Re: Why OTA HD will go away

"Alan" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
In article <elmop-7CAAB6.20330722032006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Elmo P.
Shagnasty" <elmop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
In article <xfednWG2fv6tabzZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
"R Sweeney" <DockScience@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
2400 baud was nowhere near the bandwidth limit of twisted pair phone

and yet, it was claimed to be.

Like I said, didn't we go over this with modems once?

It was only claimed to be by people who didn't understand. Those
who understood what was going on knew that higher rates were possible.

You were just listening to the wrong people.

it was merely the limit of primitive but simple frequency shift and
shift signalling used at the time

So, the claims of absolute limits weren't actually claims of absolute
limits, even though people said they were. The limitations described
were actually limitations of then-current technologies.

Gotcha. So whenever someone claims an absolute technological limitation
("the sound barrier was like a brick wall in the sky"), one should
always append to that claim the phrase "...with current technology".

I posted a URL explaining the Shannon capacity of a communications
channel. Apparently you didn't bother to read it. I recommend you
spend some time reading it, and finding simplified explanations if
you cannot understand that one.

You will find that it is a fairly simple statement, of what is physically
possible. It doesn't go with "current technology" or any technology --
it is a description of physical effects.

The explanation is there. All you have to do is read it; unless, of
course, you prefer to be ignorant or simply to throw out fake arguments.



We may be dealing with the "wrestling with pigs" aphorism here.

Exactly like Bob Miller except different.