 CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC |
For what reason?Are the cable companies now going to claim they are losing billions to TV's with QAM tuners? An FCC petition serves no purpose except requiring subscribers to lease a box for every TV in their house. | |
|
 | 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-Feb-8 4:46 pm
Re: For what reason?said by CXM_Splicer:Are the cable companies now going to claim they are losing billions to TV's with QAM tuners? An FCC petition serves no purpose except requiring subscribers to lease a box for every TV in their house.
And this is different than DirecTv or DishNetwork or FiOS or U-verse how? | |
|
| | KearnstdSpace Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
1 recommendation |
Kearnstd
Premium Member
2012-Feb-8 5:15 pm
Re: For what reason?said by 88615298:said by CXM_Splicer:Are the cable companies now going to claim they are losing billions to TV's with QAM tuners? An FCC petition serves no purpose except requiring subscribers to lease a box for every TV in their house.
And this is different than DirecTv or DishNetwork or FiOS or U-verse how? This point seems to get glossed over, every single time cable wants to encrypt their whole system requiring use of an STB. People crucify cable for requiring an STB yet every cable competitor except for OTA requires an STB on every TV. | |
|
| | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC |
Re: For what reason?said by Kearnstd:This point seems to get glossed over, every single time cable wants to encrypt their whole system requiring use of an STB. People crucify cable for requiring an STB yet every cable competitor except for OTA requires an STB on every TV.
The difference being that the cable companies were required to keep the channels in the clear so that is how they are currently set up. There is no reason to change it other than to increase their profits at the expense of the subscribers. FIOS used to have the basi channels in the clear, when they changed it they offered people free STBs to continue that service level on TVs without leased boxes. And I agree, satellite, FIOS, and cable should ALL be required to keep the broadcast channels in the clear. | |
|
| | | | 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-Feb-8 5:58 pm
Re: For what reason?said by CXM_Splicer:The difference being that the cable companies were required to keep the channels in the clear so that is how they are currently set up. And the cable companies are asking the requirement be lifted. OS agains what is yur issue. If the requirement is lifted then cable isn't violating any rule. So therefore you shuldn't have an issue since your issue is that cable companies must comply by the rule and if the rule no longer exists then there is nothing to comply with. There is no reason to change it other than to increase their profits at the expense of the subscribers. That's bullshit. Pleas what % of subscribers have A) QAM tuner in their TV and B) have only BASIC service. And by basic I mean basic basic not expanded basic since there is no rule preventing cable companies form scambling expanded basic channels. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Cable_Pig
Anon
2012-Feb-8 6:41 pm
Re: For what reason?I know 14 people who currently do this so they dont have to pay the no cable tv tax for thier internet connection. | |
|
| | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC |
to 88615298
said by 88615298:And the cable companies are asking the requirement be lifted. OS agains what is yur issue. If the requirement is lifted then cable isn't violating any rule. So therefore you shuldn't have an issue since your issue is that cable companies must comply by the rule and if the rule no longer exists then there is nothing to comply with. Obviously!! But my argument is that the rules shouldn't be lifted. My point was that since they are already set up for the way things are, there is no legitimate reason for them to request a change except for added $$$ That's bullshit. Pleas what % of subscribers have A) QAM tuner in their TV and B) have only BASIC service. And by basic I mean basic basic not expanded basic since there is no rule preventing cable companies form scambling expanded basic channels.
Actually LOTS of people have QAM tuners in: TVs Tivos HTPCs VCRs And it has nothing to do with the level of service, even people with the 'Gold' package can still have TVs with no box. If your argument was valid and A) there were very few people with QAM tuners and B) there were very few people with basic service then WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?? Let the 4 people watch their unencrypted QAM! | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Re: For what reason?said by CXM_Splicer:Actually LOTS of people have QAM tuners in:
TVs
Tivos
HTPCs
VCRs
And it has nothing to do with the level of service, even people with the 'Gold' package can still have TVs with no box.
If your argument was valid and A) there were very few people with QAM tuners and B) there were very few people with basic service then WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?? Let the 4 people watch their unencrypted QAM!
It's about money, but I don't see that as a problem. You are glossing over the tens of thousands who have no TV subscription at all receiving unencrypted basic cable for free. Encrypting basic allows for the elimination of tap disconnects and service disconnections in error. It also allows the cable companies to charge for basic cable for those who want the service but are receiving it for free due to an untrapped cable line. I have no problem with a company being able to protect their services from free distribution when ALL of the other providers of the same service are allowed to encrypt their content. | |
|
| | | | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC |
Re: For what reason?said by PaulHikeS2:It's about money, but I don't see that as a problem.
You are glossing over the tens of thousands who have no TV subscription at all receiving unencrypted basic cable for free. Encrypting basic allows for the elimination of tap disconnects and service disconnections in error. It also allows the cable companies to charge for basic cable for those who want the service but are receiving it for free due to an untrapped cable line.
I have no problem with a company being able to protect their services from free distribution when ALL of the other providers of the same service are allowed to encrypt their content.
Actually, it was not me glossing over them but BF69 who has ascertained that almost no one even has QAM tuners anyway. The situations you bring up are currently addressed with the cable taps so there is really nothing to 'fix'. The VAST majority of people this will effect are already paying for TV service but have another TV (or 2) that they are happy with getting the broadcast channels off of the cable they already pay for. Tens of thousands?!?! Are you talking about the tens of thousands with Internet (or phone) only service?? You automatically assume they are all getting free TV? You have heard of DirecTV & Dish Network right? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: For what reason?said by CXM_Splicer:Actually, it was not me glossing over them but BF69 who has ascertained that almost no one even has QAM tuners anyway. The situations you bring up are currently addressed with the cable taps so there is really nothing to 'fix'. The VAST majority of people this will effect are already paying for TV service but have another TV (or 2) that they are happy with getting the broadcast channels off of the cable they already pay for. Tens of thousands?!?! Are you talking about the tens of thousands with Internet (or phone) only service?? You automatically assume they are all getting free TV? You have heard of DirecTV & Dish Network right?
Tens of thousands represents well under one tenth of a percent of households passed by cable, so I felt it was a reasonable number to throw out there. Do I believe there are that many with either an untrapped cable line delivering basic or internet only customers using the basic cable service? Absolutely. I don't believe it will affect paying customers in any meaningful way. Those who subscribe to basic cable only don't normally have more than 2 or 3 TVs in the household due to economic constraints or lack of interest in TV. You already get 2 or 3 adaptors at no charge from Comcast: I assume other providers work about the same. Those that will be primarily affected, in my opinion, will be those not subscribing to the service. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC |
Re: For what reason?said by PaulHikeS2:Those that will be primarily affected, in my opinion, will be those not subscribing to the service.
Undoubtedly anyone not subscribing to the service would be effected. The problem is (in my opinion) that many people who do subscribe to the service will be effected. If the cable companies agreed to give away (for free, for ever) basic boxes to any subscriber requesting them it would be a little more believable that they are only trying to curtail unauthorized use. Ultimately, I think the increased revenue they will see will be more from additional STBs from already-subscribers rather than generating new basic tier customers. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |  jimi419Dadof4
join:2002-03-14
Round Lake, IL |
to PaulHikeS2
you sir are mistaken there are 6 tvs in the house now if we wanted to be able to watch ANYTHING other than 4 channels we MUST have a STB that doesnt even get all of the channels we pay for .you want that option you better shell out 7$/mo/box/tv no reason for that other than a money grab since the STB is most assuredly their cash cow | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Re: For what reason?The topic is limited basic cable encryption: those are channels 2-20 or so in most areas. A $7 cable box is not needed to get those channels...normally it's an adaptor that is free for the first 2 or 3 outlets, then a nominal fee ($2-$3) for additionals.
I agree that regular STB fees are high, but my understanding is that those are never needed for limited basic only subscribers. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
to CXM_Splicer
said by CXM_Splicer:Actually LOTS of people have QAM tuners in:
TVs
Tivos
HTPCs
VCRs
TiVo doesn't officially support clear QAM, even with PSIP data. | |
|
| | | |
3 edits |
to CXM_Splicer
Youre slightly confused. FIOS USED to have analog channels, they turned them off. They still have open QAM channels, that can be accesses with a QAM tuner. The channel selection sucks for a TV that is used every day.
The cable companies can turn off analogs whenever they feel like it as well. They CHOSE to keep it as a perk to retain customers that dont want STB's on all TV's. They TOO have open QAM channels that can be accessed with a TV w/ QAM tuner.
The architecture of the cable system makes it costly for them. Disconnects require a truck roll for a physical disconnect, and filters are required if a customer keeps internet. With FiOS, the video port is disabled remotely, and there are no issues.
If youre not paying for TV, you should have no access to it over the companies network. Its pretty simple. You want free digital TV, you put up an antenna. | |
|
| | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC |
Re: For what reason?Yes, you are right... they gave out the free boxes after the switch away from analog not away from ClearQAM. BUT, I do know that the last time I hooked up a QAM tuner to a FIOS connection I got very few channels. IIRC it was not all the broadcast channels. I disagree with your use of 'should' in your last sentence though  | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Re: For what reason?So you believe if a customer pays for internet access, TV access should be granted. Using that logic, you believe if a customer wants to pay for no access whatsoever, the cable companies should be required to roll a truck and hook them up for free TV. lol. K bro | |
|
| | | | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC |
Re: For what reason?Haha, that's a pretty big leap! I would say that Yes, if a person is already paying for the connection to the system the cable provider can give the broadcast channels for free without going out of business. I don't think they should be profiting from the local broadcast channels at all, but thats another topic. | |
|
| | | | | | | |  RickNY
Premium Member
join:2000-11-02
Bellport, NY |
RickNY
Premium Member
2012-Feb-9 6:08 pm
Re: For what reason?said by CXM_Splicer:I don't think they should be profiting from the local broadcast channels at all, but thats another topic.
Why not? The local broadcast stations are profiting from the cable companies (in other words, the customer) due to the retransmission fees the company has to pay the broadcast networks. And before you bring up "must-carry", please check and see how many broadcast networks are using that mode. Most utilize "retransmission consent" -- its one or the other. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC |
Re: For what reason?Yes, I am aware of the two types of licensing. Please tell everyone how it was before 1992.
The cable companies forced the broadcasters' hands. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
to CXM_Splicer
said by CXM_Splicer: I don't think they should be profiting from the local broadcast channels at all, but thats another topic.
But they are, and there's nothing you can do about it. Local channels ARE their main product. | |
|
| | | | | | |
to ITALIAN926
ok what is so bad about being able to buy a cable box and then pay no outlet or mirroring fees?
In canada the cables give you the choice or renting or buying the box. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Re: For what reason?said by Joe12345678:ok what is so bad about being able to buy a cable box and then pay no outlet or mirroring fees?
In canada the cables give you the choice or renting or buying the box.
It doesn't work that way in the US. You cannot buy boxes from the cable companies. You can buy an opencable device with a CableCARD such as a TiVo or media center PC which you purchase at retail. This is what I do. | |
|
| | | | | |
to CXM_Splicer
The main reasons why cable companies will drop analog tv all together here soon are: to free up bandwith to deploy more premium services, bond more channels together for higher speed D3 deployment, reduce truck rolls, reduce cable theft, eliminate ingress on their plant and to generally move forward with technology. Most of the people here are the reason why premiums increase every year - trying to get things for cheap, buying adapters, splitters and cheap WalMart cables, installing Tivos, stealing cable, removing traps, trying everything in the world to get around having to pay for a service but calling for a truck roll and putting it back on the cable provider when your services stop working properly. Gee, it couldn't be that mountain of ingress from the four way splitter YOU installed coming from YOUR antenna now connected to OUR trapped hsd line and now killing yours and your neighbors connections. I see it all day long but not one of you will admit any wrong doing as it's been going on for years. But that's the "it's everyone else but me" and "I deserve it for free" mentality of our nation now. I can't wait for the cable providers to stop digital simulcasting and drop that analog crap - good riddons! | |
|
| | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC |
Re: For what reason?The complaint is not the dropping of analog channels to gain more bandwidth; that is a good thing. Broadcast moved to digital and cable companies certainly should too (although the compressed crap they deliver is garbage compared to broadcast). The complaint is not that I soldered my rg-59 to some twin lead, wrapped it in band-aids and hooked it to my baseband descrambler and can't get any channels.
The complaint is that the 'I deserve it for free' mentality you describe is reflected in and amplified by (dare I say a product of?) today's corporate mentality ' I deserve to profit from it'.
The complaint is that the cable companies are attempting to remove a mandate that was put in place to protect consumers many years ago. They want to lock down the broadcast channels for increased STB rental income. The theft of service argument is a load of crap... the vast majority of people who have Internet only service have satellite TV. For those that don't WHO REALLY CARES if they get the broadcast channels for free from the cable wire they are already connected to instead of an antenna?! If you feel the cable company is losing tons of money to these evil-doers, then they have the option to roll a truck and install a filter. 'But we don't want to roll a truck!!' Stop whining. Downed drop? We don't want to roll a truck, let the customer re-hang it. Bad signal levels? We don't want to roll a truck... have the customer put band-aids. Trucks have to roll!! It's a consequence of being in the cable business. If they are really going to save so much money by not installing filters then here is an idea: Let the people watch the broadcast channels for free. Problem solved! | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Re: For what reason?Actually, to solve the problem, they should all adopt FTTP  | |
|
| | | | | | |  nbm
@verizon.net |
nbm
Anon
2012-Feb-9 9:27 am
Re: For what reason?Me thinks Boxee would be pretty thrilled for an open IP standard. They publicly said they want AllVid. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: For what reason?said by nbm :Me thinks Boxee would be pretty thrilled for an open IP standard. They publicly said they want AllVid.
AllVid would be great but right now it's a pipe dream at best. All they need to do is support the Ceton InfiniTV USB or the HDHomeRun Prime CableCARD tuners instead of trying to sell an overpriced rebadged HVR-950Q. | |
|
| | | | | | | fifty nine |
to CXM_Splicer
said by CXM_Splicer: Broadcast moved to digital and cable companies certainly should too (although the compressed crap they deliver is garbage compared to broadcast). That is false. Most cable companies pass OTA channels as-is. Those that do recompress them are required by the FCC to not have any material degradation of the signal. If they are really going to save so much money by not installing filters then here is an idea: Let the people watch the broadcast channels for free. Problem solved!
Cable companies are paying to carry broadcast channels. Do you give your services away for free? Don't expect the cable companies to either. So in short, not going to happen. If you want free TV you have an alternative - use an antenna. | |
|
| | | | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC |
Re: For what reason?said by fifty nine:Cable companies are paying to carry broadcast channels. Do you give your services away for free? Don't expect the cable companies to either.
...
Right. This kooky idea that cable companies can't profit from something they sell is laughable at best.
And therein lies the problem. The cable companies are RESELLING something that is available for free... talk about kooky ideas! If someone was profiting by selling your material you would want a cut of the profit from that wouldn't you?? (Where are all the pro-copyright people in THIS discussion?) Had the cable companies never charged people for a free service in the first place, they wouldn't be trying to encrypt the broadcast channels now. The cable companies have traps to remove the free channels from their line if thats what they insist on doing. The idea that they need something more is laughable. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: For what reason?Even if you ignore the very small portion of your cable bill (a few dollars) that goes towards retrans consent fees, there are still a lot of costs to be borne by the cable company before the signal gets to you.
Towers, antennas, land, plant maintenance, utilities, taxes, fuel and most importantly salaries for the people the employ are all what you pay for.
Let's use your reasoning:
The water company gets water for free out of the sky, how dare they charge me for something that is free out of the sky!
Like I said, you are free to put up an antenna and get the same channels for free.
Traps? Impractical in many cases, especially in urban environments which is why Cablevision got their waiver. Besides, locks only stop honest people. In some urban areas, people routinely split their neighbors' cable and share with them. Encryption is an easy answer to address all of these issues and keep people honest. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
•••••••••••
|
| | | | | |
| | |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
1 recommendation |
to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd:said by 88615298:said by CXM_Splicer:Are the cable companies now going to claim they are losing billions to TV's with QAM tuners? An FCC petition serves no purpose except requiring subscribers to lease a box for every TV in their house.
And this is different than DirecTv or DishNetwork or FiOS or U-verse how? This point seems to get glossed over, every single time cable wants to encrypt their whole system requiring use of an STB. People crucify cable for requiring an STB yet every cable competitor except for OTA requires an STB on every TV. STBs are cablecos cash cow! | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: For what reason?said by dvd536:STBs are cablecos cash cow!
Seriously? They make more profit from that $10 per month than the $75 per month for expanded basic? I find that hard to believe. | |
|
| | | |
to 88615298
The difference is that you're already paying for cable service.
QAM tuners are (and have been) legal, and most TV's already come with them.
Sniffing 'free' DirecTv/Dish is a grey area - its broadcast to you already - you just have to decode it.
Uverse doesn't have a unencrypted QAM source - you need a box, and to have service regardless. I suspect that's where cable may have its issue. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: For what reason?said by en103:Sniffing 'free' DirecTv/Dish is a grey area - its broadcast to you already - you just have to decode it.
Not gray at all. 100% illegal in the United States. In Canada it became gray because DirecTV is not licensed in Canada. | |
|
| | | |
to 88615298
It's different because FiOS is considered a wireline cable provider and has unencrypted QAM streams for local stations.
This requested change is to get rid of even the requirement that local stations be provided unencrypted.
The providers claim it will reduce prices and probably even claim to increase the number of jobs. | |
|
| | BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT  ·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68
|
to 88615298
FIOS offers Clear QAM, as they are regulated as a cable providers, since for all practical purposes, they are.
U-Verse, DirecTV, DISH, and FIOS are all over-builders, the cable companies are incumbents, and thus have to be held to a higher standard. | |
|
| | |
••••
|
|  tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
1 recommendation |
to CXM_Splicer
The point of encryption is that they can turn OFF basic CATV in households which have HSI only, rather than putting a filter on.
It is theft of cable to use ANY channel you do not pay for, so NO it is not perfectly legal to use unpaid for cable even if is not filtered. | |
|
| |
••••••••••••••• |
| |
| | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC |
Re: For what reason?Thanks for the link  | |
|
|
1 edit |
to CXM_Splicer
When you think about it, the cable companies would probably save money by leaving things as they are. I mean, Comcast, for example... does it really matter if you're paying them $70/mo for HSI or $70/mo for HSI + basic cable (whether you've subscribed to only HSI or to both HSI and basic cable--still $70)? For those customers who might be using this dongle-thingy method (both of 'em), there's no administrative cost to collect taxes to forward to the respective govt. entities, no filters to install/repair, no truck rolls to fix whatever related to TV service... so much less of those worrisome issues that so plague customer service... it's a win-win. The cable companies should be sending Boxee a thank you note with a basket of fruit. | |
|
| | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC |
Re: For what reason?Agreed! Not to mention the expense of the lawyers to draw up the petition and for the techs to change the settings from 'clear' to 'encrypted' for all the broadcast channels.
They really are going through some trouble to change the system; incredible when it seems (or at least some people argue) there is no profit to be gained! | |
|
| |
wkm001
Member
2012-Feb-8 4:42 pm
If...If the channels are converted to digital rather than analog it would technically save them spectrum and they could shove more HD channels in, or decrease the compression on our current HD channels. The Super Bowl looked terrible at my house.
But there is a step between analog and encrypted channels. Clear QAM. They can broadcast the channels digitally but unencrypted. Anyone that owns a tv with an ATSC tuner can watch all the digital channels that aren't encrypted. Such as all the crummy music channels in my area.
All in all I think this request was inevitable. The cable companies want everyone to rent a box from them. | |
|
|
••••••• |
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-Feb-8 4:53 pm
Kinf of pintless articleregulations currently prohibit cable operators from encrypting these channels, most of which are also accessible over the air via antenna
So if they are accessable with an antenna then use that.
Also I'd like to see a link to such regulation. | |
|
|
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• |
| |
Yeah,I can see this being such a BIG threat to cable TV providers--and such a BIG expense, too. I mean, the last time I checked, the "discount" for having basic cable with your HSI account was about the same price as the basic cable** (meaning, it was logical and a "good value" to have both HSI and basic cable). **In fact, the last time I checked [which was quite some while ago], it actually cost less to get HSI + basic cable instead of just HSI (of course, that's without the box rental ahh, there it is... "lost" revenue [why, this little dongle might reduce their profit across their customer base by tens of dollars every year!!!]). | |
|
|
•••••••••• |
 Dominokat"Hi"
Premium Member
join:2002-08-06
Boothbay, ME |
Already in MaineAt least in my area of Maine, served by Time Warner, you can no longer get ANY channels, zip, zero; without either a small adapter you plug in between the cable and TV, or have their STB.
They claim the move is from analog to digital but if you have a digital TV, why do you still need a STB or adapter?
Why buy a nice digital ready TV, if you still have to use a box of some kind?
You have to have one on each TV, and each one costs a buck a month. More if you have a HD STB/DVR
To me it is another "walled garden" approach for grasping more money and limiting customers use of technology. | |
|
|
•••••••••• |
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-Feb-8 6:27 pm
Why the anger? confusion perhaps.Some of you act as if this will affect the majority of people. It won't. For example I have Charter. 75% of Charter's Tv customers have digital cable( and this % has been growing each year ) digital cable requires a box. So these 75% would NOT be affected. if Charter decided to end clear QAM.
Now of the 25% that don't have digital how many have basic only and not expanded basic. This is improtant because in June 2012 cable companies can end analog service and when that is done anything in the expanded basic tier can be encrypted and require a box. These "must offer in the clear" rules apply to BASIC tiers not EXPANDED basic. So those that have EXPANDED basic will need a box. So what is the % that have just plain old basic? 10% at most I would guess.
So of the 10% with plain old basic how mnay have new TVs qith QAM tuners vs od fashioned tube TVs? I'd say at most 50%. why is this important? Because once analog end those with tube TVs will also need a box. So maybe 5% have TVs with QAM tuners and BASIC BASIC service only.
it's these 5% that are suppsoedly going to be "fucked over" if cable gets the waiver to encrypt Clear QAM. And that's 5% of CABLE cutomers. At most 70% have cable so that really 3.5% of all TV housholds. AT MOST.
Considering cable companies will provide FREE DTAs for a couple of years I hardly see this as a money grab. | |
|
|
••••••••••• |
| 88615298 |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-Feb-8 6:51 pm
Please learn the difference between basic and EXPANDED basicThis issue applies to those that have basic ONLY. Very few people have basic only. Expanded basic CAN be encrypted. | |
|
 IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA ·Comcast XFINITY
|
If Cable Theft wasn't an issueOne of the main reasons Comcast is going all digital is cable theft. My neighbor is receiving cable for free because he cancelled his account but Comcast never disconnected him. Yet my triple play costs me about $200 per month. I would report the situation to Comcast but I don't want retaliations or to turn him against me since we have to live in the same building (and I've had some pretty nasty neighbors in the past that we were afraid to call the police on them; this was back in the 80's when I was three years old). Cable theft is a major issue for the cable industry because it makes paying subscribers (like myself) subsidize people who are stealing cable.
I think going all digital will be a good thing as it will discourage cable theft. It also eliminates the need for a truck roll to change video programming as it eliminates filters or "traps" (although return pass filters should be used in areas where HSI theft is an issue). It also eliminates the issue of people tampering with the cable system to receive more channels than they pay for.
It will just be a matter of time before cable thieves start using black boxers or pirate boxes to steal cable. They say you can build a better mouse trap but they'll build a better mouse. | |
|
| | |
bentonsv
Anon
2012-Feb-9 10:02 am
Re: If Cable Theft wasn't an issueSo your saying your neighbor is at fault because Comcast failed to disconnect him? If it was that big of a deal then Comcast would have done their job and terminated the signal.
If one owns a candy store and consistently fails to lock the door at night, then it shouldn't be a surprise when the stock is gone one morning. Not saying its right for people to take what's not theirs but the store owner has a responsibility to protect his stock. | |
|
| | | |
Re: If Cable Theft wasn't an issuesaid by bentonsv :So your saying your neighbor is at fault because Comcast failed to disconnect him? If it was that big of a deal then Comcast would have done their job and terminated the signal.
If one owns a candy store and consistently fails to lock the door at night, then it shouldn't be a surprise when the stock is gone one morning. Not saying its right for people to take what's not theirs but the store owner has a responsibility to protect his stock.
But what you ARE saying is that it's right to steal if you don't use locks. And people are also whining when the store (cable company) wants to put a bigger and more effective lock (encryption). | |
|
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT |
Rekrul
Member
2012-Feb-8 10:35 pm
Cablevision...Strange, when I switched from U-Verse to Optimum Online last year, Cablevision told me that a STB for every TV would be required, or else I wouldn't be able to get anything on those sets, not even the basic channels. No mention was made of "QAM" or anything else, it was simply "You HAVE to have a STB to watch TV."
Were they lying to me, or is Cablevision already encrypting their basic channels? | |
|
| | |
Re: Cablevision...said by Rekrul:Strange, when I switched from U-Verse to Optimum Online last year, Cablevision told me that a STB for every TV would be required, or else I wouldn't be able to get anything on those sets, not even the basic channels. No mention was made of "QAM" or anything else, it was simply "You HAVE to have a STB to watch TV."
Were they lying to me, or is Cablevision already encrypting their basic channels?
Some of Cablevisions areas are 100% digital. I think mostly on Long Island with some area of NJ as well... Last year Cablevision started converting Long Island to all digital. It is only a matter of time before they get around to the other areas. | |
|
| |
cablevision already does this in some areasthe fcc already granted cablevision the right to do this in some areas. | |
|
| |
Boxee half baked qam tunerIf boxee is relying on clear qam then they are selling a half baked solution. This is another half baked solution just like their end run they tried around hulu.
They need to get on board and offer a cablecard tuner.
Unencrypted qam isn't really reliable. Channel numbers change on a whim and theres no method to get the changes updated to the CPE in a timely manner by the cable company. It's barely supported by cable companies. There's no specific requirement for it it either, it's just easier than giving everyone free equipment for all their TVs.
If boxee won't offer a cablecard tuner they should at least allow people to connect one of the USB or Ethernet models on the market today. This would give access to all cable channels that a customer pays for. | |
|
| sparks
join:2001-07-08
Little Rock, AR |
sparks
Member
2012-Feb-9 7:40 am
Re: Boxee half baked qam tunersorry for post this got put in another thread | |
|
 AVDRespice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ |
AVD
Premium Member
2012-Feb-9 12:23 pm
comcastI currently have ZERO SD channels over coax for my comcast service. | |
|
| |
Tek1138
Anon
2012-Feb-9 1:31 pm
Why can't cable be treated like a utility?Why is cable so special that they should dictate how you use the service inside your home? Why doesn't it's responsibility stop at the D-marc like everything else?
Does the phone company get to charge for each phone? Do you have to have a special proprietary spigot for each faucet?
If they want to put a box or filters outside my home to limit what channels I paid for, fine. But, I am sick of having to pay for some ugly, inefficient piece of junk on each TV. Once inside my home I just want to be able to go from the wall to any and all TV's or equipment I have. No encryption, no funny complications. | |
|
| | |
Re: Why can't cable be treated like a utility?You can't use unlimited electricty. Beyond a certain amount of kwh per month I'm sure any utility will shut you off. | |
|
|
|
·
·
