[Discuss] Comcast gets rid of the remaining analog channels
Tom Metro
remaining analog channels on their Newton/Needham system (other towns
likely to do likewise). After their "digital conversion" a while back
they continued to transmit the "basic" channels (largely local
broadcast) in analog, but by March 13 will be strictly digital.
If I recall correctly these same channels were the few you could receive
unencrypted with a digital tuner. I'm not sure if that will remain the case.
So if you haven't already wired DTAs up to your DVR with analog tuners,
or upgraded to new CableCARD tuners, you've got about 2 months to upgrade.
-Tom
--
Tom Metro
Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA
"Enterprise solutions through open source."
Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Dis...@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Bill Bogstad
> I received a letter this past week that Comcast is getting rid of the
> remaining analog channels on their Newton/Needham system (other towns
> likely to do likewise). After their "digital conversion" a while back
> they continued to transmit the "basic" channels (largely local
> broadcast) in analog, but by March 13 will be strictly digital.
Haven't seen it in Cambridge yet, but I guess it is coming my way.
> If I recall correctly these same channels were the few you could receive
> unencrypted with a digital tuner. I'm not sure if that will remain the case.
As I understand it, they are required by FCC regulations to transmit
rebroadcasts of over the air channels in the clear. They already
send those channels in both analog and unencrypted digital in
Cambridge. You never can tell what Comcast will do, but I suspect
that they won't add encryption to a signal that I could get for free
with just an antenna and they are supposed to keep in the clear
anyway.
Bill Bogstad
Jerry Feldman
> As I understand it, they are required by FCC regulations to transmit
> rebroadcasts of over the air channels in the clear. They already
> send those channels in both analog and unencrypted digital in
> Cambridge. You never can tell what Comcast will do, but I suspect
> that they won't add encryption to a signal that I could get for free
> with just an antenna and they are supposed to keep in the clear
> anyway.
former analog-only subscribers can get free DTAs.
--
Jerry Feldman <g...@blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id:3BC1EB90
PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66 C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90
Tom Metro
> On 01/14/2012 08:23 PM, Bill Bogstad wrote:
>> As I understand it, they are required by FCC regulations to transmit
>> rebroadcasts of over the air channels in the clear.
>
Yes, the letter reiterated the same deal they provided when the
"extended basic" channels went digital: all subscribers can get up to
two DTAs for free, with no rental fee.
-Tom
--
Tom Metro
Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA
"Enterprise solutions through open source."
Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/
Bill Bogstad
> Jerry Feldman wrote:
>> On 01/14/2012 08:23 PM, Bill Bogstad wrote:
>>> As I understand it, they are required by FCC regulations to transmit
>>> rebroadcasts of over the air channels in the clear.
>>
>> They must provide free equipment to their basic subscribers...
>
> Yes, the letter reiterated the same deal they provided when the
> "extended basic" channels went digital: all subscribers can get up to
> two DTAs for free, with no rental fee.
Just got my "all digital" letter for Cambridge. The cutover date is
April 17th. The details seem similar to Tom's letter except for the
fine print at the very bottom of the page:
"... QAM Tuner TVs will continue to receive Limited Basic channels
2-22, 58, and 95-99 without a digital device. ..."
So they are NOT going to encrypt at least some of the channels. It's
an interesting mix:
1. Downsized SD versions of their retransmission of local over the air channels.
2. Local access (CCTV, city government, public school)
3. SD versions of HSN and QVC (got to have your shopping)
4. SD version of NECN (their captive regional news channel)
5. SD version of NBC Sports channel (their captive sports channel)
I suspect that #1 and #2 are a result of federal regulations and
contractual issues with the city of Cambridge. #3 is probably because
they get paid for the widest possible access by the shopping networks.
#4 and #5 is because they (indirectly) own those channels and every
nickel of advertising revenue derived from them (larger audience ==
higher advertising revenues). Except for the local access channels,
just about all of those also have HD versions which I think I
currently get as clear QAM as well. Not certain if that means they
plan to encrypt some (all?) of the HD versions or just didn't bother
to say anything about it. Never can tell with Comcast. I'll also
note that there are other channels in the "Limited Basic" package
which are currently only sent as clear QAM (and I believe documented
as such at some point). My guess is that won't change.
Another question is what are they going to do with all of that
bandwidth? Every single one of those channels is already being sent
as an SD digital channel right now. So they are going to free up
about 25 analog channels of bandwidth. More on-demand? Higher
bandwidth for the Internet? More obscure cable network channels?
Tom: It looks like you are a month ahead of me on this. Has Comcast
sent you anything implying their plans for the extra bandwidth?
Bill Bogstad
Shirley Márquez Dúlcey
>
> Another question is what are they going to do with all of that
> bandwidth? Every single one of those channels is already being sent
> as an SD digital channel right now. So they are going to free up
> about 25 analog channels of bandwidth. More on-demand? Higher
> bandwidth for the Internet? More obscure cable network channels?
> Tom: It looks like you are a month ahead of me on this. Has Comcast
> sent you anything implying their plans for the extra bandwidth?
You left out one use of the additional bandwidth: moving more channels
to HD.
Jack Coats
If they didn't make more $$$ by doing it, they wouldn't bother.
Technically, freeing up bandwidth for them is a 'good thing' because they
can sell it and make more $$$.
If you happen to get better service, that is a nice side benefit. But then
that means that since you get more 'utility' from them, they can raise
your rates without you whining to some regulatory agency that they
are trying to take all your $$$ (which they are).
Ok, I am a bit overboard. But since companies, especially publicly held ones,
are $$$ driven, the argument is not without some foundation.
The only question is are customers willing to pay the additional $$$ or have
the customers finally hit an inflexible limitation in their customer base. Or
can a competitor now come in and replace their service (the phone company
tries, but isn't there, currently).
Tom Metro
> 1. Downsized SD versions of their retransmission of local over the air channels.
> 2. Local access (CCTV, city government, public school)
>
I just saw an article today relating to this:
FCC proposal would allow the encryption of basic cable programing, Boxee
cries foul
http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/8/2784160/fcc-proposal-basic-cable-encryption-boxee-cries-foul
At issue is the encryption of basic cable channels. In 1994 the FCC
mandated that cable operators transmit their basic tiers of
programming unencrypted in order to increase accessibility. In today's
world of digital television, that comes in the guise of Clear QAM;
...the FCC recently released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which
suggests the mandate be dropped. The change would effectively require
all US customers to own or rent a STB or CableCARD to watch any cable
programming whatsoever.
It is likely a losing battle, but the more stuff we can keep
unencrypted, the better. (I'm sending my comment to the FCC via:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/cable-encryption )
Proponents argue that reinstating encryption would allow cable
operators to control subscriber access remotely, cutting down on
service calls, and providing savings for customers while reducing the
industry's environmental impact.
They conveniently gloss over the option of using addressable taps, which
would solve the same problem, without forcing consumers to put up with
set-top-boxes. Presumably because doing so would be more expensive, and
the lack of a set-top-box means they can't sell you pay-per-view.
> Another question is what are they going to do with all of that
> bandwidth?
>
> Tom: It looks like you are a month ahead of me on this. Has Comcast
> sent you anything implying their plans for the extra bandwidth?
No.
I've read that cable companies make more profit on providing Internet
service than they do from programming, due to the high costs of content,
which would make a case for them offering higher tiers of Internet service.
But that doesn't necessarily mean they'll maximize profits by offering
higher speeds. They probably feel that only a tiny percentage of their
users aren't satisfied with the speeds they currently offer (and those
that do are likely using it to utilize competing video services
(Netflix, etc.)), and there is no real competition pushing them to
higher speeds.
In the end it is likely a mix of things already mentioned, like more HD
channels (clinging to the old model of overpriced channel packages),
higher Internet speeds, and simply cost savings by getting rid of
maintenance overhead for their analog plant.
Jack Coats wrote:
> ...can a competitor now come in and replace their service (the phone
> company tries, but isn't there, currently).
Unlikely. Have you heard about the deal between Verizon and Comcast,
where Verizon has basically given up expanding its FIOS coverage?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203920204577197390303185550.html
For Verizon, wireless is more profitable than building new fiber plants,
so this makes sense for them.
-Tom
--
Tom Metro
Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA
"Enterprise solutions through open source."
Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/
Shirley Márquez Dúlcey
>
> In the end it is likely a mix of things already mentioned, like more HD
> channels (clinging to the old model of overpriced channel packages),
> higher Internet speeds, and simply cost savings by getting rid of
> maintenance overhead for their analog plant.
Dropping analog has a lot of justifications, and I think they're
actually correct to do it. Dropping ClearQAM for basic channels does
not; it's no more difficult to digitally encode without encryption than
with it. I suppose it makes their support problem slightly simpler (no
guiding people through setting up their TV sets) but that's unlikely to
be a big enough deal to matter.
In Comcast's case it would make their problem with Comcast Business
customers harder, as they have a possibly significant class of customers
who currently get no cable boxes at all. Adding basic TV to any Comcast
Business internet package only costs about $5/month for any business
that does not provide viewing for the public (ie, not restaurants, bars,
fitness clubs). That package includes the same channels that they are
currently offering in ClearQAM - local broadcast, public access, and
government. They don't mention shopping channels; I wouldn't be
surprised if those come along for the ride because it would be harder to
block them than to let them through. Reference:
http://business.comcast.com/smb/services/tv/privateviewplans
Jerry Feldman
> Why do they want to do this? ... I consider $$$ to be their driving motive.
> If they didn't make more $$$ by doing it, they wouldn't bother.
>
> Technically, freeing up bandwidth for them is a 'good thing' because they
> can sell it and make more $$$.
>
> If you happen to get better service, that is a nice side benefit. But then
> that means that since you get more 'utility' from them, they can raise
> your rates without you whining to some regulatory agency that they
> are trying to take all your $$$ (which they are).
>
> Ok, I am a bit overboard. But since companies, especially publicly held ones,
> are $$$ driven, the argument is not without some foundation.
>
> The only question is are customers willing to pay the additional $$$ or have
> the customers finally hit an inflexible limitation in their customer base. Or
> can a competitor now come in and replace their service (the phone company
> tries, but isn't there, currently).
the analog feeds in addition to digital and HD.
Basically, most of the new TVs sold these days is HD so demand for more
HD channels is there.
Matthew Gillen
> On 2/9/2012 2:37 AM, Tom Metro wrote:
>>
>> In the end it is likely a mix of things already mentioned, like more HD
>> channels (clinging to the old model of overpriced channel packages),
>> higher Internet speeds, and simply cost savings by getting rid of
>> maintenance overhead for their analog plant.
>
> Dropping analog has a lot of justifications, and I think they're
> actually correct to do it. Dropping ClearQAM for basic channels does
> not; it's no more difficult to digitally encode without encryption than
> with it. I suppose it makes their support problem slightly simpler (no
> guiding people through setting up their TV sets) but that's unlikely to
> be a big enough deal to matter.
My understanding is that the encryption isn't really a business goal of
the cable companies, but rather a requirement that is being forced on
them by the content producers. The content producers can say "you need
to pay us X to carry our content if you encrypt, or pay us 10x if you
don't encrypt, to compensate us for the additional risk of piracy".
Look at it this way: the move to encryption forced them to give away a
lot of decryptor devices to existing customers to keep them from
screaming bloody murder. That's a big up-front investment. You might
say that they will make it back over the long run by charging a fee on
top of their costs for the future customers' set-top-boxes, but that's a
risky bet. The FCC could swing back and outlaw encryption (b/c it
renders FCC-mandated controls like the V-Chip useless), consumers could
find another venue to spend their money, etc.
It's my opinion that the content producers (following the MPAA/RIAA
example) are grossly over-estimating the "piracy problem" (esp. in terms
of how much money they are "losing"), and therefore grossly
over-reacting in terms of the political pressure they are applying, and
the additional costs they are bundling into their products.
It's gotten to the point where I've /almost/ convinced my wife that we
should dump our cable service, and just do mythv OTA.
In the long run, I'm confident that they are just creating more room for
novel 'content providers', who are novel in their content distribution
models as much as their content, to step in and eat their lunch (e.g.
look up Lewis C.K.'s recent foray into self-publishing video of his
stand-up routine: bottom line was that he made a boatload more money
than he ever did doing deals with HBO Specials, and he did it with no
DRM). More to the point, my wife and kids (who watch all the tv in our
house) watch as much off the internet as they do off our cable service.
So I'm sort of torn. On the one hand my instinct is to fight their
political pressure to bend rules in ways that break my MythTV. On the
other, the more success they have (from their point of view) at
protecting the business model they had in the pre-VCR days, the faster
they will become irrelevant...
Jerry Feldman
theft. Especially in apartment complexes signal theft was pretty high. I
don't know if that is still an issue.
Shirley Márquez Dúlcey
> My understanding is that the encryption isn't really a business goal of
> the cable companies, but rather a requirement that is being forced on
> them by the content producers. The content producers can say "you need
> to pay us X to carry our content if you encrypt, or pay us 10x if you
> don't encrypt, to compensate us for the additional risk of piracy".
By "basic channels" I meant "the ones that are available as part of
basic service" (the cheapest cable service) which are mostly available
over the air, not the cable company definition of "basic channels"
meaning "ones that you don't pay individual subscription fees for" (ie,
not HBO etc). How can piracy be a consideration for channels that are
already available at higher quality (the versions carried on cable are
re-encoded at lower bitrates than the broadcasts) for free?
Matthew Gillen
> On 2/9/2012 8:45 AM, Matthew Gillen wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that the encryption isn't really a business goal of
>> the cable companies, but rather a requirement that is being forced on
>> them by the content producers. The content producers can say "you need
>> to pay us X to carry our content if you encrypt, or pay us 10x if you
>> don't encrypt, to compensate us for the additional risk of piracy".
>
> By "basic channels" I meant "the ones that are available as part of
> basic service" (the cheapest cable service) which are mostly available
> over the air, not the cable company definition of "basic channels"
> meaning "ones that you don't pay individual subscription fees for" (ie,
> not HBO etc). How can piracy be a consideration for channels that are
> already available at higher quality (the versions carried on cable are
> re-encoded at lower bitrates than the broadcasts) for free?
You and I can see that; this is the MPAA/RIAA content industry you're
talking about. Common sense is uncommon in their little bubble...
Matt
David Blank-Edelman
On Feb 9, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Shirley Márquez Dúlcey wrote:
> How can piracy be a consideration for channels that are already available at higher quality (the versions carried on cable are re-encoded at lower bitrates than the broadcasts) for free?
I'm not a cable person, but let me hazard a guess. I'm guessing that the company has a license with those providers to broadcast them only in a certain region. If you were to be able to capture the bits and stream/redistribute them (and there a number of different places where people actually do this), that would be a problem for them.
-- dNb
Richard Pieri
any more. Comcast is a content provider these days. It has a vested
interest in controlling NBC's -- that is, its own -- content.
--
Rich P.
Bill Bogstad
>
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Shirley Márquez Dúlcey wrote:
>
>> How can piracy be a consideration for channels that are already available at higher quality (the versions carried on cable are re-encoded at lower bitrates than the broadcasts) for free?
>
> I'm not a cable person, but let me hazard a guess. I'm guessing that the company has a license with those providers to broadcast them only in a certain region. If you were to be able to capture the bits and stream/redistribute them (and there a number of different places where people actually do this), that would be a problem for them.
The "limited basic" channels, I'm talking about are almost all
available as a digital signal over the air with no (enforceable)
protection. If there are such provisions in Comcast's "must carry"
agreements with local broadcast stations, they aren't worth the paper
they are printed on.
Bill Bogstad
Tom Metro
> I received a letter this past week that Comcast is getting rid of the
> remaining analog channels on their Newton/Needham system (other towns
> likely to do likewise). After their "digital conversion" a while back
> they continued to transmit the "basic" channels (largely local
> broadcast) in analog, but by March 13 will be strictly digital.
This change was finally implemented last night, it appears. I can
confirm that my MythTV analog tuners see nothing but snow. Even the home
shopping channel is gone. :-)
The engineer flipping the switch seems to have a sense of humor, as it
was timed almost exactly to correspond to the start of Spring[1] at 1:14
AM this morning.
There was no follow-up reminder letter, no on-screen crawls or messages
at the top of the half-hour, like they did with the discontinuation of
analog "extended basic" channels. No explanation for the delay from
March 13.
I'm still not clear as to whether this change is even permitted under
the FCC rules. The articles from February where Boxee complained about
the FCC pondering a changes to its rules implies it is not permitted.
-Tom
1. http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/march-equinox.html
Jerry Feldman
> Tom Metro wrote:
>> I received a letter this past week that Comcast is getting rid of the
>> remaining analog channels on their Newton/Needham system (other towns
>> likely to do likewise). After their "digital conversion" a while back
>> they continued to transmit the "basic" channels (largely local
>> broadcast) in analog, but by March 13 will be strictly digital.
> This change was finally implemented last night, it appears. I can
> confirm that my MythTV analog tuners see nothing but snow. Even the home
> shopping channel is gone. :-)
>
> The engineer flipping the switch seems to have a sense of humor, as it
> was timed almost exactly to correspond to the start of Spring[1] at 1:14
> AM this morning.
>
> There was no follow-up reminder letter, no on-screen crawls or messages
> at the top of the half-hour, like they did with the discontinuation of
> analog "extended basic" channels. No explanation for the delay from
> March 13.
>
> I'm still not clear as to whether this change is even permitted under
> the FCC rules. The articles from February where Boxee complained about
> the FCC pondering a changes to its rules implies it is not permitted.
>
> -Tom
>
> 1. http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/march-equinox.html
>
Comcast, RCN, and others, covers the rules.