I received a letter from my satellite TV company the other day about how
I need to upgrade my receiver because they are making some changes and
after June one of my old ones would not work anymore. I called to see
about it and was told about a special offer than I could get the new
receiver at a special rate of $149.99 instead of the regular $199.99.

I resisted offering to pay for it and explained that I had subscribed to
something that provided equipment and service and that their changes
should not require me to pay for a new receiver. I also said that the
competition was trying to get me to switch to their service, which was
true. Bell has been trying to get me to bundle my phone internet an d
satellite, and they were offering lower monthly rate, a special
promotional rate and two new receivers. The guy offered to transfer me
to another department that might be able to help but I was running
short on time so I said I would call back.

I had lots of time today so I called that same number back. When the
woman came on line I explained that I had looked at my options and
didn't see paying to upgrade working for me, that I wasn't interested in
paying to upgrade because they are changing. All of a sudden there were
other options. The $150 receiver was now only $100. Even better, a
lifetime free rental, which, she explained, meant that if I stop
subscribing or if they go out of business I have to send the receiver
back. I don't know who I will send it to if they go out of business.

I keep hearing about what some of these companies will do to keep your
business in a competitive market. It sure helped not to fall for the
pitch the first time and to look into the options.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> I received a letter from my satellite TV company the other day about how
> I need to upgrade my receiver because they are making some changes and
> after June one of my old ones would not work anymore. I called to see
> about it and was told about a special offer than I could get the new
> receiver at a special rate of $149.99 instead of the regular $199.99.
>
> I resisted offering to pay for it and explained that I had subscribed to
> something that provided equipment and service and that their changes
> should not require me to pay for a new receiver. I also said that the
> competition was trying to get me to switch to their service, which was
> true. Bell has been trying to get me to bundle my phone internet an d
> satellite, and they were offering lower monthly rate, a special
> promotional rate and two new receivers. The guy offered to transfer me
> to another department that might be able to help but I was running
> short on time so I said I would call back.
>
> I had lots of time today so I called that same number back. When the
> woman came on line I explained that I had looked at my options and
> didn't see paying to upgrade working for me, that I wasn't interested in
> paying to upgrade because they are changing. All of a sudden there were
> other options. The $150 receiver was now only $100. Even better, a
> lifetime free rental, which, she explained, meant that if I stop
> subscribing or if they go out of business I have to send the receiver
> back. I don't know who I will send it to if they go out of business.
>
> I keep hearing about what some of these companies will do to keep your
> business in a competitive market. It sure helped not to fall for the
> pitch the first time and to look into the options.

Good for you, Dave. All cable companies are greedy *******s, imo.

On Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 1:45:50 PM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> Bell has been trying to get me to bundle my phone internet an d
> satellite, and they were offering lower monthly rate, a special
> promotional rate and two new receivers.
>
>
I did bundle my phone and internet last year but kept DirecTV,
going wireless for the internet. The only problem is when it
loses it's connection the phone is dead. It's easily remedied
by unplugging from the wall outlet but it can be annoying. Last
year my phone was out for 4 days and had no idea until I received
an e-mail from a friend to check my phone.

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> I received a letter from my satellite TV company the other day about how
> I need to upgrade my receiver because they are making some changes and
> after June one of my old ones would not work anymore. I called to see
> about it and was told about a special offer than I could get the new
> receiver at a special rate of $149.99 instead of the regular $199.99.
>
> I resisted offering to pay for it and explained that I had subscribed to
> something that provided equipment and service and that their changes
> should not require me to pay for a new receiver. I also said that the
> competition was trying to get me to switch to their service, which was
> true. Bell has been trying to get me to bundle my phone internet an d
> satellite, and they were offering lower monthly rate, a special
> promotional rate and two new receivers. The guy offered to transfer me
> to another department that might be able to help but I was running
> short on time so I said I would call back.
>
> I had lots of time today so I called that same number back. When the
> woman came on line I explained that I had looked at my options and
> didn't see paying to upgrade working for me, that I wasn't interested in
> paying to upgrade because they are changing. All of a sudden there were
> other options. The $150 receiver was now only $100. Even better, a
> lifetime free rental, which, she explained, meant that if I stop
> subscribing or if they go out of business I have to send the receiver
> back. I don't know who I will send it to if they go out of business.
>
> I keep hearing about what some of these companies will do to keep your
> business in a competitive market. It sure helped not to fall for the
> pitch the first time and to look into the options.

I had Dish until last year. I had an antenna put on the roof (about
60-70 miles from the transmitters, reception's great) and got a TiVo
Romio. I haven't missed it a bit. The money I've saved has more than
paid for the new setup.

On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 13:35:02 -0500, Mark Storkamp
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>> I received a letter from my satellite TV company the other day about how
>> I need to upgrade my receiver because they are making some changes and
>> after June one of my old ones would not work anymore. I called to see
>> about it and was told about a special offer than I could get the new
>> receiver at a special rate of $149.99 instead of the regular $199.99.
>>
>> I resisted offering to pay for it and explained that I had subscribed to
>> something that provided equipment and service and that their changes
>> should not require me to pay for a new receiver. I also said that the
>> competition was trying to get me to switch to their service, which was
>> true. Bell has been trying to get me to bundle my phone internet an d
>> satellite, and they were offering lower monthly rate, a special
>> promotional rate and two new receivers. The guy offered to transfer me
>> to another department that might be able to help but I was running
>> short on time so I said I would call back.
>>
>> I had lots of time today so I called that same number back. When the
>> woman came on line I explained that I had looked at my options and
>> didn't see paying to upgrade working for me, that I wasn't interested in
>> paying to upgrade because they are changing. All of a sudden there were
>> other options. The $150 receiver was now only $100. Even better, a
>> lifetime free rental, which, she explained, meant that if I stop
>> subscribing or if they go out of business I have to send the receiver
>> back. I don't know who I will send it to if they go out of business.
>>
>> I keep hearing about what some of these companies will do to keep your
>> business in a competitive market. It sure helped not to fall for the
>> pitch the first time and to look into the options.
>
>I had Dish until last year. I had an antenna put on the roof (about
>60-70 miles from the transmitters, reception's great) and got a TiVo
>Romio. I haven't missed it a bit. The money I've saved has more than
>paid for the new setup.

that's what i figure, money saved more than paid for the two new tv's
It's a great feeling, I feel smug when I see tneir trucks around
town )

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> I received a letter from my satellite TV company the other day about how
> I need to upgrade my receiver because they are making some changes and
> after June one of my old ones would not work anymore.

Define "receiver", wouldn't that be your TV set? A satellite dish
receives a signal but it's a transmitter for your TV set. How old is
your TV set... probably a 1952 Dumont! You'd do well to use rabbit
ears. LOL

On 2017-04-07 4:50 PM, wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> I received a letter from my satellite TV company the other day about how
>> I need to upgrade my receiver because they are making some changes and
>> after June one of my old ones would not work anymore.
>
> Define "receiver", wouldn't that be your TV set? A satellite dish
> receives a signal but it's a transmitter for your TV set. How old is
> your TV set... probably a 1952 Dumont! You'd do well to use rabbit
> ears. LOL
>

How nice of you to contribute suggestions without the benefit of the
knowledge of the very basics of the workings of a TV satellite system.

On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 17:18:19 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2017-04-07 4:50 PM, wrote:
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> I received a letter from my satellite TV company the other day about how
>>> I need to upgrade my receiver because they are making some changes and
>>> after June one of my old ones would not work anymore.
>>
>> Define "receiver", wouldn't that be your TV set? A satellite dish
>> receives a signal but it's a transmitter for your TV set. How old is
>> your TV set... probably a 1952 Dumont! You'd do well to use rabbit
>> ears. LOL
>>
>
>How nice of you to contribute suggestions without the benefit of the
>knowledge of the very basics of the workings of a TV satellite system.

You sound like someone not paying your satellite company like the
deadbeat you are. Pay your satellite company and you'll have TV, or
use rabbit ears.

Sheldon wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 17:18:19 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
> >On 2017-04-07 4:50 PM, wrote:
> >> Dave Smith wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I received a letter from my satellite TV company the other day about how
> >>> I need to upgrade my receiver because they are making some changes and
> >>> after June one of my old ones would not work anymore.
> >>
> >> Define "receiver", wouldn't that be your TV set? A satellite dish
> >> receives a signal but it's a transmitter for your TV set. How old is
> >> your TV set... probably a 1952 Dumont! You'd do well to use rabbit
> >> ears. LOL
> >>
> >
> >How nice of you to contribute suggestions without the benefit of the
> >knowledge of the very basics of the workings of a TV satellite system.
>
> You sound like someone not paying your satellite company like the
> deadbeat you are. Pay your satellite company and you'll have TV, or
> use rabbit ears.


dwarf with rabbit ears:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/...82_634x642.jpg


--
Best
Greg

On 2017-04-07 5:30 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 17:18:19 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2017-04-07 4:50 PM, wrote:
>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I received a letter from my satellite TV company the other day about how
>>>> I need to upgrade my receiver because they are making some changes and
>>>> after June one of my old ones would not work anymore.
>>>
>>> Define "receiver", wouldn't that be your TV set? A satellite dish
>>> receives a signal but it's a transmitter for your TV set. How old is
>>> your TV set... probably a 1952 Dumont! You'd do well to use rabbit
>>> ears. LOL
>>>
>>
>> How nice of you to contribute suggestions without the benefit of the
>> knowledge of the very basics of the workings of a TV satellite system.
>
> You sound like someone not paying your satellite company like the
> deadbeat you are. Pay your satellite company and you'll have TV, or
> use rabbit ears.
>

Feel free to explain that allegation.I had posted about how I ended up
with a free upgrade for my satellite receiver instead of having to pay
them $150 for it. Having told one agent that I was thinking of
switching, then getting a better offer from the second one, and then
getting it for free, you demonstrated that you know absolutely nothing
about satellite TV systems. When I pointed that out you came back with
the idiotic suggestion that I am not paying for my service. If I was not
paying for my service they would not have sent me the letter about
needing an upgrade. If I were not paying for the service they would not
know about the receivers I currently own. If I were not paying for the
service they would not even have talked to me about an upgrade. If I
were not paying they sure as hell would not have offered a "free rental".

When I switched my phone from Frontier to Suddenlink Frontier charged me $107, I called and talked to a real nice lady at Frontier she removed $100 of it.

On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 15:19:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>When I switched my phone from Frontier to Suddenlink Frontier charged me $107, I called and talked to a real nice lady at Frontier she removed $100 of it.

I guess you won't quote her.

On 2017-04-07 3:39 PM, The Greatest! wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 17:18:19 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-04-07 4:50 PM, wrote:
>>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I received a letter from my satellite TV company the other day about how
>>>>> I need to upgrade my receiver because they are making some changes and
>>>>> after June one of my old ones would not work anymore.
>>>>
>>>> Define "receiver", wouldn't that be your TV set? A satellite dish
>>>> receives a signal but it's a transmitter for your TV set. How old is
>>>> your TV set... probably a 1952 Dumont! You'd do well to use rabbit
>>>> ears. LOL
>>>>
>>>
>>> How nice of you to contribute suggestions without the benefit of the
>>> knowledge of the very basics of the workings of a TV satellite system.
>>
>> You sound like someone not paying your satellite company like the
>> deadbeat you are. Pay your satellite company and you'll have TV, or
>> use rabbit ears.
>
>
> dwarf with rabbit ears:
>
Did you know that there's a dwarf shortage?

On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 14:39:56 -0700 (PDT), "The Greatest!"
> wrote:

>Sheldon wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 17:18:19 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On 2017-04-07 4:50 PM, wrote:
>> >> Dave Smith wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I received a letter from my satellite TV company the other day about how
>> >>> I need to upgrade my receiver because they are making some changes and
>> >>> after June one of my old ones would not work anymore.
>> >>
>> >> Define "receiver", wouldn't that be your TV set? A satellite dish
>> >> receives a signal but it's a transmitter for your TV set. How old is
>> >> your TV set... probably a 1952 Dumont! You'd do well to use rabbit
>> >> ears. LOL
>> >>
>> >
>> >How nice of you to contribute suggestions without the benefit of the
>> >knowledge of the very basics of the workings of a TV satellite system.
>>
>> You sound like someone not paying your satellite company like the
>> deadbeat you are. Pay your satellite company and you'll have TV, or
>> use rabbit ears.
>
>
>dwarf with rabbit ears:
>
>http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/...82_634x642.jpg

Hehe, the dwarf wishes he had a rabbit dick.

> wrote in message
...
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> I received a letter from my satellite TV company the other day about how
>> I need to upgrade my receiver because they are making some changes and
>> after June one of my old ones would not work anymore.
>
> Define "receiver", wouldn't that be your TV set? A satellite dish
> receives a signal but it's a transmitter for your TV set. How old is
> your TV set... probably a 1952 Dumont! You'd do well to use rabbit
> ears. LOL



I have rabbit ears connected to my tv as well as Directv. The rabbit ears
get all the local channels with great reception simply by switching to tv on
the remote.

Cheri

On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:19:25 -0700, "Cheri" >
wrote:

> wrote in message
.. .
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> I received a letter from my satellite TV company the other day about how
>>> I need to upgrade my receiver because they are making some changes and
>>> after June one of my old ones would not work anymore.
>>
>> Define "receiver", wouldn't that be your TV set? A satellite dish
>> receives a signal but it's a transmitter for your TV set. How old is
>> your TV set... probably a 1952 Dumont! You'd do well to use rabbit
>> ears. LOL
>
>
>
>I have rabbit ears connected to my tv as well as Directv. The rabbit ears
>get all the local channels with great reception simply by switching to tv on
>the remote.
>
>Cheri

Rabbit ears get the few local local channels here too but they don't
get the more distant chanels that I prefer to watch... I really don't
need the local channels as I can watch those on line or read the local
news on line. I won't say I enjoy my cable bill but I will admit that
I enjoy several cable programs and I like the high def too. I also
like that with cable I can set it to record shows when I'm busy or
asleep. I subscribe to the minimal cable channels but that still lets
me see a lot of shows I can't see with rabbit ears like foodtv or even
Judge Judy. I don't mind paying the extra $40/month for cable, my TV
is never off, I sleep with my TV on all night so I get my money's
worth.

On 4/7/2017 9:19 PM, Cheri wrote:

>
>
> I have rabbit ears connected to my tv as well as Directv. The rabbit
> ears get all the local channels with great reception simply by switching
> to tv on the remote.
>
> Cheri

You don't get local channels with DTV? We can get Hartford, Providence,
Boston.

> wrote in message
news
> On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:19:25 -0700, "Cheri" >
> wrote:
>
> wrote in message
. ..
>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I received a letter from my satellite TV company the other day about
>>>> how
>>>> I need to upgrade my receiver because they are making some changes and
>>>> after June one of my old ones would not work anymore.
>>>
>>> Define "receiver", wouldn't that be your TV set? A satellite dish
>>> receives a signal but it's a transmitter for your TV set. How old is
>>> your TV set... probably a 1952 Dumont! You'd do well to use rabbit
>>> ears. LOL
>>
>>
>>
>>I have rabbit ears connected to my tv as well as Directv. The rabbit ears
>>get all the local channels with great reception simply by switching to tv
>>on
>>the remote.
>>
>>Cheri
>
> Rabbit ears get the few local local channels here too but they don't
> get the more distant chanels that I prefer to watch... I really don't
> need the local channels as I can watch those on line or read the local
> news on line. I won't say I enjoy my cable bill but I will admit that
> I enjoy several cable programs and I like the high def too. I also
> like that with cable I can set it to record shows when I'm busy or
> asleep. I subscribe to the minimal cable channels but that still lets
> me see a lot of shows I can't see with rabbit ears like foodtv or even
> Judge Judy. I don't mind paying the extra $40/month for cable, my TV
> is never off, I sleep with my TV on all night so I get my money's
> worth.

I don't enjoy the cable bill either, seems to go up every month. I don't
have the highest level, but with Directv, the DVR and an extra receiver,
it's around $130.00 a month. I would be very happy if I could cherry pick
the channels I want, but that's not happening anytime soon. I think there
are around 20 channels that the rabbit ears pick up and the channels are
very clear, but I would never willingly give up cable news, weather, sports,
and many shows that are only on cable. Judge Judy is on both of the local
channels where I am.

Cheri

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/7/2017 9:19 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I have rabbit ears connected to my tv as well as Directv. The rabbit ears
>> get all the local channels with great reception simply by switching to tv
>> on the remote.
>>
>> Cheri
>
> You don't get local channels with DTV? We can get Hartford, Providence,
> Boston.


Yes, I get local channels like NBC, CBS, PBS, and ABC, but for all the other
local channels, around 20 in total that are broadcast, no.

Cheri

On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 8:19:55 PM UTC-5, Cheri wrote:
>
> I have rabbit ears connected to my tv as well as Directv. The rabbit ears
> get all the local channels with great reception simply by switching to tv on
> the remote.
>
> Cheri
>
>
I get all my local channels with DirecTV with no rabbit ears or
outside antenna. All I have is the satellite dish on the roof.

> wrote in message
...
> On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 8:19:55 PM UTC-5, Cheri wrote:
>>
>> I have rabbit ears connected to my tv as well as Directv. The rabbit ears
>> get all the local channels with great reception simply by switching to tv
>> on
>> the remote.
>>
>> Cheri
>>
>>
> I get all my local channels with DirecTV with no rabbit ears or
> outside antenna. All I have is the satellite dish on the roof.
>


Are you in the Sacramento area of CA? Comcast, Dish, and Directv do not
carry all the off network local stations where I am.

Cheri

On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 12:52:22 AM UTC-5, Cheri wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 8:19:55 PM UTC-5, Cheri wrote:
> >>
> >> I have rabbit ears connected to my tv as well as Directv. The rabbit ears
> >> get all the local channels with great reception simply by switching to tv
> >> on
> >> the remote.
> >>
> >> Cheri
> >>
> >>
> > I get all my local channels with DirecTV with no rabbit ears or
> > outside antenna. All I have is the satellite dish on the roof.
> >
>
>
> Are you in the Sacramento area of CA? Comcast, Dish, and Directv do not
> carry all the off network local stations where I am.
>
> Cheri
>
>
No, I'm in middle Tennessee. That's a shame they don't carry
all the network channels as they do here although many aren't
worth watching to me.

On 2017-04-07 11:24 PM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Fri 07 Apr 2017 08:27:02p, Cheri told us...
>
>> > wrote in message
>> news
>>> On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:19:25 -0700, "Cheri" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I received a letter from my satellite TV company the other day
>>>>>> about how I need to upgrade my receiver because they are
>>>>>> making some changes and after June one of my old ones would
>>>>>> not work anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>> Define "receiver", wouldn't that be your TV set? A satellite
>>>>> dish receives a signal but it's a transmitter for your TV set.
>>>>> How old is your TV set... probably a 1952 Dumont! You'd do
>>>>> well to use rabbit ears. LOL
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have rabbit ears connected to my tv as well as Directv. The
>>>> rabbit ears get all the local channels with great reception
>>>> simply by switching to tv on the remote.
>>>>
>>>> Cheri
>>>
>>> Rabbit ears get the few local local channels here too but they
>>> don't get the more distant chanels that I prefer to watch... I
>>> really don't need the local channels as I can watch those on line
>>> or read the local news on line. I won't say I enjoy my cable
>>> bill but I will admit that I enjoy several cable programs and I
>>> like the high def too. I also like that with cable I can set it
>>> to record shows when I'm busy or asleep. I subscribe to the
>>> minimal cable channels but that still lets me see a lot of shows
>>> I can't see with rabbit ears like foodtv or even Judge Judy. I
>>> don't mind paying the extra $40/month for cable, my TV is never
>>> off, I sleep with my TV on all night so I get my money's worth.
>>
>> I don't enjoy the cable bill either, seems to go up every month. I
>> don't have the highest level, but with Directv, the DVR and an
>> extra receiver, it's around $130.00 a month. I would be very happy
>> if I could cherry pick the channels I want, but that's not
>> happening anytime soon. I think there are around 20 channels that
>> the rabbit ears pick up and the channels are very clear, but I
>> would never willingly give up cable news, weather, sports, and
>> many shows that are only on cable. Judge Judy is on both of the
>> local channels where I am.
>>
>> Cheri
>>
>
> We have never had a satellite system, nor have we've ever wanted one.
> We have had Cox Cable for many years, so many years in fact that Cox
> grandfathered our contract and our monthly fee has not been increased
> for years. In addition, the condo's hoeowner's association pays for
> everyone's basic cable, which reduces our bill to next to nothing,
> including our Internet service. I don't think we pay over $60 per
> month. We don't subscribe to any of the movie or sports channels,
> but we have everything else. We have no complaints. Our area has
> been completely recabled for optical and everything is broadcast in
> HD. I don't think we could ask for more........
>
........except, perhaps, something worth watching:-)

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 06:22:06 -0600, graham > wrote:

>On 2017-04-07 11:24 PM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> On Fri 07 Apr 2017 08:27:02p, Cheri told us...
>>


>>>
>>
>> We have never had a satellite system, nor have we've ever wanted one.
>> We have had Cox Cable for many years, so many years in fact that Cox
>> grandfathered our contract and our monthly fee has not been increased
>> for years. In addition, the condo's hoeowner's association pays for
>> everyone's basic cable, which reduces our bill to next to nothing,
>> including our Internet service. I don't think we pay over $60 per
>> month. We don't subscribe to any of the movie or sports channels,
>> but we have everything else. We have no complaints. Our area has
>> been completely recabled for optical and everything is broadcast in
>> HD. I don't think we could ask for more........
>>
>.......except, perhaps, something worth watching:-)

thats mainly in addition to the bill what made me cut the cable. apart
from severa; pbs and cbc programmes, nada. i also use rabbit ears
(they daintily call them antennae now) and last night because I
couldnt easily reach the remote I watched the tail end of a thing
called survivor. I believe its popular but if thats all there was i
wouldn't even have a tv!

On 4/7/2017 11:27 PM, Cheri wrote:

> I don't enjoy the cable bill either, seems to go up every month. I don't
> have the highest level, but with Directv, the DVR and an extra receiver,
> it's around $130.00 a month. I would be very happy if I could cherry
> pick the channels I want, but that's not happening anytime soon. I think
> there are around 20 channels that the rabbit ears pick up and the
> channels are very clear, but I would never willingly give up cable news,
> weather, sports, and many shows that are only on cable. Judge Judy is on
> both of the local channels where I am.
>
> Cheri

Call them. I called and asked what I had to do to cancel the service.
They gave me a 1 year $40 a month discount.

On 2017-04-08 9:24 AM, wrote:
>
> thats mainly in addition to the bill what made me cut the cable. apart
> from severa; pbs and cbc programmes, nada. i also use rabbit ears
> (they daintily call them antennae now)

Not sure if you are talking the same things. Rabbit ears are a type of
antenna that a small enough to sit on top of a TV set or nearby. They
used to be two extendable rods that would stick out at angles, like
rabbits' ears. Now they have different styles, but they are still
small, indoor antennas. There are other types of antenna for outdoor use.



> and last night because I
> couldnt easily reach the remote I watched the tail end of a thing
> called survivor. I believe its popular but if thats all there was i
> wouldn't even have a tv!

That is one of many "reality" shows that the networks have been running
for years. I can't stand them. The food network seems to be following
the trend by airing a bunch of silly cooking contests, often involving
silly gimmicks and usually having at least one contestant who claims to
be inspired by a friend of family member is terminally ill or recently
deceased.

On 2017-04-08 9:37 AM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Sat 08 Apr 2017 05:22:06a, graham told us...

>
> IMO, since the inception of television, there has always been an
> ebumdance of flotsam and jetsam being broadcast to satisfy the worst of
> taste in the population. However, on both broadcast, cable, and
> satellite television. OTOH, there has always been sufficient high
> quality programming to satisfy those of us with more discerning taste.
> We watch something when we consider it worth watching, otherwise not.
>

57 Channels and nothing on.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAlDbP4tdqc

On 2017-04-08 10:12 AM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Sat 08 Apr 2017 07:03:17a, Dave Smith told us...
>
>> On 2017-04-08 9:37 AM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>> On Sat 08 Apr 2017 05:22:06a, graham told us...
>>
>>>
>>> IMO, since the inception of television, there has always been an
>>> ebumdance of flotsam and jetsam being broadcast to satisfy the
>>> worst of taste in the population. However, on both broadcast,
>>> cable, and satellite television. OTOH, there has always been
>>> sufficient high quality programming to satisfy those of us with
>>> more discerning taste. We watch something when we consider it
>>> worth watching, otherwise not.
>>>
>>
>> 57 Channels and nothing on.....
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAlDbP4tdqc
>>
>
> Yes, I know you were referring to the song, but...
>
> We receive 127 channels, most of which we never watch, but there are a
> handful of channels where we can usually find someting of interest.


I get about 150 channels. Among them are Canadian and American networks
and, with the time shift option, there are duplicates across both
countries. Then there are the regular and HD versions. Many of the
specialty channels just rerun the same programming over and over. PBS
often sucks me in to switching to an interesting show or concert only to
find that it is a begathon. There are many times that I find that, even
with all those stations, there is nothing worth watching.

wrote in message news
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 06:22:06 -0600, graham > wrote:

>On 2017-04-07 11:24 PM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> On Fri 07 Apr 2017 08:27:02p, Cheri told us...
>>


>>>
>>
>> We have never had a satellite system, nor have we've ever wanted one.
>> We have had Cox Cable for many years, so many years in fact that Cox
>> grandfathered our contract and our monthly fee has not been increased
>> for years. In addition, the condo's hoeowner's association pays for
>> everyone's basic cable, which reduces our bill to next to nothing,
>> including our Internet service. I don't think we pay over $60 per
>> month. We don't subscribe to any of the movie or sports channels,
>> but we have everything else. We have no complaints. Our area has
>> been completely recabled for optical and everything is broadcast in
>> HD. I don't think we could ask for more........
>>
>.......except, perhaps, something worth watching:-)

thats mainly in addition to the bill what made me cut the cable. apart
from severa; pbs and cbc programmes, nada. i also use rabbit ears
(they daintily call them antennae now) and last night because I
couldnt easily reach the remote I watched the tail end of a thing
called survivor. I believe its popular but if thats all there was i
wouldn't even have a tv!

===

LOL thanks. I have been wondering what in the world 'Rabbit Ears' were!!!

Now 'antennae' I know!


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On 4/8/2017 9:37 AM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> IMO, since the inception of television, there has always been an
> ebumdance of flotsam and jetsam being broadcast to satisfy the worst of
> taste in the population. However, on both broadcast, cable, and
> satellite television. OTOH, there has always been sufficient high
> quality programming to satisfy those of us with more discerning taste.
> We watch something when we consider it worth watching, otherwise not.
>

I was just discussing TV with my wife yesterday. Thousands of years ago
there was the plotting of the planets and their orbits at different
times of the year. The constellations were known, the ancients built
monuments to the sun at the equinox.

I have to wonder, if TV was available thousands of years ago, would
mankind have observed so many changes in the solar system or would they
be more interested in the latest episode of "Days of Our Lives"?

There are many good shows that enhance our lives, but there is a much
bigger sarving of crap on every night.

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 09:59:52 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2017-04-08 9:24 AM, wrote:
>>
>> thats mainly in addition to the bill what made me cut the cable. apart
>> from severa; pbs and cbc programmes, nada. i also use rabbit ears
>> (they daintily call them antennae now)
>
>Not sure if you are talking the same things. Rabbit ears are a type of
>antenna that a small enough to sit on top of a TV set or nearby. They
>used to be two extendable rods that would stick out at angles, like
>rabbits' ears. Now they have different styles, but they are still
>small, indoor antennas. There are other types of antenna for outdoor use.
>
yes thats what i have
>
>> and last night because I
>> couldnt easily reach the remote I watched the tail end of a thing
>> called survivor. I believe its popular but if thats all there was i
>> wouldn't even have a tv!
>
>That is one of many "reality" shows that the networks have been running
>for years. I can't stand them. The food network seems to be following
>the trend by airing a bunch of silly cooking contests, often involving
>silly gimmicks and usually having at least one contestant who claims to
>be inspired by a friend of family member is terminally ill or recently
>deceased.
>

The Greatest! expressed precisely :
> dwarf with rabbit ears:
>
> http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/...82_634x642.jpg
>

Hog with sheboon:

https://postimg.cc/image/addur1fn9/

On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 20:27:02 -0700, "Cheri" >
wrote:

> wrote in message
>news
>> On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:19:25 -0700, "Cheri" >
>> wrote:
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I received a letter from my satellite TV company the other day about
>>>>> how
>>>>> I need to upgrade my receiver because they are making some changes and
>>>>> after June one of my old ones would not work anymore.
>>>>
>>>> Define "receiver", wouldn't that be your TV set? A satellite dish
>>>> receives a signal but it's a transmitter for your TV set. How old is
>>>> your TV set... probably a 1952 Dumont! You'd do well to use rabbit
>>>> ears. LOL
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I have rabbit ears connected to my tv as well as Directv. The rabbit ears
>>>get all the local channels with great reception simply by switching to tv
>>>on
>>>the remote.
>>>
>>>Cheri
>>
>> Rabbit ears get the few local local channels here too but they don't
>> get the more distant chanels that I prefer to watch... I really don't
>> need the local channels as I can watch those on line or read the local
>> news on line. I won't say I enjoy my cable bill but I will admit that
>> I enjoy several cable programs and I like the high def too. I also
>> like that with cable I can set it to record shows when I'm busy or
>> asleep. I subscribe to the minimal cable channels but that still lets
>> me see a lot of shows I can't see with rabbit ears like foodtv or even
>> Judge Judy. I don't mind paying the extra $40/month for cable, my TV
>> is never off, I sleep with my TV on all night so I get my money's
>> worth.
>
>I don't enjoy the cable bill either, seems to go up every month. I don't
>have the highest level, but with Directv, the DVR and an extra receiver,
>it's around $130.00 a month. I would be very happy if I could cherry pick
>the channels I want, but that's not happening anytime soon. I think there
>are around 20 channels that the rabbit ears pick up and the channels are
>very clear, but I would never willingly give up cable news, weather, sports,
>and many shows that are only on cable. Judge Judy is on both of the local
>channels where I am.
>
>Cheri

The cable bill here is $144, but we pay a few dollars extra for the
three boxes for three TVs and it costs extra for HiDef. The bill used
to be twice that until we cut out HBO, SHO, and other premium
channels. Judge Judy is on two local channels here too but only airs
one or two episodes a day and only on week days. One cable channel
has Judge Judy and a bunch of other soapy court shows going 24/7,
however most I don't like, their cases are too far fetched and the
judges too hard on the eyes, like creepy Hatshit.

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

>Cheri wrote:
>>penmart01 wrote:
>>>Cheri wrote:
>>>>penmart01 wrote:
>>>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I received a letter from my satellite TV company the other day
>>>>>> about how I need to upgrade my receiver because they are
>>>>>> making some changes and after June one of my old ones would
>>>>>> not work anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>> Define "receiver", wouldn't that be your TV set? A satellite
>>>>> dish receives a signal but it's a transmitter for your TV set.
>>>>> How old is your TV set... probably a 1952 Dumont! You'd do
>>>>> well to use rabbit ears. LOL
>>>>
>>>>I have rabbit ears connected to my tv as well as Directv. The
>>>>rabbit ears get all the local channels with great reception
>>>>simply by switching to tv on the remote.
>>>>
>>>>Cheri
>>>
>>> Rabbit ears get the few local local channels here too but they
>>> don't get the more distant chanels that I prefer to watch... I
>>> really don't need the local channels as I can watch those on line
>>> or read the local news on line. I won't say I enjoy my cable
>>> bill but I will admit that I enjoy several cable programs and I
>>> like the high def too. I also like that with cable I can set it
>>> to record shows when I'm busy or asleep. I subscribe to the
>>> minimal cable channels but that still lets me see a lot of shows
>>> I can't see with rabbit ears like foodtv or even Judge Judy. I
>>> don't mind paying the extra $40/month for cable, my TV is never
>>> off, I sleep with my TV on all night so I get my money's worth.
>>
>> I don't enjoy the cable bill either, seems to go up every month. I
>> don't have the highest level, but with Directv, the DVR and an
>> extra receiver, it's around $130.00 a month. I would be very happy
>> if I could cherry pick the channels I want, but that's not
>> happening anytime soon. I think there are around 20 channels that
>> the rabbit ears pick up and the channels are very clear, but I
>> would never willingly give up cable news, weather, sports, and
>> many shows that are only on cable. Judge Judy is on both of the
>> local channels where I am.
>>
>> Cheri
>
>We have had Cox Cable for many years.

How would you live without your Cox? LOL

> wrote in message
...
> On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 12:52:22 AM UTC-5, Cheri wrote:
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 8:19:55 PM UTC-5, Cheri wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I have rabbit ears connected to my tv as well as Directv. The rabbit
>> >> ears
>> >> get all the local channels with great reception simply by switching to
>> >> tv
>> >> on
>> >> the remote.
>> >>
>> >> Cheri
>> >>
>> >>
>> > I get all my local channels with DirecTV with no rabbit ears or
>> > outside antenna. All I have is the satellite dish on the roof.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Are you in the Sacramento area of CA? Comcast, Dish, and Directv do not
>> carry all the off network local stations where I am.
>>
>> Cheri
>>
>>
> No, I'm in middle Tennessee. That's a shame they don't carry
> all the network channels as they do here although many aren't
> worth watching to me.

Yes, it is a shame. I do get the some local channels with DTV, but not when
the channels go up, like I get 3 (NBC) but I don't get 3-1, 3-2, 3-3 for
instance which are different channels which carry different programming than
(NBC) and so on with the others. I have to use rabbit ears for those. Lucky
you.

Cheri

"Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
9.44...
> On Sat 08 Apr 2017 05:22:06a, graham told us...
>
>> On 2017-04-07 11:24 PM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>> On Fri 07 Apr 2017 08:27:02p, Cheri told us...
>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> news >>>>> On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:19:25 -0700, "Cheri"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I received a letter from my satellite TV company the other
>>>>>>>> day about how I need to upgrade my receiver because they are
>>>>>>>> making some changes and after June one of my old ones would
>>>>>>>> not work anymore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Define "receiver", wouldn't that be your TV set? A satellite
>>>>>>> dish receives a signal but it's a transmitter for your TV
>>>>>>> set. How old is your TV set... probably a 1952 Dumont! You'd
>>>>>>> do well to use rabbit ears. LOL
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have rabbit ears connected to my tv as well as Directv. The
>>>>>> rabbit ears get all the local channels with great reception
>>>>>> simply by switching to tv on the remote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheri
>>>>>
>>>>> Rabbit ears get the few local local channels here too but they
>>>>> don't get the more distant chanels that I prefer to watch... I
>>>>> really don't need the local channels as I can watch those on
>>>>> line or read the local news on line. I won't say I enjoy my
>>>>> cable bill but I will admit that I enjoy several cable programs
>>>>> and I like the high def too. I also like that with cable I can
>>>>> set it to record shows when I'm busy or asleep. I subscribe to
>>>>> the minimal cable channels but that still lets me see a lot of
>>>>> shows I can't see with rabbit ears like foodtv or even Judge
>>>>> Judy. I don't mind paying the extra $40/month for cable, my TV
>>>>> is never off, I sleep with my TV on all night so I get my
>>>>> money's worth.
>>>>
>>>> I don't enjoy the cable bill either, seems to go up every month.
>>>> I don't have the highest level, but with Directv, the DVR and an
>>>> extra receiver, it's around $130.00 a month. I would be very
>>>> happy if I could cherry pick the channels I want, but that's not
>>>> happening anytime soon. I think there are around 20 channels
>>>> that the rabbit ears pick up and the channels are very clear,
>>>> but I would never willingly give up cable news, weather, sports,
>>>> and many shows that are only on cable. Judge Judy is on both of
>>>> the local channels where I am.
>>>>
>>>> Cheri
>>>>
>>>
>>> We have never had a satellite system, nor have we've ever wanted
>>> one. We have had Cox Cable for many years, so many years in fact
>>> that Cox grandfathered our contract and our monthly fee has not
>>> been increased for years. In addition, the condo's hoeowner's
>>> association pays for everyone's basic cable, which reduces our
>>> bill to next to nothing, including our Internet service. I don't
>>> think we pay over $60 per month. We don't subscribe to any of
>>> the movie or sports channels, but we have everything else. We
>>> have no complaints. Our area has been completely recabled for
>>> optical and everything is broadcast in HD. I don't think we
>>> could ask for more........
>>>
>> .......except, perhaps, something worth watching:-)
>>
>
> IMO, since the inception of television, there has always been an
> ebumdance of flotsam and jetsam being broadcast to satisfy the worst of
> taste in the population. However, on both broadcast, cable, and
> satellite television. OTOH, there has always been sufficient high
> quality programming to satisfy those of us with more discerning taste.
> We watch something when we consider it worth watching, otherwise not.

Yes, and I do wish they would let us cherry pick the channels we want and
pay accordingly.

Cheri

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/7/2017 11:27 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
>> I don't enjoy the cable bill either, seems to go up every month. I don't
>> have the highest level, but with Directv, the DVR and an extra receiver,
>> it's around $130.00 a month. I would be very happy if I could cherry pick
>> the channels I want, but that's not happening anytime soon. I think there
>> are around 20 channels that the rabbit ears pick up and the channels are
>> very clear, but I would never willingly give up cable news, weather,
>> sports, and many shows that are only on cable. Judge Judy is on both of
>> the local channels where I am.
>>
>> Cheri
>
> Call them. I called and asked what I had to do to cancel the service.
> They gave me a 1 year $40 a month discount.


Yes, but I am locked into 2 years now since dumping Comcast for my internet,
and bundling with AT&T/Directv. I have one year down, and one to go. Comcast
was charging me 80.00 a month for internet only, and AT&T is charging me
30.00 for 2 years. I have had Directv for several years, and when it comes
up, I will haggle with them.

Cheri

> wrote in message
...

> The cable bill here is $144, but we pay a few dollars extra for the
> three boxes for three TVs and it costs extra for HiDef. The bill used
> to be twice that until we cut out HBO, SHO, and other premium
> channels. Judge Judy is on two local channels here too but only airs
> one or two episodes a day and only on week days. One cable channel
> has Judge Judy and a bunch of other soapy court shows going 24/7,
> however most I don't like, their cases are too far fetched and the
> judges too hard on the eyes, like creepy Hatshit.


Yes, I believe Directv charges 7.00 per month for the extra box which I did
remove since nobody ever watched satellite tv in the bedroom, so I just have
an extra box for one, plus the DVR. We don't really go out much anymore so I
figure it's cheap entertainment when you get right down to it. I also have
Directv extra innings to watch the Yankees nearly every day.

Cheri

Cheri

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 11:33:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 4/8/2017 9:37 AM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
>> IMO, since the inception of television, there has always been an
>> ebumdance of flotsam and jetsam being broadcast to satisfy the worst of
>> taste in the population. However, on both broadcast, cable, and
>> satellite television. OTOH, there has always been sufficient high
>> quality programming to satisfy those of us with more discerning taste.
>> We watch something when we consider it worth watching, otherwise not.
>>
>
>I was just discussing TV with my wife yesterday. Thousands of years ago
>there was the plotting of the planets and their orbits at different
>times of the year. The constellations were known, the ancients built
>monuments to the sun at the equinox.
>
>I have to wonder, if TV was available thousands of years ago, would
>mankind have observed so many changes in the solar system or would they
>be more interested in the latest episode of "Days of Our Lives"?
>
>There are many good shows that enhance our lives, but there is a much
>bigger sarving of crap on every night.

I've no problem because I can only watch one program at a time... a
handful of decent stations works for me so I tape/DVR the ones I want
to watch later. My wife and I watch mostly different programs, she
likes weird SciFi, faux survival, golf, gold mining in Alaska, and
soap opera type romance shows, I prefer Nat Geo, any animal/gardening
programs, some foodtv, and boxing. We both watch local news and cable
news. We used to enjoy late night comedy shows but without Leno we
don't bother, the newbies are awful... Conan used to be funny but now
he sucks. Years ago I watched a lot more TV, back when there was
Jackie Gleason (the Real Great One), Archie Bunker, Bonanza... I think
TV was much more entertaining in the days before color. I don't like
any of today's hollywood types, no one knows to sing anymore, rap is
disgusting trash, and what they pass off as attractive makes a baboon
a beauty star... there are no more pinups I'd want in my locker, not a
one. Compared to Lana Turner Melania Trump is a dog... I don't find
Melania attractive at all, she's no Sofia Loren. The Donald is a nice
NYC guy (for Queens) but he needs to make an appointment with a
Brooklyn Optomologist, he marries some ugli women.

On 4/8/2017 6:36 PM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:

>> Yes, and I do wish they would let us cherry pick the channels we
>> want and pay accordingly.
>>
>> Cheri
>>
>>
>
> I wish we could cherry pick the channels we want, too. I don't even
> like to have to scroll through so many to find a chnnel I like but
> don't always remember.
>

Talk to your congress person about channel selection. They want access
for everyone. Can you make a custom channel list? We eliminated most
that way.