Re: Confusing AP Article is Widespread

TJ wrote:
> Jer wrote:
>>
>>
>> If you're so far outside the bubble that cable service is an issue,
>> perhaps satellite service would be a better option.  They'll hold you
>> hostage too, but they won't charge you $20K for the rent, and they'll
>> let you continue using stuffy old analog TV's.

Where I lived previously, it took some doing, but I was able to get
Comcast 
to put my own digital receiver on their system (a Motorola DCP 501
receiver 
with a programmable digital QAM box).

The main help number was completely clueless, and I ended up calling the 
local facility and worked with them to get it done.  To get it to work,
they 
first needed to put some of the numbers from my receiver into their 
database, then authorize it.

As far as service for it, I was on my own.  Though I didn't have any
issues 
with it functioning, I'm sure any problems would have been blamed on the 
unit itself.......

>>
>>
> So will the $40-$60 converters, and I only pay for them once. Cable
> users that are forced to go to digital should have an equally
> affordable option, and the cable companies should be forced to allow
> it. I don't care if they want to rent converters to people, but by
> the same token people ought to be able to put an FCC-certified device
> of their own between the cable and the TV. And, those devices should
> be made available to them. Not given to them or forced upon them,
> made available.
> When the cable installation fee was so exorbitant, I looked into a
> satellite service and decided they didn't provide anything that I
> couldn't get OTA that I wanted badly enough to pay a monthly fee for.
> My choice, my business. My brother, who lives on an adjoining
> property, decided on satellite. His choice, his business. What you do
> is your business.
>
> TJ