XPost: comp.dsp, sci.crypt, sci.electronics.design   
   From: krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz   
      
   On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:24:13 -0800, Archimedes' Lever   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:04:59 -0600, krw  wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:20:47 -0800, Archimedes' Lever   
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:05:07 -0600, krw  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:44:12 -0800 (PST), Mark    
   >>>>wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Passing encrypted video over a satellite network built for unencrypted   
   >>>>>> analog video is not a trivial challenge. As far as I know, there   
   >>>>>> exists no scheme to do this that has not been broken already. The   
   >>>>>> problem is that encryption works partly by diffusing information so   
   >>>>>> that no part of the output looks like any part of the input. The   
   >>>>>> satellite link is filled with errors and distortion that have to be   
   >>>>>> contained to retain adequate video quality.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> DS   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>um,, is that why General Instrument was able to do it did it 15 years   
   >>>>>ago for HBO?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>It can obviously be done.  It just requires different, perhaps less   
   >>>>efficient, error correction algorithms which may mean lower S/N   
   >>>>required.   
   >>>   
   >>>  Wrong.  It just requires MORE FEC.   
   >>   
   >>AlswasWrong is once again wrong.  Surprise everyone!   
   >   
   >   
   >  You're an idiot.  Most digital links can handle up to 10 percent bit   
   >error rate before correction coding fails to fix it.   
      
   And those error bits don't cost anything to send?  What a moron you   
   are, AlwaysWrong.  Oh, and I forgot, you're always wrong too.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)