said by probboy:"[D]espite offering substantially fewer channels (34 to 107)"
I always love the quantity over quality aspect over this topic. Getting 107 HD channels sure sounds better than getting 34, but if the bulk of them are crap (granted, good looking crap), what's the point?
Who's to decide what constitutes 'crap'? I have an idea - how about the cable companies give us as many channels as they can in HD, and let US decide which are worth watching and which aren't. With all due respect, this is an insipid argument against expanding HD offerings. Because SOME people don't care for channel X it's not worth having? I don't understand the logic. I understand why Comcast is throwing it around (their ridiculous claim against Verizon because Verizon carries 20 channels that aren't tracked by Nielson).
