<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Bert Haskins <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bhaskins@chartermi.net" target="_blank">bhaskins@chartermi.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br></div></div>
Would someone explain just how this is any form of a "win for consumers"?.<br></blockquote></div><br>It's not, except in the minds of the companies, where consumers somehow care about reducing "truck rolls" or want instantaneous startup/shutdown of their cable service (well, in actuality it means they can turn it off immediately, turning it on will still require you to get one of their clunky "set top boxes", either by driving to some far away service center or waiting for one of those nasty "truck rolls"). I always hate industries that overinflate the costs of a particular part of their business and try to break it out and impose it on consumers as an added, often undisclosed, charge (see airline "fuel surcharges", hotel "energy fees", and the like).<br>
<br>This further erosion of access makes me feel extremely lucky that we live where we are able to get all of the networks clearly with an attic antenna, and that much of what we record is on those network channels anyway, so we were able to drop cable when they first started the digital conversion (with the freed up money more than covering the occasional iTunes or other overpriced download of a show like Mad Men). Not for everybody, as I understand some really watch a lot of the specialty programs on cable, but we discovered that we didn't miss them that much. I thought I was a smart guy, but just couldn't wrap my mind around all the parts and complexities required to set up and keep up with recording from "new cable".<br>
<br>Josh<br><br>