ATMC Cable throws in CNBC HD / Bravo HD, makes the big guys look bad
by Darren Murph 
posted Jul 21st 2008 at 4:35AM
Seriously, this is out of control. If a local telco serving just a (comparative) handful of residents in North Carolina can deliver thirty-flippin'-four high-def channels, why are the big name cable carriers having such difficulty? With the addition of CNBC HD and Bravo HD, the grand total on said provider sits at 34, and considering the frequency in which it has been adding newcomers, we wouldn't be surprised to see that figure grow to 50 in the next year. Comcast, Charter, Cablevision, TWC, et al. -- take note, please.
Filed under: Cable, New content
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Maanfi24 @ Jul 21st 2008 10:12AM
You need to check out Sunflower Broadband in Kansas. They're already at 50+ and growing.
Randall Lind @ Jul 21st 2008 10:58AM
TWC/BrightHouse Networks always the last around here in Tampabay to get any new channel.
No name cable company get channels faster the BHN in my area. Living in an apartment I don't have a choice but to stick with BHN.
cypherstream @ Jul 21st 2008 4:41PM
The little providers usually trump the big guys. I'm stuck with Comcast, but there's another small provider within a mile of my house called Service Electric Cablevision. They have 40 HD channels right now with 20 more coming this summer. Comcast here only has 30. Service Electric has always had more then Comcast. Funny considering with how much more expensive Comcast is, you would think they would have more money to spend on upgrading HD capacity.
Jean @ Jul 22nd 2008 6:54AM
Honestly, this means nothing to me. I need to know what the compression rates are. carrying HD channels isnt anything special if they look like ass. cable providers are focused on Docsis 3.0 and waiting to see what happens with SDV before they really launch more. Cable companies make more money on their internet/phone products than they do on cable. so its not their main priority.