4 ms·

Are you sure cable providers are required to provide free over-the-air stations? I haven't heard of that being a requirement and can't find anything online exce

by ja27 14y ago

Are you sure cable providers are required to provide free over-the-air stations? I haven't heard of that being a requirement and can't find anything online except vague claims without citations. I've heard of low-cost plans that provide all the equivalent over-the-air stations, but no legal requirement to provide those for free. That said, this certainly does work for some people. It worked for us for a while after we dropped the TV part of our plan but then one day we couldn't receive any channels over the coax, so I assume they installed a filter.

detst 14y ago
I can't cite a source but I'm quite certain that there is no requirement to provide these channels to non-customers. The requirement is that they broadcast those channels in the clear to customers. That means without a physical filter, non-customers get the channels. Adding/removing filters means a truck roll and $ so often you get lucky.
- jimhirshfield 14y ago
  I'd agree that if your home never had cable, SOL. And you're right that there's nothing in it for them to drive a truck around...it's just s/w setting to turn off your paid subscription. However, see my comment above re ClearQAM, and link to Fred's post.
  - detst 14y ago
    Where in there does he, or the link he references, substantiate the following claim? The broadcast industry does not want American's to know this, but they are legally obligated to provide the free "over the air" stations on cable (coax) even if you do not pay for cable service. If you follow the link trail, you'll find this quote from the FCC: broadcast signals that are subject to mandatory carriage must be "viewable via cable on all television receivers of a subscriber which are connected to a cable system by a cable operator or for which a cable operator provides a connection." Which is another way of saying what I wrote above. Bottom line is: if you aren't paying for cable video service and receiving these channels, you're benefiting from the cable company not wanting to send out a tech to install a filter, not some legal requirement.
    - jimhirshfield 14y ago
      I'm not trying to win a legal case here, just sayin'... 1. "The broadcast industry does not want American's to know..." Opinion. Why would they want this widely known? 2. "...legally obligated..." OK, that might be a little strong, but I stand by the POV that they can not encrypt this signal. The FCC citations (on Engadget article) make that clear (to me). It's possible that this works for me (and others) because... I am a subscriber to my cable company for telephone and internet access (but not TV), and so they can not send a tech out to disconnect me from their grid because it would terminate my current services AND they can not encrypt the Clear QAM signal for the Broadcast TV channels. Again, I'm not trying to argue some legal case here. But I do think it's more than just the cable company being lazy and not sending a technician out.
      - secabeen 14y ago
        My understanding is that it's more subtle than that. If you subscribe to no TV services, they can block all channels. However, if you get any TV service from your provider, they have to provide all broadcast channels to you, either un-encrypted, or encrypted with a free cable box for every TV in your house.
      - detst 14y ago
        I'm not trying to win a legal case here, just sayin'... 1. "The broadcast industry does not want American's to know..." Opinion. Why would they want this widely known? 2. "...legally obligated..." OK, that might be a little strong, but I stand by the POV that they can not encrypt this signal. The FCC citations (on Engadget article) make that clear (to me). Agree. Sorry if I'm being pedantic, but this is really nothing more than the cable companies being compelled to broadcast these "mandatory carriage" channels without encryption and the impracticality of filtering every non-subscriber. It's possible that this works for me (and others) because... I am a subscriber to my cable company for telephone and internet access (but not TV), and so they can not send a tech out to disconnect me from their grid because it would terminate my current services[...] That's why it works; however, it's not so much that they can't disconnect you but that they can't practically filter you. [...] AND they can not encrypt the Clear QAM signal for the Broadcast TV channels. They can't encrypt but they can filter non-subscribers. If this were always practical, there's no doubt many companies would aggressively filter. Again, I'm not trying to argue some legal case here. But I do think it's more than just the cable company being lazy and not sending a technician out. Sure, the impracticality is there but no legal impediments that I know of :)
jimhirshfield 14y ago
Fred Wilson first brought this to my attention here: http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/02/clearqam-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters.html http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/02/clearqam-what-it-is-and-why-... He references "ClearQAM" aka "Clear QAM". Also note a few people commented on today's blog post (IOW, not here, but on the original post; see my comment and replies) that they tried, and it works.
b3b0p 14y ago
The poster is correct. There is a law, I cannot remember where it is stated and where I read it, but I have heard it and I did check when I only had cable. I got all the broadcast stations in HD no less without a cable subscription using my QAM tuner on my TV and on my HD Homerun. Quality usually will not be nearly as good as receiving over the air though. At least that is my experience. Most cable operators will compress their stations, some more than others. It is obvious if you have seen or are used to viewing with rabbit ears.
- jimhirshfield 14y ago
  My experience is the opposite. Before I knew about the above, I bought a digital antenna from Home Depot. I got barely any signal. Now, I get HDTV quality on a few networks.

by ja27 14y ago

detst 14y ago

I can't cite a source but I'm quite certain that there is no requirement to provide these channels to non-customers. The requirement is that they broadcast those channels in the clear to customers. That means without a physical filter, non-customers get the channels. Adding/removing filters means a truck roll and $ so often you get lucky.

jimhirshfield 14y ago
I'd agree that if your home never had cable, SOL. And you're right that there's nothing in it for them to drive a truck around...it's just s/w setting to turn off your paid subscription. However, see my comment above re ClearQAM, and link to Fred's post.
- detst 14y ago
  Where in there does he, or the link he references, substantiate the following claim? The broadcast industry does not want American's to know this, but they are legally obligated to provide the free "over the air" stations on cable (coax) even if you do not pay for cable service. If you follow the link trail, you'll find this quote from the FCC: broadcast signals that are subject to mandatory carriage must be "viewable via cable on all television receivers of a subscriber which are connected to a cable system by a cable operator or for which a cable operator provides a connection." Which is another way of saying what I wrote above. Bottom line is: if you aren't paying for cable video service and receiving these channels, you're benefiting from the cable company not wanting to send out a tech to install a filter, not some legal requirement.
  - jimhirshfield 14y ago
    I'm not trying to win a legal case here, just sayin'... 1. "The broadcast industry does not want American's to know..." Opinion. Why would they want this widely known? 2. "...legally obligated..." OK, that might be a little strong, but I stand by the POV that they can not encrypt this signal. The FCC citations (on Engadget article) make that clear (to me). It's possible that this works for me (and others) because... I am a subscriber to my cable company for telephone and internet access (but not TV), and so they can not send a tech out to disconnect me from their grid because it would terminate my current services AND they can not encrypt the Clear QAM signal for the Broadcast TV channels. Again, I'm not trying to argue some legal case here. But I do think it's more than just the cable company being lazy and not sending a technician out.
    - secabeen 14y ago
      My understanding is that it's more subtle than that. If you subscribe to no TV services, they can block all channels. However, if you get any TV service from your provider, they have to provide all broadcast channels to you, either un-encrypted, or encrypted with a free cable box for every TV in your house.
    - detst 14y ago
      I'm not trying to win a legal case here, just sayin'... 1. "The broadcast industry does not want American's to know..." Opinion. Why would they want this widely known? 2. "...legally obligated..." OK, that might be a little strong, but I stand by the POV that they can not encrypt this signal. The FCC citations (on Engadget article) make that clear (to me). Agree. Sorry if I'm being pedantic, but this is really nothing more than the cable companies being compelled to broadcast these "mandatory carriage" channels without encryption and the impracticality of filtering every non-subscriber. It's possible that this works for me (and others) because... I am a subscriber to my cable company for telephone and internet access (but not TV), and so they can not send a tech out to disconnect me from their grid because it would terminate my current services[...] That's why it works; however, it's not so much that they can't disconnect you but that they can't practically filter you. [...] AND they can not encrypt the Clear QAM signal for the Broadcast TV channels. They can't encrypt but they can filter non-subscribers. If this were always practical, there's no doubt many companies would aggressively filter. Again, I'm not trying to argue some legal case here. But I do think it's more than just the cable company being lazy and not sending a technician out. Sure, the impracticality is there but no legal impediments that I know of :)

jimhirshfield 14y ago

Fred Wilson first brought this to my attention here: http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/02/clearqam-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters.html http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/02/clearqam-what-it-is-and-why-... He references "ClearQAM" aka "Clear QAM". Also note a few people commented on today's blog post (IOW, not here, but on the original post; see my comment and replies) that they tried, and it works.

b3b0p 14y ago

The poster is correct. There is a law, I cannot remember where it is stated and where I read it, but I have heard it and I did check when I only had cable. I got all the broadcast stations in HD no less without a cable subscription using my QAM tuner on my TV and on my HD Homerun. Quality usually will not be nearly as good as receiving over the air though. At least that is my experience. Most cable operators will compress their stations, some more than others. It is obvious if you have seen or are used to viewing with rabbit ears.

jimhirshfield 14y ago
My experience is the opposite. Before I knew about the above, I bought a digital antenna from Home Depot. I got barely any signal. Now, I get HDTV quality on a few networks.