Re: Analog Cable Going

On Thu, 8 May 2008 18:54:56 -0400 Guy <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

| There's no reason in the world that the cable companies must send a
digital 
| broadcast over the cable as a digital signal. Just as a converter box 
| converts a digital signal to analog and then sends it to your set over
the 
| coax connector, so too can a cable system do the conversion at their 
| headquarters and send it as an analog signal from there to your house.
That 
| way there's no need for millions of set-top boxes. Given this
possibility, 
| if you were the cable companies, which option would you choose: millions
of 
| set-top boxes , or convert at HQ and send analog signal? The smart
choice 
| would be the latter. Do a little investigation and I believe you will
find 
| that they WILL be going that route.

The reason the cable companies would switch to digital is to squeeze more
programming into the limited spectrum one coax has.  Every analog channel
they convert to digital means TWO (because they use QAM, not ATSC) more HD
channels they can add to premium tiers to either reduce the number of
people
abandoning cable for DBS, or new ones they can charge extra money for.

If I ran a cable system, I would be trying to migrate everything to
digital
as fast as the financing would allow.

-- 
|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) |