Would dual must carry be good or bad for HDTV?
By Ben Drawbaugh 
posted Apr 13th 2007 2:23PM
posted Apr 13th 2007 2:23PM
While there is little doubt in how analog broadcast television is going to meet its demise, the jury is still out on analog cable. While some of use think that cable companies will use the DTV transition to move customers to digital cable, others aren't so sure. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is now proposing what is being referred to as dual must carry, which would require cable companies to carry both the digital and analog version of each local affiliate's feed, unless the cable companies switch to an all digital network. Sure all digital network seems great to us, but for all those without QAM tuners in their TVs, this means a converter box on every TV just like the OTA folks. The FUD is getting really deep in here, but somehow we think Kevin might be on to something. If cable companies are encouraged to go to digital and since digital SD channels use far less bandwidth than analog ones, that means more room for HD and other digital services we love.
Just force the cable to broadcast all the same analog channels in the clear in digital QAM. That way you don't need a box from the cable company. Most digital boxes will probably include QAM. I would not buy one if it didn't. Just advertise as a *cable ready* digital tuner.
Or force cable to broadcast all their analog channels in clear ATSC. I'm sure it's possible, even if they say different.
I agree with Jim. But I would also want them to include the HD versions of the analog channels too. So if they had ESPN-SD in their analog channels, they would have to carry both the SD and HD versions in clear QAM.
The SD digital boxes are tiny and unobtrusive. They are about the size of a radar-detector. Nobody that still clinging to an ancient analog TV should mind having one on each TV in the house, and they don't cost very much.
As for putting all analog stations on clear-QAM - dream on. The only channels they must provide in the clear are your local broadcast channels (VHF/UHF). Most cablecos also have a "basic" analog tier that they might provide un-encrypted, otherwise expect to use a STB or CableCard to get premium cable channels (like MTV, ESPN, etc).
They already have local OTA HD in clear QAM (they have to, FCC mandate). I have basic cable but still enjoy the local OTA HD broadcasts (I'm moving soon and will replace cable with DISH HD). All the FCC has to do is force them to provide the current analog package(s) in clear QAM (unencrypted). So nothing changes for you if you have a cheapie tuner and an old set. There is really no point to have ESPN-HD at that point. Although I have watched HD broadcasts downsampled via S video to a SD TV and the PQ is excellent. :)
"All the FCC has to do is force them to provide the current analog package(s) in clear QAM (unencrypted)."
You're talking about forcing them to give away for free what they now charge $25-30 per month for.
Not happening.
Cable channels beyond the minimum "basic" tier can and WILL BE encrypted.
Not for free dude. For the same price they charge for analog service. Same channels unencrypted as they are now in analog, just in digital format.
Channels 2-32 costs $18/month
Channels 2-75 costs $45/month
Send those channels in clear QAM or ATSC format so the customers do not need a cable-provided STB. The FCC has to mandate that. In Chicago, Comcast provides the first STB for free, but additional boxes will cost you, which to me is complete BS. They are using the digital switchover as a way to screw the customer and blame the government for it. I can hook up as many TV's as I want now (I have 4) so I'll have to *rent* 3 boxes from them? No way. I don't really mind purchasing them for $40 or $60 or whatever, but I won't pay $5 or $10 a month for each additional one. That comes out to $360/year to rent 3.
It's unencrypted now over analog and should stay that way when they switch over to digital. It won't happen so I'm switching to DISH and putting up an OTA HD antenna.
The problem with your idea is that they put filters on the line to trap the analog channels you don't pay for. They don't do that for digital - encryption is the method used to control access to digital channels.
How do you propose they stop people from watching all the clear-QAM digital channels that they don't pay for? The Honor System??
-->
As for "monopoly" - that's bullshit. Customers have many choices, satellite, over-the-air, and internet TV/FIOS which is coming soon to many locations. Besides this, those municipalities are always free to re-negotiate their franchise agreements, or to make agreements with other cable companies (if there are any interested). It's what we call the *FREE* market (ie not regulated by the gov't).
Cable is a closed system. I think the FCC should concentrate on regulating over the air broadcasters and allow the market place to determine what cable is to carry.
--- CHAS
also a monopoly which is the problem. They negotiated exclusivity agreements with counties and municipalities.
That's what has to go for the "marketplace/competition" argument to be valid.