Is it too late to start writing to the FCC?

[tvmaster2]

Hauppauge is obviously quite upset about this....maybe their "right" to do business would be jeopardized?
They have a Facebook page where the volume is being ramped up to write the FCC to keep Clear QAM free.
Here's an example letter from a disgruntled cable customer:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/docume...?id=7021752555

I still don't agree with the wild-west, vote with your guns and wallets theory. Television has become MORE than a commodity. At least for the basic channels, freedom truly needs to stay FREE!

[RoadRunnerTX]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

You have no service contract with the cable company, and as such, can walk away any day you choose to.

Actually, I do have a service contract with the cable company.
It seems like they're trying to transition to the cell phone model. Remember when you could get a cell phone without an initial two-year contract? (not counting the pre-pay-as-you-go phones) Good luck now-a-days.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by RoadRunnerTX

Actually, I do have a service contract with the cable company.
It seems like they're trying to transition to the cell phone model. Remember when you could get a cell phone without an initial two-year contract? (not counting the pre-pay-as-you-go phones) Good luck now-a-days.

You can still get a phone from any carrier with no contract. What you DON'T get is a free/discounted phone in doing so.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by tvmaster2

I still don't agree with the wild-west, vote with your guns and wallets theory. Television has become MORE than a commodity. At least for the basic channels, freedom truly needs to stay FREE!

The basic channels ARE still free, with an antenna on the roof run straight to your TV (assuming it's < 5 years old), or straight to the free converter box you should have picked up when offered.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

You can still get a phone from any carrier with no contract. What you DON'T get is a free/discounted phone in doing so.

You can, but even that depends on the carrier. I wanted to pay full-price for a data card for use with Sprint, and get service without a contract. They wouldn't let me do that. New customers need to sign a contract. I'm pretty sure Verizon and T-mobile let you do that though. I had a hard time getting a clear answer from the AT&T folks, but that might be because in-store sales people don't get a commission unless a contract is involved.

[etimmy07]

[QUOTE=Fuzzy;523399]Its my personal opinion that the FCC should have no jurisdiction over private cable companies. If you don't want the product your cable company is selling, don't buy it. QUOTE]

I agree that our ultimate power as consumers is not to buy the service especially a non-essential service like TV. However, I disagree that video/cable/satellite companies should not be subject to any government regulation. As a condition of granting rights of way to use public lands/poles/airwaves for transmission, I think our gov't has the right to regulate, including carriage requirements, encryption requirements and access requirements. Comcast, DirecTV, AT&T, Verizon, etc. do not have an inherent "right" to sell us video service anymore than we have an inherent "right" to receive it in the manner that we prefer. If those companies feel that the conditions of using public resources to transmit their signals are onerous then they are free to terminate those agreements and stop their service.

My biggest issue with FCC regulation is that it is not applied consistently. I think if Comcast/TW are required to provide an unencrypted signal and cablecards, then so should phone and satellite video providers. Conversely, cable companies shouldn't have to do what other video service providers do not. (I can't believe that I'm arguably defending Comcast)

I use SageTV so obviously I benefit from unencrypted QAM and the analog hole for encrypted signals. My guess is Jeff saw the writing on the wall that these loopholes would eventually close and jumped ship to Google to pursue implemention of a solution based on AllVid concepts.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by etimmy07

I agree that our ultimate power as consumers is not to buy the service especially a non-essential service like TV. However, I disagree that video/cable/satellite companies should not be subject to any government regulation. As a condition of granting rights of way to use public lands/poles/airwaves for transmission, I think our gov't has the right to regulate, including carriage requirements, encryption requirements and access requirements. Comcast, DirecTV, AT&T, Verizon, etc. do not have an inherent "right" to sell us video service anymore than we have an inherent "right" to receive it in the manner that we prefer. If those companies feel that the conditions of using public resources to transmit their signals are onerous then they are free to terminate those agreements and stop their service.

My biggest issue with FCC regulation is that it is not applied consistently. I think if Comcast/TW are required to provide an unencrypted signal and cablecards, then so should phone and satellite video providers. Conversely, cable companies shouldn't have to do what other video service providers do not. (I can't believe that I'm arguably defending Comcast)

I use SageTV so obviously I benefit from unencrypted QAM and the analog hole for encrypted signals. My guess is Jeff saw the writing on the wall that these loopholes would eventually close and jumped ship to Google to pursue implemention of a solution based on AllVid concepts.

The FCC does not provide the right-of-way for cable operators. That is the local government having jurisdiction over the area. I agree, the local governments should be able to provide any requirements to service providers using public right-of-way, but this has nothing to do with the federal government. The FCC DOES have jurisdiction over aerial broadcast, which is why they CAN mandate requirements on sat and broadcast.

[etimmy07]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

The FCC does not provide the right-of-way for cable operators. That is the local government having jurisdiction over the area. I agree, the local governments should be able to provide any requirements to service providers using public right-of-way, but this has nothing to do with the federal government. The FCC DOES have jurisdiction over aerial broadcast, which is why they CAN mandate requirements on sat and broadcast.

You are correct about right-of-ways being a function of negotiations with local governments rather than the FCC. The regulatory framework for cable co's/telephone/sat is complicated but federal authority originates primarily from the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. Congress has chosen to delegate the regulatory authority for cable companies partially to the FCC and partially to local governments using various statutes. To be clear, the FCC DOES have jurisdiction over cable companies in transmission of video signals. The limits of that jurisdiction are tested in the courts but to the extent that the FCC does not have jurisdiction, it is only because Congress has not given it jurisdiction.

I agree with almost everything you have writen except your assertion that cable cos are private companies and the FCC should not regulate. It seems that you agree that local govt's should have the power to regulate based on rights-of-way agreements so I guess my issue is why you appear to have an issue with uniform FCC regulation in certain areas? Putting aside whether the FCC does in fact have the power to regulate, they SHOULD have that power based on our public grant of right of ways and radio spectrum to these companies. Implementing technical access standards like cablecards, encryption, and set top box requirements are best handled by the FCC instead of local governments. Cable co's might not want gov't interference but I guarantee they prefer one set of technical standards by the FCC instead of 1,000 different local standards.

If I lose the ability to record unencrypted QAM, I will need to rethink my setup. Hopefully Google/Sage will have come up with whatever is next by then.

[loomdog32]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

Its my personal opinion that the FCC should have no jurisdiction over private cable companies. If you don't want the product your cable company is selling, don't buy it. You can get TV without a decoder box with any TV made in the last 5 years with just an antenna.

Live in West Texas. I get ONE channel via OTA (technically 2 - KWABDT (digital Midland NBC HD rebroadcast and K10HH analog midland CBS SD rebroadcast - yes, there are still analog channels broadcasting out there), that has an uptime of maybe 60%. Dish and Direct, well, If you only want half of your locals when you have signal due to the wind/weather.

[loomdog32]

Originally Posted by reggie14

You can, but even that depends on the carrier. I wanted to pay full-price for a data card for use with Sprint, and get service without a contract. They wouldn't let me do that. New customers need to sign a contract. I'm pretty sure Verizon and T-mobile let you do that though. I had a hard time getting a clear answer from the AT&T folks, but that might be because in-store sales people don't get a commission unless a contract is involved.

Verizon Requires a contract as well, even if you choose not to get your subsidized hardware and pay full price, on new accounts anyways.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

The FCC does not provide the right-of-way for cable operators. That is the local government having jurisdiction over the area. I agree, the local governments should be able to provide any requirements to service providers using public right-of-way, but this has nothing to do with the federal government. The FCC DOES have jurisdiction over aerial broadcast, which is why they CAN mandate requirements on sat and broadcast.

As a sidenote, I just got off the phone with my county's cable and broadband office. I was filing a complaint about Comcast dragging its feet to cooperate with HBO on the HBO GO Roku application, and I found out that that Comcast needs to renew its franchise agreement with the county next year. So, I asked about what kind of regulations the county could include in the new franchise agreement. According to the person I talked to, there's very little they can do, claiming Comcast successfully lobbied to give most regulatory authority to the FCC.

I was surprised by this, although I probably shouldn't have been. It probably makes sense, given the nature of the cable companies. There are just a few cable companies that control the vast majority of the market. Having different counties/cities in different states each putting their own requirements on cable companies would be a giant mess. You basically could never push something like CableCard or AllVid even if you wanted to, because individual jurisdictions wouldn't be powerful enough on their own.

[OldPCGUY]

I have Comcast and basically they are too expensive ($42 per month with HD only on local channels). But I will be voting with my feet this winter when my cable contract expires.

Even if the FCC regulated Comcast prices lower. They could never match the price for Hulu + at $9.00 per month.

If Google TV or Apple TV ever figure out how to work with the Networks then cable could be in big trouble.

Comcast has 22 million video and 18 million internet customers.

Bottom line is that Inflation has reared its ugly head and we have only seen the beginning of the price increases coming.