http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/13/would-dual-must-carry-be-good-or-bad-for-hdtv/ Engadget Comments for Would dual must carry be good or bad for HDTV? http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/13/would-dual-must-carry-be-good-or-bad-for-hdtv/http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/13/would-dual-must-carry-be-good-or-bad-for-hdtv/
Or force cable to broadcast all their analog channels in clear ATSC. I'm sure it's possible, even if they say different. ]]>Apr 13th 2007 2:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/04/13/would-dual-must-carry-be-good-or-bad-for-hdtv/http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/13/would-dual-must-carry-be-good-or-bad-for-hdtv/Apr 13th 2007 5:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/04/13/would-dual-must-carry-be-good-or-bad-for-hdtv/http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/13/would-dual-must-carry-be-good-or-bad-for-hdtv/
As for putting all analog stations on clear-QAM - dream on. The only channels they must provide in the clear are your local broadcast channels (VHF/UHF). Most cablecos also have a "basic" analog tier that they might provide un-encrypted, otherwise expect to use a STB or CableCard to get premium cable channels (like MTV, ESPN, etc).
]]>Apr 13th 2007 5:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/04/13/would-dual-must-carry-be-good-or-bad-for-hdtv/http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/13/would-dual-must-carry-be-good-or-bad-for-hdtv/Apr 13th 2007 6:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/04/13/would-dual-must-carry-be-good-or-bad-for-hdtv/http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/13/would-dual-must-carry-be-good-or-bad-for-hdtv/
You're talking about forcing them to give away for free what they now charge $25-30 per month for.

Not happening.

Cable channels beyond the minimum "basic" tier can and WILL BE encrypted.]]>Apr 13th 2007 11:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/04/13/would-dual-must-carry-be-good-or-bad-for-hdtv/http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/13/would-dual-must-carry-be-good-or-bad-for-hdtv/
Channels 2-32 costs $18/month
Channels 2-75 costs $45/month

Send those channels in clear QAM or ATSC format so the customers do not need a cable-provided STB. The FCC has to mandate that. In Chicago, Comcast provides the first STB for free, but additional boxes will cost you, which to me is complete BS. They are using the digital switchover as a way to screw the customer and blame the government for it. I can hook up as many TV's as I want now (I have 4) so I'll have to *rent* 3 boxes from them? No way. I don't really mind purchasing them for $40 or $60 or whatever, but I won't pay $5 or $10 a month for each additional one. That comes out to $360/year to rent 3.

It's unencrypted now over analog and should stay that way when they switch over to digital. It won't happen so I'm switching to DISH and putting up an OTA HD antenna.]]>Apr 14th 2007 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/04/13/would-dual-must-carry-be-good-or-bad-for-hdtv/http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/13/would-dual-must-carry-be-good-or-bad-for-hdtv/
How do you propose they stop people from watching all the clear-QAM digital channels that they don't pay for? The Honor System??

-->

As for "monopoly" - that's bullshit. Customers have many choices, satellite, over-the-air, and internet TV/FIOS which is coming soon to many locations. Besides this, those municipalities are always free to re-negotiate their franchise agreements, or to make agreements with other cable companies (if there are any interested). It's what we call the *FREE* market (ie not regulated by the gov't).]]>Apr 20th 2007 2:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/04/13/would-dual-must-carry-be-good-or-bad-for-hdtv/http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/13/would-dual-must-carry-be-good-or-bad-for-hdtv/
--- CHAS]]>Apr 16th 2007 9:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/04/13/would-dual-must-carry-be-good-or-bad-for-hdtv/http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/13/would-dual-must-carry-be-good-or-bad-for-hdtv/
That's what has to go for the "marketplace/competition" argument to be valid.]]>Apr 16th 2007 11:51AM