

ClearQAM - What It Is And Why It Matters - jimminy
http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/02/clearqam-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters.html

======
Bo102010
I work in the industry, and this article is quite... misinforming.

For one, the sentence "Getting rid of QAM isn't a bad idea in the long run" is
crazy. QAM is a general-purpose modulation technique used in numerous
technologies. It has nothing to do with the evil cablecos trying to lock down
their signal, or something.

Next, the sentence "the cable industry is currently lobbying the FCC for a
rulemaking that would allow them to encrypt QAM" is hopelessly misinformed.

If you plug a QAM tuner into a cable subscriber's coaxial outlet, you'll be
receiving data for a few hundred cable channels, but all but a dozen or two
are _already encrypted_. The ones that aren't encrypted are you local ABC,
NBC, CBS, Fox, PBS, etc. The ones that are encrypted are "expanded basic"
services.

Why are these encrypted? In part to prevent signal piracy to protect revenues,
but also in part because the content providers require it. If you're a
cableco, you can't offer ESPN or HBO without encrypting the signal - ESPN and
HBO won't let you.

I can't speak for my cableco employer, but I have never had a conversation in
which someone said "I wish we could encrypt our clear QAM channels" - it's
always been the opposite. It's much easier to offer service if you can get the
signal to a customer without having to buy some crappy converter box or spend
a lot of money on a high end settop.

~~~
gergles
The whole point is that cable companies are lobbying the FCC to remove the
requirement that lifeline be unencrypted, with the ostensible purpose of
"reducing truck rolls".

So, maybe your cableco isn't one that is lobbying, but several of the major
ones are actively currently lobbying the FCC to remove the clear-lifeline
requirement.

~~~
Bo102010
Yeah - the idea is that the cablecos could avoid sending a truck to activate
or remove services.

But this isn't mentioned in the article, and the article is actively wrong in
the ways I mentioned above, plus others (e.g. "There is no reason to change
this policy now just because the cable companies want every home and apartment
to have one of their set-top boxes..." No they don't. They want people who
don't want more than basic packages to have a settop at all, and avoid that
up-front investment).

~~~
wdewind
I assume by the last sentence you mean they DON'T want people who don't want
more than basic packages to have a settop. Considering everyone usually
"leases" their cable box from the cable company (at least in NYC) for
something like $10-13 a month, it seems like in a matter of months the boxes
have paid for themselves and then they are making profit. I've had my box for
2 years. Do they really not want people to have settops in their houses?

~~~
Bo102010
They do eventually pay for themselves ($13 per month! Geez.), but they (a)
cost more than you might think to begin with, (b) require a lengthy setup and
provisioning process that is quite labor intensive, (c) lock you in to old
technology - you can't move to, say, MPEG-4 or IP delivery if you've got a
million legacy boxes to deal with.

Similar to how phone companies wish they wouldn't have to subsidize new
phones, there are lots of people in the cable industry who wish that every TV
had a CableCARD slot and IP connectivity (for PPV/VOD services), or that there
was a peripheral you could plug into an Xbox or something that would let you
get/decrypt cableco signal.

Obviously opinions will differ from company to company, and we are all
actually evil.

~~~
twoodfin
This comment is one of the best demonstrations of why an Apple TV set will be
such an easy sell to cable providers.

------
joezydeco
_"Putting direct IP access to the broadcast channels on the cables is a much
better approach"_

And how is that supposed to work? Everyone needs a DOCSIS box/router and some
kind of multicast-IP-to-HDTV converter? That seems a lot more complex and
equipment-heavy.

Or is that where portfolio-company Boxee steps in to save the day?

~~~
jsz0
Not necessarily. This could be done through most of the existing equipment
customers own. An iPad app just needs the right IP address to tune a digital
video stream that's arriving via your existing cable modem / router. Same
thing for a stand-alone IP set top. I saw a demo a few years ago at Cisco on
this exact configuration that was part of their early 'TV anywhere'
development. The box they were using was about $50 and available on NewEgg.com
at the time. Worked beautifully.

~~~
joezydeco
First sentence in the article:

 _"There are millions of homes and apartments around the country that have a
TV connected to a cable but have no set-top box and no video service from
their local cable provider"_

If we need to provide these users with boxes, fine. But that's not what we're
talking about here.

~~~
jsz0
Also from the article:

 _Putting direct IP access to the broadcast channels on the cables is a much
better approach._

I agree it's a better approach and offers more benefits to consumers in the
long run.

------
natch
I wonder, how would the author change his argument if he was talking to people
who take the position that the faster the TV industry dies, the better?

If people get cut off from traditional TV, they will seek other media, likely
through the Internet. This is a good thing.

~~~
jimminy
As much as I'd like to see the cable co's die, not the TV industry entirely.
The internet is not a truly viable alternative for now.

I'll say this as someone who lives last mile (half or even a quarter if you
want to be technical). Television provides higher quality(lower latency) and
more stable transmissions. Unfortunately, we're situated just outside of the
cable co's reach, so have to deal with a satellite provider for TV and a
Telecomm for phone/internet.

We spend $80 a month on a 756kb/s ADSL line and phone service. At one point,
we had 4 rooms with televisions, this isn't something that could be handled
with internet speeds such as that. When the digital transition happened we
went from 7 basic channels down to 2 OTA; up until that point we had no need
for an outside provider. If we could access the cable co's infrastructure, the
bills would be much lower, 60-70%, and the internet access would be much
better.

We need to fight against the communications industry for adequate
infrastrucure before dismantling them under the assumption people already have
adequate access.

Edit: I'm not the author of the post, I just shared it.

