 | | $1? WTF! Expensive... $1 is outrageous... | |
|
 |  Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | Re: $1? WTF! Expensive... $1 now...then $1.15, $1.50, $2.00....
What made this particularly bad is it sets a bad precedent for broadcast rights. | |
|
| |  djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1 | Re: $1? WTF! Expensive... Right. Just wait until the contracts for NBC, ABC and CBS are up. For any provider. This is very bad.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
| |
|
| | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | Re: $1? WTF! Expensive... They'll all be lining up looking to double dip for sure. | |
|
| | |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Right - time to go OTA.
Only problem is that the current model bundles TV with everything, and those wanting 'just' Internet/Voice will end up with a steep bill regardless. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: $1? WTF! Expensive... Somehow, I'd expect that to not be the case in L.A., however, I would expect smaller markets to possibly fold on OTA. | |
|
| | | |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | said by en102:Right - time to go OTA. Only problem is that the current model bundles TV with everything, and those wanting 'just' Internet/Voice will end up with a steep bill regardless. i pay 35/mo for 6mbps dry loop dsl. 40/mo for smartphone cell service... cutting my tv bill by 100/mo to $0 is worth every penny. between media center + tv tuner and tvserity and usenet, its like i have a full on dvr with every channel all for free.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
| | | | |  ChiyoSave Me Konata-ChanPremium
join:2003-02-20
Charlotte, NC
kudos:1 | Re: $1? WTF! Expensive... agree'd I love my XBMC on my HTPC I can watch anything and everything including stuff like Hulu on my big screen.
--
That was the wild boar.... Moo!
My podcast: The Banzai Beat »www.banzaibeat.com | |
|
| | | | |  mlongPremium
join:2000-05-27
Parker, CO | tiger72  has the right idea. I don't personally download TV but I have. I'm too lazy and Netflix is easier for me. I pay $43 a month for 7 meg DSL from Qwest and use a $100 HD antenna I bought from Best Buy. I ran the input from the attic to the basement and send it out to the two TVs in the house. I have a Windows 7 Media Center PC that records anything I want and Netflix for supplemental entertainment.
The next step is to build an extender for the bedroom and pipe it over the CAT5 I have in the house. People never believe me that I don't have cable/satellite (until I show them the five channels I get). I have a great DVR and guide system and uncompressed HD. The picture is great and only gets a little pixelated every now and then in bad weather.
The one thing I do miss is things like ESPN for live sports. Monday Night Football is on ESPN but the other day we had people over and watched football all day on the major networks. Dropping my $80 a month DirecTV bill was very satisfying. It's not for everyone but if you can, I highly recommend it.
--
Make money on the stuff you never use: Crowd Rent | |
|
| | | | | |  markofmayhemWhy not now?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
 ·Comcast
| Re: $1? WTF! Expensive... This will be a cost savings as long as people are still buying cable TV. Once the majority of us moves to OTA and Hulu, those services will be eliminated/charged for as well. If TV is what you want, TV is what you will pay for. It's nice that the alternatives are here today, enjoy them while they last.
There is no regulation nor law that forces OTA to be HD. Your affiliate can send an SD signal on OTA and have the HD on payed service only, in addition to different programming as well. Hulu is Universal's way to have advertising revenue streams in multiple logistical offerings, Hulu is set-up and ready to become a pay-per-view store when the time is right. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: $1? WTF! Expensive... said by markofmayhem:There is no regulation nor law that forces OTA to be HD. Your affiliate can send an SD signal on OTA and have the HD on payed service only, in addition to different programming as well. Hulu is Universal's way to have advertising revenue streams in multiple logistical offerings, Hulu is set-up and ready to become a pay-per-view store when the time is right. Hulu is actually a partnership with NBC/Universal, News Corp and Disney/ABC.
You are right that no one is forcing any station to be HD. In fact Fox was widescreen SD when it first started its DTV transmissions. | |
|
| | | | |  maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1 | said by tiger72:said by en102:Right - time to go OTA. Only problem is that the current model bundles TV with everything, and those wanting 'just' Internet/Voice will end up with a steep bill regardless. i pay 35/mo for 6mbps dry loop dsl. 40/mo for smartphone cell service... cutting my tv bill by 100/mo to $0 is worth every penny. between media center + tv tuner and tvserity and usenet, its like i have a full on dvr with every channel all for free. Unless you are a sports fan.
No matter how you look at it, there is almost no way of getting a live sports match without paying for it, albeit cable TV, satellite, or paid web subscriptions. Of course OTA networks do broadcast some sports in the weekends, but it is a very small fraction, and you rarely see NHL or NBA on the main networks, unless it is playoffs.
Also, OTA will give you 1 network to follow the Olympics, Cable/Satellite will give you 5 or 6.
Additionally, downloading TV series from usenet is illegal.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
|
| | | | | | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Re: $1? WTF! Expensive... espn360.com
don't wanna watch TV series due to usenet or torrent? Just stream Hulu using tversity or PlayOn. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: $1? WTF! Expensive... ESPN 360 charges your ISP. Your ISP will pass that fee on to you sooner or later. | |
|
| | | | | | | | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Re: $1? WTF! Expensive... said by fifty nine:ESPN 360 charges your ISP. Your ISP will pass that fee on to you sooner or later. they already do. But since I don't have pay TV service, at least i'm not paying for ESPN twice. If you're paying for broadband and your service offers ESPN360, you're already on the hook. Might as well make some use of it.
That said, her point was that you can't get any live games. I beg to differ. In fact, even without ESPN360, you can get live games through most of the leagues themselves for a fee. If you subscribed to all leagues, you'd still come out ahead in cost as well as overall value due to being able to watch many more games than cable offers.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
| | | | | | | | | maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1 | Re: $1? WTF! Expensive... said by tiger72:said by fifty nine:ESPN 360 charges your ISP. Your ISP will pass that fee on to you sooner or later. they already do. But since I don't have pay TV service, at least i'm not paying for ESPN twice. If you're paying for broadband and your service offers ESPN360, you're already on the hook. Might as well make some use of it. That said, her point was that you can't get any live games. I beg to differ. In fact, even without ESPN360, you can get live games through most of the leagues themselves for a fee. If you subscribed to all leagues, you'd still come out ahead in cost as well as overall value due to being able to watch many more games than cable offers. And is that in full 1080i that will play in brilliant colors on my 50" HDTV?
You'll be LUCKY to get a 2 Mbit/s stream online.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: $1? WTF! Expensive... said by maartena:And is that in full 1080i that will play in brilliant colors on my 50" HDTV? You'll be LUCKY to get a 2 Mbit/s stream online. Not to mention blackouts... | |
|
| | | | | | said by en102:Right - time to go OTA. Only problem is that the current model bundles TV with everything, and those wanting 'just' Internet/Voice will end up with a steep bill regardless. In NYC there was a simple solution to that. Get internet from an alternate ISP that uses the Time Warner network. I used New York Connect. All you pay for is the internet service. No TV service or additional charge because you don't have cable tv. | |
|
| | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: $1? WTF! Expensive... said by fifty nine:In NYC there was a simple solution to that. Get internet from an alternate ISP that uses the Time Warner network. I used New York Connect. All you pay for is the internet service. No TV service or additional charge because you don't have cable tv. I don't believe there is a price or speed difference between RR (TWC), NY Connect and Earthlink. With RR/TWC you can get bundling discounts, but with NY Connect and Earthlink standalone is your only price choice. | |
|
| | | |  Jim GurdPremium
join:2000-07-08
Plymouth, MI | said by en102:Right - time to go OTA. Only problem is that the current model bundles TV with everything, and those wanting 'just' Internet/Voice will end up with a steep bill regardless. Not necessarily. I just kicked Comcast to the curb last month because I was sick of the price increases.
Now I get my television OTA. Because I'm an AT&T Mobility customer I was able to get 6Mb DSL on a dry pair for $35 per month instead of the $65 that Comcast was charging for internet plus limited basic cable.
I'm saving $30 per month by not paying for channels that I found myself not watching very often anyway.
Vote with your wallet people. If enough of us do it they will be forced to cut their prices. To be honest I don't even miss cable TV. There are far better and cheaper entertainment options out there.
--
The Mogambo Guru economic newsletter, an avocational exercise to heap disrespect on those who desperately deserve it. | |
|
| | |
1 edit | said by djrobx:Right. Just wait until the contracts for NBC, ABC and CBS are up. For any provider. This is very bad. This set no precedent. This has happened before. It just happens that the Fox/TWC fight was more public than the rest.
But there have been disputes over carriage fees for a while now. In fact the law allowing OTA stations to charge carriage fees was passed since 1992 (the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992). In fact John Kerry, who threatened to involve the FCC even voted for the bill. | |
|
| | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | and brings the US one step closer to losing free OTA network television. | |
|
| | | glad that i cancelled slime warner cable years ago.i stopped because there is to many bad reality tv,sitcoms,and other bad shows.not enough for me to keep cable with all the channels.
great idea cause now i will download shows and buy the ones i like.i now own a lot of dvd boxsets of shows and documentaries. | |
|
| | | i agree with you.
.........
The goal is not to change your photo to canvas and photos on canvas , but for the subject to change the photographer. ~Author Unknown | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Ugh A La Carte cable TV can't come soon enough. But that will never happen either. | |
|
| Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | Re: Ugh Exactly, let these channels compete for subscribers instead of relying on channel welfare. Quality goes up as well as would available bandwidth when filler channels go into the toilet. | |
|
| | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Re: Ugh And then pricing per channel will go up. And you'll be left paying the same $50/mo that basic costs right now, but for 25 (or less) stations, instead of the 70+ most people get on basic ATM.
Of course, that $2/channel is at todays rates. espn is already ~4/sub.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
| | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | Re: Ugh Awesome, let it. Then I can get just the 5 or 6 channels I actually watch for $40 instead of 200 channels of filler for $100. | |
|
| | | | | said by tiger72:And then pricing per channel will go up. And you'll be left paying the same $50/mo that basic costs right now, but for 25 (or less) stations, instead of the 70+ most people get on basic ATM. Wrong. Cost will go up for what should be considered premium channels (mostly sports, that cost more to begin with). The other broadcasters would loose too many viewers to be viable if they started jacking up their costs. No, most likely prices would remain relatively the same if not a little less with a-la-carte. It's just that we will be hearing the loudest noise from (insert sport here) fans since it's unlikely the NFL/NBA/etc will probably not back down on pricing and sports fans are the most likely to complain... but still pay up.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
| | | | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
2 edits | Re: Ugh said by jimbo2150:said by tiger72:And then pricing per channel will go up. And you'll be left paying the same $50/mo that basic costs right now, but for 25 (or less) stations, instead of the 70+ most people get on basic ATM. Wrong. Cost will go up for what should be considered premium channels (mostly sports, that cost more to begin with). The other broadcasters would loose too many viewers to be viable if they started jacking up their costs. No, most likely prices would remain relatively the same if not a little less with a-la-carte. It's just that we will be hearing the loudest noise from (insert sport here) fans since it's unlikely the NFL/NBA/etc will probably not back down on pricing and sports fans are the most likely to complain... but still pay up. a la carte pricing is available on big dish satellite already. feel free to research how many channels you'd get for the price of your current cable plan. Every time this topic comes up here, the fallacy of a la carte heaven is brought up without any evidence that it would save most people money.
Or do you REALLY believe that cable companies will just become a dumb pipe to people choosing to get 8 of their favorite channels for $16/mo? You don't believe that they'll institute a basic access service fee? Hmm? You don't believe that they'll try to mimic ATT by hiding a-la-carte options like ATT hides its dry-loop service? The cable company STILL owns that buried cable. The satellite companies STILL own those birds. They're going to make you pay those fees anyways. Oh, but instead of paying $50/mo for 100 channels, you'll be paying $24/mo access fee + $2-$4/channel. Oh, and those channels that actually pay to be offered (ie QVC) may not be carried anymore, but they also won't subsidize the $4/sub ESPN freaks.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
| | | | |
See 14 replies to this post |
|  Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by pnh102:A La Carte cable TV can't come soon enough. But that will never happen either. If the networks want to charge what basically amounts to an a la cart fee for their programming, we need to be able to only choose that network.
I'll take Fox and Discovery for $2 a month please ...
--
trafficcloak.com - pptp/sstp vpn services | |
|
| |
See 15 replies to this post |
|
| | | I wish, I could ditch ESPN and the entire sports package, MTV, all the Fox stuff including news, reality.
I think I would be down to maybe 20 channels that I actually watch.
--
Retaking our country one election at a time. | |
|
|
| en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: That inevitable internet video revolution Very true.
It'll turn the industry upside down.
The industry would end up being similar to Telco/Electrical/Water/Gas, etc., where it would be broken into 2 parts:
1. 'Network' - channels (a la carte and/or bundles - probably bundled by 'networks')
2. Carrier fee (TWC/AT&T/Comcast/FiOS/etc.) | |
|
| openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | said by Nightfall:Its not coming anytime soon. If it does get here, the data volume caps will be enforced on every major ISP which will render the all you can eat style of TV moot. Plus, who's to say that authorized streaming of video over the Internet will cost any less than the current cable/satellite broadcasts model? The content owners still hold the purse strings regardless of the transmission means. | |
|
| | | | Re: That inevitable internet video revolution said by openbox9:said by Nightfall:Its not coming anytime soon. If it does get here, the data volume caps will be enforced on every major ISP which will render the all you can eat style of TV moot. Plus, who's to say that authorized streaming of video over the Internet will cost any less than the current cable/satellite broadcasts model? The content owners still hold the purse strings regardless of the transmission means. That is the part that a lot of people forget.
Hulu has already said they want to charge money, and I'm sure others will follow suit if they're successful. | |
|
| | People still watch TV? The TV age is coming to an end, the last time i watched TV I was in jail.
When you can get the latest movies/shows in under 5 minutes with no ads, why watch TV? Screw those people and there monopolies! Why work your ass off paying for something that shoves ads in your face with a high audio dB, AND their making money off you!!....It's like your paying to watch their ads and make them money.
I guess the worse part is that the average "joe" pays for the service in cash and even goes to the lengths to defend the corporations that brain storm all day on how to take more of his money..
I guess what im trying to say is that TV isnt worth crap and has no point except to distract you all day and take your money. | |
|
Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | TWC shouldn't pay a penny Fox broadcasts network programming OTA for free, paid by ad revenues. They should be paying TWC to reach those additional customers instead of double dipping; charging TWC PLUS getting the additional ad revenues as Fox brags about their big numbers. Fox claims that TWC "takes" the programming and resells it, omitting that TWC subs watch those frakkin' ads too all to Fox's benefit.
Fox broadcast stations only exist because the government permits them to use the public spectrum and some strings should come attached to that spectrum including free rebroadcast rights so long as whoever is rebroadcasting doesn't change Fox advertising or insert additional ads.
The cable industry should collectively bargain these rates instead of programmers isolating and picking off these cable outfits with endless price increases and channel extortion. Then if Fox or Disney wants to fight, let them lose their channel off EVERY cable system. Then watch their advertising quickly evaporate. | |
|
|
See 26 replies to this post |
|
| | Karl what is the source of the $1 figure The 02 Jan 2010 NYT article says TW was proposing 30 cents and Fox was seeking $1, and that neither party was revealing the settled amount. Did I miss a citation? | |
|
| | I am shocked (NOT) I wish they would have passed on the HDNET fee that was the best HD channel ever.
Brighthouse could careless about how much you pay and they know the get tough site was a joke. | |
|
| | Toyed with ditching Cable TV We've been toying with ditching Cable TV for awhile now. Netflix/Roku gives us much of our entertainment. Taking DVDs out of the library adds in. Plus, I recently won a CinemaTube in an online contest. I could hook an external HD to that (or just hook it up to my wireless network) and stream all of my ripped (legally owned) DVDs to my TV easily. (No, I can't see myself using the built-in Torrent engine, though it is an interesting feature.)
About the only things tying us to TV right now are:
1) Kids shows - My kids love watching a channel or two (mainly Nick Jr.) that we would miss if we went OTA-only.
2) DVR - There just doesn't seem to be a good non-Cable DVR option if we went OTA TV-only. TiVo is nice, but I'd prefer not to pay the monthly fee.
Item 1 could be helped with a better Netflix plan, more visits to the library or even more DVD purchases. Item 2, I'm not so sure about. Anyone know of any DVRs that don't cost too much and don't require a monthly subscription?
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause | |
|
|
See 11 replies to this post |
|
| | cancelled 2 years ago Canceled cable after Sopranos was off. Haven't missed it. Netflix is $8 a month. | |
|
| | Where is the $1 figure coming from? All of the reports that I've read say that no one is announcing how much TWC has agreed to pay. Given that TWC was proposing something on the order of 40 cents and Fox wanted a $1 it's almost certain that the final agreement was somewhere in-between those two figures. I can't see any way that TWC would agree to the $1 per subscriber fee so the summary must be wrong. | |
|
|
See 13 replies to this post |
|
Reviews:
 ·ooma
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| $cable$ vs free_ota vs free_internet_torrents protest higher rates.. cancel.
there's nothing like a subscription boycott [WITH TEETH!] to bring prices down.. look at the wonders it's done for the housing market, the job market, and other markets that are always out to screw the consumer & workers. | |
|
|  NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | Re: $cable$ vs free_ota vs free_internet_torrents I fail to understand how one can assert that there's an organized boycott in the housing market. The last I checked, the housing market was brought down by the greed of a few at the top of a number of large financial institutions.
And I'm not sure what your point is about the job market... That people are boycotting taking jobs, or that employers are intentionally withholding jobs from people?
Please explain, because I fail to see how these markets continually "screw the consumer & workers".
--
To all liberals: I am NOT one of your parents, so get the heck out of my wallet. It's time for you to grow up and take some personal responsibility for taking care of yourselves, which means not relying on the government to give it all to you. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: $cable$ vs free_ota vs free_internet_torrents said by NOVA_Guy:I fail to understand how one can assert that there's an organized boycott in the housing market. The last I checked, the housing market was brought down by the greed of a few at the top of a number of large financial institutions. And I'm not sure what your point is about the job market... That people are boycotting taking jobs, or that employers are intentionally withholding jobs from people? Please explain, because I fail to see how these markets continually "screw the consumer & workers". By organized boycott it means going back to old fashioned cash and/or bartering... and the kind that makes it harder to transfer from place to place.. maybe not using pennies.. there are bigger denominations that will get people's point accross to the banks sooner or later. This means you treat banks as your enemy. Boycotting jobs means companies who go out of their way to screw the little guy-- let's use companies that screw union workers (there's a ripe set of targets) and utilize the bankruptcy laws to eradicate pension obligations and healthcare benefits, etc... you treat these companies as the enemy by not buying their products no matter how low they go in price.. or work for them no matter how high the salary incentives. There used to be a backbone of people in this country.. but no longer.. the corporations expect to win. | |
|
Reviews:
·Shaw
| Wow paying for commercialized TV? How did we all end up agreeing for this?
Cable used to just retransmit signals to areas that couldn't get it over rabbit ears. Then you got specialized stations which don't broadcase so they charged fees. Now the networks are?
but someone there also making money off commercials, so ended up with a model where we pay to be overloaded with advertisements.
I think I agree with the write of the article, that all that BS is just going to lead to internet distribution. The bigger/faster the internet gets, the less need there is for a middleman. | |
|
| markofmayhemWhy not now?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5 | Re: Wow paying for commercialized TV? Who/what are you buying on the internet that doesn't include a middle man? | |
|
| | | said by zod5000:How did we all end up agreeing for this? Cable used to just retransmit signals to areas that couldn't get it over rabbit ears. Then you got specialized stations which don't broadcase so they charged fees. Now the networks are? but someone there also making money off commercials, so ended up with a model where we pay to be overloaded with advertisements. I think I agree with the write of the article, that all that BS is just going to lead to internet distribution. The bigger/faster the internet gets, the less need there is for a middleman. Cable has gone well beyond community antenna now. Those days are long gone. | |
|
dforan
join:2000-12-09
Willoughby, OH
3 edits | CABLE tv rape Back out 2 tons of the friggin infomercials and JUNK Adverstising.. Why do we have to pay for cable to get PAID advertising.. This is TOTALLY wrong to have to PAY to get PAID advertisng...
I could care less about Espanol Soccer..
Then T/W changed all the addresses on my HSA and that took 4 hours to get everything working and T/W claims to know nothing As usual
Bring back ON SHORE HELP Let offshore go
And going to AT&T U-Worse is not an option.. AT&T will NOT rewire my 60 year old neighborhood and the powers to be gave the Cable franchise to one provider and said enjoy | |
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | I see this and shake my head I have already reduced my packages to basically nothing but basic cable and the sports pack.
I refuse to pay for most other services.
I feel like I am stuck in a position though because I got DirecTV's higher rates fee and just really am getting annoyed at this yearly increase which seems to be getting more and more.
I wish I could say that I am cancelling DirecTV but I can't because I do watch a LOT of basic shows off my DVR. | |
|
| | | Re: I see this and shake my head Some one has to pay for all the acquisitions. You didn't think they would not charge you for them to make more money did you ?
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
approval from:
NOVA_Guy
| TV Pricing This could have been settled for $.05 and Time Warner will still charge their customers $1.50 price increase do to the
"Higher rates broadcasters are charging Time Warner".
Anything to screw the customer out of more money. | |
|
| | Change your mindset Everyone thinks they "need" TV. Maybe if you stopped thinking you need TV, you could stop paying $150+ per month to the cable TV company and the broadcasters. OTA works fine (for now) but I can't say I'd miss it that much if I didn't have a TV. | |
|
| | | Re: Change your mindset said by cyclone_z:Everyone thinks they "need" TV. Maybe if you stopped thinking you need TV, you could stop paying $150+ per month to the cable TV company and the broadcasters. OTA works fine (for now) but I can't say I'd miss it that much if I didn't have a TV. Wow! $150/month?
I pay $139/month and that includes 30Mbps internet, three TVs hooked up, one cable box and two cablecards. | |
|
| | Please drop to basic cable Cabel system owners woudl love if everyone dropped to just basic service. There is no money in the premium service. The programmers take all the profit. I woudl love to jsut operate a small 30 channel system. Charge for the distribution. Not the programming. Actaully we ahve ooked at a side business of installing off-air antennas Mor emoney and free programming. Nobody wants to crawl on roofs WE DO> | |
|
no_coin
join:2002-10-17
Tyngsboro, MA | Just let me drop FOX (ala cart) I don't want them anyway. | |
|
pbarrowPremium
join:2003-09-16
Montgomery, AL
kudos:1 | Internet video revolution can't come soon enough What good is an "Internet video revolution" gonna do when all the ISP's are setting CAP's on everyone.
We (the users - some of us anyway) still won't be able to afford it.
From what I can tell from messaging the few people I know in the UK - they are not getting screwed as bad by their providers as we are here.
But then I'm sure the ISP industry here is talking their operating ques from the same Wall Street asses the ran the country into the ground in the 1st place.
I wouldn't be surprised if in the coming years we won't all be paying for our TV & Internet service from China owned providers. The way things are going we may become the United States of China. | |
|
maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1 | The UK has Freeview. The UK has a program called "Freeview", which offer subscription-free satellite TV. All you have to do is purchase the equipment such as a dish and receivers.
It offers about 40 TV channels and 20 Radio channels, and offers "the basics" in Brittish broadcast and cable TV, for no money per month.
»www.freeview.co.uk/
Granted, the whole model for TV works a lot different there, but I believe the broadcast networks such as ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, etc should be "free to air" so that everyone can pick them up. And I mean a "nationalized" version of the network with national news, and no local news, no local commercials, etc, so the entire U.S. will get the same channel.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
|
| | | Re: The UK has Freeview. No local news? That sounds stupid. | |
|
| | maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1 | Re: The UK has Freeview. You can get local news OTA as well. The satellite channels would more be for those who want to pick up one set of free channels by satellite, or perhaps 2 sets, one on EST and one on PST, of channels that can be received nationwide at no cost by satellite, where all you have to do is buy equipment.
I would say it needs to include the major broadcast networks ABC, CBS, NBC, WB, FOX, MyNetworkTV in SD and HD, as well as CNN, Fox News, MSNBC for news channels, one or two PBS channels, CSPAN, basically providing the "bare basics" of about 20-odd channels to the entire nation for free.
That's the idea with UK's Freeview satellite, if you want more, you have to pay up for a satellite or cable subscription. It could help a lot with OTA signal problems in many areas too.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
|
|
|
·
