ClearQAM could get encrypted soon!

[tmar89]

Looks like cable companies will soon be able to encrypt all channels including basic channels, effectively killing off ClearQAM and ruining any chances of the Boxee Box TV Tuner from succeeding for people without available OTA signals.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/...Basic_Tier.php

[mbryanr]

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/procee...lk&name=11-169

[skottles]

Terrible news. I guess I will have to drop my cable completely and go over the air if this happens.

[tmar89]

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/procee...lk&name=11-169

Wow, read some of those comments from the cable companies. Insanely out of touch with the changing trends in TV. For instance, RCN, my cable company states with respect to the legit ClearQAM basic channel viewing audience, which includes HTPC enthusiasts:

Nevertheless, several of the objectors focus on the potential costs of the rule change to consumers watching basic-tier programming with QAM tuners. RCN suggests that these concerns about the impact on such a small number of subscribers should not delay the benefits of this rule change. These commenters give little weight to the significant benefits the rule change would bring to industry and customer alike.

They also undervalue the mitigation proposed by the Commission, which RCN views as entirely sufficient. However, rather than delaying the rule change by exhaustively debating the appropriate length of mitigation—or worse, conducting a lengthy and costly study of the number of consumers in this category—RCN could support mitigation beyond a single year under appropriate circumstances. In this way, even if the number of consumers legally viewing basic cable with QAM tuners were larger than predicted, mitigation would be more than adequate. By contrast, RCN does not view permanent mitigation to be a reasonable solution, nor does it view
mitigation that lasts for an extended number of years to be reasonable.

As the Commission knows, cable television is a constantly and rapidly evolving industry. Permanent or longduration mitigation would ossify a single type of provisioning.

[AminB]

The marketing of Boxee should not be directed to Big Cable Companies... They should get contents and provide good TV apps on BB, that should be the emphasis.

[mbryanr]

Boxee filing...
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/commen...?id=6016984105

and the apparent result of the presentation

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/commen...?id=6016984154

[mbryanr]

and the forum gets recognition in the latest filing from RCN Telecom
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6016985615

[darcilicious]

Awesome, one of my posts is quoted

[tmar89]

and the forum gets recognition in the latest filing from RCN Telecom
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6016985615

I can't believe the greed of these cable companies. I live in the Lehigh Valley where there is no OTA signals and I pay for Internet service and cable TV through RCN. I would have no need for cable TV if there was OTA available, but because it does not exist, I would be forced to pay for a converter box and a package to get just OTA cable. Key word is forced. The document in no way mentions that by encrypting all channels that the consumer would be trapped into paying a required fee to get what is essentially free OTA if you are lucky enough to live in the right area.

And this paragraph makes me want to puke:

"Like many cable providers, RCN offers customers both internet access and television service through a single cable. As RCN noted in its previous filings, this means that, because there are no commercially available “traps” that filter video service from Internet service, RCN’s internet-only customers can view unencrypted basic tier channels without paying for them. As a result, a Boxee customer who has RCN internet access—and the Boxee Box requires a broadband internet connection—can illegally view broadcast basic channels using the Boxee Live TV and a ten-dollar cable splitter."

Illegally? How is this illegal to view FREE OTA channels? Let me figure this one out. The Cable Companies acquired the basic channels through satellite and then feed them to their consumers. So they must pay a licensing fee to acquire those signals, correct? Then they push it through their medium and now will force consumers to rent a converter box AND pay a package fee? So they would be making dump truck loads of money on this. How is THAT not illegal?

I recently spoke over Twitter with RCNconnects and they said the following:

@RCNconnects: @tmar89 Yes, Tom if your TV is equipped with a QAM tuner you can receive local broadcast network signals without the need for a converter.

Seems like they don't have their PR people in the loop.

[mbryanr]

Looks like Craptastic and Boxee have agreed to a truce:

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/vi...?id=7021979207

The initial solution involves the development as soon as possible of a high-definition digital
transport adapter with an ethernet connector (“E-DTA”). This solution would enable a
customer with a third-party device to access basic tier channels directly through an ethernet
input on such third-party device or via the home network, and to change channels remotely in
the E-DTA via a DLNA protocol.
• The long-term solution, which would follow shortly after the initial solution, involves the
creation of a licensing path for integrating DTA technology into third-party devices
(“Integrated DTA”). Such a device could access encrypted basic tier channels without the need
for a cable operator-supplied DTA or set-top box.