[Discuss] Comcast gets rid of the remaining analog channels

[tmetro-blu at vl.com (Tom Metro)]

Bill Bogstad wrote:
> 1. Downsized SD versions of their retransmission of local over the air channels.
> 2. Local access (CCTV, city government, public school)
> 
>  I suspect that #1 and #2 are a result of federal regulations...

I just saw an article today relating to this:

FCC proposal would allow the encryption of basic cable programing, Boxee
cries foul
http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/8/2784160/fcc-proposal-basic-cable-encryption-boxee-cries-foul
  At issue is the encryption of basic cable channels. In 1994 the FCC
  mandated that cable operators transmit their basic tiers of
  programming unencrypted in order to increase accessibility. In today's
   world of digital television, that comes in the guise of Clear QAM;

  ...the FCC recently released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which
  suggests the mandate be dropped. The change would effectively require
  all US customers to own or rent a STB or CableCARD to watch any cable
  programming whatsoever.

It is likely a losing battle, but the more stuff we can keep
unencrypted, the better. (I'm sending my comment to the FCC via:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/cable-encryption )


  Proponents argue that reinstating encryption would allow cable
  operators to control subscriber access remotely, cutting down on
  service calls, and providing savings for customers while reducing the
  industry's environmental impact.

They conveniently gloss over the option of using addressable taps, which
would solve the same problem, without forcing consumers to put up with
set-top-boxes. Presumably because doing so would be more expensive, and
the lack of a set-top-box means they can't sell you pay-per-view.


> Another question is what are they going to do with all of that
> bandwidth?
>
> Tom:  It looks like you are a month ahead of me on this.   Has Comcast
> sent you anything implying their plans for the extra bandwidth?

No.

I've read that cable companies make more profit on providing Internet
service than they do from programming, due to the high costs of content,
which would make a case for them offering higher tiers of Internet service.

But that doesn't necessarily mean they'll maximize profits by offering
higher speeds. They probably feel that only a tiny percentage of their
users aren't satisfied with the speeds they currently offer (and those
that do are likely using it to utilize competing video services
(Netflix, etc.)), and there is no real competition pushing them to
higher speeds.

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.


Jack Coats wrote:
> ...can a competitor now come in and replace their service (the phone
> company tries, but isn't there, currently).

Unlikely. Have you heard about the deal between Verizon and Comcast,
where Verizon has basically given up expanding its FIOS coverage?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203920204577197390303185550.html

For Verizon, wireless is more profitable than building new fiber plants,
so this makes sense for them.

 -Tom

-- 
Tom Metro
Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA
"Enterprise solutions through open source."
Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/