FCC Lets Cable Companies Encrypt Signals To Foil Theft

[Joey1986]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...d10|htmlws-main-bb|dl21|sec3_lnk3&pLid=221504

I'm actually split on this.

On the one hand, this is welcome news if it means that crooked cable installers will be put out of business (or at least makes cable theft a harder crime to commit). For one thing, cable theft affects everyone--even honest, paying subscribers (like yours truly) by degrading the signal. Depending on how shoddy the illegal installation is, it can even cause interference with aircraft radio transmissions, as well as with emergency (e.g. police, fire, paramedic) radio transmissions.

On the other hand, this will cause what I call collateral damage, by which I mean even legitimate subscribers will be negatively affected by having to rent a box for every TV in the house, something not everyone can afford to do, and make the built-in QAM tuner in their HDTV sets useless. So, as usual, an unspecified number of bad apples ruined things for everyone. Having to rent a box even for local channels, at least in my opinion, is overkill; especially considering that these channels can be received for free over-the-air with an antenna (depending on terrain and other hindrances in the area), without breaking the law. (Of course, satellite providers have encrypted every single channel on their lineups pretty much since day one.)

 

[landtuna]

Seems like those customers that can receive OTA signals (which may or may not be identical to 'basic' cable - probably not) just plop a UHF antenna on top of their TV and they are not out anything except perhaps several home shopping channels.

Those living in areas where OTA is not available must cough up box rental.

Nobody said life was fair....or cheap.

 

[azumanga]

This is old news -- some cable systems already encrypt all their signals for this purpose. I read somewhere that Comcast's Chicagoland systems encrypted all channels except locals, requiring a box to those that want the specialty channels. This was before Comcast converted to an all-digital system.

That being said, is it worth it encrypting the standard basic channels? I imagine most cable systems disposed of their analog encryption equipment when they moved the premium channels and Pay-Per-View to digital.

 

[Markxxx]

Those living in areas where OTA is not available must cough up box rental.

Nobody said life was fair....or cheap.

..And a chicken in every pot sounds like a great idea, unless of course, you happen to be the chicken.

...From Gracie Allen's 1940 election campaign speech.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

Has any system announced plans to scramble to local channels? Will the agreements with the local stations even allow that?

 

[Skynet74]

I have three TV's hooked directly to the wall with No Cable boxes. Just using the Quam tuner in all my televisions. Good luck to the cable company if they try forcing me to rent boxes and remotes. They will come out the losing end of that plan. I will cancel my cable service. They'll lose my business and then I'll just hook up indoor antennas to each TV. No big deal to me. I don't even watch enough TV these days to care. The 28 channels I can get with an antenna is just fine. I'm not going to be forced into paying for equipment that I don't need.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

Are they even worried about illegal hookups just to watch channels most can get for free? Will they even bother encrypting those?

 

[FreddyE1977]

They have had a big problem with signal theft for years.
I actually knew an old welder back in the 80's who, for a one-time fee,
would climb your pole, remove the little filter that stopped HBO from getting
to you, hook it to the arc welder on his truck, fry the bejeesus out of it and
put it back up there so when the cable company drove by to look they were
none the wiser. For all I knew he probably did complete illegal hook-ups too.

Can't really blame them for wanting to encrypt.

 

[BlueWanderer]

I have three TV's hooked directly to the wall with No Cable boxes. Just using the Quam tuner in all my televisions. Good luck to the cable company if they try forcing me to rent boxes and remotes. They will come out the losing end of that plan. I will cancel my cable service. They'll lose my business and then I'll just hook up indoor antennas to each TV. No big deal to me. I don't even watch enough TV these days to care. The 28 channels I can get with an antenna is just fine. I'm not going to be forced into paying for equipment that I don't need.

This. Except in my case, I can't get the OTA local channels clearly or even at all because I'm on the outskirts of two or possibly three markets with surrounding hills and mountains that will block the tv signals. I suppose it's only a matter of time now.

Well, I'm getting quite tired of those "University Kia-Hyundai" car dealership ads that run ad nausea during the local news anyway.

 

[Markxxx]

In my building Comcast complained for years and years that people stole cable. Evidently I was the only one in my building that paid. Of course Comcast NEVER BOTHERED to put a box around the wires and anyone who wanted it, could simply hook up a wire to their flat.

Just a few months ago, Comcast finally got around to moving all the wires way up high on the outside of the building. I'm not saying it's right to steal, but c'mon Comcast made no effort to stop it.

I haven't had cable in well over 7 years, and one of the big reasons I dropped them, is Comcast would disconnect EVERYONE routinely, the require us to call to be rehooked up.

I never understood that logic.

The final straw for me was Comcast disconnected me. I said, "Why do you keep doing this? You clearly know I pay my bill. Just disconnect all the cables and reconnect mine."

Then they make me wait two days to get an appointment to get reconnected. The guy doesn't show up. On their website it says if they are late or no show you're supposed to get a credit or payment, so I call. The supervisor says, "Surely you don't expect to profit when we're trying to prevent theft."

I took in my box the next day to the office and told them to keep their cable. Best decision I ever made.

 

[BMR]

Seems like those customers that can receive OTA signals (which may or may not be identical to 'basic' cable - probably not) just plop a UHF antenna on top of their TV and they are not out anything except perhaps several home shopping channels.

Those living in areas where OTA is not available must cough up box rental.

Nobody said life was fair....or cheap.

(with my usual disclaimer that anything to do with American broadcasting is a matter for American regulators and the American people- not random Brits on internet forums)



Yes life isn't fair, but surely this is one area where the FCC could make it fairer. In the UK there is a minimum standard set for access to over-the-air broadcast TV. I think it is 97% of the population who must have access to broadcast TV. And for the other 3%, the main broadcast channels have to be available free to air on satellite.

That 97% is defined in terms of roof top antenna strength, not indoor aerials, but even so, it makes sure the vast majority of the UK has access to basic TV services. In fact over 45% of households get their TV this way.

That target would obviously be much tougher to impose in the US, with your much more sparse population, but even so, satellite could fill in the gaps.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Yes life isn't fair, but surely this is one area where the FCC could make it fairer. In the UK there is a minimum standard set for access to over-the-air broadcast TV. I think it is 97% of the population who must have access to broadcast TV. And for the other 3%, the main broadcast channels have to be available free to air on satellite.

I would guess that US OTA availability is close to that 97% number, at least if it is defined as "97% of all Americans should expect to receive at least one channel of free OTA TV." Even though the USA is sparsely populated as a whole, the proportion who live in cities is enormous.

A map of the USA by population density: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA-2000-population-density.gif

 

[BMR]

Yes life isn't fair, but surely this is one area where the FCC could make it fairer. In the UK there is a minimum standard set for access to over-the-air broadcast TV. I think it is 97% of the population who must have access to broadcast TV. And for the other 3%, the main broadcast channels have to be available free to air on satellite.

I would guess that US OTA availability is close to that 97% number, at least if it is defined as "97% of all Americans should expect to receive at least one channel of free OTA TV." Even though the USA is sparsely populated as a whole, the proportion who live in cities is enormous.

Fair enough, although I suppose it depends what the one free channel is. I know Poughkeepsie, where my friend is moving in 2013, has only shopping and religious channels available OTA.

I merely use that as it is an example I know about. I don't know how common that sort of thing is. Of course any expansion of the terrestrial OTA network would have to be paid for somewhere along the line. Maybe satellite would be a better option.

 

[landtuna]

Fair enough, although I suppose it depends what the one free channel is. I know Poughkeepsie, where my friend is moving in 2013, has only shopping and religious channels available OTA.

That doesn't sound right. I lived back there in the 70's and could receive all NYC TV stations without a problem. I'm pretty sure, even with the digital conversion, they would put translators in place to cover that very heavily populated area. And Poughkeepsie is directly upriver from NYC so there aren't any significant impediments in the way. It may depend upon exactly where in the city your friend is located though as digital signals can be interrupted by the smallest of obstacles.

Satellite isn't the 100% solution either as you need an unobstructed south-facing view to be able to receive DISH and DirecTV. Trees, another building and/or natural blockages could make sat reception impossible.

 

[BMR]

Satellite isn't the 100% solution either as you need an unobstructed south-facing view to be able to receive DISH and DirecTV. Trees, another building and/or natural blockages could make sat reception impossible.

No it isn't. I think there are about 10,000 households in the UK which can't get either OTA or Satellite. Most of those can get TV via broadband so at least have something.

 

[landtuna]

No it isn't. I think there are about 10,000 households in the UK which can't get either OTA or Satellite. Most of those can get TV via broadband so at least have something.

Sorry.....I wasn't answering the question with regard to UK viewers but rather those of us in the continental USA.

Just for my information, where are the majority of those 10,000 households? The only mountains of note I recall are in Scotland.

 

[w9wi]

Seems like those customers that can receive OTA signals (which may or may not be identical to 'basic' cable - probably not) just plop a UHF antenna on top of their TV and they are not out anything except perhaps several home shopping channels.

Those living in areas where OTA is not available must cough up box rental.

Nobody said life was fair....or cheap.

(with my usual disclaimer that anything to do with American broadcasting is a matter for American regulators and the American people- not random Brits on internet forums)



Yes life isn't fair, but surely this is one area where the FCC could make it fairer. In the UK there is a minimum standard set for access to over-the-air broadcast TV. I think it is 97% of the population who must have access to broadcast TV. And for the other 3%, the main broadcast channels have to be available free to air on satellite.

That 97% is defined in terms of roof top antenna strength, not indoor aerials, but even so, it makes sure the vast majority of the UK has access to basic TV services. In fact over 45% of households get their TV this way.

That target would obviously be much tougher to impose in the US, with your much more sparse population, but even so, satellite could fill in the gaps.

From what I read, the satellite provider in Canada has agreed to offer free local-channel service. (the viewer must pay for the hardware, but there is no monthly charge) In conjunction with this, the CBC national broadcaster has shut down most of their OTA transmitter network. There are digital transmitters (often of low power, by North American standards -- with a coverage radius of *maybe* 50km) in the largest cities, but viewers elsewhere can only receive the national station via satellite.

In the US, requiring more complete OTA coverage would involve the installation of additional transmitters. The spectrum just doesn't exist -- and the cost is probably beyond the budgets of most smaller (and many larger) stations.

_________________________________________________

I did a HIGHLY unscientific survey of Poughkeepsie. Used the FCC's propagation curves. Understand that this method ignores terrain!, probably not a good idea in that rather mountainous area... The government itself disclaims coverage predictions made on that basis for digital TV.

That said, if you accept the figures.. six stations should be receivable OTA in Poughkeepsie:

Channel 6: CBS & This TV (two-channel mux) (two transmitters with same mux)
Channel 8: ABC & Bounce TV (two-channel mux)
Channel 30: an independent station out of Ellenville, NY reportedly with four channels of unknown material on a mux
Channel 42: *ANALOG* relay of PBS from Schenectady. (analog relay stations are allowed to continue until 2015)
Channel 54: a five-channel mux of religious programming.
Channel 62: a five-channel mux: an independent channel (with many infomercials); Al Jazeera English; Arirang from Korea; a religious channel; and NHK World from Japan.

The latter two are the strongest signals.

 

[Neel]

I only live 25 miles northeast of downtown LA, and I can not get a single OTA channel. Granted, i'm in a canyon and there's some big hills surrounding us but I've tried several times to search with an antenna and not a single channel pops up!

 

[Darth_vader]

Re: FCC Lets Cable Companies Scramble Free Signals To Further Screw The Public

"Satellite isn't the 100% solution either as you need an unobstructed south-facing view to be able to receive Echo$tar and Dire¢t-TV. Trees, another building and/or natural blockages could make sat reception impossible."

F.Y.I., that's the general rule for ANY communication/TV satellite, not just the few used by the pay systems.

Difficult--not necessarily impossible. I lived in an apartment complex facing PDX's approach path and a large stand of old-growth directly across the road from the balcony, and I could still get signals from Galaxy 19 and a couple of the AMC birds (the only ones I really monitor regularly, anyways) well enough to be usable. Not as good of signal strength as it could have been, usually peaking at about 60% at best for Galaxy 19 (the decoder in the Pansat kicks in at around 45%) but still there.

THE FINE PRINT: Individual results may vary. There is no such thing as a "typical" downlink station setup/configuration; thus, you should not expect to obtain these results.

BMR's hinting at a form of Ku-band free-to-air satellite access known in the UK as "Freesat". Look it up; it's basically similar to what w9wi described as being implemented in Canada. The "BBC tax" aside, Freesat has nothing to do with any pay system (as far as I'm aware, anyways; I probably stand to be corrected on this), and if on the slight off-chance such a system actually gets implemented halfway competently here, it wouldn't, either.

 

[fybush]

Yes life isn't fair, but surely this is one area where the FCC could make it fairer. In the UK there is a minimum standard set for access to over-the-air broadcast TV. I think it is 97% of the population who must have access to broadcast TV. And for the other 3%, the main broadcast channels have to be available free to air on satellite.

What makes the US different, and nearly unique among broadcasting systems in developed nations, is that our broadcasting system is not a national system. From the beginning, it's been based on the idea of allowing local broadcasters to determine the extent of the market they want to cover, and from the beginning the regulatory system has been designed specifically to prohibit any one broadcast owner from providing service to more than a few local markets. (The definition of "a few" has shifted over the years, of course, and today can encompass dozens or even hundreds of markets.)

As a result, it becomes difficult verging on impossible to ensure true national 100% availability of OTA service. In the UK (with a much more compact and population-dense footprint to cover), the responsibility for national OTA TV buildout rested with two national companies, first the BBC and later the IBA as well. In the US, especially during the buildout period of OTA broadcasting (say, 1948-1970 or so), you were looking at probably 400-500 different owners, minimum.

In the thoroughly commercial, free-market system that prevailed during those decades (remember, there was NO federal government funding for noncommercial broadcasting until 1967), the presumption was that it was up to individual broadcasters to decide what areas they could cost-effectively serve. What's more, the model was pretty strictly "one big transmitter per station," so areas that ended up in the weak-signal fringes between two markets (Poughkeepsie, for instance, between NYC and Albany/Schenectady) couldn't, in those early years, simply get "transmitters" of the larger-market stations the way they might have in Canada or Mexico.

Some of those areas ended up with early UHF stations - there was a WKNY-TV 66 in Kingston, for instance - but those stations tended to fail fairly quickly, in part because it was those very areas that got cable service the earliest, and why would anyone watch a cheap local station like WKNY-TV when the big New York City stations were available on cable?