Nigel Goodwin answered me with:
     <SNIP> As for expecting cable in rural areas, the situation as I see
     it is exactly the opposite - the cable companies are only interested
     in cabling areas with large population densities.

This is true today, but in the early days of cable it was expected to be of
commercial value only in rural, poor signal areas. No-one anticipated that
cable would be used to bring 50+ channels to an area that already received
8-10 off-the-air channels clearly. It was instead expected to bring those
8-10 channels to the outlying regions.

The other thing that has shifted the equation is the emergence of satellite
TV. As you state, it is no-longer cost effective to cable the outlying
regions when for a lower cost per house each home can install a satellite
dish (especially the new small dishes). But early on, when satellite
reception didn't exist, or was in its infancy, you either paid for cable in
the fringe areas, or you didn't get TV at all. I remember when I was about
15 or 16 (that is, 25 years ago), when I visited a small shipbuilding and
skiing town in central Ontario, Collingwood, they received one station with
an aerial fairly well, and one atrociously. Most people who could afford it
subscribed to cable.

Things have changed a great deal in 25 years.


CIAO - Martin.