Are Cable Subscribers Subsidizing Internet-Only TV Viewers?

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!"

Comments

Mod question...

[Shoten]

Is it possible to mod an entire Slashdot article as "Flamebait?"

Re:Mod question...

[Wookact]

Half the articles anymore either need a flamebait or a slashvertisment mod. I expect the slashdot experience to continue to get worse especially after the "Update" they will be preforming tonight.

Re:Mod question...

[LoRdTAW]

Remember when we could vote articles up or down (http://web.archive.org/web/20100612085708/http://slashdot.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:Mod question...

[Roskolnikov]

It should be.... sounds like a cable exec loaded up a bong (its medicinal) and this idea was the result.....

Re:Mod question...

[queazocotal]

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:Mod question...

[ArcadeMan]

That's why I wear a Diamondium hat.

Re:Mod question...

[Mister Transistor]

Everyone knows Dimondium is crap! Dimondillion is the way to go...

Re:Mod question...

[ArcadeMan]

Wernstrom!

Re:Mod question...

[Sir_Eptishous]

Wheres your prescription?

Re:Mod question...

[mcgrew]

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:Mod question...

[mcgrew]

You haven't heard of the firehose? If you didn't vote against the story don't bitch about it being posted.

Re:Mod question...

[Darinbob]

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 plan bogs down my game playing if there's something downloading in the background. These guys are probably using cable television lines and cable modems - the infrastructure that was laid down and paid for by TV and was not put there to in anticipation of a future internet boom. It's great if someone lives in a place that can get such a cable internet and can afford it. This is probably the same person who back in 1980 was saying "I can't believe you still watch broadcast!"

Re:Mod question...

[denmarkw00t]

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:Mod question...

[unitron]

Flamebait? This is a real world example of trickle down economics!

With the cable customers being the ones getting trickled down on.

Re:Mod question...

[sumdumass]

Evidently, it's easy to get.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRm1yqSmsGY

Re:Mod question...

[sumdumass]

I have no idea how they can stream on a $30/month plan when my $50/month plan bogs down my game playing if there's something downloading in the background

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 using the network. This load increases when you increase the demand like playing an online game and downloading files at the same time. While it should in theory be such a small load that it won't effect performance, other applications maxing the CPU out like a game which also uses sound that might do the same, and you could notice a lag in performance as the CPU will prioritize for the application.

Some on board sound cards (and cheap addons) do the same. They have a DSP chip that translates signals but the processing is done on the host system's CPU and Memory. It's all part of making things cheaper I guess. I have seen add on sound cards make a huge difference in gaming performance. It has been a while since I messed with games so I can't recommend anything current.

Both the sound and network add on cards will likely only improve performance if your system is a little low or mid level for the games you are playing. A top of the line processor likely will show no difference but if your computer has some age to it, it might help. The Gaming Network cards seem to be a gimmick so don't bother spending too much money on them. Just make sure the card doesn't offload the processing to the system and used is generally just fine if your main board and OS supports the card. Find a friend and borrow theirs to test if you don't want to shell cash out trying things. Mom and Pop computer shops sometimes are good sources of cheap used cards.

Re:Mod question...

[cshark]

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...

[mcgrew]

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...

[hairyfeet]

Even better idea....hae a second box for downloading! If you want to go ultra cheap C2D towers are a dime a dozen and if space is an issue? Throw together a mini based around one of those $70 AMD Bobcat boards. If you don't mind spending a little money they have prebuilt Bobcat systems small enough that they can mount to the back of the monitor and those 1.6GHz dual cores sip power. Finally add a KVM switch and tada! No more having laggy gameplay.

As for TFA it all comes down to one thing....greed. Greed on behalf of the content providers and greed on the cable company. I too USED to have both cable net and cable T, even had their VoIP, but the constant price hikes caused me to drop the phone and T. If they want my business they can offer a decent price but until then they can keep it, we get over a dozen channels OTA here including all those my fiance cares to watch, so no way and I gonna get gouged just for TV.

Re:Mod question...

[fast turtle]

to bad. They should renmame it "my little reaper" sounds much better though "joe the ripper" works too.

Re:Mod question...

[Anarchduke]

MEh, you need to make a double layer tinfoil hat that is shiny both inside and out. Then you are secure. At least until the government finishes perfecting the alien quantum technology they recovered from all those spacecraft.

Re:Mod question...

[elashish14]

Add to the list:

* using a DVR that I can build myself - not some craptastically power-hungry, crippled, lethargic device to which I don't have the source code and root access
* no blackouts. the internet never has blackouts (unless you count ICE's authoritarian intervention).

Re:Mod question...

[iggymanz]

I get streamed TV without using internet, they use this thing called radio waves that move through the aether.

games are for kids, quick whining.

Re:Mod question...

[doccus]

Oh i so donn't want to delete my comments but having mod points i should use them to mod you up as rioutously funny...

Re:Mod question...

[doccus]

We don't have that here.. how can you get it? ;-)

Re:Mod question...

[techno-vampire]

Thank you. I was going for Funny, but instead was modded Redundant. Such is life.

Re:Mod question...

[iggymanz]

well, if you can't get the kind with pictures they have the super high-tech pictureless TV that optimizes RF bandwidth and transmission power by only sending sound. I've heard rumors they even took that idea to the extreme with a version that only uses a long or short single sound for super bandwith efficiency.

Re:Mod question...

[doccus]

Ah.. it's really late now.. I should have asked if "aluminum foil" hats work also, and do I have to take them off when getting an EEG ;-)

It rolls down hill

[Sponge Bath]

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?

Re:It rolls down hill

[Jane Q. Public]

"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:It rolls down hill

[Anonymous Coward]

What we NEED is single payer TV like every other civilized nation!

Re:It rolls down hill

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not, I pay for a season of walking dead or ahs, etc. the same for a dvd set without a hard copy. Now a good lot of what I pay for is going to cloud storage sure, as a cord cutter I rely on Amazon and Netflix exclusive, netflix is ~30/mo. and amazon is mostly used for shows that aren't on Netflix, so my payments are variable, but can easily climb higher than cable if I'm not careful. Just the two shows above as an example is $24/mo. So, right now I'm paying around $54/mo. plus the yearly fee for amazon prime, if we don't pick up another show (unlikely) and I'm dead in the water without internet, which is not sattelite for me because it's capped much too low and no cable available, to add insult to injury everything is time delayed. -pfft No, I believe I'm pulling my own here what I'm not doing is subsidizing sports, commercials, infomercials, and other various bullshit I will not tolerate.

Re:It rolls down hill

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh and I do hate being blacked out on sports, that slipped in there somehow, but in order to watch the olympics you sign up for a vpn service in a hosting country in order to watch for free via their local internet broadcast - the fucking olympics, I have to subject myself to international intelligence monitoring purchase a foreign service separate from my regular expense and essentially violate international copyright laws, in order to partake in an international sporting event celebrated from time immemorial where the emphasis is on sporting, competition, camaraderie, good will, and ironically inclusion.

Re:It rolls down hill

[Darinbob]

Now let's see if you're able to cut the internet cord. If not, then you're not a cord cutter.

Re:It rolls down hill

[pla]

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 (aka "video games"), or any form of on-demand stories (aka "books"), and you can consider the anomaly of the past 50 years of broadcast TV as... Well, as an anomaly. It grew fat on a niche composed of a captive audience starving for content. That demographic has vanished, time to move along.

Re:It rolls down hill

[AmiMoJo]

I'd love to know what one viewer of a TV show on the first prime time broadcast is worth to the creators. I'm guessing its less than 1/10th the cost of a single episode on Amazon or iTunes.

Re:It rolls down hill

[intermodal]

Heavily discounted compared to what one pays for cable, anyway. I did the math once and for less than three months' cable bills, my inlaws could download every show they care about except live football, and even then, they're seldom home to watch it on weekends.

I'll cut the cable cord...

[mythosaz]

...just as soon as they're not the best internet provider in town.

Re:I'll cut the cable cord...

[Anonymous Coward]

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:I'll cut the cable cord...

[Darinbob]

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.

Re:I'll cut the cable cord...

[SpiceWare]

I've saved an average of $119 a month since canceling DirecTV in January. Here in Houston I get 100+ channels OTA. I pay à la cart for cable series like Watching Dead on Amazon Prime and iTunes. http://atariage.com/forums/blog/blog-148/cat-150-dvr-project

What's the big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like the OP is still paying for TV, just somewhat less than others who have access to many, many more shows. If you don't watch that much TV, you can save money buying just the shows you want to watch. If you want to see more than a few HBO series, though, it's cheaper to just subscribe to HBO. If you want to be able to easily channel surf and watch shows as soon as they're released, you probably need to pay a provider.

dom

Re:What's the big deal

[PraiseBob]

Even HBO GO requires a cable subscription ($80 + 15 for hbo), while you can buy episodes ala cart for $3, which is roughly an hours worth of entertainment. So if you watch more than 1 hour of it every single night then it could work out cheaper to subscribe.

Re:What's the big deal

[IANAAC]

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:What's the big deal

[AlphaWolf_HK]

That's also assuming that the shows are on all year long, which they aren't.

Re:What's the big deal

[Arker]

That's $95/3=31 and some change. 31 hours of HBO a month would cost slightly less than that cable bill. Does HBO produce that many hours of new material in an average month? Most shows produce one new hour a week, and only part of the year, right?

Reasonable à la carte prices???

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are these reasonable prices the writer speaks of??? Unless he's talking about "free as in piracy"?

Re:Reasonable à la carte prices???

[alexander_686]

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???

[pspahn]

If $6/mo for Netflix is too "unreasonable" for your taste, then I suggest it's time to look for a new employer.

Re:Reasonable à la carte prices???

[Mitreya]

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:Reasonable à la carte prices???

[alexander_686]

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:Reasonable à la carte prices???

[bill_mcgonigle]

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:Reasonable à la carte prices???

[similar_name]

He's talking about a la cart like itunes or some of the stuff on Amazon.

Re:Reasonable à la carte prices???

[Anonymous Coward]

People are not willing to delay viewing.

I haven't seen a live broadcast of anything for nigh on five years. I assure you I'm "people."

One example is sports

Yeah. Sports. All I can say is that many of the problems people suffer in this life are self inflicted.

So bend over and pay for your pleasure. I'll die before ESPN gets another red cent out of me.

Re:Reasonable à la carte prices???

[Zibodiz]

The other advantage to hulu plus is that you are allowed access from smart TVs and bluray players. Only problem is that the access is restricted to particular shows have been approved by the studios, and none of the ones I watch have been. Definitely not worth subscribing in my books.

Re:Reasonable à la carte prices???

[AlphaWolf_HK]

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:Reasonable à la carte prices???

[Darinbob]

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 watch about 5 channels. Actually this makes me think I should tell them to drop the local channels. Still, it's cheaper than actual cable.

When I cut the cord I suspect I will cut off all of TV. Maybe use a dvd service. Why bother with the hassle of coming up with an alternative?

Re:Reasonable à la carte prices???

[simonreid]

I purchase it because you need Plus to get streaming on devices other than PC's, my Roku for example. Also, in a way I don't mind - $7 a month is nothing and if it supports keeping hulu and other streaming services around and I am happy to pay it.

Re:Reasonable à la carte prices???

[Anarchduke]

Which is why I use the Crackle.com App on my smartphone. I don't have to pay to watch commercial laden movies and TV shows.

Someone's gotta pay for cable

[themushroom]

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

[similar_name]

My own opinion is that cable subscribers shouldn't be paying for the shows through their cable either. They should be paying the cable company for distribution of content. Seperately, the content should be paid for either by the consumer, advertising, something else or some combination. If they were more separated they might focus on making money with better distribution and better content rather than locking the two together.

Re:Someone's gotta pay for cable

[cluedweasel]

A few years back, most cable companies offered a $10 package that was the local network affiliates and cable access/shopping/religious and government channels. Those seemed to have disappeared. My local cable company did carry such a package but never advertised it, you had to call to get it.

Um, yeah, don't care.

[roc97007]

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:Um, yeah, don't care.

[sconeu]

It won't crash&burn, because they'll go crying to Congress... ZOMG!!! PIRATES!!!! OUR PROFIT$$$ and CAMPAIGN $$$$ ARE DISAPPEARING!!!!

Re:Um, yeah, don't care.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Um, yeah, don't care.

[IANAAC]

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:Um, yeah, don't care.

[roc97007]

....and any congress creature who votes to give them tax money needs to face heavy opposition in the next primary.....

Re:Um, yeah, don't care.

[roc97007]

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.

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 way through, first because I can't stand Charlie Sheen, and currently because I really am not impressed with Ashton Kutcher. And also because the situations and humor really don't appeal to me. Rather than read a whole bunch into a simple typo and go off on an embarrassingly inappropriate tirade, why not just ask?

I don't have a "kill your tv" bumper sticker. I do watch some TV (although not a lot) but exactly what I want to see, with no commercials, when I want to see it. And if the shows I watch go away, (cue Aretha Franklin) I will survive. It's only TV. It's not, like, oxygen.

I think most people will survive without cable tv. Even the people who think they wouldn't

Re:Um, yeah, don't care.

[rsborg]

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 newer shinier bigger panel, but keep finding no reasons whatsoever.

Re:Um, yeah, don't care.

[roc97007]

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 Netflix and Hulu. And you don't. Get off my lawn.

Re:Um, yeah, don't care.

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Re:Um, yeah, don't care.

[roc97007]

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 and Leonard. We've all met people like this if we've been in a technical or scientific field for any length of time. There are a lot of more negative characteristics of geeks that Lorre did not explore, probably because it wouldn't have been funny.

The technical and scientific aspects of the plots often mirror real events -- the ISS toilet, Spirit getting stuck in the sand, the Hadron Collider -- I mean c'mon, waitresses and gas station attendants aren't going to get any of that. All of that is for us. You're missing out.

Re:Um, yeah, don't care.

[geminidomino]

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).

Re:Um, yeah, don't care.

[Darinbob]

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:Um, yeah, don't care.

[sconeu]

Dude, think DMCA on steroids.

Re:Um, yeah, don't care.

[unitron]

Gloria Gaynor

Re:Um, yeah, don't care.

[roc97007]

Be damned. So Franklin covered it?

Re:Um, yeah, don't care.

[AmiMoJo]

I watch as much YouTube as broadcast TV now. All amateur stuff too. TV execs must be shitting themselves.

Re:Um, yeah, don't care.

[roc97007]

I watch as much YouTube as broadcast TV now. All amateur stuff too. TV execs must be shitting themselves.

I think they're living in denial. It can't be that they're this century's buggy whip; it must be piracy.

Re:Um, yeah, don't care.

[Anarchduke]

You could get a game console. You could hook an entertainment computer with wireless keyboard/mouse to it. There are a lot of things you could do to keep a 42" high resolution screen useful.
I'm more curious why you are trying to find a reason to throw money away buying a bigger screen when you have a perfectly good 42" screen already. If you want to get rid of your money that badly, you can send it to me.

Re:Um, yeah, don't care.

[Rockoon]

The government has demonstrated that it can make you buy specific stuff through writ of law.

..and its not just our government. In fact some governments have already made "supporting" broadcasting content virtually mandatory (United Kingdom, the BBC "tax" ..)

Re:Um, yeah, don't care.

[camperdave]

For everything else, we have Netflix and Hulu.

Must be nice. Around here all Netflix and Hulu have is a "Content not available in your area" webpage.

Re:Um, yeah, don't care.

[UnknowingFool]

1) Stop encrypting the over-the-air content. I neither want nor need a fucking cable box for every TV.

I would think this would be illegal. You shouldn't be able encrypt something that is public broadcast. Now HBO, ESPN, etc, can be encrypted. Time Warner doesn't encrypt OTA channels; however, they don't service them. I complained that on certain channels the primary audio is Spanish and others it is English. Really I don't care which is which but that means I have to change the audio settings on my TV when I switch channels. They don't care to make them consistent. The other thing is Time Warner encrypts everything they can get away with even if you have a CableCard. Even QVC and Home Shopping Network. They only want you to use their blessed DVRs.

Re:Um, yeah, don't care.

[roc97007]

For everything else, we have Netflix and Hulu.

Must be nice. Around here all Netflix and Hulu have is a "Content not available in your area" webpage.

Sounds like a justification for illegal downloads.

Re:Um, yeah, don't care.

[unitron]

Without doing a lot of research to see who got into the studio first, I can tell you from memory that Gaynor was the one, at least here in the U.S., that had the massive airplay, back smack dab in the middle of the disco boom.

I never heard Franklin's version, and didn't know there was one.

Maybe it was an album cut.

Franklin has had some singles come out a year or three later than someone else's version of a song.

Otis Redding's "Respect" and Dionne Warwick's "Say A Little Prayer" come immediately to mind.

Re:Um, yeah, don't care.

[roc97007]

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).

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).

Well, ok, but how is that different from any other category? As a dad, I have to confess I'm getting a little tired of the Phil Dunphy-like portrayal of goofy, ineffective dads. (Somewhat offset in that show by Jay Pritchett's quiet competency.) I'm sure there are housewives who aren't terribly impressed with I Love Lucy. If you can't laugh at yourself, you may be in for an unhappy life.

Re:Um, yeah, don't care.

[geminidomino]

Well, ok, but how is that different from any other category? As a dad, I have to confess I'm getting a little tired of the Phil Dunphy-like portrayal of goofy, ineffective dads.

I don't think it is very different. IMO, it's a matter of given credit where it's due, and it's not due here.

If you can't laugh at yourself, you may be in for an unhappy life.

There's a difference between being able to laugh at oneself, and finding amusement in the the same tired, lazy old tropes.

iTunes

[pjrc]

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?

[mattack2]

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:"Reasonable" a la carte prices?

[Greg01851]

Probably referring to services like Netflix, Hulu Plus, maybe Amazon Prime.

Re:"Reasonable" a la carte prices?

[mattack2]

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:"Reasonable" a la carte prices?

[alen]

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:"Reasonable" a la carte prices?

[Kryptonian Jor-El]

Honest...Posting as AC

Yeah, No

Re:"Reasonable" a la carte prices?

[mcgrew]

So what? It's still a ripoff.

Re:"Reasonable" a la carte prices?

[WCLPeter]

But where are the "reasonable" a la carte prices?

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 $1,440.00 freed up to spend on our video entertainment.

Our iPads have apps for all the major TV Networks, I'm Canadian by the way - just for context, and an Apple TV. The Network apps have nearly every show the day after they air, basically as long as you're willing to wait a day you more or less get them for free. Sometimes they'll have ads which are usually less than 30 seconds, by the time you're reaching for the remote to mute the sound the show is often back on. For the ones that won't play on the Apple TV because of "restrictions" from the rights holder we just all shuffle down to the big screen in the basement where I've got the iMac hooked up, we open a browser window on the big screen and watch it from the Network website.

This a-la carte method of TV, where we only watch the shows we want, costs us all of $0.00 total.

We also like movies and and a bit of variety. For a decent selection of older movies and TV, much of which we haven't seen so its all new to us, we got Netflix for 8.99 per month.
I love Anime, so I picked up Crunchyroll for 11.99 per month.
We also picked up the Crackle, Viki, Vimeo, and Youtube Apps to round things out and give us some more variety - all free by the way.

At this point the entertainment services we do buy work out to just 251.76 annually, an amazing savings of approximately 1,188.24 annually. That money saved can be used for other things. For example the shows we can't get through the "free" channels, or that we just want to see in higher quality, we simply buy them. Some, when they're not too expensive at iTunes, we'll get a Season Pass for - even though they're available through the Network websites I still get Arrow, S.H.I.E.L.D., and Doctor Who via Season Passes because I like the higher quality. I think its reasonable to pay $35.00 - $40.00 for 22 45 minute episodes (1.60 to 1.80 each) as experience has shown the Blu-Ray will likely cost $60.00. I just think of it like a rental or magazine subscription that works out to the equivalent of a doughnut and a drink at the Timmies once a month.

For some shows the online options are simply too expensive and unreasonable to buy, I personally refuse to pay more than physical price for an HD season of TV on Blu-Ray, so we just wait and buy them when it comes out on Blu-Ray / DVD - or, if we're being patient, will wait until it hits Netflix.

Since much of what we used to watch we could still get via the Network websites and Apps, we spent just over, I think, $300.00 on TV & Movie DVDs / Blu-Rays last year - though I'd have to pull out the receipts and add them up. About the only thing we were missing out on was the first run movies and sports, if you're big on either you might have to make a bit of a sacrifice there. It wasn't a problem for us since we don't much like sports and we've found that first run movies we want to see bad enough to rent are often ones we want to buy anyway.

Even the prices you stated in your post aren't really all that unreasonable when you think it through, $2.99 / $3.99 for a for 45 minute show is about the same price as people spend for a "Specialty" Coffee at the Starbucks, a magazine / newspaper they'll read once and then throw away, a beer at the pub, etc... I personally wouldn't buy it at that price either, its getting too close to physical purchase cost and I'd much rather wait and have the physical item in hand. Still, if it was a show I desperately wanted to see it could certainly be justified - especially since I could afford it since I'd just freed up that $1,440.00 I was wasting on Cable.

To the studios?

[saleenS281]

You obviously haven't taken a look at Comcast's balance sheet if you think that $80/month is going to the studios.

Re:I can get on-demand access to Game of Thrones?

[Mike Buddha]

HBO just announced a deal with Google Play to make all their series available.

Cable Customer === Internet Customer

[ChromaticDragon]

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

[UnderCoverPenguin]

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:Cable Customer === Internet Customer

[mcgrew]

You might want to go with DSL, it serves my purposes, even though I think $47 a month is too much.

Re:Cable Customer === Internet Customer

[Darinbob]

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:Cable Customer === Internet Customer

[mcgrew]

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).

Re:Cable Customer === Internet Customer

[DewDude]

Here's the reason this happened.

Too many people were signing up *just* for cable internet and then pirating the cable signal. It's all in the same RF bandwidth; all they had to do was split it to a TV. Digital solved it; to a degree; but they still had people pirating to get locals. Since they pay high retransmission fees for local channels; it's still considered piracy.

One of the providers here kept it reasonable by keeping the internet QAM on separate lines at the node; and connecting a house to one or both; that way you couldn't pirate the TV signal by signing up for internet.

But, essentially; you're subsidizing a cable TV subscription to recover fees they'll lose should you decide to pirate the signal. The recent legislation allowing them to encrypt *every channel* probably won't help bring this down; as they'll take whatever money they can get.

I also find your comment on "wired for residential" confusing. This is not like POTS days. A business account is really nothing more than a standard account with a few additional incentives; usually faster repair service, guaranteed service, etc.

Re:Cable Customer === Internet Customer

[DewDude]

Are you trying to say that cable doesn't stoop to the same tactics? "Comcast has the fastest in-home wifi!"

That may be true; but I don't need 150mbps Wireless-N when the internet won't run more than 10.

$6 per month JUST for ESPN

[rwade]

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. 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 price pressure on the TV side of the house.

Re:$6 per month JUST for ESPN

[PortHaven]

And my understanding is that is packaged with Disney. So they have to get them all together at about $15.

Cable, just another streaming service

[keith_nt4]

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.

What is your point?

[rwade]

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:What is your point?

[bonehead]

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:What is your point?

[runeghost]

I didn't say "pay TV monopoly". I said "local (monopoly) cable provider". I live in the Rockies, and there is a mountain between me and geosync, so no, I cannot watch GoT on Dish or DirecTV. My local cable provider, which most definitely has a monopoly on local cable, requires a 2-year commitment to get their discounted price on their basic package.

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 as it airs, which was what the story (incorrectly) implied I (or anyone) could do.

Actually...

[mschaffer]

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:Actually...

[manu0601]

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:Actually...

[Swervin]

Speaking as someone who works for a small company that offers cable service, sports programming probably accounts for 20-25% of your bill most likely. Can't really pin it down for sure though, the big guys get better prices than we do.

Re:Actually...

[cshark]

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....

[mark-t]

Mp> ... for what is coming up on 5 years next spring.

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 still have to deal with commercials like I would over the air... but in the end, I'm still not shelling out any money for cable.

I would so mod this up

[themushroom]

And so should some other people.

Re:I can get on-demand access to Game of Thrones?

[UnderCoverPenguin]

I would rather watch Game of Drones

maybe to show Cable content providers

[FudRucker]

that Cable TV companies wont be jerked around

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)

OMG!!!

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Ponies!!!!
Awesome!!!!

Re:I can get on-demand access to Game of Thrones?

[AlphaWolf_HK]

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.

Re:I can get on-demand access to Game of Thrones?

[sixsixtysix]

as the other guy pointed out, Google Play Introduces HBO A La Carte Option

Commercials used to pay for television

[the_Bionic_lemming]

If the cable companies or satellite companies offered service without commercials (and a la carte) I'd sign back up in a heartbeat.

I'm not paying for commercials ever again. Seriously.

Re:Commercials used to pay for television

[EvilSS]

You would not enjoy that world. Commercials still pay quite a bit. In a pure customer pay model you are looking at about $1-2 per episode for a popular show, and if it's not popular the price would go up. Now, look at what gets high ratings. THAT is what you will get. Sports and Reality.

Re:Commercials used to pay for television

[the_Bionic_lemming]

When I was a kid, they had quality 1 hour shows that ran 52 minutes with 8 minutes of commercials.

we're down to 32 minutes of a show with 28 minutes of commercial.

If the model is dead, then mayhaps it's time to rack the slide and kill the horse.

Re:Commercials used to pay for television

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Not lying.

Time how long a rerun (after it gets trimmed for more advertising) plays.

Thanx for playing..

Agree, somewhat ...

[MacTO]

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

[Cajun Hell]

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!

[antdude]

That is how I am doing it now. I record OTA to my DVR and computer. Internet for the rest.

Re:I can get on-demand access to Game of Thrones?

[ArbitraryName]

I'm looking at Season 1 on the Play Store right now.

Re:Costs?

[geminidomino]

What's the anime site?

Prices are not related to costs in this case...

[fredprado]

What controls the prices of services like Netflix is piracy, not cable TV subscribers. If there was no piracy Netflix would be a lot more expensive and so would be cable TV subscriptions.

105th: NET, CTEA, DMCA

[tepples]

How many of the congresscritters in the 105th Congress got primaried for passing the No Electronic Theft Act, Copyright Term Extension Act, or Digital Millennium Copyright Act?

Live sports

[tepples]

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:Live sports

[Zordak]

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.

Re:Live sports

[roc97007]

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:Live sports

[roc97007]

Roger that!

Re:Live sports

[unitron]

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:Live sports

[Anarchduke]

This comment truly surprised me. Because NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Try waiting

[tepples]

You could try waiting until the series has aired in its entirety, after which point seasons should start entering the DVD bargain bin.

When TV costs negative dollars per month

[tepples]

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 that some cable companies charge more for dry Internet than for Internet + TV.

Authentication on networks' websites

[tepples]

So what do you do when the network's own website confronts you with "Please log in with the username and password provided by your cable or satellite provider"?

Re:Authentication on networks' websites

[mark-t]

They don't. Why would they?

The joke's on you.

[ksemlerK]

I get my cable for free. I have a P-Key, a terminator tool, and a 9/16" 30 inchpound torque wrench. I don't pay a fucking dime for my cable TV.

Re:The joke's on you.

[DewDude]

Oh, you'll pay. The cable company will find out and you'll be charged for theft of services.

Content providers have to pay too

[dutchwhizzman]

Content providers have to pay to get on networks too, since they get all the advertising profits. Not all do, some get paid, but cable companies get more money from companies paying to get onto the network than they have to pay to others. This open letter would make sense if it was completely true, but the ones paying are the people buying the products that get advertised and the ones watching the shows via cable, not the cable companies.

Re:Costs?

[Anarchduke]

id like to know that as well

You Are Paying for TV With Internet Only Service

[Pauldow]

I dropped TV services when the digital OTA change took place. I get about 30 programs, although some are duplicate. I couldn't take paying for bringing all that paid programming into my house. Besides the shopping channels, too much is just 1/2 hour commercials. I especially didn't like paying such a huge amount for ESPN, NESN, and YES.
Have you looked at what your internet service includes? All cable/DSL/FIOS/uVerse services include ESPN3, Music Choice and Nick Jr. Boost for "Free!". Nothing is free. You're paying for TV, even if you don't use it.
My Cox 5 Mbps internet only is going up 14% next month to $49. They know they're losing TV and phone customers. There's nothing else available except satellite with low caps. Even if I could get DSL in my area, AT&T stays with a couple dollars of the cable rate. I use an old Ooma, so phone is still free, but I need internet.

Re:You Are Paying for TV With Internet Only Servic

[doccus]

Ah but they're "Hi-Def" half hour commercials ;-)

Wait.. aren't you already paying the SAME service?

[doccus]

If you have cable internet, you're already paying the SAME folks who bring you your TV. You're not paying the studios, but the ISP/TV content provider. How they get their money doesn't matter to them, as long as they can vacuum it out of your pockets...

Interactive Fiction

[camperdave]

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 (aka "video games"), or any form of on-demand stories (aka "books"), and you can consider the anomaly of the past 50 years of broadcast TV as... Well, as an anomaly.

Or my favorite: interactive fiction (aka Slashdot)

I wrote to him, and he answered.

[mschuyler]

So he kinda pissed me off, but I'm really more angry at cable than I am at Wade. The exchange:

Hey Wade,

Just read the article on how I am subsidizing your access to shows. Well done. Just the right amount of snide "I'm smarter than you" rhetoric. You must be really proud of yourself to have "discovered" and taken advantage of streaming video. With an IQ like that, well, you are ALREADY great. Thanks for writing and letting some of it rub off us peons.

Now I'm going to tell you WHY I am subsidizing you. I mean, I have the Internet, obviously. I even have a "network capable" TV with it's own IP address. And my DVD player has a gigabyte USB device on it expressly for watching streaming video. It uses something called OrbCaster. Pretty cool. I'm right on the brink of firing Comcast, so why don't I?

Because, Wade, my Internet connection is limited to T-1 download speeds. That's 1.544Mbps on a DSL connection furnished by Centurylink (The former Quest). And you know what? It's not fast enough to stream much of anything. Even a YouTube video jerks along slowly. But an hour-long TV program? Not a chance, Wade. I'd rather watch the damn commercials than endure the gaps while it is "buffering." Now I've asked for a higher speed. I live in an affluent community which would lap up higher speeds faster than a new model Lexus. I've been on the list quite a long time now. When they "upgrade services" for their DSL lines I'll be the first to know.

I've been waiting about 15 years so far. Before that I tried satellite Internet. Every time it rained, the Internet went out. And I live near Seattle, so you know the Internet was down more than it was up.

I do have an alternative. There is one provider that will give me about 6Mbps for about the same price I am now paying Centurylink. That provider is

Comcast.

See the problem now, Wade? I knew you would. And I don't even watch sports.

His answer:

Thanks for your thoughts about my article. The snide act was intended to get readers riled up; I had hoped it would be recognized as satire. I wasn't trying to tell 100 million cable subscribers that they're stupid. I was trying to rile them up about being forced to overpay.

That said, quite a few readers have been reading the piece as a direct insult, so it sounds like I didn't strike the tone I'd wanted.

I totally understand that there are lots of people in your situation who don't have the broadband speeds needed to make extensive Internet video viewing practical, and I'm all in favor of policies to improve broadband delivery around the country. But given that the article was a bit of a comedy sketch, my feeling as I was writing was that it would have weakened the effect if I'd insert a bunch of caveats like that.

Anyway, thanks, and I totally get your point that the alternative to cable that I was suggesting is only available to people lucky enough to have fast broadband.

Wade

Re:Fees

[DewDude]

You're incorrect.

Cable companies have to negotiate retransmit fees on *everything*. I just wrote a comment about the rates cable companies have to pay locals in reference to that streaming service that has all the networks angry.

Rates are negotiated on a "per-subscriber" basis. That means your cable company is paying a fee, per-person, to carry the channel. No, I'm not thinking of premium networks; which is I'm sure the thought in your head right now. I'm talking *every channel they are legally not required to carry*. The list of channels they are *legally* required to carry is actually quite small; PGE (Public, Government, Educational) channels and local channels that have enacted the "must-carry" clause.

Everything else, though; has to be negotiated. Your cable system has to pay your local network affiliates/channels to be carried on their system. All of your "basic" cable channels; they also have a transmission agreement. Premium channels even have a retransmission agreement.

Basic cable channels are funded by a mix of advertisements and these transmission agreements; thinking that advertisers solely fund a channel anymore is ridiculous. For one thing; advertisers don't want to pay big rates for national coverage because there's no guarantee their ads will be seen. As part of a retransmission agreement; a cable operator is allowed to insert their own advertisements over top of whatever is being broadcast. This includes local channels too. You might be thinking there's some FCC requirement that makes cable operators provide locals; and you'd be right. Except it's essentially now boiled down to two basic requirements: cable providers have to offer a *very basic* package of just local channels; and they must carry a channel that's invoked the "must-carry" rule. This was created because small independent broadcasters were often ignored by cable providers; refusing to carry them so they could offer more non-local programming. The 1992 act made rules that allowed small stations to invoke must-carry status, to force the cable channel to give them bandwidth. It also set up rules for banning "out-of-market" channels. In reality; it's a bit more complex than that; but it gave local broadcasters the option of requiring a retransmission consent; or invoking must-carry. Of course; if your cable provider agrees to pay retransmission for a local broadcaster; they too, get ads inserted over top. The most famous was last year during an NFL playoff game when Comcast interrupted the end of a play to advertise their recent promotion.

Advertisers are the ones getting the shaft, so it's no surprise they won't pay big bucks.

The fact is; nothing is solely funded by advertisers when it comes to cable. You're paying for all the channels in your package as well as paying to see local channels. Cable companies have their own advertising they place on top of a broadcasters adverts. Prime examples are when a provider drops a local affilate because a retransmission agreement can't be reached; or you lose a bunch of "basic" channels because of a agreement not being made. If advertisers were the only ones solely funding programming; why would they care what they get from a cable company? Why do you think it sometimes takes a while for a new cable channel to creep up on your provider? If it was up to the cable companies; they'd add *any* channel they thought would add value to their service. However, they have to come to an agreement on how much they're going to pay for the right to carry that channel; because the advertisers don't fund the channel 100%. Some channels; like C-Span; are solely funded from retransmission agreements.

My question for him....

[DewDude]

"What are you going to do when the TV providers 'win' and you will have to verify subscription to a pay-service before you can stream anything?"

Hulu has already started this trend; I'm sure once the technology exists to a "universal" degree; all the other providers will have to fall in line.

Cable TV: one way or another; we're going to get your money; even if you don't subscribe to us.

Subscriber fees

[tepples]

So what do you do when the network's own website confronts you with "Please log in

They don't.

HBO Go does, and I'm told even some of the basic cable networks do as well.

Why would they?

To encourage people to subscribe to a participating cable or satellite TV provider that pays a royalty per subscriber for the network's bundle of channels.

Re:Subscriber fees

[mark-t]

Not very much money going to cable companies actually makes it to the networks... whereas the money that advertisers pay for the commercials when I'm streaming right from their website go *straight* to the network.

I'd dare say that the network is making more money through ad revenue in online streaming to any single frequent home viewer than they are from a single home's cable subscription.

"well written article"

[chrismcb]

I'm not sure what his point is. He claims people pay a premium for sports and lush serial dramas, because people wouldn't pay for them if the cable companies didn't provide them... duh. I get cable mainly because I want to watch sports. If they didn't offer sports, I wouldn't be paying for the service.
He claims he gets on demand access to Game of Thrones. Where does he do that legally? They only place I see where you legally get Game of Thrones is the DVDs, not on demand and not cheap.
He also mentions the money goes straight to the studios and networks. And then talks about how the cable companies charge high fees for some stuff so they can bundle other stuff. So not all of the money goes straight to the studios.

NOOOOO!!!! WRONG!!!!!

[PortHaven]

Everyone has been paying exhorbitant fees $$$$$$$$ to subsidize those who watch sports.

Cable TV would be much more economical if we us nerds didn't have to pay for sports.

Cable TV vs Internet

[PortHaven]

I started with cable internet at $40 a month. They went to raise it to like $68. Just for internet. Comcast started charging a $18 fee for not have cable TV, granted the basic cable was $21/month.

It got to the point where for another $20 on a promotion I got cable TV+HBO (for Game of Thrones).

Seriously, I don't even get BBC. Since Doctor Who went big, they moved that up to the upper echelons of plans. I want 5 channels. That's about it.