<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Re: Terrible conclusions in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r11906466</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:32:39 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:32:39 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: Terrible conclusions</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11906466</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/532116"><b>JakCrow</b></A> : How are you supposed to be surfing with these slow-assed cable boxes that sometimes even miss changing the channel, and which a Comcast employee said herself to me once that the tuner box "isn't meant for channel surfing"? <br><br>Why do people "channel surf"? Cuz there's 30 channels of crap in between the shows they like! That's why!]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11906466</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:52:29 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Terrible conclusions</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11905916</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/295948"><b>ropeguru</b></A> : VALUABLE???  The only reason people channel surf is because of all the CRAP programming that is put out now a days, and when you do have a couple of programs you like you have to flip flop because of all of the advertisements that you are bombarded with.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11905916</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:52:02 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Terrible conclusions</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11905156</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/0"><b>anon</b></A> : I gets better.  They deem that channel surfing is now an integral part of watching tv (and something that viewers find very valuable), and that a la carte programming would reduce channel surfing, therfore tv "viewership" would go down!  Wasn't that part of the point in a la carte?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11905156</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:23:41 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Terrible conclusions</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11905121</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/0"><b>anon</b></A> : I just read the report, and they deem that a la carte isn't worth it, because out monthly bill would rise based on the national average amount of channels each person receives.  Sucks for those of use who only want 2 or 3 channels (the report concludes that people who would purchase 9 or less channels would face a reduction in their bills).  The report goes on to say that *any* form of a la carte would result in additional expenses for the operators.<br><br>On top of that, they deem that video on demand and DVRs and increased broadband adoption will enable viewers to choose their own programming, whenever they want...]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11905121</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:20:11 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
