FCC Vote to Encrypt Clear QAM - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 16 Old 03-25-2012, 05:57 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
gring40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midwest
Posts: 395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
This is the first I've heard of this, and it would be devastating to me; probably others knew? I found the following discussion on the Silicon Dust forum, along with a link for those who want to send a comment to the FCC.

http://www.silicondust.com/forum/vie...96145779e918ac
gring40 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 16 Old 03-25-2012, 07:09 PM
Senior Member
 
FredT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sonoma, CA
Posts: 271
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by gring40 View Post

This is the first I've heard of this, and it would be devastating to me; probably others knew? I found the following discussion on the Silicon Dust forum, along with a link for those who want to send a comment to the FCC.

http://www.silicondust.com/forum/vie...96145779e918ac

I knew nothing of this. What could the reason for doing this possibly be but the huge lobbying muscle of the cable industry. I don't know what I will do if this happens, but it will never give in to the tyranny of cable boxes.
FredT is offline  
post #3 of 16 Old 03-25-2012, 08:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Phantom Gremlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Tualatin Oregon
Posts: 1,407
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredT View Post

What could the reason for doing this possibly be but the huge lobbying muscle of the cable industry. I don't know what I will do if this happens, but it will never give in to the tyranny of cable boxes.

I think you've answered your (perhaps rhetorical) question yourself. It's called Regulatory Capture. Quoting the first sentence of that URL shows:
Legal scholars have pointed to the possibility that federal agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission had been captured by media conglomerates. If anyone has any other rational explanation, I'd love to hear it.

It could be worse. At least our NRC is better than the clowns in Japan, where decades of corruption led directly to the Fukushima Daiichi catastrophe.
Phantom Gremlin is offline  
post #4 of 16 Old 03-27-2012, 08:35 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
gring40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midwest
Posts: 395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredT View Post

I knew nothing of this. What could the reason for doing this possibly be but the huge lobbying muscle of the cable industry. I don't know what I will do if this happens, but it will never give in to the tyranny of cable boxes.

There are umpteen pages of comments to the FCC which can be seen through the link posted above, with the cablecos on one side and consumers on the other. What we can do now is weigh in, ASAP.

Anyone know when the vote is due?
gring40 is offline  
post #5 of 16 Old 10-15-2012, 11:57 AM
Senior Member
 
SPDICKEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by gring40 View Post


There are umpteen pages of comments to the FCC which can be seen through the link posted above, with the cablecos on one side and consumers on the other. What we can do now is weigh in, ASAP.


Anyone know when the vote is due?

FCC passed it. Kiss your boxless TV goodbye!
Quote:
Bloomberg News
Cable Operators Can Fight Theft by Encrypting Signals, FCC Rules

Cable companies led by Comcast Corp. (CMCSA) won U.S. permission to encrypt their basic service to fight theft and reduce service calls.

The Federal Communications Commission voted 5-0 to allow encryption, the agency said in an order released yesterday. Cable companies already encrypt offerings on more expensive channel packages that feature more programming.


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-12/cable-operators-can-fight-theft-by-encrypting-signals-fcc-rules
SPDICKEY is online now  
post #6 of 16 Old 10-15-2012, 12:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joseph S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Yeah, I saw this too.

I just purchased some new HDHR Duals on sale from Amazon with plan to go back to OTA if my signal strength is adequate.

Currently using cablecard HDHomerun Primes but I can't really justify the almost $100 I'm paying a month for "discounted" cable/phone above the internet cost. I can't even use the phone service I pay for because they gave me a number of a deadbeat who owes everyone money. Wish silicondust supported OTA on the Primes, because I prefer the now discontinued 6CC box of my current units, the tech box is an absurd $2k.
Joseph S is offline  
post #7 of 16 Old 10-15-2012, 12:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
lovekeiiy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 27
the OP's link wasn't working for me. I found this in the ClearQAM section: http://www.silicondust.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13605.

I read some of the FCC ruling. The arguments given were solid especially about the theft. I can see things being faster or more convenient too, especially towards activation and deactivation. I had to laugh where one company said they could lower rates. I just think the FCC was more short sighted on how many people it will effect, especially the lower income and fixed income people.

None of the cable companies have said what they're going to do. I get the "priviledge" of being a Comcast customer. And only the local OTA channels and a couple others such as WGN, SyFy, and Discovery, everything is encrypted. I'm on the limited basic. I don't know if that means they're going to encrypted those channels too. In the SF Bay Area, limited basic is around twenty two dollars a month. I just don't know who wants to steal those channels when an antenna will do the same. Granted, some areas don't get OTA signals strong enough, so I understand.

Personally, I think they'll encrypt all the channels, so people have to have boxes. It's extra money/revenue. I just didn't think they cable companies would pull it off. It's now an probably the motivation I needed to find the cable distrubution box for the house and see how strong the antenna signal is for the whole house and if I do need an antenna amp.
lovekeiiy is offline  
post #8 of 16 Old 10-16-2012, 07:27 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
grubavs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: on the noisy end of the Half Moon Bay, CA Airport
Posts: 3,643
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 15
I can only say that I'm glad my OTA antenna at ~35ft above street level (~250ft above sea level) picks up most of the available channels in the SF Bay Area. On the other hand, I'm guessing that the cable companies' money will buy the loss of OTA, too. The best government money can buy.

If more of us valued food and cheer above hoarded gold, it would be a much merrier world.

grubavs is offline  
post #9 of 16 Old 02-10-2013, 10:18 PM
Member
 
See The Light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 141
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPDICKEY View Post

Quote:
Bloomberg News
Cable Operators Can Fight Theft by Encrypting Signals, FCC Rules

Cable companies led by Comcast Corp. (CMCSA) won U.S. permission to encrypt their basic service to fight theft and reduce service calls.

The Federal Communications Commission voted 5-0 to allow encryption, the agency said in an order released yesterday. Cable companies already encrypt offerings on more expensive channel packages that feature more programming.


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-12/cable-operators-can-fight-theft-by-encrypting-signals-fcc-rules


FCC passed it. Kiss your boxless TV goodbye!

Quoting from the article:

“By permitting cable operators to join their competitors in encrypting the basic service tier, the commission has adopted a sensible, pro-consumer approach that will reduce overall in- home service calls,” Michael Powell, president of the trade group, said in an e-mailed statement. “Encryption of the basic tier also enhances security of the network which reduces service theft that harms honest customers.”

Yeah, Michael Powell, former FCC Chairman..... what a Busniess, our Govt. is !!!

Mr. Powell, Sir, the thing that harms this honest cable customer, is the conspiracy between the content providers and the cable companies of bundling services, to the exclusion of ala-carte options. The trade group you represent is not pro-consumer, although that is all they will ever say they are, or pay to have others, ---I'm talking to you Michael--- say that they are.

Cable Choice is the only choice I want to make !!
See The Light is offline  
post #10 of 16 Old 02-11-2013, 02:22 PM
Member
 
Cliff Davis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
News of this ruling coming out last fall has made my life so much easier.

After I heard about it I installed an attic mounted UHF/VHF antenna, a Motorola booster and ran rg6 to my HDHR tuners.

Signal strength is rock solid, and I don't have to mess with the old habit of near weekly re-tuning of my QAM stations.

As an added bonus - i'm even more of a pain to Time Warner Cable when I call up and tell them to lower my bill or i'm walking!

I just turned in their old cable modem after the price on the motorola SB6141 came back down to earth after a big price spike when Time Warner announced their $4 a month modem fee last year.


I just wish they wouldn't put me through the hoops of having to call in and speak with somebody in customer retention every 3 months. You'd think they would "get it" by now.

Losing the basic tier was a small price to pay - with my HDHR boxes, a robust wireless N network and cat6 where it needs to be...I can throw HD video around to my iPads and record from EyeTV with no trouble.
Cliff Davis is offline  
post #11 of 16 Old 02-12-2013, 09:31 PM
Member
 
See The Light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 141
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Davis View Post

After I heard about it I installed an attic mounted UHF/VHF antenna, a Motorola booster and ran rg6 to my HDHR tuners.

Signal strength is rock solid, and I don't have to mess with the old habit of near weekly re-tuning of my QAM stations.

Losing the basic tier was a small price to pay - with my HDHR boxes, a robust wireless N network and cat6 where it needs to be...I can throw HD video around to my iPads and record from EyeTV with no trouble.

May I ask the model of the Motorola booster you are using?

Cable Choice is the only choice I want to make !!
See The Light is offline  
post #12 of 16 Old 02-13-2013, 06:38 AM
Member
 
Cliff Davis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I run the BDA-S2 Motorola booster with excellent results.

I'd highly recommend it.
Cliff Davis is offline  
post #13 of 16 Old 02-13-2013, 11:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
erickotz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by See The Light View Post

Quoting from the article:

“By permitting cable operators to join their competitors in encrypting the basic service tier, the commission has adopted a sensible, pro-consumer approach that will reduce overall in- home service calls,” Michael Powell, president of the trade group, said in an e-mailed statement. “Encryption of the basic tier also enhances security of the network which reduces service theft that harms honest customers.”

Yeah, Michael Powell, former FCC Chairman..... what a Busniess, our Govt. is !!!

Mr. Powell, Sir, the thing that harms this honest cable customer, is the conspiracy between the content providers and the cable companies of bundling services, to the exclusion of ala-carte options. The trade group you represent is not pro-consumer, although that is all they will ever say they are, or pay to have others, ---I'm talking to you Michael--- say that they are.

I'm actually going to take the unpopular viewpoint on this. Yes, I realize that my company does stand to benefit somewhat from this, but I've seen a lot of people posts on forums that either naively believe it's legal to use the service if it just happens to be active (even without paying for it) and also some that intentionally don't pay because they happen to get it with their Cable Internet service, even though they know that this is illegal. This is a real problem from the standpoint of the cable operators, and I don't see a way to solve it otherwise. Yes, I'd prefer that TVs had to have CableCARD slots or similar to allow boxless viewing. Maybe integrated DTAs? But this isn't just a money grab - this is the most effective way to resolve an actual problem.

Quality Assurance Manager, Ceton Corporation
erickotz is offline  
post #14 of 16 Old 02-13-2013, 08:46 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
grubavs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: on the noisy end of the Half Moon Bay, CA Airport
Posts: 3,643
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by erickotz View Post

I'm actually going to take the unpopular viewpoint on this. Yes, I realize that my company does stand to benefit somewhat from this, but I've seen a lot of people posts on forums that either naively believe it's legal to use the service if it just happens to be active (even without paying for it) and also some that intentionally don't pay because they happen to get it with their Cable Internet service, even though they know that this is illegal. This is a real problem from the standpoint of the cable operators, and I don't see a way to solve it otherwise. Yes, I'd prefer that TVs had to have CableCARD slots or similar to allow boxless viewing. Maybe integrated DTAs? But this isn't just a money grab - this is the most effective way to resolve an actual problem.

An actual problem if you believe that the Basic Tier should be encrypted. No problem at all if you believe that broadcast channels should be HD in the Basic Tier, and that there's a basic level of other channels that should be included in the Basic Tier.

If more of us valued food and cheer above hoarded gold, it would be a much merrier world.

grubavs is offline  
post #15 of 16 Old 02-14-2013, 07:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joseph S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
But this isn't just a money grab - this is the most effective way to resolve an actual problem.
Why is it a problem that people aren't paying for OTA channels?

In essence by providing these channels Cable providers are more likely to get new customers for Cable Internet service by doing such, even though they likely initially provided service due to FCC requirement.

In the past they may have wanted to do this due to costs of equipment to encrypt all but the basic channels, with that equipment in place at this point, they are only doing it to try and extract more money from their Cable Internet customers with multiple televisions not desiring multiple boxes and the hassle of utilizing boxes as opposed to built in tuner.

We are all well aware of the absurd add-ons and roadbloacks that have been created and/or maintained despite inefficiency for the customer: Cable box fee, Cable Card Fee, Remote Fee, Outlet Fee, Digital to Analog Converter Box Fee, DVR Fee, Switched Digital/Tuning adapter fee. Cable modem fee, Cable modem plus Phone adapter fee...

Their response to new technology/conveniences is just as absurd. They either fail to provide staff with the appropriate education or educate them to mislead or deceive the customer: What's firewire/1394? What's HDMI? What's a cable card? What's a TIVO?

Even when the "right person is contacted": We're out of those boxes/devices and we won't have them for x weeks/months.
Joseph S is offline  
post #16 of 16 Old 02-15-2013, 04:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian Hampton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 6,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 63
I have never payed for cable service of any type and never will.

I have lived plenty of places where a coax cable is found that has basic cable just waiting to hook up to a TV.

I bought my first home 10 years ago. There was a huge roof mounted motorized rotate-able antennae with 2 Boosters that picked up nothing. I checked antennae websites and determined I got zero OTA here which is why almost every house has a visible dish mounted outside. I took down the antennae and recycled it.

A cable runs to the house and hooking up used to give basic cable. Currently it gives all locals in HD with perfect clarity. (And several like 3 FOX channels ect.)

The only thing I watch though is NFL. So I have my Samsung HDTV tuner packed up till fall and it will be interesting to see if it's worthless come Sept.

-Brian
Brian Hampton is offline  
Reply HTPC - Mac Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off