What do you mean by shaky? One would think the feed from the cable box would be better than streaming, no?
I'm not sure what he means by "shaky," but cable feeds have much worse quality than good streaming feeds. The cable companies compress the signal (losing detail and adding loads of artifacts) so that they can deliver hundreds of channels at once. Satellite companies aren't much better. It's easy to see the difference if you have a DVR. A paused cable/satellite signal will reveal all kinds of artifacts, especially around letters, whereas a paused streaming signal (a good one, such as from Netflix) will show hardly any, more like a paused BluRay.
I hope that, one of these days, cable/satellite switches to an on demand model or a TV service that uses one comes along and turns the industry upside down. TV should be on demand, like streaming, IMO. When we flip to a channel, only that channel should be delivered (streamed) to us at the highest quality that the connection (or internet) allows, with none of that bandwidth wasted on channels that we're
not watching. Also, if we missed a show or even just the start, we should be able to watch it immediately. We can already do that with some services, like HBO, but that ability should be available for
all channels and shows. Finally, it would allow, if we're not subscribed to a channel, to easily rent it (for a day, a week or a month) by switching to it and confirming, so that we never have to worry that a channel isn't included in our package when we're sitting down and the show is about to start. TV that operated more like streaming would go a long way to alleviating many of the biggest frustrations with the current cable/satellite model, IMO.
