dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
30913
share rss forum feed


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

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

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.

whoaru99

join:2003-12-17
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...

whoaru99

join:2003-12-17
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.

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY
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.


INtheKnow

@charter.com
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.

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY
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.

haggelz

join:2010-07-04
Glendale, CA
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


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to whoaru99
Clear QAM isn't an encrypted signal.

whoaru99

join:2003-12-17
Of course not, but the discussion seemed to be about the demise of clear QAM and steering towards ways around it.


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

1 edit
reply to haggelz
Click for full size
Hopefully encryption and dropping analog will stop this crap
said by haggelz:

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.

whoaru99

join:2003-12-17
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.


kilrathi
Premium
join:2005-04-22
Rockaway Park, NY
reply to DrDrew
This exactly! I am all for this encryption, I am a customer on another cable ISP(TW) who is suffering constant problems due to illegal cable hookups in the area where people hook up a lot of tvs jus tto steal basic cable for free. With this encryption less people will attempt to just attach any kind of garbage splitter at any cost to get signal because it wont help them.


Davesworld

join:2007-10-30
Everett, WA
Reviews:
·Future Nine Corp..
·Callcentric
reply to 88615298
said by 88615298:

to be fair satellite, u-verse and FiOS were never subject to this ruling. Having for all or none. On the positive side, since QAM tuners are now useless TV manufacturers don't need to include them and maybe TV prices will go down.

QAM and ATSC tuners are the same hardware, it makes no difference in cost of manufacture. Besides, the tuner front end as a whole is a tiny percent of the cost. The other thing is that QAM TV's should have cablecard slots. You no longer have to have a Tech come out and install one.

TV Monitors were quite common in the early days of HD and were not really any cheaper.

Another point is that by the beginning of 2011, at least with Comcast, all but local channels were encrypted already. Fortunately the majority of TV I watch is from the local affiliates of ABC, NBC, CBS, CW and Fox. Some PBS as well. I started using a good outdoor antenna. Local channels received over the air with a signal of at least 65% will give you the best picture you're going to ever see with 720p and 1080i and TV channels using mpeg2 transport streams.

Watching movies at 1080P from Vudu over the internet which uses an h.264 mpeg4 transport looks slightly better due to h.264 being 40% more bit efficient and can actually best mpeg2 with less bandwidth. It takes more power to decode though.

I just use satellite and local OTA these days.

scififan68

join:2010-10-02
Fremont, NE
reply to kilrathi
I don't see any issues as long as I can keep clearqam locals only, I don't care about analog at all. Because not only does it look horrible on an hdtv, one analog channel takes up an entire qam! I'll go OTA antenna if I lost my locals though.

amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·KCH Cable
reply to jonboy
Agree with locals staying clear. This should not be messed with, and probably won't.

In any case, it's beyond overdue to make new TVs truly "cable ready" again.

NTSC/ATSC/QAM tuners are all well and good, but, why can a TV not be 'addressable' by now, such as a cable box? Why can I not simply buy a tuner, without needing a cable card for extra channels? Even there, it's near impossible to buy the card from any provider, it must be rented, and have extra fees associated with it.

Why on earth, with all the "smart TV" bullsh|t out there, can a TV not have a unique address that works, um, exactly like the freaking existing boxes? How hard would it be to include all of the whopping TWO major standards (Moto/Scientific Atlanta) that are present at, um, 99.9% of cable plants (as I understand it - I could be wrong), into a TV?

I don't care if they want to encrypt, but make TV "cable ready" again.

Also, please keep these boxes, PLEASE, as the component video outputs on them are pretty much priceless at this point in history, whether people realize it or not. Viva analog.

whoaru99

join:2003-12-17
One reason I can think of is because technology changes and I don't want to have to replace the whole TV because some cable company adopts new stuff. At least with multiple inputs on the TV you can find some way to plug in that external box.

I don't disagree with the concept of universal connectivity, but we sorta all know how that goes.

pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:2
Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Comcast
·Future Nine Corp..
reply to jonboy
Sigh ... guess forward isn't the same as hope and change.

This must be forward for someone, probably a few who sit on the FCC or work there.

I wish the FCC would stop pandering to large companies.
--
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." - Milton Friedman"

Tarball

join:2006-06-09
Saint Louis, MO
reply to jonboy
So does this mean Charter HASN'T been encrypting local channels already? Ever since they moved around the channel lineup in April, I haven't been able to pick up the locals through ClearQAM.


nunya
LXI 483
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
As I understand it, they have been using some neighborhoods in the St Louis area as "test" locations since last year.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.


PFH
Bully For You

join:2003-06-26
Saint Louis, MO
reply to Tarball
Yeah, I'm in South STL, and I still get a mix of analogs and digitals, locals in HD (2.1, 4.1,5.1, etc.). I thought i had heard that the Central West End, for example, was a neighborhood undergoing a full digital test.

The Mrs. will throw quite a fit on the day we have to put boxes on all our TVs, and I'll need to do a long-overdue redesign of my PVR PC, which currently only has four analog tuners.

Tarball

join:2006-06-09
Saint Louis, MO
said by PFH:

Yeah, I'm in South STL, and I still get a mix of analogs and digitals, locals in HD (2.1, 4.1,5.1, etc.). I thought i had heard that the Central West End, for example, was a neighborhood undergoing a full digital test.

The Mrs. will throw quite a fit on the day we have to put boxes on all our TVs, and I'll need to do a long-overdue redesign of my PVR PC, which currently only has four analog tuners.

It's weird because I get The Weather Channel, TV Guide, and CSPAN-3 in digital, and FX, Travel Channel, and religious channels in analog. So apparently I'm not in a full digital area, but the channels I pick up seem so random. All I care about is the locals, which an antenna is alright for, except when it gets windy/stormy and all the channels start pixelating.