dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
65079
share rss forum feed


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast
reply to andyross

Re: Say goodbye to ClearQAM

This will be a good thing, my neighbor cancelled his cable and internet (could not afford it anymore) but Comcast did not disconnect him because the cable for the duplex comes in underground and his line went bad so instead of running a new underground, they ran an aerial line to a pole in an adjacent yard. Tech came out to disconnect, but went to the pedestal instead of the pole. So he is still getting cable but I dont think he is getting anything above broadcast basic since anything more requires a converter in this area.

Makes me mad because I am paying $150 plus for cable and he is not but I don't want to make enemies because we have to live in the same building in close proximity.

The value of the cable he is getting is about $6 per month.
--
All of my CPE (including my EMTA) is customer owned. The only Comcast owned equipment in my house is the CableCards in the two TiVO boxes I own.



DaveDude
No Fear

join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
reply to andyross

This is the exact reason why Allvid must be pushed, it obvious at every turn the cableco prevent competition for boxes. If i cant go to a store, and buy a tv that doesnt need a box. Maybe i dont need cable.



Mike Wolf

join:2009-05-24
Beachwood, NJ
kudos:3

dude you need something to everything now a days. Sure it would be nice to get all 1500 channels in Comcast's lineup through the tv itself but I know those days are gone.



motorola870

join:2008-12-07
Arlington, TX
kudos:3

I think that these conditions should be put in to place for the encryption be allowed:

Two HD boxes free for life to any subscriber.
No additional outlet fees allowed
Ban SD only packages if a subscriber gets the SD version they should also get the HD version (ie TWC's TV essentials package which is SD only) I could see there being a problem where they encrypt the OTA channels and charge certain customers more for access to HD locals.

Oh and the the paying for additional outlet fee per outlet is banned right now on direct hookups as you have a choice of a box or no box this should be retro active to digital cable boxes when encryption goes into effect.


mlcarson

join:2001-09-20
Los Alamos, NM
reply to andyross

I fail to see the public interest in allowing them to encrypt. There's also plenty of harm caused by encrypting everything. Any consumer device built with QAM capability would be rendered useless if there's no way to decrypt the signal. There are plenty of devices with no cable card capability built in. A lot of these are computer peripherals but every modern TV has a QAM tuner that now becomes useless. The reason a lot of people have cable is because they can't pick up ATSC signals.

I currently have the capability to record network HD programming in a DRM/encryption free format. That capability will no longer be offered via Cable. I'd require the availability of an OTA ATSC signal now for the same feature.

Any energy cost saved by the cable company in not having to send trucks out will be dwarfed by the amount of extra energy required by cable boxes even when in standby mode. The cost just gets shifted to the consumer while the cable company saves money. They'll also get a huge additional revenue stream for the cable box rental of all the TV's currently utilizing their QAM tuner. I can see how this is in the best interest of the cable company but definitely not that of the public. I really hope this gets stopped but doubt that it will.

I pretty much use Comcast just for Internet but have been paying them additional money for their basic TV service rather than paying their penalty for Internal-only but that'll change as soon as encryption starts.



Mike Wolf

join:2009-05-24
Beachwood, NJ
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Comcast

said by mlcarson:

Any consumer device built with QAM capability would be rendered useless if there's no way to decrypt the signal. There are plenty of devices with no cable card capability built in. A lot of these are computer peripherals but every modern TV has a QAM tuner that now becomes useless. The reason a lot of people have cable is because they can't pick up ATSC signals.

Yeah Comcast wants that so you get their service and rent equipment so they can get a profit.

obckilroy

join:2011-11-16
reply to rody_44

said by rody_44:

Thats gone bye bye with the dildo birds.

Were those like toucans, kiwis or spoon bills?


Mike Wolf

join:2009-05-24
Beachwood, NJ
kudos:3

Some say 'Comcast technician" while others like me say »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodo



PGHammer

join:2003-06-09
Accokeek, MD
reply to markofmayhem

NAB is not asleep on this - it's NAB (not NCTA) that is, in fact, *pushing* this.

It's the smaller multi-station owners (Sinclair, LIN, etc.) that are doing the majority of the push (the networks that also own/operate TV stations only jumped in when they saw how much these stations - mostly their own affiliates - were getting).

A major example are two major retransmission disputes with Sinclair Broadcasting (one of which involved D*) - in both cases, it was over retransmission fees (and how much the carrier was to compensate - Sinclair's words! - Sinclair for the retransmission).

It was precisely this that drove Comcast to do the NBCUNI deal with GE. It's not just Comcast accessing an additional stream of revenue (from other providers), but reducing their own costs.


mkanet

join:2008-06-11
Vallejo, CA
reply to MN Comcast

I'm dumping Comcast as well if that happens. Thats the only reason I still use Comcast. I use both my TV and my Computer to tune into all my favorite local TV shows. If I'm forced to using a cable box, I'm going to switch to DirecTV.


psiu

join:2004-01-20
Farmington, MI
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
reply to andyross

And from the front page of the site today, comes this link: »www.cable360.net/ct/news/thewire···+Wire%29

Which I read as:

"Booohooo it might cost us money to change things and give our customers the shaft, so let us not have any pesky restrictions so we can really give it to them, without lube."



adkinsjm

join:2004-10-13
Cuyahoga Falls, OH
reply to andyross

Encrypting channels means there won't be people getting free cable anymore, unless you allow a neighbor to borrow a set-top box. Cable companies won't have to do a truck roll for routine connects/disconnects. Plus, the broadcasters want this because, in theory, it can mean more revenue as everyone viewing the signal on a cable system would be paying customers.



heat84
Bit Torrent Apologist

join:2004-03-11
Fort Lauderdale, FL

1 edit
reply to IowaCowboy

said by IowaCowboy:

This will be a good thing, my neighbor cancelled his cable and internet (could not afford it anymore) but Comcast did not disconnect him because the cable for the duplex comes in underground and his line went bad so instead of running a new underground, they ran an aerial line to a pole in an adjacent yard. Tech came out to disconnect, but went to the pedestal instead of the pole. So he is still getting cable but I dont think he is getting anything above broadcast basic since anything more requires a converter in this area.

Makes me mad because I am paying $150 plus for cable and he is not but I don't want to make enemies because we have to live in the same building in close proximity.

The value of the cable he is getting is about $6 per month.

You're mad over $6? I don't see why you'd be mad at him anyway. Its not his fault Comcast is incompetent. And since he did intend to cancel it, its likely that he's not watching the few channels that he gets.
--
Bit Torrent is my DVR.


heat84
Bit Torrent Apologist

join:2004-03-11
Fort Lauderdale, FL
reply to andyross

So are TV manufacturers gonna stop putting QAM tuners in TV's now(if they haven't already) since they're useless? And analog tuners too except for channel 3? Or maybe the cableco's will make a deal with them so we can only have one device(and no cable cards needed)? I guess that'll never happen.

Why even buy a TV anymore? Just buy a PC monitor with the appropriate ports. A TV with useless tuners is just a glorified PC monitor anyway.
--
Bit Torrent is my DVR.

Expand your moderator at work


Mike Wolf

join:2009-05-24
Beachwood, NJ
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to heat84

Re: Say goodbye to ClearQAM

said by heat84:

Why even buy a TV anymore? Just buy a PC monitor with the appropriate ports. A TV with useless tuners is just a glorified PC monitor anyway.

sometimes they don't have built in speakers.


Bink63
Namedrop THIS
Premium
join:2002-10-06
Everywhere
reply to andyross

My LFA is going to object to the change *if* Comcast thinks they're going to move forward with encyrpting "must carriy" stations.

I advise everyone who objects to this to contact not only their LFA, but also their Senators and Congresscritters.

Cable subscribers don't pay for the must carry stations in only a certain delivery format. That violates the spirit and intent of the must carry rule.



Mike Wolf

join:2009-05-24
Beachwood, NJ
kudos:3

for those who aren't in the know, what is the "LFA"



Bink63
Namedrop THIS
Premium
join:2002-10-06
Everywhere

said by Mike Wolf:

for those who aren't in the know, what is the "LFA"

An LFA is the Local Franchise Authority with control over a given area a cable operator provides service in.


Mike Wolf

join:2009-05-24
Beachwood, NJ
kudos:3

thanks.



DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:15
reply to Bink63

said by Bink63:

My LFA is going to object to the change *if* Comcast thinks they're going to move forward with encyrpting "must carriy" stations.

I advise everyone who objects to this to contact not only their LFA, but also their Senators and Congresscritters.

Cable subscribers don't pay for the must carry stations in only a certain delivery format. That violates the spirit and intent of the must carry rule.

Problem is the "LFA" in many areas are State run now, not really "local", and fewer and fewer channels are "must carry" including many national broadcast networks.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.

mariod

join:2009-06-16
reply to Bink63

said by Bink63:

My LFA is going to object to the change *if* Comcast thinks they're going to move forward with encyrpting "must carriy" stations.

I advise everyone who objects to this to contact not only their LFA, but also their Senators and Congresscritters.

Cable subscribers don't pay for the must carry stations in only a certain delivery format. That violates the spirit and intent of the must carry rule.

Please research and identify the must carry stations in your area. I think you'll be quite shocked at the answers.


Mike Wolf

join:2009-05-24
Beachwood, NJ
kudos:3
reply to andyross

Has this been done yet and if not what is taking so long?



PaulGo

join:2005-01-29
Gaithersburg, MD

1 edit
reply to motorola870

This is the Comcast filing with the FCC. If anyone wants to they can file comments with the FCC. It might influence their decision.

»fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/v···16876526
Comments

You can file comments electronically using the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) found at: »www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: »www.regulations.gov

You can also file comments through the FCC's simplified ECFS Express System at: »gullfoss2.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload/.

If you wish to use ECFS Express to file click on the "Click here" button on the ECFS Express screen and add the docket number in the proceeding field on the next screen.


andyross
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-04
Schaumburg, IL

quote:
The resource you requested does not exist.


PaulGo

join:2005-01-29
Gaithersburg, MD

Link corrected.


andyross
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-04
Schaumburg, IL

Here in the Chicago area, on another forum, a user in nearby McHenry mentioned that not only will all analogs be removed, but had also been told that all digitals would be encrypted. That said, if this is still going through the FCC, they can't actually do that yet, can they?

I think it a bit silly saying there would be no material harm to customers. They mention about offering DTA's, and such, but not that these agreements often only require 'free' DTA's for a year or so. Not to mention the $$ wasted on electricity to run the power hogs, and the inconvenience for many who now have to deal with multiple devices and remotes.


TurboDan

join:2006-06-08
Lavallette, NJ

said by andyross:

I think it a bit silly saying there would be no material harm to customers.

Me too. Whenever a cable company wants "permission" to do something, it will almost always result, in the end, with a rate increase to consumers. Companies don't do things for the sake of being good-willed and upstanding citizens of the business community. They do it to make money. Which is fine, unless you gouge your customers to the point of insanity the way both cable companies AND content providers have.

We, as consumers, have the responsibility of protecting OUR interest of not being ripped off. Unfortunately, when it comes to TV service, we've failed miserably.


DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:15

1 edit

said by TurboDan:

Whenever a cable company wants "permission" to do something, it will almost always result, in the end, with a rate increase to consumers.

This isn't the cable companies asking for permission, this is the FCC asking for comments about an FCC rule change. Those changes specifically to allow encryption of basic tiers on a cable system:
»fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/v···16869005

Comcast agrees with the proposed rule change, some smaller cable ops don't.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.


telcodad

join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:5

An article on Boxee joining with the CEA on opposing the elimination of the current prohibition of encrypting the basic tier of digital channels:

Boxee Stands With The CEA Against Cable Companies, Courts The FCC Chairman To Stop Proposed Ruling
TechCrunch - February 8, 2012
»techcrunch.com/2012/02/08/boxee-···-ruling/

"Right now most cable providers are required by a 1996 FCC rule to provide a basic set of unencrypted stations. These are most often just local broadcast stations also available through an OTA tuner (think ABC, PBS, and a random religious station). Under the current rules, cable companies are not allowed to encrypt these stations, therefore allowing them to work with any TV, tuner, or as the FCC calls them, navigation devices like the Boxee Live TV. As cable providers started transitioning to a more efficient digital signal, these channels remained, able to work with older TVs most often found in guest bedrooms, garages and the like. But soon even those stations might go dark."

However, it seems to me that the article mixes the issue of encryption of all digital channels (no more Clear QAM) with the elimination of analog channels (digital migration).