dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9
share rss forum feed

amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·KCH Cable
reply to considerthis

Re: suck

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.