OT - Off-Topic - Re: HDTV signal options.

[Eric "Shubes"]

Josef Lowder wrote:
> .
> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 06:44:00 -0700, Eric \"Shubes\" wrote
>> The only ones that interest me are ESPNHD, TNTHD, and NFLHD (sports)
>> Not worth $180/yr to me (yet).
> 
> 
> If it was only $180 per year, I would gladly pay that. 

I wish that were the total! That's just for the add-on HD package.

> But it is not just $180 per year. 
> 
> The only way you can get the few channels that are worth watching 
> (bundled with an enormous collection of absolute garbage) is to pay 
> a *minimum* of $50 per month which is $600 per year!  And that is 
> ridiculous! 
> 
> Even at that, one will get only 4 or 5 more HD channels, at the 
> most, than are broadcast, and even higher costs than that for any
> more than that. 

That's why I'm sticking with broadcast (antenna) for now.

> The crux of the problem is the complete lack of any real free-market 
> competition because of the complicity and collusion among the cable 
> and sat signal providers to scam the public by not allowing people 
> to just choose and pay for ONLY the channels they want. 

No doubt.

> The whole box converter thing is a needless scam anyway. 
> 
> When we first got our new HD in August, we were getting a bunch of 
> great, crystal clear, 9x16 HD signals over the same cable that we 
> previously had for our old analog TV.  But when a couple of those 
> channels just disappeared (after Cox took over), I called to find 
> out what the problem was and they told me that there never had been 
> any such channels as I had been watching for more than a month, 
> that it was impossible, there were no such channels.  That the 
> only way you could get those channels was by getting their box. 
> 
> Yeah, right, scam artists.
> 

You wouldn't be the first person I've known who ditched Cox after they
bought out that other cable provider. That buyout should not have been allowed.

-- 
-Eric 'shubes'