Hacker News Reader

Comment by LeoPanthera | Hacker News Reader

It’s funny how this is actually worse than cable. I still have and use the old HDHomeRun Prime (no longer made), which has a cablecard inserted into it (which your cable company is legally required to provide, or at least it used to be?) and it emits unencrypted video on every channel, except for I believe “premium” channels which is basically only HBO.

View on HN

My local cable company gets around this by strategically pricing everyone towards using their new cable boxes which are essentially digital TV over DOCSIS internet. The prices for the IP TV plans (which they still call "cable") are less than $100 per month, but I was quoted over $300 per month for a traditional cable plan that could use a CableCard.

Yeah these sorts of practices seem to be everywhere. I have Comcast Business (for internet) at home, and even for that, they want you to use their provided cable modem + "security gateway". I told them I wanted to use my own modem and router, and they told me that would cost more! I can only assume they gather data about your home network and sell it to third parties, and don't want to lose that revenue stream. And I assume that device also broadcasts that "xfinity" public WiFi network as well.

I of course think the practice is disgusting regardless, but it surprised me that they'd do it on their business-class product too. Would be really nice to see some regulation aimed at prohibiting this sort of thing.

(To be fair, I recently called Optimum for cable internet setup at another address, and told them I wanted to use my own equipment, and they still gave me the same price. At least some companies aren't engaging in this bullshit. They did try to upsell me to a much faster package than I wanted, and tried to get me to add their cellular product, but I guess that sort of thing is a normal practice anywhere, and at least the sales rep wasn't pushy and it was easy to say no.)

With Comcast, you can disable the public Wi-Fi on your end (just log in) and you can also ask them to put your cable modem into "bridge mode", to use with your own router, but to get static IPs you need your router in router mode and it will get a dynamic IP and the static IPs.

I was sick of the way that Comcast prices creep up so I switched away anyway.

The modem they currently use actually reenables the Xfinity hotspot when I turn bridge mode on. It’s infuriating.

Yikes. I wonder if you can get it replaced with the business gateway without wifi.

Open case, remove wifi chipset or at least the antennas?

Maybe easier to wrap it in foil/put it inside a metal box/trash can? Warranty/service terms: intact.

> I can only assume they gather data about your home network and sell it to third parties, and don't want to lose that revenue stream

Nah. You are just paying for the privilege of breaking their unified management platform.

As an ISP "power users" break the uniformity that leads to economies of scale in management, and often over-estimate their own abilities leading to increased support costs.

100% this.

DOCSIS in practice does not guarantee interoperability. Each ISP has its own supported modems list. Deviating from their blessed hardware means they will not send the special ISP specific firmware that’s bug compatible with their setup. Or they might refuse to activate it. Of course any issues are immediately blamed on customer owned CPE.

Because of this the real point of demarcation is the approved modem/gateway’s Ethernet port not the coaxial junction box.

So I work mostly with fiber, which is a bit different than DOCSIS in terms of demarcation and interoperability, but at least with fiber, these economies of scale in management can also be realized without having this unified management platform, although it can indeed impact the revenue stream. I work at an ISP where LAN management is an add-on option (that most users take), and so we maintain this uniformity :

- unmanaged clients ("power users") get an ONT that is very easy to monitor remotely, and we never had a situation where they were unable to setup a DHCP client

- managed clients pay a bit more and get an AP/router that they cannot directly configure, except for things like the wifi password and some NAT mappings.

It would not make sense to price it this way if we were selling data about their home network, and I suppose that's part of the reason other big ISPs here prohibit their users from connecting to the ONT directly.

How much does it cost to say "sorry, we cannot help you because you're using your own router" like Comcast support does? I can't imagine how that would cost more than them supporting their own router.

Comcast and Optimum both offer low-cost cell phone networks. They resell service from the big three, but largely rely on WiFi calling. Phones automatically connect to the default modem/router combos.

> Comcast and Optimum both offer low-cost cell phone networks.

Plans that run on other networks (in Comcast's case it's Verizon).

Comcast also has deployed this other trick where you call them for support, they'll just say they can't do anything if you use your own modem. It's malicious incompetence.

Oh for business users they'll offer to send someone with the threat that if it's anything on the premises or it is an intermittent issue resolved by the time they get there then they'll tack a $100 charge on.

EDIT: I've written before about an issue caused by a miswritten provisioning file on their end that involved eventually writing their executives to get it resolved: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35595663

We had this situation in Germany as well. The providers argued that their routers/etc. are part of their network and the user network starts behind that. If the user wants to use their own router etc they can connect it behind the provided one yadayadayada. In the end their lost the argument. The providers need to accept any router and have to hand out the connection credentials (the provided boxes came with backed in credentials) so users can connect with their own hardware. But most providers will now refuse to give support in case you run your own router. That’s all for internet though. Don‘t know how cable is handled nowadays.

But this reminds me of the day a nice telecom call center person wanted me to get their router. The argument he gave me was: „with our router we have access and can automatically fix update and optimize the router for you“. My answer was down the line of: „that’s precisely what I don‘t want“. A few years later a huge Telekom blackout happened across west Germany or so. Apparently the error was a faulty update which misconfigured the user credentials. All boxes went offline for the users (I guess the service ports where still available) Classic Murphy.

Of course, the big strategy here is to try and get to a point where they can free up a whole lot more spectrum on the cables for internet and not have to densify CMTS a whole bunch.

(Of course, having spyware cable boxes helps with other revenue streams, too)

I thought I read somewhere that the provision that required cablecard specifically access is no longer in effect. They still must provide access, but what that is seems murkier than ever: https://www.nexttv.com/news/fcc-abandons-cablecard-navigatio...

That’s probably true. But I guess if you already have a cablecard, it’s not going to suddenly stop working. Mine is still working just fine.

Comcast "forced" me off of mine by upping my rate to $180/mo for the cheapest cable-only package when there were contract deals available with internet and more channels for $110/mo.

No contract rates available without turning in the cablecard. Switched symmetric GB fiber provider for $65/mo and pay for streaming TV during the NHL season.

> Switched symmetric GB fiber provider for $65/mo and pay for streaming TV during the NHL season.

Good, everyone who is able to switch away from cable should switch away from cable.

Signed, a time warner spectrum hostage

Cable television (and, to some extent "television" in general) has the stink of a dying industry all over it. Of course, "cable TV" during my lifetime has often been a type of business run, in many areas, as a sort of personal piggy-bank / for "rents" extraction, and not in any kind of public or consumer oriented manner at all [1]. But, really, at this point, cable is just milking as much as it can out of the generations that still are very dependent on it as it sinks into oblivion.

Cable wasn't exactly great, well, ever ... but, even through perhaps about 2015, it was at least somewhat watchable. In the past few years, I've had the ... (mis)fortune of being in a household with cable (after years of only even being able to watch when I went to someone else's home). Commercials were bad enough 10 years ago. Now, they hardly show any scenes in shows / movies before there is a commercial. Movies with runtimes of 1.5 hours, will run for 2.75 hours on TV. This can be on "broadcast" stations as well as cable-only. The barrage of ads only drops off after about 10pm.

Even worse, they now have very "dynamic" time slot ads, 5s ads interspersed with 15s ads etc... Plus, the ads themselves often enough feel made for the "TikTok" generation.

Just an absolute mess.

I'll never look back at TV with any deep nostalgia, though there is a bit of nostalgia for some aspects. It was never a highlight of life - like Seinfeld quips in one of his stand-ups: "... everyone on TV is doing something better than what you are doing ... you never see someone on TV sliding off the couch with potato chip crumbs all over their face ..." (something to that effect). But, it's really "jumped the shark", these days.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/30/obituaries/john-j-rigas-d... (I can't quickly find some of the material I was looking for - practices of companies in the 90s, fighting any kind of innovation while fees exploded etc. ... There were noteworthy laws enacted, incl. 1992 cable-related act and the notorious 1996 telco act ... lots of bad anti tech anti consumer crap mixed in all of it, and lots of private corralling of money, in any case)

Cable has definitely gone downhill. I remember we got our first cable box (a fairly large black metal box with a channel selector dial on it) in 1985 or so, and it was actually pretty good. Not that many channels, but as I remember it (I was very young, so it's a bit fuzzy), most channels had no commercials at all, even between programs.

I haven't had cable since 2005 or so, when I canceled it. I think I got cable TV just because I assumed that was just what I was supposed to do, since I'd had it for nearly all my life. But after a year or so of living on my own, I realized I rarely watched it, and got rid of it. Haven't looked back, and I aggressively avoid being exposed advertising as much as possible. When I'm visiting family the TV is usually on in the background (with some cable channel on), and it's astonishing to me how little actual programming is there these days. Feels like mostly ads, and, as you point out, normal-length movies have their time slots expanded by at least 50% to account for ads. Gross.

I wish I could switch. It's ridiculous that in San Francisco my only realistic choice is Comcast. No fiber (despite being one block from the 3rd Street fiber trunk), and MonkeyBrains won't guarantee the speeds I want.

Either way, kudos to you for voting with your wallet here. I wish we could all do that in every situation.

I'm a little bit surprised they didn't offer you a better rate when you called to cancel. A friend of mine has been riding a 1-year signup promotion for a good 5+ years now; every year when they're about to switch him to regular pricing, he calls them and tells them he's unhappy with the new rate and will cancel. But in your case, I guess Comcast's profits are solid enough (and they know most people don't have an alternative) that they can be choosy about their customers.

You can thank your local corrupt politicians for maintaining Comcast's monopoly in your area. Comcast pays good money to have those votes, money it takes from you and your neighbors.

The capital expenditure to build fiber is also quite large, Sonic.net, Astound and others have spent money to build fiber in parts of California, but maintaining and using existing infrastructure is just cheaper than building new, especially if trenching is involved.

Up until 2 years ago, I used to use an HDHomeRun Prime with a cablecard for just basic cable (only a dozen or so channels) because I had terrible antenna reception in my apartment (I was only about 2 or 3 miles from the transmitter, but with a hill in-between). It cost me something like $60/month for just the basic cable (from RCN). Fortunately I've now moved and have great OTA reception on ATSC 1.0 so I was able to ditch the expensive cable service.

I really think the basic broadcast channels should be free to watch on whatever medium you choose. These should be free on clear QAM cable without needing a cable card.

When I looked into this, it seemed the "premium" channel restriction (formally called "Copy Control Information") was something that was done client-side in software, because Windows Media Center was one of the only software able to play copy-once content. Have people tried cracking the drm scheme used?

Unfortunately not always the case in NYC at least. Verizon (FIOS) had basically every channel unencrypted. When I had to switch to Spectrum I discovered they encrypt basically every channel save for ones available over OTA.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com