[opendtv] Re: Comcast sued for not selling set-top boxes, CableCARDs

  • From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 19:19:25 -0800

You can't even remember your own positions.  By the way, this case isn't
worth writing about; the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction, and they have
granted Comcast a waiver, so the only forum for this case as stated is the
FCC.  The only way around that is if the FCC has exceeded it's jurisdiction
or discretion.  In which case, the FCC regulation (and/or waiver) is
overturned.

Comcast cannot encrypt must carry/retrans consent programming; this case can
only be about cable programming.  And, this has nothing to do with Betamax,
nor your 'analysis' of same.

John Willkie



-----Mensaje original-----
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de Manfredi, Albert E
Enviado el: Friday, December 26, 2008 4:07 PM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Comcast sued for not selling set-top boxes, CableCARDs

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081226-comcast-sued-for-not-selling-s
et-top-boxes-cablecards.html

Comcast sued for not selling set-top boxes, CableCARDs

By Nate Anderson | Published: December 26, 2008 - 08:05AM CT

[ ... ]

The gist of the case, according to a copy of the complaint seen by 
Ars Technica, is rental fees. Corralejo argues that Comcast has a 
monopoly over video service in her area and that it uses that 
monopoly power to force her to use decryption equipment, which 
Corralejo cannot purchase outright.

[ ... ]

In addition, Corralejo complains that the CableCARD still has to be 
rented from the company; it cannot be purchased outright. There's 
simply no way to avoid some form of rental fee.
-----------End quote---------------------

We went through this line of reasoning completely, some time ago, when
talking about the Betamax case. In spite of the utterly ignorant garbage
posted on here at the time, the facts are that only FOTA programming needs
to be transmitted in the clear, when it is OTA. ANY umbillical network which
charges a connection fee is free to encrypt and to copy-protect all of their
content.

This holds even with the FCC requirement that cable systems must provide
must-carry stations to their subscribers. There is *NO REQUIREMENT* that
this be done in the clear. And there never has been.

-----------Start quote--------------------
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-286508A1.txt
(Dated October 31, 2008)

3

Under the Communications Act, cable operators with twelve or more channels
are required to devote up to one third of their "usable activated channels"
to "the signals of local commercial [broadcast] television stations." 47
U.S.C. §534(b)(1)(B). The Act further provides that:

Signals carried in fulfillment of the requirements of this section shall be
provided to every subscriber of a cable system.  Such signals shall 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.  If a cable operator authorizes subscribers
to install additional receiver connections, but does not provide the
subscriber with such connections, or with the equipment and materials for
such connections, the operator shall . . . offer to sell or lease . . . a
converter box to such subscribers at [regulated] rates.
------------End quote--------------------

Cable systems have the option of retaining an analog tier, or providing
STBs, or using clearQAM, or whatever they prefer, but they are not obliged
by anything to send unencrypted or non-copy protected content over their
system.

So it will be interesting to see if this lawsuit goes anywhere.

By the way, just to be clear, I do not "discuss" anything with the
hopelessly ignoramus. In no way. Whatever they decide is the "last word" is
of no interest or significance, as far as I'm concerned. Whatever they
respond with should not be considered "discussion." It is not.

Reasoned discussions are a different matter, with anyone not afflicted by
the disease mentioned above.

Bert
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.


 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
FreeLists.org 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 12-2008