Quote:
Originally Posted by radotvguy
I guess its just preference of who wants and needs cable . If you could live without it and get a few descent channels with a roof antenna and converter box then you will be saving a nice sum of money every year . Having cable tv is a luxury .
|
I live in an apartment building in an area of Ohio where indoor TV antennas do not work well, and outdoor ones are not allowed. Cable is not a luxury where I am; in fact, not having cable in this area (if you want decent television reception) is not an option. Here, you either have cable or satellite or you do not get more than one channel good enough to watch (analog). Digital? Given the all-or-nothing nature of DTV, I have to say that it probably (even likely) won't work here either without cable. The cable works very well 99.9 percent of the time; I get wonderful reception from all seven Cleveland stations, but it sometimes goes haywire for no reason at all. I had no picture on one cable channel for the longest time, then when it came back on, it was a jumbled mess. Pictures sometimes freeze and break up for no reason as well. This sort of thing never happened when the cable in this area was all analog, twenty-odd years ago; the cable system here converted to 100-percent digital early this year, which is when all this intermittent trouble started.) If this is how our cable service looks now (all Cleveland TV stations will be transmitting analog and digital signals until June 12), I hate to think what a mess the broadcast channels may be when the analog ones leave the air.
Bare-bones basic cable (local channels only) is the lowest level of service my area's cable operator (Time Warner) offers. In this area it costs $11.97 a month, although in another city about 60 miles south of here it is only $6.61. I don't know why there should be such a difference in rates between two areas over 50 miles apart. Hmmm.
