<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Re: More channels crammed in in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22266100</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:47:54 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:47:54 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: More channels crammed in</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22266833</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/141763"><b>SSidlov</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  MOTO6809 <A HREF="/useremail/u/1500643"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by  acs12798 <A HREF="/useremail/u/1339459"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>  :</small><br><br>Hooray, we get more channels....now we can have every HD channel crammed with 3 more per QAM. <br> </div>Don't subscribe to the HD then.<br> </div>Subscribe? The HD box is the same price as the SD box. Just ask for one, no extra cost. Works great with SD sets too.  You get the HD channels that go with your SD service plan. Only the DVR service is extra cost.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22266833</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:28:34 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: More channels crammed in</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22266712</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><b>Eat Me</b></A> : Comcast is taking the feeds from the sats that are less than 3 per QAM and cramming them in 3 per QAM.<br><br>I can understand why you are bitter towards Comcrap, but they are not reflective of all cable providers.<br><br>But many cable providers are in fact passing along the signal as received, even if they are 3 per QAM, because they are received 3 per transponder on the satellite.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22266712</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:07:52 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: More channels crammed in</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22266298</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1339459"><b>acs12798</b></A> : Its still generally better than SD, and the charge for HD is built into the regular price, you're paying for it whether you use it or not.  I just don't consider 4 channel per QAM anywhere near acceptable.  Versus HD is virtually unwatchable, and I know its not the feed, because up at school in Albany, we get verus and its far better.  ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22266298</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:57:45 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: More channels crammed in</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22266268</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1500643"><b>MOTO6809</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  acs12798 <A HREF="/useremail/u/1339459"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Hooray, we get more channels....now we can have every HD channel crammed with 3 more per QAM. <br> </div>Don't subscribe to the HD then.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22266268</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:52:19 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: More channels crammed in</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22266246</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/173687"><b>jmn1207</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Eat Me <A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by  jmn1207 <A HREF="/useremail/u/173687"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>   :</small><br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by  acs12798 <A HREF="/useremail/u/1339459"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>    :</small><br><br>Hooray, we get more channels....now we can have every HD channel crammed with 3 more per QAM. <br> </div>Do they have the bandwidth available, or will quality have to be compromised?  <br> </div>If you look at lyngesat, many channels are already 3 per transponder anyway from the satellite.  Some cable providers even have to pad their QAMs with extra bits to fill up the extra space. <br><br>So don't think that 3 per QAM automatically means "worse than FiOS" because FiOS gets it from the same place.<br> </div>This has been discussed at length in the <A HREF="http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1008271">AV science forums</a>, and it did appear that my Comcast picture quality was reduced on those channels grouped 3 per QAM.  I agree it does not automatically mean the quality is inferior, but it is more prevalent when the signal is recompressed and not simply passed without any modification.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22266246</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:49:20 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: More channels crammed in</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22266100</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><b>Eat Me</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  jmn1207 <A HREF="/useremail/u/173687"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>  :</small><br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by  acs12798 <A HREF="/useremail/u/1339459"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>   :</small><br><br>Hooray, we get more channels....now we can have every HD channel crammed with 3 more per QAM. <br> </div>Do they have the bandwidth available, or will quality have to be compromised?  <br> </div>If you look at lyngesat, many channels are already 3 per transponder anyway from the satellite.  Some cable providers even have to pad their QAMs with extra bits to fill up the extra space. <br><br>So don't think that 3 per QAM automatically means "worse than FiOS" because FiOS gets it from the same place.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22266100</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:30:31 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: More channels crammed in</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22266017</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/173687"><b>jmn1207</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  acs12798 <A HREF="/useremail/u/1339459"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Hooray, we get more channels....now we can have every HD channel crammed with 3 more per QAM. <br> </div>Do they have the bandwidth available, or will quality have to be compromised?  ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22266017</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:16:26 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>More channels crammed in</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22265966</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1339459"><b>acs12798</b></A> : Hooray, we get more channels....now we can have every HD channel crammed with 3 more per QAM. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22265966</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:07:54 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
