Re: Why Buy a Converter?

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:44:58 -0400 Rog' <rcblinnNoSpam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
| "Bert Hyman" <bert@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
|> "Rog'" <rcblinnNoSpam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
|>> Is there any reason for those of us who rely on cable or satellite,
|>> and expect that we always will, to buy a subsidized converter for
|>> our analog-TV's?  Maybe just in case someone blows up our
|>> cable-headquarters and takes out the satellites?
| 
|> Does your cable or satellite service give you all the digital
|> sub-channels that are available from your local stations OTA?
|> Can you receive your local channels from your satellite service at no
|> extra charge?
|> If your cable service does provide all the digital subchannels, do you
|> have to rent a digital converter from them in order to see them?
| 
| Hmmm.  Food for thought.
| I suspect that local OTA stations will only get one spot each from
| these service providers.  However, Cox is, at least, promising to
| analog sup****t three years.  "The signal will be down-converted
| from its digital format, enabling customers to receive digital
| broadcast programming in an analog format." 

What they _should_ get is 19.39 mbps of bandwidth.  A cable system that
uses
QAM256 is twice that, so this means even with that much bandwidth, the
cable
system only needs to use half the spectrum for each OTA station as before
in
analog.  Even with a requirement of the full 19.39 mbps, both come out
ahead
in the deal.

If you cable system isn't providing every subchannel of every OTA station,
then call them up and tell them you have a hammer.

-- 
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating
from  |
|         Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more
readers |
|         you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet.      
   |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at
ipal.net) |