| reply to fiberguy
Re: A few observations Like i said in my previous post, cable should be allowed to move channels as they see fit, the main argument is that what they are doing is NOT the same thing as Verizon and at&t which is what majortom insinuated.
Furthermore, when Verizon went all digital they provided free digital adapters to their affected customers, that is something cable is not doing, thus anyway you slice it, the change represents a monthly price increase for the customer on top of the regularly scheduled yearly price increases.
My argument is in no way that cable can't change its system, the argument is that the change is not/did not occur in the same manner as Verizon's and you are bringing up arguments that don't apply to my comment.
Even the OTA digital transition gives the consumer the option to get what they used to be able to receive without having to pay an additional monthly fee. Yes there might be certain upfront costs such as purchasing a digital adapter, or buying a new digital ready tv, but those are one-time expenses to the consumer, not a monthly price increase that produces a new revenue stream to the cable company.
Again please then explain to me what the cablecos are doing is the exact same thing as Verizon and at&t. Oh wait you can't and instead have changed the subject, even though the fact of the matter is that they COULD do the same thing by offering even at least 1 free digital adapter.
I posted about this before »Re: Why is cable being bashed for this but verizon not? and majortom still doesn't get that its not the same thing, there was also a morning news bit that mentions that cablevision received same temporary waiver that Verizon and many other cablecos got. |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | I don't believe in socialism which is my main crux.
You insinuate that once you have a channel in a certain tier that you should always have it available in that tier. You also insinuate that if a channel moves, it shouldn't cost you more to continue receiving that channel. I disagree even if it is a price in crease.
You as the consumer have a choice to subscribe or not to subscribe. You are not guaranteed pay television service, which you again insinuate that you have some sort of right to.
The "Verizon and AT&T is doing it, why isn't cable" argument doesn't work either. In a competitive environment, you now have your reason to jump cable's ship and go to the provider that is treating you better. Because analog going to the past doesn't mean that the provider should carry the burden to make the consumer whole. That is yet another argument I don't buy. If the customer is not happy, they should find a provider that treats them better.
To even go to the level of comparing the OTA signal to that of a PAY service is absurd. OTA Free TV was once free, is still free. A FOR PAY service, where prices are allowed and subject to change, remains the same. The consumer demanded certain changes and the FCC gave it to them.. and, as batterup loves to say, "the people weep".. you're getting what you asked for. When government steps in, you will ALWAYS lose just as the consumer did back in 1996. Remember when the government stepped in to help the consumer on ever skyrocketing bills? more than 50% of consumers saw an increase in their cable bill thanks to the government's new rules.
So, to make this simple.. you said: "My argument is in no way that cable can't change its system, the argument is that the change is not/did not occur in the same manner as Verizon's and you are bringing up arguments that don't apply to my comment."
In simple.. Verizon isn't cable. Easy, huh? And yes, you are actually arguing against the change, which is showing your support for cable not making the changes they are. |
