Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ken0042
Did you think it was going to be free forever? Or would it be better to make everybody pay an increased price for cable, so that the people getting HD wouldn't be the only ones paying more?
|
Well, seeing as how my cable bill has gone up steadily far above inflation since I started paying for it in 1991, I'd say that I've been paying more than a reasonable fee for a very long time.
Quote:
|
Or would it have been better for Shaw to have started charging a fee when they only had 3 HD channels available?
|
I don't know. Do you?
Quote:
|
Most companies make the early adopters pay dearly for the new technology. Instead Shaw offered it for free until it was a valuable enough package to justify charging money for.
|
We
did pay dearly for it. That damned box costs $700.
Quote:
|
Just because Shaw paid your brother as well as FS a spiff for selling them doesn't mean that Shaw is making money on them.
|
Suffice it to say, it is common knowledge among electronics salesmen what the profit margin Shaw has on the boxes. They have to; at the very least they have to let Shaw cover their cost on the box when they're sold.
Quote:
|
The main reason Shaw doesn't allow non-Shaw boxes to be added is they have a reciprical agreement in place with other cable companies to not activate each other's boxes on their networks; so that Comcast doesn't end up subsidizing a Shaw customer.
|
Sorry, but what does Comcast have to do with any of this?
Quote:
|
I guess for me I always felt justified in paying $10 for HD programming even though up until a month ago my Tv wasn't even HD. The improved picture on my SD TV as well as the 5.1 sound were enough for me. Now that I have a true HDTV, I can't imagine not spending money to feed it quality signals.
|
Well that's fine and dandy. It's also fine and dandy that I don't have to pay $9/month. Last time I looked it was my choice where to spend my money.