Topic 'Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling' in forum 'Charter Internet/TV' - dslreports.com

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:04:39 EDT

krudl3r posted : It was just a brief part of a larger discussion about cancelling the TV portion of my service. I specifically mentioned the FCC ruling and asked if Charter plans to encrypt clear qam and the response was "yes, starting in about two months". I didn't press for details as, while it will affect my service after discontinuing [paying for] TV service, it does not affect the decision (that is strictly based on the cost going from 90 to 135).

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:21:54 EDT

BF69 posted :

said by krudl3r:

They just told me that today... in a couple of months is what I was told.

As posted above, this may be market specific. The rep I spoke to was from WI, as I.

What specifically did they say? I know in some areas they are all digital and they will everywhere eventually. But only those that were on analog expanded basic tier need a box and it's not even a regular box is a DTA Not much larger than a roku.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:03:31 EDT

krudl3r posted : They just told me that today... in a couple of months is what I was told.

As posted above, this may be market specific. The rep I spoke to was from WI, as I.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:01:27 EDT

BF69 posted :

said by krudl3r:

Yeah, this really stinks for a bedroom tv that you don't have room for a box... thanks Charter.

Thanks for what? I haven't heard they are getting rid of clear QAM channels yet.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 19:49:40 EDT

krudl3r posted : Yeah, this really stinks for a bedroom tv that you don't have room for a box... thanks Charter.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Tue, 04 Dec 2012 14:24:18 EDT

anon posted : Depends where you live, a lot of areas that have apartment buildings are being done first and then individual homes after. You should get a letter at least 1 month ahead of time letting you know if the area you live in goes all digital and even then, those areas are getting free DCTs for a year on top of it.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Tue, 04 Dec 2012 12:46:25 EDT

onfire posted : Will this actually be implemented? If so, why haven't I heard anything from Charter via snail mail or TV ad?

I have 2 CRT TVs (one HDTV w/HD box) that have expanded basic that are used everyday, but I will not pay Charter extra money for a box just to watch standard definition on a CRT. So is this actually going into effect in the next month or two?

PsychoSy hits the mark again!

Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:53:36 EDT

horseathalt7 posted : Great observations PsychoSy.

Yep, it doesn't matter which party you are talking about, they are BOTH cut from the same criminal cloth.

Our Government is controlled by a collection of BIpartisan criminals who only care about their own self interests and NOTHING of the people they are SUPPOSED to be serving, "We The People".

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:45:27 EDT

PsychoSy posted : Murdoch (or anyone, for that matter) couldn't possibly acquire more power or influence in this country ... unless they have rewarding enablers who -- when it comes to regulation and oversight -- have a good 30 to 40 year track record demonstrating their capacity to have more waffle than an IHOP ...

Without further ado ... let's meet 'em! :D

*waves*

Howyadoin' there, Hockacrats?!? ;)

Let's be honest: Murdoch could use ALOT of PR Rehab right about now. And what better people to provide such PR Rehab than the very fence jockeys whose main man in the White House spent his entire first term Socializing their entire existence with bailouts, immunity deals, lack of prosecution, no frog-marching, and ordering us to moovsie and forwardsie just like they did the first time around with Tricky Dick Nixon?!?

It's a big "bipartisan" and "pragmatic" con of kabuki theatre; they all in on it.

The WWE's creative team couldn't have booked it better ...

Considering every time you turn on a TV and see ads about a disruption of channel carriage, more often than not it's Murdoch trying to nickle and dime them by taking hostages. That speaks volumes: the biggest threat to cable isn't freeloaders nor techs that won't narc 'em out; it's other rich elites taking turns eating their own. That's a given once bow to stern encryption is commonplace and the most mundane of service calls can be performed at the head end. Then the game begins in earnest. Without Main Street's thieves, all you got is Wall Street's thieves (and their purchased Beltway Bagmen) ...

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:32:37 EDT

msmisfit posted :

said by PsychoSy:

Because there's a certain Aussie that's far more scarier than all the great unwashed. He's the type of guy that not only could start the OTA multicasting riot, but get away with it: Rupert Murdoch.

What does this mean? I pray Murdoch isn't going to acquire any more power or influence in this country than he already has. :o

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:52:40 EDT

whoaru99 posted :

said by PsychoSy:

a muppet for the shareholders

Like it or not, that is pretty much the job of a CEO.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:27:09 EDT

PsychoSy posted : I wouldn't waste my bandwidth. For one, Charter corporate (all cable companies for that matter) has been probably told this already over the years by the ever coalition of the laid off. In the very unlikely chance what I said in my post was never roared back at 'em by one of the laid off, they certainly lurk these boards. In short, they'd have to be living under GEICO's rock to feign ignorance.

Rutledge would certainly crack a grin ... but I don't think it would be evil. More of a "Canary Ate The Cat" Cheshire grin of Schadenfraude more than anything. If there's any person who knows he's just a muppet for the shareholders, it's Rutledge. And if there's anyone that is kept awake at night or having brief issues with insomnia over the biggest threat to all cable/satellite providers, it's Rutledge. Especially if his golden parachute isn't quite golden ...

Because there's a certain Aussie that's far more scarier than all the great unwashed that might be stealing basic cable just to have a night-light (for their sake, I hope it ain't "Pawn Stars" or "American Pickers" - those shows will make anyone sleep with one eye open and "pay" a heavy price for it). He's the type of guy that not only could start the OTA multicasting riot, but get away with it: Rupert Murdoch.

Hence the "Canary Ate The Cat" grin on Rutledge ...

He's not the CEO of Comcast nor TWC ... :D

And I bet he has no intention of being on Charter's payroll when Murdoch embraces his inner Dick Cheney, and pumps a slug of multicasting 00-buck right in their faces. I certainly wouldn't - there's an ice cold Mojito on a beach in Trinidad with my name on it ... ripcord, don't fail me now! :)

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 20:16:28 EDT

horseathalt7 posted : Agreed.....LESS SET TOP BOXES IS BETTER!

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:05:35 EDT

rd1144 posted : It would be nice if TV manufactures started including cablecard slots again on televisions. They used to do this in the Mid-2000's on hdtv's and stopped because it didnt catch on. It would also be cool if a tuning adapter and EPG could be integrated into televisions too. I dont think it would be that hard. Even if it did have more of a upfront cost for the television, I would be all for one less box.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:25:23 EDT

horseathalt7 posted : @PsychoSy:

That post is one of the most insightful and hilarious I've found around BBR in a long time. Nice!

You should anon e mail this to Charter Corporate.

Even that dolt Tommy Boy Rutledge would probably crack an evil grin.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 07:04:16 EDT

cork1958 posted : Right on, PsychoSy!! :D

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 02:34:17 EDT

PsychoSy posted :

Rays: 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.

It's gonna suck worse for those techs. In all honesty, if I was cable tech, I'd let the thieves, the poor, and the elderly still using their old school TVs for basic cable (because either they can't afford an HDTV or they aren't stupid enough to plunk down $200 for an LCD HDTV with a 1 yr warrant that'll puke within 8 months due to junk capacitors from Taiwan on the invertor) get their grove on while blowing all kinds of smoke and mirrors up my superiors posterior -- up to and including cooking the books (Suuuurrrrre, I installed that filter *snark*) ...

Why?

Self-interest. :)

The very fact that they are eventually going to encrypt everything so that older CRT based SDTVs will need an STB, and that service calls can be done at the head end literally means my job (and the jobs of my supervisors) are on borrowed time. Much like self-scan checkout lanes did to cashiers. Much like postal carriers once all the utility companies drop snail mail for email. Much like police, soldiers, and firefighters once drone technology matures enough to justify the dehumanization and automation of their respective trades. Their days are numbered, too.

Oh, and do those Charter vans service themselves?!? Who changes the oil, replaces the spark plugs, and turns the wrenches?!? If you don't need a physical human being with a clipboard, utility belt, and Charter ball cap hanging backwards on their noggins, you certainly won't be needing mechanics servicing all the wear and tear they're putting on those vans, either.

So what exactly would I, my fellow human colleagues, and human supervisors get for "corporate loyalty" (i.e. being a narc)?!? It won't extend our employment from being outsourced to a computer by one hour let alone one day. The writing is on the wall. Finding a new line of work is a given. So it be in my immediate self-interest -- especially in this wretched economy -- to artificially extend my employment as much as possible by embracing my inner Yousarrian (for all you Catch 22 fans reading) and keep "moving the bombing line over Balogna" as much as possible ... ;)

It's not like cable providers are against nickle and diming people to death. They just want to be the ones operating the Skinner box as opposed to being on the "business end" of it. Besides that percentage figure of customers effected is already a bogus and cooked figure six ways from Sunday. If they're willing to LIE out their ship-sinking gobs about real bandwidth usage to justify caps and/or bolting a meter to the side of the subscribers' spider hole, they're certainly willing to LIE about the real number of people who'll be effected by bow-to-stern encryption. Especially if it means less wails and whines emanating from your fainting couch since it doesn't effect your ivory tower ...

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Mon, 22 Oct 2012 02:32:11 EDT

Zappa2000 posted : Dropping Clear QAM would indeed suck, and while it may be possible to get the same channels OTA, in some areas, that isn't a option without a high powered antenna.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:17:36 EDT

Tarball posted :

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.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:17:32 EDT

PFH posted : 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.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:22:51 EDT

nunya posted : 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.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:09:58 EDT

Tarball posted : 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.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:48:31 EDT

pandora posted : 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"

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:45:25 EDT

whoaru99 posted : 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.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:51:30 EDT

amungus posted : 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.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:14:20 EDT

scififan68 posted : 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.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:36:25 EDT

Davesworld posted :

said by BF69:

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.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Thu, 18 Oct 2012 03:44:12 EDT

kilrathi posted : 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.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:10:48 EDT

whoaru99 posted : 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. ;)

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Wed, 17 Oct 2012 19:43:56 EDT

DrDrew posted :

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.

Hopefully encryption and dropping analog will stop this crap

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Wed, 17 Oct 2012 19:16:35 EDT

whoaru99 posted : Of course not, but the discussion seemed to be about the demise of clear QAM and steering towards ways around it.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:50:55 EDT

KrK posted : Clear QAM isn't an encrypted signal.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:45:48 EDT

haggler posted : 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

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:33:22 EDT

elefante72 posted : 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.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:02:15 EDT

anon posted : 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.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:21:58 EDT

elefante72 posted : 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.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:09:00 EDT

whoaru99 posted :

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.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:04:04 EDT

whoaru99 posted :

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...

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Wed, 17 Oct 2012 05:59:46 EDT

BF69 posted :

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.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Wed, 17 Oct 2012 05:06:06 EDT

cork1958 posted :

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!

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Tue, 16 Oct 2012 23:30:33 EDT

DrDrew posted :

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.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Tue, 16 Oct 2012 23:07:43 EDT

viper3431 posted :

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!

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Tue, 16 Oct 2012 22:01:34 EDT

DrDrew posted :

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.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:41:12 EDT

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

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:27:39 EDT

DrDrew posted :

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.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:26:42 EDT

DrDrew posted :

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.

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:23:15 EDT

KrK posted :

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

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:21:34 EDT

KrK posted :

said by viper3431:

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

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:52:18 EDT

nonamesleft posted :

said by BF69:

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!