Gadgettes Lounge forum: Molly, Comcast HD lineup sucks

Jason,

You know, this channel lineup from DirecTV really shows just how pathetic Comcast's HD lineup really is. It makes me want to switch. Unfortunately, I'm in an apartment and don't have adequate or clear sky access to any facilities facing the right direction to place the dish. Of course, the apartment won't help me with this issue. So, I'm stuck with Comcast unless I move. For some reason, Comcast seems to be pulling the wool over people's eyes about just how spectacular their HD video cable lineup is. In fact, it's pretty darned bad (9 actual HD cable channels?) when compared to competitors like DirecTV with 100+ channels?

Thanks for the info and the show!

Bob said,

==I took a look and you don't appear to hold the rights to the content and therefore no rights to collect money.

I'm sorry, but what is this rant about? To which content do we refer? Please be more clear when you post.

As far as my original post to which it appears you replied, I wasn't selling anything. I was stating that A) Comcast's HD lineup sucks and that B) an HD TV series was available. If you found that discussion about Sanctuary For All to be 'salesy', you misinterpreted the post. In fact, if you read just a bit more closely, you'll find I was griping about the prices of the episodes being too high, not trying to sell the content. Duh!

Note that $2.49 for 17 minutes of content translates to costing the equivalent of $120-150 for a full DVD set sized season of Sanctuary For All. Consider that most other TV shows on DVD cost, say around $32-40 for a full season. Then, the $120-$150 for SFA ends up just a bit over the top wouldn't you say? Granted, it is in HD, but that doesn't warrant 4x the cost. If that looks like a sales pitch, you must end up buying lots of things you don't need.

Bob,

I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say. However, I do know this. There is no content that I've posted here on this forum (or any other public forum) that wasn't already public information. None of the content that I've posted here is owned by the RIAA or the MPAA. In fact, I've found no content, at least yet, posted to any of these CNET forums that contain copyrighted materials governed by the RIAA or the MPAA. I'm also quite sure that should anyone post copyrighted materials governed by either of these organizations, to the CNET forums, that the CNET moderators would take it down immediately.

I can't speak for other people, but I would never post copyrighted materials governed by the MPAA or RIAA to any public forum, let alone CNET forums. I'm also quite sure it violates CNET's terms for using these forums.

FYI, the RIAA governs materials recorded as audio (specifically by certain very large record labels). The MPAA governs materials recorded as a motion picture (again, by specific very large motion picture companies). As I said, I've not posted any audio nor video content to these or any other forums. So, it sounds to me like you're rather lost or I'm lost as to what prompted this thread.

But... Yes, I agree that if you do post content you don't own, or more specifically, content that is governed by the MPAA and/or the RIAA you will very likely get in trouble with them. For example, posting videos to YouTube that contain copyrighted MPAA or RIAA governed materials... not a good idea.

If you're commenting on a specific podcast where Molly has discussed these organizations, it might be more helpful to include the podcast number to which you are commenting.