<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
William,<br>
<br>
The local stations have been broadcasting digital signals for a while
now - they are running out of time to convert from analog. But my
understanding was that while they are broadcasting digital signals (and
will be turning the analog off as mandated by the FCC either next year
or 2009 - can't remember which - nobody local is yet broadcasting
actual hi-def HDTV esp. with 16:9 aspect ratio, as opposed to simply
digital signals. If they were, Suddenlink would be able to broadcast
those as local HD, which they aren't doing. I do not know whether
Suddenlink, when it carries the local station, is picking up the
digigal broadcast or the analog, although I would presume they would
prefer the digital if available. <br>
<br>
<br>
William Van Hefner wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:12195.208.47.140.8.1194303733.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Rollin,
I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but most of the
local stations have been broadcasting in HD for quite some time now. The
ones I can think of offhand who already broadcast in HD are KVIQ, KIEM,
KEET (they have TWO HDTV video channels) KAEF and Fox-29. None of them
seem to have especially strong signals in Eureka, but I can pick up all of
them with an outdoor over-the-air UHF antenna. I have seen KEET and KVIQ's
HDTV signal go off the air for days at a time, but it always comes back up
eventually. Except for KEET, most of the local broadcasters seem to just
be piping a low-definition rebroadcast of their analog signal on their
HDTV simulcast. KEET's video is incredible though. Their native HDTV
programming looks 1,000x better than their analog signal on channel 13.
As far as "it's only voip", it depends entirely on what method Suddenlink
is using to deliver the service. They could go the cheap route and simply
slap a Vonage-type ATA (Analog Telephone Adapter) on your network, in
which case your service would be no different than if you bought it from
any one of 1,000+ other VoIP providers. However, if Suddenlink is using
its fiber capacity to carry their telephone service on a private network,
the quality should be equal to, or even better than, the quality you would
get from AT&T. Just because they are using fiberoptic technology to
deliver the service does not mean that it is internet based. Most cable
telephone systems are not. Obviously, you wouldn't have service if the
internet went down, but then again, with AT&T's track record as of late, I
can't imagine that the service could be that much more unreliable. AT&T
has had more outages in the past 12 months than they had in the previous
40+ years combined.
Also, most long distance carriers are routing their calls via VoIP and
using the public internet these days as well. So, unless you are making a
call that is served by the same central office (not leaving town) the
service most likely would not be any less reliable or sound any worse
anyway.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<font size="-1"><b>Dave Thewlis, DCTA Inc.</b><br>
+1 707 840 9391 (voice) · +1 707 498 2238 (mobile)<br>
<a href="http://www.dcta.com">http://www.dcta.com</a> · <a
href="mailto:dthewlis@dcta.com">dthewlis@dcta.com</a>
</font></div>
</body>
</html>