QAM and HD using BASIC analog package

[Maruuk]

The intention of the mandate is to give broadcasters the right to assert their right to have their signal presented to viewers with quality.



Exactly. A signal substantially lacking in quality from what is in fact being broadcast can hardly be considered to be "quality". Thank you for making my case for me.

[bicker]

Oh please, of course they're monopolies!

You can plead all you want, it doesn't change the truth.

No sane person in America would ever suggest otherwise.

I'm sane, and I'm correct. You're wrong. You don't know the law. I do.

More than 99 percent of the cable markets in the United States are served by only one cable company.

And two satellite services. The US Court of Appeals spanked the FCC last year for making the same error as you're making here, ignoring the totality of the marketplace and blinding yourself to the competition that exists.

An FCC survey found that cable systems with monopolies charged an average of 65 cents a channel per month while those that faced actual competition charged only 48 cents per channel.

And that's bull -- not that there wasn't a survey, but rather the survey itself. Here let's disprove the survey right now. Post your bill. I'll recompute it based on our rates here, where we have five competitors. I bet it'll cost more here. Competition = higher prices... try to fit that into your misguided model of how things are.

The question is not, are they monopolies, but why were they allowed to become monopolies?

No, because they're not monopolies, which is why the government doesn't break them up or regulate their advanced services. As a matter of fact, the government passed a law in 1992, that has now stood for 18 years, that prohibits regulation of rates for expanded basic and higher -- precisely because of the fact that you're trying to deny, that there is competition, that there is no monopoly. This isn't an oversight. It isn't a mistake. It is a deliberate determination of our society -- one that perhaps conflicts with your own personal preference.

It's because local governments almost universally refuse to license second systems.

More ridiculous and erroneous info. That same 1992 law prohibited local governments from doing as you suggest. You're operating based on misinformation. The entire foundation of what you're arguing is without merit, and much of it directly contradicts reality.

THEY HAVE NO COMPETITION!

Wrong. And that's not me telling you that you're wrong. That's the US Court of Appeals telling you that you're wrong.

[bicker]

Boy, I don't know what planet you live on, but the law says that for their monopoly, they must provide equivalent local OTA broadcasting on their cable within Basic Service. They don't.

Yes they do. You're wrong.

Thus they are in non-compliance with the law.

No they're not. You're mistaken.

Why aren't you doing your part to do what is necessary to tune in the HD locals that they're providing? Why not do that instead of posting erroneous information like this?

[bicker]

This is a joke, right? Comcast DENIES THE HD SIGNALS EVEN EXIST.

First, Comcast, the company, does nothing of the sort. There are some clueless techs that may say something like that, but that's life in the United States where you can't find any good help. People aren't conscientious.

But also note that they're not required to tell you about HD locals via clear QAM. That's your obligation. One you apparently have shirked.

They actively discourage the user from even looking for them.

They'd be idiots if they didn't. They get no benefit from encouraging you to use them. Why would you even think for a minute that they would do so? That's silly.

Then if the signals do exist (which they usually don't for a wide variety of reasons)

You don't know what you're talking about. The signals do exist in almost every case.

they constantly switch physical channel

So what? Just rescan. You seem to be extremely lazy and unwilling to do your part to get what you claim you want.

Thus Comcast is failing to deliver their mandated service

That's idiocy. You're making up mandates. You either don't know the law, as I said before, or you are deliberately posting wrong information to try to justify your baseless criticisms.

[Maruuk]

You're totally ignorant of the reality that Comcast, even while stating right in their literature that they include HD locals in Basic, has begun to eliminate all their HD locals in Basic to force everyone to the extra-cost HD box and tiers. That's fraud. Buy a clue.

[bicker]

I'm sorry that you're so frustrated that you're making stuff up. I know Comcast policy. I also know Comcast reality. Are mistakes made in individual neighborhoods? Sometimes, but you are completely and unequivocally wrong about Comcast eliminating HD locals in basic. They are not. They're there, in practically every Comcast system. It is your obligation to know how to access them. It is not their obligation to help you understand how. That's our responsibility, here on this website, as fellow-members-helping-members, or more generally, neighbors-helping-neighbors.

Let me say that more clearly: It is the subscriber's obligation to know how to access the HD locals for themselves. It is not the service providers' responsibility to assist with that.

They are not doing what you're accusing them of. I suggest, if you really have a problem, and you really want to resolve it, that you take advantage of the knowledge and expertise of the folks here to help you realize what you're doing wrong.

[bicker]

The US Court of Appeals spanked the FCC last year for making the same error as you're making here, ignoring the totality of the marketplace and blinding yourself to the competition that exists. ... they're not monopolies, which is why the government doesn't break them up or regulate their advanced services. As a matter of fact, the government passed a law in 1992, that has now stood for 18 years, that prohibits regulation of rates for expanded basic and higher -- precisely because of the fact that you're trying to deny, that there is competition, that there is no monopoly. This isn't an oversight. It isn't a mistake. It is a deliberate determination of our society -- one that perhaps conflicts with your own personal preference.

Just a follow-up underscoring this issue we discussed a few months back.

As I mentioned back then, as a matter of law, there is effective competition for advanced subscription television services throughout the United States, but with regard to basic service the criteria are more stringent, probably because the FCC, in its efforts to coddle satellite service providers, have waived the requirements to provide basic service, excusing DirecTV and Dish Network from serving this essential service to its customers who need it.

The competition for basic service, therefore, must be considered on a town-by-town basis. A number of towns in my local area have reached the more stringent threshold applicable to essential services, and therefore in those town even basic service rates are unregulated.

Typically the declaration of effective competition for basic service is done one town at a time (since the satellite service providers are not factored into the consideration, due to the waivers they have), but what was notable this week is that the FCC issued an order applicable to a large number of towns, all at once.


http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...A-10-848A1.pdf

So, again, the salient points here are that there is effective competition for advanced service (i.e., "expanded basic cable") nationwide, and that's been the case for almost twenty years, but now, in more and more towns, there is even effective competition for the essential "basic" service, and regulation of even that level of service is being lifted.

[beachrider]

Geez Maruuk, you have some reasonable issues, but you are adding value judgements that water down your whole argument.
- If Comcast is de-rezzing an OTA ATSC signal to make it 'fit' an NTSC signal, there is nothing wrong with that. You could argue that they should pass the ATSC through as a QAM and abandon the NTSC-version. That is what needs to happen by 2012.
- If you drop the name-calling, the best part of your points is much clearer.
- Why doesn't Satellite TV qualify as 'competition' for CATV? I think that it does.
- While not-really 'monopolies', cable companies certainly have some right-of-way mechanism that lets them put their lines on the telco's poles. That qualifies as some kind of 'special permission' and incurs some local controls.

[bicker]

- If Comcast is de-rezzing an OTA ATSC signal to make it 'fit' an NTSC signal, there is nothing wrong with that. You could argue that they should pass the ATSC through as a QAM and abandon the NTSC-version. That is what needs to happen by 2012.

No; it already happened, last year, despite what the previous poster asserted. They are required to provide the OTA channels to consumers without any reduction in resolution. It's the law. And they are doing so.

If a customer refuses to fulfill the customer's obligation to receive that service (i.e., plugging the cable directly into the customer's own QAM tuner), then all fault rests on the consumer.

The 2012 date is when they are allowed to stop broadcasting the NTSC downconverts.

- Why doesn't Satellite TV qualify as 'competition' for CATV? I think that it does.

And your instincts are good, in that regard, because that's not just a valid opinion, it is the law.

- While not-really 'monopolies', cable companies certainly have some right-of-way mechanism that lets them put their lines on the telco's poles. That qualifies as some kind of 'special permission' and incurs some local controls.

Yes, indeed, and the free service and cash payments cable companies pay to localities parallel the free service and cash payments that telephone companies pay to localities.