said by amungus:
No good reason a TV, with no box attached, should not be able to get cable, with 99% of available channels. Arguing about satellite is ridiculous, as the method of receiving is vastly different, and requires retransmission from satellites owned by the provider (or, leased, in directv's case).
So apparently you think that there is no infrastructure costs on the part of the cable company. It's really not that different. The cable company receives signals from providers(either through satellite farms or fiber optics), it is then demodulated and remodulated onto their channel mapping (a little more to this, but I'm keeping it simple), from there it goes onto fiber optics to the OTN site that feeds your "neighborhood" and is once again sent out on fiber to nodes where it feeds throughs amplifiers and cable. Just considering the outdoor plant to feed your home from the OTN you are talking about multiple amplifiers that cost $2-$5K each and a node can run near $10K, then you have to add in power supplies (multiple per node) which comes with fees paid to local power company who also owns most of the poles that hold said equipment. Every single pole on the way to your house comes with a pole attachment fee that is negotiated with the local POCO. You can see that the costs add up fairly quickly and this is not even accounting for the costs to get the programming to your local main site.