| | Cable is not a luxury I guess Cable TV is no longer considered a Luxury. When are we going to get it for free?  | |
|
 kitsune
join:2001-11-26
Sacramento, CA | Re: Cable is not a luxury This isn't for cable. It's for OTA(Over-The-Air) Broadcasts. In other words what you receive via antenna. If you have a TV with a built-in HDTV tuner then this would be useless to you (i.e. the majority of Digital TVs sold today). | |
|
 |  yockTFTCPremium
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH
kudos:3 | Re: Cable is not a luxury said by kitsune:This isn't for cable. It's for OTA(Over-The-Air) Broadcasts. In other words what you receive via antenna. If you have a TV with a built-in HDTV tuner then this would be useless to you (i.e. the majority of Digital TVs sold today). I don't know where you live, but I know a grand total of zero people with OTA HDTV. The "majority" of people, around here at least, seem to have cable television with HD service.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge | |
|
| | | | Re: Cable is not a luxury said by yock:said by kitsune:This isn't for cable. It's for OTA(Over-The-Air) Broadcasts. In other words what you receive via antenna. If you have a TV with a built-in HDTV tuner then this would be useless to you (i.e. the majority of Digital TVs sold today). I don't know where you live, but I know a grand total of zero people with OTA HDTV. The "majority" of people, around here at least, seem to have cable television with HD service. I used OTA HD, worked fine until the local city council re-zoned my area allowing for taller buildings (thus blocking my line of sight).
Should there be a natural disaster or emergency, people with older TVs wont get the notice to get out of harms way. They will have to rely solely on AM/FM radio to be alerted to any disaster. So basically were talking about people dying because they didn't have enough money to pay for a HDTV or digital receiver. | |
|
| | | | Let me say from experience, OTA HDTV is LOADS and LOADS better than the crap comcast provides. I'm lucky, I get all the major networks via OTA HDTV Broadcasts, and the quality is NOTICEABLY better that the people who do comcast HD. Remember, comcast HD (at least around here), suffers from some pretty major artifacting, and the compression they use makes the picture look 'better' that SDTV, but it's only 720i, vs the OTA broadcasts I get are 1080i or 720p. I personally don't notice much difference between the two, but I'm not a videophile. My TV has a mythtv box to record the HDTV, and even using high quality Divx, the average show (in HD) is about 1.5GB.
My TV is about 2 years old, so it's NOT HDCP compliant. so if they ever do implement the copy not token, I will be MAJORLY pissed.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
|
| | | DesdinovaPremium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | Re: Cable is not a luxury Are you sure the difference is in the signal and not the monitor/TV they're watching it on? I have Comcast HD and the quality is excellent with no artifacting in any form. It could just be a regional thing but I've always had an outstanding picture with my service. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
 ·Charter
| Re: Cable is not a luxury I would tend to side with karl here... I also have an OTA HD antenna, and the picture quality is 10x better than anything Charter feeds down their pipes. (Even moreso in the last couple of weeks... dunno WTF they're doing over there, but it's definately not improving their signals)
The other annoying thing that alot of cable providers do, is downsample or overcompress 'non-primetime' shows. So if you watch the reruns of 'Everybody Loves Raymond' or 'Friends' you'll often get a pretty heavily artifacted display.
You can visably view the difference by switching from 1 input to the other.... it doesn't take quantum physics to 'prove' that the signal has been degraded. Now, to be fair, it could just be the person(s) operating the operation centers for alot of cable providers just have no clue how to properly compress video... but I highly doubt that's always the case. | |
|
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Nice to know that comcast is compressing HDTV to YOUR house. Never knew any comcast system was compressing HD..
What do you have to back up your statement? | |
|
| | | | tlniec
join:2004-08-02
Cedar Rapids, IA | Re: Cable is not a luxury Are you kidding? I've NEVER heard of a cable company (or anybody else, for that matter) broadcasting uncompressed HD. | |
|
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | Re: Cable is not a luxury Let me restate this for you from someone that knows.
COMCAST DOES NOT COMPRESS THE HD SIGNAL.
Search this board if you need more people to tell you this. | |
|
| |  thender2Glamour ProfessionPremium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY | Why get TV for free when you can pay $60/month? Not only do you not have to do the impossible one time setup of putting an antenna in a spot of your room where you get reception, but you also lose out on the extra 900 channels you'll probably never watch because ABC/FOX/CBS/NBC has what about 90% of the public watch :/ | |
|
|
|
