[mythtv-users] CableCard Chain.

[Nick Rout]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Simon Hobson <linux at thehobsons.co.uk> wrote:
> Chuck Peters wrote:
>
>> I am trying to get a better understanding of why after running mythtv
>> since 1996 and being forced by our local cable company to convert to
>> digital, they will force me to pay for channels I can't watch, and upgrading
>> to their so called "Digital Basic" they will allow me to watch 2 of 48
>> channels.  The lowest tier of this digital transition "Expanded Basic" has
>> 26 channels set so we can't watch them.  We are getting screwed.
>
>
> You forget a couple of key points :
>
> First, and most important, too many people really can't see why this is a
> problem. The same people buy and i<thing> and buy into "St Steve's" claim
> that it's all for their protection and security; same goes for the slightly
> less closed Android platform. The same people who buy DRM infested ebooks,
> and closed DRM infested devices like Kindle.
> Because so many people are prepared to buy these, then the manufacturers
> will sell them in that state. Put simply, the number of people who
> understand the issues is very small - insignificant in fact.
>
> Secondly, this is all about money. Forget any rhetoric about safety and
> security, it's all about money and control. By going digital the cable
> companies can screw you. They can effectively prevent you from doing
> anything but watching what they push to you, when they push it, on a device
> approved by the industry. They really couldn't care less if a handful of
> MythTV users turned round and refused to pay - the other 99.99% of the
> population will pay.
>
> We have (almost) the same situation over here in the UK. Satellite is
> "owned" by Sky who use closed proprietary boxes, use a closed proprietary
> encryption, control the programs transmitted and their position in the EPG -
> in short, they control who sees what and how easy it is to find (don't pay
> enough and you'll be hidden away on the last page of the EPG). But while a
> handful of us know about the limitations and refuse go give a penny to the
> bunch of <expletives removed> scum, many millions do and thing they are
> getting a good deal. Sky really don't care about the handful of us that do
> understand - we don't even make the rounding errors in their subscriber
> base.
> We do have cable in some areas - pretty much the same applies.
>
> Where we do differ from you guys in the US is that we have a healthy FTA
> service. Whatever people say about it, I'm convinced that we have that in a
> large part due to use having a state broadcaster funded by a mandatory TV
> licence fee and who (despite some appearances) do still seem to care both
> about technical standards and program quality. Of course, every now and then
> there's another call for the licence fee to be scrapped - IMO that would be
> giving everything a good shove down the slippery slope to what you guys
> have.
>
>
>
> As to the technical stuff, until the HDMI HDCP security protocol gets broken
> open, then there will be no way whatsoever to have an open source system
> able to work with these encrypted and protected sources. Even then, it will
> be a criminal offence in the US (and over here in the UK now) to use that
> knowledge.
> Presumably if that ever happens, the industry will roll out an "upgrade"
> that makes older kit useless. Only then with the average man in the street
> take notice when thousands of $ (£ over here) of TV kit etc stops working -
> and if it happens, we need to be ready to publicise exactly who is
> responsible and why.

Agree with what you say, but for the same reasons you have already
explained (market dominance etc) the blame will be squarely laid at
the pinko long haired cheating pirates who broke their previous TVs
safety features...