Quote:
Originally Posted by Piggie
Cable legally like you say only had to carry the main. But how long will it be before customer demand wants the subs on cable.
|
Well, as I indicated above, apparently that demand is already here, since we've got most if not all of the sub-channels, and have already. Many of them are on our 200-tier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piggie
On satellite the way I understand it, is they don't have to carry locals (that part I am sure), but if they carry any locals they must carrying them all, but only the main program.
|
I think you're correct, but surely that's so incredibly unfair that that law should be changed. Satellite service should be subject to the same Must-Carry laws as terrestrial services, regardless of the technical limitations they endure. As it is, they are abusing the fact that they do not have to comply with Must-Carry and filling their available bandwidth, instead, with more
HD channels, an advantage that they're using as a bludgeon in the marketplace. So essentially, their advantage stems directly from their refusal to voluntarily comply with laws intended to get customers access to the most critical television channels for those customers, as defined by the SEC and the
FCC. Ridiculously unfair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aries
The way cable companies are assholes to customers (rising prices is the #1 reason I switched)
|
Everyone has the right to evaluate for themselves whether cable/satellite is a good value for them or not. Good for you for determining that it isn't a good choice for your and doing without. However, as I respect your evaluation of what's of value to you, I would expect that you respect my evaluation of what's of value to me. Cable prices have
not risen any faster than the value being provided to my wife any I.
