[Discuss] Comcast gets rid of the remaining analog channels

[gaf at blu.org (Jerry Feldman)]

On 02/09/2012 12:47 AM, Jack Coats wrote:
> Why do they want to do this? ... I consider $$$ to be their driving motive.
> If they didn't make more $$$ by doing it, they wouldn't bother.
>
> Technically, freeing up bandwidth for them is a 'good thing' because they
> can sell it and make more $$$.
>
> If you happen to get better service, that is a nice side benefit.  But then
> that means that since you get more 'utility' from them, they can raise
> your rates without you whining to some regulatory agency that they
> are trying to take all your $$$ (which they are).
>
> Ok, I am a bit overboard.  But since companies, especially publicly held ones,
> are $$$ driven, the argument is not without some foundation.
>
> The only question is are customers willing to pay the additional $$$ or have
> the customers finally hit an inflexible limitation in their customer base.  Or
> can a competitor now come in and replace their service (the phone company
> tries, but isn't there, currently).
How about lowering costs. They have to have the equipment to provide for
the analog feeds in addition to digital and HD.
Basically, most of the new TVs sold these days is HD so demand for more
HD channels is there.

-- 
Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id:3BC1EB90 
PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66  C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90