[mythtv-users] FCC will allow encryption of basic cable, offers measures to protect open access

Bert Haskins bhaskins at chartermi.net
Tue Oct 16 18:04:38 UTC 2012


On 10/16/2012 11:56 AM, Michael T. Dean wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 11:00 AM, Ronald Frazier wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Ben Kamen wrote:
>>> http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/15/3506030/fcc-allows-basic-cable-encryption-protects-consumers-open-access 
>>>
>> I saw that on slashdot yesterday. It's pretty much crap in my eyes.
>> The 2 concessions are garbage. A box that is free for only 2 years and
>> then you've got to pay, or a software solution that will only work for
>> certain systems and only if the vendor pays a licensing fee. So their
>> concession is that they get to make more money? That's laughable.
>>
>> And it says smaller providers are exempt from these restrictions. I
>> take that to mean that they are free to encrypt the signals while
>> giving nothing back in return. WTF? How about if you can't meet the
>> full mandate then you don't get permission to encrypt?
>>
>> " NCTA applauds the measure for hastening the industry's transition to
>> an all-digital framework and shielding providers from cable theft."
>> Huh? Hastening the transition to all-digital? Hasn't comcast already
>> done this and encrypted everything but OTA channels? So there's a big
>> problem of "cable theft" where people steal ONLY the free publicly
>> available channels? I'm not quite sure what's being stolen there.
>
> Service.  The "free" channels are only free to receive OTA.  Using the 
> cable service, or its rebroadcasts of the OTA channels, isn't free 
> (not even for people who have Internet-only cable service).
>
> Now, if you go to the trouble of installing your own antenna to 
> receive the OTA channels, you can get them without a subscription 
> charge, but only through your antenna.  And please don't say, "It's 
> the same thing," because if it were, there would be no reason for 
> people to use the cable.  Obviously using the cable service saves a 
> few dollars (possibly a couple hundred dollars on antenna and tower) 
> and some effort--and that cost and effort is the cost of the 
> free-to-receive OTA channels, so you pay the cable company to save 
> that installation cost and effort when you subscribe to cable.
>
>> Eventual fees aside, the "network-connected converter box" does sound
>> kind of interesting. Sounds like a device that would decrypt the
>> encrypted signal and just send an unencrypted IPTV stream within the
>> household. That could be cool, but I'm probably just being naive in
>> assuming that it will truly be THAT open.
>
> The worst part of the change is that as soon as the FCC finally sells 
> off the TV spectrum to the wireless companies and gets rid of OTA TV 
> broadcast, we'll lose our choice to avoid the locked-down cable 
> system.  Until then, I'm going to continue voting with my wallet--I 
> haven't had any pay TV service since 2006, and I've saved a ton of 
> money using OTA only and buying DVDs of the cable-only shows I want to 
> watch.  Unfortunately, I haven't yet convinced 100M of my closest 
> friends to do the same and make the cable TV industry take notice (so 
> far I've only convinced 1).
>
> Mike
And when they manage to do that, watch your cable rates go right through 
the roof!

They will probably follow the cellphone model, handing out "free" 
everything to the "poor" people and just
sticking it to the paying users.




More information about the mythtv-users mailing list