Ah, well... it is what it is. I had it a few months ago and took it back; it was not impressive. Now of course the local company has about 65 new channels on it. I think the problem here is BS Marketing. They keep trying to tell us that it is something special, when really it is their only solution to the restricted bandwidth delivery issue over regular cable, and their only defense against the superior capabilities of satellite.

I guess they feel they can't just come out and tell us: "Look, we can't squeeze any more channels into what you've got; and we can't afford to offer all this new infrastructure without charging for it. So, if you spend twice the money you'll get twice the channels, and some of 'em will look better, and some of 'em will sound better."

That would be bad corporate practice: as soon as they say the phrase "can't afford" they open themselves up to all kinds of attacks. And since profit is always the aim for shareholders, we the public will never benefit without paying more (unless you own some of those stocks...).

I wonder, though: pretty much the entire business world runs on the Profit Principle; some companies are militant about it because they can get away with it (read MicroSoft), but they all do it. And we can do away with a lot of stress in our lives if we just accept that this is the way of the world today. On the other hand, are we slowing down the progress of this "killer takes all" methodology by griping all the time, and so should we continue to gripe? Or are we just adding to our own suffering and accomplishing nothing? Now there's a scientific research project that would have some meaning in MY life... ... Mike