dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
55
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:

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.

Many people have cable if they have several TVs because it is a better value to only rent boxes for select rooms. We have 5 TVs and only rent one HD box since we can get most decent channels clear QAM now. Encrypting these channels and forcing set tops would be a pure money grab. The customer base would be better served by all channels going digital, and basic staying clear QAM.

I'm also failing to see how this will reduce service calls as most people have at least one set top currently (can be used for troubleshooting). If the issue isn't in your house you don't get charged anyway. What's your logic here?

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

its not about a money grab. It's about protecting their network from theft. Which does happen with Clear QAM. It's about time the FCC allowed cable companies to start encrypting these channels.

And BTW- comcast and others are actually giving away up to 2 STBs free. They're a no-frills box that just decode the 2-99 channels and nothing more. Anything after the 2 boxes you pay like $1.99 or 2.99



88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to mj3431

said by mj3431:

Many people have cable if they have several TVs because it is a better value to only rent boxes for select rooms. We have 5 TVs and only rent one HD box since we can get most decent channels clear QAM now. Encrypting these channels and forcing set tops would be a pure money grab. The customer base would be better served by all channels going digital, and basic staying clear QAM.

So as I said if you had DirecTv or DishNetwork or FiOS or U-verse you'd have to have a box in ALL rooms and you wouldn't have an issue with it, but because it's cable you have an issue? Now that doesn't make sense.

All channels ARE going digital. That's been going on already. And you would had to have a DTA for your other TV regardless if this rule was allowed or not for anything other than locals.

I'm also failing to see how this will reduce service calls as most people have at least one set top currently (can be used for troubleshooting). If the issue isn't in your house you don't get charged anyway. What's your logic here?

Logic is what he has been stated by experts in the field.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to hottboiinnc

said by hottboiinnc:

its not about a money grab. It's about protecting their network from theft. Which does happen with Clear QAM. It's about time the FCC allowed cable companies to start encrypting these channels.

And BTW- comcast and others are actually giving away up to 2 STBs free. They're a no-frills box that just decode the 2-99 channels and nothing more. Anything after the 2 boxes you pay like $1.99 or 2.99

Yes they are called DTAs. And current analog customers would need them regardless of this rule once Charter went all digital. Basically all this rule does is allow Charter to encrypt local channels all the rest were going to be encrypted anyway.

mj3431

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

said by 88615298:

All channels ARE going digital. That's been going on already. And you would had to have a DTA for your other TV regardless if this rule was allowed or not for anything other than locals.

Logic is what he has been stated by experts in the field.

Go back and read my statement about them being CLEAR QAM, which wouldn't require a STB, since newer TVs have digital tuners in them already.

And I asked you directly how you think this would reduce service calls and the associated fees. You failed to answer my direct question.

said by 88615298:

So as I said if you had DirecTv or DishNetwork or FiOS or U-verse you'd have to have a box in ALL rooms and you wouldn't have an issue with it, but because it's cable you have an issue? Now that doesn't make sense.

I was referring to the VALUE of having cable. I don't have satellite, or U-verse specifically for this reason. I don't agree with paying $6 Per TV (DirecTV) to watch programming I already pay for. If they allowed you to buy the STB for a reasonable price it would be a different story. I'm sure you would have an issue if your ISP wanted to start charging you per computer on top of the price you already pay for your connection.

Ideally, a cable company should be able to provide a single STB device that decrypts the signal for the whole home, connected to the main splitter that provides the home with all clear QAM channels based on the subscription package. Let me bring my own DVR or other viewing hardware beyond that. This would take care of the theft issues pointed out above as well.

mj3431

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

1 recommendation

reply to hottboiinnc

said by hottboiinnc:

its not about a money grab. It's about protecting their network from theft. Which does happen with Clear QAM. It's about time the FCC allowed cable companies to start encrypting these channels.

And BTW- comcast and others are actually giving away up to 2 STBs free. They're a no-frills box that just decode the 2-99 channels and nothing more. Anything after the 2 boxes you pay like $1.99 or 2.99

If it wasn't a money grab they would allow you to purchase the STB up front. I'm not arguing the cable theft issue but don't think this isn't also about generating an additional revenue stream. If they want to be innovative, provide a whole home STB to decrypt at the demarc and let us watch the content we subscribe to freely, just like Internet access.


firehawk

@frontiernet.net
reply to 88615298

To all those that say with FiOS you have to have at every tv you are wrong. There are PLENTY of clear QAM channels broadcast in your home.



88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to mj3431

said by mj3431:

Go back and read my statement about them being CLEAR QAM, which wouldn't require a STB, since newer TVs have digital tuners in them already.

Only channels in clear QAM is the locals. Once Charter goes all digital that's not going to change. Charter never intended on making expanded basic channels Clear QAM regardless of this rule. So my statements stands. This rules only affect Charter custoemrs who get basic( as in locals only )

And I asked you directly how you think this would reduce service calls and the associated fees. You failed to answer my direct question.

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.

I was referring to the VALUE of having cable. I don't have satellite, or U-verse specifically for this reason. I don't agree with paying $6 Per TV (DirecTV) to watch programming I already pay for. If they allowed you to buy the STB for a reasonable price it would be a different story.

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.

I'm sure you would have an issue if your ISP wanted to start charging you per computer on top of the price you already pay for your connection.

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

Ideally, a cable company should be able to provide a single STB device that decrypts the signal for the whole home, connected to the main splitter that provides the home with all clear QAM channels based on the subscription package. Let me bring my own DVR or other viewing hardware beyond that. This would take care of the theft issues pointed out above as well.

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.

Also your system wouldn't work on older TV that lack QAM tuners.

OK let's pretend the FCC didn't come down with this rule. The fact is Charter is going all digital and in many areas they already have. Yes you can still get locals in clear QAM in those areas. You CAN NOT get expanded basic channels via clear QAM. You need a DTA. And if you have an older TV without a QAM tuner you need a DTA even if you only want locals.

So at the end of the day the ONLY people this ruling affects are those that ONLY want locals and have QAM tuners in their TVs. What % of Charter's customer base is that? 2%-3% And I'm sure most of them can get in locals via OTA anyway.

Of course that is assuming Charter even plans on encrypting locals which they have not stated they will or won't as far as I know.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to firehawk

said by firehawk :

To all those that say with FiOS you have to have at every tv you are wrong. There are PLENTY of clear QAM channels broadcast in your home.

Well then if you have a choice between FiOS and Charter I suggest going with them. Problem solved.


caseywor

join:2004-04-19
Birmingham, AL
Reviews:
·Charter
·Mediacom
reply to firehawk

The same goes for Mediacom....I actually didn't realize the other cable companies were so stingy with clear QAM. I have three TVs, and only one has a box, a TiVo with a cable card. My other two HDs get all of the local and expanded basic "Family Cable" channels in clear QAM and also gets all network locals in HD along with WGN America. So at my other TVs, even without a box, I can get every Expanded basic channel in Standard Definition without a box and quite a few HD. I am glad to know that FiOS does the same thing.

»www.mediacomtoday-lineup.com/lin···dex.aspx
You can see the expanded basic "Digital-Ready Family TV" list at the bottom. I didn't think they were a rarity to offer that.


mj3431

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

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.


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


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

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:15

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:15

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.

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.



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:15
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:15
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:15

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:15

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.

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.