Head-end Technicalities
 

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:54:36 -0700 Steve Urbach wrote:
| On 26 Apr 2008 02:23:41 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:
|
wrote in :
|
| On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:36:33 -0700 pj wrote:
|
|| One of the local Cox guys told me that, in San
|| Diego, each of the 'must carry' stations
|| provides a fiber feed from the studio to Cox.
|| This bypasses the whole OTA/8VSB issue.
|
| I'm curious if that includes all of their subchannels.
|
|One fiber could carry all of them,without compression.
|
|
| I'm one of those people that wants to subject cable company CEOs to
| medieval torture if they don't carry the entire bit stream of each
| non-duplicate over the air station in the market, in an unecrypted
| way.
|
|
|Why? it's THEIR system(a business),not yours.
| There is a FCC ruling. All or nothing sums it up. No picking off a single
| channel.

But Mr. Yanik is of the opinion that because the cable company owns their own
system (of huge investment that would never be there if it had not started as
a guaranteed monopoly, a benefit no other company can ever now enjoy). So he
would argue that such an FCC rule would be wrong.

--
|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) |

Head-end Technicalities
 

Head-end Technicalities
 

Head-end Technicalities
 

On 26 Apr 2008 18:21:20 GMT Jim Yanik wrote:

| cable companies are no longer "guaranteed monopolies".

This should be changed (back).


| They have satellite dishes as competition.

Pathetic competition that lacks local access channels, and in many areas
even lack local OTA channels (and these happen to be areas where getting
OTA is harder than average).


| also telcos are now supplying TV service.

In a few areas, yes. In most areas, Verizon's "TV" offering is DirecTV.
Not every one can use it. Many can't get local stations with it. No one
can get local access channels with it.


| Also,cable companies began as community antenna systems,in places where
| receiving OTA TV was difficult or impossible.No guaranteed monopoly
| there,either.

Actually, that's not true. Quite many, probably most, had the monopoly.

The cable system my grandfather built didn't have a legal monopoly, but
that's mostly because the town had no idea of such things, and he was the
only one in town that understood how it worked. That was back in 1952
and it only had two channels on the system.

--
|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) |

Head-end Technicalities
 

On 26 Apr 2008 18:23:22 GMT Jim Yanik wrote:
| wrote in :
|
| On 26 Apr 2008 02:23:41 GMT Jim Yanik wrote:
|| wrote in
|| :
||
|| On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:36:33 -0700 pj wrote:
||
||| One of the local Cox guys told me that, in San
||| Diego, each of the 'must carry' stations
||| provides a fiber feed from the studio to Cox.
||| This bypasses the whole OTA/8VSB issue.
||
|| I'm curious if that includes all of their subchannels.
||
|| One fiber could carry all of them,without compression.
|
| No doubt. However, these feeds are not leased dark fiber. They are
| almost certainly leased circuits that happen to be delivered over
| fiber. A small fraction of an OC-3 is sufficient to deliver the whole
| transport stream over to the cable head end. Multiple such circuits
| could be delivered by the providing telco on a single fiber.
|
|
|| I'm one of those people that wants to subject cable company CEOs to
|| medieval torture if they don't carry the entire bit stream of each
|| non-duplicate over the air station in the market, in an unecrypted
|| way.
||
||
|| Why? it's THEIR system(a business),not yours.
|
| It's the public airwaves.
|
| Not CABLE.

If the cable system wants to be a provider of receiving public airwaves,
they need to do it on an all or nothing basis. Their choice.

The reason the choice needs to be this way is so that if they elect not to
provide OTA reception service, someone else can.

--
|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) |

Head-end Technicalities
 

Head-end Technicalities