Re: Confusing AP Article is Widespread

L Alpert wrote:
> Wes Newell wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:56:42 -0500, whosbest54 wrote:
>>
>>> Lots of media outlets are picking up this AP article about a small
>>> cable system in Fla. that is screwing its customers and blaming the
>>> government. The bottom line is there is no law or FCC reg that
>>> requires this cable company to this.  They're doing it for business
>>> reasons. And, most cable companies aren't going to convert to all
>>> digital like this - they will continue to carry an analog tier.  The
>>> article would be clearer if the author did their homework and
>>> checked with more than one big cable provider.  I think they would
>>> have found that the situation in Fla. was an aberration.
>>>
>>> I do agree that the FCC regs could be clearer about who bears the
>>> costs of going all digital.  Maybe someone at the FCC will see this
>>> and propose revisions, but I'm not holding my breath.
>>>
>>> "Digital transition could cost cable customers"
>>>
>>> http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_8892710?nclick_check=1
>>>
>> I hope the FCC keeps their noses out of it. You want cable? Pay for
>> it. It's none of the governments business what cable co. do IMO. I
>> said it before and I'll say it again. All cable co.'s will switch to
>> all digital as fast as they can. They need the extra bandwidth.
>> That's all there is to it. Don't want to pay for it? There's lots of
>> free OTA TV. I have no sympathy at all for someone that just doesn't
>> like the price. Do without if you don't like the price. Keep paying
>> and the price will always be high.
> 
> Lots of free OTA where I used to live (17 digital stations, 11 w/HD
content.
> 
> Where I'm at now, I get 3.  "Lots" is relative to where one lives...... 
> 
> 


How many analog signals are you getting?

-- 
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'