Re: Confusing AP Article is Widespread

"Wes Newell" <w.newell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:QYPMj.7702$El4.2042@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:56:42 -0500, whosbest54 wrote:
>> "Digital transition could cost cable customers"
> I hope the FCC keeps their noses out of it. You want cable? Pay for it.

A careful read of the article indicates that the FCC's nose is already  in
it. I have no sympathy for cable  clients who complain 
about price any more than I feel entitled to whine about commercials and
paid programming  on OTA; hmm they  have those on cable, 
too, don't they?

But I digress.

According to small Florida cable guyJess King:

<quote>
"My decision was, whether I continued to try to muddle along here with all
of my channel space being used up with a few analog 
channels or whether I would go all digital," King said. "So I got an FCC
variance to go all digital."</quote>

<quote>
The (FCC) rules require cable companies to provide local broadcast
channels to analog customers through February of 2012. Certain 
smaller cable systems can request a waiver.
The FCC's digital transition Web site says if a cable company goes all
digital and requires customers to get a set-top box, "any 
costs related to it will be determined by the cable company."

But FCC regulations approved last fall seem to contradict that point.

The rules require cable companies to provide local broadcast channels to
analog customers through February of 2012. Certain smaller 
cable systems can request a waiver.
</quote>

So while the regs are subject to interpretation, so what's new, it does
appear the to have a nose in this tent.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gr_hcGQMasdcXdvTOOEVvCt0r9ygD8VVRRO00

or http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4636253

-- 

Rick Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71° 04' 35"
Lat +42° 11' 07"