There's been an unbelievable amount of internet chatter about the MPAA's petition to the FCC to allow cable companies to turn off the component inputs on cable boxes on certain content. And while we don't think this is a good idea on so many levels, we aren't willing to lie to garner support. But evidently others are, as you see headlines and online petitions with subjects like, don't let the MPAA turn off your home theater. We really aren't that surprised, but the facts are that Hollywood wants to use this to offer new programming and the plan is to not change existing offerings, so for those out there using analog, nothing would change, nothing. So you wouldn't be able to watch these new release movies that you can't watch now, big deal. Many times we give the FCC a hard time for caving to corporate interests -- encrypted basic cable, CableCARD's, tru2way, we could go on -- but in this case if you don't like it, just don't watch the movies. And before you post a comment saying how this is only the beginning and it will lead to the end of the world as we know it, then perhaps you should go back and review our favorite of the logical fallacies: Slippery Slope.

Contrary to popular belief, this economy and the digital transition have actually motivated more people to subscribe to pay TV. You often hear those in the "future is now" camp say that people are looking for ways to save money and so they're looking to free internet TV alternatives and over-the-air TV, but it just isn't true. Our first indication of this was a few weeks ago when Nielsen released a study that showed that about 25 percent of those who relied on antennas for TV, just switched to cable or satellite instead of getting a free converter box; and now the NPD group is reporting that the monthly per-capita spending on entertainment subscriptions is now up to $115 a month. At this point the internet video movement isn't looking that disruptive after all, but with all the technology out there, we just have to believe that something is going to disrupt the existing archaic model.

You had to know that the FCC's investigation into other uses for current broadcast DTV spectrum wouldn't be met warmly by broadcasters, now the NAB has come out and said it needs every bit of frequency available. Apparently up for discussion are its reasons why, as the group is at odds with FCC advisor Blair Levin over whether retrans fees are the only issue or, as NAB VP Jane Mago states, preserving HD for consumers is key. We're sure OTA viewers of channels leaving bandwidth on the table for multicasting, or worse simply unused as we discussed on the podcast would beg to differ, but the one thing that is for sure is the current broadcast TV system won't go quietly into the night, no matter what potential a new paradigm might hold.

There aren't many around that're bigger fans of free over-the-air HD than us, but we're also really big fans of wireless technologies. So when we originally heard that the FCC was considering commandeering broadcast DTV spectrum for wireless broadband we weren't so keen on the idea. But then we saw this Multichannel News story and it really got us thinking about the ramifications of killing free HD as we know it. The fact is that HD via ATSC only works in applications where the antenna is stationary, which means that cable or satellite work just as well, but of course aren't free. Which means that the only real benefit of broadcast DTV is it is free. This makes us wonder, considering only 10 percent of America relies solely on over-the-air TV, is this really the best use of this valuable wireless spectrum? Or would it be better to use it for wireless broadband? Just think, ATSC uses a 15 year old modulation technology and still manages to pump almost 20 Mbps across one channel. If we freed even part of this for wireless broadband, we could have as much throughput as we wanted to our phones and laptops almost anywhere in the country. So we want to know.

What would the FCC have to do in order to make you happy to give up your free HD? Would free basic cable (with HD of course) make it ok? Or maybe some restrictions are wireless broadband that would make it more affordable for consumers? Maybe just reducing the number of channels in each area by restricting their use to actual public benefits (no infomercials etc) would be a good compromise.

Ultimately we believe that DVRs are going to eventually invalidate non-live linear TV as we know it -- and broadcast TV and its affiliate model along with it. In fact this buyout by the FCC might be the perfect exit strategy for them. The question is will it take 5 years or 25? And will the public or corporate America come out better off as a result.

TiVo's Wireless G USB network adapter has been out and about since late 2005, so to say an 802.11n version is past due would be understating things dramatically. At long last, it seems as if high-speed network access is coming to the heralded DVR, with an AN0100 802.11n AP recently splashing down at the FCC. There's no instruction manual or indication of whether this is the device we've been waiting for in order to stream networked media to the TV through one's TiVo, but why else would the outfit bother with tossing out a new dongle with support for higher throughput? We know, we're letting ourselves get a bit too optimistic here -- but c'mon, can you really blame us?

This is a really interesting report of the affects of the digital transition on ratings. Like the fact that "TV stations that transitioned to digital only experienced an 8 percent share decline immediately following the analog shut-off." But even more interesting is this that same number goes up to 13 percent if the broadcaster switched from UHF to VHF because of reception problems -- no wonder some broadcasters are going back to UHF. The other thing that piqued our interest was that cable companies seemed to be the real winners here as 18.2 percent of those facing the decision to buy a converter box, just ordered cable instead -- little do they know that they are just putting off getting a box.

[Via TVB]

We'll come right out and say it, we like Julius Genachowski. Whether you agree with the dude's policies or not, you can't deny he's pursuing them with gusto. Having already noted the insufficient carrying capacity of current mobile broadband airways to deal with incoming 4G connections, the FCC chairman is now reported to be moving ahead with plans to provide greater spectrum allocation for those purposes. Currently in the draft stage, the latest Commission proposals include a plan to reclaim airwaves from digital broadcasters (and pay them appropriately for it), which are to then be sold off to the highest bidder from among the wireless service providers. Executing the most extreme version of this plan could generate around $62 billion in auction revenues, though it would require transitioning digital TV viewers over to cable or subscription services and is therefore unlikely. Jules and his crew are still "looking at everything" and ruling out nothing, but we can probably expect to see a moderate shift of TV spectrum rights over to wireless carriers in the final plans when they're revealed in February.

[Via Phone Scoop]

Unfortunately with the dynamic sound of Dolby Digital sound in HD programming also comes crazy loud commercials. In addition to a few technical reasons, the main way advertisers get around the FCCs commercial volume regulations is by making the entire commercial just as loud as the explosion that killed off your favorite character. Obviously this is ridiculous and Rep. Anna Eshoo of California intends to do something about it by introducing CALM (Commercial Advertising Loudness Mitigation Act) to the House of Representatives. At the same time the folks at ATSC are looking for ways to let broadcasters get it under control, and of course there is Dolby Volume and SRS TruVolume if you want to take matters into your own hands. Personally we wish there was just a hack that would automatically hit the mute button during commercials, and just for the record, we DVR everything and skip commercials for everything except sports.

A brand spanking new filing with the FCC shows a Flip Video-branded RF remote control, produced by Foxconn, which frankly raises more questions than it answers. Looking at its robust size, which is comparable to that of the Flip Ultra Video HD, we can be pretty sure this isn't meant to remotely control anything that's out at the moment. Head honcho Jonathan Kaplan has already expressed a definite interest in expanding the brand, and Cisco's acquisition of Pure Digital was said to be "key" to its strategy of expanding its presence in the "media-enabled home." So, given the parent company's somewhat unsuccessful history of building media hubs, and the simplified control scheme that just screams for an on-screen menu, this may well be the prelude to a new Flip-branded whole-home DVR setup, an idea that Cisco discussed over the summer. Or it could be something entirely different -- we just know it's something. See more pictures after the break.

Here we are about five years after CableCARDs became available and only 443,000 of 'em have been deployed into 3rd party hardware -- you know, like a TiVo HD or a Windows Media Center Digital Cable Tuner. If you think that's a lot, think again, as that is barely 1 percent of the 41.5 million digital cable subscribers in the US. This was according to a report delivered to the FCC by the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and really gives credibility to the CEA's claim that the technology is ineffective at its intended purpose. As consumers we know all too well why the currently implementation of the technology is worthless to the other 99 percent of cable subscribers, which is a combination of the fact that 3rd party CableCARD host devices are not privy to all the same features of the cable company's set-top -- like VOD and PPV -- but also because the cable operators do just about everything possible to talk you out of using them. Regardless of the reasons one thing is for sure, CableCARDs have not fulfilled the requirements set by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and the FCC needs to stop wasting time and get back to the drawing board.

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]

It's about time someone said something and it's no surprise that it was the Consumer Electronics Association who finally did. You see CableCARDs are the solution that the cable industry came up with to comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which stated that consumers should be able to bring their own equipment to the cable party. We of course know that outside of TiVo and a few other CableCARD DVRs like Media Center, no one uses it. Well actually the entire cable industry uses it because the FCC mandated that after July of 2007, that every single newly deployed digital set-top had use a CableCARD instead of the integrated security. This mandate was supposed to encourage the cable industry to support 3rd party CableCARD host devices better, which obviously didn't happen. And so the CEA is doing whatever it can and nudging the FCC with a, "this isn't working, what's next?" What is supposed to be next is tru2way, but we all know how that it is going nowhere, and fast. The CEA says enough is enough, lets bring on downloadable conditional access (DAC) which would replace the whole card thing with a simple download. Of course this alone isn't enough to solve the problem, and until the cable industry agrees to give up complete control of the infrastructure and adopts a two-way standardized protocol like DCR+, no matter what the cable industry does, this entire cycle is just going to start all over again. But hey, it's a start, maybe in another 16 years we'll actually be able to watch HDTV without a set-top-box.

Based on what we're hearing, a slate of soon-to-be-proposed FCC rules may stop the likes of Comcast from discriminating against P2P applications on their networks, and AT&T sure will have a tougher time justifying why it won't let the iPhone's version of SlingPlayer run on 3G while giving WinMo and BlackBerry users all the bandwidth they can handle. Julius Genachowski, the new chairman of the entity, is slated to discuss the new rules on Monday, though he isn't expected to dig too deep into the minutiae. Essentially, the guidelines will "prevent wireless companies from blocking internet applications and prevent them from discriminating (or acting as gatekeepers) [against] web content and services." We know what you're thinking: "Huzzah!" And in general, that's probably the right reaction to have as a consumer, but one has to wonder how network quality for all will be affected if everyone is cut loose to, well, cut loose. Oh, and if this forces telecoms to deploy more cell sites to handle the influx in traffic, you can rest assured that the bill will be passed on to you. Ain't nuthin' free, kids.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

The MPAA can't stop, won't stop trying to cut out that pesky analog loophole, and it has returned to the FCC's gates once again requesting permission for selective output control: the ability to disable consumers unprotected (read: HDCP-less) video outputs at its discretion. According to Ars Technica the new argument is that the Consumer Electronics Association and everyone else who hates this idea are simply holding back technology, which the studios would love to use to provide a glorious utopia of early release films available via video on-demand. The request has been smacked down more than once before, but this is the first time it's come up with the new administration so it's anyone's guess what will happen, but we'd keep those petition signing fingers at the ready, just in case. [Warning: PDF read link]

[Via Ars Technica]

It seems to us that if you live in Ohio are provided service by Massillon Cable TV, you have yourself a pretty good cable company. We don't say that because we just visited or have read great things about the HD offerings though. We say that because the aforementioned operator has called out Moto and Cisco for its apparent duopoly which the claim goes on to say is used to forced cable operators in the US to use overpriced DRM. That all sounds good to us -- although we don't really understand most of it -- but the interesting part is this is the first time we've seen anyone cast any blame on Motorola and Cisco. And to think all this time we've blamed the cable company for trying to provide us with POS, overpriced DVRs.