Re: [H] QAM and digital cable...
Well, you can have OTA analog and OTA Digital. Not all OTA digital is HD, but most of it is. My point is that if your cable company carries channels that are available OTA in your area, they MUST, per FCC regulations, do so unencrypted. They can still encode it to facilitate transit over their network--currently using a method called QAM--but they can't encrypt the content. That means any device capable of Clear QAM decoding should be able to pick up all digital local broadcast networks over the cable, assuming that the cable co carries them. If the cable company does choose to carry OTA channels over their network in a digital capacity, either SD or HD, they must make them available on the most basic tier. Your typical basic tier is advertised as having 8-15 channels for less than $20/mo, typically analog, typically channels available OTA as well, plus some public access / local programming. HD versions, if present on the network, must be available in this tier as well, but they aren't usually advertised. What this basically amounts to is that assuming your cable company carries local channels in HD, you could subscribe to the most basic tier of service and, with a tuner capable of Clear QAM decoding, view any and all of those local HD channels without buying/renting an STB, CableCARD, digital or HD tier, etc. Cable companies are not bound by the 2/09 "all-digital" broadcast restriction, since they don't broadcast--they transmit over a physical cable plant. However, most are moving to all-digital anyway, since they can run 4, 6, or even 8 compressed SD digital signals (subchannels) over the spectrum reserved for a single analog channel. This frees up more spectrum for HD channels, and likely also for bonding channels in DOCSIS 3.0 internet service offerings--though that's going to be a future offering. I have Time Warner cable, and subscribe to just about everything. However, my HTPC is outfitted with two ATSC HD tuners, and I pull in local broadcast HD. It just looks better than anything you get over cable/satellite. Greg > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardware- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of DHSinclair > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 8:01 PM > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] QAM and digital cable... > > Greg, > I will not argue, except to say that in my area, all CC users are > getting > upgraded to full digital. > One user at a time (whatever that means?) I do not know. I do not have > CC. > I believe this is CC's blunt to the local power company's plan to do > FIOS. > This past Sunday CC admitted that 'we are a completely fiber network in > this area.' OK, that is OK, if true (but it is cable to the house). > I still use xdsl. I can not afford CC's cable internet ($49.95/mo). So, > I > think your 1st para about "(typically analog)" may be back on the > table. > And, softened a bit for regional-specific pricing. > Yes, there will be much more talk about the 02/09 business. But, I try > not > to confuse this with anything HD now or in the future. Can we agree to > separate OTA and HD? > I know that this may be really tough. If so, tell me; I'll pound > sand... :) > Look, > Many of us still do OTA and analog, I think; or, let's have a HWG vote > so > WE know who/what we are talking to. Otherwise, all this talk (with no > basis) has little meat. > BTW, my TV is OTA > Best, > Duncan > > At 18:08 07/28/2008 -0500, you wrote: > > > At 01:09 PM 7/28/2008, you wrote: > > > >Last I had looked at it the answer was "no" if we are talking > about > > > >encrypted channels (nearly all of them are). > > > > > > Actually, the networks aren't, but it is up to the cable companies > to > > > provide them unencrypted. > > > > > > >If a cable company chooses to carry local OTA networks (CBS, NBC, PBS, > FOX, > >CW, etc) over their cable plant, they MUST do so unencrypted, and must > >provide them on the most basic (typically analog) tier. It's an FCC > rule. If > >your cable co provides locals and is encrypting them, report them. > > > > > > snip
[H] 2.5Ghz extender
I live in a dead zone. Most things have to be line of sight to work. A typical cordless phone is good for 25 to 50 feet. I have been dealing with this for 30 years. I got my cell phone working from nothing to five bars, by using a very cool, and very expensive commercial booster. But I have a problem with some cameras that work on 2.5Ghz . I need them to monitor my 88 year old father who is afflicted with Alzheimers. They are wireless, day, night, color, with audio, and they work fine except in the one room I need to see most of all... his bedroom. In that room it is mostly static with a in and out static picture,... if I see anything at all. But if I back out the door holding the camera, I instantly have a good picture. Approximately eight feet away, in the kitchen, from his door, is another camera that works great. It is some kind of interference, but from what I don't know. There is nothing in his room that could cause it. There is no phone in there, it has conventional electrical wiring, cable TV.. nothing is transmitting. So maybe the neighbors no way to tell. These camera's have a little antenna at the top. Is there some way I could run some kind of booster in that room for 2.5Ghz, or wire the little antenna so it is picking up outside the bedroom? I am ready to do or pay what I have to so that they work, but I would like to use the cameras I have because the system scans one at a time automatically. Thanks
Re: [H] QAM and digital cable...
Greg, I will not argue, except to say that in my area, all CC users are getting upgraded to full digital. One user at a time (whatever that means?) I do not know. I do not have CC. I believe this is CC's blunt to the local power company's plan to do FIOS. This past Sunday CC admitted that 'we are a completely fiber network in this area.' OK, that is OK, if true (but it is cable to the house). I still use xdsl. I can not afford CC's cable internet ($49.95/mo). So, I think your 1st para about "(typically analog)" may be back on the table. And, softened a bit for regional-specific pricing. Yes, there will be much more talk about the 02/09 business. But, I try not to confuse this with anything HD now or in the future. Can we agree to separate OTA and HD? I know that this may be really tough. If so, tell me; I'll pound sand... :) Look, Many of us still do OTA and analog, I think; or, let's have a HWG vote so WE know who/what we are talking to. Otherwise, all this talk (with no basis) has little meat. BTW, my TV is OTA Best, Duncan At 18:08 07/28/2008 -0500, you wrote: > At 01:09 PM 7/28/2008, you wrote: > >Last I had looked at it the answer was "no" if we are talking about > >encrypted channels (nearly all of them are). > > Actually, the networks aren't, but it is up to the cable companies to > provide them unencrypted. > If a cable company chooses to carry local OTA networks (CBS, NBC, PBS, FOX, CW, etc) over their cable plant, they MUST do so unencrypted, and must provide them on the most basic (typically analog) tier. It's an FCC rule. If your cable co provides locals and is encrypting them, report them. > snip
Re: [H] Really scary!
Point Taken; painfully.. :) Duncan At 20:20 07/28/2008 -0400, you wrote: Heh, should have listened to us years ago. :) DHSinclair wrote: Was able to get the info I needed from the WEB. Got it from FF v3. DAMN! IE did fail me, finally. Even when I ripped it down to minimun. Hmmm :( FARQ IE. I will now change all my client to FF. I would rather learn new, than try and make OLD work.. :) But, I am having grumbles with the "NoScript" plugin. Lots of very subtle choices, but so far, so GOOD. Sort of. Not bad, just very odd..4me. THANK YOU COLLECTIVE! Best, Duncan
Re: [H] Really scary!
Heh, should have listened to us years ago. :) DHSinclair wrote: Was able to get the info I needed from the WEB. Got it from FF v3. DAMN! IE did fail me, finally. Even when I ripped it down to minimun. Hmmm :( FARQ IE. I will now change all my client to FF. I would rather learn new, than try and make OLD work.. :) But, I am having grumbles with the "NoScript" plugin. Lots of very subtle choices, but so far, so GOOD. Sort of. Not bad, just very odd..4me. THANK YOU COLLECTIVE! Best, Duncan
[H] Really scary!
Was able to get the info I needed from the WEB. Got it from FF v3. DAMN! IE did fail me, finally. Even when I ripped it down to minimun. Hmmm :( FARQ IE. I will now change all my client to FF. I would rather learn new, than try and make OLD work.. :) But, I am having grumbles with the "NoScript" plugin. Lots of very subtle choices, but so far, so GOOD. Sort of. Not bad, just very odd..4me. THANK YOU COLLECTIVE! Best, Duncan
Re: [H] QAM and digital cable...
> At 01:09 PM 7/28/2008, you wrote: > >Last I had looked at it the answer was "no" if we are talking about > >encrypted channels (nearly all of them are). > > Actually, the networks aren't, but it is up to the cable companies to > provide them unencrypted. > If a cable company chooses to carry local OTA networks (CBS, NBC, PBS, FOX, CW, etc) over their cable plant, they MUST do so unencrypted, and must provide them on the most basic (typically analog) tier. It's an FCC rule. If your cable co provides locals and is encrypting them, report them. > > while this is still available they have mostly been abandoned by > cable companies and TV manufacturers. The cable companies don't like > them because they are not bi directional, so many of the features, > like pay for video, or the TV guide can't work with a cable card. The > manufactures don't like them because they cost money to install in > the TV, and most consumers don't care. There is a new technology > that has replaced cable cards ... I think it is called TV2. Sony will > be deploying it next year, it won't be cheap but it will be built in > and provide bidirectional support to cable users without a cable box. > Cable companies are supporting it because it meets their needs, and > manufactures are coming to it largely because it seems to meet their > needs expect one. price per unit. However, manufactures believe > the price will come down quickly as more consumers use it. Actually, STBs provided by the cable company can (as of July 1 2007) no longer use integrated components--they MUST use CableCARDs per FCC rules. If you go get a new STB from the cable co and it doesn't use CableCARDs, report them. Now, that being said, currently only company-provided STBs/cards are capable of bi-directional communication. Greg
Re: [H] QAM and digital cable...
At 01:09 PM 7/28/2008, you wrote: Last I had looked at it the answer was "no" if we are talking about encrypted channels (nearly all of them are). Actually, the networks aren't, but it is up to the cable companies to provide them unencrypted. The only way you can tune encrypted digital cable is through the use of a Cablecard. The free network HD channels are supposedly (according to Extreme Tech) provided along with the analog over cable. Something you would have to obtain from your cable provider. This is why some of the new television sets have cablecard slots built into them. while this is still available they have mostly been abandoned by cable companies and TV manufacturers. The cable companies don't like them because they are not bi directional, so many of the features, like pay for video, or the TV guide can't work with a cable card. The manufactures don't like them because they cost money to install in the TV, and most consumers don't care. There is a new technology that has replaced cable cards ... I think it is called TV2. Sony will be deploying it next year, it won't be cheap but it will be built in and provide bidirectional support to cable users without a cable box. Cable companies are supporting it because it meets their needs, and manufactures are coming to it largely because it seems to meet their needs expect one. price per unit. However, manufactures believe the price will come down quickly as more consumers use it.
Re: [H] ACER laptops
Insane value. Surprisingly reliable. Best bang for the buck, and all common easy to get replacements if anything happens. --Original Message-- From: Winterlight Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com ReplyTo: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Jul 28, 2008 3:08 PM Subject: [H] ACER laptops There are some really good deals on ACER laptops available. Anybody have experience with one? Comments? Sent via BlackBerry
Re: [H] ACER laptops
Hello Winterlight, Monday, July 28, 2008, 2:08:51 PM, you wrote: > There are some really good deals on ACER laptops available. > Anybody have experience with one? Comments? Great value. Sold and resold, owned and operated. Loved. -- Regards, joeuser - Still looking for the 'any' key...
Re: [H] QAM and digital cable...
Last I had looked at it the answer was "no" if we are talking about encrypted channels (nearly all of them are). The only way you can tune encrypted digital cable is through the use of a Cablecard. Something you would have to obtain from your cable provider. This is why some of the new television sets have cablecard slots built into them. This way people arent forced into renting or purchasing a cablebox. I have not seen a pci or usb cablecard addon for whitebox/homemade PCs. There is a device made by AMD/ATI but it is for use with OEM systems from the likes of Dell and HP and has some serious DRM lockdown stuff. ...now if your provider does have unencrypted qam, Clear QAM, channels then you should be able to get those. --- On Sat, 7/26/08, Bobby Heid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Bobby Heid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [H] QAM and digital cable... > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Date: Saturday, July 26, 2008, 3:43 PM > Hey, > > I currently record regular cable TV with my Hauppauge > PVR-150. I know that > the PVR-1600 can do QAM. I know this is supposed to let me > record > unencrypted HD channels, but does it also mean that I would > be able to > record the regular digital channels without having a cable > box? > > Or, I guess in general, does a QAM enabled tuner allow me > to record > unencrypted HD and unencrypted digital channels in addition > to regular > cable? > > Thanks, > Bobby
[H] ACER laptops
There are some really good deals on ACER laptops available. Anybody have experience with one? Comments?
[H] Thermaltake PSU ?
Anyone know who builds Thermaltake PSU's ? Been looking for awhile now and a TT Toughpower 750 has caught my eye, only one I've seen that actually lists CFM of the 140mm fan. looking for 750watts, 120 or better fan and modular cabling. have several on the short list fp -- Tallyho ! ]:8) Taglines below ! -- Node: Was aware of. The past tense of know.
