Re: Why Buy a Converter?

phil-news-nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> 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.
> 


"The Hammer of Justice all over this land"
         -- Pete Seeger


Life imitating art  :)

-- 
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'