[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.

[jsz0]

I also work in the industry and I can confirm all the discussions I've heard on the ClearQAM issue come back to the cost of delivering services and contracts with programmers. Each one of these service calls to install/remove a signal trap that blocks out the frequencies of the programming you are not paying for is expensive. Having huge portions of your available spectrum gated off by signal traps also limits flexibility for future changes.

The issue of encrypting broadcast channels goes back to broadcasters who are demanding a fee to carry their signals. If you have to pay the local ABC affiliate $2 per subscriber to carry the channel they are not very happy to have you turn around and give it away for free without compensating them for every customer who can run a ClearQAM scan. This is an issue as more customers drop all video service in favor of only purchasing Internet service. The same wire that delivers your DOCSIS would have these channels available unencrypted unless a signal trap is installed to block it out.

So effectively the cable industry has always, and always will, be able to block services you don't pay for. The switch to encrypting these channels is just a far more practical way of doing it. Boxee is against this because it's not good for their business model. Cable is for it because it is good for their business model. So let's just be clear this issue is about self-interest either way. Both sides could argue their position is better for consumers for different reasons.

I do think we should have a simple fixed key encryption system so customer's can use their own hardware without the need for set tops or CableCARDs or an IP based system but this is still a ways off. For one thing the entire TV industry would have to adopt this new fixed key encrypted QAM standard which would add some expense to TVs and require customers to buy their own fixed key encryption set tops or buy new TVs that support the new standard. On the IP side new standards would have to be established as well that presently do not exist.

[jaylevitt]

Then I'm confused. If you need a settop box to get encrypted channels, and the cable companies want to save money by not providing settop boxes, why are they lobbying for permission to encrypt the remaining basic cable channels? There's a leap I'm missing.

[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).