[mythtv-users] Cable Programmers versus the FCC

[R. G. Newbury]

Brian Wood wrote:
> David Brodbeck wrote:
>> Brian Wood wrote:
>>> R. G. Newbury 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
>>> Then there is this part:
>>>
>>> "And Kavanaugh noted that boxes to allow analog subscribers to receive
>>> digital signals would ensure that the programmers’ First Amendment
>>> rights were not violated."
>>>
>>> This is not necessarily the case. The boxes I've seen receive ATSC, not
>>> QAM, and would thus be useless on a CATV system.
>> Maybe they mean cable boxes.  Surely your cable company will be happy to 
>> supply you with a box that can accept a QAM signal and display it on 
>> your analog TV -- for a nominal monthly fee, of course, just like they 
>> do now with their "digital tier."
> 
> I assumed he was talking about the boxes for which you can get the $40
> certificates, anything else would make the 1st amendment argument silly,
> as oyu could always pay to receive it somehow.
> 
>> How this plays out on any given system will depend a lot on the 
>> franchise agreement the cable company signed, since those agreements 
>> often require an inexpensive "basic" tier of service.  If you're 
>> concerned about this, consider writing a letter to your city councilman 
>> explaining the issue to him/her.
> 
> Correct, though it used to be the cable companies would bend over
> backwards to avoid offending the franchising authority, now they have
> become so powerful they can pretty much dictate to the cities and towns.
> 
> In my case I was told my a cable company employee that "The FCC is going
> to require you to pay for a digital box", which is wrong in several
> respects, but he was just repeating what he was told.
> 
> Screw the public and blame the government, which is so used to getting
> screwed from that source that they will easily believe it.
> 
> beww

In this case, Kavanagh cannot be referring to the $40 antenna modem 
boxes, as the argument concerns cable channel program providers ONLY. 
CSPAN, Discovery etc, do not transmit OTA.
But of course, the fact that the 2 different boxes could be confused 
would make a nice extra argument for the respondent...

And yup, the last paragraph is unfortunately where we are. I do hope 
Brian, that you at least told the cableco employee that if that was what 
his boss had told him, his boss had told him something wrong...And 
referred him to the Consolidated Federal Regs. ...At least it cannot 
hurt if some employee makes a supervisor actually look at the law or ask 
about the law. (Because then there might be a 'smoking gun' e-mail 
floating around which could, one day, be useful.)

Because I can foresee a doozy class action some day against a Comcast or 
whoever, based upon that sort of false representation about what the law 
"is".

Geoff