Talk:Cable television

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The article 'Premium TV' currently redirects here. I just created an article, PremiumTV, about the UK company with the same name. I'm not sure whether the redirect is still appropriate, maybe it is. I put in a disambiguation page, is that OK? === Jez === 09:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Premium TV doesn't exist, so a Premium TV (disambiguation)-page doesn't make sense? Zido 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

over the airwaves where anyone (including children) can receive them."

I understand the point whoever was trying to make, but you have to get the child perfectly aligned to pick up even the major stations :) I can't think how to reword this - please help. Verloren

"the signals are not transmitted over the airwaves where anyone with a television set (including children) can receive them." How's that? Darkwind 20:20 19 May 2003 (UTC)

This article is very US-centric. Surely someone out there can write a history of cable television in Europe? 18.24.0.120 23:12, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If "basic cable" redirects here, it needs to actually talk about basic cable in some way. -Branddobbe 07:08, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Commercials

Did early cable have commercials? --Stbalbach 01:30, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The earliest form of cable in the U.S. was "community anntena," i.e. simple retransmission of the programs. Commercials were a part of it, though I don't think the cable operators received money for it. Tomos 21:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Technology didn't generally permit cable operators to alter incoming signals or inject local programming (e.g., commercials) into relayed signals until the 1980s. The original cable systems from the 1940s were, often literally, coaxial (or more likely twin-lead) cables hooked up to a large antenna; the typical placement was on a hilltop to serve a community in a valley that was otherwise shielded by the surrounding terrain. In those days, cable systems did not usually have the facility to change the carrier frequencies of the incoming signals; the antennas merely acted as collectors. —SWalkerTTU 22:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] history

This article is interesting, but it has only the very early history of cable TV in America. I'd like to read about the spread of cable in the 1975-1990 or so period. --Mwalcoff 08:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Australia

Can someone verify this is correct:

In Australia, most people do not have access to cable. Satellite is a more common way of getting subscription TV services.

I believe the part about satellite being more common/popular is correct but I'm not so sure about the most people not having access part. I was under the impression most cities have fairly good coverage and since most of the Australia population are concentrated in a few cities, I suspect the percentage of homes with access may be fairly high Nil Einne 07:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This is correct. My office produces reports on this and we have cable TV pass (availability) in Australia at 25% and actual penetration (number of households connected as a percentage of all TV homes) down at around 10% for 2005.[[User:Russetmantle|Russetmantthe topic? Cable system/infrastructure? == We don't really have much if anything about cable system infrastructure including cable plants (central offices) and the cable network of physical cables that serves the subscribers in a particular area. I wonder if we should make a new topic on the cable system which covers cable TV, cable Internet (and cable modems), the cable plants, cable nodes in neighborhoods, and cable network. Also including common pieces like RG59 vs RG6 grade cable, taps, grounding (and fines and penalties for improper grounding), pepper-flavored plastic cable jackets to keep squirrels from chewing on them, frequency ranges for cable channels and data services, links to the cable company articles, etc. Basically an umbrella article that organizes the constituent articles. --Kaze0010 04:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technical aspects?

Both this and the "cable tv in america" article lack any discussion of the technical aspects of cable, such as whether it uses NTSC, PAL, SECAM or whatever.

Please sign your contribution with four tildes. No, NTSC or SECAM or whatever has little technical relevance here. Relevant technical questions include automatic slope and gain regulation, cascade limits, powering methods, amplifier bandwidth, taps, bridgers, upstream frequencies, and scrambling schemes. Yes, an article on those questions would be a good thing, but I know about them only from reading in books and magazines. Jim.henderson 17:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, PAL vs NTSC does cause a difference in the bandwidth per Channel. There are a number of technical issues involving Cable TV... I guess when I get bored someday I should do some writing on them.TO11MTM (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Northern America?

What is the geographical delimitation of Northern America? The northern United States? Not correct for cable television, as it is also used in the southern part of the US and in Canada, with large city use in Canada far pre-dating large city US use (Canadian cities rarely had more than one or two stations, while American cities had three and often more). GBC 22:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The other work I see by that anonymous contributor is to classify Dr Pepper as a "cola" drink. Which is to say, he seems to combine nitpicking with error in both places. Here, by adding three letters to "north" he is claiming that CATV is rare in Mexico. I do not believe him, and recommend a reversion.
Jim.henderson 00:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It should go back to North America which includes all of the U.S.A., Canada and Mexico.
Unforgettable fan 16:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illegal Cable

I can't believe this article doesn't even mention illegal cable. I was expectiong Wikipedia to have it's own article on illegal cable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 09:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Origin of the cable signal

I thought cable television networks have stations that broadcast the signal over the air FIRST, THEN a community antenna captures the signal and sends it down a coaxial cable AND FINALLY the signal reaches your TV set.--98.195.141.44 03:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Future of Cable Television

While reading the information on cable television I understood and probably knew most the information presented. What I was searching for is the future of cable television. What is the future of cable television? In the last five years I have noticed the new fad of cable television and internet and phone as one bill with on-demand and premium channels included. Cable companies are working hard to supply there customers with conveniant cable bills and many new choices that old cable subscribers were not given. People with this new cable plan are treated to not only high speed internet and a useless phone line ( as I see it ), but choices of what to watch witch might take 20 minutes just to decide on. The new cable plans are exciting and conveniant, but what is the future?

I predict that not only will cable get better but I predict that cable television and the internet will become one in the same. why not. You can all ready watch tv through your computer and you can download television shows and movies on the internet. I think that it will happen and I don't see why it shouldn't.

How nice would it be to download whatever you want to watch whenever you want to watch it. You could watch episodes of the honeymooners or watch a special on bengal tigers. all you have to do is type it in and you could have 50 or more choices on what to watch. As far as network shows, I think they could still be popular and maybe even more popular on a on-demand type internet enviroment. I mean look how many people gain fame off u-tube broadcasts. It is really amazing. Sometimes there is a really good show but you can't watch it because you aren't around a tv that time of the week and why would you spend 40 on a dvd of a season if you have never seen the show, that is why on demand is so great and that is why it is perfect in an internet setting.

I am not an expert on this subject but I am very interested in it. I use computers daily and watch tv daily. they are almost the same to me and somtimes I wish I could control more of what is on tv like I can on the internet. I do however see some problems such as advertisments, viruses and of coarse pornography. I hope that many people read this and understand what I am trying to say and I really hope that someone reads this and can contribute some good hard facts as to when and where the future of cable television is going. Mrgone64 04:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

Whilst I agree with most that is stated here in regards to monopolies, what bothers me is that while satellite is considered a competitor to most major cable systems, it is not mentioned in relief. This is a major argument from cable service providers in response to monopoly claims. I would also say that it feels that the last paragraph was written by someone that has a bone to pick with his cable provider, not someone who is relaying facts. In the case of the third party survey results, no sources are referenced. I would like to see those sources. Sainter (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Then you should probably have read the document that the paragraph was referencing ([[1]], in the "Community-At-Large Meeting" section, p. 26). When you do, you will see the pages of comments from the public regarding the investigation in Denver. The paragraph could stand to be reworded, though. Mhoskins (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC).
  • While you might suggest satellite is a competitor, it is by definition a different technology that requires different hardware, so that

I do not see it really being much of a rebuttal against the monopoly claim.

Regarding the same section: the discussion of arrangements with local government are specific to USA. While in all countries the cable itself is run at least partially over public land, in many countries the authority to do this comes from the nation's federal government, not local governments. Also the FCC has greatly decreased role of municipalities[[2]].

The mention of public right of ways is useful. So I suggest referring "government" without specifying which part of government. Less desirable: move the section to the USA section.

More on right of ways:

Cable companies need to run wires over, under and through both public and private land. The companies generally enjoy some privileges with this regard. What is granted by government, and what arises from a cable company's contract depends on the jurisdiction. These matters become more complex in multi-unit buildings. Also with regard to multi-unit buildings: rights issues may arise from exclusive supplier contracts (and an apartment dweller who wishes to use a different provider). 207.219.229.57 (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Lee Weston