Re: Dish vs Cable
- From: "Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 16:30:19 -0800
"Dan G" <none@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:KKOdneKVyKT9XZTZ4p2dnA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
HD is digital, so the "picture quality" is totally dependant on the source
of the programming. Small differences may exist in the tuner boxes
provided,
but that will be very small.
This isn't true. Most programming over digital cable or satellite systems is
likely to be decoded and re-encoded before it gets to the viewer.This may
involve changing compression format (MPEG2 to MPEG4), increasing the
compression level, or reducing the resolution (yes, indeed).
Dish has by far the largest lineup of HD channels. Unfortunately, most of
them are crap programming that you will never watch. Also, Dish will
charge
you for the extra dish you will need (possibly 2 dishes depending on what
you have now).
That said, Dish is still probably the only choice for monthly price and
channel lineup.
For HD, Dish now charges about $20/month more than the equivalent non-HD
pacakge. I'm not sure I'd characterize them as competitive on price any
more.
.
- References:
- Dish vs Cable
- From: John Johnson
- Re: Dish vs Cable
- From: Dan G
- Dish vs Cable
- Prev by Date: Re: bad news
- Next by Date: Re: Dish vs Cable
- Previous by thread: Re: Dish vs Cable
- Next by thread: Re: Dish vs Cable
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
