FCC to allow encryption of basic cable

[tvmaster2]

Originally Posted by reggie14

I never had a TiVo, but presumably the Series 1 and 2 models had analog tuners. So, I assumed it could record all but the premium channels without a set top box.

it could, until switched digital and the elimination of analog came along.

[darcilicious]

Originally Posted by tvmaster2

they're blocking EVERYTHING...but yes, they are blocking basic by turning it digital,

Turning it digital alone isn't the issue, but encrypting it is. I still get a fair some of digital channels (similar to OTA channels) without encryption.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by tvmaster2

they're blocking EVERYTHING...but yes, they are blocking basic by turning it digital, which of course can be converted back to analog again for $1.99 per month per drop. scam

I wouldn't characterize that as "blocking" it. I think the HD-capable TiVo boxes work with unencrypted channels without needing a cablecard. I think most HD TVs can play back unencrypted HDTV without a box. There just isn't much that is unencrypted, except for the basic tier.

It's not a scam. There are very good reasons to move from analog to digital. Each old analog channel can carry two (or three, in Comcast's case) HD channels. If you want more HD channels (which maybe in your case you don't care, but most people do) and faster Internet, you need to kill off the analog channels.

I suppose they could have kept a limited number of basic tier channels in analog. Comcast did keep the basic tier in analog in my area for about a year after everything else. But at a certain point it just isn't going to be worth it. If you figure most TV subscribers are at least at the expanded basic tier, and probably have mostly HDTVs, people are going to want to have boxes and the analog channels aren't going to be useful.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by darcilicious

Turning it digital alone isn't the issue, but encrypting it is. I still get a fair some of digital channels (similar to OTA channels) without encryption.

I think tvmaster2 is just upset that his 8-year-old TiVo Series2 doesn't work anymore since it doesn't have a digital tuner.

[darcilicious]

Ah, yeah, that's always a bummer...

[gilded07]

Originally Posted by reggie14

A lot of the cable companies either already have or are going to move to all digital. The analog channels take up too much bandwidth. They'd rather move to all digital and use the freed up channels for more HD channels and faster internet. So, they're already expecting that they'll have to have boxes at each TV.

Yes, I think I posted this very point earlier in my reply to MKANET. I understand digital is more profitable for them.

I get some local HDs via QAM but am very happy with analog for all the others...happy enough anyway, that I don't care to pay extra for HD and then have to invest more in my SageTV set up to to be able to watch it. I pay ~$56 or $57 / month for analog. That's enough for me.

Originally Posted by reggie14

By not using filters, they're saving a tech visit to install/upgrade/downgrade/terminate service. If you to get or return a box, they can have you do it in-person at a customer service center, or do it through the mail.

Makes sense...I just figured after the contract's up and you leave because you're unhappy with price or service, one would tell the cableco to come get their equipment if they wanted it, just like putting the filter back on.

Originally Posted by reggie14

What analog decoders? I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Are you talking about the old school analog set top boxes that de-scrambled premium channels? Those haven't been used for a long time.

There'd be no reason to buy the digital set top boxes they're moving to. As far as I know, (almost) no cable TV company in the US lets you activate ones that you've purchased online. Maybe you could do that if you get your hands on one with a cablecard inside. There are some set top boxes on ebay now. I'm not really sure why anyone would buy them. I've heard that Canadian cable companies let you buy them.

When I replied to MKANET's original post/thread yesterday, it was before it was moved to this thread. I've now read the whole thread and what I was referring to is what I now believe you call digital to analog converter. Never seen nor used one; was just wondering aloud.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by gilded07

I understand digital is more profitable for them.

I'd argue it's also better for the customer. The digital transition isn't done to make more money- it's done to stay competitive on HD channel selection.

Originally Posted by gilded07

I just figured after the contract's up and you leave because you're unhappy with price or service, one would tell the cableco to come get their equipment if they wanted it,

The problem with that is that you have to schedule a time to have them pick it up. Since they only do 2-4 hour blocks of time, I find it much easier just to mail it back or drop it off.

Originally Posted by gilded07

I've now read the whole thread and what I was referring to is what I now believe you call digital to analog converter. Never seen nor used one; was just wondering aloud.

I think you're just talking about a set top box. The simple ones, the ones that typically just play back standard definition digital TV, are sometimes called Digital Transport Adapters (DTAs), but they're still basically just set top boxes.

[drewg]

Originally Posted by reggie14

It's not a scam. There are very good reasons to move from analog to digital. Each old analog channel can carry two (or three, in Comcast's case) HD channels. If you want more HD channels (which maybe in your case you don't care, but most people do) and faster Internet, you need to kill off the analog channels.

A single QAM channel is 38Mb/s. A decent quality HD MPEG-2 channel uses ~12-15Mb/s. A decent quality HD MPEG4 channel uses ~5Mb/s. So rather than add the complexity of SDV, why don't the cable companies just transition to MPEG4 like the Sat companies have done? That would give them room for nearly 1000 HD channels with no need for SDV.

Drew

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by drewg

So rather than add the complexity of SDV, why don't the cable companies just transition to MPEG4 like the Sat companies have done? That would give them room for nearly 1000 HD channels with no need for SDV.

I have no idea. It seems like a weird choice to me, too. Maybe they're thinking they can save even more bandwidth for Internet connectivity if they went to SDV over moving to mpeg4.

Is anyone besides Time Warner really pushing SDV? It looks like maybe CableVision.

[gilded07]

Originally Posted by reggie14

I'd argue it's also better for the customer. The digital transition isn't done to make more money- it's done to stay competitive on HD channel selection.

With due respect to my fellow SageTVer, you sound like like a politician. The type of politician that tells me how many ounces of soda I'm allowed to have in my cup. Add more channels? How many do we really need? 2000? 5000? The 6 in my immediate family watch 12 or 15 at the most and that's 5 tuners running every night. You're quite an evangelist for Cableco's and Sat's!!

"Stay competitive on HD channel selection" translates to keep or gain market share to maintain or increase profits. Which is fine but let's be clear on what the cablecos' motivation is.

Customers decide what's best for them - not profit-motivated companies who make money for their owners on the svcs they provide. I've no problem with them making money but I have a clear understanding of the motives behind the glitter.

Before we even knew the technology existed, customers didn't demand more pixels; plasma; LCDs; LEDs; 3d; and they're not demanding 4k right now either. But because there's a buck to be made, industries will spend billions in mktg and ads to *convince* us that we *need* their TV products and high(-er) def programming. And, over time, we'll open up our wallets and spend more money on the shiny stuff that our neighbor - or fellow poster on an anonymous board - has and nod our heads in zombie-like agreement that we *are* better off with more pixels or whatever the hype of the day is.

Don't get me wrong - HD is nice but customers who have to pay for TV programming should decide what is best for them. Obviously, I disagree with your comment or I'd be paying for the HD programming. I prefer choices and the option to decide for myself if I want SD or HD programming.

After reading this thread (and not knowing until now that some cableco's have eliminated analog altogether) I feel fortunate to still have analog programming as an option. But as others have said, the writing's on the wall and analog will likely come to an end and it will be time to get that antenna for OTA and sign up for Hulu+ and netflix!

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by gilded07

With due respect to my fellow SageTVer, you sound like like a politician. The type of politician that tells me how many ounces of soda I'm allowed to have in my cup. Add more channels? How many do we really need? 2000? 5000? The 6 in my immediate family watch 12 or 15 at the most and that's 5 tuners running every night. You're quite an evangelist for Cableco's and Sat's!!

There's not much demand for more channels in general, but there's certainly demand for more HD channels. In 2011, 69% of households had an HDTV. I'm sure its even higher now. As people move to HDTVs, there's fewer and fewer people using those analog channels that take up tons of bandwidth. And they need that bandwidth if they're going to offer their full channel lineup in HD while also providing internet service.

Beyond that, since a lot of people are going to have STBs at their TVs anyway, there's little reason to keep analog. For people that don't have HDTVs, most cities/counties have required cable companies to provide one or two DTAs to customers for no additional rental fee (obviously its built-in in some way, but so was the overhead to running analog channels).

All other things being equal, I prefer digital. The vast majority of the the time it provides a much cleaner picture. I don't think I'm alone on that. Before HD really started rolling out that used to be something the companies would advertise because people saw value in it.

Originally Posted by gilded07

"Stay competitive on HD channel selection" translates to keep or gain market share to maintain or increase profits. Which is fine but let's be clear on what the cablecos' motivation is.

Customers decide what's best for them - not profit-motivated companies who make money for their owners on the svcs they provide.

You say that's fine, but your tone suggests you think there's something sinister going on there. And I really don't understand why. We want market pressures to be encouraging cable/satellite companies to improve service, and that's what's happening here.

They only make money if people buy their services. The cable companies are making these decisions because of what their customers want (e.g., more HD channels, faster Internet).

Originally Posted by gilded07

Don't get me wrong - HD is nice but customers who have to pay for TV programming should decide what is best for them. Obviously, I disagree with your comment or I'd be paying for the HD programming. I prefer choices and the option to decide for myself if I want SD or HD programming.

Well, I should point out that at a certain point it would have made sense for the cable companies to start charging analog TV users extra, given the inordinate amount of bandwidth those channels were taking up. Bandwidth in the cable lines and infrastructure is a scarce resource, after all (yes, it really is). Cellular companies did this for a while before they completely shut off analog service. The problem with this, though, is that no one would have wanted to pay that. It would have been cheaper for the customers to just rent the DTA boxes than bay for their portion of the bandwidth used by the analog channels.

I'll be honest, I find this discussion bizarre. Now there are obviously a lot of legitimate complaints about cable companies, but I have to say this is the first time I've heard someone that's probably technologically-savvy enough to understand the engineering challenges and constraints here complain about cable companies taking steps to improve their infrastructure to provide better service.

[tvmaster2]

Originally Posted by reggie14

I think tvmaster2 is just upset that his 8-year-old TiVo Series2 doesn't work anymore since it doesn't have a digital tuner.

rotfl..yeah baby, you nailed it! while I agree that the future must march on, leaving a measly 50-60 channels as analog shouldn't infringe their bandwidth so much, especially when you start adding up how much bandwidth is being reserved for sports subscription services, not a single one to which I subscribe. But that's where their revenue is...
Reality is that nearly half the basic band is programming I personally never watch..religious, foreign language and local govt/info channels. I realize there is a bandwidth issue, but the artifacting I see on Cox HD channels compared to the OTA HD equal is quite noticeable. Actually, there are times where a 4x3 SD channel is less frustrating to watch because of all the digital squashing that Cox must be implementing, or maybe it's the SDV.
One thing's for sure..there are too damn many channels to justify the artifacting. Less channels, higher quality please

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by tvmaster2

rotfl..yeah baby, you nailed it! while I agree that the future must march on, leaving a measly 50-60 channels as analog shouldn't infringe their bandwidth so much, especially when you start adding up how much bandwidth is being reserved for sports subscription services, not a single one to which I subscribe. But that's where their revenue is...
Reality is that nearly half the basic band is programming I personally never watch..religious, foreign language and local govt/info channels. I realize there is a bandwidth issue, but the artifacting I see on Cox HD channels compared to the OTA HD equal is quite noticeable. Actually, there are times where a 4x3 SD channel is less frustrating to watch because of all the digital squashing that Cox must be implementing, or maybe it's the SDV.
One thing's for sure..there are too damn many channels to justify the artifacting. Less channels, higher quality please

50-60 channels is half the CATV spectrum! That's a lot of the spectrum to be used by maybe 15% of their customer base (i do not know anyone personally who uses analog television in any form). I'm not sure on your comment regarding SDV affecting quality. It doesn't. SDV is a way to limit the channel map in a given neighborhood to just the channels that neighborhood is currently trying to tune. The channel bandwidth is the same on SDV as non SDV. If anything, the reason you are seeing poor quality from digital SD channels, it's because they are choosing to overly compress those, to get most of those 50-60 analog channels you want into 5-6 digital channels, putting the spectrum use of the least valuable customers (of which you are a part) more in line with the profit potential.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by tvmaster2

rotfl..yeah baby, you nailed it! while I agree that the future must march on, leaving a measly 50-60 channels as analog shouldn't infringe their bandwidth so much,

In typical deployments, I think cable TV systems only support around 130 analog channels. So, devoting 50-60 channels to analog TV is a lot. You can replace a single analog channel with ~10 SD channels or 2-3 HD channels.

Beyond that, I think there are some regulatory issues. If I remember correctly, cable companies either have to provide the entire basic tier in analog, or they have to switch entirely to digital. As you noted, the basic tier includes a lot stuff people almost never watch. So, if you wanted them to carry the basic tier plus a handful of often-watched networks from the expanded basic tier (e.g., TNT, USA, AMC, CNN etc.), you'd still be talking about quite a few channels.

[drewg]

Originally Posted by reggie14

There's not much demand for more channels in general, but there's certainly demand for more HD channels. In 2011, 69% of households had an HDTV.

But I wonder what percentage of those are tuned to the analog or SD digital versions? Not for any good reason, but just because that's the channel number they are used to? Pretty much every time I walk into my inlaws house, I see crappy 4:3 SD on their HDTV because they always just tune to the same number that they've used for the last 25 years..

Drew

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by drewg

But I wonder what percentage of those are tuned to the analog or SD digital versions? Not for any good reason, but just because that's the channel number they are used to? Pretty much every time I walk into my inlaws house, I see crappy 4:3 SD on their HDTV because they always just tune to the same number that they've used for the last 25 years..

Drew

well, the quality providers don't have different channel numbers for SD of HD. if you've got an HD box, it tunes to that channel. Unfortunately, cable is lagging pretty far behind in this matter.

[Skirge01]

Don't forget about the people who buy the HDTV but don't bother subscribing to HD service because of the additional cost of the box and/or programming charge. ::ahem:: in-laws x2 ::cough:: "The picture's already good enough." As I struggle to convince myself I'm not watching old Youtube videos...

[drewg]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

well, the quality providers don't have different channel numbers for SD of HD. if you've got an HD box, it tunes to that channel. Unfortunately, cable is lagging pretty far behind in this matter.

They actually have FiOS, not "cable", but FiOS seems to go out of their way to act just like cable. The last time I checked, they had locals at 2..XX, and HD locals at 502..5XX...

Drew

[MattHelm]

Originally Posted by drewg

But I wonder what percentage of those are tuned to the analog or SD digital versions? Not for any good reason, but just because that's the channel number they are used to? Pretty much every time I walk into my inlaws house, I see crappy 4:3 SD on their HDTV because they always just tune to the same number that they've used for the last 25 years..

Drew

That's what I like about SageTV. I just turn off the SD channels.

[darcilicious]

Easily do-able with "favorite channels" function (that FiOS has, at least)