Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 05:31:27PM -0400, Tom Metro wrote: > This pretty much explains why cable companies have no pressure on them > to supply clear QAM. If they're regularly succeeding in getting 95% of > their subscribers to make the switch to digital service voluntarily (and > presumably not bleeding subscribers at the same time), then the vast > majority of customers have learned to accept the limitations and are > putting up with them without complaints. Because most customers don't *see* any limitations, most likely? I wasn't aware of a switch being made until after it was made. The people who are bothered -- at least, the only ones that I'm aware of -- would seem to be in such a small minority that I can't see any way this would be a practical issue. (MythTV users are not a majority user of the cable system, I'm pretty sure. :)) More seriously, outside of freedom of (software|data|content|whatever) for geeky types, what's the diff likely to be? I don't pay anything different, I don't notice any difference, and the cable company presumably saves a bundle at some point due to not having to bother using their bandwidth on analog. MythTV users suffer, as do users of DVRs who work without a cablebox -- but is there anyone else? Those classes would seem a pretty small minority to me. Of course, it helps that (at least where I live) Comcast has a monopoly on providing non-broadcast television anyway. So it's not like there's any market forcing them to provide more options. Regards, -- Christopher Schmidt MetaCarta
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |