dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


how-to block ads

Search Topic:
share rss forum feed


reply to amungus

Re: suck

said by amungus:

No good reason a TV, with no box attached, should not be able to get cable, with 99% of available channels. Arguing about satellite is ridiculous, as the method of receiving is vastly different, and requires retransmission from satellites owned by the provider (or, leased, in directv's case).

So apparently you think that there is no infrastructure costs on the part of the cable company. It's really not that different. The cable company receives signals from providers(either through satellite farms or fiber optics), it is then demodulated and remodulated onto their channel mapping (a little more to this, but I'm keeping it simple), from there it goes onto fiber optics to the OTN site that feeds your "neighborhood" and is once again sent out on fiber to nodes where it feeds throughs amplifiers and cable. Just considering the outdoor plant to feed your home from the OTN you are talking about multiple amplifiers that cost $2-$5K each and a node can run near $10K, then you have to add in power supplies (multiple per node) which comes with fees paid to local power company who also owns most of the poles that hold said equipment. Every single pole on the way to your house comes with a pole attachment fee that is negotiated with the local POCO. You can see that the costs add up fairly quickly and this is not even accounting for the costs to get the programming to your local main site.

·Cox HSI
·KCH Cable

I never said that they had no infrastructure costs, sorry you assumed that. Yes, they have costs, and I do realize all of those things which you pointed out.

The difference is that cable was set up to function with similar tuning standards in both analog and digital domains, that TV's are able to accept. There really isn't much involved in tuning analog or digital signals until you introduce encryption and authentication into the mix. Even then, it should be a rather trivial matter to resolve, but sadly, nobody wants to go there.

With satellite, tuning such signals is something your average TV is not equipped to do. The frequencies are not in the same spectrum. The power levels are totally different. The modulations are different. Nearly everything about a satellite signal is different from established TV tuner standards which are in EVERY TV tuner in existence.

Why should a TV nowadays not be able to decode the basic signals transmitted over cable networks? Truth is they can. Encrypting / scrambling most digital signals, however, requires use of an external box. It really should need to, except in the case of a DVR, or value added device. Basic reception of a general package should simply not require the mandated use of a box, that MUST be rented. We ought to be able to work out standards to move forward with that don't require TV's to use external boxes for simple cable access. It's a step backwards. It's not needed. It's silly.