George wrote:
> George Shirley wrote:
>> Janet Wilder wrote:
>>> Harry Buskin wrote:
>>>> I don't know how to make this any easier.
>>>>
>>>> 1. I have satellite. I will stay with satellite.
>>>>
>>>> 2. My local channels are provided with my sat. subscription.
>>>>
>>>> 3. I am NOT concerned with the technical details of
>>>> the digital transition.
>>>>
>>>> 4. I want to know which (DirectTV or DishNetwork) is
>>>> better in terms of food programming.
>>>
>>> They both carry pretty much the same. See my previous post with their
>>> web sites. They have their programming on their web sites.
>>>
>>> Dish, IMO, has better technology and better support.
>> We just switched to Dish yesterday, from DirecTV, and I have to agree
>> with Janet's answer. I am very impressed with Dish and we had DirecTV
>> for eleven years. Getting better, stronger, signal from the satellite.
>> The picture is very much more clear and defined than the one from
>> DirecTV. So much so it amazed us because we had thought we were
>> getting a good picture before.
>>
>> No local channels for us because the local stations are disputing with
>> the satellite providers over cost. I bought an antenna that attaches
>> to the dish and pipes the local channels through the satellite
>> receiver and that puts them on the guide and makes it easier to control.
>
> Thats something I just don't get. Lets say you own a TV station and can
> reach 100,000 households. The price you can get for advertising etc is
> all realted to viewers. At no cost to you someone increases your reach
> to say 125,000 households. What justification would you have to charge
> them?

I feel the same way, don't know what the reason is. Called the main
local channel and talked to the station manager. He says the satellite
companies don't want to pay what the station wants so the hell with
them. I think maybe they're just greedy.