Why does neither satellite provider provide C-Span 3?

[harshness]

I am talking about the second-level cable channels that many people with the big-name cable companies have.

If you meant second-level, you probably shouldn't have said "general entertainment".

 

[ejb1980]

They are still general entertainment channels.

 

[osu1991]

They are more low rated niche channels than anything

Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Because that channel is 100% funded by cable companies and is for cable companies.


Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!

 

[navychop]

Final answer, dat!


Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!

 

[cypherstream]

My local cable co has 1 & 2 in HD but not 3. I would figure cable could but all 3 to a QAM since it's low motion/action... But I think the statmux license for more than 2 HD in an MPEG2 QAM is too pricey.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

likely have other channels on the same QAM as 1 and 2

 

[cypherstream]

likely have other channels on the same QAM as 1 and 2

No I did QAM analysis with QAM tuner. I also did RF analysis with RTLSDR-Scanner, and we have 31 open QAMs. I did hear that each QAM has to be licenced for statmux. Depends if its third party like Imagine Communications, or in house like Cisco, Arris, Erricson, etc... Heard its not cheap. Heck if it was free they could put CSPAN1,2,3 and EWTN HD on one QAM. Without the statmux licence, I think they are limited to 2 MPEG2 HD programs on one QAM channel.

 

[dishrich]

Because CSPAN 3 is a cable only exclusive at least thats how it was a few years ago.

Because that channel is 100% funded by cable companies and is for cable companies.

This is NOT true...since C-SPAN 3 has been on U-verse ch 232 since day 1...

(Sorry to reply to an old thread, but discovered this in updating a local channel SS f/U-verse service)

 

[navychop]

You don't consider U-Verse a cable company?



Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App using an iPhone.

 

[dishrich]

Uh, no...since it comes from a phone company...

 

[raoul5788]

It's a cable company. They tried to get the courts to say they weren't so they wouldn't have to follow the cable rules. It didn't work out so good for them, not in CT anyways. http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/art...le--can-company-ignore-a-federal-court-ruling

 

[ejb1980]

You don't consider U-Verse a cable company?

Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App using an iPhone.

Absolutely not. It's a phone company.

 

[harshness]

Absolutely not. It's a phone company.

As they claim to offer Digital TV, High Speed Internet and Voice (in that order), they are just as much a cable company as any of the others. I suspect you're confusing U-verse with being one and the same as AT&T.

What is U-verse?
It's entertainment inspired by you! Using fiber-optic technology1, AT&T U-verse delivers award-winning TV, high-speed Internet, and digital home phone service.

 

[gdstout]

Is U-Verse delivered over coax?

Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!

 

[harshness]

Is U-Verse delivered over coax?

Coax is involved in all U-verse TV installations. The inputs on the receivers are F connectors.

How a carrier distributes their signals doesn't determine what kind of carrier they are. Carrier type is determined by what they carry and how they package it as Chip's post made clear.

 

[Jimbo]

Uh, no...since it comes from a phone company...

I would consider it more a Cable company (for TV anyways) than anything else, its certainly not a Sat companies that has many more restrictions than cable does.

 

[dishrich]

It's a cable company. They tried to get the courts to say they weren't so they wouldn't have to follow the cable rules. It didn't work out so good for them, not in CT anyways.

Your own link says:

Since Oct. 1 the new law lays out different sets of rules for traditional cable service providers and so-called video service providers. The rules for traditional cable companies are more restrictive and are subject to greater government regulation. Video service providers, however, are given more room to wiggle. But the distinction between the two is far from clear.

Bottom line - they are NOT a "cable company" on the same level of a Comcast, TWC, etc. - they are more of a "CLEC cable provider", if anything...

FWIW, AT&T got more "wiggle room" in IL, than they did in CT (putting on my surprise face as we speak...)

I would consider it more a Cable company (for TV anyways) than anything else, its certainly not a Sat companies that has many more restrictions than cable does.

While I agree w/you on the last part of your statement re: sat being more restrictive - consider this re U-verse being like cable:

- they do NOT have to follow any rules for cablecards &/or buying your own equipment (they don't let you, obviously)...since it is IP based
- they do NOT have to follow same rules for local must carry/subchannels/Sig Viewed
- they do NOT have to follow same local franchise rules as the incumbent cable co, such as service area build-out requirements, etc.
- they do NOT have to carry any/all PEG channels as the incumbent cable co do
- they have NO rate increase restrictions on ANY tiers of service; many local franchises still have regulations on at least the lowest level tier of service ("broadcast basic")

I'm sure there's others, but you get the gist...