Clear QAM HD isn't going anywhere!
By Ben Drawbaugh 
posted Aug 28th 2009 5:48PM
posted Aug 28th 2009 5:48PM
The bottom line is that local broadcast channels are available in HD to any cable subscriber with a clear QAM tuner, whether you have a set-top-box or not. The recent news changes nothing, except maybe a very select few who were lucky enough to receive more than locals via clear QAM. We dropped the FCC a line to make sure we had our facts straight -- wouldn't want to call people out without checking our own first -- and the very prompt answer we received was that this statutory requirement goes all the way back to the to the Communications Act of 1934 (Section 614(b)(4)(B).
More recently, the FCC addressed the issue when laying down the digital transition rules which "states that broadcast signals that are subject to mandatory carriage must be "viewable via cable on all television receivers of a subscriber which are connected to a cable system by a cable operator or for which a cable operator provides a connection." Now obviously we're not lawyers, but it seems pretty clear that local cable operators are not allowed to encrypt any locally broadcast HD stations. Now we've heard reports that some cable companies do indeed encrypt these signals, but while you might be willing to complain on some forum about it, have you taken the time to file a proper complaint with the FCC? If not, then you really don't have anything to complain about.
Read (doc) - The 2007 Report to set the transition rules (paragraph 15)
**UPDATE** As you can see from the comments, with anything legal it isn't exactly cut and dry. In fact the only thing we've managed to accomplish is to be confused. So while some level of broadcast TV has to be free, we're not sure if it's free as in beer or what. Stay tuned for a follow up just as soon as we figure it out.
Yea!
For those effected, how does one complain to the FCC?
Just curious - is this referring to the Anandtech blog post yesterday?
http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=637
Yes, that is one of the posts I saw online that was a bit alarmist.
The $60 million dollar question is what does this mean beyond HD locals and other must carries?
Many people enjoy HD programing broadcast in ClearQAM that aren't the locals. Does this clear the way for cable companies (other than Verizon FIOS) to restrict ClearQAM to only the locals?
Verizon FIOS already restricts ClearQAM to locals only.
There really aren't any other "must caries." Beyond broadcast has always been encrypted in the digital world, this hasn't changed.
Anyone who is currently getting anything beyond locals in the clear is very lucky. Most content owners (not the cable company) require their signals be encrypted. On top of that, the cable companies want to encrypt everything to prevent signal theft and to control the "experience."
... and to generate revenue since every TV connected to the system will have to be "authorized" by them (i.e. they can collect additional outlet and box rental fees).
I get a few non-local HD channels on my Samsung HDTV set. Are you basically saying that those will disappear?
Regardless, I'm gonna be building a hacked CableCard system soon because Comcast doesn't know how to throw a HD EPG together. -_-
waiver. Jeezus.
Probably should revise that headline to include Local channels. You don't mean to imply that Discovery HD, A&E HD, etc are all going to be available on clear QAM HD.
Someone should tell your contacts at the FCC that they're already encrypting HD locals in Hawaii.
You ARE that somebody, chief.
Even though we'll still have the locals, with analog going away, that means no real choice but cable company DVR's and set-top boxes for all non-local stations. Yeah, that's alarming. I buy digital cable service now and have a cable company DVR that I hate. I have that content for only one TV can view. I don't look forward to needing to rent boxes for each TV.
I agree that this is a problem which is why I mentioned the Telecom Act of 1996, which was a law passed by congress that, among other things, required cable operators to offer the same exact service without as STB as they do with a STB.
So yeah, it's been 13 years and the closest thing we've gotten is CableCARD, which was a failure in its initial iteration.
well, cablecard is only a failure because of cablelabs's insistence that it be one. as an ATI digital cablecard tuner user, i can tell you that it is an excellent product (as is microsoft's implementation of it in vista, as much as it pains me to say it) for the handful of consumers who can navigate the bureaucratic treachery to actually get one. the existence of this product is like a consumer secret -- the comcast technicians didn't even know what the heck my ATI digital cable tuner box was when they saw it.
Component capture is perfectly viable and is no more grim than any SD era PVR.
My Franken-Direc-Tivo is happily chugging away.
Anyone that's bothered enough by a cableco PVR is probably quite able to successfully
deal with one or more of the alternatives (EyeTV,MCE,SageTV,MythTV).
As others have said. This new rule/exception didn't change a thing. The only thing that
the land line monopoly has to provide you in the clear is the channels that you can
probably get better versions of yourself with an antenna. "All the interesting stuff" was
already locked out unless you happened to luck out.
Yea, where's all the cables I got from analog std cable on my clear qam tuner?!?!
Ben,
This move seems to dash one of my hopes: that Cable companies would move everything that we can currently see with a standard set (and no box - that is ATSC and NTSC) over to ClearQAM as part of their move to all digital programming. I get channels 2-78 on our system from even my 30 year old 14" TV box-free, so why couldn't they just offer these basic channels in Clear QAM (of course I'd have to have a QAM tuner on that old 14" set).
I recall your mentioning that cable companies will have to offer "free" boxes to receive the QAM channels on our old TV's, and I THINK you said that they would be inclined to offer these channels over Clear QAM so they wouldn't have to give out so many boxes.
So does this ruling allow cable companies to just say "screw it! We are going digital and you HAVE to have a rented box to continue seeing those 2-78 channels"? I kind of think our city government might get an earful from all of the old ladies (and me) complaining about HAVING to get a converter box to retain the basic cable tier.
Dana,
I hate to say it but you were dreaming. I'm not saying it'll never happen, but I sure don't see it happening in the next 2 years.
The cable operators tried to distribute the same channels in the clear and the channels themselves to save on paying for DTAs, but the networks didn't go for it. They wanted their content protected. So the operators when to the FCC to get a waiver for DTAs with security but without CableCARDs, which is what got all of this started. But either way, that wasn't about HD, and thus it would just be a matter of time before all the SD goes away anyways.
This is actually something largely on my mind right now. As is, I've got my WMC DVR with 360 extender connected to an HD homerun and receiving OTA HD. I'm wanting to sign up for a TV service, but to get HD I'd mostly have to use their DVR. Since HDMI is mostly encrypted using HDCP companies can't make capture cards for them. Fortunatly, I've found a way around that with the Hauppauge HD-PVR. However, that's still 200 dollars I have to spend to get my DVR working with their equipment when it would have been fine if they just didn't do all that crap!
Fight the power!!!!! Let's call them out on this stuff!!!
Ben,
Could you explain exactly what the FCC act of 1996 requires of the companies that they aren't doing? I'd like to start filing complaints to the FCC to help out.
Wow that would be a post all in of itself, but you'd have to go to congress to get any traction. The FCC is fully aware of the law and is trying to enforce it, they just haven't pushed the cable co's hard enough (IMO).
Basically CableCARD and tru2way are both direct results of the law.
well, maybe on a slow news day you could write up an article about it. That would be a good read. I'm rather pissed at the measures I have to take to use my own equipment to LEGALLY watch TV from the providers. It's starting to get as bad as the phone companies on Hardware and service being sold together.
Thanks for the reply!
What really pisses me off about cable encryping the family level cable channels is that they are forcing us to rent a stb for every tv in our house to get what we already pay for in our cable bill and used to get no probelem when they were analog! If we have a qam tuner on our tv we should be able to use it like we did the analog tuner!
Maybe I'm naive and stupid but they used to do this with analog- why can't they just un-encrypt the channels we pay for in our sevrice at the head end and stop forcing us to use STBs!!!!! Give us a break already! I hate, hate, hate, hate STBS and I refuse to pay extra for them (plus I have no room for them in my life)!!!!!
We all do, and so does congress which is why they wrote a law. The problem is that the law isn't being enforced.
Expecting the cable co's to deliver the content in the clear is asking too much, but asking to watch encrypted content without a STB should already be a reality.
We can watch encrypted channels without a set-top box. It's called a CableCARD, but has already been panned earlier, so I guess that's being dismissed as a viable option, even though it works. CableCARD allows two-way communication, but no device takes advantage of it because the associated transmitter isn't included (that's why we have SDV dongles). I'm not a fan of video providers, but my three CableCARDs with FiOS work great with my three TiVo HD units and there was no hassle getting them installed. There's no reason why, tomorrow, you couldn't ditch your STB for a suitably equipped TV or other unit of your choice. Buying technology outside the "mainstream"--because, let's face it, the majority of pay television viewers do *not* care about how they watch TV, just that it exists--always entails a little extra effort and ability to understand on behalf of a 3rd party.
I live in Canada and ShawTV won't give you a cable card. I'd love to use the cable card option as every tv I have supports it. However, they charge you $399.99 for the hd stb and $799.99 for the hd dvr stb and it only has 120gb of storage which is non-upgradeable. So basically 10 hours of hd or 40 of standard definition.
To say the least, you can't store more than 2 nights worth of prime-time tv without going over your limit. So if your wife goes on a trip and she wants you to record her regular shows, good luck if the trip is over 2 days.
Its the motorola DCT-6412 box thats given away free by comcast fyi. Go shaw! Free from other providers, $799.99 from you. Well I guess I'll choose the other cable company in my area of wait, shaws a f-ing monopoly. Great.
Wes,
I'm sure you know this, but I'll say it anyways. The FCC has no jurisdiction over canada, and thus this recent order has nothing to do with Canada.
But yeah, it basically sucks for everyone that cable operators now have the power to inexpensively lock our toys out of their network.
Ben--
You're absolutely right that those capable of receiving more than HD locals are in the minority. But of the minority with cable channels available via ClearQAM, a disproportionate percentage took advantage with MythTV, SageTV, and Vista Media Center.
Comcast was prepared to transition all of its basic cable SD channels (not just the locals) to Clear QAM as part of Project Cavalry **if** the FCC didn't grant the waiver on the DTAs. That was their Plan B. With the waiver, that's not going to happen, and it is disappointing for those who hoped to receive those channels with their HTPC setups. MythTV and SageTV do not support CableCards, so those users depend on ClearQAM (or the Hauppauge HD PVR).
bfdtv,
This is one of the rare occasions where I actually knew something you did. ;) So yes I was aware that comcast wanted to deploy DTAs without encryption before deploying DTAs with CableCARDs.
For starters this dashed plan only affected SDTV which is all but useless anyways. I mean you might as well get a HD STB and record via S-Video, as it would still look better.
And second, the content owners didn't want to see this happen and surely they played a part in communicating this to the FCC.
And lastly all of the MythTV/SageTV fans can just download the shows in full HD from the internet anyways. Not saying it's exactly the same thing, just saying.
Now don't get me wrong. I don't mean to be a cable apologist (and yes I feel like one ATM), I guess what I'm trying to say is that this is par for the course. And that anyone who thought we were going to be able to make our DVRs on a network owned by a draconian provider was dreaming.
Well, all I watch TV is for Live Sports from around the world. Football on local channels, Hockey on Versus, Soccer on GolTV and ESPN... sometimes I record the games on my HTPC to watch later..
I don't watch any shows, so Hulu is of no use to me...
I don't mind paying for all the sports channels I watch, but I do mind paying for a TV. I want to watch everything on my PC.
Guess, this move will hit people like me, who only watch live sports...
You just need a ATI CableCARD tuner. It isn't cheap, but it will give you exactly what you want. See this post so you can build the PC yourself.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/05/12/how-to-install-a-cablecard-tuner-in-your-diy-media-center/
Riddle me this Ben (and I don't mean this sarcastically or meanly). Why would I want to spend 200-300 dollars on a cable card that will DRM my recordings and block out others when I could spend 150-200 on a Hauppauge HD-PVR that will record almost as good an image with no DRM and no restrictions? In addition, this box can be used on MythTV and SageTV when the CableCard can't. Therefore I can change my platform and not worry about compatibility. Honestly, I'm asking here as there must be a reason.
Poke4Christ,
A few reasons.
1. reliability -- the HD PVR locks up and most have to reboot weekly
2. less complicated -- No IR blaster (or FW) and one less box (a DCT vs 1 STB and 1 HD PVR).
3. No banners in your recordings -- from the STBs UI.
4. Faster channel changes -- IR blaster and encoding etc.
5. Cheaper over the long run -- the rental on the STB is more than a CableCARD.
This seems to be a fuzzy answer to a fuzzy assertion. If I understand the actual facts correctly:
1. Local channels, which are obtainable via antenna, must be available to all cable subscribers.
2. This somehow means they will never be encrypted because of a law that has nothing to do with encryption.
3. This is about cable TV, which is generally not something people subscribe to if they're just interested in local channels, so it's probable that the concerns being raised are actually about non-local channels, which are available today unencrypted in some areas.
4. But that's OK because they've always been encrypted, even though there appears to be a sizable number of people who say that their operator actually does provided them in the clear.
I think (2) is BS to be honest. The main reason NOT to encrypt the locals isn't some statutory instrument that clearly has bugger all to do with encryption, it's that it's cheaper not to, because it means you don't need to give away set top boxes to the three subscribers you have that only subscribe to the local channels package.
The problem is that this might be the status quo, but it's also clearly not sustainable. Most of the cable operators are going to SDV based systems, and each channel that's switched instead of continuously broadcasted adds capacity to the network. ClearQAM isn't just about encryption, it's also about receiving the channel via the ATSC non-standard cable tuner built into the TV, and SDV essentially throws that out. Given the number of broadcast channels nobody ever watches (the CW? MyNetwork 24?), it's quite reasonable for a cable operator to want to move those channels.
And, from what I can see, the only legislative mandate those operators will always have is that they need to ensure the channel is available to anyone on their networks, which means they have to provide equipment, at no extra charge, to all subscribers to allow them to tune into those channels.
Now, that's not to say an FCC rule doesn't exist right now forcing the channels to be ClearQAM. But there's nothing to stop the cable operators from taking this to the courts to point out the FCC is overreaching. The FCC doesn't mandate the satellite operators do the same - Dish Network encrypts the locals, I assume DirecTV does too but even if it didn't it doesn't even use industry standard satellite technologies, so the FCC already recognizes that the mandate can be fulfilled simply by having cable operators provide the decoders.
Some of your premises are just false. For example 85% of Americans subscribe to cable and most of them just watch locals (check the ratings, the networks usually rule). I'm not saying this makes sense, but it is the fact. Just suggest to someone to get an antenna and watch they way they look at you. To many it simply isn't a solution. I mean even among geek circles you see people who refuse to get an antenna even if they live within 10 miles of the tower.
Despite what SDV means to us, it is a cool technology. It effectively makes cable networks work more like the internet. In fact the only real problem with SDV is that the cable companies don't want to let us play. This comes back to the Telecom act of 1996. If the FCC would enforce it, then everyone could watch HD without a STB. Of course that doesn't mean that you'd be able to build your own DVR without DRM, but in my opinion it'd be a very good compromise.
As for your interpretation of the requirement, I sent a follow up email to my contact at the FCC. To me this sounds like cable's perspective, which is not in the original spirit of the law. I'll let you know what he says when I receive a response.
As far as I'm concerned the Cable Companies have killed clear QAM. I had a 4 tuner Media Center which we loved. But, Comcast here in the NW encrypted everything above channel 30, so we'd couldn't watch the combination of shows we wanted. I gave them a piece of my mind...but in the end I bought a TivoHD XL and picked up my 1 free M-Card and went through the hassle of getting it to work (1st one was faulty). Unless you only watch the base shows, or don't mind switching between inputs, ClearQAM is dead.
While it is true that my local cable company does serve up a QAM signal for the local stations, my girl friend's ATT&T Uverse does not. Uverse serve TV to a lot of people. Don't they have to meet the save requirements as a co-ax cable company?
You know, of course, the difference between a successful business strategy and a bad one is revenue.
There is absolutely no point in complaining, here, to the FCC, to congress, to anyone, anywhere, if, by continuing to be a subscriber, you continue to feed their coffers. Continuing to pay their fees even after getting smacked upside the head tells them your a wimp and they were right to try.
If you really don't like this, the only "complaint" that will matter is to tell the cablecos to go screw themselves and cancel your accounts. At the end of the day it is only TV, and there are alternate sources of content.
Building a CableCARD HTPC just got a lot more inviting after my trip to the Comcrap office yesterday. They want $25 a month for a second HD DVR!!! I already had plans for a HTPC with a duet QAM card, but now I can justify the added expense of a CableCard system. $25 is just a rip off.
My confusion here lies with what happens to the SD versions of channels like ESPN, Comedy, TNT, etc. Right now via Windows Media Center I get all my locals in Clear QAM, and I know those won't be going away because of this latest ruling. However, I also currently get channels 2-99 via Media Center over the NTSC tuner I have in my HTPC. What will this ruling do to those channels? As I read it, those channels will soon be encrypted and require a cheap STB on every TV even to get the non-HD versions. If that's the case, it renders my Media Center setup useless except for recording my local channels. Am I missing something?
To bad you missed the key words in your 3rd paragraph "broadcast signals that are subject to mandatory carriage".
Virtually none of the ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC affilliates elect for "must carry" status which is free of compensation. They now demand compensation, thus removing them from the "mandatory carriage" demand of "must carry" and technically can be encrypted, as AT&T U-verse customers (among others) know all too well. Sure, your local Univision and Religous Broadcaster might demand "must carry status" and remain un-encrypted, but if "mandatory carriage" is the determing factor as stated above, that means that local stations one really cares about could easily be encrypted sooner than later.
That isn't exactly what it says. It says "broadcast signals that are subject to mandatory carriage" and as you said ABC/CBS/NBC etc can envoke must carry, therefor they are "subject to."
Now the best argument I have heard that would invalidate my interpretation of paragraph 15 is that all a cable operator has to do is give away free boxes and they are satisfying the "viewable via cable on all television receivers of a subscriber" part. I sent a follow up email to my contact at the FCC, but am still waiting to hear back.
Ben,
It might be a little late to get a reply on this post, but I have a question.
I just moved to a new apartment and I can't pick up OTA signal here at all. Is it only required for cable companies to give clear qam locals or can I get it from other providers too? If I do Uverse is there a way to get the locals off my receiver unencrypted? I'd prefer to at least get the locals through more than one tuner.
It's never too late as I get emails every time someone comments on any of my posts.
U-Verse is one of the rare exceptions because they are true IPTV. Now if you had a 3rd party IPTV STB or a TV with built in IPTV, then maybe, but I don't know much about that.
> A few reasons.
> 1. reliability -- the HD PVR locks up and most have to reboot weekly
They are not nearly that unreliable. Although you would have seen bugs with the
drivers and firmware if you bought from the first batch of units. If you are recycling
old information, you could certainly make the 1212 out to be much worse than it
really is.
> 2. less complicated -- No IR blaster (or FW) and one less box (a DCT vs 1 STB and 1 HD PVR).
This is grossly overblown. IR Blasters are very robust. Otherwise Tivo and the whole PVR concept would have never crawled out of it's infancy. IR Blasters are a hard requirement for using a prior generation Tivo with premium cable content.
> 3. No banners in your recordings -- from the STBs UI.
A trivial benefit at best.
> 4. Faster channel changes -- IR blaster and encoding etc.
Also highly trivial.
> 5. Cheaper over the long run -- the rental on the STB is more than a CableCARD.
If you are that cheap, a 3rd party PVR solution is probably out of the question anyways.
Someone was just telling me how they bought a HD-PVR this week and they were trying to get it to run for more than 2 hours without needing a reboot. Others on DVR forums have talked about connecting timers to them to have them reboot once a week to try and help improve reliability. Both of these account were in the past two weeks, so I'd say that is pretty recent.
I am one of the very lucky people who has lots of clear qam channels. In my KC local I have 2 cable companies (Time Warner and Surewest) as well as ATT U-Verse. I am able to pick up all but 2 HD channels via clear QAM. Those two being TNT and TBS. This kinda makes me laugh cause of thier content compared to say Discovery or NFL network. Here is my list of what I get:
CBS
ABC
KCWE
VS
Fox
FS Midwest
ESPN HD
the spot
ABC
PBS HD
PBS2
NBC
FOX Bus
NBC
TLC
FX
ESPN U
UHD
FNC
SyFy
Wealth
DSN XD
Family HD
Bravo
USA
Discovery
ESPN2
NFL Network
When i was cable shopping and discovered Surewest had all these QAM channels I asked my sales rep if they will stay this way. He said they will not encrypt their basic level. This is why I believe it is total BS that TW and Comcast roll their lack of clearQAM on the content owners. If a small local cable company can do it TW should be able to. In reality it all goes back to the large few wanting complete control of their network and what you do and extra money of STB rentals.
I am a MythTV user with 3 QAM tuners. If Surewest decides to go encrypted I will do what I did for the past 2 years. OTA only!
Now I know how lucky I am and can only wish they switch to DTA's and I can start getting all my SD channels in QAM.
Mitchell
I'm presuming my parent's 42" LG LCD has a QAM tuner in it. Before the whole "digital transition" they were able to pick up the local channels (FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, & (I think) PBS) all in Digital HD beauty. Their cable company is Jet Broadband. They eat kittens. My stepdad tried calling them twice about the lack of Digital stations that we were receiving ever since the June transition, and both times was told he would have to upgrade his current service to get those premium channels.
So if I am pointed in the right direction, I will complain promptly.
"Now we've heard reports that some cable companies do indeed encrypt these signals, but while you might be willing to complain on some forum about it, have you taken the time to file a proper complaint with the FCC? If not, then you really don't have anything to complain about."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wow. Not true. You only have something to complain about when people break the law and you don't take action to stop them ? So what's the standard ? If 49% of the people complain, then by extension, 51% don't care, so the offending party can keep on breaking the law unimpeded ?
Cable companies, with economic advantages as corporations bestowed upon them by the government are, at the very least, expected to follow the law certainly without the burden on the consumer to rat them out when they don't. Good lord.
> Someone was just telling me how they bought a HD-PVR this week and they were trying to get it to run for more than 2 hours without needing a reboot.
My PERSONAL experience with the 1212 has never been so bad, even on hardware that didn't really get along with the unit. Given that PCs tend to have conflicts between motherboards and videocards, the notion that you can make sweeping generalizations about PC hardware is beyond absurd.
The Hauppauge 1212 is "out there". You can go buy one in Frys. It's sitting next to the HD Homerun. It's accessable enough that it can develop some sort of track record. You can ask guys on IRC about it.
Cablecard solutions are pretty much vaporware at this point. Nevermind which one you think is better.
Just got 2 FREE boxes from Comcast so that my TV's that previously recieved content would continue. First one set up was an old 27" Sony SD and it was just fine. Second a HD LCD with built in tuner. Low and behold I only recieved SD content. I called Comcast and they said my digital tuner would function just fine without a STB. Now granted I was talking to some girl who basicly typed in a number to unlock the box, but my TV still gets all of the BASIC cable including local network HD as well as PBSX6 HD and plenty of digital content. I certinly hope my neighborhood remains lucky! Give it 6 months and if I still have it QAM I may configure my WIN7 HTPC with a tuner.
Besides... I am of the opinion that almost everything I want to watch is available via the interwebs and I am not affraid to put up an antenna to save myself $2,400 a year in cable tv fees. All I have to do is polish to a wife acceptance level and I will cut the Comcast TV cord.Too bad I cam't cut them out of my house compleatly!