dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
30885
share rss forum feed

mj3431

join:2003-04-21
STL, MO
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to 88615298

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

said by 88615298:

I did answer. I defer to experts which know more about this and me or you. You seem to know a lot about this but I don't hear YOUR proof how is it doesn't reduce service calls. Hypocritical to expect me to provide proof when you refuse to provide proof for your own opinion.

You're speculating that service calls would be reduced. The burden of proof is on your end not mine. I don't need proof to say requiring an STB at every TV wouldn't reduce service calls but I'll give it to you anyway. Line issues, noise etc will still exist in the system just as they do now and usually have to be addressed by a truck roll. Since there is already one STB provided a Tier 1 tech can already get general readings from the home off that STB. I happen to have a friend who is a Charter line tech and an STB doesn't magically make plant issues disappear. That is why I asked for your explanation.

So they should either lease you a box for nothing or allow you to buy a box at a rate below what it cost because I'm kind of sure your "reasonable" price doesn't match what they would charge.

Again you speculate what my "reasonable" price would be. All things considered I would gladly pay up to about $150 per basic HD box. We're just talking about a TV tuner here. This isn't fancy equipment.

Apples and oranges. My computer can connect to their network without the need for seperate modems or other special equipment.

Your computer needs a DOCSIS modem. Last time I checked that was a separate modem. The technology exists to provide a whole home DVR, as such there could be a whole home TV gateway. Refer to my previous money grab statement as to why this won't happen.

The only clear QAM signal there have ever been is LOCALS. And clear qam signals don't need to be decrypted hence the name CLEAR QAM. So you point doesn't even make sense. If the signals are encrypted they aren't clear qam.

I wasn't talking about the clear channels. I was talking about digital channels that are being encrypted. Why not give users a gateway device that has the ability to decrypt the channels at your main splitter and provide them in clear downstream (in your home). It tackles theft issues and provides users with the ability to get their subscribed channels throughout their entire home.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
said by mj3431:

Again you speculate what my "reasonable" price would be. All things considered I would gladly pay up to about $150 per basic HD box. We're just talking about a TV tuner here. This isn't fancy equipment.

And many people that have posted about wanting to buy their own box state "reasonable" at $50. No one is going to sell a customer a STB for $50.

Your computer needs a DOCSIS modem.

Yeah and? each computer doesn't need one since there are thing called Wi-Fi and routers. Even if I wanted to hardwire 4 PCs I can because my routers has 4 Ethernet ports.

The technology exists to provide a whole home DVR, as such there could be a whole home TV gateway.

I'm 99.9% sure this system of yours works best when a system is all digital. Can you at least wait until Charter gets to all digital before assuming they wouldn't implement such a system?

I wasn't talking about the clear channels. I was talking about digital channels that are being encrypted. Why not give users a gateway device that has the ability to decrypt the channels at your main splitter and provide them in clear downstream (in your home). It tackles theft issues and provides users with the ability to get their subscribed channels throughout their entire home.

Once again this decrypted signal would be QAM which older TVs can not decode. Sorry but there is no way that you can have an all digital system that will work with older SD tube TVs and even some older HDTVs without some sort of STB and that's just the truth.


nonamesleft

join:2011-11-07
Manitowoc, WI
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Callcentric
reply to 88615298
said by 88615298:

said by minimeme :

sure does sound like another way to screw over customers to me

Yes Charter gets to do what DirecTv, DishNetwork, U-Verse and FiOS have been doing for YEARS. How evil of cable to expect fair play. I don;t about you but like oh 85% of Charter customers I have digital cable which mean I already have a box so this rule doesn't affect me in the least.

It's really going to suck for Charter to be able to do a service call from the head end without having to send a tech guy out. I much rather have to wait all day for a guy to come out and then get charged $40 or more for the privilege.

Uhh dude...Directv dishnetwork uverse and fios need a box to convert the signal! Cable doesn't!!!!!!! Except for certain tiers.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
said by nonamesleft:

Uhh dude...Directv dishnetwork uverse and fios need a box to convert the signal! Cable doesn't!!!!!!! Except for certain tiers.

Um dude in case you haven't heard Charter is going all digital and in fact they have done that already in certain areas. So please explain to me how an old fashion CRT that only has a NTSC tuner is going to convert a digital signal which has QAM modulation without a box of some sort? I eagerly await you response.

By the way none of this has anything to do with the rule which just says Charter can now encrypt locals. Everything else was going to be encrypted anyways.


DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:17
reply to mj3431
said by mj3431:

I wasn't talking about the clear channels. I was talking about digital channels that are being encrypted. Why not give users a gateway device that has the ability to decrypt the channels at your main splitter and provide them in clear downstream (in your home). It tackles theft issues and provides users with the ability to get their subscribed channels throughout their entire home.

It doesn't tackle the theft issue within the home which the vast majority of CONTENT providers are also trying to prevent.

The CONTENT providers won't allow cable companies to distribute unencrypted content IN the home.

That's why even FIOS needs their CableCARDs paired with the equipment, since HDCP is now enabled like every other video provider. Unencrypted digital links between the boxes and TVs aren't even allowed.

End devices need unencryption ability if you want a boxless enviroment.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
said by DrDrew:

It doesn't tackle the theft issue within the home which the vast majority of CONTENT providers are also trying to prevent.

define "theft" in the home. How does one do that?


nonamesleft

join:2011-11-07
Manitowoc, WI
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Callcentric
reply to 88615298
said by 88615298:

said by nonamesleft:

Uhh dude...Directv dishnetwork uverse and fios need a box to convert the signal! Cable doesn't!!!!!!! Except for certain tiers.

Um dude in case you haven't heard Charter is going all digital and in fact they have done that already in certain areas. So please explain to me how an old fashion CRT that only has a NTSC tuner is going to convert a digital signal which has QAM modulation without a box of some sort? I eagerly await you response.

By the way none of this has anything to do with the rule which just says Charter can now encrypt locals. Everything else was going to be encrypted anyways.

digital is the same as encrypting. There is a question awaiting your response in the monday links section, you better go answer his comment.


DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:17
reply to 88615298
said by 88615298:

said by DrDrew:

It doesn't tackle the theft issue within the home which the vast majority of CONTENT providers are also trying to prevent.

define "theft" in the home. How does one do that?

For content providers, it's viewers making unauthorized copies of content they don't own.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
said by DrDrew:

said by 88615298:

said by DrDrew:

It doesn't tackle the theft issue within the home which the vast majority of CONTENT providers are also trying to prevent.

define "theft" in the home. How does one do that?

For content providers, it's viewers making unauthorized copies of content they don't own.

you mean like the old days where I could watch HBO and record the movie on a VCR?


DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:17
reply to nonamesleft
said by nonamesleft:

digital is the same as encrypting.

Digital is far from the same as encrypting.

ClearQAM is digital but not encrypted. Many TVs and other devices can view these signals.

Encrypted QAM needs authorization and the proper equipment to decode, most TVs and other devices can't do it. CableCARDs were the FCCs answer to allow the decryption of cable signals by 3rd party equipment. They were integral to both authorization of equipment and decryption of the signals.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to nonamesleft
said by nonamesleft:

digital is the same as encrypting.

Um no it's not. The HD locals are digital they are not encrypted. OTA signals are digital they are not encrypted.


DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:17
reply to 88615298
said by 88615298:

you mean like the old days where I could watch HBO and record the movie on a VCR?

Yes, although that being analog, distribution and libraries of movies were pretty limited due to piss poor quality. Most of that activity was really limited to personal use. It's still an available option anyway.

About they only way I see CONTENT providers allowing unencrypted digital distribution is if they can watermark the content with the ID of the authorized viewer. That way they can track were unauthorized copies they obtain come from and they can go after them.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
said by DrDrew:

said by 88615298:

you mean like the old days where I could watch HBO and record the movie on a VCR?

Yes, although that being analog, distribution and libraries of movies were pretty limited due to piss poor quality. Most of that activity was really limited to personal use. It's still an available option anyway.

About they only way I see CONTENT providers allowing unencrypted digital distribution is if they can watermark the content with the ID of the authorized viewer. That way they can track were unauthorized copies they obtain come from and they can go after them.

A movie on HBO has been distributed illegally LONG before HBO even had it. I'm not seeing that being a huge issue. People who wanted that movie illegally got it along time ago. Someone that wants to record that movie for themselves, personally I don't give a shit and neither should HBO. Might even be an incentive to keep an HBO subscription going.


DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:17
said by 88615298:

A movie on HBO has been distributed illegally LONG before HBO even had it. I'm not seeing that being a huge issue. People who wanted that movie illegally got it along time ago. Someone that wants to record that movie for themselves, personally I don't give a shit and neither should HBO. Might even be an incentive to keep an HBO subscription going.

Still HBO demands it encrypted. If cable companies don't comply, they don't get rights to redistribute HBO and the signals get yanked. Every provider is given the same option, so they all encrypt it.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.


nonamesleft

join:2011-11-07
Manitowoc, WI
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Callcentric
reply to 88615298
said by 88615298:

said by nonamesleft:

digital is the same as encrypting.

Um no it's not. The HD locals are digital they are not encrypted. OTA signals are digital they are not encrypted.

Then whats the problem then? You like when cable does this to you guys? You are lucky you don't need a box from the cable company for your toilet to make it work! These cable companies need regulators that don't give a cable companies a free pass and really law down the rules.

kherr
Premium
join:2000-09-04
Collinsville, IL
Reviews:
·Charter
What can you expect from the FCC when the policy makers are there by appointment and their longest stay is 8 years, if that long. They’re looking post FCC and being employed by the companies they regulate, rather directly employed or as a consultant or lobbyist …. They’re looking out for #1.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

1 edit
reply to nonamesleft
said by nonamesleft:

Then whats the problem then?

Exactly my point.

You like when cable does this to you guys?

Nothing is being done to me. I have digital cable which requires a box anyways. Those channels are already encrypted. This ruling and Charter conversion to all digital don't affect me one bit.

These cable companies need regulators that don't give a cable companies a free pass and really law down the rules

Once again there is no free pass. If anyone has had a free pass it's DirecTv, DishNetwork, U-verse and FiOS. yes in fantasyland everything would be free and no one would have to work. But this is real life. So yeah I guess box free and unencrypted would be nice but it's not fair that the others play by one set of rules and cable has had to go by another set.

Your logic is

DirecTv requires a box and encrypts ALL channels = totally acceptable

Charter requiring a box and encrypting ALL channels = greedy mother f-----s that need to die!

mj3431

join:2003-04-21
STL, MO
reply to DrDrew
Interesting point. I hadn't considered that viewpoint of content theft in the home since DVRs allow content to be stored for a long time anyway.


nonamesleft

join:2011-11-07
Manitowoc, WI
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Callcentric
reply to 88615298
said by 88615298:

said by nonamesleft:

Then whats the problem then?

Exactly my point.

You like when cable does this to you guys?

Nothing is being done to me. I have digital cable which requires a box anyways. Those channels are already encrypted. This ruling and Charter conversion to all digital don't affect me one bit.

These cable companies need regulators that don't give a cable companies a free pass and really law down the rules

Once again there is no free pass. If anyone has had a free pass it's DirecTv, DishNetwork, U-verse and FiOS. yes in fantasyland everything would be free and no one would have to work. But this is real life. So yeah I guess box free and unencrypted would be nice but it's not fair that the others play by one set of rules and cable has had to go by another set.

Your logic is

DirecTv requires a box and encrypts ALL channels = totally acceptable

Charter requiring a box and encrypting ALL channels = greedy mother f-----s that need to die!

So it's ok to have to require a box for clear qam channels, when the damned tv has a qam tuner built in? Gosh stupid me! Lets pay the cable company MORE money for an unnecessary box!


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to mj3431
said by mj3431:

Why not give users a gateway device that has the ability to decrypt the channels at your main splitter and provide them in clear downstream (in your home). It tackles theft issues and provides users with the ability to get their subscribed channels throughout their entire home.

... because it makes too much sense, and better for profits to bend the customer over for monthly rental fees on each and every box.

Meet the new Boss. Same as the old Boss.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to mj3431
said by mj3431:

Interesting point. I hadn't considered that viewpoint of content theft in the home since DVRs allow content to be stored for a long time anyway.

That isn't theft.

Amazing, watching shows later = theft.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:17
reply to KrK
said by KrK:

... because it makes too much sense, and better for profits to bend the customer over for monthly rental fees on each and every box.

Again... it's because the CONTENT owners won't allow it.

Even the HDMI and Firewire outputs on the boxes are protected.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.


DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:17
reply to KrK
said by KrK:

said by mj3431:

Interesting point. I hadn't considered that viewpoint of content theft in the home since DVRs allow content to be stored for a long time anyway.

That isn't theft.

Amazing, watching shows later = theft.

Nobody said watching shows later was theft. Cable and other authorized DVRs allow that just fine.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Then there's no problem with a QAM decoder for other sets in a customer's house then. That's NOT theft of service.


DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:17
said by KrK:

Then there's no problem with a QAM decoder for other sets in a customer's house then. That's NOT theft of service.

content owners won't allow video service companies distribution of unencrypted digital content even within the home. That's why the signal can and often is encrypted all the way up to the tv, across HDMI, DVI, and FireWire links.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.

mj3431

join:2003-04-21
STL, MO
Reviews:
·Charter
said by DrDrew:

content owners won't allow video service companies distribution of unencrypted digital content even within the home. That's why the signal can and often is encrypted all the way up to the tv, across HDMI, DVI, and FireWire links.

Currently though you could still output via coax or route through a PC and capture the stream. There will always be a weakness somewhere. That's what content owners don't understand. They need to start adapting to what the consumer actually wants. Like Dish's Hopper, it just takes someone with enough nerve to be different. Who would have thought we'd ever be offered a whole home DVR with ad skipping technology. Content owners don't like this either but it's still happening!


DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:17

2 edits
said by mj3431:

Currently though you could still output via coax or route through a PC and capture the stream.

Either method usually results in an analog capture, often of a Macrovision protected signal which then needs to be defeated (trivial these days).
said by mj3431:

There will always be a weakness somewhere. That's what content owners don't understand. They need to start adapting to what the consumer actually wants. Like Dish's Hopper, it just takes someone with enough nerve to be different.

Making laws and devices to enforce those laws vs. people intent on breaking the law is always a losing effort to some degree. Mostly these things are done to protect the clueless from breaking the laws they may not know about or casually think no one cares about. See door locks and Bluray copy protection as examples. Easy to circumvent if trained but beyond the knowledge of the majority to thwart.

In the world of patents, copyrights, and intellectual property, protection EFFORTS are important to the defense of such things later. If you let everyone freely copy your known work and then try to collect on it later, you often get ruled against in of court.

Dish and it's Hopper are now in litigation with Fox, NBC, ABC, and CBS over the whole ad skipping tech:
»www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/···20120826
Coincidently those 4 networks are the only ones the ad skip tech works on. I'm sure if it worked on other channels, there would be more lawsuits.

Hopefully this ruling will create a bigger demand and selection of 3rd party devices that decode encrypted cable channels (through CableCARD or tru2way) and/or accelerate the adoption of devices with TVeverywhere apps and expand the offerings of channels using TVeverywhere. Other than the limited players already invested in CableCARD devices I doubt the first will happen, but I have bigger hopes for the second.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.
Expand your moderator at work


cork1958
Cork
Premium
join:2000-02-26
reply to cork1958

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

said by cork1958:

Sounds as bad as satellite tv where you have to pay for boxes just because you own more than one tv. Which is why I have never tried them.

I have 4 tv's but no HD tv's. Not a tv person at all. I have simple expanded basic and if I have to start paying for some stupid box, that may even be the straw that brakes the camels back, so that my wife will allow me to get rid of Charter cable tv altogether!

Darn it! Forgot to mention this to wife last night. Wanted to hurry up and bring it to her attention just to see if it p***es her off enough to drop Charter tv in a heartbeat!

Use to be that was the one advantage of cable over the others. So much for that.
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
said by cork1958:

Darn it! Forgot to mention this to wife last night. Wanted to hurry up and bring it to her attention just to see if it p***es her off enough to drop Charter tv in a heartbeat!

Use to be that was the one advantage of cable over the others. So much for that.

Why would THIS piss her off? Charter has been moving to digital for awhile now and even without this ruling you would still need a box of some sort to get in anything on an old SDTV.