[opendtv] Re: Could FCC Plan Hurt HDTV Efforts?
- From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:49:49 -0700
Gee, Bert, you rose to the occaision.
Let's see. Where should I start?
What is your definition of always? Mine says that the FCC hasn't always
been an agency, and the FCC in it's history hasn't always regulated cable
TV.
Is your definition of always contstrained to, say, 13 years?
And, how does the FCC acknowledge something? To me, something has to be
presented to a person, and the person has to do something, like nod, or sign
an acknowledgement. Last time I checked, the FCC wasn't a person. Could
you provide us with a link to this acknowledgment?
Maybe you meant to use another word, but perhaps you used acknowlege in the
passive voice to try to cover up your lack of facts?
But the meat -- and the plain falsity in your post below -- could you
provide us with a link to the FCC document (letter, response, report,
memorandum, press release, public notice, heck I'll even accept a trade
press article --
where they have IN FACT (do these facts 'exist' only in your brain?)
accepted that in certain circumstances that material degradation is okay?
Indeed, I'd also like to see a list that provides the certain circumstances,
if they exist outside of your brain. I doubt you can come up with the list.
(Hint: not too many FCC documents from the appropriate era are online.)
And, this 'question' of where the -- you think -- degradation is permitted
at the headend or whatever. Where did you see it outside of your brain?
Have you ever read, even a single paragraph of part 76 of the FCC's rules?
I think not, because there are many regulations there that clearly label the
quality of delivered signal to customers, not headends.
Pardon me for going beyond your lack of facts that are offered as facts to
engage in some conclusory remarks. You are an unmitifated, ignorant phony
who engages in uninformed diatribes and when challenged, you will only
concede that you are partially informed. (As if that's better.)
The material degradation rules have been in place for decades and have only
been slightly modified in scope by digital. But of course, you didn't know
that. Either.
Here's a hint that cable customers know. If you are getting bad-quality
analog video because the cable lead-in has deteriorated over time, the cable
company will replace the lead-in for free if they can see noise on ANY
analog channel. You see, the analog material degradation rules are rather
restrictive, but if you can see impairments in any signal, they have been
exceeded. If the cable company rep doesn't see degradation, they might call
the company to send a tech with the test gear; but more likely they will
tell you that for $xx they will replace the lead-in.
Also, the material degradation rule only applies to the main terminal in the
house or business. If you get good video on all channels on that
connection, they won't replace the others without you paying.
Oh, my bona-fides. I've read the applicable rules, and I've hassled with
two cable companies on two different cable companies in two separate decades
about this, and I never paid for the new lead-in. But then, I don't whine
and only complain when there is visible material degradation.
You see, unlike you, I know a bit about the rules (and don't have to blindly
grab things from the rules in response) and I -- tend -- to not talk about
what I don't have a clue about. And, when called out, I investigate, and if
appropriate, apologize for my ignorance. Again, unlike you.
Love & Kisses
John Willkie
P.S. Just for list members who wonder why bert doesn't directly respond to
my posts. Several years back, off-list, I rightly called him an asshole.
He purports to nor read my posts (another of his lies) in response to my
direct hit. What he does instead is to address my points in replies to
others. I find it highly entertaining. And, he's still an asshole, but
maybe it takes one to know one. :-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 3:04 PM
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Could FCC Plan Hurt HDTV Efforts?
> Richard Hollandsworth wrote:
>
> > Presumably there is a law prohibiting "material degradation"
> > of the digital signal. Clearly, deriving an analog signal from
> > a local HD broadcast would violate this law.
>
> Since the FCC has always acknowledged that STBs with analog outputs
> would be available to allow continued use of older analog sets, they
> have in fact accepted that, in certain circumstances, "material
> degradation" is allowable. The only question is whether this "material
> degradation" is allowable at the head end, creating a simulcast through
> the entire network, or whether it can only be allowed on the customer
> premises, in the guise of an STB. To me, that's a silly quibble. Either
> should be allowed.
>
> Seems clear that the "material degradation" rule was only meant to
> prevent cable systems from reducing a broadcaster's HDTV signal to SD in
> the digital tier, not in any form of analog tier (through the net or in
> an STB at the end) that by definition cannot be HDTV.
>
> > Forcing maybe 15 percent of TTHHs to use an OTA Tuner is bad
> > enough.... But if they don't "clarify" the law, it's gonna
> > really annoy the other 40-60 percent of TTHHs who currently
> > watch analog cable channels on one or more of their TVs....
>
> It would be extremely disingenuous for the cable industry to argue
> against the use of STBs for analog conversion. Because then they would
> have to explain how come they are so dead set against promoting use of
> CableCard receivers. Presumably, all those customers who now stick with
> the cable analog tier only to avoid having to use an STB will soon want
> to go to digital and HD, and will still oppose the forced use of an STB.
> Do cable systems seem to care about these guys?
>
> > There seem to be significant differences between Swami's
> > report and what was in MULTICHANNEL:
> >http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6433097.html?display=Breaking+New
> s
>
> I don't get this quote:
>
> "'This plan appears to conclude that the digital-TV transition can be
> solved by disenfranchising millions of customers by forcing them to rent
> a set-top box they may not want, and it will in fact cost more because
> the [FCC] has refused to repeal its $600 million-per-year set-top-box
> tax that begins in July,' NCTA vice president of communications Brian
> Dietz said."
>
> The Martin plan says nothing about forcing people to rent an STB they
> don't want. If these analog households stay OTA, they would BUY an STB
> for a few bucks. Not rent. And if they go to a cable system instead of
> the DTT route, where does Martin insist that cable systems drop their
> analog tier? I missed that part. If anything, it's the other way around.
>
> 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:
