how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
2 edits | reply to pandora
Re: A few observations said by pandora:I believe cable companies should provide an unencrypted basic tier of HD that any digital set can receive. The FCC shouldn't lightly permit unencrypted cable from disappearing, even if eventually all signals are digital. That, as a goal, sounds noble. But it flies in the face of the direction technology and the industry is taking and the demand by customers for more channels and more HD channels in particular.
There is a limited amount of bandwidth capacity on cable HFC systems. HD channels(and eventually almost all channels will be HD) take up quite a bit of bandwidth. To get around the limitation(until FTTH is ubiquitous which is a decade away or more), cable is going to use Switched Digital Video (SDV). Current TVs can't support that without some kind of external box(an SDV adapter, or a STB). Eventually, Tru2Way will address that in new sets. But again that will take years before they are ubiquitous.
So your solution is regulation that will squash consumers demand for more channels and more HD channels because there is a group of people that can't afford a Cadillac. My solution is that those people make do with OTA TV and leave the rest of us alone to enjoy the progression of technology.
A solution that slows progress because some will be left behind is not a good solution. But it is a solution supported by socialists. That is, pander to the lowest common denominator, and to heck with progress.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | | |
|
 RallyBah HumbugPremium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by fAcEtIOUs:said by pandora:I believe cable companies should provide an unencrypted basic tier of HD that any digital set can receive. The FCC shouldn't lightly permit unencrypted cable from disappearing, even if eventually all signals are digital. That, as a goal sounds, noble. But it flies in the face of the direction technology and the industry is taking and the demand by customers for more channels and more HD channels in particular. There is a limited amount of bandwidth capacity on cable HFC systems. HD channels(and eventually almost all channels will be HD) take up quite a bit of bandwidth. To get around the limitation(until FTTH is ubiquitous which is a decade away or more), cable is going to use Switched Digital Video (SDV). Current TVs can't support that without some kind of external box(an SDV adapter, or a STB). Eventually, Tru2Way will address that in new sets. But again that will take years before they are ubiquitous. So your solution is regulation that will squash consumers demand for more channels and more HD channels because there is a group of people that can't afford a Cadillac. My solution is that those people make do with OTA TV and leave the rest of us alone to enjoy the progression of technology. A solution that slows progress because some will be left behind is not a good solution. But it is a solution supported by socialists. That is, pander to the lowest common denominator, and to heck with progress. MSOs try and progress newer tech? This made me laugh very, very loudly. | |
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:There is a limited amount of bandwidth capacity on cable HFC systems. HD channels(and eventually almost all channels will be HD) take up quite a bit of bandwidth. To get around the limitation(until FTTH is ubiquitous which is a decade away or more), cable is going to use Switched Digital Video (SDV). Actually, HD Digital channels take up less bandwidth than a single analog channel. With standard MPEG-2 you can fit 2 HD digital channels per QAM channel. Comcast (and I'm sure others) have started adding additional compression to increase that to 3 HD channels per QAM. MPEG-4 further reduces the bandwidth but requires new equipment to be deployed as most current STBs won't decode MPEG-4.
--
REMEMBER: Stupidity should be painful !! | |
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
TK is ok with encryption when it suits corporations, but against it when it comes to consumer privacy, such as peer to peer systems. Don't take it too seriously its his job.
Usually i would also be against more regulation, but the monopolistic cable world really needs reform, or instead of that perhaps an open network for competitors.
Like many people, i have only ONE choice for television and internet, and its not a very good one. | |
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
If the cable industry and CableLabs were not doing everything they can to hold back CableCARD technology and "Tru2Way" (another stalling tactic) this would not be a problem. Since you are tagging things, let's call cablers "communist" since they insist on central command and control, the lowest possible performance, the least amount of accountability and the highest amount of intimidation.
This is about as transparent as the argument that cable prices have dropped significantly 'when viewed on a per-channel basis'. Well, adding 200 fluff channels and duplicates so your divisor is higher does not lower the price no matter what those sharp NCTA accountants might say.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by pandora:I believe cable companies should provide an unencrypted basic tier of HD that any digital set can receive. The FCC shouldn't lightly permit unencrypted cable from disappearing, even if eventually all signals are digital. That, as a goal, sounds noble. But it flies in the face of the direction technology and the industry is taking and the demand by customers for more channels and more HD channels in particular. Since when are consumers "demanding more channels"?
Most of us can name dozens of channels we are forced to pay for, but don't ever watch. Why not, instead, go ala carte, and let us pay per-channel, so that the finite channel space is truly allocated in proportion to demand? | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Why not go ala cart? ....? Why not!
Grab the money, string up your lines, build your head ends, forge your contracts with networks and sell to your heart's will!
Now, there are two ways I can end this post, so I will use both.
1) When all your customers want 10 channels and your average bill is $15 per sub, let me know when you file for bankruptcy so I can buy your system up for pennies on the dollar and run it right.
or
2) When your customers find out that it will cost $5 per channel plus a base rate for the carrier/line, and they realize they're paying $45 a month for a small hand full of channels, and revolt against you,.. AND your other customers find no value in your service any more and cancel becuase those less popular channels, which do keep those customers happy and subscribing are gone.. well, again, I say, let me know. I'd like yo buy your system in a liquidation sale so I can run it right and make money.
Okay.. it's nice to want all these Utopian dreams like ala cart channels, "free" equipment, $5 internet services, constant upgrades, new guides, faster internet speeds, no installation service fees (ie: free labor and parts that they can keep) etc.. AND on top of that, choice of multiple providers (more than the average 2 or three providers which further erodes a much needed income base to operate from) and all the other un-sustainable wishes.. but keeping in mind these wishes.. how in the world is a business supposed to, well, STAY in business?
Guys, c'mon.. it's time to live in reality and grow up.
It's time to answer the question I posed above and do it honestly.. it's a valid question becuase YOU guys yourselves are asking and demanding it daily.. you guys OFTEN forget one very important part of the puzzle.. YOU! the customer.
I see two things.. you guys THINK you have have all the above becuase its the "let everyone else pay full service so I can have it for cheap" mentality.. or, you really simply forget that you, yourself, has no impact on the success of continued service.
Remember, you can reduce the bills and even the amount of customer competition, but the one thing remains.. the cost to string the plant to every customer for all providers is the same and comes with a cost. (Oh wait.. what's that answer.. muni fiber projects? group projects like Utopia? need I say more?) | |
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | said by fiberguy:Guys, c'mon.. it's time to live in reality and grow up. Hehe... you're expecting too much, perhaps. 
Seriously, I think folks either (1) don't know; (2) forget; or (3) refuse to acknowledge that every dollar invested has to compete with every other possible way that dollar can be invested. If cable companies become less attractive investments, then their ability to raise capital evaporates, and progress stops. If cable companies were meant to be operated as public services, then they'd be attached to the Department of Public Works, and paid for by your municipal taxes. Rather, cable companies are granted license to operate in return for providing lifeline cable -- your local broadcast channels -- at a reduced price regulated by your local franchising authority, not the cable company. That's the public service. Lifeline cable -- your local broadcast channels. In return for agreeing to operate that service at a regulated rate, even if less than the cost of offering that service, the cable company is allowed to offer additional services, where they set the rates based on how much what they're offering is worth, not how much you personally want to pay for them.
If you want to dictate how cable television is offered, then either buy a cable company, or get your government to launch its own city-owned cable television utility. | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | You know what's funny about this? I posed a question that NONE Of the cry-baby, nanny-state loving, upotian-living, ulta left socialist, give-me-everything entitlement driven user on this site can argue with and keep a straight face.
With most of my posts, I'm bashed at the first sense of having an opinion that doesn't fit the borg's collective thought.
I think too many people are having Goto line 20 error right now and their brains are smoking. | |
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | I agree. It is distressing to encounter perspectives so tainted by entitlement mentality. Sometimes, the only basis I see them offering for their perspectives is selfishness ("I want"). :shrug: To be fair, though, perhaps not all of the comments come from people who are just selfish -- some folks commenting might simply be anti-capitalists. One of the great things about this country is that people who actually hold un-American perspectives are welcomed here. | |
|
