Rick Evans wrote:
> "Wes Newell" <w.newell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:QYPMj.7702$El4.2042@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:56:42 -0500, whosbest54 wrote:
>>> "Digital transition could cost cable customers"
>> I hope the FCC keeps their noses out of it. You want cable? Pay for it.
>
> A careful read of the article indicates that the FCC's nose is already
> in it. I have no sympathy for cable clients who complain about price
> any more than I feel entitled to whine about commercials and paid
> programming on OTA; hmm they have those on cable, too, don't they?
>
> But I digress.
>
> According to small Florida cable guyJess King:
>
> <quote>
> "My decision was, whether I continued to try to muddle along here with
> all of my channel space being used up with a few analog channels or
> whether I would go all digital," King said. "So I got an FCC variance to
> go all digital."</quote>
Okay, the cable company sought, and received, a variance.
>
> <quote>
> The (FCC) rules require cable companies to provide local broadcast
> channels to analog customers through February of 2012. Certain smaller
> cable systems can request a waiver.
Which the cable company did.
> The FCC's digital transition Web site says if a cable company goes all
> digital and requires customers to get a set-top box, "any costs related
> to it will be determined by the cable company."
Apparently the cable company decided they wouldn't fund any costs
associated with STB's.
>
> But FCC regulations approved last fall seem to contradict that point.
>
> The rules require cable companies to provide local broadcast channels to
> analog customers through February of 2012. Certain smaller cable systems
> can request a waiver.
> </quote>
The cable company sought, and received, that variance.
>
> So while the regs are subject to interpretation, so what's new, it does
> appear the to have a nose in this tent.
The only involvement of the FCC was granting the variance to the cable
company. After that, the FCC's nose is no longer involved.
>
> http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gr_hcGQMasdcXdvTOOEVvCt0r9ygD8VVRRO00
>
> or http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4636253
>
See, here's the deal, the cable company didn't want to be obligated to
supply analog until 2012, they also didn't want to allocate any budget
money to customer's STB's, so they sought a rule variance. Once
granted, the rules are out the window. Going all digital with the
variance relieved their network of stuffy old analog, and it also
relieved them of any financial obligation to provide STB's to their own
customers. If I have this straight, and I think I do, it was a good
move on their part. Cable company wins, customers with a stuffy old
analog TV are buying their own STB if they want to stay connected.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
|
