Are Cable Subscribers Subsidizing Internet-Only TV Viewers? 223
waderoush sends a tongue-in-cheek open letter to cable TV subscribers from somebody who has cut the cord in favor of streaming shows over the internet.
"Dear Cable TV Subscriber: I don't think I've ever told you how grateful I am. I haven't paid a cent for cable television since 2009. Yet I have on-demand access via the Internet to a growing cornucopia of great shows like Game of Thrones, Homeland, Mad Men, and Breaking Bad, at reasonable à la carte prices. And it's all because you continue to pay exorbitant and ever-increasing monthly fees for your premium cable bundle (around $80 per month, on average). After all, your money goes straight to the studios and networks that produce and distribute all the expensive first-run programming that I'm perfectly happy to watch later at heavily discounted prices. So in effect, you're subsidizing my own footloose, freeloading, cord-cutting TV habits. I don't know how to thank you!"
Mod question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it possible to mod an entire Slashdot article as "Flamebait?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when we could vote articles up or down (http://web.archive.org/web/20100612085708/http://slashdot.org/ [archive.org])? If tonights updates brings us to that fucking god awful beta site permanently with no option to keep classic /. then I'm done. The only exception would be if they unfuck the comment system and get rid of that emaciated layout.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The new site has in fact been worked on in the background for several years, ever since a particular incident where a temporary redesign caused lawyers to get in touch and put it back to normal.
After long negotiations, the company saw that slashdot was a suitable platform for their outreach beyond their core audience.
They are in fact changing the comments system to 'Comments are Magic' - and slashdot will henceforth be known as 'My Little Slashy'.
Re: (Score:2)
They are in fact changing the comments system to 'Comments are Magic' - and slashdot will henceforth be known as 'My Little Slashy'.
I draw the line at slashdot becoming a pony cartoon. Anything short of that I think I'm okay with... especially if it pisses off the hipsters.
Re:Mod question... (Score:4, Insightful)
You haven't heard of the firehose? If you didn't vote against the story don't bitch about it being posted.
Re: (Score:3)
The firehouse is a farce! The only people going there are the people who have time to waste that wasn't already wasted on the front page. Voting a front page story up or down means it passed the sniff test, but might not perform under pressure.
Re: (Score:3)
You can set your preferences so that submissions show up on the front page, and you can vote from there. I participate.
Re:Mod question... (Score:4, Funny)
That's why I wear a Diamondium hat.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Everyone knows Dimondium is crap! Dimondillion is the way to go...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Wernstrom!
Re: (Score:3)
It should be.... sounds like a cable exec loaded up a bong (its medicinal) and this idea was the result.....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Evidently, it's easy to get.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRm1yqSmsGY [youtube.com]
Re:Mod question... (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe, but not now. Netflix? Pshaw, most cable channels are on the internet. The truth is only flamebait to the stupid.
The cable companies are killing themselves. I've been OTA for years, 400 channels but I might want to watch six of them and you want $80? Are you insane?
Cable use to be a good deal. A dozen extra channels, including HBO, none with commercials and local TV without snow or ghosts for ten bucks a month.
Now? Not only do they have commercials but you get commercials during the actual content! Empty-V played music videos, now they show the same reality TV bullshit you get OTA (which no longer has ghosts or snow since it's now digital). History showed ancient Greece, WWII, etc, now they have "Ice Road Truckers". Discovery used to have science and tech, now it's "Trick My Truck".
They expect me to pay them for that?
But I'm a geezer, I remember 3 black and white stations in a large city. I get half a dozen stations in a small city, crystal clear, in higher definition than cable streams.
You think I'm paying for that?
Flamebait, my ass. Wake up. If cable wants me back they can offer a la carte with no fucking commercials. If I'm paying for content and with my eyeballs you're charging me twice and you're ripping me off. Fuck cable and the horse it rode in on,
Re: (Score:2)
I hope so. He certainly does pay a fee for his television, he's just ignoring it. You can not stream TV without having an internet, and internet is not free. But but but... some hipster is saying that they already have internet so why not use it? Except that if you're not streaming TV on your internet then you do not need the ridiculously high bandwidth that you're paying for.
Thank the people that are subsidizing the internet. I have no idea how they can stream on a $30/month plan when my $50/month pla
Re: (Score:2)
Try an add on network card if the other guy's suggestion isn't feasible for you. An Intel or 3com would be nice if you can lay your hands on one. A used one would be ok
Some of the on board network cards (and even ad on) use the host computer's system processor and memory like the old wintel modems did. What this does is creates a CPU and Memory load when
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Flamebait? This is a real world example of trickle down economics!
With the cable customers being the ones getting trickled down on.
It rolls down hill (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It rolls down hill (Score:5, Insightful)
"Thank you streaming subscriber for subsidizing my torrents. Sorry to sound like a snide dick, but once you got things rolling I decided, why not? Reply to This Share"
I have to wonder why OP thinks his "heavily discounted" prices are in fact heavily discounted, anyway. The fact that other people may be getting gouged with a backhoe doesn't mean you're not being gouged with a pitchfork.
Re: (Score:2)
Now let's see if you're able to cut the internet cord. If not, then you're not a cord cutter.
Re: (Score:2)
Now let's see if you're able to cut the internet cord. If not, then you're not a cord cutter.
Thank you, "adapted for big-screen/TV viewer", for subsidizing my dead-tree books. Sorry to sound like a snide dick, but once you got things rolling I decided, why not?
I'll admit I watch the occasional movie on Netflix, but seriously? If you think modern "push" media has a future, I have bridge to sell you. It still has the advantage only in purely linear storytelling. Move to any newer form of multipath stories
I'll cut the cable cord... (Score:5, Insightful)
...just as soon as they're not the best internet provider in town.
Re:I'll cut the cable cord... (Score:5, Interesting)
You can have internet only services. You'll lose "bundle" pricing, but you'll still save a shit load of cash because you won't be paying TV services, STB/DVR rental costs, FCC, and taxes and other fees etc. We save around $98/month by not having cable TV, just FiOS 50/25mbps. Viewing fodder is made up with Netflix at ~$8-9/month. The interesting thing about losing cable TV is that the family didn't care, I was the main loser due to the loss of sports.
Think of it this way, after one year of our not having cable TV service, we can buy both the PS4 and Xbone with the reduction in outgoing expenditure.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy shit! You SAVE $98? And here I thought my bill was getting exhorbitant by going up to $70. If I saved $98 they'd have to be paying me. Ok, add in my $50 internet and it starts adding up but I'd have to greatly increase my internet fee to actually start streaming shows without it bogging down other uses of the internet. When and if I cut the cord, I'll mostly likely be using physical Netflix DVD, or nothing at all.
Someone's gotta pay for cable (Score:2)
Afterall, it's cable subscribers that are recording the shows that get put on the torrent sites. Call it getting a ROI.
Re:Someone's gotta pay for cable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Content providers have to pay too (Score:2)
Um, yeah, don't care. (Score:5, Insightful)
The cable TV model is broken. You know what, TV isn't that important. Screw them.
It'll probably have to crash and burn until something reasonable emerges. We've had direct-to-DVD for awhile, and we're starting to see direct-to-streaming-services. There may come a time when big expensive TV shows can't be produced anymore, but that model is broken too. Screw them also.
I suspect that things will transition to something new, and the studios and networks and content providers that refused to evolve will die. And that's fine. And if TV devolved to public access, that'd be fine to. Sometime last century we were trained to believe that TV is essential. If the entire broadcast/cable TV system collapsed with nothing to take its place (which I think is unlikely) at very least, we'd find out that TV really isn't essential after all.
So yeah, the last of the "tv generation" is paying the exorbitant salaries and production costs for three-and-a-half men. Serves them right.
Re: (Score:2)
It won't crash&burn, because they'll go crying to Congress... ZOMG!!! PIRATES!!!! OUR PROFIT$$$ and CAMPAIGN $$$$ ARE DISAPPEARING!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
105th: NET, CTEA, DMCA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what, if no one watches TV anymore and no one even pirates shows to watch, then there's no way they can get profits. Just stop watching.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, think DMCA on steroids.
Re:Um, yeah, don't care. (Score:5, Insightful)
The cable TV model is broken. You know what, TV isn't that important. Screw them.
If dealing with Comcast was half as pleasant as dry Greek, I'd probably subscribe to cable. Things they need to do to capture my dollar:
1) Stop encrypting the over-the-air content. I neither want nor need a fucking cable box for every TV.
2) Stop hiring idiots and liars. If I get transferred more than twice during a call, you lose a customer. I don't have time for that.
3) Stop playing price obscurity / bait & switch games. Fuck your "$39.99 / 3 months, $whothefuckknows for the next two years" offers. Prices up front.
I would so mod this up (Score:2)
And so should some other people.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
To which I might add, until you do at least these things, stop coming to my door monthly and trying to get me to switch from your competitor. I'm not *using* your competitor for anything except internet. I don't *care* how good a deal the bundle is. I don't *care* how many hundreds of channels you have. I don't need you. Take two steps back. Look up. That's called an antenna. Say it with me. "An-TEN-na." It magically sucks network TV signals right out of the air. For everything else, we have
Live sports (Score:2)
That's called an antenna. Say it with me. "An-TEN-na." It magically sucks network TV signals right out of the air. For everything else, we have Netflix and Hulu. And you don't. Get off my lawn.
With antenna + Netflix + Hulu Plus, you still miss out on Monday Night Football. And without cable, you may end up stuck on slow DSL.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Roger that!
Re: (Score:2)
I have internet cable, but no cable TV. It's not that hard. You're right that I "miss out" on Monday Night Football, but I also "missed out" on the Spanish Inquisition, and I miss both of those things approximately equally.
As I recall, the Spanish Inquisition was available (whether you wanted it or not) without ESPN getting $5 a month out of every cable subscriber whether they cared about sports or not.
Re: (Score:2)
That's called an antenna. Say it with me. "An-TEN-na." It magically sucks network TV signals right out of the air. For everything else, we have Netflix and Hulu. And you don't. Get off my lawn.
With antenna + Netflix + Hulu Plus, you still miss out on Monday Night Football. And without cable, you may end up stuck on slow DSL.
Yeah, I don't watch football, but my wife is a rabid fan. Somehow she manages to watch the games. Monday Night Football was on one of the local channels (I honestly don't know if it is this season -- it's something I don't follow) but I know she's been using a combination of off-air tv, the internet, and the occasional evening in a sports bar to keep up with her games.
Re: (Score:3)
Sometime last century we were trained to believe that TV is essential. If the entire broadcast/cable TV system collapsed with nothing to take its place (which I think is unlikely) at very least, we'd find out that TV really isn't essential after all.
The TV system *is* being replaced, albeit slowly with something else: the internet. There was a time when all TV was used for was news and weather. Most people don't sit down in front of the TV for news these days (and no, opinion is not news). They get their news from the internet. People get entertainment from TV these days.
And, don't look now, but we've already been trained to believe the internet is a necessity in our lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people don't sit down in front of the TV for news these days (and no, opinion is not news). They get their news from the internet. People get entertainment from TV these days.
I blame CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC for this just as equally as the Internet's rise. These shows are designed to entertain a market, not inform citizens.
I for one, can't wait for TV to die. It does little productive except keep people from truly experiencing life. Even at our house, the TV is rarely watched except on major events or for the kiddies (it's a nice reward) but with iPads and Netflix, it's not even needed for that much anymore either... I keep wanting an excuse to replace our 42" LCD with a newe
Re: (Score:2)
You are fully aware that the show is called "Two and a half men", but you deliberately got it "wrong" in the hopes that someone would, correct you, so that you could scoff and pretend you're above such "low pop culture".
You're not, though, and you never will be.
Wow, nice try. If you blindly guess at someone's motives, it has to be right some time, doesn't it? And those times must feel like magic.
I freely admit to being quite fond of some of Chuck Lorre's other creations. I got his vanity card coffee table book for Christmas last year. We watch The Big Bang Theory religiously. (What geek doesn't?) My daughter can sing the second verse of the theme song. (The full version is available on itunes.) However, I have never watched an episode of 2 1/2 men all the
Re: (Score:2)
Gloria Gaynor
Re: (Score:2)
Be damned. So Franklin covered it?
Re: (Score:2)
We watch The Big Bang Theory religiously. (What geek doesn't?)
One with some self respect, who understands the difference in being laughed "at" and laughed "with".
Oh, c'mon, when Lorre has to explain the jokes in the vanity cards, with graphs, when the significance of t-shirts and props are lost on most non-geeks and never explained in-story, the show is clearly designed for (or at least giving a firm nod to) geeks. Did you also hate The IT Crowd? As a geek, you know that geekiness is a continuum, from the Asperger’s of Sheldon, (and to a certain extent Amy) the mostly-unconscious bromance of Raj and Howard, brilliant-but-mostly-normal people like Bernadette
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, c'mon, when Lorre has to explain the jokes in the vanity cards, with graphs, when the significance of t-shirts and props are lost on most non-geeks and never explained in-story, the show is clearly designed for (or at least giving a firm nod to) geeks
Yeah, hoping that said geeks will be so enamored of that little bit of mainstream acknowledgment that they'll completely miss the fact that it's just one long stream of the same old stereotypical crap we've been hearing from the mundanes since the 80s (and probably before, but my logfile doesn't go back that far).
iTunes (Score:2)
All you have to do to say "thanks" is get hooked on some show, and then occasionally pay iTunes' high prices for early access to new episodes. That's all. Simple, really, isn't it?
"Reasonable" a la carte prices? (Score:3, Informative)
I admittedly only skimmed the article. But where are the "reasonable" a la carte prices?
Both Amazon & iTunes charge $2.99 ($3.99 for HD) per episode for "Game of Thrones" S1. (Yes, a bit less per ep if you buy an entire season, but that doesn't really count as a la carte anymore, does it?)
I would gladly pay at least the same, maybe even slightly more, than I pay now for cable, to be able to watch everything commercial free/when I want without having to Tivo them.. But I'd pay a LOT more than cable, if you use the current prices of every single individual show.
Re: (Score:3)
a lot of cable channels now have streaming options with some cable providers. you log in with your online cable company log in and you can stream content. Time Warner and a few others will let you stream live TV on a tablet or phone or computer and you can even watch recorded shows online for a few days after the airing so you don't need a DVR
HBO Go, Bravo, Disney, ESPN off the top of my head but there are others as well.
Re: (Score:2)
So what? It's still a ripoff.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what you consider "reasonable", how willing you are to think outside the box, and how willing you are to be patient. After listening to my family complain constantly about the $220.00 per month, $2,640.00 annually, we were spending on Cable and Internet we took at look at what was available and what we were willing to give up.
With our Cable cancellation, which was a $120.00 per month and at a different provider from our Internet, we now had $1,440
Re: (Score:3)
Hulu Plus has ads.. Netflix (streaming) and Amazon Prime aren't "a la carte", AND I don't believe either of them has Game of Thrones, one of the specific examples listed.
Of course, Netflix DOES have GoT via DVD/BluRay, but even then, it's still not "a la carte". So I really do think the entire premise was on the pay-per-view-per-episode model, which I still think isn't "reasonably" priced.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, No
Try waiting (Score:2)
To the studios? (Score:3)
$6 per month JUST for ESPN (Score:2)
You obviously haven't taken a look at Comcast's balance sheet if you think that $80/month is going to the studios.
I heard a stat that cable companies pay $6 per month for ESPN/ESPN2 [npr.org]. That's just two channels. Most channels are not that expensive, but if you have 100 channels....it is not hard to see how you're going to get a lot of that money going to content providers.
Other note I would make is that it is not exactly new to have "dry" cable internet. There are millions out there with cable internet and no TV -- and the cable companies do it willingly; I don't think they would do it if it really caused significant pric
When TV costs negative dollars per month (Score:2)
There are millions out there with cable internet and no TV -- and the cable companies do it willingly; I don't think they would do it if it really caused significant price pressure on the TV side of the house.
Anonymous Coward reports [slashdot.org] that some cable companies charge more for dry Internet than for Internet + TV.
Cable Customer === Internet Customer (Score:2)
This is an incredibly strange point to try to make when an ENORMOUS amount of people are paying the CABLE company for their basic Internet.
Re:Cable Customer === Internet Customer (Score:4, Interesting)
My ISP is the cable company.
At first, we just signed up for internet. The initial rate was $30/month. After a year, the cable company double it to $60. After another year, they sent notice that it would go up to $90. We called them to downgrade to the next lower tier. The customer service rep said if we bundled TV service, we'd only pay $80 and stay at the same internet service tier. After 2 years, that went up to $100 and has stayed there since. We have asked about dropping TV, but they told us they'd then have put us on a business account, which would be $120 per month - and, because of our location, the service would still be residential because our area is only wired for residential service.
I can only guess that they really want to keep their TV subscriber numbers up.
On the other hand, using the TV on demand feature does help us avoid hitting the monthly internet usage cap.
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to go with DSL, it serves my purposes, even though I think $47 a month is too much.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, I have around $50/month with vdsl (u-verse), and 12mbps. Which is more internet than a home user needs if they're not torrenting or streaming.
I could save money if I bundled TV with it, but they don't have a great TV option I don't think.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I have and it streams just fine, even with bittorrent running, but I live alone so there are never more than 4 devices online (counting my Android phone).
Cable, just another streaming service (Score:3)
I don't know if I qualify as a cord cutter: cable internet is cheaper if you get it bundled with TV service where I am so I got the bare minimum tv service with internet. My cable box (can't get TV without their box) hasn't even been connected is nearly a year (set it up in case visitors were insistent). I calculated out the tv portion to be about $10 / month.
I use my xbox for comcast video on demand service which thanks to a recent update now provides an HD option. So to me comcast on demand is just another streaming service for the the channels I pay for (boradcast+cspan) as well as the channels I don't (almost all the basic cable ones like BBCA and comedy central) as well as HD quality which I also didn't sign up for/pay for.
So I guess I'm the one really being subsidized.
Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
Cable subscribers are subsidizing sports.
Comcast owns sports teams. The teams ask ridiculous amounts of money for broadcast rights. Comcast passes the cost on to their customers.
And then their's ESPN....
I often wonder what cable would cost if I didn't have to subsidize the sports franchises.
The same goes for my local taxes.
Imagine if the sports teams had to pay for their own stadiums?
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if the sports teams had to pay for their own stadiums?
That never happens, as since the antiquity, political leaders had known that in order to keep the people quiet, they need to give Panem et circences.
Re: (Score:2)
If sports teams couldn't get tax payers to flip the bill for stadiums, there would be fewer stadiums. At least fewer in small towns where the taxes are unsustainable.
I've been an exclusively online tv watcher.... (Score:2)
And I haven't looked back.
I've long since found that the regular networks you'd watch the show on will actually frequently stream many of their most popular shows right on their own website - one usually only has to wait until the day after it has aired to watch it online.
Okay, so if I do things this way, I'm stuck in their online streaming application (invariably flash-based for the desktop, or else a native app for mobile viewing), and I'll sti
Authentication on networks' websites (Score:2)
maybe to show Cable content providers (Score:3)
recently my cable provider had Turner Networks cut them off of several channels because my cable provider refused to accept a 50% increase of charges for access, so my cable provider has several blank channels where Turner Network channels once occupied, things like CNN & Headline News, TNT, Turner Classic Movies, Cartoon Network, (Turner's programming), a few empty spots once occupied by Turner's channels already been filled with other programming,
the point i am trying to make is by allowing streaming video content on cable internet shows providers like CNN that they are not the only method of content distribution (competition)
Agree, somewhat ... (Score:3)
Most of what I watch is free and legal. In theory, it is advertiser supported, since there are commercials if I watch shows in the evening. Yet if I watch late at night, I rarely even see a commercial.
In my mind, that doesn't make sense. Advertising is a way to generate revenue, so forgoing advertising late at night seems like a lost opportunity. It is not as though advertising is inherently bad either. I am perfectly fine with advertising in moderation (i.e. less than half of what is on broadcast TV) and if it reflects the content rather than the consumer (i.e. I don't like tracking). To the unnamed broadcaster who is streaming the unnamed shows to me: you are welcome to generate some revenue from my viewing habits. Be reasonable about it so that you don't alienate me in the same way that over the air broadcast TV or cable TV channels have alienated me, but I do respect your right to earn money for the services rendered.
I do pay for one fee based streaming service. Their model doesn't make sense either. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the opportunity to watch series and movies for a flat fee. I appreciate the ability to do so regardless of how much I watch. Most of all, I appreciate that I can do so without advertising. Yet all of that appreciation reflects lost opportunities for the service provider. Now that doesn't mean that I'm willing to hand over huge globs of money and put up with copious amounts of advertising. That is what drove me away from broadcast and cable TV in the first place. But I do respect your right to earn reasonable amounts of money for the services provided.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want to be gouged. When it comes to television, I have demonstrated that. I have never subscribed to cable or satellite TV. I don't want to be abused either. Again, I have demonstrated that since I have rarely watched over-the-air broadcasts. Yet there is a world of difference between not wanting to be gouged and not wanting to have one's time wasted (via advertising) and being willing to provide reasonable compensation for services provided. I am willing to provide reasonable compensation, according to my definition. I am also willing to go without if it isn't reasonable by my definition. This is TV after all. I can do without it. That's a bit unlike the Internet.
"Subsidy" isn't the right word (Score:2)
When HBO refuses to sell the GoT matroska files, implying that people who want DRM-free media should pirate instead, the pirates don't call that "subsidy." The word is "stupidity." HTH.
OTA TV + Internet = FTW! (Score:2)
That is how I am doing it now. I record OTA to my DVR and computer. Internet for the rest.
Prices are not related to costs in this case... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
HBO just announced a deal with Google Play to make all their series available.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, all of season 2 of game of thrones. If you want season 1 or 3 (or both,) you're out of luck.
Sorry but that's the most broken release I've ever seen. I could see maybe not the latest season if they wanted that sense of exclusivity, but why on earth would they omit the first season? Game of Thrones is a highly contextual show, you can't just jump right into season 2 and understand shit about what's going on.
What is your point? (Score:2)
Where!?! I'll move! (And I'm only half-kidding.) Right now, to watch GoT when it airs, I'd have to subscribe to my local (monopoly) cable provider at their full rate (or agree to a contract for 2 years to get the service I only want 4 months out of the year)
There is no such thing as a pay TV monopoly. You can watch GoT as it airs on Dish or DirecTV. Just saying...the fact that one company owns the cable franchise in a given town is not the reason that prices for pay tv are exorbitant.
You allude to satellite in your post (Ie. the 2 year contract bit) but I just don't see what your point is.
Re: (Score:3)
You allude to satellite in your post (Ie. the 2 year contract bit)
Nope, it's not just the satellite folks anymore. The cable companies have caught on.
A coworker nearly had to hire a lawyer a few months ago to get out of his cable contract after they dramatically changed the ToS on his Internet service.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that I would love to be able to call them up, say "I want to buy four months of HBO", give them my credit card #, and be able to view GoT as soon a
Re: (Score:2)
I would rather watch Game of Drones [makezine.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Reasonable à la carte prices??? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think so. I think these are the classes
Free Streaming: Hulu, major network sites, etc. Payment: 1 day lag, commercials
Cheap streaming: Premium Hulu, Amazon Prime, Netflix, etc. Payment: 1 low monthly fee.
Purchase: Buy DVD, iTunes, whatever: Payment: less then cable.
People pay for cable for convenience and timeliness. People are not willing to delay viewing. One example is sports. Nobody wants to watch yesterdays’ game, which is why ESPN is one of the most expensive chancels on basic TV. Game of Thrones is another example. I can either pay HBO big bucks now or I delay until the DVD comes out.
Re:Reasonable à la carte prices??? (Score:5, Informative)
Cheap streaming: Premium Hulu, Amazon Prime, Netflix, etc. Payment: 1 low monthly fee.
Except that last I heard, Premium Hulu still has commercials. For your payment you just get an expanded library of commercial-laden content. I have no idea who pays for that.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess they changed the rules. When I lasted looked that was the only advantage for me – and obviously not a big enough one for me to subscribe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Reasonable à la carte prices??? (Score:5, Insightful)
People are not willing to delay viewing.
Some people aren't, so they pay the premium. The producers of the content know that they want it so bad they can charge huge margins.
Over here, we only watch a few shows, but some of them are delayed a year on Netflix. They're just as enjoyable.
When I did have pay-tv service, I used to watch NFL Primetime - all the games of the week condensed into a half hour, which contained most of the plays that actually went anywhere. I don't watch it anymore, since we just have Netflix now - it was interesting, but I don't really miss it much.
I'm much happier to use the delta in cash for RL activities.
Re: (Score:2)
I watched it delayed on DVR. I don't stream because it's too impractical for me, very very inconvmenient, and would be a major expense (more computers/boxes, wiring the house since wifi is far too slow, upgrading internet by another $30-50/month, etc). Plus there's the internet cap (if you don't have one you soon will). Plus replace the equipment every few years as the standards change.
All cable and satellite needs to do to fix this is unbundle the channels. I pay $70/month (including tivo fee) and only
Re: (Score:2)
If $6/mo for Netflix is too "unreasonable" for your taste, then I suggest it's time to look for a new employer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stuff like amazon instant and vudu you have to pay $2.99 just for the ability to watch it for one day. (Though Amazon has a mix of free and "buy once own forever" as well.)
Re:What's the big deal (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What's the big deal (Score:4, Interesting)
So if you watch more than 1 hour of it every single night then it could work out cheaper to subscribe.
Does HBO even have an hour of watchable programming every night? Sure, there are certain nights of the week that there's a good program on, but I would only be watching maybe two shows that HBO produces, meaning 2 hours a week.
Re: (Score:2)
That's also assuming that the shows are on all year long, which they aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's the anime site?