[Moneyguy1]

Satellite is NOT a direct (no pun intended) alternative to cable. No direct comparison is possible, claims by both to the contrary. I just got finished reneogiation a cable contract for a municipality. Sticking point was public access channels. No questions about rates could be addressed because of the lack of governmental oversight, so the contract negotiations were adtually quite basic. Cable is regulated at only the lowest level. The FCC gets all apologetic that they cannot do more to regulate service and cost, but you can blame Congress for allowing cable to run rampant. Your utilities have to justify increaases; your phone company as well. Beyond basic basic, with cable the sky is the limit and the sheeple simply pay the going rate, addicted as they are to the multiple offerings. There are some possible alternatives being tested, one being the transmission of television signals over existing power lines, requiring no additional wiring in the user's house. It would be a cross between cable and satellite.

When you think about it, satellite eliminates the "middleman";i.e. the cable company which simply receives the same signals from the same satellites and distributes over hard wiring systems. Seems to me a bit backward!!