MAR_03_2002
Premium
join:2002-03-03
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit |  A few observations
1. The request for info from the FCC was initiated, presumably, because the FCC received 600 complaints. I'd be slightly impressed if these weren't generated by a campaign by Consumers Union against cable companies and the fact that ONLY 600 complaints were received out of approx 65 million cable TV households. Not exactly an overwhelming response( .0009 %). But we all know it wasn't the complaints that generated this inquiry. It was Martin on his crusade for a la carte and this inquiry was leverage to try and blackjack the cable companies to go along with him.
2. The FCC gave cable companies 2 weeks to gather all the info they demanded. Not enough time and clearly meant to further Martin's true reason - political blackmail and a PR assault.
News story on the FCC actions:
»www.multichannel.com/article/162···tors.php
The FCC sent letters to the cable operators in late October requesting a voluminous amount of data, including highly sensitive pricing terms in programming contracts. The FCC gave 14 calendars to respond, which some cable operators felt was insufficient, given that the FCC wanted data as far back as 2006. 3. If the cable companies did what Martin wanted(keep analog channels for damn near forever), the process of providing more HD channels(universally demanded by customers) and providing higher quality pictures(digital channels) would be frozen at the status quo for years.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Since Martin is gone as of yesterday. The cable companies will sue them for the fines and then go on about their business and not give a damn about Martin.
They'll forget about him just like everyone else. |
|
fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | His successor will probably pick up where he left off though. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | If he does though at least it won't be directed just at the cable companies since he has been talking about fair open access. |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to MAR_03_2002
I don't think it's a crusade against cable.
It is only right that they actually stop screwing consumers in a downed economic time.
Cable co's need to give out free to low cost gear to receive a digital signal. $20 a month for a dvr is a gaff. $15 for an hd box , $10 for a digital box $4 for a remote $5 per jack.
Half of your bill is the damn equipment , which we can't purchase.
Now the "content" prices are creeping up as well. To just under outlandish. And they want to know why.
I can tell them. The investors are greedy, in a down economy they lean on the companies to keep themselves in the ferrari and 24 year old model life styles.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
Drex
Beer..It's What's For Dinner
Premium
join:2000-02-24
La Place, LA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| said by BosstonesOwn  :Cable co's need to give out free to low cost gear to receive a digital signal. $20 a month for a dvr is a gaff. $15 for an hd box , $10 for a digital box $4 for a remote $5 per jack. They have to make up the money from these fines some kind of way. 
--
I gave up drinking and eating bad food. And in 14 days, I had lost 2 weeks. |
|
pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
 ·ooma
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Comcast
|  reply to BosstonesOwn
I believe cable companies should provide an unencrypted basic tier of HD that any digital set can receive.
Mandatory set top boxes are a profit center for cable companies and hurt those who have the least IMO.
The FCC shouldn't lightly permit unencrypted cable from disappearing, even if eventually all signals are digital.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
MAR_03_2002
Premium
join:2002-03-03
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
2 edits | said by pandora :I believe cable companies should provide an unencrypted basic tier of HD that any digital set can receive. The FCC shouldn't lightly permit unencrypted cable from disappearing, even if eventually all signals are digital. That, as a goal, sounds noble. But it flies in the face of the direction technology and the industry is taking and the demand by customers for more channels and more HD channels in particular.
There is a limited amount of bandwidth capacity on cable HFC systems. HD channels(and eventually almost all channels will be HD) take up quite a bit of bandwidth. To get around the limitation(until FTTH is ubiquitous which is a decade away or more), cable is going to use Switched Digital Video (SDV). Current TVs can't support that without some kind of external box(an SDV adapter, or a STB). Eventually, Tru2Way will address that in new sets. But again that will take years before they are ubiquitous.
So your solution is regulation that will squash consumers demand for more channels and more HD channels because there is a group of people that can't afford a Cadillac. My solution is that those people make do with OTA TV and leave the rest of us alone to enjoy the progression of technology.
A solution that slows progress because some will be left behind is not a good solution. But it is a solution supported by socialists. That is, pander to the lowest common denominator, and to heck with progress.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
Hi
Bah Humbug
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by MAR_03_2002 :said by pandora :I believe cable companies should provide an unencrypted basic tier of HD that any digital set can receive. The FCC shouldn't lightly permit unencrypted cable from disappearing, even if eventually all signals are digital. That, as a goal sounds, noble. But it flies in the face of the direction technology and the industry is taking and the demand by customers for more channels and more HD channels in particular. There is a limited amount of bandwidth capacity on cable HFC systems. HD channels(and eventually almost all channels will be HD) take up quite a bit of bandwidth. To get around the limitation(until FTTH is ubiquitous which is a decade away or more), cable is going to use Switched Digital Video (SDV). Current TVs can't support that without some kind of external box(an SDV adapter, or a STB). Eventually, Tru2Way will address that in new sets. But again that will take years before they are ubiquitous. So your solution is regulation that will squash consumers demand for more channels and more HD channels because there is a group of people that can't afford a Cadillac. My solution is that those people make do with OTA TV and leave the rest of us alone to enjoy the progression of technology. A solution that slows progress because some will be left behind is not a good solution. But it is a solution supported by socialists. That is, pander to the lowest common denominator, and to heck with progress. MSOs try and progress newer tech? This made me laugh very, very loudly. |
|
keyboards
join:2001-02-14
Doylestown, PA
| reply to MAR_03_2002
said by MAR_03_2002 :There is a limited amount of bandwidth capacity on cable HFC systems. HD channels(and eventually almost all channels will be HD) take up quite a bit of bandwidth. To get around the limitation(until FTTH is ubiquitous which is a decade away or more), cable is going to use Switched Digital Video (SDV). Actually, HD Digital channels take up less bandwidth than a single analog channel. With standard MPEG-2 you can fit 2 HD digital channels per QAM channel. Comcast (and I'm sure others) have started adding additional compression to increase that to 3 HD channels per QAM. MPEG-4 further reduces the bandwidth but requires new equipment to be deployed as most current STBs won't decode MPEG-4.
--
REMEMBER: Stupidity should be painful !! |
|
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs:
| reply to MAR_03_2002
TK is ok with encryption when it suits corporations, but against it when it comes to consumer privacy, such as peer to peer systems. Don't take it too seriously its his job.
Usually i would also be against more regulation, but the monopolistic cable world really needs reform, or instead of that perhaps an open network for competitors.
Like many people, i have only ONE choice for television and internet, and its not a very good one. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to MAR_03_2002
If the cable industry and CableLabs were not doing everything they can to hold back CableCARD technology and "Tru2Way" (another stalling tactic) this would not be a problem. Since you are tagging things, let's call cablers "communist" since they insist on central command and control, the lowest possible performance, the least amount of accountability and the highest amount of intimidation.
This is about as transparent as the argument that cable prices have dropped significantly 'when viewed on a per-channel basis'. Well, adding 200 fluff channels and duplicates so your divisor is higher does not lower the price no matter what those sharp NCTA accountants might say.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY | reply to BosstonesOwn
It is when verizon and att are doing the same thing but only the cable companies are singled out. |
|
fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| reply to BosstonesOwn
said by BosstonesOwn :Half of your bill is the damn equipment , which we can't purchase. By law, you can!
I own one of my cable receiving devices (TiVo). The other one my cable company provides at no extra cost. |
|
fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| reply to pandora
said by pandora :I believe cable companies should provide an unencrypted basic tier of HD that any digital set can receive. I thought they did. On almost every cable system I've used, the basic HD local channels were unencrypted QAM. I thought this was a FCC requirement.
Our cable system has the local channels plus a few others in the clear. |
|
pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
·ooma
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Comcast
| My cable system (Comcast) increased rates for basic cable, but took channels off. If we must go digital, I'd prefer that basic cable be mandated with QAM or that a limited basic be mandated which offers only local feeds via QAM for under $10 per month.
I don't really care that much about my cable, as I have DirecTV and don't watch Cable. However I'd prefer to not have constant rate increases. Rate increases with service cuts in service seems worthy of some FCC inquiry to me.
At some point the FCC may consider a digital crossover for cable. When that happens, it'd be nice to see all local channels and maybe stuff like CSPAN via unencrypted QAM.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to hottboiinnc
However, Martin was true to form, throwing a pile of excrement cable's way on his way out the door. |
|
BSD24
Tier 4
Premium
join:2008-04-30
Middleboro, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to BosstonesOwn
said by BosstonesOwn :I don't think it's a crusade against cable. It is only right that they actually stop screwing consumers in a downed economic time. Cable co's need to give out free to low cost gear to receive a digital signal. $20 a month for a dvr is a gaff. $15 for an hd box , $10 for a digital box $4 for a remote $5 per jack. Half of your bill is the damn equipment , which we can't purchase. Now the "content" prices are creeping up as well. To just under outlandish. And they want to know why. I can tell them. The investors are greedy, in a down economy they lean on the companies to keep themselves in the ferrari and 24 year old model life styles. BosstonesOwn -
You forget the FCC already requires cable-cards in cable boxes now, for new installs. The cable box must have a removable cablecard. The reason for this? Because you will be able to buy a cable box ($300-$800+ probably) and put cable cards in side it (similar to the Tivo Series 3), and if you move you return the cards and get new ones from the new cable provider you choose.
Now the cost per month is caused by the cost of the equipment (DVR's being the most expensive - around 400-600 or more per box) and the amount of un-recovered equipment over the year (people stealing or never returning equipment after disconnecting service). Not every cable provider charges the same fees. Like Comcast no longer (hasn't in probably 2-4+ years - at least for digital) charges a seperate fee for the remote, its in the cost of the box. But Comcast will give you as many remotes you want (even without owning a cablebox) for no charge anyways, just go to any service center and ask for a remote. |
|
waiting4fios
join:2005-04-08
Howell, NJ
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to majortom1029
How is Verizon and at&t doing the same thing?
The same channels that were unencrypted when Verizon offered analog are still unencrypted in their digital form. Previously, I could receive 2-49 without a cable box from Verizon in analog. I can still receive 2-49 with my tv digital built in QAM tuner.
What the cablecos are doing is different, they are literally moving channels that were unencrypted and when making them digital, they are encrypting them. Now if cable were to simply migrate their channels to digital without encrypting those channels, then they are doing the same thing as Verizon.
I am not opposed to cable moving their channels to all digital, Verizon, Directv, and Dish network have been that way for a while, and soon OTA is supposed to be all digital as well, but the argument most people are making is that even with a TV with a built in QAM tuner they are unable to get the same channels they use to get before with cable. At least with Verizon the same channels you were able to get from day 1 without a set-top box, are the same channels you can get today without a set-top box, provided you have a digital ready TV.
Also at&t is setup completely differently as their TV service is purely IP and required additional equipment from the get go.
I know you are a to the death cable supporter, but hopefully one day you will see there is a difference and NOT EVERYTHING cable does is right, just like not everything Verizon or any other company does is right either, but in this case your example doesn't measure up, Verizon and at&t are not doing the same thing as the cablecos. |
|
moon1234
@tds.net
| reply to MAR_03_2002
No you have your head in the technological sand. The cable companies could easily move channels to digital QAM unencrypted with addressable filters on a customers line. The customer can then hook up any device they plase to the cable and get the programming they pay for in a digital format using a digital TV with QAM tuner, Set top box, computer card, etc.
It would work just like analog does today and the technology is already there. Digital QAM can carry SD and HD just fine and almost all new DTV TVs have built in QAM tuners.
The cable companies want to make money on the set top boxes thru rent over the long term and thru advertising and PPV that can only be delivered through their boxes.
Almost all cable companies already use a hybrid system now. Any non-encrypted channel could easily be received on a QAM tuner and additional services could be received thru a cable set top box if the customer CHOOSES to get a box.
The FCC and congress need to slap the industry and hit them in the pocket book for making anti-consumer choices. |
|
