Scrambling DTV (The wave of the future?)

[Markxxx]

Was reading some posts on usenet and it made for an interesting topic.

Someone pointed out that it would be relatively easy for a station to send out it's DTV signal scrambled and require the viewer to pay for it.

Now on the FCC website all I could find was that at least ONE channel (or rather one subchannel) must be free to air. But it doesn't say that the station couldn't require you to register your name to get the channel for free. So it kind of leaves it wide open.

I was thinking, with the satellite you can only get locals in your DMA. What would stop the same thing for happening from over the air TV. This would ensure people would only get the stations in their DMA.

It could also stop Canadians from watching American TV stations and vice versa.

I doubt it would happen but it brings up and interesting topic to discuss. I mean the FCC requires that TV broadcast emergency broadcasts freely but the TV station could easily turn off its decoder when that time, if ever arises.

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

If you live in a market that also gets strong signals from a nearby TV market (i.e. Boston and Providence, or Baltimore and Washington), I would think the FCC rules would require the main channel of each digital TV station to be available without subscription or an unscrambler.

Thus, someone in Boston (especially south of the city) could get the main channel of a digital TV signal from the Providence market, but might not be able to get any scrambled DTV sub-channels from that digital station. The Boston viewer, on the other hand, would be able to subscribe to all the scrambled sub-channels from a Boston DTV station. The reverse could hold true for those in Providence.

Toronto-area digital TV set owners could (if they can pick them up) get the main channel of each Buffalo DTV station, but again, if the other channels from that station are scrambled, they may not be available in Canada.

 

[rugrats1]

The only way DTV can be scrambled is if they intend on using it as a pay service. And one company, USDTV, is already doing that, with a couple of DTV channels in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. The host channels have one DTV feed unscrambled, and the others, consisting of ESPN, TLC, CNN, etc., scrambled. To get these scrambled channels, you'll need a special DTV receiver from USDTV.

This is more like an attempt to revive the "subscription TV" concept of the 1970s and 1980s, but adapting it to DTV.

 

[Mark_Ericson]

> The only way DTV can be scrambled is if they intend on using
> it as a pay service. And one company, USDTV, is already
> doing that, with a couple of DTV channels in the Dallas-Fort
> Worth area. The host channels have one DTV feed unscrambled,
> and the others, consisting of ESPN, TLC, CNN, etc.,
> scrambled. To get these scrambled channels, you'll need a
> special DTV receiver from USDTV.

USDTV also operates in Albuquerque, Salt Lake City, and Las Vegas. And I think Los Angeles.

There's not enough bandwidth available to turn it into a viable alternative. USDTV piggybacks on other stations, which is fine in major markets where there are "throwaway channels" like KTAQ and KMPX in DFW, but I know that when it started in Salt Lake City it appeared on KSL--the NBC station--and was NOT well-received. People with satellite, who already HAD all the channels on USDTV, were seeing pixelization and other issues and were getting nothing in return. Eventually KSL dropped the feeds and they wound up elsewhere.

- Trip<P ID="signature">______________
Visit my website, www.rabbitears.info! It's eventually going to be your one resource for television info! Digital television, histories, and technical information for the entire USA from one source!</P>

 

[Markxxx]

> If you live in a market that also gets strong signals from a
> nearby TV market (i.e. Boston and Providence, or Baltimore
> and Washington), I would think the FCC rules would require
> the main channel of each digital TV station to be available
> without subscription or an unscrambler.
>
> Thus, someone in Boston (especially south of the city) could
> get the main channel of a digital TV signal from the
> Providence market, but might not be able to get any
> scrambled DTV sub-channels from that digital station. The
> Boston viewer, on the other hand, would be able to subscribe
> to all the scrambled sub-channels from a Boston DTV station.
> The reverse could hold true for those in Providence.
>
> Toronto-area digital TV set owners could (if they can pick
> them up) get the main channel of each Buffalo DTV station,
> but again, if the other channels from that station are
> scrambled, they may not be available in Canada.
>
Agreed but here's the key. It says it has to be free to air. It never says it has to be available to you without effort. Stations could give you a free signal SO LONG as you live in their DMA. So for instance if you lived in Providence you would need a free code to get Providence DMA TV. You'd get it for free. But if you lived in Boston you couldn't get the code for Providence TV and vice versa.

We're not really talking about subscription TV, but more along the lines of DMA exclusitivity (sp??) that we now have in the dishes. They can only give you locals from your own DMA market. It seems like it would be very easy to impliment this DMA exclusitivity in OTA TV too.<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>

 

[Tom_Desmond]

> Agreed but here's the key. It says it has to be free to air.
> It never says it has to be available to you without effort.
> Stations could give you a free signal SO LONG as you live in
> their DMA. So for instance if you lived in Providence you
> would need a free code to get Providence DMA TV. You'd get
> it for free. But if you lived in Boston you couldn't get the
> code for Providence TV and vice versa.

Um, no. It wouldn't work like that.

If stations started encryting their main digital channel and requiring registration the result would be a signal that can't be received on any one of the several million digital tuners currently in use. These receivers are not built to handle any sort of "conditional access".

The intent of the FCC rule clearly is that stations offer at least one stream that can be received by a standard ATSC-compliant receiver. Making a signal available only to those who live within a particular DMA is not possible with any technique that will allow the signal to be viewed on such a standard receiver.

 

[stationi]

> > Agreed but here's the key. It says it has to be free to
> air.
> > It never says it has to be available to you without
> effort.
> > Stations could give you a free signal SO LONG as you live
> in
> > their DMA. So for instance if you lived in Providence you
> > would need a free code to get Providence DMA TV. You'd get
>
> > it for free. But if you lived in Boston you couldn't get
> the
> > code for Providence TV and vice versa.
>
> Um, no. It wouldn't work like that.
>
> If stations started encryting their main digital channel and
> requiring registration the result would be a signal that
> can't be received on any one of the several million digital
> tuners currently in use. These receivers are not built to
> handle any sort of "conditional access".
>
> The intent of the FCC rule clearly is that stations offer at
> least one stream that can be received by a standard
> ATSC-compliant receiver. Making a signal available only to
> those who live within a particular DMA is not possible with
> any technique that will allow the signal to be viewed on
> such a standard receiver.
>

Exactly.

Also, the FCC also doesn't care if signals are seen in other markets. The only thing the FCC cares about is getting more and more people to use dtv (so they can turn the analogs off and get the 52-69 ch. spectrum), ownership limits, children's programming, and preventing signal interference. (and you can argue prevent indecency)


______________
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.stationindex.com/>TV Station List</a></P>

 

[markwooldridge]

It didn't work in the UK

This was tried on the UK DTV system as an alternative to subscribing to satellite pay tv services. It failed spectacuarly. The BBC of all things, in a consortium with its terrestrial broadcast partner and its satellite competition formed Freeview to re-launch the UK DTV platform as a "buy a box, get these extra channels free" scenario. It's proved popular.

What's needed to get US DTV going is certainly for those sub-channels on main tv channels opened up but with quality additional programming. A lot of PBS affiliated stations are going about it the right way (IMO) e.g. UNC-TV has a 24/7 kids feed, a 24/7 educational feed and a 24/7 local interest feed in addition to their regular feed and the HD-TV feed. It's additional programming such as this that if there was an attractive entry price point (e.g. $60 for a converter) that would persuade existing people with traditional OTA TV to switch to digital. Admittedly our commercial stations are now competing with WFMY and WXII having a local weather station (and it's welcome) but more content is needed on these commercial feeds in order to make the switch to DTV worthwhile. (and a competitive entry point for the cost of DTV converters).

Mark.