I guess my issue with the cable companies is with their marketing. They run commercials talking about how satellite goes out in bad weather, how expensive it is, etc but in my opinion, without the competition from satellite and a huge number of us dropping cable in favor of satellite over the years, we'd likely still be watching TV with 260 lines-of-resolution and 50 channels.
I agree they have come a long way but in truth, they slowed satellite subscription dramatically when they lobbied for (and won) the mandatory inclusion of LOCAL channels over satellite if they were to carry any network TV. In the good old days (late 90's), you could get all the network feeds (east and west) from DirecTV, it was sweet! Along comes cable, they can't compete so they ruin it for satellite and their subscribers, I guess all is fair in love, war and business. Truth is without that decision, we could all be watching full-time, every channel in HD via satellite because bandwidth wouldn't be an issue (even with only 2 or 3 satellite's in orbit). I hate cable for many reasons but this one is my biggest, they couldn't compete so they lobbied the FCC and ruined the original idea of satellite and getting a feed from anywhere, no matter the source or content.
Cable companies are worried about the infrastructure, they want to protect their investment. TV, networking and other broadband technologies can be piped into your house so many ways but all require you to in effect "lease" the connection and rely on someone maintaining the copper or fiber. Satellite comes over the air, it's the closest we can ever come to "owning" the infrastructure (move to a new house, point your dish and BAM, Digital Dolby 5.1 and a perfectly clear picture)... Call the cable company, you might get them to meet you between 8:00 and 12:00 in 2 weeks...
