dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
13789

GeNomer
join:2013-01-21
Indianapolis, IN

3 recommendations

GeNomer to markm5

Member

to markm5

Re: [TV] Do I have to get one of these stupid adapaters.

said by markm5:

said by Milkman0:

Ok so let me ask a question with my assumption inserted. How does BHN prevent piracy of their signal with clear QAM???

Encrypted signals will not stop piracy, all it is is a way to wring more money out of consumers who have many TVs in your home. Its a way for BH to charge people for every single TV in their house. Consumers had analog signals before which were not encrypted so Clear QAM on channels 1-70 would only preserve what weve already had previously. Encryption punishes people who simple want to hook up multiple TVs without being charged for each TV, it would be wrong to punish these users just want multiple TVs because of some fear of pirates. That would be collective punishment.

It's more about cable theft rather than piracy. People climbing up a pole and splicing into a line can cause signal issues that will impact legitimate customers. In addition, these splice jobs are often done very poorly and as a result signal "leaks" out of the line. Cable uses radio in it's lines and cable companies are required by the FCC to make sure it stays in the line because it will interfere with over air radio transmissions. If a cable company is found to be leaking too much signal, fines will ensue, probably massive fines. Before switching to encrypted digital format, most cable companies had to spend a lot of money tracking down cable theft and fixing it, Brighthouse probably still does. Encrypted digital format takes away any reason for someone to want to splice into a cable drop because it no longer will work. And that would save Brighthouse a lot of time and money.

neonhomer
Dearborn 5-2750
Premium Member
join:2004-01-27
Edgewater, FL

neonhomer

Premium Member

said by GeNomer:

And that would save Brighthouse a lot of time and money.

On top of the $2/mo per device they will be collecting from the DTA's starting in Jan 2015.

telijah
Premium Member
join:2013-04-22
Brandon, FL

telijah

Premium Member

said by neonhomer:

said by GeNomer:

And that would save Brighthouse a lot of time and money.

On top of the $2/mo per device they will be collecting from the DTA's starting in Jan 2015.

From an entire single market... This is only required in the Cent Fl area right now. I hardly imagine this will lead to BHN buying a few more yachts to ski behind.
wbrightfl
join:2004-07-15
Fort Lauderdale, FL

wbrightfl to FutureDishTV

Member

to FutureDishTV
Well the bright side of having to use the DA is the picture quality is excellent and you get more standard channels in HD. Perhaps by the time they begin charging the $2 per unit, they will add more of the better channels like BBC America. That would help justify the added fee by making the package a better value.

SweatySusan
@bhn.net

SweatySusan to telijah

Anon

to telijah
said by telijah:

said by neonhomer:

said by GeNomer:

And that would save Brighthouse a lot of time and money.

On top of the $2/mo per device they will be collecting from the DTA's starting in Jan 2015.

From an entire single market... This is only required in the Cent Fl area right now. I hardly imagine this will lead to BHN buying a few more yachts to ski behind.

Hahahahahahaha
wait until the fee raises to $3 by mid 2015. by Summer 2016 you'll be paying $5

look how much the cable modem fees have risen in the last 14 months (even if you can "buy your own").
snowpp22
join:2001-10-23
Lake Mary, FL

snowpp22

Member

And I suspect BHN will make this change in their other markets over time. So all of their customers will get to enjoy the higher costs to restore lost functionality we have today.

GeNomer
join:2013-01-21
Indianapolis, IN

GeNomer to SweatySusan

Member

to SweatySusan
said by SweatySusan :

Hahahahahahaha
wait until the fee raises to $3 by mid 2015. by Summer 2016 you'll be paying $5

look how much the cable modem fees have risen in the last 14 months (even if you can "buy your own").

Would be nice if you could buy your own adapter somehow, but I don't know if that would be viable...
vasta
join:2003-04-07
Orlando, FL

vasta to FutureDishTV

Member

to FutureDishTV
I can't wait to have improved picture quality and sound!, as well as having a bunch of channels back that were removed years ago for no reason other then "being moved to our digital tier"

Grandfathered, still makes me laugh....expert

Astyanax
Premium Member
join:2002-11-14
Melbourne, FL
·AT&T FTTP

Astyanax to FutureDishTV

Premium Member

to FutureDishTV
I have 10 televisions. 4 of which have non-DVR HD STBs and 4 have the new DAs. The remaining 2 perfectly working TVs I'm going to have to junk because I don't watch them enough to justify paying $2/month more and are old tube TVs anyway but I did like having them before BHN forced me to junk them. Requiring these DAs I regard as nothing but a money grab and am voicing my objection to it. I also don't like the "new statement" which coincidentally resulted in a new $10+/month increase even after factoring in the 2 additional DAs I now have to pay for. They repackage a lot of the costs so you can't easily do a line-by-line comparison between last month's old statement and this month's new statement.

I used to have a much higher regard for BHN until they forced these DAs on us and now did a "new statement" which resulted in a "new" rate hike.

Milkman0
join:2011-03-10
Brooksville, FL

Milkman0 to FutureDishTV

Member

to FutureDishTV
People keep referring to this as a money grab, but I am going to state three reasons why I don't think it is.

#1 - I believe by discontinuing the analog signal in their lines that it is going to give them MUCH greater bandwidth to do stuff in the future, since they will now have the whole analog spectrum available for them to expand into.

#2 - Digital picture quality on non HD channels is FAR superior via digital compared to Analog. When I purchased my HD TV 10 years ago, this was one of the reasons I went to DirecTV. There wasn't much HD back then, but the pic on the SD channels was really good because it was digital. Now granted this probably isn't a compelling reason, since most stuff is HD these days, but there are still a good amount of SD only channels.

#3 - They currently have two different infrastructures that they have to maintain (digital and analog), by reducing the infrastructure to just digital, it reduces their costs, which in turn (we hope) prevents our costs from increasing.

This thing JUST ROLLED OUT. I am sure they are monitoring reaction, and who knows, maybe one day they will allow the EU to buy these things like they can with cable modems. My thoughts are that there is a method to the madness.

Pixiloxx
join:2013-08-15
Melbourne, FL

Pixiloxx

Member

Overall they are not that bad. You do get more HD channels with them, the box is small and they are very easy to hook up. I can see the other points as well, especially if you have more than two TV's that will need boxes. Yes, it's only $2/box, but it does add up over time. So either pony up some bucks or do like I did and put up an antenna for those less-used TV's.
snowpp22
join:2001-10-23
Lake Mary, FL

snowpp22 to Milkman0

Member

to Milkman0
But our costs are increasing, it seems the changes will reduce BHN costs, but we get price increases too. I wonder how many customers did request enhanced picture quality over what they have today.
markm5
join:2013-10-06
Clearwater, FL

markm5 to GeNomer

Member

to GeNomer
You may be onto something there. But as I understand it, the decryption key is required for the signal to be decoded, and its really long. Thats why they have cable cards, which even if you own your own box, you have to pay them as much for a cable card as a DA. So they have us boxed in from all angles here.
said by GeNomer:

said by SweatySusan :

Hahahahahahaha
wait until the fee raises to $3 by mid 2015. by Summer 2016 you'll be paying $5

look how much the cable modem fees have risen in the last 14 months (even if you can "buy your own").

Would be nice if you could buy your own adapter somehow, but I don't know if that would be viable...

lilricky
join:2007-07-21
Kissimmee, FL

lilricky

Member

Ok, talked to a rep, and according to her, you simply pick up an adapter from one of the customer care centers. The adapter doesn't need to be encoded with your info beforehand, they simply make a notation on your account that you've been issued one. Knowing that, couldn't I simply buy one of these adapters and not have to pay a monthly fee each month when they start in 2016?
BHNtechXpert
The One & Only
Premium Member
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL

BHNtechXpert

Premium Member

said by lilricky:

Ok, talked to a rep, and according to her, you simply pick up an adapter from one of the customer care centers. The adapter doesn't need to be encoded with your info beforehand, they simply make a notation on your account that you've been issued one. Knowing that, couldn't I simply buy one of these adapters and not have to pay a monthly fee each month when they start in 2016?

That is not correct...and no you cannot.

Stantheman
@bhn.net

Stantheman

Anon

So you're saying that she lied that someone could go and pick up an adapter there? Hmmm... the website is lying as well then.... »brighthouse.com/central- ··· -adapter Hmmm... the model Brighthouse is using is the Cisco DTA 170HD which uses Forward Data Channel, ie one-way communication.... »www.cisco.com/c/en/us/pr ··· 33_a.pdf So what part was incorrect?

Pixiloxx
join:2013-08-15
Melbourne, FL

Pixiloxx

Member

Yes you can go to the office and pick them up. No, you cannot buy your own. Simple as that.
lilricky
join:2007-07-21
Kissimmee, FL

lilricky

Member

Looks like I can buy them from Cisco. Also looks like other companies sell them as well. Also, looking at the specs that Stan provided, they're not individually registerable, meaning they work without having to associate them with an account, unlike what you have to do with cablecards.
BoulderHill1
join:2004-07-15
Montgomery, IL

1 edit

BoulderHill1 to m3galinux

Member

to m3galinux
said by m3galinux:

I for one have no issue with converting to digital, as long as they would stick to the established standards.

I think they are sticking to the established standards.

Most all cable companies/networks are digital now or are soon to be transitioned.

All of these are encrypting everything which requires use of either the Digital adapter (DA) sometimes called a DTA (digital transport adapter) or another provider issued set top box such as DVR. That seems to be the standard.

Regarding the conversation regarding why these companies are doing this...

Some of it is getting control back over their network by reducing or eliminating unauthorized use of the cable signal. With old analog systems a customer could subscribe and pay for one TV hookup. But actually have many Tv's connected as those sets were "cable ready". Your cable subscription entitles you to exactly what you pay for. If that means you pay for one TV then you should only have one TV connected to their system. With analog systems it was virtually impossible for the cable company to control this very situation.

By encrypting the signal so that even new TVs with clearQAM tuners built in are unable to receive anything the cable company gets control back over their system. In addition over time they can enhance their revenue by being able to accurately charge for the number of TVs in your house by charging for the adapter needed to use their system.

FOr years cable companies lost out on potential revenue in this area. Subscribers connected more TVs than were intended and many times got more channels than was included in their package/tier.

GeNomer
join:2013-01-21
Indianapolis, IN

GeNomer to lilricky

Member

to lilricky
Well it'll need to be able to decrypt the channels coming in. I don't know if a DA bought directly from Cisco would have the right key, or code, or whatever to do that. It might need to be set up by BHN with that key.
BoulderHill1
join:2004-07-15
Montgomery, IL

BoulderHill1 to markm5

Member

to markm5
said by markm5:

Someone can just connect a computer video capture card to the RF output of the digital adapter,

But you needed the DA in place and working in order to connect it to any sort capture card or other device.

What you are describing is not the piracy referred to here.

The piracy discussed here is unauthorized access to the cable network. Or getting "free cable". Stealing the service in other words.

Recording the signal from the output of the DA or web cam-ming the video is not piracy. It could be copyright infringement depending on the programming but since you needed to pay for and have a cable account in the first place you are not pirating cable.
BHNtechXpert
The One & Only
Premium Member
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL

BHNtechXpert to Stantheman

Premium Member

to Stantheman
said by Stantheman :

So you're saying that she lied that someone could go and pick up an adapter there? Hmmm... the website is lying as well then.... »brighthouse.com/central- ··· -adapter Hmmm... the model Brighthouse is using is the Cisco DTA 170HD which uses Forward Data Channel, ie one-way communication.... »www.cisco.com/c/en/us/pr ··· 33_a.pdf So what part was incorrect?

The device MUST be assigned to and is activated by the services coded to your account. Remove said services and the box ceases to function....period.
BHNtechXpert

BHNtechXpert to lilricky

Premium Member

to lilricky
said by lilricky:

Looks like I can buy them from Cisco. Also looks like other companies sell them as well. Also, looking at the specs that Stan provided, they're not individually registerable, meaning they work without having to associate them with an account, unlike what you have to do with cablecards.

Incorrect. You cannot buy them from Cisco nor would they work on our system even if you did.
markm5
join:2013-10-06
Clearwater, FL

1 edit

markm5 to FutureDishTV

Member

to FutureDishTV
said by BoulderHill1:

Some of it is getting control back over their network by reducing or eliminating unauthorized use of the cable signal. With old analog systems a customer could subscribe and pay for one TV hookup. But actually have many Tv's connected as those sets were "cable ready". Your cable subscription entitles you to exactly what you pay for. If that means you pay for one TV then you should only have one TV connected to their system. With analog systems it was virtually impossible for the cable company to control this very situation.

I dont think thats true at all. It is allegedly to stop neighbors from splicing into a cable and getting cable service for free without paying anything for it, so they say. However there is no question that someone who subscribes to cable TV service has a right to hook up as many TVs as they want to for private viewing inside of their own home, this is legal, and it is not theft. Furthermore, per outlet charges were banned under the 1992 Cable Act, if memory serves me correctly, which gauranteed consumer rights to hook up many TVs as they want on their premises. Apparently BH has found a loophole to get per outlet charges back by forcing customers to rent their equipment for each TV. It seems to be the functional equivalent of a per outlet charge.

Pixiloxx
join:2013-08-15
Melbourne, FL

Pixiloxx

Member

Not necessarily getting it free through splicing though. On one of the discussion boards I frequent there are folks who encouraged others to 'cut the cable' and keep internet, but then tell them to plug the cable cord back into their TV to get 'free cable', since the cable company 'doesn't care if you do that or not'. Now that Comcast (and soon BHN) has scrambled all their signals and that's no longer an option, it's funny as hell to hear people gripe that 'Comcast took away my free TV'. I'm pretty sure it's the 'cord cutters' we have to thank for this.
markm5
join:2013-10-06
Clearwater, FL

markm5 to FutureDishTV

Member

to FutureDishTV
I was doing some research on the 1992 Cable Act and it was that bill that gave rise as well the broadcast fees Cable Companies pay, partly to blame for skyrocketing cable TV bills. Such rebroadcast fees in my opinion should be done away with. Many have also suggested ala-cart fees allowing cable companies to offer their consumers single channels, and pick-10, pick-50, pick-100 packages rather than the all or nothing thing that content providers are not forcing cable companies to offer. Why should I be forced to pay for channels I never use? This means I am funding content I have no use for and even despise and detest. For instance, I hate the fact that I am forced to pay for the garbage on MTV that is ruining this country with immoral junk to get the programming I want like Duck Dynasty .
markm5

markm5 to Pixiloxx

Member

to Pixiloxx
said by Pixiloxx:

Not necessarily getting it free through splicing though. On one of the discussion boards I frequent there are folks who encouraged others to 'cut the cable' and keep internet, but then tell them to plug the cable cord back into their TV to get 'free cable', since the cable company 'doesn't care if you do that or not'. Now that Comcast (and soon BHN) has scrambled all their signals and that's no longer an option, it's funny as hell to hear people gripe that 'Comcast took away my free TV'. I'm pretty sure it's the 'cord cutters' we have to thank for this.

This was covered before. The cable companies install a band pass filter that blocks the video frequencies but let the cable modem frequencies through, on the multitap Of course this requires a truck roll to do this.

Astyanax
Premium Member
join:2002-11-14
Melbourne, FL
·AT&T FTTP

Astyanax to BoulderHill1

Premium Member

to BoulderHill1
said by BoulderHill1:

said by markm5:

Someone can just connect a computer video capture card to the RF output of the digital adapter,

But you needed the DA in place and working in order to connect it to any sort capture card or other device.

What you are describing is not the piracy referred to here.

The piracy discussed here is unauthorized access to the cable network. Or getting "free cable". Stealing the service in other words.

Recording the signal from the output of the DA or web cam-ming the video is not piracy. It could be copyright infringement depending on the programming but since you needed to pay for and have a cable account in the first place you are not pirating cable.

I really have a hard time buying the "cable theft" argument to justify this digital move by BHN. I could understand it being a bigger problem about 10 years ago before there was Hulu, Netflix, and other Internet-based programming. But today with those options now available and crafty crooks able to poach their neighbor's Wi-Fi signal pretty easily I find the cable theft argument pretty weak this day and age. People are still digging up their neighbor's cables and splicing into them? I would think brushing up on how to get free Wi-Fi would be an easier, more stealthy way to steal.

GeNomer
join:2013-01-21
Indianapolis, IN

GeNomer to markm5

Member

to markm5
said by markm5:

Many have also suggested ala-cart fees allowing cable companies to offer their consumers single channels, and pick-10, pick-50, pick-100 packages rather than the all or nothing thing that content providers are not forcing cable companies to offer. Why should I be forced to pay for channels I never use? This means I am funding content I have no use for and even despise and detest. For instance, I hate the fact that I am forced to pay for the garbage on MTV that is ruining this country with immoral junk to get the programming I want like Duck Dynasty .

All digital is a step the right direction to make that possible. Separating out analog channels is pretty difficult, but if everything is digital it becomes a lot more doable. Fingers crossed.

Astyanax
Premium Member
join:2002-11-14
Melbourne, FL
·AT&T FTTP

Astyanax

Premium Member

said by GeNomer:

said by markm5:

Many have also suggested ala-cart fees allowing cable companies to offer their consumers single channels, and pick-10, pick-50, pick-100 packages rather than the all or nothing thing that content providers are not forcing cable companies to offer. Why should I be forced to pay for channels I never use? This means I am funding content I have no use for and even despise and detest. For instance, I hate the fact that I am forced to pay for the garbage on MTV that is ruining this country with immoral junk to get the programming I want like Duck Dynasty .

All digital is a step the right direction to make that possible. Separating out analog channels is pretty difficult, but if everything is digital it becomes a lot more doable. Fingers crossed.

If that becomes an outcome from paying to have these DAs and that I could save some serious dinero by eliminating all the kiddie and sports channels I will never watch, I will have a much more positive opinion of this digital conversion. However if I were BHN, I would not want to give up that revenue stream I can get from everyone so I find your hoping it will become true rather naïve. These channels' carriage fees for BHN are the same no matter how many are watching it; isn't that so? That alone would nix any hope of being able to pick your channels resulting in a lower monthly bill.