Cablevision asks FCC for a waiver to encrypt all Clear QAM channels
Flying in the face of those who think that cable operators are allowed to encrypt every channel, Cablevision has petitioned the FCC for a waiver to do just that. Evidently it is argued that even the basic tier should encrypted to save money on truck rolls that are currently required to disconnect service. As usual, the FCC is requesting the comment of opposing views, so it's not to late to be heard. But it seems to us that Cablevision is going to have a hard time arguing to protect these channels in the clear, when it's the every same channels you can get for free with an antenna. Add in all the customers who brought home a new TV and just plugged it into the cable and did a channel scan, and you have yourselves a waiver we'd like to see denied. [Thanks, Mike]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
pbjr @ Sep 24th 2009 7:40AM
There goes my MythTV setup with 5 QAM tuners! Damn!!
CiZiN @ Sep 24th 2009 8:02AM
RCN just did this in my area. Every TV needs a box and they charge you $6 for SD and $12 for HD boxes. Absolute crap and it killed my MC boxes until I can move to cablecard. I wonder if they had permission to do so.
Jason @ Sep 24th 2009 8:43AM
RCN did this in my area for a while as well, allowing only the SD locals through, but they've since started passing through HD locals and government/public access channels unencrypted. Everything else is locked down tight, though.
CantankerousInHD @ Sep 24th 2009 9:02AM
I like this creative reworking of logic from Cablevision:
"Cablevision wants the rule lifted as it makes plans to convert its New York City system to all-digital, claiming the move will "have virtually no negative impact on customers"..."
The reality is that it will negatively impact virtually no customers, since very few use clear-qam. (C'mon, you know it's true). Negatively impacting virtually no customers is NOT the same thing as "virtually no negative impact on customers".
The FCC hopefully will stop this. Of particular interest is the locale: New York City. Residents there frequently do not have a reliable means to receive OTA (try it from a basement sometime, and have fun w/ all that multipathing interference in a densely populated area!). Likewise, such residents frequently can't hook up a satellite dish (the FCC rules only say that apartment complexes have to let you put one up if it DOESN'T modify their property in any way and if it DOESN'T use so-called "common areas"). Thus, cable is the only other option. I guess we'll see if all of these regulations mean anything -- if you can just apply for a waiver and get out of them, then I don't see why they bother having them.
Rob @ Sep 24th 2009 9:49AM
This is only for their Bronx and Brooklyn systems, not all systems, and the reason is cable theft.
CantankerousInHD @ Sep 24th 2009 10:22AM
Is theft-of-cable via clear-QAM OTA-simulcast stations really a problem? It just seems so relatively arcane (for the exact reasons that the cable companies state -- few customers use it) that it seems unreasonable to impose such a heavy-handed solution. Besides, over at avsforum, you'll see tons of users complaining about OTA stations not being sent via clear-QAM on their cable systems, all over the place. I kind of doubt that, if successful, this will be an isolated request.
James @ Sep 24th 2009 9:58AM
I'm surprised this didn't come from Comcast.
the highest of Defs @ Sep 24th 2009 1:19PM
Comcast already got their waiver
http://www.multichannel.com/article/328866-FCC_Grants_DTA_Waivers_To_Four_Vendors.php
Makes sense to me, otherwise they have to do a truck roll every time to put traps on basic sub's lines.
People with clear-qam TVs are boned but in reality it's not much fun having to remember that channel 38 is actually channel "98.10" etc..
Satellite customers have been dealing with this for decades. Really, it's time to leave the 1980's behind and step into the DIGITAL future.
Ben @ Sep 24th 2009 1:20PM
the highest of Defs,
That waiver is to use STBs without a CableCARD, that article says nothing about getting a waiver to encrypt the clear QAM version of the locals.
Zingerhill @ Sep 24th 2009 10:12AM
"But it seems to us that Cablevision is going to have a hard time arguing to protect these channels in the clear, when it's the every same channels you can get for free with an antenna."
Alas, in the Bronx (where I live) Cablevision was encrypting all analog channels when analog TV was broadcasting. I don't have high hopes that the waiver will be denied. As far as I know Cablevision is already encrypting basic QAM since I haven't been able to get anything but a channel here or there. Cablevision's tactics in the Bronx are particularly disgusting since many of us cannot get satellite-- there is no alternative. In areas where satellite penetration is stronger (Long Island, Rockland), many of the analog channels remain unencrypted. Cablevision argues that the Bronx and Brooklyn are full of thieves. I don't buy it. In the worst case people would "stealing" channels that you can get over the air free.
KenP @ Sep 24th 2009 10:21AM
If Comcast encrypted QAM locals in my area, the first thing I would do is cancel Comcast, and next put an Antenna on my roof.
Brian @ Sep 24th 2009 5:12PM
Comcast is already/soon doing it in the Seattle area:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2009860393_brier14.html
Their 'free' boxes are junk, too.
keith @ Sep 24th 2009 2:49PM
Brian,
Comcast is encrypting expanded basic, not basic such as local stations.
Evan @ Sep 24th 2009 10:55AM
Wow, if something as minor as this gets your panties in a knot, you'd have a field day over the crap Rogers and Bell ask the CRTC for in Canada:
http://news.google.ca/news/section?pz=1&q=crtc
Ed @ Sep 24th 2009 10:57AM
I'm OK with this if the FCC mandates that Cablevision provides every subscriber with a free CableCard or box.
bigglare @ Sep 24th 2009 11:31AM
Comcast doesn't even have a connect to my house. In albuquerque, Comcast only added CBS and CW in HD to their system 2 years ago. I told the builder not to allow comcast to connect. I happily use an Antenna for all my HDTV needs.
As for the article, a donation to the DNC or Obama's campaign coffers will get their waiver.
kcmurphy88 @ Sep 24th 2009 11:03AM
In fact, the FCC should disallow the disconnects. After all, this is just OTA stuff. Problem solved.
glenn s @ Sep 24th 2009 11:17AM
I don't have Cablevision in my area. I have Comcast. But I feel for you if you have to put up with this crap. At for a day, Cablevision leapfrogs Comcast on the most evil list.
Eric @ Sep 24th 2009 11:20AM
Well, the logic does not hold that it makes no difference because you can get them OTA for free. Because in all likelihood, no home is getting all those channels clearly via an antenna. At least here in hilly San Diego County, there are plenty of natural blocks to good reception with an antenna.
But encrypting them because they don't want to send a technician out? They can turn off a cable connection with the flip of a switch. What's stopping them from doing that?
UnnDunn @ Sep 24th 2009 1:19PM
Actually, they can't turn it off at the flip of a switch unless there's addressable equipment at the customer's home which they can turn off.
Cable signals are like electricity: there's no centralized way to control who gets the electricity; once your house is hooked up to the grid, it will receive electricity. The only way for the utility to cut you off is by installing a switch they control between you and the electric grid, and sending someone out to turn the switch on or off.
Similarly, once your house is hooked up to the cable network, it will receive cable signals. The only way for the cable company to cut you off is by physically installing a signal blocker (a "trap") between you and the cable network, and sending someone out to turn the trap on or off. Once the trap is set, you will no longer receive any sort of cable signal. But since the trap is right outside your house, it doesn't take much for someone to find and remove the trap without the cable company's knowledge.
The alternative is to allow everyone to access the cable signal (ie. remove all the traps) but make it unusable without remotely-controlled equipment from the cable company (eg. a digital cable box and modem.) That's what Cablevision wants to do.
CantankerousInHD @ Sep 24th 2009 1:30PM
@UnnDunn:
Aren't traps usually installed on utility poles, or in the case of apartment complexes, in some centralized (locked) box? That's been my experience, anyway.
But yeah, people jacking with traps is a problem, because they can screw it up pretty bad & take out their neighbor's cable... though I'd think that'd get noticed/reported. It makes sense that they wouldn't want to mess with the hassle of that type of system, but I'm not convinced that stopping clear-QAM cable pirates is a serious problem - if it is, that'd be really interesting, though, because it'd mean a lot more people are using clear-QAM than what many people might've thought.
bfdtv @ Sep 24th 2009 12:54PM
"After all, this is just OTA stuff. "
Keep in mind that local channels are only "free" when received over-the-air. The local channels are not free for Cablevision.
Few affiliates invoke their "must carry" rights, so cable companies must often pay local networks a per-subscriber fee for the right to deliver those channels via cable. Cablevision also paid for the equipment necessary to obtain and deliver those local signals on their system.
CantankerousInHD @ Sep 24th 2009 1:34PM
Yeah, good point -- and in New York, that might be a lot of money. Wasn't there that big fiasco with the Green Bay Fox affiliate wanting a huge chunk of cash to have the cableco carry FoxHD (read: Packers Football)? Still, the regulation has been around for a long time now... I'm lost as to why it shouldn't apply & they shouldn't just use the existing solution (traps).
UnnDunn @ Sep 24th 2009 1:23PM
Personally, I think that instead of encrypting broadcast networks, they should be deploying remotely-addressable cable traps. Is there any reason why they can't deploy solar-powered cable traps that can be addressed and monitored over the cell network?
Yes, yes. I know. Costs.
Gliff @ Sep 25th 2009 9:32AM
well some cable taps are underground, in the 'burbs, so solar power wouldnt work. however cable companies do have power running to their lines for amplifiers and stuff so i think they could use that power. also why would they need to use cell networks they could just use the cable
MI @ Sep 24th 2009 1:40PM
Where do we file to force providers to keep ALL non premium channels in Clear QUAM!?!??
Marty @ Sep 24th 2009 2:15PM
What about people with 2 or 3 CRT TVs that tune in basic channels with the built in TV tuner. Will we need to rent a set top box for each TV?
keith @ Sep 24th 2009 2:56PM
New VCRs have QAM tuners too.
Kingpcgeek @ Sep 24th 2009 4:45PM
Whats a VCR?
Bill @ Sep 24th 2009 5:16PM
in other news, FCC mandate all cable carriers to stop ripping their customer off, without providing the service and value that they really deserve!
number9ine @ Sep 25th 2009 3:12AM
I sent my comments to the FCC and you should too: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/
They're trying to turn my QAM tuners into paperweights, this aggression will not stand man.
Yakuman @ Sep 25th 2009 11:36PM
If I were a Cablevision customer, the DVD recorder I just bought would be useless. My USB TV tuner would be junk as well.
1.) Under this scheme, we would be forced to get a decoder box for every TV, VCR, DVR, DVD recorder, tuner, or other device that gets channels. The law was written to prevent this exact problem.
2.) The availability of ClearQAM makes up for the coming loss of our unscrambled analog channels. Cablevision wants to get rid of both. If they succeed, the rest of the industry may follow.
raaaaaa @ Oct 4th 2009 4:35AM
OH MY GOD I was listening to the podcast & almost crashed!!
I am in the midle of putting together a system in my house and this will kill everything I have purchased!!!!!!!!!!!
how do we complain to the FCC?
Brad @ Nov 1st 2009 12:31PM
They will get the waiver. TWC San Diego already got the waiver and is encrypting local HD OTA stations, requiring the use of a cable box for ANY HD programming.
This is a huge inconvenience for me now, as I HATE cable boxes and have several TVs that were set up to use their built-in clearQAM tuners to watch local HD programming. Now I can't do it. They threw this switch about a month ago.
Combine this with the fact that my single TiVo Series 3 with SDV is so flaky that I literally have to reboot it once a day (or more) or the SDV adapter stops changing the channels. (It was pretty stable, aside from the flaky TWC support for CableCard, prior to the SDV rollout.)
Thanks, FCC, for caving in to the cable providers and not sticking up for the consumer.
Ben @ Nov 1st 2009 12:32PM
Have you filed a complaint with the FCC? How will they know you don't approve if you don't tell them? Email your congressmen too while you're at it. And before you say, "why bother," I'd remind you that I doubt either of them read this and you posted it here.