You're Paying 40% More For TV Than You Were 5 Years Ago (businessinsider.com) 219
According to data from Leichtman Research's annual study, pay TV subscriptions keep going up and up. So much so that in the last five years, they have gone up by 40 percent. In 2011, subscribers were paying an average of $73.63 for cable or satellite, but now that average stands at roughly $103. From a BusinessInsider report: And it's not helping subscriber growth. "About 82% of households that use a TV currently subscribe to a pay-TV service," Bruce Leichtman said in a statement. "This is down from where it was five years ago, and similar to the penetration level eleven years ago." The pay-TV industry lost 800,000 last quarter subscribers last quarter, according to the research firm SNL Kagan. Putting that on a personal level, NBCUniversal CEO Steve Burke recently said his own kids don't even pay for TV. Burke has five "millennial" children, ages 19 to 28, and exactly "none" subscribe to cable or satellite, he said at a conference last week.
Maybe so (Score:4, Funny)
Math checks out 1.40 * 0 = 0 (Score:5, Funny)
Since I haven't paid a television bill since 2004.
Re: (Score:2)
I only own a TV in the sense that I own a monitor that could theoretically work as a TV if I attached an antenna.
Re: (Score:2)
I most definitely am not! (Score:3)
I most definitely am not! I do watch shows free on Amazon since I have Prime anyway and when I was in the US I also had Netflix which is under $10/month, while now in the UK where Netflix has less stuff I complement Amazon with the free catch-up service of BBC and ITV. Why would I pay the exorbitant amounts listed for TV, especially if we are talking about regular programming and not on-demand, even if I had no other choice, I'd probably just go without TV...
The only people I can understand having a reason to pay are sports fans. I do enjoy watching sports myself now and then, not enough to actually pay extra, but I guess others are willing to pay big bucks for that.
Re: (Score:2)
I pay for HBO streaming at $15 per month. I got that for Game of Thrones and originally intended cancelling during the off-months, but I discovered that there's enough content there that I enjoy that I decided not to cancel. And my girlfriend's family has Netflix, which we don't pay for. I have Amazon Prime, so I get that content, and I guess you could count a part of the Prime subscription as TV costs. Call it $5 per month, which is probably overestimating--I get a lot more value out of Prime in shippi
Re: (Score:2)
The HBO Now service has a better selection of movies than Netflix does.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but we like some of the Netflix exclusive content, too. My girlfriend watches Orange is the New Black and House of Cards, and we both dug Stranger Things.
I had a Netflix account many years ago, and I watched a bunch of streaming movies there, but after a pretty short time, it became scraping the bottom of the barrel. Also, I was constantly annoyed that my browsing pages were cluttered with so much kids' content. I remember browsing for shows and having whole pages that were entirely Dora and Caillo
Re: (Score:2)
I got that for Game of Thrones and originally intended cancelling during the off-months...
Now that Game of Thrones has jumped the shark it's hard to use that to justify anything. No cable TV here, bought the series up to season 5 on Blu-ray, enjoyed it, although less as it wore on. Won't bother with season 6 or later.
I cut the cable back in 2002. (Score:2, Insightful)
Other than a few favorite shows, I haven't missed a damn thing.
I have Netflix and an Amazon account if I want to watch something.
Since I'm the "techie" in the family, if I HAVE to watch something NOW, I can log into my parents' account and stream, as they haven't divorced themselves from TV.
But, for the most part, I simply don't miss it.
And somewhere in the past, my child TV addict self screams in horror.
With the equipment costs, and the push towards a "$100 minimum" bill and all these fucking channels you
Re: (Score:2)
Since I'm the "techie" in the family, if I HAVE to watch something NOW, I can log into my parents' account and stream, as they haven't divorced themselves from TV.
So basically, someone else is subsidizing the few programs you do watch on live TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Barter economy.
It's not like I charge my parents for my services. Hell, I don't even charge them gas money or insist they feed me.
Plus, they have access to one of the streams on my Netflix account.
Re: (Score:2)
And remember, you have 3 main "natural" or "grabber" price points.
$20, $50 and $100.
Technicaly $19.99, $49.99 and $99.99, but I'm lazy and not going to worry about fudging a penny (which they kinda count on).
Basically things like cell phone service, single lines for service talk about something right around the $50/month price point. And shared plans are all around $100.
Same thing with cable. They, for a long while were $50/month (plus fees, etc). Now they've climbed into the $100 range.
No, I'm not. (Score:2, Troll)
I've been paying Comcast roughly the same amount of money per month since 2007. Since then, my Internet speeds have gone from 8Mbps to 125Mbps, and I have a whole slew of HD channels I didn't used to get a decade ago. And never mind that I moved to Comcast to consolidate what, before, was phone and DSL from the telco and TV from satellite, and I was paying a lot more for less back in those days.
Oh, and if you take inflation into account, let's just say I'm paying a lot less than I ever have for my TV servic
Just compare the prices of other utilites (Score:3)
Electricity
Water
"Natural" gas
Sewer
Garbage
against TV
and what you get as net gain and how much abuse you have to take
is it really worth it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why did you put quotes around natural? What's not natural about natural gas? Do you think the methane is manufactured somewhere?
There are some voices that "natural" gas is not of organic origin, but formed or occurring deep down in the planet at a time long before organic processes existed nor, when they existed, those would not capable of creating such amounts:
http://origeminorganicadopetro... [blogspot.com]
That's not my point though. The term "natural" implies being OK, renewable, then good to use. While it may be better than crude oil derived fuels or coal, it still is a carbohydrate when oxidized, creates CO2, a greenhouse gas contributing to
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is indeed a "hogwash misleading term", as it no more deserves the term "natural" than does white sugar or beer. It's a highly processed refinement of a naturally occurring substance.
Forget thinking of it as green-wash though, since the term is a lot older than that. It wasn't new in the 1950's, when I was surprised that my grandfather used propane rather than "natural gas". This doesn't keep it from being a misnomer, though I guess that it may have earned the term when being distinguished from "
Re: (Score:2)
Uh you can redefine words all you want, but don't act like your hipster defintion is correct.
NATURAL: (1) existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial)
http://www.dictionary.com/brow... [dictionary.com]
This is what happens when you listen to too much marketing, and let the advertisers change language for you. But i bet you think "organic" means something other than "characteristic of, pertaining to, or derived from living organisms".
Face it, you've
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's really supernatural gas. You're burning the ghosts of dead dinosaurs!!!!
We need to be able to buy the box with no outlet f (Score:2)
We need to be able to buy the box with no outlet fees / mirroring / tv fees / receiver fees / etc.
Re: We need to be able to buy the box with no outl (Score:2)
Except for the Cablecard, your cable company won't be charging you an equipment fee because you own your own devices.
Why offer better service? (Score:2)
Why offer programming people want to see when you can just impose a "reasonable" 300GB/month cap on your internet-only offering for "network management" that magically goes away when you pay an additional $30-50/month or bundle in a TV package?
Netflix and chill? (Score:2)
Not surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
In other news... (Score:2)
In other news, Free OTA HDTV is still as free as when it started. I've also recently started experimenting with network connected HDTV tuner hardware so that every device on the network has access to the OTA broadcasts with just a simple app.
Re: (Score:2)
I tried that with an HDHomeRun. I wanted to get some DVR software running on my computer, but couldn't get it to work right.
Then again, we subscribe to Hulu which acts like a DVR for us anyway, so it wasn't a high priority for me to get working.
Re: (Score:2)
I did that years back with HDHomerun and MythTv.
I just now switched to OTA again..this time, I priced out the hardware needed and found that the Tivo Roamio OTA unit was only about $399...and it was cheaper to do that for a 4 tuner unit than to buy the HDHomerun units (2 of them) and the computer to run it on.
Look into the Tivo OTA unit...lifetime service for $399.
I got the Tivo mi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Tivo?
No, I do not believe so...but why would I want to?
LOL..there's nothing on tv really that I find worth long term storage or archiving.
That being said, there is a way to get video off the Tivo....not sure the format.
Piracy (Score:2)
Seeso (Score:2)
Sorry pal, but nope. Not even worth a trial / cancel trick as those effers can't even be trusted with my CC info (I don't have Comcast, thank FSM).
Hmm I've saved money (Score:2)
No cable
No Netflix
Not buying any more new DVD's
Yes to Piratebay
Yes to pawnshops for $2-5 DVD's
Do I feel guilty for buying probably stolen dvd's/cd/br at pawn shop so actors and music artists can't get paid. Nope its actually leave the money they would have sucked out of me in my pocket and I'm ok with that.
Re: (Score:2)
probably stolen dvd's/cd/br at pawn shop so actors and music artists can't get paid
So instead of paying for Netflix, you'd rather support literal theft (by paying for stolen property)?
Re: (Score:2)
Since its been vetted legally by Canadian laws regarding pawnshop its all kosher to me.
No... (Score:2)
Yeah, but.... (Score:2)
I sincerely doubt that ... (Score:2)
I've stopped watching TV about 22 years ago. ... who needs biased, or simply wrong "news", sports, bad shows and heaps of advertising ? ...)
When you have books and video-games,
Besides, even DVDs and BluRays are cheaper than before, for the few select TV shows that are worth it (Breaking Bad,
I'm paying 100% less, like the other slashdotters (Score:3)
Cord-cutting. My live sports is less-than-legit, but honestly, it is worth about $20/mo for sports, and nobody wants to offer me a decent legit alternative at that price. Worse, NHL Center Ice blacks out my favorite team's games in favor of cable coverage.
Otherwise, we went all last summer without turning on the cable box... why pay for it? We can't stand being tied to TV schedules, either.
Milking the Stubborn (Score:4, Insightful)
There are many in the older generations who are anti-Internet and are seemingly afraid that if they even sign up for Internet access their bank balance will disappear and their grandchildren will get kidnapped. Others have Internet access but barely use it; you know the ones, they check email or Facebook and maybe one or two other sites and that's it; they don't do web searches or visit new sites regularly.
These are the people who will, most likely, NEVER sign up (on their own) for Netflix or cut the cord, no matter how expensive their cable/satellite bill gets, because as far as they're concerned, there's no alternative. They wouldn't know how to get Netflix on their TV and have no idea how to find out.
So, the pay TV companies are raising rates in order to milk these older generations as much as possible before they die off or figure out how to connect a Roku to their TV (or someone else shows them); or before they buy a smart TV that puts all these cord-cutting options on the screen they're looking at, accessible with the remote they're holding.
The older generations are also set in the "watching what's on" paradigm; while the newer generations have had access to on-demand, home video, and file sharing, allowing for "watching what you want". With Netflix, there is no mindless "watching what's on", you have to choose what to put on, at least a series to autoplay. If you don't like it, you can't claim lack of responsibility a la "these networks air nothing but crap nowadays. yep", it's all on you for putting that show on.
Re: (Score:2)
There are many in the older generations who are anti-Internet and are seemingly afraid that if they even sign up for Internet access their bank balance will disappear and their grandchildren will get kidnapped.
Yeah, I hate it when that happens.
Best solution, if you want to use the internetz, is to not have a bank balance and not have children (thus nicely preventing grandchildren as well). Which seems to be how most slashdottahs do it.
Fuck off with the clickbait/America != The World (Score:2)
You're Paying 40% More For TV Than You Were 5 Years Ago
Jesus Christ. You know, some of us are capable of being interested in a headline even if it doesn't try to directly address us.
It's so fucking condescending.
According to data from Leichtman Research's annual study, pay TV subscriptions keep going up and up. So much so that in the last five years, they have gone up by 40 percent.
...in the USA, I assume this means. There are other countries, Slashdot. And even if that wasn't the case, your average Slashdotter is probably more likely to have "cut the cord" than most people. Know your readers.
Look at the original headline: "Americans are paying 40% more for TV than they were 5 years ago." Informative and to the point without treat
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize this is a US based news site, right?
Your complaint would be like me going on the register and bitching about UK centric news headlines, in which the primarily UK readership there would appropriately tell me to sod off....
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize this is a US based news site, right?
Is it? I hadn't seen a flag on it. It doesn't give much, if any, indication of where it is based or who it is aimed at. According to Alexa only 45.3% of its readers are US based.
Your complaint would be like me going on the register and bitching about UK centric news headlines, in which the primarily UK readership there would appropriately tell me to sod off....
It's not about UK or US centric, it's about not being clear when dishing out statistics.
Can you find a headline/story at the Register which similarly gives a statistic in this way? If anything, they go out of their way to be clear when they are talking about "UK jobs" or "British universities" rather than just assuming everyone will
Re: (Score:2)
It can be US based and still not US-centric. It's just that a lot of readers are in the US and tend to forget that there are other countries. And I agree with OP, that's very annoying, even when you live in the US (but happen to have lived in other countries). The fact that proposed articles are written that way is normal, but editors should modify them to be more generic if they want Slashdot to be a general tech web-site.
Since there is only one Slashdot (except slashdot japan), it should not be US-centr
I'm not (Score:2)
I've used OTA all my life and no plan to change. Way back in early 2000's bought a rokuHD and a PCI card that could capture HD OTA. After I had that, it was easy to time shift anything I wanted to watch. I am going to be pissed if FCC decides to sell the HD airwaves to the wireless carriers.
Re: (Score:2)
> I am going to be pissed if FCC decides to sell the HD airwaves to the wireless carriers.
What? Is that actually being considered?
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix + Hulu + digital Antenna = $20. (Score:2)
Not regretting anything since cutting everything 5 years ago...
No I'm not (Score:2)
"You're Paying 40% More For TV Than You Were 5 Years Ago"
No, I'm paying exactly the same amount....zero. (And I've always found it to be a super bargain at that price.)
Between stuff like Putlocker, PirateBay, and Netflix, the notion of paying a fee for monthly cable TV service is not only quaint, it's downright hilarious.
And who is putting a gun to people's heads? (Score:2)
Per what? (Score:2)
.... In 2011, subscribers were paying an average of $73.63 for cable or satellite, but now that average stands at roughly $103. From a ...
Just curious, $73.63 and $103 per what?
Per year? Per month?
(I own a TV, but I haven't turned it on since I think maybe 2007 or so, and I have no idea how much people pay for cable access.)
Incorrect (Score:2)
I'm paying 100% less now for cable than I was 10 years ago. Once the internet became a mainstream thing there was no point in paying absurd amounts of money to cable companies for content that is mostly ad-riddled garbage. I don't mind paying for content, but make it on-demand, and make it things I actually want to watch.
Not surprising (Score:2)
I realize that most Slashdotters are probably not sports junkies...but where did people think all this new TV revenue coming into professional and college sports was coming from? Sports is really what is driving the rising prices. Once sports leagues make realtime streaming deals, the days of traditional cable/satellite TV are numbered.
Makes perefect sense (Score:3)
they're trying to mitigate the damage cord cutters are doing (haven't had cable tv for more than 10 years; still have comcast for internet no good alternatives) and keep their earnings projections from tanking and taking their stock with it.
Not me. (Score:2)
I cut the cord.
How many ? (Score:2)
Burke has five "millennial" children, ages 19 to 28, and exactly "none" subscribe to cable or satellite, ...
As opposed to approximately "none". Perhaps all his children are just dumb too.
In Other Words... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't own a tv for about 10 years while in college and a few years after that eventually I got a TV and just watched OTA programing for maybe 5 years occasionally mostly for weather I got cable sometime around 2005 and cut the cord around 2010. Now I have Plenty of TVs but only internet and a netflix account, I buy DVDs for movies I want to see and just put them on my media server. (sometimes I'll take them to a place that trades DVDs and get some I haven't seen to put on my media server and then recycle
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately I'm in a bad location for OTA...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to pay for cable service, but Comcast requires me to sign-up for basic cable in order to get Internet service by cable modem. I'm paying a little more than $100/month for 25Mbit service which is about twice what I should be paying. Unfortunately there's no competition in my area, so I'm stuck with Comcast.
Re: (Score:3)
Same here...I stopped watching broadcast and cable TV more than a decade ago and I don't feel as though I've missed anything.
My son gave me one of his Netfix logins, but I don't use it much, maybe a few times a month. I spend more time searching for something to watch than I do actually watching whatever it is I found.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do they get the NFL season pass if they aren't subscribing to DirectTV? I thought it was only available to students at university and DirectTV subs.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do they get the NFL season pass if they aren't subscribing to DirectTV?
You stream it on the interweb: https://nflst.directv.com/ [directv.com]
Re:I am? (Score:4, Insightful)
I cut cable a long time ago. I pay 40 for Internet, and I pirate, so for 40 bucks a month I can watch whatever I want, and the good stuff I can hoard and watch forever.
That's great and all, but you can't talk about the benefits of pirating like it's a true cost savings. Many people could say things like, yeah I only spend 20.00 on groceries, and I steal, so for 20.00 a month I'm eating steak and lobster every night with high dollar wine.
It's still stealing, even if you don't agree with the costs.
Re:I am? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Look, the only reason that you are able to pirate is because the majority of people pay for the content they consume.
You can make all kinds of excuses about depriving or not based on the incidental fact that it is a digital good. But the fact remains that someone made that content is asking a price for it. If you take it... sure, you are not depriving them of that content, but you are also not paying them what they asked so, in my book (and I am far from alone here) that is stealing.
If everyone did what you
Re: (Score:2)
You may care to acknowledge that copying is and always was part of humanity. Copying each other's actions, words and ideas enriched human societies overall and allowed humans to advanced rapidly the faster they could copy off each other.
Corporations spend vast amounts of resources to become exclusive, to build demand, to have a monopoly, to leverage their wealth to improve their already superior position.
You seem to be confused about what and who are the leeches in the story. A leech
The real leeches
Yak, yak, yak (Score:2)
But what it *does* do is enable / justify the creeping surveillance state. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
That presupposes that I would or even could pay the amount they are demanding. If those aren't true, they benefit in no way at all from me not enjoying that content.
Or another case. Let's say I plan to watch something on cable that I subscribe to, but 30 minutes in, the idiot up the street manages to cut a tree down and take the cable with it. In that case, I already paid the cableco which already paid the broadcaster who already paid the content producer, etc etc. So who would I be stealing from if I downl
Re: (Score:2)
That presupposes that I would or even could pay the amount they are demanding. If those aren't true, they benefit in no way at all from me not enjoying that content.
Or another case. Let's say I plan to watch something on cable that I subscribe to, but 30 minutes in, the idiot up the street manages to cut a tree down and take the cable with it. In that case, I already paid the cableco which already paid the broadcaster who already paid the content producer, etc etc. So who would I be stealing from if I download the torrent posted by the guy upstream of the idiot with a chainsaw?
That's where I draw the line, too. I have no problems 'pirating' content I've already paid for.
I didn't have a problem either when I torrented Game of Thrones episodes after my GOT Blu-Rays developed some strange bit-rot making a few episodes unreadable.
Re: (Score:2)
If you steal food, they no longer have the food. If you "steal" content, they still have the content. It took a lot of work to twist the English language around copying be "theft." It may still be a crime, and it may have some disproportionately stiff penalties, but it is not stealing.
This is my only reply to you, because you lack the simple understanding of how economics works with something like content. You are still stealing from someone by not paying for the content, because you took part in the content w/o compensating the creator(s) and the theft is their revenue, from the money charged, that represents time/materials on their part.
So I can "steal" the GNP of the entire planit, and double our productivity? The theory of "lost revenue" implies that the revenue was there to be lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I am? (Score:2, Insightful)
So you have no ethical issues pirating content? Please no BS about sticking it to the media corporations--that is just rationalizing the fact you are just a cheap jerk with no morals.
Well, let's discuss ethics then (Score:5, Insightful)
So you have no ethical issues pirating content? Please no BS about sticking it to the media corporations--that is just rationalizing the fact you are just a cheap jerk with no morals.
Is it ethical to give your money to an organization that will do this sort of skullduggery with it? [wikipedia.org]
I'm being serious.
It's theft if you download content and view it for free, sure, but you're not exactly morally in the clear if you do pay. Your money is lining the pockets of famously and spectacularly corrupt middle men, with only pennies on the dollar going to the artists you love.
The correct thing to do isn't as clear as you might suppose. Morally, it may be more correct to pirate their content then buy a t-shirt or something from them, because they'll see most of that money. Most notably George Lucas is wealthy because of merchandise, not movies. [indiewire.com]
I'm not saying what to do, what not to do, or what I do - I just want you to think about it a bit before tossing out moral absolutes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a moral absolute:
Support your local libraries. You can get just about any TV/Film/etc. content you want there for free. Well, ignoring the taxes, but those are quite arguably a morally social good.
If they don't have it, buy a copy, watch, then donate to the library.
And BTW, read a library book! It's good for you, and it supports the crucially important idea of libraries.
The societal good of library access to all far outweighs any of the negatives you mention.
Moral Dilemma: solved. Thank you, I'll be
Look at it from this perspective then (Score:3)
Again, I'm not telling anyone what to do. I'd just like the question to be explored a bit more.
Morally it's quite clear, you simply don't consume the content. Justifying theft because of (supposed) shady business practices is not remotely moral.
Well, what if you don't think of it as theft? What if the movie is an advertisement, and the actual product is the merchandise? That's basically how it is, at least from the point of view of the creators of the content.
Let's say you love Star Wars. A safe
Re: (Score:3)
"The correct thing to do isn't as clear as you might suppose. Morally, it may be more correct to pirate their content then buy a t-shirt or something from them, because they'll see most of that money."
Morally it's quite clear, you simply don't consume the content. Justifying theft because of (supposed) shady business practices is not remotely moral.
Not listening to your favorite musician's music hurts them far more than pirating it does, so even that isn't morally quite clear. If you simply don't consume the content, you're considerably less likely to ever buy their merchandise or attend any of their concerts (and financially benefit them) and you're much less likely to indirectly turn others onto their music.
Again, I'm not condoning piracy, but it really isn't as simple as you make it out to be.
Re: I am? (Score:4, Interesting)
So you have no ethical issues pirating content?
I have 0 ethical issues pirating content when the company won't take my money. Give me a (practical) way to pay for that thing I want to watch, either directly or through my Netflix sub, and I do. Companies are (finally) wising up to this, and beginning the fight against the legacy of region-specific distribution deals, culture of delaying release in some formats, and so on.
Re: I am? (Score:2)
Do I know it's wrong? Yeah. Do I care? No, not particularly. I've personally written software that I've had people pirate, and was just like "meh, whatever". I guess it's kind of like speeding, which I do all the time, and the cops don't seem to care as I've had several watch me do it and I've never gotten a speeding ticket.
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't compare copyright violation to speeding.
You can torrent all day long and no one is hurt.
You can speed all day, all year, but eventually you may end up killing or paralyzing someone. If you were *not* speeding then their life may have been spared. Kinetic energy goes up with the square of the velocity. Please do *not* trivialize speeding!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. I'm actually speechless. Next you'll be telling me that loud pipes save lives [virginiawind.com]? Right?
Slow down [direct.gov.uk].
Slow down [qld.gov.au].
Slow down [who.int].
Slow down [operationstop.com].
Try not to fall for bullshit [ibiblio.org] such as this from someone who thinks they are *much* smarter than they actually are.
Re: I am? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you have no ethical issues pirating content?
Ethics? LOL.
After all the artists they've ripped off? After all the laws they've have bought? After all the evil things they've done?
No, none at all. They reap what they sow.
Re: I am? (Score:4, Informative)
If you steal food, you go to jail.
If you download media, nothing happens. Distributing is the crime. No one has ever gotten in trouble for downloading, it's that when you're torrenting you're uploading at the same time, which is the crime.
So no, they're not comparable.
Actually, that is incorrect. They are both considered crimes. People actually don't always go to jail for stealing food, so you're also wrong there. Some have had things happen for simply downloading.
Man, you're just full of wrong.
Re: I am? (Score:4, Informative)
People think that downloading is legal because people don't get prosecuted for it. The truth of the matter is that downloading is hard to prosecute. The MPAA would need to either operate a honeypot or get access to a torrent server's log files to get a list of IP addresses. Then - for each one - they'd need to get a court to agree that the ISP needs to turn over the information. Finally, they would sue the individual. However, all of this effort would likely be for a single count of copyright infringement. ("He downloaded this ONE movie and that's it.") It's a waste of the MPAA's resources and even they know it.
Thus, they go after the uploaders. Not only do you get multiple counts of infringement for one individual ("he shared a thousand files") but removing the large uploaders leaves the downloaders with nothing to download. (In theory.)
The big trouble downloaders get into is when they don't realize that their software is uploading as well. They think that they're invisible when, in reality, they're telling everyone what they're up to.
Re: (Score:2)
I also have not paid for a television subscription since... around 2010 or so.
I do the standard Netflix, Prime and Hulu ad-free which comes up to $35/mo or so.
I am not a sports fan and I really not a movie fan but I do like to binge watch tv episodes during the weekend sometimes. Because of that I would rather wait for old series to filter down to the streaming services than to try to watch them week-by-week.
I am currently 4 seasons in to Midsomer Murders and love that I still have like 14 seasons to go...
Re: (Score:2)
I would rather wait for old series to filter down to the streaming services than to try to watch them week-by-week.
I remember when you had to know what happened last night on the latest soap or not be part of the office conversation. Sad, really.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I am? (Score:2)
Technically, I don't count the price of internet access, because I paid for it when I had DISH Network. I'm going to pay for internet access regardless of how I consume TV content.
We dropped DISH, and with Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime, we're saving about $85 per month.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no. 20%. You would get 25% if it were in the ascending direction.
Lets round if off. From $10 to $8, you subtract 1/5 (20%) of the value of $10. $10 divided by 5 = $20%. 10 - $2 (or 20% of the original $10 price) leaves $8.
Re: (Score:3)
His (and my) cost of "TV" went up 25%, from $8 to $10, when Netflix's grandfathering ended.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I"m just about to tell ATT Uverse to cut me off an keep their high $$ service.
I had the U200 package and it was about $113/mo.
I've set up an OTA antenna, and grab all my local channels, and have that set up with a Tivo OTA box (new version with lifetime service included) which was about $399.
I priced out building my own DVR box using HDHomerun tuners and for a 4 tuner system like the Tivo, it would have been about the same or a bit more, plus I'd have to do it.
I got 2 of the Tivo mini
Re: (Score:2)
I live in the sticks and there's no digital television here, you insensitive clod! I could barely pull in any analog broadcasts.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about F1, but you can now stream ESPN 1, 2, and 3 on Sling TV for $20 per month.
Re: (Score:2)
"The things people actually buy are going up faster than CPI."
Have you actually looked at a CPI report? CPI is broken into categories, its not one number. You can view the report and see which categories are rising and which are falling.