HTNut

JeepJeep

Aren't the cable companies required to change over 3 years after the digital transition or something like that? I don't understand why they can't broadcast digital signals that don't require a converter box?

bicker

@JeepJeep Those agreements that you're referring to apply to Basic Cable service, while the article only is talking about Standard Cable Service.

You can chalk this confusion up to the author of the article just not being a very good writer.

bicker

1) Your local stations (the ones associated with the DMA you live in), and your town's local public access channels, will be provided to you in-the-clear, in some format. For the next few years, that'll probably still be analog. You may also have one or two digital formats available to you (SD and HD) however as long as the cable company is providing one to you unencrypted, they are in compliance... they can encrypt the other two. Operationally, however, most cable companies are presenting both analog and HD in-the-clear now. The exceptions are very few, and even the exceptions may have gone away recently. Note, however, that the very useful SD digital, "ADS", versions of the channel may still be encrypted. (If folks want to talk about ADS, we can do that.)

Any of these most basic services will be broadcast in-the-clear, meaning that you do not need a converter box from Comcast to receive them. You'll, of course, need an analog tuner to receive the channels when broadcast in analog, and a digital (QAM) tuner to receive the channels when broadcast in digital. My QAM tuner in my laptop has no problem tuning in in-the-clear QAM channels from Comcast. It is, though, your own responsibility to know how to do this. Comcast's technical support isn't there to help you hook up and use your own QAM tuners. They're there to help you hook up and use the ones they rent.

2) Anything beyond your local stations and public access channels will likely become digital-only channels, to help make room for new services that customers are demanding.

3) Also, these advanced services may or may not be encrypted. The determining factor seems to be the extent to which cable theft is a problem in your area, and the extent to which the cable company finds that it can save substantial costs by switching to 100% addressable service protection, rather than a mixture of addressable service protection and manually installed and de-installed physical traps.

Once a service is encrypted, you lose the ability to use just any QAM tuner to receive that service. Instead, as per the law, you would have to use a CableCARD-compatible QAM tuner (such as the one in my TiVo S3), and rent a CableCARD from the cable company for a nominal (regulatory-reviewed) fee.

Note that while Comcast and other cable companies are required to leave this open door for subscribers, satellite services currently are exempt from that requirement. This is a reflection of the overriding FCC bias against cable and for satellite services. And the satellite services vigorously prosecute this advantage given to them, going all-digital very early on, and encrypting practically their entire set of services, and not supporting any open-access to their encryption keys forcing their customers to purchase receivers directly from them.

4) One thing that we shouldn't lose sight of, from the article: All of Comcast's competitors have already done this. We have five subscription television services offering service here in Burlington, and Comcast is the only one that still provides cable networks in analog. That will change, here, on October 20. Also, Comcast is the only competitor that doesn't encrypt Expanded Basic. Presumably that will also change soon. Comcast has been the most consumer-friendly supplier when it comes to this issue, something for which the baseless, overriding anti-cable sentiment in this country doesn't give them credit for.

Eureka

You have to use a set top box for satellite delivered TV, because a TV's built in tuner can't interface with a satellite dish like it can with cable.

The cable lobby is far bigger than the satellite lobby and has gained many other advantages for cablecos. For example, our local cox cable system is allowed to provide TV channels from additional DMAs other than the one we are in (Springfield, MO). They provide those locals, plus some locals from Little Rock and Fayetteville, Ark. (e.g. Cox cable system carries 3 ABC affiliates here, but sat. is prohibited from doing same). Satellite may only carry the Springfield DMA, plus "significantly viewed" (OTA) channels from other markets. Since no "significantly viewed" channels are on the very inaccurate FCC list for our county (although there are several), satellite providers are prevented from providing any locals except Springfield, MO.

This gives the cableco a huge advantage.

bicker

That was satellite's choice. QAM could be used by satellite signal providers, but their equipment doesn't support it. And beyond that, nothing prevents satellite from setting up their own separable security scheme, akin to CableCARD, and thereby opening up their networks to television manufacturers and DVR makers. In the end, one day, the FCC bias for satellite will end, and their waiver will be revoked, and they will be required to comply with separable security.

Not from the FCC, not as compared to satellite. That just goes to show that the bias that the FCC shows is not affected by the size of the lobby, but is personal, as many of former Chairman Martin's statements clearly demonstrated.

rstolee

why doesn't Comcast set up a system for all of their customers to turn off channels they never look at to provide additional available space?

JeepJeep

Or have a pay-per-channel service. Would be nice.

bicker

There is technology available that does that automatically. It's called SDV ("switched digital video"). It is very expensive to deploy, and actually ends up getting many consumers upset, when their channels are the ones "turned off" (really: "switched").

bicker

Cable companies are charged per subscriber fees by cable networks, based on the condition that the channel is carried on a specific tier of service. It is not permitted for a cable company to unilaterally decide to start offering service a la carte: And even if they did, they'd still be obligated to pay the per subscriber price for every subscriber who gets any a la carte service, regardless of whether that subscriber subscribes to that specific cable network or not. Indeed, it may even be a flat-out violation for a service provider to offer service a la carte, in the absence of cable networks agreeing to allow their channels to be distributed that way.

In other words, before people even begin to talk about service providers like Comcast providing cable networks a la carte (called "retail" a la carte), it is required that first there be wholesale a la carte available to Comcast.

Many of us believe that once wholesale a la carte exists, 90% of the effect of retail a la carte will be realized. There won't be anything else needed, once wholesale a la carte is reality.

The problem is that consumers are, generally, lazy, disorganized and focused on immediate gratification. They essentially castrate their own ability to, as a group, bring about change. So they'll impotently strike at service providers, when the reality is that what is needed is regulations imposed on the wholesale market, instead.

Some of the more enlightened consumer advocates will make part of the leap, and claim that the service providers should be doing that work. However, that's still utterly unreasonable -- to expect a group of companies, who are prohibited from acting in collusion, to do so, and to do so to advocate for something that holds only the promise of lowering their overall revenues -- offering them no possible promise of any benefit to them whatsoever.