[mythtv-users] Comcast rendering my HDHR useless

[Friedrich Clausen]

Hello,

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Jon Bishop
<jon.the.wise.gdrive at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 8, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Larry K wrote:
>
>> The weird thing is that about a month ago, they put almost
>> EVERYTHING on
>> QAM.  I just happened to rescan and my HDHR was picking up all the
>> stuff
>> that's available over analog, plus all the cool HD stuff like TLC,
>> and even
>> some digital tier stuff like TruTV.
>>
>> I thought they were gonna open all this up as an alternative to
>> analog, but
>> now it doesn't look good.
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Brian Wood <beww at beww.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Larry K wrote:
>>>> Anyone else in VA have Comcast and use an HDHR (or a QAM tuner)?
>>>> Recently, they took away a whole bunch of must-have QAM channels,
>>>> like
>>>> TLCHD, DSCD, HGTVHD, HSTRYHD, and on and on.  It's a pretty lengthy
>>>> list.  Now all that's left is the networks and a few miscellaneous
>>> channels.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if this is somehow related to the removal of analog
>>>> channels in
>>>> February?
>>>
>>> That's what they want you to believe, they screw you and you blame
>>> the
>>> government.
>>>
>>> Sounds like you are now in the same boat as most of the rest of us,
>>> the
>>> only unencrypted QAM channels are the local OTAs and things like
>>> CSPAN
>>> and the various home shopping things.
>>>
>>>
>
> This makes me ponder. Now, for years and years, you've been able to
> hook your TV up to the cable line and tune all the channels you've
> subscribed to. Now, with QAM, you could *theoretically* hook up most
> new HDTV sets to the same cable and get all the digital channels that
> you are subscribed to, except that commie-cast has encrypted all those
> stations, forcing people to pay for a set top box.
>
> It seems to me that this is extortion, and would like to know why the
> FCC doesn't require the cable co's to broadcast in such a way that
> people aren't forced to lease hardware, or provide as many STBs as
> requested at no expense to subscriber. There's no reason for them to
> broadcast encrypted signals except to screw their customers. When
> you're not a subscriber, they disconnect your cable, physically. If
> they don't, that's not the fault of the consumer.
>
> ~Jon

Perhaps, in addition to the STB motivation, the broadcasters are also
being pressured by the large studios into denying the subscriber
unencrypted access to *his* subscription. But that is pure speculation
on my part. Perhaps the FCC should be petitioned to look into this.

Cheers,

Fred.