| as long as it is 'clear QAM' i'm fine with the move i don't want to have to rent a cable box just for basic service. i wouldn't understand the need to encrypt the 'basic' and 'basic cable' channels (the equivalent to a standard analog service of ~60 channels) when filters have worked for years. i suppose it is more convient just to send an update to the box than to dispatch someone to change some filters. i'm looking forward to having a mythtv box with tuners capable of ntsc, atsc, and clear qam, i just hope that the cable companies don't make it mostly useless.
i also like how comcast is using the 2009 digital tv switch to reel in the few people that still use the airwaves for TV access by claiming that 'comcast tv is your easiest solution'. it could be the easiest in some cases, but definitely not the cheapest at ~$50/month vs. a one time fee of ~$60 (not including the rebate) for a converter box. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by cornelius785:i also like how comcast is using the 2009 digital tv switch to reel in the few people that still use the airwaves for TV access... I think you should look at the nations total households using OTA signals and rethink that statement.  |
|
| said by fiberguy:said by cornelius785:i also like how comcast is using the 2009 digital tv switch to reel in the few people that still use the airwaves for TV access... I think you should look at the nations total households using OTA signals and rethink that statement. Indeed. Among my male peers, not one has pay-TV. Among my family, no one. Of everyone I know personally, most choose to have "no service" or "no TV" because the content is so poor, and they can't justify paying $80-100 for one channel. Netflix, the library, and rabbit ears abound.
There is no exact census, but surveys suggest there are between 12 and 20 million OTA households. That's a big chunk. |
|
