Does anyone have one of these TV sockets?

So, the only reason they need two cables is because of duplication of frequencies in the coax feeds?

That is my assumption which they could have fixed by down converting one polarisation with a different frequency local oscillator than they other.

Anyway its largely academic because the Internet is a far better way of reaching globally distributed audiences

DVB is on its way out. Terrestrial AND satellite

Unless everyone uses 4G or 5G it seems to be a retrograde step - from wireless to wired+fibre. Fibre has the same disadvantages as wire/cable

- digging up roads, laying cables around the outside of buildings (like Virgin); drilling holes in walls; lack of/expensive access to rural areas.

Marconi and Arthur C Clarke had the right idea. Go wireless

I disagree. The fibres are going in anyway, so why not use them for TV? Cellular distribution will always have capacity issues and its best left for those applications where there is no better alternative.

I don't think your response is even worth debunking

which is what I use, 4 quattro LNBs, with 16 coaxes feeding a 17x32 multswitch which then feeds 32 wall sockets around the house

and the 5th Quattro feeds a 5x32 multiswitch (which also has freeview, FM, DAB and CCTV fed into) and thence onto 32 wall sockets around house.

Actually, in the 1980s, when the basic research on passive optical network home delivery was going on, the target application was TV. That was about a decade before the final September started.

Fibres will only "go in" for new builds in a reasonably densely populated area. For a block of flats with reinforced concrete walls and floors there's no way the existing telephone and terrestrial aerial connections can be neatly replaced with fibre.

It depends what you mean by "neatly replaced".

Our block was built with a communal aerial system having TV/VHF outlets on inner walls of the living rooms. Many years ago we had it upgraded to a new distribution system (satellite/terrestrial TV and DAB/VHF), still in the loft area. The cables were neatly run around outside the block with outlets on outer walls of the living rooms. Likewise Virgin neatly added their cabling by running up the outside of the block to each floor then distributing along communal hallways to individual flats which decided to subscribe. New residents don't even notice the cables unless they are pointed out.

The BT phones still use the original analogue cabling with main sockets in the centre of flats. Openreach have no plans to imminently install fibre but doubtless they could use similar approaches to do it neatly.

Regardless, most people will want a fibre connection and these are being installed, even in blocks of flats. Give it another 5 years of so and most UK properties will have access to a fibre connection. Of course there will be exceptions and outliers but that doesn’t destroy the business case for fibre distribution of TV.

The way in flats seems to be to take it up the stairwell/lifts to each floor and break out into individual dwellings from there.

FTTC & FTTN are fast enough for most purposes.

Expensive to maintain low reliability legacy system. There’s more to FTTH than just speed.

"No computer can possibly need more than 64K of RAM"

-- “It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”

Thomas Sowell

I think he actually said '640K', but the principle is the same. Soon,

I think back in the days of mainframes it was 4k...

But yes...

Give a programmer a tool to write code faster and he will simply write more of it.

Bill Gates has denied saying anything like that, and claims to have said the diametric opposite.

And the really sad thing is that Windows uses more and more resources in each iteration.

It does more though. The functionality of modern Windows is way greater than the early versions. Try watching YouTube on Windows 3.1