Bo102010
Joined 15 years ago
Joined 15 years ago
It's generally accurate to say that basic cable isn't _switched_ digital, which isn't the same as saying it's analog.
It's not accurate to say that basic cable is analog - that is, a single channel can fit into a 6 MHz space. Some providers may put their whole basic lineup in analog, but this is decidedly not a technical requirement.
There's a difference between the little Comcast DTA (for receiving clear QAM digital signals that aren't switched) and a tuning adapter (for receiving digital signals that are switched).
For my company, some markets have no analog channels at all - basic cable services are delivered as clear QAM, and customers use a QAM TV, a DTA, or set-top box to receive them.
Other markets have some analog channels and some digital channels as part of basic cable - if you have an analog TV, you can only see the analog ones, unless you have a DTA.
Also, there are already technologies that know what TVs are displaying.
Similar to how phone companies wish they wouldn't have to subsidize new phones, there are lots of people in the cable industry who wish that every TV had a CableCARD slot and IP connectivity (for PPV/VOD services), or that there was a peripheral you could plug into an Xbox or something that would let you get/decrypt cableco signal.
Obviously opinions will differ from company to company, and we are all actually evil.
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).
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.
I did have few apps installed on my Pre compared to my Nexus, which is likely a factor.
I'm trying a new technique - rather than saying "Hey, join Google+! It's really cool!" to people; I'm saying "Ah, yes, Facebook... I used to be one of _those_ people."
You can rationally be displeased what you expect the outcome of the case to be (e.g. increased ability for corporate financing of election campaigns), but I don't think there's a coherent defense of the sections of BCRA that the court struck down.
ETA: The government argued that BCRA would allow them to ban, for example, a 500 page book that contained a single sentence endorsing a candidate (http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/29/will-elena-kagan-allow...). If you think SOPA is heavy-handed, just think what BCRA could have led to.
The guidance in engineering was always to make sure customer experience wasn't bad, but the framing wasn't "think of the poor consumer!" - instead it was "we absolutely must reduce churn or die."
I was glad he was CEO and still impressed that he's stuck with it.
It's worked out a couple of times... "How can the process have failed when the logs indicate success?" "Everybody lies." "Oh, so maybe the log is written at some point before the process actually finishes?" "Treat with steroids."