virgins...@vfemail.net writes: > > In message <51ab7d3a-d3ee-49db-b44f-70bca4f1b...@wilsonet.com>, Jarod Wilson > wr > ites: > > > thereby requiring subscribers to rent more cable boxes... > > You got it. Selling less and charging more for it has been this > company's mantra since... well, when did they become "Comcast"? > > Last June (almost 1 year ago), I lost three channels (4, 40, and 58 if > I recall correctly) because they "moved" them to the digital tier. > > I, personally, find it disgusting how Comcast is using the *OTA* DTV > transition as an opportunity to rob analog *cable* TV subscribers of > service in the name of "digital" programming. Most people don't > understand that "digital" cable has nothing at all to do with what's > "digital" on the air. As a result, the uninformed perception is that > what Comcast's doing is government-mandated. It's patent deception. > > To drive the point home... the DTV transition began in February, and > Comcast is *still* broadcasting commercials (on analog cable, mind > you) urging people to "be ready" for the end of the transition in > June. Let me ask you this: if you're watching that commercial on > analog cable, don't you already have at least basic cable??! Clearly, > the intent here is to mislead the uninformed.
More clearly than you know: I remember that, back before my wife and I cancelled our Comcast subscription, they were running advertisements that said: Worried about the DTV transition? Don't worry--Comcast's got you covered: people who receive television signals over the air will need to upgrade their televisions or else lose their ability to watch television. But, as a Comcast cable-television customer, your existing set will *continue to work*. I'm quoting from memory, so the exact wording is likely a little off, but I'm pretty sure they said something remarkably close to that in syntax, and identical to that in semantics. In other words, it's not merely a question of *intent* but of actual *action*, and the action was that they didn't merely `mislead' the *uninformed* by way of /suggestion/--they flat-out *lied*. But, on the up (or, at least, not-so-down) side, the only actual damage that I can see that they may have done anyone via that lie (ignoring things like the /prospective/ damage that may come in the form of vendor-locking encrypted signals, or whatever) would be new customers who signed extended-commitment-for-a-teaser-rate contracts with them because they figured they might as well finally go to cable (or something like that) now that their TV can't receive anything but cable without a separate converter with yet another remote control. -- Don't be afraid to ask (Lf.((Lx.xx) (Lr.f(rr)))). _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/