This is important stuff.
What did they do?
Did they pass a rule forcing cable to keep analog alive? Does this mean that they also passed a rule allowing the downconversion of Digital to Analog ? Does this help the sats keep locals alive where they don't yet carry HD?
How about the rules on bit-for-bit and compression ?
David,
The details are sparse, but the one thing for sure is this will have consequences. YES, the FCC is requiring Cable to maintain Analog cable until 2012, three years past the Digital OTA migration date of February 17, 2009.
Requiring Analog Cable to continue does NOT allow Cable to reclaim all that bandwidth used for analog cable channels which the cable industry desperately needs for their migration to offering A LOT more HD and other services.
If Cable was allowed to remove Analog cable completely they then could require a STB for each Service drop. This would level the playing field with Satellite. Many Potential Satellite Suubscribers balk at churning to satellite as it requires a STB for each TV in their home. The Biggest advantage to Cable is to remove all that wasted Analog bandwidth.
The switch to all Digital would give Cable A LOT of bandwidth for HD additions as using MPEG4 could mean Cable can add HD channels in an almost one for one ratio for each removed analog channel. With that said Cable has yet to embrace MPEG4 for service into the home as it requires replacing each and every STB in the field NOW.
Yes, the industry in general whether Cable or Satellite has challenges. Cable has some advantages, as well as disadvantages, as does Satellite.
Both DBS companies have moved WAY ahead of Cable in HD additions, all the while Cable has insisted on broadening their services from TV, to Phone, and broadband internet, or the "Triple Play". While many have been drawn to these triple play offerings, they are not always the best deal in terms of service or especially price. Personally I find my Satellite service MUCH BETTER than the local CABLE TV product, but the local Cable Broadband is the best option albeitly the price is a little high (although if you play the game right you can get a deal), lastly my local Cable Companies IP Phone is VERY EXPENSIVE even with the "TRIPLE Play savings" my Vonage service offers much more for VASTLY LESS.
Just because you are getting "ONE" bill instead of three does NOT mean a DE-bundled set of services isn't better or cheaper.
Requiring the continuation of Analog Cable in general will please the low end of the Subscriber base, but in this business the high dollar sub is where the profits are. So the FCC is essentially protecting the low Dollar basic sub, while screwing over the Cable Companies and the high dollar subscribers that want more and better services. In the past before DBS, and the new Telcos TV services this might have been a good idea, but with all the options now available from competition, this is NOT necessary.
I say let the industry determine its OWN path instead of forcing a path that serves to protect the lowest dollar subscriber. In general with many areas getting Fiber into the home from new comers, and DBS pushing forward with MPEG4, requiring cable to maintain Analog Cable for three years past the Digital change over is ridiculous.
If you are going to require something then why not require Cable to provide a Limited SUBset of Analog channels for those that refuse to get STB's for each TV in the home.
With all this said the biggest hurt would be to large Hotel chains, with local analog cable service into each room, requiring either a costly Headend system (instead of regular Analog Cable to each room) or requiring each Hotel room to have a Cable Company STB (of which some are likely to disappear into guests Luggage). These Large Hotel Chains are VERY profitable and can afford the costs of this change over.
John
