Analog Cable-TV Customers

[SprDtyF350]

I hope this news means I won't have to use a cable box until 2012 instead of 2009. Don't have any now, don't want them..

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296694,00.html

[matt91]

Would be nice. I don't have a box, and don't want to tinker with one (or more) until I have to, either.

What does this mean, though?

As for the nation's analog cable subscribers, cable operators must [...] supply customers with a "down converter" device that will change digital signals to analog at the TV set.

That sounds like a set top box with an coax output, no? I guess since it's analog, the TV (or TV tuner) can tune to a different channel versus having to have the STB change channels.

[CollinR]

Thats sounds more like "must give them a cable box", which is good the cable company won't want to do that until they have no choice.


A cable STB mearly converts digital content to analog, until cablecard gets fully functional and well distributed anyway. Right now you basically get a box because you either have an analog input or your TV cannot directly decode QAM256. This will change by 2012 for sure.

[sainswor99]

Originally Posted by matt91

I guess since it's analog, the TV (or TV tuner) can tune to a different channel versus having to have the STB change channels.

I wouldn't infer that at all; it sounds like the down-converter IS a set-top-box (which would be the simplest thing to implement). I have digital service to the house to one TV, and I use an STB to convert the digital signal to analog.

The other option (converting digital to analog at the source) sounds great for my SageTV setup, but is probably costly and impractical to implement. Hopefully cablecards will be easier to implement by then.

[SprDtyF350]

I just wish the cable companies would quit playing games.

I presently can receive analog channels 2-99 without a cable box.

So my question is why does the cable company feel the need to encrypt the same channels with the exception of them being digital? What is the difference? They are not premium channels, so why are they encrypted when I use the HVR-1600? The FCC supposedly says they have to provide the networks unencrypted but they seem to have taken it upon themselves to go much further.

I see cable card as being the same as having a box. You should only need to use one if you want premium channels. If all you want, or need is the standard TV fare then it should come unencrypted just like now with analog.

Greed is the only conclusion I can come up with. I can't believe that people would pay to download a TV show that you could have just recorded. As long as people want to pay for EVERYTHING then who is to blame the cable company I guess.

Anyway, I think I must just be getting old and cranky. I do not like having to change (As in use a box) or pay more (As in paying the fee for stupid box) just for the convenience of the cable company.

Why are customers told what they need now instead of customers telling the companies what WE want??? Seems a little backwards to me...

[briands]

Originally Posted by SprDtyF350

So my question is why does the cable company feel the need to encrypt the same channels with the exception of them being digital?

It's not so much about encryption as it is bandwidth... you can pack something like 6 digital channels into the space of one analog... I think these can even be near HD quality. Oh, but don't get excite thinking you'll get more HD. No, they will likely use the extra bandwidth for more revenue generating schemes like PPV and on demand from the head end (what a waste of bandwidth).

[SprDtyF350]

Originally Posted by briands

It's not so much about encryption as it is bandwidth... you can pack something like 6 digital channels into the space of one analog... I think these can even be near HD quality. Oh, but don't get excite thinking you'll get more HD. No, they will likely use the extra bandwidth for more revenue generating schemes like PPV and on demand from the head end (what a waste of bandwidth).

Ok, six times more capacity. But give the customer less. Why does HD cost extra?? I know, they had to buy all that new whiz bang camera stuff.. Did it cost people extra when TV went from Black and white to color? Had to buy new cameras, and the actors had to buy new colorful clothes. Couldn't just paint cars black and white anymore.. What's the difference besides 50 years..

How about cable internet. Why does it cost almost $60.00 for something that was $15.00 ten years ago. Because it goes faster, it must cost more right? They had to buy new equipment. A computer I bought in 1995 cost $1600.00 and one 50 times more powerful costs $400.00 today.. Wait, that just screwed up my equipment buying cost more but really cost less so why did we raise the internet price theory..

Bottom line to me is Greed.. It is also a distrust of paying customers. All this locking down of everything is only hurting paying customers. The thieves will get it no matter what you lock down so why mess with paying customers. Greed.. And I think more so is the fact that people don't even realize they are being screwed, nor do most care..

I am not ancient in age but I do remember when TV was black and white, gas stations had 3 folks run out to your car to wash windows, fill your tank, forget to put the gas cap back on, etc. Businesses used to be around to serve the customer. Now I think they exist just so we can have the privelege of paying them for whatever the inferior service of the day may be..

Everyone just needs to wake up and let (Insert company here) know that they need to give you what you want, and not what they want you to want. And then charge you for it even though you don't want it..

[stevech]

The FCC action may be moot, as between FIOS, U-Verse and satellite TV, the cable TV monopolies will decline sharply in the next 5 years, IMO.

[SHS]

The FCC new action just allow the cable operators to convert the digital signal to an old-style analog signals broadcast transmitting over a cable system which will last until February 2012.
Personal I think a big waste of time to convert the digital signal to analog for transmitting over cable. Personal I think there better off supplying cable customers with a "down converter" device that will change digital signals to analog at the TV set.

SprDtyF350

So my question is why does the cable company feel the need to encrypt the same channels with the exception of them being digital? What is the difference? They are not premium channels, so why are they encrypted when I use the HVR-1600? The FCC supposedly says they have to provide the networks unencrypted but they seem to have taken it upon themselves to go much further.

Are you ref to local area broadcast? if yes rigth now they dont have make them unencrypt becuases there all ready transmitting in analog signals so there for it a premium channels in tell analog signals transmitting get turn off and all cable operators must broadcast lifeline basic channel which are only your local area broadcast channel so package like Expanded Basic are Premium Channel.
The reason why min channel are encrypted is do to the fact that if you only order lifeline basic channel package for $13 per-month they have no way of blocking the digital channel like they can with analog signals with a channel filter.
As you know we have CableCARD but there are limitations to a CableCARD connection one per-tuner and one of biggest fact which is the biggest joke there is you are being control by CableLabs Certification BS and as we know MS as well so us PC user who use 3rdparty or other OS software are SOL so what we need is small a device something like the CableCARD but it can decryption multichannel at same time and pass it on as Clear channel and still allow cable operators to turn off/on channel package or turn off when he or she dosen't take of there monthly bill and so on.

How about cable internet. Why does it cost almost $60.00 for something that was $15.00 ten years ago. Because it goes faster, it must cost more right? They had to buy new equipment. A computer I bought in 1995 cost $1600.00 and one 50 times more powerful costs $400.00 today.. Wait, that just screwed up my equipment buying cost more but really cost less so why did we raise the internet price theory..

As for cable internet depand on how you look at, Speed back was junk and better off with ISDN or sticking to dialup and reason why it was cheap becuase you stilll had to use dailup modem becuases it was only one way cable system back then.
As for buy new equipment and yes it cost far less and there are far more powerful today but keep mind in the old days the waffer disc where far bigger chip so it had far less number chips per disc unlike today due to die size drop which arhive about 40/70x more chip per waffer disc and less waste per waffer disc.

[SprDtyF350]

Originally Posted by SHS

SprDtyF350

Are you ref to local area broadcast? if yes rigth now they dont have make them unencrypt becuases there all ready transmitting in analog signals so there for it a premium channels in tell analog signals transmitting get turn off and all cable operators must broadcast lifeline basic channel which are only your local area broadcast channel so package like Expanded Basic are Premium Channel.
The reason why min channel are encrypted is do to the fact that if you only order lifeline basic channel package for $13 per-month they have no way of blocking the digital channel like they can with analog signals with a channel filter.

there for it a premium channels in tell analog signals transmitting get turn off and all cable operators must broadcast lifeline basic channel which are only your local area broadcast channel so package like Expanded Basic are Premium Channel.
The reason why min channel are encrypted is do to the fact that if you only order lifeline basic channel package for $13 per-month they have no way of blocking the digital channel like they can with analog signals with a channel filter.

I presently receive channels 2-99 with no box. It is the expanded basic package. I want those channels in digital with no box. If the cable company wants to provide a lifeline cable package then supply those people with a box if they cannot block the channels. And yes, someone would surely figure out that bypassing the box gives them more channel. So what.. I pay more, and don't want a box. Why not let the customers have something they want for a change?? I want no box....

As you know we have CableCARD but there are limitations to a CableCARD connection one per-tuner and one of biggest fact which is the biggest joke there is you are being control by CableLabs Certification BS and as we know MS as well so us PC user who use 3rdparty or other OS software are SOL so what we need is small a device something like the CableCARD but it can decryption multichannel at same time and pass it on as Clear channel and still allow cable operators to turn off/on channel package or turn off when he or she dosen't take of there monthly bill and so on.

Cablecard so far is a joke. If the companies do not want to trust there customers it will never come to be. It should be no harder than a cable box. Just because my PC can capture the content should be no reason to believe that the majority of people are going to run out and set up broadcast studios and sell all of it. It is another example of greed, and a company not trusting it's customers.

As for cable internet depand on how you look at, Speed back was junk and better off with ISDN or sticking to dialup and reason why it was cheap becuase you stilll had to use dailup modem becuases it was only one way cable system back then.
As for buy new equipment and yes it cost far less and there are far more powerful today but keep mind in the old days the waffer disc where far bigger chip so it had far less number chips per disc unlike today due to die size drop which arhive about 40/70x more chip per waffer disc and less waste per waffer disc.

It doesn't matter how many chips, or what the die size is as far as getting the internet. Bottom line is that it costs them less nowadays to give you more. But some companies choose to charge ridiculous amounts of money for it. Why can DSL companies charge only $14.95 for broadband, and others charge $60.00? Why does the cable company set there price structure at $43.00 IF you have cable TV and $59.00 if you don't? Basic cable here is $16.00. $43.00 + $16.00=$59.00.. Looks like I am being forced to pay for something I do not want. I would like to be able to get just the internet service without having to pay for basic cable along with it. They call it a discount, I see it as having to buy something I don't want.

I still see it as nothing but greed. And they do it with the understanding that most people are content to take whatever the cable company says they should have.. Reminds me of the bank commercial on TV where the manager has everyone get on the floor so he can rob them.. Then says thanks, I'll see ya next week... Sheep, Lemmings.......

See ya next week.....

[tmiranda]

I still see it as nothing but greed.

I see it as marketing. I'm a big believer in free enterprise which boils down to the producers try to charge as much as possible and the consumers try to pay as little as possible. The end result is consumers get more choices and better prices.

The problem with the cable companies used to be lack of competition. Now with Satellite, FIOS, internet broadcasting and the like we have a lot more competition.

No way I'd like to go back to "the old days".

Tom

[SprDtyF350]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

I see it as marketing. I'm a big believer in free enterprise which boils down to the producers try to charge as much as possible and the consumers try to pay as little as possible. The end result is consumers get more choices and better prices.

The problem with the cable companies used to be lack of competition. Now with Satellite, FIOS, internet broadcasting and the like we have a lot more competition.

No way I'd like to go back to "the old days".

Tom

I guess if I lived somewhere that had all those choices I might see it as competition which could be good. As it stands, not counting satellite, I can get TV and broadband from only 1 place so to me it is more of a monopoly.. I can't count how many times I have wanted to rid myself of the cable company but they are the only game in town for broadband internet. I do also have Directv and don't have a problem with there boxes because I can use the serial port to tune them.

I also believe in free enterprise. Competition is good. Think where computing may have been if Microsoft had competition. I don't have a problem with companies making money. But have you seen how Comcast runs? They have tech reps without a clue, contracted service reps without a clue, etc.. Talk to some of the real tech guys they have, which there are few and let them tell you some stories. If they would clean up there own act and become more efficient they could drop prices and not even notice. I think they have so much income they dont care about being efficient. Don't have to be.. And they don't have to care about the customer when people just keep on paying money.

I think my main complaint is DRM. I do not believe every cable customer is a thief. But the broadcasters, content producers, whatever you want to call them seem to. Having all this new digital stuff but not allowing you to easily use it with a media center is like driving a Ferrari without wheels in my view.
I wouldn't even have a problem with them putting a digital signature in what they send your house. If it were to end up all over the internet they would know which parents to go tell there kids to stop. There has to be a better, less intrusive way to protect what they want to protect. Right now, they are just doing a fantastic job of keeping honest customers inconvenienced.

And lastly, I still think it has a lot to do with greed. I get my VOIP phone from Packet8. I get everything the others provide and it has been reliable. Mine costs $24.99, and the others charge more. Why can the little company do it, but the big cable company can't??

If you are happy with what they provide great.. I know not everyone is ever going to be happy with everything. I just think there has to be a better way...

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by SprDtyF350

I presently receive channels 2-99 with no box. It is the expanded basic package. I want those channels in digital with no box.

In general (unless they're simulcasting), the channels you get 2-99 aren't available in digital. When you do a QAM scan you won't even find those channels. The channels you find with a QAM scan are the additional chanels that you get with the digital lineup.

It's something most people don't realize. When you "switch" to digital cable, nothing in the service provided to your house changes. All the same channels are still being transmitted to your house. What does change is you are give a box (or CableCard) with the ability to decrypt the additional channels you now subscribe to.

The cable box tunes all the standard analog channels as well, but that's just to simplify things, so that everything can be viewed from the box (imagine having to switch between box and TV when going between analog and digital channels).

It doesn't matter how many chips, or what the die size is as far as getting the internet. Bottom line is that it costs them less nowadays to give you more. But some companies choose to charge ridiculous amounts of money for it. Why can DSL companies charge only $14.95 for broadband, and others charge $60.00?

I don't really know the answer to that, but bandwidth isn't free. However consider this:

When broadband (in the form of Cable) came to our town probably 10 years ago, it cost $50/month, and that was for (IIRC) about 1Mbps. Today you can get 10Mbps for $50/month.

Why does the cable company set there price structure at $43.00 IF you have cable TV and $59.00 if you don't? Basic cable here is $16.00. $43.00 + $16.00=$59.00.. Looks like I am being forced to pay for something I do not want. I would like to be able to get just the internet service without having to pay for basic cable along with it. They call it a discount, I see it as having to buy something I don't want.

You are, there's no way they can give you internet without giving you TV also. I bet if you sign up just for internet and plug the line into a TV, you'll get a bunch of the analog channels too.

And while I'm playing devil's advocate...

I guess if I lived somewhere that had all those choices I might see it as competition which could be good. As it stands, not counting satellite, I can get TV and broadband from only 1 place so to me it is more of a monopoly.. I can't count how many times I have wanted to rid myself of the cable company but they are the only game in town for broadband internet. I do also have Directv and don't have a problem with there boxes because I can use the serial port to tune them.

Satellite is worse than cable when it comes to encrypting stuff. On satellite everything is encrypted, you can't view anything without a box, and you have to pay extra for each extra tuner, and (for all intents and purposes) there is no way to record satellite on your PC without a satellite box. So how can cable be worse when they're less restrictive?

For the record, I have Dish Network and Qwest DSL because I really dislike our cable company, mainly due to their service/quality.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by stanger89

You are, there's no way they can give you internet without giving you TV also. I bet if you sign up just for internet and plug the line into a TV, you'll get a bunch of the analog channels too.

Actually, I was an internet only customer for years, then got an analog tuner for my PC. It would not pick up any channels at all. I believe it is done via a filter installed on the distribution box at the power pole on the street. I now subscribe to the extended basic service, but also the HDHR to pick up the local channels in HD. They did nothing in the house, but did have to send an installer out. I think all he really did was remove a filter somewhere.

[FidgetyRat]

I'm just pissed because I don't and likely won't own a HDTV for many years yet. I also dread the day when all TVs require extra STBs. Not to mention the extra cost because you KNOW they won't be free.

[reggie14]

SHS indicated that cable companies can't selectively provide digital channels by using channel filters, and that's why we're going to have to deal with encrypted TV. Is that true? It doesn't seem like it should be any harder to filter digital signals on a cable than analog signals.

[stanger89]

I wouldn't say impossible, but the tricky bit is to filter (like with analog) you need to basically have the "limited" channels grouped together. Then you can lowpass filter the signal and allow only the "basic" package through.

What makes it tricky with digital, isn't that it's digital, but that there are so many more options. There's the HBO package, the SHO package, this package, that package, digital basic, digital extended... There's just so many different packages that it's prohibitively difficult to filter out (or pass) the subscribed combination of channels.

Another complication is that (some companies at least) have digital channels all over the map. One of our local cablecos has digital channels intermixed with analog ones (I'm talking RF channels here, not "virtual channels"). When you scan you get analog, analog, digital, analog, digital, digital... So again, the difficulty of filtering out the right channels is tough.

Another thing, it's way easier, and cheaper for them to flip a switch and remotely authorize your box (or CableCard) for a different set of channels than it is for them to send out a tech to change the filters.

And finally, there's not much (at least at the moment) incentive for them to leave channels in the clear, because probably 99% of their customers don't have digital cable ready (read QAM tuner) TVs/DVRs. Most of the people recording are using the provided DVRs.

Hopefully, as QAM capable TVs and DVRs gain popularity, and as the move to digital progresses, there will be a move to "open up" the basic digital packages, though even then, it will probably be only the most basic channels, common to all packages.

[Menehune]

I have a suspicion that the digital cable landscape in the near future will look like the cable landscape in the 80s. Lots of non-cable ready (non-QAM) TVs/VCRs requiring cable boxes (cable-co specific DVRs) to tune the additional channels.

[gblinckmann]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Hopefully, as QAM capable TVs and DVRs gain popularity, and as the move to digital progresses, there will be a move to "open up" the basic digital packages, though even then, it will probably be only the most basic channels, common to all packages.

I hope that you're right about this. I'd be perfectly happy if I could someday switch from NTSC to QAM sometime in the future when NTSC goes away. I think that there would be a LOT of angry customers if everybody who currently has expanded basic cable were either forced to rent cable boxes or to rent cablecards.

[Shield]

Originally Posted by SprDtyF350

Ok, six times more capacity. But give the customer less. Why does HD cost extra?? I know, they had to buy all that new whiz bang camera stuff.. Did it cost people extra when TV went from Black and white to color? Had to buy new cameras, and the actors had to buy new colorful clothes. Couldn't just paint cars black and white anymore.. What's the difference besides 50 years..

How about cable internet. Why does it cost almost $60.00 for something that was $15.00 ten years ago. Because it goes faster, it must cost more right? They had to buy new equipment. A computer I bought in 1995 cost $1600.00 and one 50 times more powerful costs $400.00 today.. Wait, that just screwed up my equipment buying cost more but really cost less so why did we raise the internet price theory..

Bottom line to me is Greed.. It is also a distrust of paying customers. All this locking down of everything is only hurting paying customers. The thieves will get it no matter what you lock down so why mess with paying customers. Greed.. And I think more so is the fact that people don't even realize they are being screwed, nor do most care..

I am not ancient in age but I do remember when TV was black and white, gas stations had 3 folks run out to your car to wash windows, fill your tank, forget to put the gas cap back on, etc. Businesses used to be around to serve the customer. Now I think they exist just so we can have the privelege of paying them for whatever the inferior service of the day may be..

Everyone just needs to wake up and let (Insert company here) know that they need to give you what you want, and not what they want you to want. And then charge you for it even though you don't want it..

I agree with you about everything except the internet. To get a fraction of the 15MB/2MB I have today I'd have paid a fortune in 1995. No going back to dialup for me! Also, a complete moron like myself can make over 80k nowadays when in the 1950's I'd have to have some blue color job just to pay the bills. Think how less advanced crime fighting and medical technology was, not to mention race relations. The good ol' days weren't always the good 'ol days.