TV Going 'All Digital'

I think the misconception about "All digital" is the wording used by Cox. The first transition was about the source signal, and this was something that changed nationally in 2009, as you point out. Analog channels were still simulcast but most of the channels were swapped to digital QAM modulation.

This new transition is about needing a box on each TV. Cox calls the boxes "digital receivers" so the new change was called "Going all digital". You still see moderators slip and ask if you have "digital service" when they mean "digital receiver" since all service now is digital, box or otherwise. I think Cox should have used better wording like "Now upgrading to Advanced hardware" to tie in to the renaming of boxes to "Advanced Receivers". Then again that might confuse people to think they were getting advanced receivers, which are different then the mini boxes given out. Anyone have a better idea on how to word it?

Tecknowhelp said:
...... Anyone have a better idea on how to word it?

Digital De-scrambler

I meant what to call the transition. Technically the signal isn't scrambled, it is encrypted. Scrambling is more like the analog encryption, because the picture looks distorted. A encrypted digital signal just doesn't come in at all. Maybe they should have kept it simple. "Get your box for Cox" has a nice ring to it. 

Tecknowhelp said:
I meant what to call the transition......

Simple fact would have been better; Cox is finally encrypting all channels, while we transition to all digital.

Tecknowhelp said:
.....Maybe they should have kept it simple. "Get your box for Cox" has a nice ring to it. 

That is a catchy phrase and still eludes fact which Cox obviously wanted to do.

Don318 said:
still eludes fact which Cox obviously wanted to do

I am not saying you are wrong, but my question is why? It isn't like they are trying to get new customers with it, so it isn't a rope-a-dope. Anyone that needs a box will end up learning the "truth" anyway. And it isn't like the transition is a secret or something they would need to hide. That is why I think the wording issue was caused by slick advertising people working for Cox who just didn't know the difference between a digital box and digital service. Can you think of a reason why Cox would want to be sneaky?

Tecknowhelp said:
..... It isn't like they are trying to get new customers with it, so it isn't a rope-a-dope.......

True no new customers. Just a way to increase revenue (box rentals) from existing customers while at same time offsetting some (maybe all) of their cost to make transition.

Tecknowhelp said:
..... And it isn't like the transition is a secret or something they would need to hide......

Not a matter of secrecy, more of political type process by suggesting it is more for customers benefit than Cox’s benefit at expense of customers.

Tecknowhelp said:
....... That is why I think the wording issue was caused by slick advertising people working for Cox who just didn't know the difference between a digital box and digital service.....

That is one possibility, but I would bet even if done by marketing type people, they were not told about encryption being involved.

Tecknowhelp said:
.......Can you think of a reason why Cox would want to be sneaky?

To evade the full truth for reasons mentioned above, in hope that most would be to dumb to see through their smoke screen.

I think Chris_c21 has the answer. According to the link, the mandated use of mini-boxes is all based on encryption and the FCC's recent decision to allow cable operators to use it. 

The way I see it, this will probably just be a net increase in consumer cost with no real perceived gain in utility and force more cable cutting thereby accelerating the demise of 'Cable TV'. 

I did a little web surfing and if I understand correctly, the only channels not already encrypted are mostly available over-the-air so the value of what Cox is protecting is pretty low. The real benefit seems to be an incremental bump in equipment revenue.

Personally, I see streaming services like netflix and sling as having more bang for my buck and so dropping cable TV is kind of a no-brainer. I think this trend will grow exponentially and I therefore would hesitate to invest in Cox stock.

DIGITALSINCE09 said:
I therefore would hesitate to invest in Cox stock.

You couldn't even if you wanted to. Cox is a privately owned company. "Family owned for over 100 years" says one of their ads.

Fun fact: Parent company, Cox Enterprises, also owns the Autotrader and Kelley Blue Book among a variety of other things.

$17 billion annual revenue. Family net worth $35 billion. They pay in cash when they acquire other companies.

I doubt they'd bat an eye if Cox Communications went belly up for whatever reason.