Talk:Cable converter box

message: I have listed several references as external links that are supporting source material for the subject. They have been flagged by Wikepedia. I need to know how to correctly cite the external links as references in the article. I am not exactley sure how this is done. Any Help?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.W.Meissner (talk • contribs) 
:WP:CITE should get you started in the right direction.  Jauerback (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A DVB-S receiver is most often implemented as a set-top box, but these are classed as "receivers" in their own right and not as mere "converters". --66.102.80.212 (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't the cable box article (it's a stub) also be merged with this too?--Rusf10 (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

text: "in fact lots of consumers stick them under the set" Just because a set top box isn't always placed on top of the television set doesn't make it cease to be a set top box. There is nothing requiring any delivered service device to be placed on top of the set. In fact, in the age of flat-screens, that would be a really bad idea. FWIW none of my cable boxes are located on top of the TVs they feed. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

message: This repeated bit is irrelevant. Regardless of the fact that CATV retransmission of OTA broadcast channels happened in the low-range "basic cable" area, usually in order to match the retransmission CATV channel numbers with broadcast VHF channel numbers, the boxes didn't care what was being transmitted on what channel; that was determined by the cable provider. The fact that (at some point) CATV operators often did provide (and later in the early 90s, were required to provide) local-market broadcast channels has nothing to do with the CATV technology, including the converter boxes. Moreover, the CATV operators could have provided these stations on any channel they wanted. Certainly, it caused a lot less end-user confusion to simply match the channel numbers; of course, this wasn't always practical or possible for higher-numbered UHF stations; IME UHF stations were (and still are) rarely retransmitted on the same-numbered CATTV channel as their broadcast channel number. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "local broadcast channels"

message: Addressability doesn't require encryption. It just requires that the box have a unique hardware address. In a simple addressable system, the messages for all addressable boxes are sent over the wire, and the boxes only pay attention to those messages addressed to it. (For example, ethernet.) Sure, modern (hacker-paranoid) systems probably use some form of encryption between the central office and the premises equipment, but that's a separate feature, not a requirement of addressability. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Addressability

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cable converter box. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100731035005/http://www.1394ta.org/consumers/FCC_complaint.html to http://www.1394ta.org/consumers/FCC_complaint.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified