IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA |
DirecTV subscribersThey should recognize DirecTV as a valid cable subscription. I kicked Comcast to the curb for TV and would gladly do so for internet if FiOS was available here. |
|
clone (banned) join:2000-12-11 Portage, IN
1 recommendation |
to ISurfTooMuch
Re: So?No, it isn't.
First, you can't compare tangibles to a service. It just doesn't work that way. But if you're going to do so, it would be something like the supermarket charging $150 a month for a "grocery service". You can come in as many times as you'd like and pick whichever items you need. If you want access to the beer or cigarettes, you have to pay per use (like pay per view), and there are premium channels like steaks, seafood, or bulk products that you have to pay an extra monthly fee for.
"But I don't eat every item in the store, why should I subsidize people who eat broccoli or hot dogs or whatever items I don't eat?!"
Enter a-la-carte. You have to pay a $40 supermarket usage fee, then $10 for milk, $10 for bread, $10 for eggs, $10 for ground beef, $10 for green beans, $10 for soda, $10 for cheese, $10 for tofu, $10 for cold cuts, and $10 for chicken wings. Those are all the products you eat and you get to feel all smug about paying $140 a month for "just the things I need".
Then, next month you're having relatives in town from Albuquerque. Uncle Ron likes peanut butter. Aunt Sally likes to eat salads. Junior only eats Lucky Charms and hot dogs. This month, the groceries cost an extra $50, so now it's $200 for what you could have been paying $150 for but had to be all uppity about how you are so much more refined than eating peanut butter and cereal. |
|
|
to Mr Guy
Free streaming? So the app doesn't include commercials? |
|
|
to clone
Re: F@ck Sports+1 For This |
|
norm join:2012-10-18 Pittsburgh, PA |
to clone
Re: So?said by clone:Enter a-la-carte. You have to pay a $40 supermarket usage fee, then $10 for milk, $10 for bread, $10 for eggs, $10 for ground beef, $10 for green beans, $10 for soda, $10 for cheese, $10 for tofu, $10 for cold cuts, and $10 for chicken wings. Those are all the products you eat and you get to feel all smug about paying $140 a month for "just the things I need". Why not add an additional 0 (ZERO) onto each dollar figure to further cement your argument with arbitrary figures that don't mean anything in reality? Of course cable companies are going to cry about how expensive a la cart is for consumers when they've already got you by the balls and have zero incentive to provide a better product. Also, it was initially battleop that brought up goods instead of services as an example of cutting out the middleman. |
|
|
to juilinsandar
Most games were not OTA. Only the more popular ones. You crossed your fingers and hoped your team was one of them. |
|
|
anon_anon to clone
Anon
2014-Mar-18 11:15 am
to clone
Re: F@ck SportsYour memory must be faulty. In 1989 36 channel expanded basic, which was the maximum you could get, cost about $23 dollars. In 1999 Expanded Basic was $43. Cable rates have been rising twice the inflation rates for quite a while. |
|
|
to IowaCowboy
Re: But I don't watch sports...I've been to about a combined over 50 NFL and NHL games here, a few NLL games, 20+ NASCAR races and 1 MLB game and I have never purchased food or drink at a sports venue. |
|
|
to clone
Re: F@ck SportsI think if more people realized this instead of being engrained with the "I deserve, I need" attitudes, some of these lack of necessity problems families have would fix themselves...
Should never have to listen to a conversation about "well should I keep my cable on got get groceries today", but i still often do... |
|
clone (banned) join:2000-12-11 Portage, IN |
clone (banned) to norm
Member
2014-Mar-18 10:27 am
to norm
Re: So?You know that the movie and production studios (you know, the same people that insist you pay for a $25 physical disc if you want a movie) will charge the highest price they can. Each company will want a recurring monthly fee so they can guarantee they have the revenue to make shows.
It's not going to be $1-2, they know people will pay more for the programs they're addicted to, so if you want a program or two from 3-4 different companies, you'll be paying 3-4 extra monthlies to those companies.
The Hollywood business model relies on having large amounts of money lying around to fund things. They won't be moving to a model where they have to foot all the risk of producing a movie or show and then hope the $0.89 per download ends up covering the cost. No business will take that kind of risk.
And think about it, even if you are paying per episode, per show, an average hour long show probably has 15 episodes per season. So $15 per show? And you probably have to pay per viewing, or maybe get a 3 day window where you can watch. You know they won't be offering a DRM-free download for $1.00.
I'm just curious how this utopia is supposed to work knowing that the content companies are going to try and extract the maximium amount of money from our wallets given any chance to do so. We're better off letting an industry giant like Comcast or DirecTV negotiate the costs on the basis of millions of TV sets watching rather than try to do so individually with each content company.
I just don't think anyone's thought the cunning plan all the way through when it comes to a-la-carte. We'll be paying much more for far less in the end, and that's a guarantee. |
|
clone |
clone (banned) to norm
Member
2014-Mar-18 10:31 am
to norm
That's the point. It's arbitrary. It was being used as an example, the numbers didn't really matter. The point is that you can guarantee that whatever you're paying now isn't going to go down under an a-la-carte system. You will just end up getting less, and that's a fact. They will just structure it so everyone is paying at least what they are now, and people who want all the channels they're currently getting will be paying much, much more.
Do you really trust Hollywood production studios or major TV networks to try and be friendly and cut you a deal to save you money? No. They will extract as much money out of you as possible, especially for the niche content that most people on here probably watch. |
|
|
to juilinsandar
said by juilinsandar:The point is that until recently, most of the March Madness games, if not all, were available to watch OTA for free on CBS. This was one of the reasons that helped it become so popular, as everybody could watch it if they wanted to, whether or not they had a cable subscription. Not really. Up until recently if you wanted to catch as much NCAA basketball action as you could during March Madness you needed DirecTV and their exclusive $70 premium Mega March Madness package. The package was discontinued in 2010 when it went the games went to Turner Sports. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me ··· _Madness |
|
dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come Premium Member join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ
1 recommendation |
dvd536
Premium Member
2014-Mar-18 10:34 am
Great. . . . .ANOTHER 3 weeks of repeats on network TV!!1 |
|
|
uk jeff to Mr Guy
Anon
2014-Mar-18 11:15 am
to Mr Guy
Re: So?Before, CBS would air games based on regional interest, so the team from my city would always be on the OTA channel. Now, since that team is a big draw, it will be on TBS for most of their games so even though I live just a couple miles from campus, unless I pay for a $120 cable TV package there is no legit way to watch the games. |
|
|
to Kommie2
Re: F@ck SportsI agree that Sports are the reason but if Sports were not as popular, the companies would find another reason to jack up the prices. |
|
|
norm join:2012-10-18 Pittsburgh, PA |
to clone
Re: So?It's been thought through as much as possible but without getting actual numbers, no one truly knows how (un?)successful it might be. We can only speculate. We would need actual willing parties to know how it would work.
Don't get me wrong, I pay for TV. I am not a cord cutter. I would at least like to see an alternative approach tried as I don't use but maybe 2% of the channels I get. Of course, a few channels I enjoy are in much higher tiers so I have to pay for a ton of channels I could not care less about. When I browse channels, I simply press the favorites button anymore.
There is a lot of junk out there and I completely understand why a lot of people cut the cord - some out of principle alone. Given the technology at our fingertips, a less archaic approach would be nice to at least try. An honest try. |
|
|
MDAAuto Negotiating Premium Member join:2013-09-10 Minneapolis, MN Netgear CM600 Asus RT-AC66U B1
|
to stonecaster
Of course there's nothing wrong with paying what you pay for, but when it gets increased every 6 months its just nonsense. It's increasing at a rate at which most people are uncomfortable with and are "cutting" the cord. It opens their eyes to other possibilities and those possibilities have the potential to be bigger (internet) than the service they were using before (proprietary cable/sat system).
Satellite is not unique to this dilemna either. The wireless used by cell sites are faster than a satellites link down to earth. Hotspots using LTE could prove to be a more efficient choice. |
|
Packeteers Premium Member join:2005-06-18 Forest Hills, NY Asus RT-AC3100 (Software) Asuswrt-Merlin
7 recommendations |
sports is why cabletv is so expensivepersonally, sports fans can all go F'themselves.
the greedy high cost of sports franchise broadcasts is the main reason why cabetv prices are so high to begin with. if - like me - the only game you watch all year is the superbowl, then you have been overpaying for your cable and should cut the cord.
IMHO: ALL Sports should be PPV so we don't all have to subsidize these millionaire players, million dollar tuition packages, their billionaire team owners, and the educational institutions that profit off their inevitably under educated athletes. |
|
clone (banned) join:2000-12-11 Portage, IN |
clone (banned) to norm
Member
2014-Mar-18 10:56 am
to norm
Re: So?Oh, I agree that in a perfect world, it'd be nice to pay for only what you need or want...I just don't have a lot of hope that we could rely on the entrenched incumbents in the content production and delivery businesses to do anything with honesty. |
|
norm join:2012-10-18 Pittsburgh, PA |
norm
Member
2014-Mar-18 11:00 am
said by clone:Oh, I agree that in a perfect world, it'd be nice to pay for only what you need or want...I just don't have a lot of hope that we could rely on the entrenched incumbents in the content production and delivery businesses to do anything with honesty. A boy can dream. |
|
IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA |
to Packeteers
Re: sports is why cabletv is so expensiveAnd the thing about the athletes at the colleges/universities is that they tend to take courses of study that are not that difficult like Art or American/World history. They don't take courses like pharmacy, nursing or medical school because they have to be in good academic standing to play sports. |
|
2 recommendations |
to stonecaster
Re: So?said by stonecaster:Since Im willing to pay for my television experience I expect to receive more than those that dont. Paying for cable isn't just about content. It's about convenience (plug in a box and it works, DVR, etc) and "reliability". I quote that because some cable systems are reliable (Comcast and FiOS for my area are very reliable). I chose to cut the cord because it's too expensive. Paying $60/month for 3 DVR boxes + content? Ridiculous. I put up an antenna in the attic, bought an HDHomeRun, a couple Ceton Echos, and use Windows Media Center (for DVR and guide). Yes, it was a far more difficult setup than cable (plug in cord and everything works). And being 20+ miles out, my picture is reliable 99% of the time (vs 100% for FiOS). But for us, it made sense because I have the technical ability to do it and we don't miss the other channels. Oh, and our power bill dropped about $20/month (those FiOS DVR boxes are power hungry). That said, do I expect to get all the channels a cable subscriber gets? No, I don't expect it, but if I did get the ones that matter, I don't feel like I'm cheating the system. Paying more doesn't entitle you to more. It just means you made a choice to pay more. |
|
|
to jseymour
Re: Can We Look Forward To...said by jseymour:...them removing the incessant pro and college sports garbage from broadcast TV, too?
Please?
That endless pro and college sports crap on TV is worse than "reality TV."
Jim Sports is the only thing on OTA that is worth a damn. Seriously what compelling content can you get on OTA TV? Cookie cutter crap like Law & Order and CSI? Oh yeah, and 200 wonderful digital subchannels in glorious 480i showing shopping and religious crap and shows from 100 years ago. |
|
rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
to biochemistry
Re: So?Don't bother. He must be a cable guy defending his job. The cable companies should be ISPs and get out of the video business all together. For years they have created hideous set-top boxes that are slow, break and have horrible remotes like VCRs from the 80s. It's amazing they derive massive revenue from a product that they absolutely are the worst at delivering. |
|
mogamer join:2011-04-20 Royal Oak, MI |
to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:quote: You should consider yourself lucky you can get anything
Gosh, who could argue with that? Get back into your holes and eat your gruel, everyone! I feel that it's total BS that channels like CBS, Fox, NBC and ABC would want you to authenticate with a pay-tv provider to watch their programming online. But channels like TBS, TNT or TruTV are pay-tv channels and I do feel that if they want to only give online streaming to people who are paying for their service, then so be it. Now the question we should be asking is why is the NCAA, an organization with mostly government owned institutions, allowing their product to be shown this way. The NCAA is really the villain here and not CBS (who is allowing free streaming for the games they're broadcasting). |
|
rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
to Mr Guy
Re: As a cord cutter myselfAdvertising should pay for it and if you want to get screwed by the cable company, that's your choice. |
|
mogamer join:2011-04-20 Royal Oak, MI |
to uk jeff
Re: So?said by uk jeff :Before, CBS would air games based on regional interest, so the team from my city would always be on the OTA channel. Now, since that team is a big draw, it will be on TBS for most of their games so even though I live just a couple miles from campus, unless I pay for a $120 cable TV package there is no legit way to watch the games. $120 package? Is that for tv only, all for a bundled package of services? I'm paying $40 for my tv portion of my $116 package (tv, internet, phone) and I'm getting to watch all of the games. |
|
mogamer
1 recommendation |
to ke4pym
said by ke4pym:said by hello123454:Sounds familiar...kinda like fast food workers demanding $15 / hour. I don't want to get an education to advance my career but I still want you to pay me $15 / hour or I'm stopping commerce. I know a handful of fast-food workers who have Masters degrees. And 1 Wal*Mart cashier. What are their degrees in, photography, Latin or some other worthless discipline? And for the most part, don't get a Masters degree until after you get a job. Nobody wants to pay those rates for a new employee. |
|
|
to clone
Re: F@ck Sportssaid by clone:Can't afford internet? Guess you just get OTA. Can't afford a TV? Then you get to twiddle your thumbs. Wow. If you believe that the choice we have is between having a TV and twiddling thumbs, there is no way I will accept any point you're trying to make. Paying for cable service is a choice. Part of the bill is for equipment and support. You are entitled to that. But *entitled* to more channels that those who don't pay for equipment and support? Meh. |
|
norm join:2012-10-18 Pittsburgh, PA
2 recommendations |
to mogamer
Re: So?said by mogamer:said by ke4pym:said by hello123454:Sounds familiar...kinda like fast food workers demanding $15 / hour. I don't want to get an education to advance my career but I still want you to pay me $15 / hour or I'm stopping commerce. I know a handful of fast-food workers who have Masters degrees. And 1 Wal*Mart cashier. What are their degrees in, photography, Latin or some other worthless discipline? And for the most part, don't get a Masters degree until after you get a job. Nobody wants to pay those rates for a new employee. So many assumptions. Have you actually sat down and thought about this? In case you didn't know, it's quite common for companies to lay off staff these days. It's also possible that some of those people that are laid off have master's degrees. I know some of them. It sucks. You get laid off and the industry you work in is in an overall slump. What do you do? A lot of people won't touch you because you're over-qualified for a position within your industry or you're under-qualified for an alternative industry. What next, are you going to suggest that everyone just stop being poor? Also, god forbid people seek higher education in fine arts or anything else like that. Society without art is doubleplusgood. |
|