[redtyler1]

If you had a choice, which would you go with for HD signals? I've never really considered satellite before and wanted some opinions from folks on here. I suppose there are people solidly in either camp, but I wondered if the myths about satellite tv were true: crumby signal during rain, snow, and thunderstorms, fewer channels, more expensive.


Any advice would be appreciated. I certainly realize that there may be service differences among vendors in each camp (Comcast, Cox, Charter, etc.) and (DirecTV and Dish). So, any thoughts? Is there somewhere else on this forum that I should be looking?


Thanks folks!

 

[longrider]

The honest answer to this is it depends on the cable system in your area. A good cable system will be better than sat (and this is coming from a D* user) however my experience with cable has been less than good. Rain fade is really not a big issue, for reference I have used D* for background music at work for over 6 years, this is 10 hours a day 6 days a week and I can count on one hand the number of times the signal fades in a year. At home I could probably count on both hands the number of times I have had signal fade while I was watching in the past 10 years.


Price is obviously dependent on your area, in my area D* was a better deal than cable (Comcast)

 

[OrleansDawg]

I had Cox for 3 years down here and was tired of them


I got DirecTV 2-3 months ago. Am very happy


Does it go out everytime it rains, snows, ext..? No...during hard storms? Yes...but not for long.


HD quality is fine for me though some say it sucks...I think it is 5x better than what Cox gave me.


It depends on where you are...some Cable companies and cities are better than others.


I think D* has a great future for the end of '07 with their future new HD channels that will be added

 

[coyoteaz]

DirecTV if you want NFL ST, Dish if you want the most HD (for now), cable if you don't have the cash to pay all the upfront costs for satellite or if they carry local HD channels not available on satellite that you can't get OTA (PBS, CW, MNTV, independents, some RSNs). Right now, I would stick with cable because there are no upfront costs and no contracts. Once D* gets their new satellites up and all those new channels launch, a decision can be made at that time as to which has the best lineup.

 

[uabcar]

I've got both TWC and Dish HD (bronze package). I've got cable all over the house- connected to 7 non-HD tvs. In my HT, I have the TWC HD Box/package and just got Dish a couple months ago. Now that I have Dish, I bet I only watch HD cable 15-20% of the time. The other 80+% of my HD viewing (excluding movies) is via Dish. In my area, Dish offers way more programing. I've not yet run into a situation where my signal has been lost- but note that my HT use is limited to weekends and some weekday evenings.

 

[redtyler1]

Thanks for the input, it seems like it is really dependent on what the quality of cable is in the area. I guess, for folks in rural areas, or places where HD cable is not available, then satellite is the obvious way to go.


As a side note, I know that SD programming on flat screens depends on a number of factors (display, viewing distance, signal, etc.) but for those with satellite, is the SD signal watchable on your setup?


Thanks again, ya'll are really helpful!

 

[Nmlobo]

Satellite vs cable will also depend upon how much of a purist you are and your local cable/FIOS system. Satellite systems are known to send HD-Lite (1280x1080) vs. the full 1920x1080 resolution. In my area, Cox sends what they receive from their feeds - I get 1920x1080. I am fairly sure FIOS does the same.