Right, but I'm asking you, for your $60 how
many of those channels can you actually watch without paying more?
For my $89 a month I have 210 that I can
actually watch or listen too without paying anything extra. That's the
only way to judge which is a better value. (Well that and the question of
if you will actually watch the extra channels...LOL)
If you are saying you are getting
850 channels that *you* can watch without paying above that $60 a month then
that would be a fair comparison. Although I'm not sure how to factor the
on demand channels in, because they are not unique programming, but are a
"benefit" of your cable system. A pretty cool benefit
too...LOL
What I do know is that cable users here,
even on digital cable, don't have anywhere near 850 channels. In fact they
have a similar number available to them that satellite users have, approx 200 or
so. And it cost quite a bit more for cable at that level of
programming.
Frankly technologically speaking fiber optic
cable is by far a better method of delivery than satellite. The problem is
the lack of competition in most cases doesn't provide the cable companies
incentive to provide a better product. If the cable companies had to
compete with each other they would surpass satellite easily, but since most
localities allow them a monopoly they don't have to compete.
Charles Mims
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jen --
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 11:11 AM
To: 'The Sandbox Discussion List'
Subject: RE: [Sndbox] Name that tune...
Yes, I know. :-0) There are just a little
over 850 "watchable" channels. But that includes more than a hundred music
channels, and almost 10 each of Cinemax and HBO, Also includes 20 "On Demand"
channels, which are various channels that sort of work like TiVo, they have a
list of different movies/shows and you can pick and chose, playing and stopping
when you want, ect.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sandbox Mail List Administration
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 5:05 AM
To: 'The Sandbox Discussion List'
Subject: RE: [Sndbox] Name that tune...
Is that 900 that you *receive*?
Because the only way to make a fair price comparison is to compare only the
channels that you can watch at that price point. It doesn't count if you
have 900 but at your price point are only allowed access to 80 of them...see
what I mean?
Charles Mims
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jen --
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 11:00 AM
To: 'The Sandbox Discussion List'
Subject: RE: [Sndbox] Name that tune...
Yep, we pay around 60 for 900
channels.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 10:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Sndbox] Name that tune...
We were paying $100 for 140 channels. And if her picture is bad, it's in her cable or her tv or it's not tuned in good b/c if she has direct tv then she is receiving the same picture that e'one else in the US is getting. It all comes from the same satellites. Not to mention the prices are all basically the same. I'm getting over 300 channels right now for $80 and I just like it better. No use arguing over it. E'one has their preference. Mine is to stay away from Comcast if I can b/c in this area they suck ass. There are more satellite customers around here than cable customers.
we get over 700 for 65 dollers and ours is digital
________________________________
Changes to your subscription (unsubs, nomail, digest) can be made by going to http://sandboxmail.net/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net