Originally Posted by pachinko
The power supplies, and the power inserter that connects the power and coax cables, are very different, with the Amplify using a USB cable for power, and the other using coax cable for power (just view the images on the CM pages).
My Amplify came with a power injector, so you could go either way: hook the USB power supply directly to the Amplify, or hook it to the power injector and send the power up the coax as with the original CM-7777.
Originally Posted by pachinko
Be careful if you need a new power supply, because CM has not updated their only power supply
page which states "Replacement power supply for all Channel Master distribution amplifiers and preamplifiers
", and I do not see a power supply for the Amplify at this time.
Luckily, USB power supplies are cheap and plentiful on sites like Amazon. Just make sure it supplies enough current and you should be good to go, whether or not you use the power injector.
I'd like to toss in a recommendation for a non-CM option as well: the Winegard Boost comes in two models: the LNA-100, which requires power from a USB power supply (included), and the LNA-200, which uses a power injector. Neither has an LTE filter, and the gain is only 18-20 dB, but the noise figure is super low: only 1 dB! They're also resistant to overload, so they're ideal for suburban settings where you might've used the CM-7778 or the "low" 17dB setting on the Amplify. The LNA-100 is pretty cheap, too: Amazon has it for only $15+shipping at the moment.
Originally Posted by wizwor
I always thought the MVPDs got things backwards. Rather than pay for content then selling an aggregation of content, they should charge for carriage and let the content provider deal with the billing.
That's an interesting idea! Instead of paying Spectrum or Comcast for a bunch of content you don't want, you'd just pay them a base fee for broadband internet and a number of video channels to be named later, then pay Fox, NBC Universal (now owned by Comcast, but that's another rant), Viacom, Disney, Time-Warner, etc. for their respective offerings. You'd only have to pay for the content you wanted, it'd get rid of those stupid MVPD-vs.-provider spats we've all had to deal with (when, for example DirecTV and Viacom can't agree on a fair price, and DirecTV is forced to shut off all Viacom programming, during which time each side spams their viewers with ads imploring them to call the other side and agree to their terms), and Spectrum, Comcast, etc. would become common carriers and wouldn't have any interest in destroying Net Neutrality so they could block or cripple competitors. There would be no need for services like Sling because that's how cable and satellite would work in the first place.
OTOH prices would probably go up for folks who really did want everything, since an individual consumer has much less bargaining power than a typical MVPD, but I guess there's no perfect solution.
The current business model is a holdover from the CATV era, when communities on the fringe of a reception area would hire a company to erect an antenna farm and build a distribution system, so residents could get the "local" stations from 60 miles away without every household having to put up a big outdoor antenna. Those companies evolved into today's cable companies, then went through a phase of mergers and consolidations to become the monopolies we've all come to hate, but they never considered alternatives to that 80's-era business model they're all based on.
We kind of started to go down that road with C-band satellite dishes. Folks would buy a satellite system and a "VideoCipher" decryption box, then pay HBO, CNN, or whoever directly for their content. But the cable companies used their muscle to ensure that was never a competitive alternative, just as they're now trying to do with Net Neutrality. (Besides, those C-band dishes were big, ugly, and had to rotate, meaning there was more to go wrong with them.)