I take exception to attempts to villainize Armstrong Cable in the flap between Armstrong and the Big Ten.
The vast majority of Armstrong’s basic cable subscribers want to keep the cost as low as their budget allows. There are certain broadcast services available in addition to “basic” that I want to see, and that I pay extra for. To me, it’s worth it.
If I wanted BTN, I’d certainly be willing to pay for it. Armstrong could and would certainly make BTN available in a “plus” package. Mr. Silverman’s allegation that “agreeing to Armstrong’s terms would cause the network’s agreements with other cable subscribers to fall apart” makes no sense at all, and as Judge Judy says, “If it doesn’t make sense, then it’s not true.” It looks like posturing malarkey to me.
My household has subscribed to Armstrong cable TV since the 1970s, and we have subscribed to certain, but not all, of the “expanded” TV coverage. We use Armstrong for our internet service, and for our telephone landline service. We’ve been happy customers throughout.
R.C.Beck, Mineral Ridge