how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: Cable TV is still cheap entertainment said by fAcEtIOUs:TV is still cheap relative to most other entertainment alternatives in a down economy. Good point. As a matter of fact, we actually won't see much downward pressure with regard to cable television rates, because as much as some folks will be reducing their service level to account for the bad economy, others will be switching their entertainment choices away from other, more costly entertainment options, as you alluded to, towards more affordable diversions, such as cable television. | | |
|
 kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | said by bicker:said by fAcEtIOUs:TV is still cheap relative to most other entertainment alternatives in a down economy. Good point. As a matter of fact, we actually won't see much downward pressure with regard to cable television rates, because as much as some folks will be reducing their service level to account for the bad economy, others will be switching their entertainment choices away from other, more costly entertainment options, as you alluded to, towards more affordable diversions, such as cable television. Nonsense. People more and more recognizing what a WASTE their TV fees are, especially when compared to Netflix and similar services.
Don't buy into Junk's lame arguments - he's just trying to sell his corporations here, that's all. 
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] | |
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | No more so than you're just trying to sell your un-American business, socialistic bill-of-goods. | |
| reply to kamm
Netflix isn't worth it for my household. We rarely watch movies. Instead, we watch TV shows (current, not out on DVD yet). For the few movies we do "rent", we go to the library and take them out for free.
There really isn't a (legal) solution for my household that would let us cut off our cable and continue watching the shows that we like to watch. | |
JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to kamm
said by kamm:said by bicker:said by fAcEtIOUs:TV is still cheap relative to most other entertainment alternatives in a down economy. Good point. As a matter of fact, we actually won't see much downward pressure with regard to cable television rates, because as much as some folks will be reducing their service level to account for the bad economy, others will be switching their entertainment choices away from other, more costly entertainment options, as you alluded to, towards more affordable diversions, such as cable television. Nonsense. People more and more recognizing what a WASTE their TV fees are, especially when compared to Netflix and similar services. Don't buy into Junk's lame arguments - he's just trying to sell his corporations here, that's all. They're lame arguments because... why? Because you said so? I have 4 kids - TV IS cheap entertainment compared to other sources. That doesn't mean that we don't take advantage of other sources... nor does it mean that we never leave the house because we're 'addicted'. But taking my family to the movies costs more than a month of pay TV service. If my wife and I go out together, we have babysitter fees we have to pay as well. I'd take it easy on the passing judgment stuff that you're spewing. YOU don't like TV... fine. No problem. But please don't pretend that you understand everyone's situation.
Not everyone who has TV is 'addicted' to it... nor is it a waste of money for alot of families. If you have kids, and you want to watch anything on TV, btw, you can't do broadcast anymore. The crap that's on broadcast is outrageously horrible for kids. Cable at least provides for family-friendly entertainment.
One more point - and I've used this example before - for what you're paying, cable is actually cheaper today than it was a long time ago. Growing up we got cable back in 1981. We got a whopping ~20 channels, including locals and premiums, and we spent nearly $20/month. Sounds reasonable, right? Do the math - you're paying nearly $1/channel. Based on my current TV package, I'm paying ~$.20/channel. Plus I get lots of features that no one even dreamed about back then - DVR service, VOD, PPV, interactive guide, games, multi-room feeds, on-line remote booking,... none of that stuff existed back then.
Do we limit our kids screen time? Absolutely. Do we limit what they can and can't watch? Like a hawk (our PC is in our living room, all of 10' from our TV... for that very reason - the kids aren't allowed to have phones, TVs, or computers in their rooms - and none have cell phones). We very tightly control what they get exposed to and how much. But guess what? Sometimes they get to use part of their free time watching TV... and if they're going to do that, I would much rather have the options that pay tv gives me. Does it cost me money? Of course. But guess what? It's MY money... and rantings from someone like you, who knows zip about the inner workings of my family, and who throws around ridiculous generalities, doesn't change that one iota. It's WORTH it to me to have those options. It's not for you? Good for you! To be honest, I don't care what you feel is worth your money. I'm not quite sure why YOU care what others spend money on, though.
Edit - one more point - just because we have pay TV service doesn't mean the kids just sit around and zone all day. They don't. Like I said we strictly control their screen time - both on TV and on the computer. We do all sorts of interactive activites with them - soccer, cub scouts, girl scouts, little gym, karate, dance... not to mention the interaction they get when they have sleep-overs (which we have all the time) - the amount of outside activity that they get is worlds beyond what I had when I was their age. I spend the money for pay TV service because it gives me options... and relatively cheap options at that. | |
kpatzMY HEAD A SPLODEPremium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH
3 edits | said by JPL:One more point - and I've used this example before - for what you're paying, cable is actually cheaper today than it was a long time ago. Growing up we got cable back in 1981. We got a whopping ~20 channels, including locals and premiums, and we spent nearly $20/month. Sounds reasonable, right? Do the math - you're paying nearly $1/channel. Based on my current TV package, I'm paying ~$.20/channel. So you have 400 channels instead of 20, but at least those 20 channels had quality programming on them, and most were commercial free. Now, it's (maybe) 10 good channels out of 400, and most all of them are crammed full of commercials. Commercials, on channels you're already PAYING FOR to watch. And none of them are even premium channels (well, for what you pay, they're all "premium" now). For the real premiums like HBO you pay even more.
Strip out all the crap channels and you're paying a lot more than $1/channel for the channels you actually WATCH.said by Pv8man:If you could only afford one, and had to choose. TV? or Internet? That's easy. Internet. We could simply stream/download the 2 or 3 shows we watch. | |
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | said by kpatz:So you have 400 channels instead of 20, but at least those 20 channels had quality programming on them, and most were commercial free. However, they weren't. You are remembering a much more short-lived and much much much rosier picture of yesterday than actually occurred. Non-premium cable networks were generally crap until recent years. Now, they show some of the best programs on television, including Mad Men, In Plain Sight, Breaking Bad, The Closer, Saving Grace, Battlestar Galactica, Eureka, Leverage, etc.
said by kpatz: Now, it's (maybe) 10 good channels out of 400 Post the names of the 390 channels that you couldn't care less about. I bet at least 90% of them either pays for the privilege of being on your television dial, and therefore represents no cost allocated from your paid fees, or is a channel for which I'll find people for whom that channel is among their favorites, as important to them as the 10 channels you have deigned to call "good" are to you.
said by kpatz:and most all of them are crammed full of commercials. They almost always were, as soon as they were able to start attracting advertising revenue. I think you're confusing old premium channels with regular expanded basic cable channels. Expanded basic channels haven't been commercial-free for practically forever.
said by kpatz:Commercials, on channels you're already PAYING FOR to watch. You're ostensibly paying to watch "free" local broadcast channels too, and that's even though that local broadcast service is strictly regulated and the cable network service is not.
So?
said by kpatz:Strip out all the crap channels and you're paying a lot more than $1/channel for the channels you actually WATCH. Just checking my TiVos' To Do Lists for the next two weeks, we'll be watching programming from 17 different channels, not including TWC, CNN, and Headline News (which we watch a lot, but don't record) -- so let's call it 20 "good" channels. So that's approximately $3.50 per channel per month.
Unremarkably, that's just about how much experts believe that individual channels will cost in an a la carte system. | |
JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:1 | reply to kpatz
Re: Cable TV is still cheap entertainment said by kpatz:said by JPL:One more point - and I've used this example before - for what you're paying, cable is actually cheaper today than it was a long time ago. Growing up we got cable back in 1981. We got a whopping ~20 channels, including locals and premiums, and we spent nearly $20/month. Sounds reasonable, right? Do the math - you're paying nearly $1/channel. Based on my current TV package, I'm paying ~$.20/channel. So you have 400 channels instead of 20, but at least those 20 channels had quality programming on them, and most were commercial free. Now, it's (maybe) 10 good channels out of 400, and most all of them are crammed full of commercials. Commercials, on channels you're already PAYING FOR to watch. And none of them are even premium channels (well, for what you pay, they're all "premium" now). For the real premiums like HBO you pay even more. Strip out all the crap channels and you're paying a lot more than $1/channel for the channels you actually WATCH. said by Pv8man:If you could only afford one, and had to choose. TV? or Internet? That's easy. Internet. We could simply stream/download the 2 or 3 shows we watch. Really? Things were better way back then? Hmmm... I remember when ESPN first started out. They had so much good programming on there that they had to air Australian Rules Football to fill out their air time. HBO didn't START broadcasting until 5:00 pm. Kids channels? Well, there was Nickelodeon... but no Noggin, no Sprout, no Disney. What about educational type channels? Nope - no Discovery, no Food Network, no Travel Channel, no NGC, no TLC, no Animal Planet... As a group most of the channels we got were locals. Next up were 'news' feed type channels - basically text versions of news feeds by Reuters. | |
JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:1 | reply to Anon
You're right - I forgot... you KNOW what my family views. How could I forget something like that? You KNOW that my family rents very few movies, so Netflix, which is such a good deal for you, would be horribly wasteful for me. You KNOW that my kids watch alot of what's on things like Noggin, Discovery, NGC, PBS Kids, Nick, Food Network, TLC... you KNOW all that, right? I get it now... that's why you can speak so stinking authoritatively about what MY family does.
And yeah, I'm a cheap loser - which is why we sacrifice so my wife can stay home with the kids, and actually raise them... sorry if looking for ways to actually, you know, SAVE money while allowing us to give our kids some entertainment value offends you in some bizarre way (yes, we look for ways to, gasp!, save money!). How utterly cheap of me... and selfish of me to actually want my wife home with my kids.
And if controlling the content and time of what my kids watch is considered too controlling to you... I don't even know what to say to that. Wait until your child gets old enough to actually figure out what's going on on TV. Somehow, I don't think you'd be all that thrilled with what's on broadcast.
BTW, one point you seem to be totally missing - you said that until we rebel things won't change. Well, guess what - I DON'T WANT THEM TO CHANGE - not as far as TV is concerned. Did it ever occur to you that to some of us, paying for the options that pay TV gives is worth it? You know there are those of us out here who actually know what they value, and what they want to spend money for. I pay for TV, because I choose to, and the options that they provide for entertainment for my family makes it worth it to me. | |
|
