Re: Confusing AP Article is Widespread

Wes Newell wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:07:42 -0700, Sal M. Onella wrote:
>
>> "Wes Newell" <w.newell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:yQZMj.6427$XF3.4472@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:31:11 -0400, L Alpert wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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......
>>>
>>> Results 1 - 100 of about 313,000 English pages for fta satellites.
>>> (0.26 seconds)
>>>
>>> http://www.gosatellite.net/fta_satellite_list_1563_ctg.htm
>>
>>
>> That is SO-O-O-O misleading!  The stuff on FTA is frequently not what
>> the average viewer watches.  I see medical program channels, Arab
>> language shows, preachers and obscure s****ts shows.
>>
>> I have two FTA dishes and three receivers.  I rarely switch them on.
>>
>> Yes, of course there's stuff there, but the appeal is similar to a
>> visit with your old-maid aunt.
>
> There's nothing misleading about it at all. All the major networks are
> available via FTA along with hundreds of other channels, both english
> and non-english. And with an HD receiver, you can get HD. For someone
> that can't get OTA, it's certainly a very reasonable alternative to
> paying for cable or sat.

I don't normally watch commercial laden content, as the damned things are 
that annoying to me.  If there is something that sparks my interest, I'll 
record it as so I can skip the commercials.

FTA is not a reasonable alternative for me.  I'd much rather pay.