable and TV?

NO, those "$40 boxes" ONLY work on OTA signals...

pommehomme

join:2009-06-22
OK, thanks for the quick reply.

Since we live in a densely populated area (SF Bay Area), how about using a digital antenna to put on my roof mast (which is now really useless) and connect it directly to the bedroom TV--just to pick up OTA digital signals--since it is a digital HDTV? (I think I could get a good outdoor digital antenna for about $60.)

dishrich

join:2006-05-12
Springfield, IL
Well first, there is no such thing as a "digital antenna" per se...ANY TV antenna - as long as it's made for the frequency of the TV station(s) you want to pick up (VHF &/or UHF) - will work on the digital OTA signals. (ignore the advertising hype about "antennas specially made for digital TV)

But have you stopped to think about all the trouble you're really going thru, just to NOT have to pay that $2/month extra for that DTA?
(BTW, you should have previously gotten 2 FREE DTA's that come as part of your digital pkg )

You're now looking to spend approx $100 (your costs you've spoken of - & that's assuming you plan on installing it yourself) to put up this antenna/converter box deal. For going thru all this trouble, it WILL take you over 4 years of saving that $2/month DTA charge, for the payback on that purchase. (not to mention the fact you will only get OTA signals on that TV)

Seems kind of silly to me...but whatever blows your dress up...


Bink63
Namedrop THIS
Premium
join:2002-10-06
Everywhere
said by dishrich:

Well first, there is no such thing as a "digital antenna" per se...ANY TV antenna - as long as it's made for the frequency of the TV station(s) you want to pick up (VHF &/or UHF) - will work on the digital OTA signals. (ignore the advertising hype about "antennas specially made for digital TV)

But have you stopped to think about all the trouble you're really going thru, just to NOT have to pay that $2/month extra for that DTA?
(BTW, you should have previously gotten 2 FREE DTA's that come as part of your digital pkg )

You're now looking to spend approx $100 (your costs you've spoken of - & that's assuming you plan on installing it yourself) to put up this antenna/converter box deal. For going thru all this trouble, it WILL take you over 4 years of saving that $2/month DTA charge, for the payback on that purchase. (not to mention the fact you will only get OTA signals on that TV)

Seems kind of silly to me...but whatever blows your dress up...

Some reality here...

So, I have an anolog TV in the bedroom, that's free DTA #1.

I have a 32" 4:3 HDTV with both an analog tunder & a Clear QAM Tuner. I enjoy being able to watch the non-basic content that I pay extra money for, in the living room. Too bad it's in glorious analog SD, thanks to Free DTA #2. At the moment, I can still watch my locals in HD via the Clear QAM tuner, that's content I pay for too!

So, as of now, I'm out of ways to watch non-basic content that I already PAY for, without paying MORE for other TV's!

It gets better...

my "office" TV, the one I'm in front of 12+ hours a day, is a tunerless HD monitor... in order to watch ANY content, I shell out $17 a month for an HD DVR.

Oh, and given the storage space on Comcast's DVRs is crap, I have a MIT MYHD-130 PCI Dual Clear QAM tuner card (Cost over $350, when I bought it!), a Dual Tuner Clear QAM Silicondust HDHomerun (another 150 Bucks to record TV I pay for!) So, I have, not countiing the cost of the TV with the built-in Clear QAM tuner, well over $500 invested in equipment to legally watch & record the BASIC content I PAY FOR!!!

Is an antenna a bad idea for me? Uh, no. I'll enjoy my local teams in HD, without paying ANOTHER 9 to 17 Bucks per Mo. for each additional TV.



Regards,

Randy


PaulGo

join:2005-01-29
Gaithersburg, MD
Comcast Said Near U.S. Approval to Encrypt Basic-Cable Signals

Cable companies led by Comcast Corp. (CMCSA) are close to winning U.S. permission to start encrypting basic- tier signals, two regulatory officials said, in a move to fight theft and reduce service calls.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski has asked fellow commissioners to lift an encryption prohibition in place since 1994, the agency officials said yesterday. They asked not to be identified because the request hasn’t been made public.

The agency last year proposed allowing encryption following requests from companies, including New York-area provider Cablevision Systems Corp. (CVC) and closely held RCN Telecom Services Inc.

Almost one-fifth of 134 households whose cable connections were cut off by RCN during an audit in Chicago last year subsequently contacted the company to subscribe, “clear evidence that they had previously been viewing cable without paying,” the company told the FCC in a filing last year.

Cablevision found that, when it encrypted basic service under a waiver from the FCC, it almost eliminated the need to send crews in trucks to disconnect service, the Bethpage, New York-based company told the agency in a filing.

“Cablevision’s experience proves the environmental benefits of eliminating the encryption prohibition,” Cablevision told the agency.
Digital Signals

Encrypting the basic tier would let Comcast start and stop service remotely, which customers prefer to scheduling an appointment with a technician, Philadelphia-based Comcast said in a filing at the FCC.

RCN, based in Herndon, Virginia, said in a filing it was seeing rising levels of theft as cable systems replace analog service with digital signals that are easier to steal.

Television sets with modern tuners can receive the unencrypted basic-service package which is sent in digital format and includes local broadcast stations.

Cable companies already encrypt offerings on the more expensive programming tiers that aren’t regulated by the FCC and include a wider array of channels.

The FCC prohibited encryption at a time cable dominated the pay-TV market, so customers wouldn’t need a set-top box to view local stations. The requirement doesn’t hold for satellite providers DirecTV (DTV) and Dish Network Corp. (DISH) or for cable competitors such as TV services offered by AT&T Inc. (T) and Verizon Communications Inc.
Free Service

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association in 2004 estimated that about 5 percent of homes near cable lines accessed service without paying, resulting in almost $5 billion in lost revenue. That was more than 8 percent of industry revenues that year, according to a filing at the FCC by the Washington-based trade group. The organization’s members include the biggest U.S. cable operator, Comcast, No. 2 provider Time Warner Cable Inc. (TWC) and Cablevision.

Genachowski’s proposal includes methods for third-party equipment makers such as Boxee Inc. to relay unscrambled basic programming to customers, the two officials said. Boxee had expressed concern its customers wouldn’t be able to access basic-cable TV channels.

Genachowski’s proposal faces a vote and no deadline for action at the five-member agency where he is part of the 3-2 Democratic majority. Neil Grace, an FCC spokesman, in an e-mail declined to comment.

»www.businessweek.com/news/2012-0···-signals