6 ms·

I work in the industry, and this article is quite... misinforming. For one, the sentence "Getting rid of QAM isn't a bad idea in the long run" is crazy. QAM is

by Bo102010 15y ago

I work in the industry, and this article is quite... misinforming. For one, the sentence "Getting rid of QAM isn't a bad idea in the long run" is crazy. QAM is a general-purpose modulation technique used in numerous technologies. It has nothing to do with the evil cablecos trying to lock down their signal, or something. Next, the sentence "the cable industry is currently lobbying the FCC for a rulemaking that would allow them to encrypt QAM" is hopelessly misinformed. If you plug a QAM tuner into a cable subscriber's coaxial outlet, you'll be receiving data for a few hundred cable channels, but all but a dozen or two are _already encrypted_. The ones that aren't encrypted are you local ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, PBS, etc. The ones that are encrypted are "expanded basic" services. Why are these encrypted? In part to prevent signal piracy to protect revenues, but also in part because the content providers require it. If you're a cableco, you can't offer ESPN or HBO without encrypting the signal - ESPN and HBO won't let you. I can't speak for my cableco employer, but I have never had a conversation in which someone said "I wish we could encrypt our clear QAM channels" - it's always been the opposite. It's much easier to offer service if you can get the signal to a customer without having to buy some crappy converter box or spend a lot of money on a high end settop.

gergles 15y ago
The whole point is that cable companies are lobbying the FCC to remove the requirement that lifeline be unencrypted, with the ostensible purpose of "reducing truck rolls". So, maybe your cableco isn't one that is lobbying, but several of the major ones are actively currently lobbying the FCC to remove the clear-lifeline requirement.
- Bo102010 15y ago
  Yeah - the idea is that the cablecos could avoid sending a truck to activate or remove services. But this isn't mentioned in the article, and the article is actively wrong in the ways I mentioned above, plus others (e.g. "There is no reason to change this policy now just because the cable companies want every home and apartment to have one of their set-top boxes..." No they don't. They want people who don't want more than basic packages to have a settop at all, and avoid that up-front investment).
  - wdewind 15y ago
    I assume by the last sentence you mean they DON'T want people who don't want more than basic packages to have a settop. Considering everyone usually "leases" their cable box from the cable company (at least in NYC) for something like $10-13 a month, it seems like in a matter of months the boxes have paid for themselves and then they are making profit. I've had my box for 2 years. Do they really not want people to have settops in their houses?
    - Bo102010 15y ago
      They do eventually pay for themselves ($13 per month! Geez.), but they (a) cost more than you might think to begin with, (b) require a lengthy setup and provisioning process that is quite labor intensive, (c) lock you in to old technology - you can't move to, say, MPEG-4 or IP delivery if you've got a million legacy boxes to deal with. Similar to how phone companies wish they wouldn't have to subsidize new phones, there are lots of people in the cable industry who wish that every TV had a CableCARD slot and IP connectivity (for PPV/VOD services), or that there was a peripheral you could plug into an Xbox or something that would let you get/decrypt cableco signal. Obviously opinions will differ from company to company, and we are all actually evil.
      - twoodfin 15y ago
        This comment is one of the best demonstrations of why an Apple TV set will be such an easy sell to cable providers.
    - pasbesoin 15y ago
      As I read it, they want to "leave the pipe on", but with an encrypted signal. If/when you sign up, they send you a box (or boxes). Perhaps with newer equipment, they can/will be able to program/enable it remotely (without requiring one of their boxes). The change is that there will be no unencrypted channels. So, if you are not a customer, you can't "steal" any signal, despite their never rolling trucks to physically disable (filter) individual lines. For my part, I see it as another effort to push/exceed the boundaries of their previous agreements/commitments with the FCC et al. But then, that's the way they roll (pun intended). EDIT: I should add that, if and as they change distribution from multi-cast to content-switched individual channels, it also frees up space on their pipes. Essentially, they get to dump the present distribution model for "basic cable" (multiple, simulcast clear QAM channels) and instead dedicate one channel having upstream-switched content, to each TV. (Said dedicated channel likely only defined at the last leg of distribution.) My terminology may not be correct, but I think that's the gist of it. Note that this also allows them to know what each TV is displaying, 24/7.
jaylevitt 15y ago
Then I'm confused. If you need a settop box to get encrypted channels, and the cable companies want to save money by not providing settop boxes, why are they lobbying for permission to encrypt the remaining basic cable channels? There's a leap I'm missing.
jsz0 15y ago
I also work in the industry and I can confirm all the discussions I've heard on the ClearQAM issue come back to the cost of delivering services and contracts with programmers. Each one of these service calls to install/remove a signal trap that blocks out the frequencies of the programming you are not paying for is expensive. Having huge portions of your available spectrum gated off by signal traps also limits flexibility for future changes. The issue of encrypting broadcast channels goes back to broadcasters who are demanding a fee to carry their signals. If you have to pay the local ABC affiliate $2 per subscriber to carry the channel they are not very happy to have you turn around and give it away for free without compensating them for every customer who can run a ClearQAM scan. This is an issue as more customers drop all video service in favor of only purchasing Internet service. The same wire that delivers your DOCSIS would have these channels available unencrypted unless a signal trap is installed to block it out. So effectively the cable industry has always, and always will, be able to block services you don't pay for. The switch to encrypting these channels is just a far more practical way of doing it. Boxee is against this because it's not good for their business model. Cable is for it because it is good for their business model. So let's just be clear this issue is about self-interest either way. Both sides could argue their position is better for consumers for different reasons. I do think we should have a simple fixed key encryption system so customer's can use their own hardware without the need for set tops or CableCARDs or an IP based system but this is still a ways off. For one thing the entire TV industry would have to adopt this new fixed key encrypted QAM standard which would add some expense to TVs and require customers to buy their own fixed key encryption set tops or buy new TVs that support the new standard. On the IP side new standards would have to be established as well that presently do not exist.

gergles 15y ago

The whole point is that cable companies are lobbying the FCC to remove the requirement that lifeline be unencrypted, with the ostensible purpose of "reducing truck rolls". So, maybe your cableco isn't one that is lobbying, but several of the major ones are actively currently lobbying the FCC to remove the clear-lifeline requirement.

Bo102010 15y ago
Yeah - the idea is that the cablecos could avoid sending a truck to activate or remove services. But this isn't mentioned in the article, and the article is actively wrong in the ways I mentioned above, plus others (e.g. "There is no reason to change this policy now just because the cable companies want every home and apartment to have one of their set-top boxes..." No they don't. They want people who don't want more than basic packages to have a settop at all, and avoid that up-front investment).
- wdewind 15y ago
  I assume by the last sentence you mean they DON'T want people who don't want more than basic packages to have a settop. Considering everyone usually "leases" their cable box from the cable company (at least in NYC) for something like $10-13 a month, it seems like in a matter of months the boxes have paid for themselves and then they are making profit. I've had my box for 2 years. Do they really not want people to have settops in their houses?
  - Bo102010 15y ago
    They do eventually pay for themselves ($13 per month! Geez.), but they (a) cost more than you might think to begin with, (b) require a lengthy setup and provisioning process that is quite labor intensive, (c) lock you in to old technology - you can't move to, say, MPEG-4 or IP delivery if you've got a million legacy boxes to deal with. Similar to how phone companies wish they wouldn't have to subsidize new phones, there are lots of people in the cable industry who wish that every TV had a CableCARD slot and IP connectivity (for PPV/VOD services), or that there was a peripheral you could plug into an Xbox or something that would let you get/decrypt cableco signal. Obviously opinions will differ from company to company, and we are all actually evil.
    - twoodfin 15y ago
      This comment is one of the best demonstrations of why an Apple TV set will be such an easy sell to cable providers.
  - pasbesoin 15y ago
    As I read it, they want to "leave the pipe on", but with an encrypted signal. If/when you sign up, they send you a box (or boxes). Perhaps with newer equipment, they can/will be able to program/enable it remotely (without requiring one of their boxes). The change is that there will be no unencrypted channels. So, if you are not a customer, you can't "steal" any signal, despite their never rolling trucks to physically disable (filter) individual lines. For my part, I see it as another effort to push/exceed the boundaries of their previous agreements/commitments with the FCC et al. But then, that's the way they roll (pun intended). EDIT: I should add that, if and as they change distribution from multi-cast to content-switched individual channels, it also frees up space on their pipes. Essentially, they get to dump the present distribution model for "basic cable" (multiple, simulcast clear QAM channels) and instead dedicate one channel having upstream-switched content, to each TV. (Said dedicated channel likely only defined at the last leg of distribution.) My terminology may not be correct, but I think that's the gist of it. Note that this also allows them to know what each TV is displaying, 24/7.

jaylevitt 15y ago

Then I'm confused. If you need a settop box to get encrypted channels, and the cable companies want to save money by not providing settop boxes, why are they lobbying for permission to encrypt the remaining basic cable channels? There's a leap I'm missing.

jsz0 15y ago

I also work in the industry and I can confirm all the discussions I've heard on the ClearQAM issue come back to the cost of delivering services and contracts with programmers. Each one of these service calls to install/remove a signal trap that blocks out the frequencies of the programming you are not paying for is expensive. Having huge portions of your available spectrum gated off by signal traps also limits flexibility for future changes. The issue of encrypting broadcast channels goes back to broadcasters who are demanding a fee to carry their signals. If you have to pay the local ABC affiliate $2 per subscriber to carry the channel they are not very happy to have you turn around and give it away for free without compensating them for every customer who can run a ClearQAM scan. This is an issue as more customers drop all video service in favor of only purchasing Internet service. The same wire that delivers your DOCSIS would have these channels available unencrypted unless a signal trap is installed to block it out. So effectively the cable industry has always, and always will, be able to block services you don't pay for. The switch to encrypting these channels is just a far more practical way of doing it. Boxee is against this because it's not good for their business model. Cable is for it because it is good for their business model. So let's just be clear this issue is about self-interest either way. Both sides could argue their position is better for consumers for different reasons. I do think we should have a simple fixed key encryption system so customer's can use their own hardware without the need for set tops or CableCARDs or an IP based system but this is still a ways off. For one thing the entire TV industry would have to adopt this new fixed key encrypted QAM standard which would add some expense to TVs and require customers to buy their own fixed key encryption set tops or buy new TVs that support the new standard. On the IP side new standards would have to be established as well that presently do not exist.