Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE=&quot;bicker, post: 62712, member: 2027&quot;]That's not really the case.&nbsp; Downconversion at the node is likely to be superior than downconversion at the STB. You didn't list the problems with your approach. First and foremost among the problems is that it would render DTAs useless.&nbsp; Remember just how much work went into getting those DTA waivers, as a reflection of how much value they represent.&nbsp; That's not even mentioning how much it would cost to replace all the SD STBs with HD STBs.&nbsp; All that lost value and added cost would have to be made up with, somehow, by your approach, and I don't see anything that would come close to representing enough additional revenue to make up for it.&nbsp; So basically I see calls for this to be little different from spending someone else's money.&nbsp; I suspect folks who support such an approach would be unlikely to foot the bill for its cost, i.e., having all HD subscribers (an only HD subscribers) subsidize all SD subscribers' superior boxes.&nbsp; Many HD subscribers already selfishly complain about having to pay more for the added value that they get -- just imagine how much they'd complain if they're now going to be paying yet-even-more to pay for the added cost of providing SD subscribers with HD receivers. Also, I think you've oversold the benefits.&nbsp; The most notable benfit... the freeing-up of bandwidth... while of value, isn't really as significant as some would think.&nbsp; Generally, service providers provide about 45 HD channels for which there are ADS (SD) channels.&nbsp; That translates into space for only about 8 additional HD channels.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="bicker, post: 62712, member: 2027"]That's not really the case. Downconversion at the node is likely to be superior than downconversion at the STB. You didn't list the problems with your approach. First and foremost among the problems is that it would render DTAs useless. Remember just how much work went into getting those DTA waivers, as a reflection of how much value they represent. That's not even mentioning how much it would cost to replace all the SD STBs with HD STBs. All that lost value and added cost would have to be made up with, somehow, by your approach, and I don't see anything that would come close to representing enough additional revenue to make up for it. So basically I see calls for this to be little different from spending someone else's money. I suspect folks who support such an approach would be unlikely to foot the bill for its cost, i.e., having all HD subscribers (an only HD subscribers) subsidize all SD subscribers' superior boxes. Many HD subscribers already selfishly complain about having to pay more for the added value that they get -- just imagine how much they'd complain if they're now going to be paying yet-even-more to pay for the added cost of providing SD subscribers with HD receivers. Also, I think you've oversold the benefits. The most notable benfit... the freeing-up of bandwidth... while of value, isn't really as significant as some would think. Generally, service providers provide about 45 HD channels for which there are ADS (SD) channels. That translates into space for only about 8 additional HD channels.[/QUOTE]

Name

Verification