 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to viper3431
Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling said by viper3431: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
|
|
|
|
 DrDrewSo that others may surf.
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:8 | 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. |
|
DrDrewSo that others may surf.
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:8 | reply to KrK
said by KrK:said by viper3431: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. |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
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. |
|
DrDrewSo that others may surf.
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:8 | 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. |
|
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! |
|
DrDrewSo that others may surf.
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:8
2 edits | said by viper3431: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 viper3431: 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. |
|
| 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/ |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | 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. |
|
| reply to KrK
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.
Afaik, any unauthorized decoding of encrypted signals is illegal... |
|
| reply to DrDrew
said by DrDrew: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.
Yeah, not unlike a parent who knows their kid smokes but can't be around 24/7 to prevent them from doing it. Do you just relinquish and say it's OK to smoke, or do you still make an effort to dissuade it even though you know it's probably still happening? The latter, I'd hope....just like the content owners/providers are doing. |
|
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·voip.ms
| reply to DrDrew
There are many inaccuracies in this forum, which is good because that is what the content owners want. The less you know, the better. Just rent the box. By the same token, most cablecos in 1-2 years will have moved away from CC boxes and move to IP-authorized streaming ones which will cost significantly less to the operator ( $50) and use 5 Watts which is good. The bad is that it will require you to rent the "big daddy" DVR at $30+/month. Eventually, they will do away w/ the DVR because it is HIGHLY inefficient and then you will just stream from the cableco's local CDN.
An ATSC tuner (OTA) or a QAM tuner (Cable) were in many TV's in the early 2000's--in fact my circa 2005 Panny has a cablecard slot. I don't remember specifics, however since OTA (stuff you can get w/ an antenna) is already unencrypted, when they were retransmitted over cable they were deemed to be in the same broadcast state and that is where "clear QAM" or unencrypted QAM originated. The big issue w/ this from the cableco is threefold:
1. If one had TV's they could get the basic tier if they had a QAM tuner. If they unsubscribe, there would have to be a truck roll to put a filter on said house trunk to block those frequencies. Similarly if they subscribed, truck roll to take the filters off. Costly
2. Content providers want more control and encrypting them now also allows the "basics" to turn on the CCI flag --copy once which doesn't allow copying (encrypted data a rest). This makes it harder to use data "on the go" or say across media servers-- a big step backward in innovation.
3. Since our paid-off government allowed service providers to be content owners, you now have competing consumer interests. Does TWC, Comcast or Cablevision not want to button up their content and control it to the max? Yes. To they offer the pipe, yes? Serious conflict of interest. Remember the old Sony--content owner--days when they used proprietary access and DRM in all their products. I have been Sony free for over a decade.
4. By forcing a cablco proprietary box in the house, it makes it more difficult for the user to switch companies (churn). Is it easier to wrap up one box and return to said co, or 5-6. This in turn also forced the cable co "user experience" and upsell potential (on demand, etc). Now they deploy proprietary apps to ipads. Now to switch from TWC to Verizon, you need to turn in 5-6 boxes, and then change apps on all your tabs. That takes a LOT of time, not the mention if they make their user interfaces proprietary enough, you have dissatisfaction in the home even though the content is a commodity. Turn a commodity into a proprietary consumable to reduce churn--a Sony special.
Now most people don't know that if the CCI/CO flag is not on--copy freely, Media Center (W7MC and the like) will store the file in an UNENCRYPTED manner, allowing you to view it via your PC or other media centers. If the CO flag is on (and on FIOS today that's only a few channels), you can only watch the content on the media center itself or an authorized streaming device (xbox, etc). The data at rest is encrypted.
All of this has nothing to do w/ analog vs digital--they are transport mediums--it has to do w/ putting that magic flag on the content so that content providers can control what you do with it, meaning piracy will get worse before it gets better.
The worrisome part of this, is that once they do this, then the broadcasters will start to push for shutting down OTA because it's insecure and anybody can put up a cantenna and pay $300 a month to watch TV. You say I'm crazy, but wait 10 years. It's coming. |
|
| For most of us Charter Subs this is at least 24 months away. Charter is starting with MDU ( Multi Dwelling Units ) first then will move on to areas where theft and noise are the worst and finally it will migrate system wide. This will be done in steps due to the cost of DCTs ( 2 standard DCTs are available free for first year. )
Standard def DCT $300
High Def DCT $500
HD DVR $800
Meanwhile the DVR cloud will be developed to off set some equipment issues and cost and also that will address some of the copyright issues. |
|
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon FiOS
·voip.ms
| That pricing is sky high. I must be in a monopoly universe...
Roku 2 HD $70 and that's retail price.
8 thread Intel i7 -> $300
Xbox (refurbished) -> $130.
All of those are way more powerful or feature-laden than the prices you describe. I purchased 4 Xbox--W7MC--for $520 (refurb) the cost of one HD DCT? My ROI versus renting was 18 months, including the W7MC virtual machine and 3CC. That was over 24 months ago, and to switch providers, I swap a CC into my 3CC and update channels. Nobody in the house even knew when I swapped from TWC to FiOS (regular HDHR at that time). It's too bad that MSFT is deprecating media center. Here's hoping they make a media hub in the future....I guess I can keep those boxes going for another 5 years or so.
HD DCT -> $500? I can buy a brand new price-inflated Moto DCX3200 for $200.
Cloud DVR will only succeed en masse when they get over the "unique" storage foolishness. At that point CDN will take off. |
|
| reply to jonboy
Stupid....why would people even bother pirating clear qam channels anyway....Anything thats on ClearQAM here I can already get for free OTA....aka channels 1-13. This is just so people on basic cable have to get a box |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to whoaru99
Clear QAM isn't an encrypted signal. |
|
| Of course not, but the discussion seemed to be about the demise of clear QAM and steering towards ways around it. |
|
DrDrewSo that others may surf.
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:8
1 edit | reply to haggler
Hopefully encryption and dropping analog will stop this crap |
said by haggler:Stupid....why would people even bother pirating clear qam channels anyway....Anything thats on ClearQAM here I can already get for free OTA....aka channels 1-13. This is just so people on basic cable have to get a box
What you can get free OTA, most cable companies now have to pay for.
Why do people steal cable to begin with? Because it's relatively easy to do, they get lots of entertainment out of it, and the possibility of penalties are low. That's your answer to why cable wants to encrypt basic. Cable companies spend ALOT of money fixing damage done by thieves. Paying customers frequently suffer service degradation or outages due to damage from cable theft. With cable being able to encrypt basic and being able to turn off analog entirely, trying to steal cable by connecting a service drop into a nearby tap will get the thieves nothing. Hopefully most theft attempts will stop shortly after.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes. |
|
| Ehhh...eventually word will get around to most, but there will always be someone who figures they can just clamp some jumper cables to the power line for free power. The risk of repeat offenders for attempted theft of power is much lower than for cable service though.  |
|
