Think of it. Content providers charge based on total subscribers. This is why your satellite providers can offer cheaper service. they operate on a wholesale business model.
Cable companies are stuck with an exponentially smaller subscriber base, so prices will be higher than dish.
Now, if you begin to divy up on a per channel basis, where you had 300k of subscribers to charge equally for the Discovery channel, you now have to charge more for Discovery channel for the subs that want it. So ostensibly, you could be paying a ton more for your service.
plus, on the feasibility end of things, you would force 1 of 2 methods of channel blocking; either putting traps on the line outside, and attenuating the total signal getting into the house, or setting up an addressable cable converter for each set in the house, and scrambling all the cable channels on the service.
So, it sounds good, until you actually look into what you would have to do to get it. I wonder if the government would subsidize cable companies to convert to this new system. Oh, but if you get into gov't subsidies, then you're beholden to the government to transmit their party line.
if memory serves...In essence the on-board chip is just a plain Geforce 2. In video card terms,the MX only accounts for the amount the chip is clocked(chip clocked to 175mhz instead of 200), and the bandwidth/memory constraints put on it.(128bit/166mhz)
It could theoretically hit the performance level of a geforce 2gts depending on memory speeds, etc. yet with the overhead created by the rest of the system it can only reach the level of an mx. i think that's why anand used the MX to compare the two. Of course, that's just my understanding of it. feel free to correct me.
Slashdot Mirror
Think of it. Content providers charge based on total subscribers. This is why your satellite providers can offer cheaper service. they operate on a wholesale business model.
Cable companies are stuck with an exponentially smaller subscriber base, so prices will be higher than dish.
Now, if you begin to divy up on a per channel basis, where you had 300k of subscribers to charge equally for the Discovery channel, you now have to charge more for Discovery channel for the subs that want it. So ostensibly, you could be paying a ton more for your service.
plus, on the feasibility end of things, you would force 1 of 2 methods of channel blocking; either putting traps on the line outside, and attenuating the total signal getting into the house, or setting up an addressable cable converter for each set in the house, and scrambling all the cable channels on the service.
So, it sounds good, until you actually look into what you would have to do to get it. I wonder if the government would subsidize cable companies to convert to this new system. Oh, but if you get into gov't subsidies, then you're beholden to the government to transmit their party line.
if memory serves...In essence the on-board chip is just a plain Geforce 2. In video card terms,the MX only accounts for the amount the chip is clocked(chip clocked to 175mhz instead of 200), and the bandwidth/memory constraints put on it.(128bit/166mhz)
It could theoretically hit the performance level of a geforce 2gts depending on memory speeds, etc. yet with the overhead created by the rest of the system it can only reach the level of an mx. i think that's why anand used the MX to compare the two. Of course, that's just my understanding of it. feel free to correct me.