[mythtv-users] Cable Programmers versus the FCC
beww at beww.org
Tue Sep 16 20:25:08 UTC 2008
David Brodbeck wrote:
> Brian Wood wrote:
>> R. G. Newbury wrote:
>>> For US (and Canadian) myth users, The Blog of the Legal Times (*BLT*)
>>> reports on a scrap between cable channel progam providers and the FCC
>>> regarding carriage rules.... which impact what *we* receive over cable.
>> Then there is this part:
>> "And Kavanaugh noted that boxes to allow analog subscribers to receive
>> digital signals would ensure that the programmers’ First Amendment
>> rights were not violated."
>> This is not necessarily the case. The boxes I've seen receive ATSC, not
>> QAM, and would thus be useless on a CATV system.
> Maybe they mean cable boxes. Surely your cable company will be happy to
> supply you with a box that can accept a QAM signal and display it on
> your analog TV -- for a nominal monthly fee, of course, just like they
> do now with their "digital tier."
I assumed he was talking about the boxes for which you can get the $40
certificates, anything else would make the 1st amendment argument silly,
as oyu could always pay to receive it somehow.
> How this plays out on any given system will depend a lot on the
> franchise agreement the cable company signed, since those agreements
> often require an inexpensive "basic" tier of service. If you're
> concerned about this, consider writing a letter to your city councilman
> explaining the issue to him/her.
Correct, though it used to be the cable companies would bend over
backwards to avoid offending the franchising authority, now they have
become so powerful they can pretty much dictate to the cities and towns.
In my case I was told my a cable company employee that "The FCC is going
to require you to pay for a digital box", which is wrong in several
respects, but he was just repeating what he was told.
Screw the public and blame the government, which is so used to getting
screwed from that source that they will easily believe it.
More information about the mythtv-users