Talk:Cable television/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Cognitive effects

The paper cited is not specific to cable. It refers to television in general, noting that where cable is introduced in outlying areas, lower cognitive abilities and graduation rates follow. In other words, it uses new cable subscribers as a convenient experimental group. So this should be moved to a different article, perhaps Social_aspects_of_television 173.30.69.97 (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

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)

What's the Cat5e network cable disambigution doing here? There's no relation to the article in anyway.

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

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)

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)

The history section currently contains a lot of stuff that doesn't seem relevant to cable. For example the paragraphs about VHF and UHF. If these are relevant to cable, the text should describe that relevance.2601:98A:4100:36A0:14E9:D743:FC8:BE7 (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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).

With the advance of digital products over the cable network, illegal cable (directly tapping into the physical plant or a neighbor's connection) is becoming less of an issue. Digital signals are more sensitive (digital cable/internet/phone) and any tampering of/with the cable plant or neighbors cable will usually generate a service call due to a degredation or failure of service of the neighbors, leading to discovery of the illegal connection. Jhale1 (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dare I point out that just because something "is becoming less of an issue" does not mean we should not document it. Arguably, it's important we do so, as details become fuzzier with time. WP isn't just for current events and issues, and if "illegal cable" plays or played a role in the history and development of cable services, we should be mentioning this. I know nothing about this aspect of cable, so if anyone else has knowledge/sources available, please get stuck in. --Peeky44 _{What's on your mind?} 12:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

BROADCAST stations broadcast their signal over the air. These are usually the "local" networks/major network affiliates ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS, and other local independent stations. If you lived close enough to the stations/transmitters, these are the channels that you could pick up over the air with an antennae. CABLE stations beam their feed to satellites, which beam it back to cable operators. The cable operator combines both types of stations and broadast them though their network of cable. Recently (at least in my area), the broadcast stations that send out their signal for free to anyone who can pick it up with an antennae are starting to charge cable operators additional fees to retransmit their broadcast. Additionally, broadcast and cable stations often require cable systems to carry their "additional" channels if they want to carry the main channel. For example, a network affiliate may force a cable operator who want to broadcast their main channel, to also broadcast their 24 hour weather channel, a 24 hour sports channel (with little watchable content), a sister station owned by the same company, and a spanish channel owned by the same company. Jhale1 (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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.

The article states "Regularly this industry employs the spouses, sons and daughters of influential mayors, councilmen, commissioners, and other officials to assure its continued local monopoly and preferred market allocations, many of which have been questioned as unethical.[9]" The reference [9] is to a single California case involving Cox Communications. There is no other reference to any documented case supporting the author's claim that the industry as a whole "Regularly......employs the spouses, sons and daughters of influential mayors, councilmen, commissioners, and other officials to assure its continued local monopoly and preferred market allocations". Since the author failed to supply evidence to support his claim, the article is not neutral and should be edited to reflect only the one case referenced by the note [9]. C.W. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seadub2 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

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.

International scope of Article

I agree with those who suggest a seperate article for Cable TV in the UK. The Article itselelf doesnt contain anything about Cable in The netherlands, Belgium, Ireland etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.219.141 (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It also doesn't contain anything about my town here in South Carolina. How in the world can this be a good article if it doesn't mention the area I am from? Or maybe everyone doesn't have to have their little part of the world mentioned in every article. --71.12.19.207 (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, your town in South Carolina probably doesn't have anything notable about its cable TV service - if it does, why not add it? Distinguishing between radically different systems due to politics, ownership wars or varied technology is important. In the long run, it probably is worth having a split for Cable in the UK, but I'd have thought some more information about services in other countries would be handy first. I've re-arranged the article so countries come after continents, otherwise how will anything get found?--Peeky44 (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

*g* Whereas neglecting to note the cable service for your town in South Carolina is perhaps regrettable, the total absence of any mention of Nazi-era German cable television is perhaps a larger omission (this was online 'til '43/'44 per http://www.bvws.org.uk/405alive/faq/405_hist.html but the additional propaganda channels per http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/3239289/Adolf-Hitler-planned-propaganda-cable-TV.html never came to fruition). Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not only is this article US-centric, it's also clueless about the cable TV market in South America. Argentina for one has the higher cable TV penetration in the region, and it doesn't even get a mention. "Latin" america as a headline and then list Dominican Republic?. But this is hardly surprising given what little Americans know of any country south of Mexico... Sheesh... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcassia (talk • contribs) 17:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC) #

I think if we are to make the scope of this article more international we will need to have people from different areas publish information on Cable TV in their area weather those areas are countries, states, counties, towns or villages. Isn't this what wikipedia is about????? I added Ireland. IrishTV (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Cable TV UK Split request

Before this article be split, I think it needs a few more sourced parts, esp. the citation needed areas. Removal of request, until improvement. --MWOAP (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

North America

Somebody blanked this section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.31.193.8 (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thast's the worst article I ever read on Wikipedia

In the authors' opinion the only Asian country that deserves consideration is... ha, ha, ha,... Mongolia :)) Europe in much larger, the authors know two countries there, Ireland and UK. They aren't even on the continent. To compensate that, they provide a more "serious" external link where we're supposed to find "All European Cable TV Operators". Those guys are better "informed". They heard about 20 European countries. That's not even half of the real count. (BTW, CATV is widely used in ALL of the European countries.)

This article insults the ideea of information and the intelligence of the reader. I think it should be completely rewriten by some people having a minimal level of knowledge about the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.230.200 (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear anonymous writer,

Agreed, this is not the best article on the encyclopedia. However, as with all Wikipedia articles, it is a work-in-progress. If you feel strongly about this, why not Be Bold and edit the page. As long as you have useful information to add, stick to the core principles of the site and (crucially) Cite some reliable sources to back your additions up, everyone will be grateful. Probably the main reason there is little/no information about many countries is the problem of finding sources for it. Your point about the UK and Ireland not being part of Europe is rather irrelevant - it's like suggesting the Isle of Sheppey is not part of Kent. Agreed, there is a physical separation, but you'd never consider grouping Sheppey with any other county - and the same is true of the UK/Ireland and Europe. Also, please remember when criticising the content of articles that virtually everyone who writes, edits and maintains the site is a volunteer. Thank you.--Peeky44 _{What's on your mind?} 12:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about the answering technique on this site, I do what I can, I hope it's ok. Firs of all I was pleasantly surprised by the speed of your answer, thank you. I don't think I need to be a cook to be able to tell if a food is good or not. I came here asa an information consumer and I was frustrated to not find what I was looking for. I have the deepest respect for the Wikipedia and I was ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED to find such a poor article. It wasn't an exageration, that's the worst thing I ever found on this site.

I will not dare to write articles. English is not my first language, I respect too much the site and its visitors to spoil it with my poor English.

My statement that the UK and Ireland aren't on the continent was just a marginal mention, not the point. Both are fully European countries, just they aren't placed on the continental part of Europe. That's what I said. To me it looked like the author of the article failed to notice on the map a big thing next to the British islands.

I rearranged the continents in the article as the UK and Ireland seem to be off on their own or else together. Often I come across articles which state UK and Ireland, yet no such country exists. I was hoping that other European Countries would be added to the article. I know a little about Swedish TV but not enough to add to this article. I might just add all of the Islands around Europe and forget about the "big thing" that they surround :). Malta, Iceland and Cyprus all seem like good countries to add to the European portion of this article. But yes the article is poor but we all need to work on it, again I thought that was the whole point of Wikipedia. IrishTV (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

[3] Virgin does not operate in the Republic of Ireland. IrishTV (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, there's a huge amount of information about CATV right here on the Wikipedia (not in this article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srelu (talk • contribs) 23:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

it`s spelled that`s 97.82.196.133 (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

trash

what is with the 1292 Oscar Wilde quote? :-D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.224.116 (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You never were on Uncyclopedia, right? ;) Basically it’s a critique on the general FAIL of Wikipedia, expressed through a bit of trolling. ^^ A very justified critique, considering the tight regime of control and egocentric world views the admins of Wikipedia have. — 188.100.192.89 (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What is “basic cable”?

Just redirecting to this page is completely useless, since if you don’t know what is meant, is still tells you absolutely nothing about why e.g. Jon Steward says “We’re just basic cable.”. As opposed to what? Pay-per-view? I’m from Germany, and I can’t imagine pay-per-view channels having more viewers than channels everyone can receive. The article doesn’t even contain the word “basic”. FAIL! — 188.100.192.89 (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Basic cable channels here are the core cable networks that you get when you get standard cable packaging and usually refers to the networks that you couldn't get off-the-air with an antenna. They usually include (in the US) networks like MTV, CNN, Comedy Central, etc, but exclude more exclusive television content such as movie channels and other special interest networks that you have to pay more money to receive. I'll look into adding a section about this. Heliostellar (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

United States paragraph for deletion

The following paragraph is in the "United States" section:

Cable television franchise fees stems from a community's basic right to charge for use of the property it owns. The cable television franchise fees represent part of the compensation a community receives in exchange for the cable operator's occupation and the right-of-way use of Public property. A franchise fee is not a tax; it is a rental charge.

The first sentence makes a fairly heavy-duty moral claim about the existence of a basic right, but with no citation, and not even an argument! In addition, it is incorrect. The franchise fee is not produced by the right—if the right exists, it allows the franchise fee. But the fee is created by the owner's decision. To top it off, it doesn't seem relevant—certainly not as a one-sided, dogmatic, and vague statement.

The paragraph refers both to "a community" and a "rental charge" for owned "property", but we have little idea which community is under discussion, or what the property is. The last sentence is slightly interesting, but needs more context.

I think we should delete the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.130.132 (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Peru

I have added Peru in the history section, please read and comment. Thanks 190.116.20.253 (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ru

Good cable 213.230.76.91 (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Communal

I see no mention in the "History" section of the fact that the earliest CATV systems (in the US, at least) were communal, rather than corporate efforts. A group of homes in a rural area with no local TV stations would contribute to erecting a large antenna tower or array, feeding the signal into an amplified, and then running it via cable to the homes of the contributors. These installations were all over the Northeast. There were no "subscriptions"; once the initial installation was done, access was essentially free. If maintenance was needed, those receiving the signal would chip in to get it done. There was, in fact, a good deal of controversy and heated discussion in the late 60s and early 70s over the commercialization and regulation of what had been seen by many up to that time as basically a community enterprise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Camera and cards in a drum?

I've been trying to remember the name for the primitive form of "local channel" they had on some early cable systems. All it consisted of was a black-and-white camera inside a drum that turned a few degrees every 5-10 seconds, and was loaded with cards containing advertiser names, local photos, written information, and weather data. The audio came from a local easy-listening station. Does anyone remember what these were called? Zephyrad (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Zephyrad (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

"Cognitive effects of cable television" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Cognitive effects of cable television. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 30#Cognitive effects of cable television until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)