IS
You are not the only one, Brekkie. I have often wondered the same.
A cable network will always require as much upgrade as a satellite, but the cost would vary. I have no idea of the cost differessional between two.
They're very different platforms.
Satellite is limited by the number of satellites in the sky in a particular orbital position and the frequencies used by them. However with the satellite platforms we're used to in the UK (at 28.2 and 28.5 degrees west), no broadcaster owns any satellites so once the current cluster is filled it's filled until Astra or Eutelsat launch some more. Virtually all the bandwidth on the 28.8 But there's only so many that can be put in one position as the frequencies (both ground to space and vice versa) will run out eventually. 3 more Astra satellites are on order for the position so there's a lot of capacity left before space runs out.
Cable is different, the platform owner owns and controls everything from the headend to the set top box, however there is a physical limit there. The fibre-optic can carry a lot of data but the co-ax cable between cabinet and home is more limited. The set top box can only receive and transmit within a certain range of frequencies and once they're filled up that's it unless lots of equipment gets replaced. However as Virgin et al own everything from end to end it's a lot easier but probably more expensive to expand than satellite. However the network is theoretically able to be reconfigured however they want, the VOD technology could theoretically be used to provide linear TV channels too with an almost unlimited choice of channels.
I always regret asking such questions as someone usually comes back with all the details, but how does broadcasting space work with cable, as Virgin seems to have expanded quite considerably, with HD at least, over recent months. Do they in theory have an infinite amount of space to broadcast from, or is there some kind of transponder/mux type thing going on?
You are not the only one, Brekkie. I have often wondered the same.
A cable network will always require as much upgrade as a satellite, but the cost would vary. I have no idea of the cost differessional between two.
They're very different platforms.
Satellite is limited by the number of satellites in the sky in a particular orbital position and the frequencies used by them. However with the satellite platforms we're used to in the UK (at 28.2 and 28.5 degrees west), no broadcaster owns any satellites so once the current cluster is filled it's filled until Astra or Eutelsat launch some more. Virtually all the bandwidth on the 28.8 But there's only so many that can be put in one position as the frequencies (both ground to space and vice versa) will run out eventually. 3 more Astra satellites are on order for the position so there's a lot of capacity left before space runs out.
Cable is different, the platform owner owns and controls everything from the headend to the set top box, however there is a physical limit there. The fibre-optic can carry a lot of data but the co-ax cable between cabinet and home is more limited. The set top box can only receive and transmit within a certain range of frequencies and once they're filled up that's it unless lots of equipment gets replaced. However as Virgin et al own everything from end to end it's a lot easier but probably more expensive to expand than satellite. However the network is theoretically able to be reconfigured however they want, the VOD technology could theoretically be used to provide linear TV channels too with an almost unlimited choice of channels.
Last edited by Inspector Sands on 26 March 2010 1:19am - 4 times in total