Back in September, Cablevision petitioned the FCC to be able to encrypt basic cable in New York City. I submitted my comment to the FCC and have been reading other comments ever since.

A wide collection of views have been submitted and some common themes seem to appear. One of the biggest seems to be confusing related issues. One is confusing the move of the cable signal to digital, and with whether or not the digital signal should also be encrypted or scrambled. Another is confusing the number of households with set top boxes with the number of television receivers that are getting their signal from a set top box. While many subscribers may have a set top box for one or more of their televisions, they may not have it for all of their televisions. Understanding these and other issues will be important in how cable systems move to digital signals.

A comment submitted by Public Knowledge and the Media Access Project places the request in the proper framework.

While Cablevision is the first major cable system to apply for such a waiver, it certainly won’t be the last. To the contrary this petition marks only the beginning of a “cable digital conversion” that will reshape the industry.

They go on to say that “It is critical that the Commission move expeditiously to a general rulemaking”. Sure enough, RCN Telecom Services supports Cablevision’s request and “requests the Commission to extend such waiver to other cable and open video system operators”. Bend Cable Communications (“BendBroadband”) , a small family owned cable operator in Oregon also commented in support of the waiver.

BendBroadband comes the closest to presenting a viable argument for why cable operators should be allowed to encrypt digital basic cable signals. They talk about the need to install traps to protect against signal theft and the need for cable operators to be able to make service changes without a truck roll if they are going to be able to compete with satellite services. Yet under current rules, to request a waiver, a cable company must show that there is significant cable theft that cannot be thwarted other ways.

Arguing on the other side is Elgato, a leading vendor of products for watching of television on Macintosh Computers. Such a waiver would have a significant negative impact on customers that have bought their products in the past, as well as making their product less valuable for future potential customers. Broadening this argument is the Consumer Electronics Industry.

They present, in a particularly clear manner, that Cablevision has not met the requirements necessary for a waiver; showing neither a substantial problem of theft of basic tier services or some other “strong need”. They also illustrate the vast number of devices currently on the market that would be negatively affected by such a waiver. These arguments are also particularly well presented by the Association for Maximum Service Television (MSTV).

MSTV describes itself as “the leader in fostering over-the-air digital broadcast television” and “represents the television broadcast industry on technical issues before the Federal Communications Commission”.

So, we see a battle brewing between the cable companies, the consumer electronics manufacturers and the broadcast companies. It is also interesting to see ordinary citizens, and people involved in public, educational and government television channels weighing in on the issue.

Public Knowledge and the Media Access Project are right. This does only mark the beginning. They are right, the FCC should address the issue of the transition to digital cable. However, there has not been a compelling reason presented that the transition to digital cable should include allowing the encrypting or scrambling of basic tier cable channels. Indeed, the arguments by broadcasters and television manufacturers present a much more compelling reason why digital basic tier cable should not be encrypted or scrambled.

Cablevision’s comment reply date is November 6th. It will be interesting to see what they have to say, as well as what the FCC ends up doing. What is exciting to me is that as the large industry groups battle it out, more and more individuals are getting involved and that, I believe, is good for our country.

What are your thoughts on the requested waiver? Are there other rules being made or re-evaluated that you believe we should be paying attention to?