[mythtv-users] Comcast rendering my HDHR useless

[jedi]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 08:41:02AM -0400, Mark Small wrote:
> On November 10, 2008 05:41:44 am Friedrich Clausen wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Jon Bishop
> >
> > <jon.the.wise.gdrive at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 8, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Larry K wrote:
> > >> The weird thing is that about a month ago, they put almost
> > >> EVERYTHING on
> > >> QAM.  I just happened to rescan and my HDHR was picking up all the
> > >> stuff
> > >> that's available over analog, plus all the cool HD stuff like TLC,
> > >> and even
> > >> some digital tier stuff like TruTV.
> > >>
> > >> I thought they were gonna open all this up as an alternative to
> > >> analog, but
> > >> now it doesn't look good.
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Brian Wood <beww at beww.org> wrote:
> > >>> Larry K wrote:
> > >>>> Anyone else in VA have Comcast and use an HDHR (or a QAM tuner)?
> > >>>> Recently, they took away a whole bunch of must-have QAM channels,
> > >>>> like
> > >>>> TLCHD, DSCD, HGTVHD, HSTRYHD, and on and on.  It's a pretty lengthy
> > >>>> list.  Now all that's left is the networks and a few miscellaneous
> > >>>
> > >>> channels.
> > >>>
> > >>>> I wonder if this is somehow related to the removal of analog
> > >>>> channels in
> > >>>> February?
> > >>>
> > >>> That's what they want you to believe, they screw you and you blame
> > >>> the
> > >>> government.
> > >>>
> > >>> Sounds like you are now in the same boat as most of the rest of us,
> > >>> the
> > >>> only unencrypted QAM channels are the local OTAs and things like
> > >>> CSPAN
> > >>> and the various home shopping things.
> > >
> > > This makes me ponder. Now, for years and years, you've been able to
> > > hook your TV up to the cable line and tune all the channels you've
> > > subscribed to. Now, with QAM, you could *theoretically* hook up most
> > > new HDTV sets to the same cable and get all the digital channels that
> > > you are subscribed to, except that commie-cast has encrypted all those
> > > stations, forcing people to pay for a set top box.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that this is extortion, and would like to know why the
> > > FCC doesn't require the cable co's to broadcast in such a way that
> > > people aren't forced to lease hardware, or provide as many STBs as
> > > requested at no expense to subscriber. There's no reason for them to
> > > broadcast encrypted signals except to screw their customers. When
> > > you're not a subscriber, they disconnect your cable, physically. If
> > > they don't, that's not the fault of the consumer.
> > >
> > > ~Jon
> >
> > Perhaps, in addition to the STB motivation, the broadcasters are also
> > being pressured by the large studios into denying the subscriber
> > unencrypted access to *his* subscription. But that is pure speculation
> > on my part. Perhaps the FCC should be petitioned to look into this.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Fred.
> > _______________________________________________
> > mythtv-users mailing list
> > mythtv-users at mythtv.org
> > http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
> 
> Okay conspiracy theorists, calm down.  The whole reason that they encrypt most 
> of the QAM streams is that HDTV's with QAM capable tuners are very common.  
> If they didn't encrypt the QAM streams then people would be able to view 
> channels that they DON'T subscribe to.  And that's called cale theft.

      Bullshit. I didn't have this issue as an analog cable subscriber. I wasn't
forced into this artificial siutation where I need to rent an STB or a cable card.
Any cable ready TV set in the house could tune into the channels that I subscribed
to. Even if I did want something like HBO, at least the output coming out of the
STB would be something that ANY cable ready TV could deal with. The definition of
cable ready wasn't constantly in flux.

> 
> If you want to view subscribed digital content without an STB, that's what 
> cablecard is for (in theory -- shame its such a mess in practice)
> 
> Mark

      Hand the cable companies a monopoly on a platter? Of course it's going to be
a mess. There's no good reason for the content to be encrypted between the STB and
the TV. That just creates unecessary complexity and network effects.

      The S3 Tivos are already facing issues over this as cable providers move to
the next "cable ready interfaces".