dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
31
share rss forum feed


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

Re: Goodbye Clear Qam Channels - FCC ruling

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.

mj3431

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

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.

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY
reply to DrDrew

There are many inaccuracies in this forum, which is good because that is what the content owners want. The less you know, the better. Just rent the box. By the same token, most cablecos in 1-2 years will have moved away from CC boxes and move to IP-authorized streaming ones which will cost significantly less to the operator ( $50) and use 5 Watts which is good. The bad is that it will require you to rent the "big daddy" DVR at $30+/month. Eventually, they will do away w/ the DVR because it is HIGHLY inefficient and then you will just stream from the cableco's local CDN.

An ATSC tuner (OTA) or a QAM tuner (Cable) were in many TV's in the early 2000's--in fact my circa 2005 Panny has a cablecard slot. I don't remember specifics, however since OTA (stuff you can get w/ an antenna) is already unencrypted, when they were retransmitted over cable they were deemed to be in the same broadcast state and that is where "clear QAM" or unencrypted QAM originated. The big issue w/ this from the cableco is threefold:

1. If one had TV's they could get the basic tier if they had a QAM tuner. If they unsubscribe, there would have to be a truck roll to put a filter on said house trunk to block those frequencies. Similarly if they subscribed, truck roll to take the filters off. Costly
2. Content providers want more control and encrypting them now also allows the "basics" to turn on the CCI flag --copy once which doesn't allow copying (encrypted data a rest). This makes it harder to use data "on the go" or say across media servers-- a big step backward in innovation.
3. Since our paid-off government allowed service providers to be content owners, you now have competing consumer interests. Does TWC, Comcast or Cablevision not want to button up their content and control it to the max? Yes. To they offer the pipe, yes? Serious conflict of interest. Remember the old Sony--content owner--days when they used proprietary access and DRM in all their products. I have been Sony free for over a decade.
4. By forcing a cablco proprietary box in the house, it makes it more difficult for the user to switch companies (churn). Is it easier to wrap up one box and return to said co, or 5-6. This in turn also forced the cable co "user experience" and upsell potential (on demand, etc). Now they deploy proprietary apps to ipads. Now to switch from TWC to Verizon, you need to turn in 5-6 boxes, and then change apps on all your tabs. That takes a LOT of time, not the mention if they make their user interfaces proprietary enough, you have dissatisfaction in the home even though the content is a commodity. Turn a commodity into a proprietary consumable to reduce churn--a Sony special.

Now most people don't know that if the CCI/CO flag is not on--copy freely, Media Center (W7MC and the like) will store the file in an UNENCRYPTED manner, allowing you to view it via your PC or other media centers. If the CO flag is on (and on FIOS today that's only a few channels), you can only watch the content on the media center itself or an authorized streaming device (xbox, etc). The data at rest is encrypted.

All of this has nothing to do w/ analog vs digital--they are transport mediums--it has to do w/ putting that magic flag on the content so that content providers can control what you do with it, meaning piracy will get worse before it gets better.

The worrisome part of this, is that once they do this, then the broadcasters will start to push for shutting down OTA because it's insecure and anybody can put up a cantenna and pay $300 a month to watch TV. You say I'm crazy, but wait 10 years. It's coming.



INtheKnow

@charter.com

For most of us Charter Subs this is at least 24 months away. Charter is starting with MDU ( Multi Dwelling Units ) first then will move on to areas where theft and noise are the worst and finally it will migrate system wide. This will be done in steps due to the cost of DCTs ( 2 standard DCTs are available free for first year. )
Standard def DCT $300
High Def DCT $500
HD DVR $800
Meanwhile the DVR cloud will be developed to off set some equipment issues and cost and also that will address some of the copyright issues.


elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

That pricing is sky high. I must be in a monopoly universe...
Roku 2 HD $70 and that's retail price.
8 thread Intel i7 -> $300
Xbox (refurbished) -> $130.

All of those are way more powerful or feature-laden than the prices you describe. I purchased 4 Xbox--W7MC--for $520 (refurb) the cost of one HD DCT? My ROI versus renting was 18 months, including the W7MC virtual machine and 3CC. That was over 24 months ago, and to switch providers, I swap a CC into my 3CC and update channels. Nobody in the house even knew when I swapped from TWC to FiOS (regular HDHR at that time). It's too bad that MSFT is deprecating media center. Here's hoping they make a media hub in the future....I guess I can keep those boxes going for another 5 years or so.

HD DCT -> $500? I can buy a brand new price-inflated Moto DCX3200 for $200.

Cloud DVR will only succeed en masse when they get over the "unique" storage foolishness. At that point CDN will take off.



KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to whoaru99

Clear QAM isn't an encrypted signal.


whoaru99

join:2003-12-17

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