Satellite Doesn’t Seem Cheaper Than Cable

twc So recently, there’s been a lot of conversation locally about Time Warner’s service with HD. I totally agree after their entire screw up with Navigator firmware and having slowed down much of any sort of television watching. In fact, it’s annoyed me enough to begin again looking at their competition.

Around here, much of the HD signal would be between satellite or cable. But strangely enough, if it’s not any cheaper to switch, then the hassle isn’t worth it. I’ve been told that it’s cheaper for satellite time and again by those on satellite, but when I go look at the total pricing, I must be missing something. For the same pricing of my cable which runs without fees around the sixty dollar range will cost with the lowest satellite competition as seventy dollars, and the the other provider as over seventy dollars per month.

Now from from a price point perspective, I don’t see what the value is when this is a utility that you use for entertainment sake to pay more regardless of the first year loss leader subscription sign up. If you base it completely on regular price (which you will eventually pay), it’s not worth the switch for the same channels that you watch unless you subscribe to movie packages that might be cost less in the long run. I did this based on the mathematics a year ago and came to the same conclusion that I would be paying more per month just to watch same HD channels.

Granted, I’m still annoyed with Time Warner’s slow as molasses Navigator that makes channel surfing a nightmare, but I’m still waiting for something better. Now if Dish Network or DirectTV had a monthly charge of sixty or less, I’d be there in a heartbeat. Too bad, eh?