Where I'm coming from: I was a happy viewer of OTA DTV a year ago in the Greenlake area, and now I've moved to Ravenna, just off of Roosevelt, a multipath circus. Because of this, I've grudgingly been forced to go the way of Comcast, who is only recently emerging from the dark ages on the HD front. Every encounter I've had with them regarding HDTV has me shaking my head in disbelief--they are truly dealing with technology that they themselves do not understand--this frustrates me to no end. As a result, I have very little patience for their hijinks.
I don't see how this is "sneaky". For many (most?) of us here in the hilly Seattle region, OTA HD is not an option. For us, their statement is very definitely true and very relevant - anything but "sneaky".
I see your point--I guess my point is that you and I (and probably a good portion of the contributors of this forum understand what Comcast's statement means. However, I think that it can be easily misunderstood.
The problem I have with this statement is that it is not that it's true, but that it's misleading. The layman will read this and think that if they had to choose between lets say, DirecTV and Comcast, local geography notwithstanding (let's assume this prospective consumer would have no issues with receiving OTA locals), that if they chose DirecTV, they would not be able to view Monday Night Football in HDTV, which couldn't be farther from the truth.
Additionally, although I'm ecstatic that Comcast is beginning to carry HD, they are the young'uns in this arena. They've dragged their feet (especially in the Seattle region) for too long to start taking misleading shots at the satellite market (although we'd expect them to do this), especially when you consider DirecTV's long-standing exceptional committment to providing a great HD package. It just reminds me of a cheesy political campaign.