I was astonished that this was not the technology distributed here,
particularly since it was all going in as new plant. Old systems in the
US that weren't upgraded had the proprietary boxes. However, as soon as
channel expansion became critical for maintaining local licenses [yes,
cable in most places in the US is a 'utility' design; one transmission per
neighbourhood - eliminated all this waste of dual cabling we have here],
most companies had to upgrade to the better systems. Settop box
distribution was a pain in the you know what and was eliminated as soon as
possible. They broke down, had to be replaced, etc. Also by moving to
head end subscriber programming, they could add new services without a
change out of the end equipment in the home. Meant impulse buying was
possible - or on demand, like for prize fights, etc.
I don't have cable tv here. I'm happy with the radio much of the time,
but I'm a TV junky as well, so it isn't as if I'm anti TV. But I
continually scratch my head at the decisions that get made in this
'industry' [Do two players an industry make?]
Jan
Jan Whitaker
JLWhitaker Associates \--------/ - jwhit@primenet.com
Edu/Comm Technology Consultant ---/ - Video and Internet Specialities
Melbourne, VIC, Australia \----/ - http://www.primenet.com/~jwhit/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Business and Professional Women Melbourne Club: http://www.bpw.asn.au
Board member: Electronic Frontiers Australia: http://www.efa.org.au
Online Conference Coordinator, NET*Working '97: http://www.nw97.edu.au