Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
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...
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |