[Discuss] Comcast gets rid of the remaining analog channels

[gaf at blu.org (Jerry Feldman)]

On 02/09/2012 08:45 AM, Matthew Gillen wrote:
> On 02/09/2012 03:29 AM, Shirley M?rquez D?lcey wrote:
>> On 2/9/2012 2:37 AM, Tom Metro wrote:
>>> In the end it is likely a mix of things already mentioned, like more HD
>>> channels (clinging to the old model of overpriced channel packages),
>>> higher Internet speeds, and simply cost savings by getting rid of
>>> maintenance overhead for their analog plant.
>> Dropping analog has a lot of justifications, and I think they're
>> actually correct to do it. Dropping ClearQAM for basic channels does
>> not; it's no more difficult to digitally encode without encryption than
>> with it. I suppose it makes their support problem slightly simpler (no
>> guiding people through setting up their TV sets) but that's unlikely to
>> be a big enough deal to matter.
> My understanding is that the encryption isn't really a business goal of
> the cable companies, but rather a requirement that is being forced on
> them by the content producers.  The content producers can say "you need
> to pay us X to carry our content if you encrypt, or pay us 10x if you
> don't encrypt, to compensate us for the additional risk of piracy".
>
> Look at it this way: the move to encryption forced them to give away a
> lot of decryptor devices to existing customers to keep them from
> screaming bloody murder.  That's a big up-front investment.  You might
> say that they will make it back over the long run by charging a fee on
> top of their costs for the future customers' set-top-boxes, but that's a
> risky bet.  The FCC could swing back and outlaw encryption (b/c it
> renders FCC-mandated controls like the V-Chip useless), consumers could
> find another venue to spend their money, etc.
>
> It's my opinion that the content producers (following the MPAA/RIAA
> example) are grossly over-estimating the "piracy problem" (esp. in terms
> of how much money they are "losing"), and therefore grossly
> over-reacting in terms of the political pressure they are applying, and
> the additional costs they are bundling into their products.
>
> It's gotten to the point where I've /almost/ convinced my wife that we
> should dump our cable service, and just do mythv OTA.
>
> In the long run, I'm confident that they are just creating more room for
> novel 'content providers', who are novel in their content distribution
> models as much as their content, to step in and eat their lunch (e.g.
> look up Lewis C.K.'s recent foray into self-publishing video of his
> stand-up routine: bottom line was that he made a boatload more money
> than he ever did doing deals with HBO Specials, and he did it with no
> DRM).  More to the point, my wife and kids (who watch all the tv in our
> house) watch as much off the internet as they do off our cable service.
>
> So I'm sort of torn.  On the one hand my instinct is to fight their
> political pressure to bend rules in ways that break my MythTV.  On the
> other, the more success they have (from their point of view) at
> protecting the business model they had in the pre-VCR days, the faster
> they will become irrelevant...
One additional reason the cable companies want to encrypt is to prevent
theft. Especially in apartment complexes signal theft was pretty high. I
don't know if that is still an issue.

-- 
Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id:3BC1EB90 
PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66  C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90