[OT] DTV switch-over

[Joshua Judson Rosen]

VirginSnow at vfemail.net writes:
>
> In message <51AB7D3A-D3EE-49DB-B44F-70BCA4F1B495 at 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)))).