If you're like most TV viewers, you probably watch only a fraction of the channels available to you. When Consumer Reports conducted nationally representative surveys of more than 1,750 cable- and satellite-television subscribers this summer, satellite customers reported watching about 15 channels in a typical week, even though they received well in excess of 100. For digital-cable subscribers, the numbers were similar. Analog-cable subscribers got more than 50 channels on average, but watched only 11.
So which is the best service to buy, considering you'll likely watch far less than you pay for? The magazine's survey respondents rated satellite tops in overall satisfaction, followed by digital cable, then analog. Satellite scored significantly higher than digital cable among respondents in measures of picture quality, sound quality and value. Results showed the two did not differ sharply when it came to selection of channels and interesting programming.
Analog cable trailed in all measures but value, where it scored on a par with digital.
Overall-satisfaction scores from this year's survey approximated those from a poll in 2003, and showed that digital cable has retained the gains against satellite it has made since 2001. CR expects digital cable will close the gap even further in the future, driven in part by two features in which it holds a clear advantage:
High-speed Internet access. Most cable companies offer high-speed Internet access for $40 to $50 a month — perhaps less, if you also subscribe to the provider's TV service. The other primary broadband service is DSL, high-speed access over telephone lines. The satellite services have partnered with phone companies to provide DSL for about $30 to $45 a month. (Again, it might be less if you order it with satellite TV.)
In a separate survey of Consumer Reports subscribers, cable broadband scored higher for speed and reliability than DSL. And both options beat the main company that offers Internet access via satellite, which costs about $600 for equipment and $60 a month.
Low-cost HD reception, recording. To get high-definition (HD) via cable, you must subscribe to digital cable and rent an HD-capable cable box or CableCard for each HDTV. With some providers, you get both standard-definition and HD versions of the channels in your digital cable-package at no extra charge. Other cable companies charge a few dollars a month for HD. With satellite, you need an HD receiver, and you might need to modify your dish or add a second one to receive HD channels. That setup can run hundreds of dollars unless you get a reduced-cost promotional offer from the satellite provider. Plus, you'll need to buy an HD programming package, which costs about $10 a month.
Of course, your decision whether to go with cable or satellite may have been made for you, based on where you live. Satellite TV from the two major carriers, DirecTV and Dish Network, is available nationwide to households with an unobstructed view of the southern horizon. (You won't be able to get service if tall buildings, trees, or mountains block the signals beamed by the satellites.)
Cable, meanwhile, is available in most parts of the country, but about 30 percent of the satellite subscribers surveyed — mostly living in rural areas — said the service wasn't an option for them.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/makeitcount/2002589852_consumerreports30.html?syndication=rss
So which is the best service to buy, considering you'll likely watch far less than you pay for? The magazine's survey respondents rated satellite tops in overall satisfaction, followed by digital cable, then analog. Satellite scored significantly higher than digital cable among respondents in measures of picture quality, sound quality and value. Results showed the two did not differ sharply when it came to selection of channels and interesting programming.
Analog cable trailed in all measures but value, where it scored on a par with digital.
Overall-satisfaction scores from this year's survey approximated those from a poll in 2003, and showed that digital cable has retained the gains against satellite it has made since 2001. CR expects digital cable will close the gap even further in the future, driven in part by two features in which it holds a clear advantage:
High-speed Internet access. Most cable companies offer high-speed Internet access for $40 to $50 a month — perhaps less, if you also subscribe to the provider's TV service. The other primary broadband service is DSL, high-speed access over telephone lines. The satellite services have partnered with phone companies to provide DSL for about $30 to $45 a month. (Again, it might be less if you order it with satellite TV.)
In a separate survey of Consumer Reports subscribers, cable broadband scored higher for speed and reliability than DSL. And both options beat the main company that offers Internet access via satellite, which costs about $600 for equipment and $60 a month.
Low-cost HD reception, recording. To get high-definition (HD) via cable, you must subscribe to digital cable and rent an HD-capable cable box or CableCard for each HDTV. With some providers, you get both standard-definition and HD versions of the channels in your digital cable-package at no extra charge. Other cable companies charge a few dollars a month for HD. With satellite, you need an HD receiver, and you might need to modify your dish or add a second one to receive HD channels. That setup can run hundreds of dollars unless you get a reduced-cost promotional offer from the satellite provider. Plus, you'll need to buy an HD programming package, which costs about $10 a month.
Of course, your decision whether to go with cable or satellite may have been made for you, based on where you live. Satellite TV from the two major carriers, DirecTV and Dish Network, is available nationwide to households with an unobstructed view of the southern horizon. (You won't be able to get service if tall buildings, trees, or mountains block the signals beamed by the satellites.)
Cable, meanwhile, is available in most parts of the country, but about 30 percent of the satellite subscribers surveyed — mostly living in rural areas — said the service wasn't an option for them.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/makeitcount/2002589852_consumerreports30.html?syndication=rss
