Released: September 23, 2009

MEDIA BUREAU SEEKS COMMENT ON CABLEVISION'S REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF THE PROHIBITION ON ENCRYPTION OF THE BASIC SERVICE TIER

Comment Date: October 22, 2009
Reply Comment Date: November 6, 2009


Cablevision Systems Corporation ("Cablevision") has filed a request pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for waiver of Section 76.630(a) of the Commission's rules with respect to its New York City franchise areas. Section 76.630(a) of the Commission's rules prohibits a cable operator from encrypting the Basic service tier. The Basic service tier contains local broadcast stations and Public, Educational, and Government access channels, and may contain other cable programming.

Cablevision's request describes its plans to convert its New York City franchise areas to an all-digital system, and asserts that grant of the requested waiver "will reduce costs, improve customer service, reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions and have virtually no negative impact on customers." Cablevision argues that its requested waiver is justified by the benefits that will result from its transition, including allowing Cablevision to offer its subscribers an easier and more efficient way to activate and terminate service without appointments, and enhance security of the cable network. Cablevision also maintains that Commission precedent supports grant of the requested waiver.

Cablevision asserts the Commission has found that the purpose of the rule prohibiting encryption of the Basic tier is to limit the additional cost and inconvenience of the equipment that consumers would need to view encrypted analog programming in an otherwise rate-regulated tier. Cablevision emphasizes that if its waiver is granted, and it transitions to an all-digital system with an encrypted Basic tier, the issue of cost and inconvenience for subscribers would be moot because nearly all of its subscribers will have either a digital set-top box or CableCARD-equipped device to view digital programming, and by extension, encrypted programming. All of these devices have some form of conditional access.

Cablevision acknowledges, however, that grant of this waiver will affect subscribers with television sets equipped with digital cable tuners (quadrature amplitude modulation or "QAM" tuners) who subscribe only to broadcast Basic service. Currently, Basic tier subscribers, and some other subscribers who have additional television sets without set top boxes, can rely on the digital cable tuner in their television to receive Basic tier programming without the need to obtain a box. However, if the Basic tier is encrypted, these subscribers would need to buy or rent additional equipment (either a set-top box or a CableCARD)

See also here:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2094A1.doc

Cablevision Looks to Lock Up Basic Video Tier

Cablevision Systems Corp. (NYSE: CVC) wants the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to lift a rule that keeps it from encrypting its basic video tier. If the FCC does so, consumers who use digital TVs with embedded QAM tuners to receive basic channels "in the clear" today would be forced to rent or buy a set-top box capable of displaying the newly encrypted programming....

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=182232&site=cdn&f_src=lightreading_gnews

Initially, this shocked me, but as I read over it a bit more, I understand their perspective a bit better (though I still would rather the FCC say, to them, "Sorry, but we're not going to do what you want.")

Clearly cable theft is becoming a much bigger deal. I do have a hard time believing, though, that theft of limited basic cable is so prevalent to warrant this change. I do understand that they're also trying to avoid physically disconnecting folks who drop service, but there are other good reasons to perform that physical disconnection, other than just asset protection. I think it is okay for them to build the cost of disconnections into the cost of installations. It's a little unfair to new customers to have to pay a price based on service "provided" to departing customers, but I think it's less unfair than encrypting limited basic.

I think they could achieve some of what they're looking for by simply bumping up the penalties for being caught stealing service, if there were ways to better detect and prove theft of service, short of storming into someone's home. :rolleyes:

Reading those statements in the request, it sounds to me like CV is saying that it's too expensive to support their own service, so they'd like to reduce operating costs by potentially inconveniencing their customers. Oh, and if it generates an increased revenue stream through additional equipment rentals, so much the better.

I understand that cable theft is an issue, but seriously, we're talking about channels that are free if you buy a $40 antenna off of Amazon. Further, the rules were crafted to protect the interest of consumers, and not to make life easier for the cable providers. If CV deems it too difficult to play within the rules, they should find another industry to compete in. I'm sure another cable provider would be more than happy to step in and provide service in their areas...

Okay, rant over. We now return you to your scheduled, though possibly encrypted, programming.

They're trying to turn our QAM tuners into paperweights.

If I were a Cablevision customer, the DVD recorder I just bought would be useless. My USB TV tuner would be junk as well.

1.) Under this scheme, we would be forced to get a decoder box for every TV, VCR, DVR, DVD recorder, tuner, or other device that gets channels. The law was written to prevent this exact problem.

2.) The availability of ClearQAM makes up for the coming loss of our unscrambled analog channels. Cablevision wants to get rid of both. If they succeed, the rest of the industry may follow.

Reading those statements in the request, it sounds to me like CV is saying that it's too expensive to support their own service, so they'd like to reduce operating costs by potentially inconveniencing their customers.That sure is a heavily consumeristic way of viewing it. I do agree that they're saying that it is too expensive to effectively keep selfish people from stealing without encrypting. Why is it that don't you see any culpability on the part of thieves? :confused:

I understand that cable theft is an issue, but seriously, we're talking about channels that are free if you buy a $40 antenna off of Amazon.That's something I was wondering about. Maybe multipath is a bigger issue than you and I think.

Further, the rules were crafted to protect the interest of consumers, and not to make life easier for the cable providers.This rule surely was and it is a reflection of society's perspective that this one set of channels, provided by cable television, is indeed a life-essential. And on that basis, alone, I think that the request should be turned down.

However, that and what you said earlier combine to belie the contention that the rule is justified: If everyone in NYC can get good reception of these channels OTA, like you said, then provision via cable is not a life-essential, and therefore the rule is not justified.

They're trying to turn our QAM tuners into paperweights. Well, to be fair, they didn't tell anyone to buy QAM tuners. Putting aside this specific request by Cablevision for a second, and just focusing on the encrypting of what cable and satellite service providers are currently allowed to encrypt, the "fault" for reduced utility of QAM tuners, if there must be fault, rests on CE manufacturers and others who played up what the tuners were supposed to offer their purchasers, without the CE manufacturers being in a position to impose that utility. It's a bit like Joe Downthestreet selling his neighbor nicely printed tickets that say, "One Day's Admission to Disney World" without Disney authorizing Joe to do that, or there being a law in place saying that Joe could legitimately do that. However, bringing back in the issue of local over-the-air broadcast channels, the CE manufacturers did have a sound foundation for asserting that QAM tuners would (eventually) be good for that. I think the FCC should factor that into their decision. I actually think that supporting that reasonable assumption on the part of CE manufacturers is enough basis for rejecting Cablevision's game-changing petition.

However, there is still the fact that, in NYC where this petition applies, you could use all those devices you mentioned with an antenna, and probably receive all those same channels.

The availability of ClearQAM makes up for the coming loss of our unscrambled analog channels. Cablevision wants to get rid of both. If they succeed, the rest of the industry may follow.To be clear: The availability of digital local broadcast stations in-the-clear makes up for the coming loss of analog local broadcast stations in-the-clear. Note that some providers have already gone fully all-digital; only the legacy service providers have committed to providing analog until 2012.

There is no relationship here with regard to digital cable networks. There, some providers (such as DirecTV) have always encrypted everything, and some providers (those that use Motorola, Cisco, Thompson and Pace equipment) seem poised to do so, without this petition on the part of Cablevision having any bearing (on the encryption of cable networks) whatsoever.

I understand that cable theft is an issue, but seriously, we're talking about channels that are free if you buy a $40 antenna off of Amazon.

I know what you mean, but that isn't true in all areas. I live in a rural paart of south central Indiana. Due to the topography (read that as LARGE hills and valleys) many people are unable to receive many of the stations offered on out local cable company's basic tier. Our "locals" come out of Indianapolis, which is about 50 miles north from the center of our county. Even with a good rooftop antenna, many people in this area (remember the hills, now) would be without most of the stations.

That sure is a heavily consumeristic way of viewing it. I do agree that they're saying that it is too expensive to effectively keep selfish people from stealing without encrypting. Why is it that don't you see any culpability on the part of thieves? :confused:

Whoa - back up. I never said anything to support the idea of stealing. In my view, everyone needs to follow the law. For consumers, that means paying for the services that you receive from a company. And for cable TV providers, it means following the rules laid out by the FCC.

The problem that I have with the argument of this reducing cable theft is that it presumes everyone is out to break the law. That's simply not the case - the vast majority of people are happy to pay a fair price for a quality service, even when there's a free (and illegal) alternative. If that weren't true, iTunes would have been a failure.

Now obviously, in a perfect world, there would be no theft, cable or otherwise. But there are dishonest people in the world, and dealing with them is sometimes the cost of doing business. I'm sure Walmart could adopt a policy of frisking all its customers before they leave the store, in the name of preventing shoplifting, but from a business perspective, the bad PR far outweighs any monetary gains that could come of it. Cable operators would do well to remember that they don't just provide services to homes, but to the people who live in those homes.

Will this practice reduce cable theft? Probably. Will it eliminate theft? No. The people who really want to steal cable will always find a way to do it. Will some customers be completely unaffected by this policy? Sure. Will this practice alienate some of the honest customers who want to use the service that they pay for in a legal and fair way? That's the answer all of us here are trying to figure out.

I know what you mean, but that isn't true in all areas. I live in a rural paart of south central Indiana. Due to the topography (read that as LARGE hills and valleys) many people are unable to receive many of the stations offered on out local cable company's basic tier. Our "locals" come out of Indianapolis, which is about 50 miles north from the center of our county. Even with a good rooftop antenna, many people in this area (remember the hills, now) would be without most of the stations.

I wasn't trying to minimize the importance that the broadcast basic tier provides to many consumers - I'm just trying to keep things in perspective. Just because water is practically free to most Americans doesn't mean the rest of the world has it so easy, and it also doesn't mean we should all help ourselves to a case of Poland Spring without paying for it. All goods and services come at a cost somewhere.

Frankly, I think that the FCC should adopt rules that ensure the free public airwaves are available to more of the public for free. But until that happens, I'm glad that service providers offer the broadcast tier as a low cost alternative. But I don't think we need to encrypt those channels to ensure that the alternative remains in play.

There's also the issue of the fact that FIOS and Satellite aren't beholden to that same FCC rule as they can't offer any level of service without a decoder (though I don't know that that's completely true with FIOS :confused:). From cable's perspective there's two ways to look at that: on the one hand they might say why should we (cable co's) surrender valuable bandwidth because of an FCC rule that our competitors aren't required to follow, or they can be the one company that allows their customers to have that cheap-o cable ready set in the workshop or laundry room and get a few channels without a box. I don't know how much revenue that last perspective would realistically generate though.

Will this practice alienate some of the honest customers who want to use the service that they pay for in a legal and fair way? That's the answer all of us here are trying to figure out.

The question is will it alienate enough customers. A cable company would rather not have a substantial chunk of its customer base cancel because of the added restrictions and equipment, which leads me to believe they've done a cost benefit analysis on this. Maybe they've found that most customers will just roll with the new paradigm and those who leave are acceptable losses that don't outweigh the benefit.

As much as people like to bash cablecos, they wouldn't have been in business this long if they were as dumb as people try to make them out to be. And as bicker1 pointed out, satellite, FiOS and some other services already have restrictions, and the price difference isn't THAT much for a comparable level of service.

Well, to be fair, they didn't tell anyone to buy QAM tuners.

Part of the cost of being a protected monopoly is providing a bare-bones lineup of unscrambled local stations. From the 1980s until now, we used cable-ready TVs. I still use them. As analog goes away, ClearQAM is the necessary replacement.

If everyone in NYC can get good reception of these channels OTA, like you said, then provision via cable is not a life-essential, and therefore the rule is not justified.

Cablevision's subscribers are mostly outside the five boroughs, so they are not likely to get great reception. Most of the NYC TV broadcasting infrastructure was wiped out by 9/11 and the replacement is, by necessity, not as good.

To be clear: The availability of digital local broadcast stations in-the-clear makes up for the coming loss of analog local broadcast stations in-the-clear.

Right. What Cablevision wants to do is scramble local stations, requiring a STB at all levels of service, rendering DVRs, USB tuners, and other devices ineffective. Whether the cable feed is digital or analog is a moot point. Besides, people who steal cable are after premium services and PPV, not locals.

BTW: At my house, I gave up on the cable company box because a.) it wouldn't respond properly to the DVR's IR blaster and b.) it gave me a "please wait" error message on channels that came in fine with the QAM tuner. Why should I deal with the hassles?

...it also doesn't mean we should all help ourselves to a case of Poland Spring without paying for it. All goods and services come at a cost somewhere.

You still have to pay for cable service, even with a QAM tuner. Cablevision is confusing the issue with the talk of service theft. The company is hinting that people who buy their own Tivos or other DVRs instead of renting their unit is a pirate.

There's also the issue of the fact that FIOS and Satellite aren't beholden to that same FCC rule as they can't offer any level of service without a decoder...

Cable TV is special. It primarily exists to distribute local signals as a community antenna TV service. That's why operators gets eminent domain power to wire most residences for service. As a protected monopoly they have to serve everyone. DirecTV and Dish don't have the same mandate, but they don't have access to all those easements allowing all those miles of wire, either.

The problem that I have with the argument of this reducing cable theft is that it presumes everyone is out to break the law.That is not true. It's just, again, a heavily consumeristic way of viewing it. To test that, suggest a way of satisfying the same objectives, without any added costs whatsoever. You can't. And that means that this is simply the most cost-effective way of achieving the defensible objectives.

Airlines check IDs. Is that a presumption that everyone is a terrorist, or trying to travel using tickets that they stole?

Stores have magnetic sensors in products and make you walk through a magnetic field when you leave the store. Is that a presumption that everyone is a shop-lifter?

Of course not. However, in some cases, the best way of protecting assets is to check everyone.

If that weren't true, iTunes would have been a failure.First, iTunes started out with everything locked down, so yes, they assumed that everyone was out to break the law. Second, iTunes may be a success for Apple, but online music distribution is a failure for the music business. Their inability to get the public to accept digital content with DRM has led to a situation where sales are much lower than they used to be. In business, that's called failure. As a consumer, we may like it, but that's a personal preference, not an objective measurement of whether it was good for the business.

Cable operators would do well to remember that they don't just provide services to homes, but to the people who live in those homes.Don't think for a minute that they ever forget that. Only consumerist myopia would suggest otherwise.

Will this practice reduce cable theft? Probably.That is all that is needed to justify it. I still prefer that the FCC reject it, for the reasons I outlined earlier.

That's the answer all of us here are trying to figure out.Why bother? There are only two important questions. The first I asked earlier: Is there another way to achieve the same objective at the same cost? I think one of the reasons why there is so much squirming away from answering that question is that it is obvious that there is no such alternative.

And the second question would be a political question if anyone actually disagreed with the answer: Are we going to continue to impose what is, essentially, an unfunded mandate onto service providers, forcing them to provide a service, often at a loss, and prohibiting them from taking the most cost-effective actions practical to reduce theft? Again, I'm hoping, and I believe everyone in this thread would agree in hoping, that the FCC take the liberal approach to that and say "yes". Limited basic cable has always been considered an essential service, which companies have been obligated to provide, in return for society letting them more leeway with regard to providing more advanced services. I don't want to see that change.

Part of the cost of being a protected monopoly is providing a bare-bones lineup of unscrambled local stations. From the 1980s until now, we used cable-ready TVs. I still use them. As analog goes away, ClearQAM is the necessary replacement.I'm sure you realize by now that I agree with you about that. I'm not sure, however, that you yet acknowledge the legitimacy of the rebuttals to our shared perspective.

Besides, people who steal cable are after premium services and PPV, not locals. Maybe, maybe not, given what you said earlier.

You still have to pay for cable service, even with a QAM tuner. Cablevision is confusing the issue with the talk of service theft.Not at all. Illegally tapping into cable is not very difficult.

That is not true. It's just, again, a heavily consumeristic way of viewing it. To test that, suggest a way of satisfying the same objectives, without any added costs whatsoever. You can't. And that means that this is simply the most cost-effective way of achieving the defensible objectives.

Actually, the most cost-effective way to deal with limited basic cable theft would be to raise the price of limited basic service outside a package, as well as raising the price of installs. The former would ensure that only those customers who have the potential to steal service would pay the penalty, and the latter would ensure that only those requiring service would pay for the truck rolls. I don't know if the cost of limited basic service is regulated, but if it is, CV could ask for a waiver on that instead.

Under the cable cos plan, everyone pays, including the cable co - they need to purchase and support additional cable boxes (of course, that cost is offset by the additional revenue stream generated by increased rentals).

Airlines check IDs. Is that a presumption that everyone is a terrorist, or trying to travel using tickets that they stole?

Are you seriously comparing the security of airports to the security of basic cable service?

Stores have magnetic sensors in products and make you walk through a magnetic field when you leave the store. Is that a presumption that everyone is a shop-lifter?

It's a way that a store protects the goods that it owns. As soon as I pay for the item, the sensor is removed, because it now belongs to me. Likewise, as soon as I pay my cable bill, I'm entitled to use the service in a legal way. No difference.

Of course not. However, in some cases, the best way of protecting assets is to check everyone.

True, but again, the store doesn't check everyone who leaves. Only the people who set off the sensors. In that case, there's a reasonable presumption to check someone.

First, iTunes started out with everything locked down, so yes, they assumed that everyone was out to break the law.

Not true. The content providers assumed everyone was a thief, not the service provider. Apple went to great lengths to try and have the DRM requirement lifted, and eventually that happened. The equivalent scenario here would be NBC and CBS putting pressure on the cable co to lock down the signals. From the information at hand, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Second, iTunes may be a success for Apple, but online music distribution is a failure for the music business. Their inability to get the public to accept digital content with DRM has led to a situation where sales are much lower than they used to be. In business, that's called failure. As a consumer, we may like it, but that's a personal preference, not an objective measurement of whether it was good for the business.

Wait, are you serious here? Because the public didn't think the music industry's plan was the best one possible, the whole endeavor is a failure? I'm not going to resort to name calling over this, as you appear to have done in other parts of your post, but I can't agree with this in the least.

And as far as sales are concerned, the whole point of a free market is that consumers will pay what they deem reasonable for a good or service. People liked 99 cent tracks, and responded, even when they had DRM. If the music industry wants to charge $5 per track, that's their right, but it doesn't mean they'll be successful or profitable.

Don't think for a minute that they ever forget that. Only consumerist myopia would suggest otherwise.

Again with the name calling. Very classy. Thanks.

That is all that is needed to justify it. I still prefer that the FCC reject it, for the reasons I outlined earlier.

I hope it's rejected as well - at least we agree on something. But that fact that this might reduce theft is not all that is needed to justify it for all parties considered. This isn't just about the providers - this is about customers as well. A fair balance needs to be struck, so that the needs of all parties are considered.

Why bother?

Why bother? Because it's our right. Welcome to America.

There are only two important questions. The first I asked earlier: Is there another way to achieve the same objective at the same cost? I think one of the reasons why there is so much squirming away from answering that question is that it is obvious that there is no such alternative.

Already answered above. I'd love to hear other suggestions as well. That's the point of forums like this.

And the second question would be a political question if anyone actually disagreed with the answer: Are we going to continue to impose what is, essentially, an unfunded mandate onto service providers, forcing them to provide a service, often at a loss, and prohibiting them from taking the most cost-effective actions practical to reduce theft? Again, I'm hoping, and I believe everyone in this thread would agree in hoping, that the FCC take the liberal approach to that and say "yes". Limited basic cable has always been considered an essential service, which companies have been obligated to provide, in return for society letting them more leeway with regard to providing more advanced services. I don't want to see that change.

Yes, this should continue. Some services are essential. Is providing 911 service too much of a burden for phone companies? If it was, none would be in business right now. The tradeoff for providing these essential services is the ability to try and succeed and profit by providing additional ones. All cable providers knew this before they entered the market, yet they still chose to do it.

I'm not going to get into more of a back and forth over this, so this will be my last post in this thread. I've made my case, and given my opinions. Some people will agree with me, and some won't. That's fine. Hopefully, this makes people think about the situation, and helps them to come to their own conclusions. That's really the point of all this. In the end, the government and the marketplace will make the final decision.

Actually, the most cost-effective way to deal with limited basic cable theft would be to raise the price of limited basic service outside a package, as well as raising the price of installs.The price of limited basic service is regulated. It is not something which a service provider can raise as you suggest.

The former would ensure that only those customers who have the potential to steal service would pay the penalty, and the latter would ensure that only those requiring service would pay for the truck rolls.Since the point is academic, I won't bother arguing with you about it.

I don't know if the cost of limited basic service is regulated, but if it is, CV could ask for a waiver on that instead.I'm sure that the government officials would favor Cablevision's current request over your suggestion. It serves the people that the regulation of basic cable is intended to serve.

Are you seriously comparing the security of airports to the security of basic cable service?No. Read it again. It wasn't about the security. It was about the connotation of presumption. The connotation of presumption is not unusual.

It's a way that a store protects the goods that it owns.And that's what the cable company is doing.

As soon as I pay for the item, the sensor is removed, because it now belongs to me.With cable, you're not paying for an item. You're subscribing to a service.

Likewise, as soon as I pay my cable bill, I'm entitled to use the service in a legal way. You're entitled to use the service according to the terms of service. If you don't like the terms, do without the service.

No difference.Wrong. Big difference.

True, but again, the store doesn't check everyone who leaves.Yes it does. That's what those white pillars are doing by the exit.

Only the people who set off the sensors.The sensors are electronic sentries, like like encryption and decryption would be like electronic sentries.

In that case, there's a reasonable presumption to check someone.In the Cablevision proposal, there is even less invasiveness. No one is checking up on you. You're not being subjected to any surveillance.

Not true. The content providers assumed everyone was a thief, not the service provider.Good enough to prove my assertion.

The equivalent scenario here would be NBC and CBS putting pressure on the cable co to lock down the signals.Things don't have to conform to your fabricated boundaries of connections to be valid and legitimate.

Wait, are you serious here? Because the public didn't think the music industry's plan was the best one possible, the whole endeavor is a failure?Less sales = failure.

I hope it's rejected as well - at least we agree on something. But that fact that this might reduce theft is not all that is needed to justify it for all parties considered. This isn't just about the providers - this is about customers as well. A fair balance needs to be struck, so that the needs of all parties are considered.And I simply think that you're not being reasonable in your appraisal of the legitimacy of Cablevision's needs. You're valuing our own needs as consumers far more than would be justified by a fair balance.

Already answered above. I'd love to hear other suggestions as well. That's the point of forums like this.I haven't seen any, nor thought of any, which provide even more legitimacy to Cablevision's request.

Yes, this should continue. Some services are essential. Is providing 911 service too much of a burden for phone companies? If it was, none would be in business right now. The tradeoff for providing these essential services is the ability to try and succeed and profit by providing additional ones. All cable providers knew this before they entered the market, yet they still chose to do it.As I said, I agree. However, in return, the society has an unequivocal obligation to take prudent measures to ensure that consumers aren't taking advantage of the lack of encryption. If government cannot provide adequate protection, then government will have to reallocation that trade-off you referred to.

Again with the name calling. Very classy. Thanks.Labeling a perspective "consumerist myopia" isn't name calling. As a matter of fact, saying, "Are you serious?" as you did is much closer to name calling -- it is actually making an assertion about a person, rather than an idea.

The price of limited basic service is regulated. It is not something which a service provider can raise as you suggest.

My lifeline grade service has gone up and up from around $9 to around $18, so it does happen.

Excuse me if I don't want to pay user fees that subsidize shows I don't watch. If you like your sports blackouts and all-night infomercial marathons, fine, but don't treat me like a criminal because I won't subsidize them.


You're entitled to use the service according to the terms of service. If you don't like the terms, do without the service.

It doesn't work like that. The government lets the cable company take an easement onto my property for its wires. Your other examples, like iTunes and D*, don't do that.

Cable TV's TOS is set by various regulators because it is a special situation. These companies exist as protected monopolies to provide community antenna service. Everything else from TBS to PPV wrestling is gravy. By scrambling locals, Cablevision would cease to serve its basic mandate.

Cable TV must serve everybody, including the low-end of the economic scale. Unlike the sat services, it can't just provide six zillion HD channels for the Home Theater crowd. It must provide certain basic services that meet the needs of the entire community.

My lifeline grade service has gone up and up from around $9 to around $18, so it does happen. Those were regulated price increases. No one expects every price to stay the same forever. People have to travel to work, yet the government increases tolls on highways. The same principles apply.

Excuse me if I don't want to pay user fees that subsidize shows I don't watch. You can "want" or "not want" whatever you wish.

If you like your sports blackouts and all-night infomercial marathons, fine, but don't treat me like a criminal because I won't subsidize them.It is only your personal choice to consider such an action as being treated "like a criminal". It is a characterization you make up yourself, perhaps to justify your objections, which are based solely on what you wrote in your previous sentence: That you simply don't want to pay more because other people are thieves. No one does. However, that's part of life. The question here is whether the extent to which we pay more because other people are thieves will increase, to include this scenario.

You're entitled to use the service according to the terms of service. If you don't like the terms, do without the service. It doesn't work like that.Of course it does.

The government lets the cable company take an easement onto my property for its wires.And often exacts a hefty municipal price-tag, such as free service for the town offices and schools. Beyond that, providing service, as a competitor in the sector, is itself something that businesses offer the municipalities they operate in. So they're already contributing three ways; this is a request to reduce that to two.

Cable TV's TOS is set by various regulators because it is a special situation. These companies exist as protected monopolies to provide community antenna service.They are not protected monopolies. They're not monopolies. And no matter how many times people try to spread this misinformation it doesn't make it any less false. And a couple of weeks ago, the US Court of Appeals agreed. They're not protected. They're not monopolies. Try to find some other justification for your arguments.

Those were regulated price increases...,

You said, "the price of limited basic service.... is not something which a service provider can raise. Well, they just about doubled it, while degrading service.

First, they are killing off analog, which breaks every cable-ready TV in the country. And Cablevision wants to kill off unencrypted digital, which breaks the successor to cable-ready service.

[QUOTE]It is only your personal choice to consider such an action as being treated "like a criminal".

The cable industry does it on purpose. Cable salesmen routinely deny that ClearQAM even exists. They will lie to your face and tell you to buy a special package and rent a box to watch locals in HDTV. I don't think these companies see much difference between QAM tuners and piracy, even though the former is legal.

Further, Cablevision doesn't want to kill QAM in order to prevent signal theft.

Cablevision wants an all-digital network in which they can make sure everybody uses their equipment. The problem is that is that it breaks their prime directive of providing community antenna service. They can scramble "basic cable" (TBS, USA, CNN) all they want, but they can't mess with locals.

They are not protected monopolies. They're not monopolies.

Whatever. OK, I'll say "exclusive franchise" instead of "monopoly" and my point stays the same. I know of no other company with the francise to sell community antenna service in Long Island, NY besides Cablevision. Nobody else gets to use that jack in the wall. They don't have to share it, except perhaps if they let another company rebrand their Internet service.

1.) Cable TV is special. It primarily exists to distribute local signals as a community antenna TV service. That's why operators gets eminent domain power to wire most residences for service. As an "exclusive franchise" they have to serve everyone. DirecTV and Dish don't have the same mandate, but they don't have access to all those easements allowing all those miles of wire, either.

2.) Part of the cost of being an exclusive franchise is providing a bare-bones lineup of unscrambled local stations. From the 1980s until now, we used cable-ready TVs. I still use them. As analog goes away, ClearQAM is the necessary replacement.

Well, New Yorkers, all is not lost with this Cablevision mess. FiOS is sending unencrypted locals plus Music Choice in Long Island, which is the heart of Cablevision's territory:

http://www.silicondust.com/hdhomerun/lineup_web/US:11717#lineup_811706

If ClearQAM is the economic sinkhole that Cablevision claims, why is Verizon offering channels?

First, they are killing off analog, which breaks every cable-ready TV in the country. And Cablevision wants to kill off unencrypted digital, which breaks the successor to cable-ready service. Incorrect. The "successor to cable-ready service" is CableCARD.

It is only your personal choice to consider such an action as being treated "like a criminal". The cable industry does it on purpose.Does what?

Cable salesmen routinely deny that ClearQAM even exists.Tell them they're wrong. It is your responsibility to know that they don't know what they're talking about. If you disagree, then get your government to change the regulations.

I don't think these companies see much difference between QAM tuners and piracy, even though the former is legal.They do. You're simply wrong about that.

Further, Cablevision doesn't want to kill QAM in order to prevent signal theft. I see no reason to believe that that is the case.

Cablevision wants an all-digital network in which they can make sure everybody uses their equipment.We subscribers want things that we don't get, and suppliers want things that they don't get. No matter what, folks are going to be able to use their own TiVo's. Again, CableCARD is the "successor to cable-ready service".

Whatever. OK, I'll say "exclusive franchise"And you'd still be wrong. Exclusive franchises are a thing of the past in most areas.

I know of no other company with the francise to sell community antenna service in Long Island, NY besides Cablevision.Which is a testament to just how little incentive subscribers offer to competitors to seek licenses. Don't blame Cablevision for being willing to offer service when other competitors aren't.

You said, "the price of limited basic service.... is not something which a service provider can raise. Well, they just about doubled it, while degrading service.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 deregulated cable pricing. No more local control over that.

[QUOTE=bicker1;17258487]Whatever. OK, I'll say "exclusive franchise" instead of "monopoly" and my point stays the same. I know of no other company with the francise to sell community antenna service in Long Island, NY besides Cablevision. Nobody else gets to use that jack in the wall. They don't have to share it, except perhaps if they let another company rebrand their Internet service.

Well that part isn't correct. In fact, there's never been any such thing as an exclusive franchise. From day one any company has had the option of negotiating with your town to provide cable service. A few towns in NJ do have dual providers. The jack in the wall belongs to you, not the cable company as per the Telecomm dereg act of 1996 that's been mentioned. Now if you, an electrician or another provider fool around with it and ask Cablevision to fix it, they have the right to charge you for the repair, as anyone would.

Further, Cablevision doesn't want to kill QAM in order to prevent signal theft.

Cablevision wants an all-digital network in which they can make sure everybody uses their equipment.

Don't discount theft of service as a motivator as its cost runs well into the millions. I believe, maybe someone knows for certain, that parts of Cablevision's systems in the Bronx and/or Brooklyn are already 100% digital specifically because of theft. There's a lot of sections of those boroughs that have backyard easments and everyone's got a pit bull so disconnects are hard to come by.

Folks... please watch your attributions. I didn't write any of that stuff attributed to me in messages #23 and #25. :)

Incorrect. The "successor to cable-ready service" is CableCARD.

No it isn't. CableCARDs usually must be rented from the cable company. They require authorization and all that. You can't just plug it in. CableCARD is the same thing as a STB, only smaller. In fact, my last STB had a plainly-visible CableCARD-like device inside.

Far, far more devices sold today come with QAM tuners vs, CableCARD slots.

Don't blame Cablevision for being willing to offer service when other competitors aren't

Cablevision is not willing to offer the service. That's my point.

Folks... please watch your attributions. I didn't write any of that stuff attributed to me in messages #23 and #25. :)

Oh shoot, sorry man :o that was sloppy of me.

BTW, as TV manufacturers are attempting to wash their hands of cable cards, Tru 2-Way might be the solution you're looking for. Decrypting equipment and DOCSIS modem built into the set for full service capability, nothing to rent. It's coming so we'll see how it goes.

Well that part isn't correct. In fact, there's never been any such thing as an exclusive franchise.

Almost every area has only one provider offering community antenna service. Regardless of that, my point is about the franchise, not the exclusivity. A cable company's core mandate is local channels.

I believe, maybe someone knows for certain, that parts of Cablevision's systems in the Bronx and/or Brooklyn are already 100% digital specifically because of theft.

QAM signals are already digital. The thief would only be able to steal a relatively paltry package, such as this:
http://www.silicondust.com/hdhomerun/lineup_web/US:10458#lineup_833472

Tru 2-Way might be the solution you're looking for. Decrypting equipment and DOCSIS modem built into the set for full service capability, nothing to rent. It's coming so we'll see how it goes.

How many months until the next upgrade breaks Tru 2-Way, just as SDV broke CableCard? :D

Maybe until they go to Fiber. The Cableco's want to use a different FTTH than FiOS so they can still use DOCSIS and all their legacy gear. They just want an all fiber version of what they have right now. This isn't quite as good but thats fine with them. The next big thing is IPTV for MPEG-4 VOD. That can be upgraded to exsiting tru2way devices with an RTOS and IPG update. CableCards do work with SDV in a leased box or with a TA on certain devices. The Cisco one only works with 2 tuners at a time so if you had a 4 tuner card you'd need 2 of them. The Motorola TA has no such limitation but it only works on Moto networks.

No it isn't.Sorry, but CableCARD absolutely is the successor to cable-ready. You can deny it all you wish, but the FCC is in charge. Read the regulations and you'll see.

Far, far more devices sold today come with QAM tuners vs, CableCARD slots. That's the fault of cheapskate consumers who want to save the cost of the slots. Manufacturers are allowed, by law, to produce displays without the slots. If you don't like that, try to get the law changed.

Cablevision is not willing to offer the service. That's my point.Don't blame Cablevision for having been willing to offer service when other competitors weren't, and don't blame Cablevision for not being willing to offer service anymore, since other competitors aren't.

BTW, as TV manufacturers are attempting to wash their hands of cable cards, Tru 2-Way might be the solution you're looking for.For now, tru2way requires CableCARD, so no one is looking to wash their hands of it. tru2way is perhaps a way that they could make supporting CableCARD more worthwhile, though.

Don't blame Cablevision for having been willing to offer service when other competitors weren't, and don't blame Cablevision for not being willing to offer service anymore, since other competitors aren't.

As I said, a competitor does do it. FiOS offers ClearQAM in Cablevision's territory. Further, Cablevision's core business is community antenna. If they can''t provide it, plenty of other players would love to have the NYC franchise.

As I said, a competitor does do it. FiOS offers ClearQAM in Cablevision's territory.

Verizon can shut the service down at the OTN.

Further, Cablevision's core business is community antenna.

Not true no matter how many times you repeat it.

If they can''t provide it, plenty of other players would love to have the NYC franchise.

Then they should put their money up. No cable franchise is exclusive.

Verizon can shut the service down at the OTN.

Why does that matter? That's still ClearQAM. Nothing stops Cablevision from creating a similar system. If cable companies are going to demand digital-only, there needs to be an equivalent to the traditional unscrambled service available in ClearQAM.

Then they should put their money up. No cable franchise is exclusive.

The point is the franchise itself. The reason they installed those jacks in the wall is because to make community antenna service available.

"Cable TV" is a euphemism for CATV or community antenna television. If it isn't CATV, it isn't cable. This is pretty basic. Scrambled locals is not an antenna service. If Cablevision wants to go that route, it abandons the communities it agreed to serve. Scrambled locals is not an antenna service.

That's still ClearQAM. Nothing stops Cablevision from creating a similar system.



Again, the point is not exclusivity The reason they installed those jacks in the wall were installed is because to make community antenna service available.

Cable TV is a euphemism for CATV or community antenna television. If it isn't CATV, it isn't cable. This is pretty basic. Scrambled locals is not an antenna service.

Cable hasn't been a "community antenna television service" for 25 years or more.

You're a lifeline customer, put up an antenna. :rolleyes:

euphemism? Buy a dictionary.

Cable hasn't been a "community antenna television service" for 25 years or more.

Really? Then why are it still required to provide locals in the clear? Many legal documents still use "Cable" and "CATV" interchangeably. Cablevision's NYC system relies on contracts going back to the early 1970s. I guarantee they must still perform CATV service.

You're a lifeline customer, put up an antenna. :rolleyes:

Antennas only work in certain types of location and dwellings.

You're saying customers don't matter unless they are willing to spend $600+ per year to subsidize channels that they don't watch or find objectionable. Worse, everyone should be willing to dump all their existing equipment because the cable company wants to declare them obsolete.

Good grief, ClearQAM tuners have only been mass-market for a few years. Isn't it a little early to kill them off?

Here's Cablevision's petition:
http://www.multichannel.com/common/jumplink.php?target=http%3A%2F%2Ffjallfoss.fcc.gov%2Fprod%2F ecfs%2Fretrieve.cgi%3Fnative_or_pdf%3Dpdf%26id_document%3D70 20039384

Boffo quotes:

"Today's cable subscribers typically do not have an expectation - or the capability - of receiving digital cable services without a set-top box."

"In an all·digital system, customers must either have digital QAM tuner televisions or cable set·top boxes. All of these devices will have some form of conditional access system, save for those customers who have digital QAM tuner televisions but subscribe only to existing broadcast basic service, if there are any such customers." (emphasis mine)

Hmm. Cablevision's petition applies to only 700,000 households in the Bronx and Brooklyn, not the entire NYC market, oddly enough. Not one of these people owns a QAM tuner?

This may be a local issue; signal theft may be so bad within the NYC city limits that CV considers such drastic measures necessary. That may explain why CV does not seek a waiver for the whole network. That or perhaps CV intends to seek further waivers as it makes more upgrades.

You have no idea what you are talking about. :rolleyes:

There are no legal requirements to even carry local broadcast stations, unless the station chooses to be carried without compensation.

Wasn't "Community Antenna TV" for places that had a type of terrain where the "community" antenna was situated in a high spot (like a hill) and the houses that were situated lower all tapped into that antenna through cable? For areas like the hills of West Virginia or somewhere that individual antennas weren't practical. That's how I've always seen it described.

I've never heard of the MSOs called Community Antenna TV, and I've been with one or another continuously since the early 80s.

There are no legal requirements to even carry local broadcast stations, unless the station chooses to be carried without compensation.

That's a misleading sentence. The MSO must carry the local signal unless the station opts for a retransmission agreement. Either way, locals are almost always going to be carried -- in the clear. Cablevision wants to overturn that "in the clear" part."

I've never heard of the MSOs called Community Antenna TV, and I've been with one or another continuously since the early 80s.

"Community Antenna TV" is a generic name for cable TV. Here's how the FCC uses it:

(CATV) Community Antenna TV: Also known as Cable TV, it uses several TV units connected by cable to a common antenna to serve a community.
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/g-broadbandtoday.doc

Remember the CATV button on cable-ready devices?

The FCC quote is what I've always heard "community antenna TV" as; a specific community clustered around an antenna to receive programming because the terrain doesn't allow for them to have antennas. I've never heard cable (as in huge cable companies like Time Warner Cable) referred to as Community Antenna TV.

That's a misleading sentence. The MSO must carry the local signal unless the station opts for a retransmission agreement. Either way, locals are almost always going to be carried -- in the clear. Cablevision wants to overturn that "in the clear" part."

My statement is true.

"Community Antenna TV" is a generic name for cable TV. Here's how the FCC uses it:


http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/g-broadbandtoday.doc

Remember the CATV button on cable-ready devices?

Generic, as in a 40 year old acronym. Nothing to do with today's business.

The current one is MVPD "Multichannel Video Programming Distribution (Broadcast Cable)"

My statement is true

Your statement is worded to give them impression that "there are no legal requirements to even carry local broadcast stations" except under certain unusual exceptions. Rather, the reverse is true.

In fact. the cable operator is not only required to carry locals, it is required to carry them in the clear, even with a retransmission agreement. If this were not the case, Cablevision would not be seeking a waiver.

You also claim that people who use lifeline service should just "get an antenna." Many cannot do so, for obvious reasons. and this flies in the face of why cable franchises were established in the first place. If the cable operator cannot provide basic service, it should hand over the franchise to someone else.

Generic, as in a 40 year old acronym. Nothing to do with today's business.

Does today's business involve the permanent physical invasion of someone else's private property? It did 40 years ago. It does today.

All those agreements that cover "community antenna television" are still in force, as are the laws and franchise agreements. In Cablevision's case, they date back to 1973. That "community" part is central to why state police power is allowed to force the cable operator onto private property. The Supreme Court acknowledged as such in the landmark Loretto case. (458 U.S. 419)

If the MSO cannot serve the community by performing basic local antenna service, then it has no right to invade others' private property. Cablevision is wandering into dangerous territory by trying to scramble locals in such a fashion. I suspect the company knows this, which is why it limited the waiver request to only part of its territory.

You do realize that broadcast basic did not even exist in most of the country until 1992, right?

You do realize that broadcast basic did not even exist in most of the country until 1992, right?

You do realize that the cable TV model of relaying locals dates back to the 1940s?

Broadcast basic came later. It lumps PEG (Public, Educational & Government Access) channels together with locals. What's your point? How does that give Cablevision the right to scramble locals?

Cablevision made decades of promises that it would provide community antenna service to residents of NYC. Now it wants to use the digital transition as an excuse to break them. I hope the FCC realizes this.

Why does that matter? That's still ClearQAM. Nothing stops Cablevision from creating a similar system. If cable companies are going to demand digital-only, there needs to be an equivalent to the traditional unscrambled service available in ClearQAM.
I assume they can turn off video at the ONT remotely so no truck roll is required which is CV's encryption=green arguement but unless you walk to the local office to pick up the boxes its barely greenier anyway. Removing traps is easy, doing the equivalent to the ONT probably not easy.

I hope that the FCC has someone familiar with current technology review this request - going all digital does Not require encryption and an overpriced STB.

The Comcast DTA (Digital Terminal Adaptor) is a good example. These inexpensive boxes are fine for basic cable (broadcast + provider paid) content. They would be even better if they had composite outputs (say, for music only drops) and a front panel channel display.

The Comcast DTA (Digital Terminal Adaptor) is a good example.

Comcast isn't trying to scramble local channels.

I hope that the FCC has someone familiar with current technology review this request - going all digital does Not require encryption and an overpriced STB.

The Comcast DTA (Digital Terminal Adaptor) is a good example. These inexpensive boxes are fine for basic cable (broadcast + provider paid) content. They would be even better if they had composite outputs (say, for music only drops) and a front panel channel display.

Some DTA's like the ones from Evolution broadband have composite outs. Disney supports DTA's but only ones that support encryption.

Comcast will enable the encryption mode on Nov. 10 and 17 for those living in Portland, Oregon.

http://www.multichannel.com/blog/BIT_RATE/24671-More_Reaction_to_Cablevision_s_Crypto_Ban_Waiver_Request.php

Even though NYC is for the waiver they want a 3 year "sunset period". The City of Yonkers, NY is against it. RCN, BendBroadband and some Puerto Rican Christian group is for this waiver.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/366122-NYC_Yonkers_Weigh_In_On_Cablevision_Encryption_Request.php

I'm against the waiver but I think they could have such a waiver if they keep the limited basic tier in the clear. Also they should deploy cheap 1 way NDS crypto compatible DTA's for those subscribers. They should also deploy 2 to 3 of them for free as part of the package. Any additional DTA's can be provided for a small fee.

I'm against the waiver but I think they could have such a waiver if they keep the limited basic tier in the clear.

Cablevision seeks the waiver specifically because it wants to encrypt the limited basic tier.

I think CV is a bit too greedy in this case. Limited Basic should be kept in the clear as you can get most of these channels OTA.

TWC San Diego is going to reclaim about half a dozen analogs to make room for more HD via SDV. The reclaimed analogs will require a box to view them. TWC is giving away a HD box for 1 year to compensate after 1 year it will go back to normal. Some TWC divisions charge less for digital cable than analog. Though it gets more expensive to rent more boxes. In San Diego it's only $2.00 more and you get an HD box since thats all they carry. TWC won't give you a lower rate since you have less analogs. Hope this helps.