[mythtv-users] [Slightly OT] comcast moving to settop on Bay Area - goodbye analog

[Brian Wood]

On Sunday 01 February 2009 21:44:31 R. G. Newbury wrote:
> Brad Fuller wrote:
> > http://tinyurl.com/ant2zz
> >
> > At least they are giving settop boxes away... for now.  Who knows if
> > they will add a lease to your bill afterwards.
> >
> > I'm not happy about this since I depend on analog cable and QAM for my
> > feeds.  Didn't I read somewhere on this list that it _could_ be
> > against the law to do this? Something about local free channels... or
> > something...

It's not quite as good as you think. "Must Carry" channels do not include 
those that have opted for payment instead of must-carry status, and might not 
include low-power channels, even if you can receive them with rabbit ears.

>
> American's are lucky that the FCC has mandated that cable systems must
> provide 'must-carry' channels in the clear on the 'Basic' tier. Must
> carry channels are basically those which the customer can receive OTA in
>   that area. But this does not specifically require the cableco to
> provide that signal in HD...they can compress it down and push a lousy
> SD analog signal if they want to.
>
> But it appears that lots of cableco's are pushing the idea that the
> digital conversion changeover *requires them* to switch to digital
> too...and the customer "has to" use an stb. As you say 'who knows....'.

Yeah, my local cable company is telling people that "The FCC is requiring us 
to go all digital", which is not true at all. They are trying to make 
everyone pay for a STB and blame it on the government.

People are so confused about the digital switchover that cable companies can 
exploit that confusion to their advantage. My local company is advertising 
a "low-cost" solution to avoid having to purchase an analog-digital 
converter. Of course their "solution" is to simply purchase cable service.

Their ads also confuse the difference between "digital" and "HD". They are of 
course not synonomous, but to hear the cable company spots you would think 
that they were.

>
> You may want to google for 46 CFR Part 76 and read the legal-ease of the
> regulation. Or search the archive: it's been covered before.

-- 
beww
beww at beww.org