Qualms Over QAM (2012 CEA re-post)

(Since a site redesign at the Consumer Electronics Association resulted in the posts I wrote for CEA’s Digital Dialogue blog vanishing, along with everything there older than last November, I’m reposting a few that I think still hold up or shed light on current issues. This one ran on Feb. 14, 2012;  the AllVid effort I mentioned at the end has gone nowhere since, but in October, the Federal Communications Commission voted to allow QAM encryption–with results that I’ll be discussing in this weekend’s USA Today column.)

This month’s telecom-policy squabble covers a TV technology that nobody seems to love–if they even know it exists.

The system in question goes by the name QAM, short for “quadrature amplitude modulation,” and it’s the only way to tune into digital cable without a box. But while “cable-ready” sets dealt fairly well with even premium channels in the mid 1990s, QAM’s horizons are far more limited.

Coax cableYou can’t count on QAM providing more than the “basic tier” of local broadcast stations plus public, educational and government channels. Forget ESPN or even CNN; to get those without a cable box, you need a CableCard-compliant device–which in practice means either a TiVo digital video recorder or one of a few add-on tuners for computers.

But it’s worse than that: As readers have testified and I’ve seen myself, QAM reception often presents a puzzling picture of your cable choices. Channels can appear under seemingly random numbers–and then move to new ones or disappear outright.

So the proposal now before the Federal Communications Commission to allow cable operators to encrypt QAM signals on all-digital networks–simplifying their systems while cutting off existing QAM hardware–might not seem like anything worth fussing over.

And yet for a small minority of users, QAM does work. Some use it on second or third sets (PDF); some resorted to basic-tier cable after failing to get adequate over-the-air digital-TV reception; some employ it to use computers as digital video recorders. And these subscribers don’t want it to go away.

How many people are we talking about? The Web-media-receiver vendor Boxee says that 40 percent of buyers of its new Boxee Live TV device use QAM to receive cable TV through that add-on. You could dismiss that as a figment of a small sample size; that $49 add-on has only been on sale since January. But a more established computer-video vendor, Hauppauge Computer Works, also cited 40 percent QAM usage (PDF) among buyers of its PC peripherals.

The Consumer Electronics Association has no stats for this segment of the market.

CEA has joined those manufacturers in their opposition to QAM encryption, writing in a November filing (PDF) that the FCC should decline this request unless it also moves forward on other, long-standing proposals to open up the market for TV hardware (more on that in a moment).

The cable companies’ arguments, as related over a call Friday with representatives of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, fall into three categories:

• Cable operators’ own figures suggest that almost nobody relies on QAM. Cablevision, which obtained a waiver from the FCC to start encrypting QAM after converting to all-digital service in New York, N.Y., reported that “less than 0.1 percent of subscribers” (PDF) requested a free set-top box or CableCard to decode it.

• Encryption will allow remote activation and deactivation, without sending a technician on a truck to somebody’s house. (NCTA realizes that people don’t like sitting through four-hour service windows.)

• Encryption will also stop people from tuning into basic-tier cable without paying. RCN, among other cable operators, reports (PDF) this is a growing problem among Internet-only subscribers.

It’s important to note that the the cable operators, while maybe not everyone’s favorite companies, have been way ahead of satellite vendors in the interoperability game. DirecTV users who wanted to plug in a TiVo could only wait for that service to ship its own “DirecTiVo” model; that recently arrived, years late, to complaints over its aged interface.

Meanwhile, CableCard finally seems to work as advertised–even if that’s happened too late for some pioneering CableCard vendors. Once-prominent TiVo rival Moxi Digital gave up the fight two weeks ago when its new owner, ARRIS Group, announced that it would only sell through cable operators.

There’s been a proposal afoot, against opposition from cable, to set a comprehensive pay-TV standard called “AllVid” that would work not just for cable but also satellite and fiber-optic services. It would allow every screen in a home network to tie into a simple gateway adapter–the video equivalent of the wireless router that links a cable modem and a laptop.

That’s what CEA has been asking for in return for giving up clear QAM. Boxee could also live with this tradeoff, said spokesman Andrew Kippen; Hauppauge CEO Ken Plotkin, however, was not to ready to make that deal.

Me, I think I could live with that bargain–if it included an assurance that current QAM users who will have to tolerate a new box and remote control won’t have to pay extra for them. (If encrypting QAM harms so few people and yields as many benefits as cable operators say, they should be able to afford subsidizing that hardware.)

But this is an easy thing for me to say, since I switched to over-the-air and Internet broadcasts years ago. If you pay for cable today, I’d rather know your opinion: Would you trade simple reception of entry-level cable today for easy access to a full lineup of channels a few years from now?


11 thoughts on “Qualms Over QAM (2012 CEA re-post)

  1. Hi Rob,

    I live in New Smyrna Beach, Florida, and use Bright House Networks cable service. My main A/V system at home uses a HD-DVR (so I’m paying for full service), but I use QAM for my kitchen and guest bedroom TVs. I’d be pretty irritated if I had to give up QAM. To me, its biggest benefit is that no big ugly cable box is needed for these secondary systems. If cable boxes were the size of a pack of playing cards (which, frankly, they should be), I’d be glad to attach one to each of these secondary TV sets. However, with the de facto cable company control over box design, we haven’t seen the sort of innovation one would expect for these consumer electronics. Some of literally do not have room for a current-design cable box at the locations in our homes where we use QAM sets.

    I really wish CableCard had been a success. I would have been willing to get one for each of these secondary TV systems.

  2. I have basic cable through Cox in Vienna VA because I haven’t yet upgraded to HDTV (my old sets work why replace? I am a TiVo user and I don’t want to have a cable box to deal with. They’re ugly and I don’t have space for it. So for me QAM works. When my TVs break I’ll upgrade my TVs and TiVos and switch to cable cards but I also dislike having to rent the cards. And having just set up cable cards for my grandmother’s TiVo on FIOS I’m not looking forward to it. It was a week long debacle involving 3 cable cards (for 1 TV) and hours of my life I’ll never get back.

    I will do anything possible to avoid a cable box. If I was forced to get one I’d seriously consider dropping the cable and switching to over the air.

  3. I too wish that the cable cos had not succeeded in squashing cable cards or the various successors (Tru2Way etc.). Why oh why must I have a bulky, poorly designed box appended to my TV? And why do I get to pay for various fancy features on a TV that are rendered useless because the signal goes through a cable box?

    I would happily prefer an alternative that allowed me to use my TV fully without any addons, or a small addonn (cable-card like) that was incorporated into the TV.

  4. Rob,
    Thanks for your words on the QAM topic. I’m a Comcast Internet only customer in the mid-west. I dropped my TV subscription 2 years ago and ponied up the extra $10/mo for Internet only. I still receive local channels and public service (CSPAN, etc) and the QAM on my LG TV lets me receive the HD signal on the broadcast networks. I use the Internet to watch cable TV shows I like via Hulu+ and Netflix. I also have an EyeTV tuner with QAM and it allows me to time shift my viewing.

    I am one of those folks who absolutely refuses to have a hideous cable box in my house. Besides being ugly, it defeats my ability to watch one program while recording another. I’m sure Comcast will find a way to screw it up in the not too distant future, and I’ll have to depend on the Internet for all of my TV watching. BTW, Cox Cable in Phoenix doesn’t require cable boxes for their basic tier… yet, despite being a Comcast Company.

  5. Cool seeing you on TVLand. How do you move away from such a beautiful town like Tewksbury?

    • That place puts the garden in the Garden State–but the price of the beautiful scenery is having to drive everywhere and yet not having that many places to drive to. By the end of high school, I was desperate to go someplace with sidewalks and street lights, maybe even subways.

      • Thanks, Rob. I grew up in the opposite of Tewksbury, so I get how you feel. Thank you for all the great info and best of luck with everything!

  6. Pingback: Xbox One: So That’s Why ‘Xbox’ Sounds So Vaguemaxiherna.eu | maxiherna.eu

  7. Pingback: How DVD Recording Got Paused (June 2012 CEA repost) | Rob Pegoraro

  8. Pingback: TiVo, media center PC makers alarmed by CableCard-cutting bill |

  9. Pingback: Basic cable switch on extra TVs not so simple | Technology News World

Comments are closed.