ClearQAM - What It Is And Why It Matters

http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/02/clearqam-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters.html

by jimminy • 14 years ago

39 21 14 years ago

Bo1020106• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

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.

Bo1020106• 14 years ago

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).

jaylevitt• 14 years ago

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.

jsz03• 14 years ago

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.

joezydeco2• 14 years ago

"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?

rom• 14 years ago

without pretending to speak for Boxee or anybody else (I have no affiliation with the industry), I think they would like to see every TV network to make their signal (along with ads, etc.) to be available over IP, just like NASA and some others do today.

This will allow for ultimate a-la-carte subscription, something the cable companies are overwhelmingly opposing: it's much more profitable for them to send you a package of 200 channels when you only need 5, even if you're willing to pay a much higher price per channel for these 5.

jsz03• 14 years ago

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.

joezydeco2• 14 years ago

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.

natch• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

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.

ClearQAM - What It Is And Why It Matters

Related Stories