FCC Commissioner Consumer Friendly in DTV Transition?

[HDTiVo]

Sounds like he has some consumer friendly thoughts (http://broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6453329.html):

Martin said the FCC was taking a number of steps regarding the broadcast and cable industries. He pointed out that commission has proposed requiring cable operators to deliver a “viewable” signal to customers, whether that means “explicitly requiring” them to deliver an analog signal to their analog cable customers, or that all-digital cable systems provide customers with the equipment to view broadcast signals, and that “cable subscribers will not be forced to rent a set-top box to view the broadcast signals.”

The FCC also proposes that cable to deliver a broadcasters’ HDTV signal in HD, rather than being able to convert it to standard DTV. Martin also put in another pitch for requiring cable to carry all of a broadcasters free digital channels, rather than just a digital version of their primary signals, as the commission has previously held. Martin tried to require multicast must-carry a year ago, but could not muster the votes. He said the proposal remains among his fellow commissioners.

And maybe analog TiVo users will have more to hang on to for longer.


FCC Commissioner on Digital TV Transition (http://hdtivo.wordpress.com/2007/06/19/fcc-commissioner-on-digital-tv-transition/)

[bicker]

Martin has always been biased in that direction. That's why we need to take what the Chairman says in context. He doesn't speak for the rest of the commission. He speaks for himself, and is an influential voice, but that doesn't mean his perspectives aren't typically voted down.

[ZeoTiVo]

"He pointed out that commission has proposed requiring cable operators to deliver a “viewable” signal to customers,"

that does seem like something more than just selfish single consumer I would want though ;)

[bicker]

I never said that everything the guy says is bone-headed. I said that his comments must be taken "in context". I mentioned he was an "influential voice". I also noted how he doesn't get his way all the time.

Regardless, what he proposes and what the commission ends up adopting will likely not be one and the same. He'll get some of what he wants, and not the rest.

[ZeoTiVo]

I never said that everything the guy says is bone-headed. and I never said you did. I just pointed out that this is something the general market will want and it will be a good market move for cable companies to provide that viewable signal. The FCC can look good by saying the obvious that "cable companies must provide a viewable signal"
at the end of the day all that happens is that the cable companies still decide based on business strategy whether to keep providing analog or not and if not provide a cheap sett top box to those customers who do not want to go digital. That will be the "viewable signal" and the FCC looks like the good guys who made the cbale company hand out the cheap set top box while the consumer stays on a low cost plan.

The question is - will the cbale company get a waiver from cable cards for these cheap set top boxes or will the cable company have to spend some bucks to ensure adequate signal strength to all these formally analog homes. That will be the real fight and where the FCC head may indeed lose out.

[HDTiVo]

The question is - will the cbale company get a waiver from cable cards for these cheap set top boxes or will the cable company have to spend some bucks to ensure adequate signal strength to all these formally analog homes. That will be the real fight and where the FCC head may indeed lose out.
It may depend on which viewable signals have to be provided. For example, suppose they only have to provide such things as broadcast OTA (and things that were traditionally unscrambled analog cable on that system; ) that could be done via clear QAM and therefore no cableCARD necessary at all.

Its also a question of what form open cable is in at that point and whether having cableCARD slots & cards costs anything close to what it is claimed it costs today.

[gastrof]

"He pointed out that commission has proposed requiring cable operators to deliver a “viewable” signal to customers,"

that does seem like something more than just selfish single consumer I would want though ;)


It'd be nice if that meant that the same channels that are unscrambled on analog were sent thru "in the clear" on the digital side too.

I just got a Standard Def TV that nonetheless has a digital tuner on board along with the analog one. The digital tuner can do QAM, and I found that the only real "cable" channel I get is SPEED. For some reason that's "in the clear", but that's it. The only other channels I get are OTAs, which legally can't be scrambled, I guess.

If the cable companies are giving a bunch of "cable" channels unscrambled on the analog side, meaning you don't need special equipment to get them (just your own TV or recorder-with-tuner), the same should be done with digital.

[gastrof]

I never said that everything the guy says is bone-headed. I said that his comments must be taken "in context". I mentioned he was an "influential voice". I also noted how he doesn't get his way all the time.

Regardless, what he proposes and what the commission ends up adopting will likely not be one and the same. He'll get some of what he wants, and not the rest.

Is he the same guy who put his foot down a number of years ago and said that in the digital change-over, 'The public better be able to do all the same things they can do with analog TV now, including record shows'?

[HDTiVo]

One little cable company's idea...

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6454308.html

[gastrof]

One little cable company's idea...

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6454308.html


Did you notice this part?

"'One of the primary reasons why we came up with this is … there aren’t enough [converter coupon] vouchers,' Massillon outside counsel Mark Palchick said. 'We know for a fact that the program was designed not to have enough vouchers.'"

Lovely.

Just lovely.