** Reply to message from Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 11:30:00 -0700
> That's really interesting. And actually it's a really good technology > choice. Swapping processing power for bandwidth is almost always a good > call. But doing so is at the expense of switching delays and point of use limits. When I read about the trials, there was always someone being quoted at how quick the channel switching was. It was quoted so much that I caused me to look into why they would be saying this and what would cause delays in channel changing. I know from my own channel surfing that much of a delay is going to be really annoying. installing machinery into the neighborhoods was a good idea but very very costly. And remember, we all know how long it take a Windows box to reboot so you know why they put huge UPS's inside of those boxes. Also, if these boxes go down, you can just imagine the load on them when they start coming up and so does the whole neighborhood of Windows based settop boxes wanting connectivity, channel information, status, and channel tuning. Those neighborhood boxes are very expensive. Doug -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
