[mythtv-users] Cable Programmers versus the FCC

[Jason Sullivan]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Graham Mitchell <gmitch at woodlea.com> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mythtv-users-bounces at mythtv.org
> [mailto:mythtv-users-bounces at mythtv.org] On Behalf Of Jason Sullivan
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 4:57 PM
> To: Discussion about mythtv
> Subject: Re: [mythtv-users] Cable Programmers versus the FCC
>
>
> 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)?
>
>
> I was wondering about Uverse too (having just switched to them). Does the
> 'must carry' provisions apply to them? Do they have to provide boxes with
> firewire output? Must they supply locals unencrypted? My Uverse service
> carries all my locals on both SD and HD.

I'd imagine that it's easier (read "possible") for Uverse to customize
with local channels depending on the region, and it's a desirable
thing, from a sales/marketing aspect (witness all the rigmarole Sat.
TV went though to "provide" local channels).  I don't think they're
required, though, since they're less like a broadcaster than anyone
else providing TV.

Are you using Uverse with MythTV?  How's that working out?

-- 
Jason Sullivan
jason0x21 at gmail.com