TOPDAWG Premium Member join:2005-04-27 Calgary, AB
4 recommendations |
TOPDAWG
Premium Member
2014-Mar-31 8:40 am
And thenPeople will bitch about their missing channels then the cable folks will cave pay fees and pass the cost to the customer who will cry about their cable bill being so high when in fact they cried about the channels missing that caused the hike. | |
|
| TAZ join:2014-01-03 Tucson, AZ
2 recommendations |
TAZ
Member
2014-Mar-31 8:47 am
Re: And thenGood, the business model needs to die. | |
|
| | TOPDAWG Premium Member join:2005-04-27 Calgary, AB |
TOPDAWG
Premium Member
2014-Mar-31 9:15 am
Re: And thenIt'll never die. I mean look at WWE network they went over the top as they like to say and now some cable outlets won't curry their pay-per-views. Dish is one who said they won't carry WrestleMania cause of the on line network.
Looks like dish changed their mind and will carry it now. The old system has way to much money behind it still will be years before we see major change. | |
|
| | | TAZ join:2014-01-03 Tucson, AZ |
TAZ
Member
2014-Mar-31 9:44 am
Re: And thenI'm talking about the cable TV business model as a whole, not Viacom specifically. It will die. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: And thenWhile I don't agree nor do I disagree with you, I am curious to know under what model you believe the Cable TV Business will fail? | |
|
| | | | | TAZ join:2014-01-03 Tucson, AZ |
TAZ
Member
2014-Mar-31 9:57 am
Re: And thensaid by PapaMidnight:While I don't agree nor do I disagree with you, I am curious to know under what model you believe the Cable TV Business will fail? I don't understand exactly what your question is. The entire model is archaic. The concept of channels is outdated. You shouldn't have to switch to some channel at a certain time to watch something (yes, I know there are "hacks" like DVRs; yes, they are hacks because they don't solve the actual problem). And this is before we get into the "you must pay for 200 other channels you don't want" BS. The future is to consume by the show. Pay by the episode or subscribe to a show/season at a reduced price. (Already being done.) | |
|
| | | | | | moonpuppy (banned) join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD |
moonpuppy (banned)
Member
2014-Mar-31 11:03 am
Re: And thensaid by TAZ:The future is to consume by the show. Pay by the episode or subscribe to a show/season at a reduced price. (Already being done.) Yeah, that won't work because, more often than not, you have a really good show surrounded by other that no one will pay for. What will happen is less programming and costs going way up. | |
|
| | | | | | | mackey Premium Member join:2007-08-20 |
mackey
Premium Member
2014-Mar-31 7:39 pm
Re: And thensaid by moonpuppy:you have a really good show surrounded by other that no one will pay for. What will happen is less programming So what? You make it sound like letting the crap no one wants to watch die off is a bad thing. If no one wants to watch it then why should they be forced to spend money on it? While per-show costs to the consumer might go up significantly, total cost to the consumer will go down as you will no longer be forced to pay for all that other crap you don't want. /M | |
|
| | | | | | | | moonpuppy (banned) join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD |
moonpuppy (banned)
Member
2014-Apr-1 12:15 pm
Re: And thensaid by mackey:So what? You make it sound like letting the crap no one wants to watch die off is a bad thing. If no one wants to watch it then why should they be forced to spend money on it?
While per-show costs to the consumer might go up significantly, total cost to the consumer will go down as you will no longer be forced to pay for all that other crap you don't want.
/M If you think total costs will go down, you are mistaken. Costs will go up when the losses will have to be paid somehow. No one knows if a show will be a hit or not. CBS thought "A Charlie Brown Christmas" was going to bomb and it has become one of the most played holiday specials ever. | |
|
| | | | | | | ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to moonpuppy
less programming might be good. No reason to make so much bullshit. | |
|
| | | | | | | | moonpuppy (banned) join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD |
moonpuppy (banned)
Member
2014-Apr-1 12:15 pm
Re: And thensaid by ArrayList:less programming might be good. No reason to make so much bullshit. What you consider bullshit may be someone else's masterpiece. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Re: And thenGrandma has to watch her HSN I guess. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | moonpuppy (banned) join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD |
moonpuppy (banned)
Member
2014-Apr-2 10:03 am
Re: And thenOddly enough, those channels pay to be on cable. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Re: And thenthey pay to be on cable and cable subscribers pay to have them. that's messed up. | |
|
| | | | | | clone (banned) join:2000-12-11 Portage, IN
2 recommendations |
clone (banned) to TAZ
Member
2014-Mar-31 12:37 pm
to TAZ
said by TAZ:The future is to consume by the show. Pay by the episode or subscribe to a show/season at a reduced price. (Already being done.) How naive. Where is the money going to come from to make many shows and see which ones are hits and which ones are flops? The quality of programming will drop dramatically, if only because the volume of content being available on a "trial" basis will be decimated. Not to mention that the niche content that most of the people who bellyache about "a-la-carte" consume will be the most outrageously priced, as the demand for it will be a fraction of that of the mainstream content (sports, MTV, etc.). That niche programming may even cease to exist under a supply/demand model. So, if you think paying $100 a month for 300 channels is bad, wait until you're paying $100 a month for the 4 or 5 shows you actually watch, and have no other content available to you, ever, under any circumstances, unless you pay more money to the content cartels. The current system *works*. There, I said it. IT WORKS!!I, for one, enjoy knowing that should I choose to want to watch something that I wouldn't normally, I have the option to do so without any additional cash extraction from my wallet. Relatives sometimes visit, they may want to watch the Military Channel, their kids may want to watch some Nickelodeon or Disney Channel. I don't watch those channels regularly, but something might catch my eye one day. If I was only "buying" the three or four shows I watch religiously, I would never have the chance to be exposed to any other content outside my box. So enjoy the closed-minded, compartmentalized future of "a-la-carte"! Where you can pay more and get less. I'm sure you will all eventually get your way once the providers and networks realize how much more money they can get from you idiots while providing less product overall. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
PlusOne
Anon
2014-Mar-31 12:41 pm
Re: And thensaid by clone:said by TAZ:The future is to consume by the show. Pay by the episode or subscribe to a show/season at a reduced price. (Already being done.) How naive. Where is the money going to come from to make many shows and see which ones are hits and which ones are flops? The quality of programming will drop dramatically, if only because the volume of content being available on a "trial" basis will be decimated. Not to mention that the niche content that most of the people who bellyache about "a-la-carte" consume will be the most outrageously priced, as the demand for it will be a fraction of that of the mainstream content (sports, MTV, etc.). That niche programming may even cease to exist under a supply/demand model. So, if you think paying $100 a month for 300 channels is bad, wait until you're paying $100 a month for the 4 or 5 shows you actually watch, and have no other content available to you, ever, under any circumstances, unless you pay more money to the content cartels. The current system *works*. There, I said it. IT WORKS!!I, for one, enjoy knowing that should I choose to want to watch something that I wouldn't normally, I have the option to do so without any additional cash extraction from my wallet. Relatives sometimes visit, they may want to watch the Military Channel, their kids may want to watch some Nickelodeon or Disney Channel. I don't watch those channels regularly, but something might catch my eye one day. If I was only "buying" the three or four shows I watch religiously, I would never have the chance to be exposed to any other content outside my box. So enjoy the closed-minded, compartmentalized future of "a-la-carte"! Where you can pay more and get less. I'm sure you will all eventually get your way once the providers and networks realize how much more money they can get from you idiots while providing less product overall. +1 | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
armed
Member
2014-Mar-31 1:00 pm
Re: And then+2 | |
|
| | | | | | | | ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to PlusOne
$100/month for 4 or 5 shows ha ha ha ha ha funny | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: And thenSo you don't think that will happen?
Then how much will TV shows cost absent getting them over a cable subscription as the primary means of profit for the show makers?
No one is going to make a show for free, and no one is going to make quality shows for less money. They won't make a show at all if they can't make money at it.
Shows are so cheap now because people pay for them a myriad of ways.
$100/month for 5 shows is not that far off if you use your brain and don't just dismiss it like you did.
Shows are generally $3 - $4 an episode for current running shows that people want to watch. There are generally 4 episodes per month. So that would be $12 - $16 a month for one show. 5 shows at 4 episodes each would be $60 - $90.
Not that far off, huh?
Don't laugh before you actually do the math, makes you look ridiculous. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
MathMaddox
Anon
2014-Apr-8 1:12 pm
Re: And thenFunny, you get get "How I met your Mother" or "Big Bang Theory" for free.. over the air. They seem to be doing alright for themselves. The Cable industry makes billions in profit. Profit, not revenue. There is no need to pump the middle man full of money. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
1 recommendation |
to clone
You act like all the shows have to stay and have to be supported monetarily someway. Lets face it, there is a lot of fat out there that needs to trimmed. Let the market decide what stays and goes or are we too afraid to try that approach?
Last time I checked, most tv shows had reviews and are talked about online extensively so I dont see how you would miss exposure to shows? | |
|
| | | | | | | | clone (banned) join:2000-12-11 Portage, IN |
clone (banned)
Member
2014-Mar-31 3:36 pm
Re: And thenI agree whole-heartedly. Except what is fat to you is meat to others. That's my point. Right now we have the widest variety of programming ever seen in history. If you force a "buy-the-show" model, most projects will never get off the ground without the monetary backing from the studios, and you'll end up with television looking an awful lot like pop music does today: cheap, flashy, throwaway crap with no substance that appeals to the widest variety of lowest common denominators.
Boy, I just can't wait for the a-la-carte revolution/utopia to begin! | |
|
| | | | | | | | | WhatNow Premium Member join:2009-05-06 Charlotte, NC |
WhatNow
Premium Member
2014-Mar-31 5:30 pm
Re: And thenThere is a-la-carte by show or by channel. Let the companies like Viacom and ESPN sell themselves like HBO and Showtime. If I lived near a big city I would put up a OTA antenna and cut the tv cord. About the only cable channel I watch is SyFy but they usually only have one decent show a week that I watch.
I do agree with the first post drop the channel customers complain and leave channel returns cable bill goes up. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
MathMaddox to clone
Anon
2014-Apr-8 1:14 pm
to clone
Indie music has been thriving because of services like Pandora and Spotify. I like that I get to choose who I support rather than Capitol Records telling me who should and shouldn't be an artist. I guess I fail to see your point.. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
to clone
said by clone:The current system *works*. There, I said it. IT WORKS!! When even the cable companies are starting to complain about excessive carriage fees due to TV networks and content providers getting increasingly greedy on top of all the overselling through bundles already going on, you know the "system that (currently) works" is being worked to the breaking point and might not work much longer. While the bundling may allow funding of shows that would not otherwise happen, those bundles still need to be priced within a range cablecos can work with and subscribers are willing to pay for. If the prices are getting so high cable/tel/sat-cos decide to give up on carrying them because their subscribers do not want to eat the extra cost, things get ugly. Once people start giving up on walled-garden video entertainment, bringing them back will be difficult if not impossible. The whole subscription-based broadcast distribution and traditional network industry is shooting its own feet with this. | |
|
| | | | | | | drivel join:2013-07-12 Santa Clara, CA |
to clone
said by clone:If I was only "buying" the three or four shows I watch religiously, I would never have the chance to be exposed to any other content outside my box. So enjoy the closed-minded, compartmentalized future of "a-la-carte"! Where you can pay more and get less. I'm sure you will all eventually get your way once the providers and networks realize how much more money they can get from you idiots while providing less product overall. Have you heard about youtube? | |
|
| | | | | | | crypt0 join:2012-12-22 Edmonton, AB |
to clone
said by clone:The quality of programming will drop dramatically Already is. said by clone:So, if you think paying $100 a month for 300 channels is bad, wait until you're paying $100 a month for the 4 or 5 shows you actually watch that statement makes no economic sense whatsoever. said by clone:and have no other content available to you, ever, under any circumstances, unless you pay more money to the content cartels. Ridiculous. Pilot episodes will be produced for the chance of making a hit, these pilots will be offered free to view to generate interest; obviously. said by clone:So enjoy the closed-minded, compartmentalized future of "a-la-carte"! Where you can pay more and get less. And so why would the companies work to stop such a thing from happening?... said by clone: I'm sure you will all eventually get your way once the providers and networks realize how much more money they can get from you idiots while providing less product overall. Oh... they just don't "realize" a way to screw us over. They are a little slow in that department? lol | |
|
| | | | | | | |
MathMaddox to clone
Anon
2014-Apr-8 1:07 pm
to clone
Netflix has great original programming and its less than $10 a month. So no, you do not need to pay $100+ to get decent programming. You are paying to fatten the wallets of the stockholders and board members and that is about it. As of right now most of the critically acclaimed shows are showing up on subscription based services.
Also since when is Sports a niche market? I'd wager that its the only thing keeping a majority of cable users from going the Netflix/Hulu/Prime route. I've recently cut the cord and although I do miss certain sports events, its still cheaper for me to go to a bar and have a few beers with friends and watch a couple times a week.
I'm better for it. I find I've been reading more and sitting in front of the television watching useless programming less (PBS surprisingly has the best programming anyway, for free). To each their own but for me the benefits go far beyond my wallet. | |
|
| | | | | | |
to TAZ
Sorry, the question was admittedly vague, but your answer nailed it. I was curious under what scenario (or scenarios) you saw the business of Cable TV failing. | |
|
| | | | | |
to PapaMidnight
The cable-tv business model is ALREADY seeing stress from online video "PIRACY" via streaming websites and torrent downloading/p2p. The point where the cable-tv portion of a triple play package is pushing the total cost between $150 and $200 which is a higher % of the average consumer's income. considering the average person saw either NO WAGE INCREASE or WAGE DECREASES over the last 7 years-- while the cost of EVERYTHING ELSE? WENT UP... will create a cutback by the consumer. They'll have to re-invent a word for the NEO-STAG-FLATION the economy's seeing.. because it doesn't APTLY apply to everyone.. some people are doing better in the economy while the majority tread water or DO WORSE!! | |
|
| | | |
to TOPDAWG
Dish Network shot itself in the foot with that one. As an aside, that model by World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. is absolutely brilliant. They couldn't secure advertising for a network or a solid carrier, so they went the internet route (with a subscription model). From what I understand, it's working. | |
|
| | | dfxmatt join:2007-08-21 Crystal Lake, IL |
to TOPDAWG
WWE is not the problem. Wasn't it WWE or WWF that went internet-only streaming? They are the people who have adapted, not viacom and also not the NCTC. Both groups are outdated. | |
|
| | | | TOPDAWG Premium Member join:2005-04-27 Calgary, AB |
TOPDAWG
Premium Member
2014-Mar-31 1:58 pm
Re: And thenYeah what I mean is the cable company's are not happy with what WWE did they will I hope prove you can skip cable and still make tons of money. That scares the cable company's to death their old model is being threatened so a few said they may not carry WWE pay-per-views in the future as a simple way to punish WWE. | |
|
| |
ViacomSucks to TOPDAWG
Anon
2014-Mar-31 11:34 am
to TOPDAWG
said by TOPDAWG:People will bitch about their missing channels then the cable folks will cave pay fees and pass the cost to the customer who will cry about their cable bill being so high when in fact they cried about the channels missing that caused the hike. That is usually the way it goes. | |
|
| |
JanChicago to TOPDAWG
Anon
2014-Mar-31 12:18 pm
to TOPDAWG
I want to order my cable as I do my hamburger! Let me pick my channels, not a batch group. I then see the cost verse the product - and make a decision. | |
|
| | ••• |
| |
Mr Guy to TOPDAWG
Anon
2014-Mar-31 1:56 pm
to TOPDAWG
said by TOPDAWG:People will bitch about their missing channels then the cable folks will cave pay fees and pass the cost to the customer who will cry about their cable bill being so high when in fact they cried about the channels missing that caused the hike. Exactly. They complain about high prices then when a cable company tries to do the right things by not accepting those demand the same people complain about not getting those channels and leave for another TV provider who DID pay the high prices. And people wonder why things don't change. | |
|
| |
Normani to TOPDAWG
Anon
2014-Mar-31 6:04 pm
to TOPDAWG
I hope my cable company (WOW) does not cave in. Cable is already over the top expensive! | |
|
| |
DontCaveCble to TOPDAWG
Anon
2014-Mar-31 9:28 pm
to TOPDAWG
Do not cave cable! These costs will be passed on to consumers. Viacom is playing games with the smaller cable companies. Their rate increases amount to thievery. | |
|
| | |
Mr Guy
Anon
2014-Apr-1 3:51 am
Re: And thensaid by DontCaveCble :Do not cave cable! Maybe they wouldn't if people would stop switching to other pay TV sources like DirecTv and DishNetwork when the cable company does stand up against price increases because they no longer get their favorite channels. You can't have it both ways. | |
|
| |
kittykat to TOPDAWG
Anon
2014-Apr-6 5:55 pm
to TOPDAWG
There you go. That's exactly what is going to happen. The cable providers need to tell Viacom to stick there crummy shows up their wazoo. People need to just learn to do without the crap that's on TV anyway. There is a strong trend of people cutting the TV cable and going for online entertainment. If anything, the cable companies should be charging Viacom for distributing their programming; it's at least 70% advertising anyway. People should support their cable provider when the Viacom channels go dark on their TVs. | |
|
|
FunnyFunny. Viacom used to be my cable provider before that part of the business was sold off. | |
|
|
Cable will die...one day.In due time, cable will become less and less relevant. I cut the cord October 2012 and haven't missed a thing. Unfortunately, I think it'll be at least another decade until the majority of Americans can find a cable free solution that suits their wants. | |
|
| TOPDAWG Premium Member join:2005-04-27 Calgary, AB |
TOPDAWG
Premium Member
2014-Mar-31 9:20 am
Re: Cable will die...one day.I just laugh at people who piss and whine about cable prices yet keep paying for it. So many have no business having cable and piss and whine about they can't afford whatever yet spend so much on BS such as cable and cell phones.
Yeah it's really going to go lower prices when you keep paying more for it like a dummy. | |
|
| | |
Re: Cable will die...one day.I dropped cable TV around three years ago. Got tired of paying to watch commercials and mostly "reality" shows. I put up an outdoor antenna, getting 19 channels FREE, finding MORE than enough to watch! Don't miss cable AT ALL! | |
|
IanR join:2001-03-22 Fort Mill, SC |
IanR
Member
2014-Mar-31 9:00 am
Self destruct modeIndeed my own Cable provider has warned of this pricing issue and possible removal of channels. There is a perspective that "content is King",no matter how good or not so popular it is. If all the content provider go for such increases the whole industry will crumble and the business plan will die. | |
|
| •••••••••• |
3 recommendations |
anos4fite
Anon
2014-Mar-31 9:04 am
I'm having issues understanding this.Ok, so my background is in logistics and I'm going to school to prepare myself for the Certified Public Accountant exams. I can understand what Viacom is trying to do (restrict supply to both create artificial demand and the sense of exclusivity).
However, what they're doing is not consistent with the way you keep a business growing. If a business isn't growing, then it is dying. A business like mass media can only survive by selling to as many people as possibly (and by specifically targeting those who can afford it). You either target your product and sell it to those with median-income, or your product will end up at the end of a spectrum. In other words, if you fall out of favor with those in the middle class, then your product either ends up in the hands of wealthy customers (whose demands are FAR more costly), or you end up with the month-to-month crowd (who will take your crappy product, but who is much less likely to be able to afford it).
Because Viacom's customer is captive in the current environment, their risk is lessened thanks to the lack of competition. Their strategy is to squeeze the cow for all it has. This latest cable race is simply a cash grab, and a desperate attempt to make the numbers look good before the company finally implodes (or is forced to sell their assets). The CxO's and controlling interests know what they're doing, the only loser here are the customers, and the thousands of employees who will soon need to look for jobs elsewhere. | |
|
| |
Re: I'm having issues understanding this.Its a monopolist's ability to extract rent from unsuspecting/uncaring. But once the cost hits a pain level, customers will head for the exits. Think of what happened to the old ATT - high charges for long distance, rent you phone, scare folks with stories about house fires due to using non-att phones etc etc. But the mgmt. is still locked into a rent extraction mentality rather than a grow the pie mentality, so, to me, its a dying industry - Roku, Aereo etc are all transformative | |
|
|
anone4fite
Anon
2014-Mar-31 9:12 am
I really need to create an accountWhat prevents us (the consumer) from organizing a call-a-thon or to organize in writing letters, etc, demanding that our cable provider drop these channels? Is there a law or ordinance that says this is a crime?
I should really create an account. I bet the mods are annoyed at reading my crap before it posts. | |
|
| •••••••• |
IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA |
Comcast will give inComcast will give in and reward customers with a rate hike among all of their products so internet customers will be subsidizing TV. DirecTV and Time Warner will bring on the carriage disputes and the prolonged blackouts.
The thing about DirecTV is IF they drop a channel then the content provider loses 20+ million viewers, especially if the channel is on all their service tiers like the Weather Channel. Comcast and Time Warner serve segments of the population but DirecTV is national.
20 million viewers is a lot to lose. | |
|
| ••• |
|
What does this have to do with customers?I don't understand how Viacom increasing the bill to cable companies has anything to do with the customer?
This is simply the cost of doing business and the business needs to eat this. Otherwise you have inconsistent branding.
In addition, the cable companies need to stop caving in. I know there are a ton of examples where this didn't work. But it didn't work because there were only 1 or 2 big players involved instead of all of them. Also it didn't work because part of not giving in..is...not giving in. Bluffing doesn't work. You actually have to follow through.
Viacom needs the cable companies more than the other way around. Kind of like people freaking out about China. | |
|
| •••••••• |
chip89 Premium Member join:2012-07-05 Columbia Station, OH |
chip89
Premium Member
2014-Mar-31 1:01 pm
Wow is involvedWow is also involved in this. This also shows why Viacom is evil doing this to over 1000 companies they might win the worst in the US now. » WOW and Viacom get it on in the ring | |
|
| •••• |
amarryatVerizon FiOS join:2005-05-02 Marshfield, MA |
Three words...A la carte | |
|
| |
RPT
Anon
2014-Apr-1 9:13 am
Restandardization of Pay TVForce this on ISPs and TV service providers for a la carte called OTT (Over the top content). » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ov ··· _contentCable system on 225 - 453 MHz (24 - 62) + gopher chewed wire = disrupting police. Cable system on 699 - 897 MHz (108 - 141) + dog chewed wire = disrupting police. Cable system on 177 - 297 MHz (7 - 13 and 23 - 36) + rat chewed wire = disrupting police on (699 - 897 MHz by harmonics) Cable system on 87 - 105 MHz (95 - 97) + squirrel chewed wire = disrupting police on (699 - 897 MHz by harmonics) Cable system on 63 - 69 MHz (3 / 4) + mice chewed wire = disrupting police on (699 - 897 MHz by harmonics) » www.fiercewireless.com/t ··· 13-12-04By anon » www.facebook.com/pages/T ··· 47045318 | |
|
Ano @comcast.net |
Ano
Anon
2014-Mar-31 4:17 pm
I get 58 OTA channels.I recently ditched paid TV.
Got a nice med/long range antenna for $80 and I now get 58 OTA channels (most HD), that's more vs. limited basic that my local cable co. still wanted $25+ a month plus box rental for and was NON-HD.
Get a few network tuners and boom DVR with computer and DLNA stream away.
I am about 40 miles away from any of the broadcast signals and no issues.
Get a good outdoor/attic antenna and if need be an amp. Odds are you can get some decent stuff, not to mention anything random online you can stream.
Best part, once you've done this for a few months you get use to it and will wonder why you waited soo long to save soo much money lol
I'd have no issue if I could pay fair price for things I actually watch but at this point the only channels I am missing are ones like SyFy, USA and TNT which who cares, they don't play too much anyway and most often can find what you want online still.
I hope more and more people stop paying. Sad part is this will cause rates to increase due to less income for the companies. At some point they will give in to letting us pay for what we want but the rates by that point will be just as high to watch 10 channels that we pay now for 100 lol | |
|
| IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA |
Re: I get 58 OTA channels.In what market is this?
If I got an antenna, I'd be lucky if I got the Hartford stations. I'd really like to get Boston but the terrain would most likely interfere with reception. I could always add the AM21 tuner to my DirecTV setup and get a roof antenna. | |
|
|
Vztechjoe
Anon
2014-Mar-31 5:46 pm
A la carteHey fools! Do all you pro a la carte people understand that the fall of the cable tv structure will destroy the Internet product we ALL love and can't live without. The ISPs will make there money 1 way or another. So try to enjoy Netflix in a couple of years will CAPPED data with high overage fees. Your 8 dollar Netflix subscription will end up costing a lot more than 8 dollars in overage fees or you will use it so much less that the 8 dollars won't be worth it. Quit cutting the cord and just downgrade to the cheapest package and eliminate most if not all your set top boxes. | |
|
| |
cord cutter
Anon
2014-Mar-31 9:28 pm
Re: A la cartego away!!! pay for crap if you want i for one will not ill 20 dollars per channels i like but not 70 for 300 channels of junk yes junk thats all cable has become i dont dont care about niche channels | |
|
|
Cable Junkie
Anon
2014-Apr-1 9:23 am
ViamediaFrom Los Angeles Times (Jn. 14, 2014): "Although he rarely makes it into the office these days, Sumner Redstone continues to collect a handsome executive compensation package...The 90-year-old controlling shareholder of Viacom Inc. received a package valued at $36.2 million in 2013 in his role as executive chairman of the New York cable television and movie company, according to a filing Friday with the Securities and Exchange Commission." | |
|
EGeezer Premium Member join:2002-08-04 Midwest |
EGeezer
Premium Member
2014-Apr-6 12:02 pm
great timingSpring is coming, and there are lots of things to do besides watch MTV and the Comedy channel.
As long as people are fooled into thinking that crappy overpriced TV and continual reruns are necessities, these companies will prevail. | |
|
|
|