• A Blog from Motorola Mobility Home

    On broadband: video, voice, data, wireless and more!

    Click here

  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • 2011 SCTE Show

    See what Motorola announced at the 2011 SCTE Show!

    Click here
  • Feed

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • YouTube

On Cable Caps and Clear QAM

Whether or not you agree with the recent court decision to nix the 30% marketshare cap placed on cable operators, there is some interesting data floating around on cable’s competition. One chart in particular, compiled by Adam Thierer from the Progress and Freedom foundation, details share of market held by the entire cable industry versus satellite and telco operators over the last 18 years. The trend line for cablecos moves consistently downward. What I’d be interested to see is how that line compares to marketshare trends among cable operators. Graph from Thierer below.

Adam Thierer Progress and Freedom Foundation cable competition telco satellite

On another cable-related note, there was some buzz last week after the DTA waivers were announced that clear QAM might be coming to an end. In other words, people were worried that they wouldn’t be able to access local HD channels from their digital TVs anymore because cablecos would start to encrypt them. Ben Drawbaugh at EngadgetHD has a nice post up that puts those fears to rest. In short, cable operators aren’t allowed to encrypt local HD channels. They must continue to broadcast them over clear QAM.

2 Responses

  1. Mari, you probably should go back and read Ben’s post now that he’s updated it. It sounds like things aren’t that simple.

    Its possible that offering DTA’s satisfies the FCC’s requirments. Its also possible that since most locals don’t demand “must carry” status they can in fact be encrypted. Read through all the posts… sounds like Ben is waiting on a response from the FCC to some of this…

  2. Fanfoot- I finally hopped over to Ben’s post and saw the update. But Ben debates the point you quote by suggesting that networks don’t necessarily have to invoke “must carry” status to make them “subject to” per the laws of Clear QAM. That said, it all sounds ridiculously confusing, and like there is a lot left up to interpretation. Not the way it should be.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: