Wireless Cable

I guess the cable companies can stop stringing wire. I see no reason for
cable not to go wireless. They can put addressable transmitters on the
poles and addressable recievers on every set in a house. Acutally two way
communications so they can keep movies on demand. The reciever can double as
a computer wireless access point too. DSL can do this too.
I'd like to see all the wires come down. Many no longer have phone lines
like me. Get rid of the cable lines. Then with fuel cells we can get rid of
the power lines, poles and all that rubbish.

--
In the event of a water landing, your seat cushion may be used as a
floatation device. You'll be dead but they can find the wreakage with all
the seat cushions floating around.

"Rodney Kelp" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:vKqdnbIQwqu0IXLcRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
> I guess the cable companies can stop stringing wire. I see no reason for
> cable not to go wireless. They can put addressable transmitters on the
> poles and addressable recievers on every set in a house. Acutally two way
> communications so they can keep movies on demand. The reciever can double
as
> a computer wireless access point too. DSL can do this too.
> I'd like to see all the wires come down. Many no longer have phone lines
> like me. Get rid of the cable lines. Then with fuel cells we can get rid
of
> the power lines, poles and all that rubbish.

Local company to me has done just this. We have wireless broadband six miles
in every direction from their location.

Marcus

Ahh, but what about wireless TV?

"Marcus Fox" <please-reply-via-newsgroup-th@-i-posted-to.com> wrote in
message news:u8PHd.15$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Rodney Kelp" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:vKqdnbIQwqu0IXLcRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I guess the cable companies can stop stringing wire. I see no reason for
>> cable not to go wireless. They can put addressable transmitters on the
>> poles and addressable recievers on every set in a house. Acutally two way
>> communications so they can keep movies on demand. The reciever can double
> as
>> a computer wireless access point too. DSL can do this too.
>> I'd like to see all the wires come down. Many no longer have phone lines
>> like me. Get rid of the cable lines. Then with fuel cells we can get rid
> of
>> the power lines, poles and all that rubbish.
>
> Local company to me has done just this. We have wireless broadband six
> miles
> in every direction from their location.
>
> Marcus
>
>

In article <vKqdnbIQwqu0IXLcRVn-(E-Mail Removed)>, Rodney Kelp wrote:

>I guess the cable companies can stop stringing wire. I see no reason for
>cable not to go wireless.

Bandwidth. You are in the USA, how many television channels do you get
over the air? (2-69 = 68 max). How many do you get over the cable?
Then think about the fact that the cable company could set a single
cable to each block in a city, and on each cable, they could have 500
different channels, interference free. And absolutely nothing worth
watching on any of them. (Other than football, does anyone really watch
FOX network? And I'm not referring to the buffoons on the pre/halftime/post
game show either. Who'd of thunk - whole networks aimed at the four year
old mind and a ten second attention span.)

>They can put addressable transmitters on the poles and addressable
>recievers on every set in a house. Acutally two way communications so
>they can keep movies on demand.

Back in the 1950 and later, "Citizen's Band" radio was a big deal. 27
channels for your to talk to your heart's content, and all short range
so the channels could be reused every couple of miles. Well, I know
the truckers still use it.

>I'd like to see all the wires come down. Many no longer have phone lines
>like me. Get rid of the cable lines. Then with fuel cells we can get rid of
>the power lines, poles and all that rubbish.

Great idea - so you'll just love the idea of all those tanker trucks
bringing you liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen to run those fuel cells.
Don't forget the storage containers you'll need.

Old guy