[dewdude]

Is it about extra money? Maybe. Here's my take on it.

For starters, I'm sure the differences in modulation have been discussed; so you need a QAM tuner to tune anything over cable regardless.

Local channels are required by the FCC to be unencrypted. While many cable companies don't like this, it's a requirement.

The rest of the channels are usually encrypted.

They do this because, with cable, it's just a coax comming in to your house. If you were to say subscribe to only internet, there's not a lot in the way of being able to turn off TV service. Some cable companies DID in fact use a second hookup at the nodes for just internet. Back in the analog days, you used to have to pay an access fee for not having the cable service, this was so they'd make *something* if you decided to run the cable in to your TV as well and get the non-scrambled analog channels. Sometimes they'd put notch filters on your line to block everything but the chunk of QAM's used for internet.

As a FiOS subscriber, my service works a lot like digital cable. All non-locals are in fact encrypted. Despite the fact there's a nice advanced box on the side of the house, it doesn't actually process the incoming RF signal, it just converts it from optical to coax and sends it over the line. So, to prevent mass theft of service, they encrypt all the channels they can. I will say one interesting thing I've noticed from keeping a raw QAM feed in to my TV is, during any free-preview event of a premium channel; they physically unencrypt it. I imagine in the long run, it's easier to just unencrypt the channel then send a couple million auth codes. The boxes will display an unencrypted signal, period and will only decrypt auth ones.

This is in contrast to the old analog days where premium channels were always kept scrambled, and the company had to send out a mass auth command to all addressable boxes. It could also be an additional sales tactic to people who don't have boxes. Get them hooked on whatever channel they're magically now getting (if they re-scanned) so they'll subscribe and get more hardware.

I've also noticed a drastic change in how hardware is billed, at least in my area. It used to be you paid a fee per each individual box. FiOS changed things where you can get a multi-room DVR package, and 5 rooms of hardware are billed flat rate. I'm pretty sure the package is just a DVR and 4 HD boxes, I haven't checked. If Verizon would give me 5 HD DVR boxes, all on the multi-room setup, for the price I'm paying now, believe me, we'd have five DVR's. I heard Comcast has followed suit. While both of them offer basic boxes in this area; they're both only about $3/month. I've also heard rumors that FiOS is trying to get everyone off SD hardware so they can turn off the SD feeds of channels they have in HD; freeing up QAM for more HD.

While you can scream more money from hardware fee's all you want; what you might want to remember is that not everyone hooked up to a cable service is paying for cable TV. So the mass encryption of basic cable channels is practically a requirement for them, or at least a good idea. If they dump analog, they don't have to worry about people pirating the basic service and paying for just internet.

If they could ensure that everyone physically hooked up to that cable line was in fact paying for cable service, then there's a chance they'd be totally willing to leave all the basic channels in the clear. I'm sure the problem of outright piracy will have stopped; there's no advantage to pay the drunk dude in the trailer park to climb the pole and hook everyone up, anymore. However, the number of people who subscribe to a cable service and get just the internet is still staggering. My sister, for example, absolutely hates Comcast (which proves she actually is listening to me), yet it's her only broadband option; so she still has satellite tv.

I believe FiOS can already do this...to a point. I believe if you're not paying for TV service, they can turn off the RF signal; but I do believe the FCC requirements for locals prevent that.

Believe me, I'd love to jump on the bandwagon of "it's a money scam"; but the fact is the money problem actually extends back to distribution and copyright agreements. Yes, I think it sucks, but my logic also reminds me of how it's necessary.