[mythtv-users] Cable Programmers versus the FCC

[Allen Edwards]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Jason Sullivan <jason0x21 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:54 PM, R. G. Newbury <newbury at mandamus.org> wrote:
>> For US (and Canadian) myth users, The Blog of the Legal Times (*BLT*)
>> reports on a scrap between cable channel progam providers and the FCC
>> regarding carriage rules.... which impact what *we* receive over cable.
>>
>> http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2008/09/cable-programme.html
>>
>
> It's going to be intriguing to see how IPTV providers respond to this.
>  If they play this right, it could be a big boon to them.  I'm
> personally hanging out in analog world until TWC forces an upgrade,
> and then canceling my subscription and going OTA if I can't get a
> straight answer from them about encryption (so, essentially, canceling
> my subscription :-) )
>
> I know IPTV providers (like AT&T Uverse) aren't mentioned in the
> article, but does anyone know the FCC's standing on that?  Are they
> completely exempt (like apparently Satellite providers are, for (I
> guess) the sole reason that they simply can't carry local channels)?
>
> --
> Jason Sullivan
> jason0x21 at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users at mythtv.org
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>

The way I read the rules was that the government didn't want to have
to provide more set top boxes to allow people to get their signals.
So, either the cable cos have to keep it analog, in which case no set
top box is required, or the cable company is 100% digital in which
case they obviously have to supply boxes to all their subscribers.  In
either of these cases, the government doesn't have to supply boxes.

But that was just my reading, could be something else.

Allen