4 ms·

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 ac

by 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.
  - Bo102010 15y ago
    Your edit isn't quite correct - if 100 people in the same building (service group) are watching the same TV channel, there's no bandwidth savings if they're all getting an individual stream. See (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_digital_video http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_digital_video) for an example of a hybrid approach. Also, there are already technologies that know what TVs are displaying.
    - pasbesoin 15y ago
      Thanks for the response. I'm still a bit fuzzy this morning, and I think I was conflating a few things. I think: ~ They want to get rid of the existing "basic cable" distribution. Which is still analog. Digital signals consume less bandwidth, don't they? So, if you are knocking off relatively few basic/analog subscribers on a segment (the rest are already digital), you can more from the elimination of the analog signals -- even though they are "shared" -- than you lose to the additional digital signals. (All the more so if those viewers don't often view TV, e.g. with Comcast those who have "basic cable" because their pricing models essentially make it "free" when you subscribe for residential internet service.) ~ In going all-digital for TV, by not putting the basic channels or some subset on clear QAM (instead, everything is encrypted), they don't need a physical presence to enable/disable TV service -- even for "basic cable". You get a box in the mail, or you have a smart enough / new enough TV, and then upstream controls whether or not you can decrypt. ~ As for my "FCC" comment, as I somewhat poorly understand it, as part off the "digital conversion" negotiations, cable TV companies agreed to maintain the "status quo" until... I believe sometime in 2013, was the date finally settled upon. But they've pushed the boundary. In my area, forcing everything above an ever-shrinking channel set of "basic cable" to be digital, with digitally switched (if "free", in limited quantities) set top boxes required. So, your old VCR or DVD recorder or perhaps some older models of Tivo (don't know, don't have one) no longer work fully in that they can't pick the TV channel. They're dependent upon this digital box and only get whatever one channel it is manually set to output. I'm one of those people who has "basic cable" basically because of the Internet pricing. My parents had "extended basic", but found themselves forced to upgrade because these "freebie" digital boxes meant that e.g. the Tivo stopped working. Now they pay more, and have some POS Comcast DVR all because Comcast was allowed to skirt the edges (exceed, in spirit if not in (re)interpreted letter, in my opinion) of this "it stays the same for cable customers until 2013" agreement.

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.
- Bo102010 15y ago
  Your edit isn't quite correct - if 100 people in the same building (service group) are watching the same TV channel, there's no bandwidth savings if they're all getting an individual stream. See (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_digital_video http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_digital_video) for an example of a hybrid approach. Also, there are already technologies that know what TVs are displaying.
  - pasbesoin 15y ago
    Thanks for the response. I'm still a bit fuzzy this morning, and I think I was conflating a few things. I think: ~ They want to get rid of the existing "basic cable" distribution. Which is still analog. Digital signals consume less bandwidth, don't they? So, if you are knocking off relatively few basic/analog subscribers on a segment (the rest are already digital), you can more from the elimination of the analog signals -- even though they are "shared" -- than you lose to the additional digital signals. (All the more so if those viewers don't often view TV, e.g. with Comcast those who have "basic cable" because their pricing models essentially make it "free" when you subscribe for residential internet service.) ~ In going all-digital for TV, by not putting the basic channels or some subset on clear QAM (instead, everything is encrypted), they don't need a physical presence to enable/disable TV service -- even for "basic cable". You get a box in the mail, or you have a smart enough / new enough TV, and then upstream controls whether or not you can decrypt. ~ As for my "FCC" comment, as I somewhat poorly understand it, as part off the "digital conversion" negotiations, cable TV companies agreed to maintain the "status quo" until... I believe sometime in 2013, was the date finally settled upon. But they've pushed the boundary. In my area, forcing everything above an ever-shrinking channel set of "basic cable" to be digital, with digitally switched (if "free", in limited quantities) set top boxes required. So, your old VCR or DVD recorder or perhaps some older models of Tivo (don't know, don't have one) no longer work fully in that they can't pick the TV channel. They're dependent upon this digital box and only get whatever one channel it is manually set to output. I'm one of those people who has "basic cable" basically because of the Internet pricing. My parents had "extended basic", but found themselves forced to upgrade because these "freebie" digital boxes meant that e.g. the Tivo stopped working. Now they pay more, and have some POS Comcast DVR all because Comcast was allowed to skirt the edges (exceed, in spirit if not in (re)interpreted letter, in my opinion) of this "it stays the same for cable customers until 2013" agreement.