Slashdot Mirror
Continued Cord Cutting Hits the Pay TV Business Hard
An anonymous reader writes: Cord cutting is not a new concern for the pay TV business but a recent massive sell-off in media stocks has many in the industry worried. Cable, satellite and TV companies suffered their worst-ever quarterly subscriber declines losing more than half a million accounts, sending stocks tumbling. Researchers say this may be the beginning of the end for the pay TV business. According to analysts Craig Moffett and Michael Nathanson: "A year ago, the Pay TV sector was shrinking at an annual rate of 0.1 percent. A year later, the rate at which the Pay TV sector is declining has quickened to 0.7 percent year-over-year. That may not seem like a mass exodus, but it is a big change in a short period of time. And the rate of decline is still accelerating."
as soon as they can. They already talked about allowing cable companies to force you to buy TV service in order to get Internet access. For many people, like here in Seattle, cable is the only option for faster than 1.5 Mbps service.
To quote Blizzard's management when WoW lost three million subscribers in a single quarter: "Don't worry, it's cyclical."
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
The companies that own both cable TV and cable internet will be fine. They'll raise internet prices and use their monopoly on cable lines to keep out competitors.
When I cut earlier this year, I was spending $100 a month for the privilege of having comedy central on in the background every month. I didn't even have any movie channels. Just their 1000 channels of HD that I didn't care to watch. When I can get Netflix for $8, Hulu for $8, and HBO for $15, why do I want to spend $100 for 1000 channels I don't watch. It's actually cheaper for me to go and just buy the box sets of the shows I want to watch each year instead of watching them first run. (AMC's Walking Dead, Better Call Saul, for example).
So, maybe cable can recoup their losses by offering something of commiserate value to what they are charging, or drastically drop their price to compete against other offerings in the field.
Good. Let's just hope they don't destroy too much of the internet on their way out.
How are Hulu and Netflix doing? Even better, how is HBO doing now that they've made HBO Go available without a cable subscription?
I'm currently paying for both Hulu and Netflix (and also Crunchyroll) and i'm thinking of picking up HBO Go. I have no problem paying for the content i want, it's the hassle of dealing with the cable company plus paying for a lot of crap that i don't want that's the problem.
My big gripe at the moment is SyFy. For the first time since they changed their name to something that sounds like a venereal disease they're producing content that i'm actually interested in. But i can't watch it because even though they're posting it to Hulu they're requiring that you have a cable subscription to view it. I don't know if this is stupidity on their part or some kind of legal tangle they just can't free themselves from, but i _want_ to watch their stuff and i'm willing to pay them, either directly or indirectly, but they just won't let me.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
If they spent their time keeping subscribers happier rather than cannibalizing subscribers of other types of service they wouldn't be losing so much.
The NUMBER ONE difference in cost between services comes from moving from one to another.
If my monthly bill didn't slowly creep up after a couple of years, I wouldn't be forced to move to something else. Instead of whoring out for "new bundles", just offer a lower price. 99% of the people moving service don't want to or have to because of coverage, but do because they can save $60 a month with a new "introductory" bundle somewhere else.
Also there is this strange resistance to allowing users to pick what they want to watch and pay for only that. Believe it or not, some people don't want four channels of QVC, and they'd rather pay the $8 for the weather channel (or whatever) instead of $22 for a bunch of shit along with the weather channel.
I still need Internet Access. I killed HD TV and all extended channels a couple of years ago and increased my bandwidth. Most recently I turned in the TV box itself and stuck with the tiny descrambler. I'm still charged about $100 a month for access to the 'net. I could go to $300 a month for fiber but I'm not really using the extra bandwidth I have now.
[John]
Shit better not happen!
Well, clearly, the solution is to show more advertising to remaining customers. Go for 61 minutes of advertising per hour, 24/7 each channel. This should maximize the revenue stream.
Who'd have thought that treating your customers like scumbags and cash cows might eventually cause them to leave?
This is my surprised face.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
fuck the cable companies. may they all die for being the abusive, government corrupting oligarchy they are
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
We dropped Comcast and deployed Leaf antennas. We get a couple of dozen channels, including the four major networks and a number of sub-channels rented by movie and rerun networks (e.g., Cozi, Movies!, MeTV, Buzzr, Laff, Decades, Retro, Bounce, Escape, Grit, Get, etc.). If there's nothing on, or the reception is being interrupted by who-knows-what, we turn off the TV and do something else. Every month we enjoy not paying Comcast.
I'm not unconditionally hostile to the status quo media distribution business model. My problem with them is that they tend to make content X exclusive to service Y when I am most interested in using service Z.
You see this with lots of media outlets. You see it on consoles a lot in games. They pay publisher of X content lots of money to make the game exclusive to Y console when I use a Z PC. And here's the thing... while I'd love to play that game and would be happy to buy it... I am not buying Y console. It would give me hand herpes... and there is no cure.
And the same thing is true with the TV, sports, movies, etc.
I would love to get sports on my streaming service and I would pay more for that package. However... I am not going to get a cable subscription just for the sports. Because while I care... I don't "need". I'm very happy with a thousand other entertainment medias. And that assumes I even want to entertain myself that way. I have so many f'ing projects and hobbies that when all is said and done... you have to actually be interesting make me show up.
Anyway, glad the old business model is dying... not because I like to see them die but because they were too stubborn to port their content to platforms I wanted to use at a competitive rate.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It happens to all technologies. Someday the Internet will be replaced with something better, and people will begin to abandon that old fashioned technology.
Maybe they should do what we the customer's have been begging them to do for years!
Its simple its called à la carte. It means you sell us the channels we actually effing want! we don't care if you say the extra 30 home shopping channels are free we don't want them!
And maybe you could do something about the %50 advertising %50 show problem. I don't know how I ever put up with it now after using netflix for over a year.
No I don't care how much it costs for you to do this. You are either going to do this or you are going to be left behind kind of like att is with their landline POTS service.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
Just a though but for you cord cutters where are you going to get you content if cable goes away. No ads??lol they are coming? paying for content you will never watch?your doing it now but it will be a ton more. whats your thoughts? Remember HBO and MTV both WERE ad free......
Jack of all trades,master of none
Now that the ATT buyout is complete I'm moving over to the Netflix/Hulu/HBO Now setup. I will just go to a bar if their is a sports event I want to watch.
Sure the satellite companies suffer when customers quit. They don't sell much in the way of internet to replace those lost TV customers. But cable, now that's another story. Cable actually charges me more for broadband since I do not carry TV package too. In fact my next door neighbor just cancelled Comcast and went to a DSL provider just for the fact she wanted internet only broadband and Comcast told her she had to buy a basic channel package too. I pay for broadband only and have for years! The thing is, Comcast still makes money off broadband and in fact all Comcast really should care about is providing the services they offer. Together as packages or separate. But someone at Comcast is worried your using your broadband to buy other media services and that bugs Comcast.
Well that's too bad, and in fact many people in my area are ditching Comcast completely. I think I could get by with a DSL line providing a good 6mbps download speed. Not the greatest, but $29 vs $68 per month sounds pretty good.
The beginning was a while ago. When they started increasing commercials from two minutes two seconds up to three minutes, then three-and-a-half. I was trying to watch "Ray" on BET a few months ago, commercials were running past six minutes. A season of a TV series is 8-13 episodes now, not the 20-26 from decades past. There are no more real news programs. A few channels continue to pump out some good to excellent content, but you're paying a minimum of $100/month because you have to take the 80% of the bundle that you don't want.
I assume these numbers are from before the news about AT&T and DirecTV. I would expect the numbers to take a pretty significant dip right now, with people like me that just say fuck to AT&T. I would expect another series of significant dips after AT&T begins to truly work their magic on DirecTV customers. I can get most of the channels I want with the HBO package from Sling TV for $35/month, 25% of what I'm paying right now. And thanks to some helpful advice from a fellow slashdotter, any channel I can't get that has a series I like, I can buy an episode or season at a time from iTunes. So long, suckers.
...too expensive. People are voting with their wallets. Time for the time honored appropriate response to a shift in the demand curve where the amount demanded at every price is less: time for price cuts.
Everybody in the industry has gotten fat: producers, actors, athletes, sports leagues, coaches, college athletic programs, on air talent, etc. (I'm mostly interested in ESPN, I almost never watch anything on HBO etc, but the same logic applies). You can't pay billions to televise a single college football conference, raise your prices to astronomical levels to cover same and expect your customers to keep shelling out.
There will be a blood bath, especially in the college sports world. The days of $5mm/year coaches, $1mm/year AD's and $750mm stadiums with lavish locker rooms, indoor training facilities, etc, are going to quickly come to an end.
The NFL will feel the pinch as well.
sports sports sports SPORTS sports sports sports SPORTS
sports sports sports SPORTS sports sports sports SPORTS
sports sports sports SPORTS sports sports sports SPORTS
YOU BETTER KEEP SUBSIDIZING ESPN IF YOU KNOW WHAT'S GOOD FOR YOU POINTDEXTERS!
sports sports sports SPORTS sports sports sports SPORTS
sports sports sports SPORTS sports sports sports SPORTS
sports sports sports SPORTS sports sports sports SPORTS
This will force them to dump all the pointless channels that nobody watches and give us cheaper packages with content that the users actually want.
In my area, I get free OTA TV. Subscribing to the bare minimum cable package, which is *JUST* the same channels as OTA provides, is $18/mo. The only advantage I would have is a more reliable signal, as with bad weather the OTA sometimes drops in and out a bit. A "standard" cable package, the next tier up, starts at $53/mo. Now, let's compare this to Netflix, which starts at only $8/mo.
So, why is cord cutting huge? Because we all want to save a buck or two... or $40! Really, look at the difference there. It is $18/mo for the same service that is already free, only slightly more reliable. Or $8/mo for unlimited streaming. Or the getting an actual cable package at $58/mo!? Seriously, what would you choose in this scenario?
Once you cut the cord, you start cutting back on other things. Those initial plans to pay ala-carte vanish when you're thinking "is it worth $1.99 for this one episode"? You learn to wait a year instead of seeing the shows when they first run. You learn to watch older TV instead. The "must watch" list shrinks.
The only problem though is lack of a good DVR, as streaming wants you to stream on demand (even if high peak hours). No DVR means there's no point in even bothering to watch broadcast TV even if you get a good antenna, as it returns you to the dark ages of being a slave to the clock. But you learn to do without.
I'd rather pay for just the shows I watch, rather than picking an entire channel. For channels like SyFi (which is about 25% science fiction), I'd be buying 10 shows per week. For channels like The Documentary Channel, it would be more like 2.
The Learning Channel? hahahahahahahaha what learning? Honey Boo Boo taught me nothing.
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
If cable wants my bucks they better put out more and better at a vastly reduced rate. They charge too much and provide too little and charge a fortune. On the other hand Net Flix gives quite a bit and some of it is great entertainment and they hardly charge at all. My cable costs me $226. a month. I do get numerous services but still it is only worth about $50. a month in my opinion.
The only thing that prevents me from cutting the cord is the godd***n Hallmark channel and what my wife would do to me if she couldn't get it. Those bastards refuse to offer any streaming alternative that doesn't require a cable provider account. I would gladly pay them $30+/month if it meant I could ditch cable.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
In my state, we've been forced to buy auto liability insurance since, well...forever.
I don't buy car liability insurance. Here's why not.
When I can get Netflix for $8, Hulu for $8, and HBO for $15, why do I want to spend $100 for 1000 channels I don't watch.
Two reasons. One is that they're bundled with live sports or politics channels that you do want. Sport leagues' online streaming services tend to black out games shown on national or regional pay TV. The other is that the discount on Internet service for also having TV through the same company is sometimes larger than the price of TV.
What are their customers going to do? Go to one of their competitors when they want to watch Game Of Downton Abbey?
Worse comes to worst, they'll watch a show that isn't Game of Thrones or a show that isn't Downton Abbey. Sometimes substitutes are not exact.
[DVRs] feel like 15 year old tech, and they constantly break. They're big and bulky, and make a lot of heat and noise for something that seems slower and less powerful than my mobile phone.
I wonder how much of this is caused by two things: skimping on hardware in order to pay incumbent DVR patent holders such as TiVo, and continuing to use obsolete hardware because it happens to have been certified by the DRM division of CableLabs.
I'd much rather wait for it to come out on DVD or arrive on netflix than suffer through all the advertising.
Does the College Football Playoff ever get to DVD or Netflix?
Last time I checked, cows said EAT MOR CHIKIN.
"but I like to play on the couch"... then get a gaming laptop and plug it into your tv when you want to do that. You can plug game pads into a PC as easily as anything.
But will the average PC-native co-op game necessarily support gamepads, plural? A lot of PC games require a separate PC per player so that they can sell two to four copies of a game to a single household instead of one copy that works in shared-screen mode.
What is more, the cost of a gaming PC is not the cost of the entire machine. Because you're going to have a PC regardless. Who has a console but doesn't have a PC at all?
People who get by with a console and phone, or people who live in a household where another member routinely hogs the only PC.
So the cost of the gaming PC is not the cost of the machine but rather the cost of turning the PC you're going to buy anyway into a gaming PC.
In other words, wait three to five years until you would have already replaced your existing compact or office-spec laptop with a gaming laptop.
Then you'll hear someone say "but PCs are hard"... well... ten year olds can figure it out.
I've had ten-year-olds get a PC infected with fake antivirus. The only good thing about that is at least it isn't encrypting ransomware.
And then you'll hear "but none of the exclusive games I want are on the PC"... well, you're a victim of advertising because name the genre and there is probably lots of PC games that are every bit as good if not better.
What are better PC counterparts to these games?
emulators
Once you've bought game cartridges or GameCube or Wii discs, how do you dump them so you can run them in an emulator?
I will just go to a bar if their is a sports event I want to watch.
People under 21 are forbidden to enter bars. So what should people do if they want to watch the game with their kids, such as the parent of a high school student whose older brother's school is in the ESPN-exclusive College Football Playoff?
7) Downloaded Fox Sports app for cell phone
Now what happens when the networks you mentioned in 7-10 start saying "Please log in with the username and password issued to you by your participating cable or satellite television provider"?
Saved $145 per month by lowering my Time Warner Bill from $210 to $66
How much of that was absorbed by the upgrade from a flip phone to an Android phone? Major cellular carriers tend to charge more for service on smartphones than on dumbphones.
It is $18/mo for the same service that is already free, only slightly more reliable.
If you were to cancel that $18 per month service, the cable company would likely hike your Internet rate by $20 per month because you no longer qualify for the bundle discount.
Having local CDNs would also be a huge investment
An investment that Netflix is already making. It provides an OpenConnect Appliance without charge to any qualifying ISP willing to give it colo space. Comcast didn't want to take the offer.
If movies/TV shows are sent through the internet and played on some sort of computer, there is a greater chance of piracy
Even in modern Windows operating systems that have "Protected Video Path" DRM? I'm told Netflix downgrades your stream to SD if it can't successfully establish a Protected Video Path.
I agree with you. Everytime I have to use one at a house with full-up cable, I'm like all "what the hell is running this thing, an 8086??"
I can see the fnords!
Now that Jon Stewart is gone cable TV can go pound sand.
$100 to $200 will buy you a decent quality tuner/encoder - anything from the plug and play EyeTV options to the MythTV-geeks-only HDHomeRun... just search on Amazon.
I can see the fnords!
I'm posting on slashdot, do I seem like the kind of person who cares about sportsball?
Even if you don't, a Slashdot user might live with someone who does care about sportsball or something else that isn't on Netflix.
Though sarcasm aside, can't you pick those games up with an antenna if you really want to watch them?
You're probably thinking of the Super Bowl (NFL championship game) or the NBA Finals, which are shown OTA. The College Football Playoff is not; it's on ESPN. Nor are some games of the NHL Stanley Cup Finals; they're on NBCSN (formerly Versus).
What? The performance is covered by a copyright and I'll get DMCAed? Fuck.
Here is NOT a performance of a cat playing the world's smallest violin for the cable companies.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
If I had mod points, I'd mod this up. The ripples haven't yet begun to be felt. It'll be interesting to see how the advertisers react. They're the top of the food chain.
As to people getting by without a PC but having a console... I've never seen that and I frankly suspect you're talking about unicorns.
If people who don't own a PC and do most of their "computing" on a phone are unicorns, then my cousin is a unicorn, as is a former co-worker.
As to your comment about malware... I don't know what you're talking about. Clarify your position.
Get on a PC and try to watch a video that you found through a search engine, and if it happens to be on a sufficiently shady site, the site will require you to install what it calls a "codec update" or "Flash update". Except this purported update is actually a malware dropper.
As to cockfighting RPGs... there are literally pokemon games... same IP on the PC:
I can't publicly recommend use of blatant infringements lest I be accused of "inducing copyright infringement" per MGM v. Grokster.
there are zillions of the fucking things
Therein lies the problem: finding which of the "zillions of the fucking things" is any good and/or has any community around it. Unlike with consoles, I'm not aware of any review sites that aim to cover 100% of Steam releases. It's called the paradox of choice: with too many choices, the brain gives up and chooses "none of the above".
As to whether I want to dump a game cube for an emulator if I bought a game cube... yes. For the same reason I'd rather listen to an MP3 or a FLAC file than I would a CD or an LP.
By "dump" I mean take a disc and make an image of the data on the disc for use with an emulator, like ripping a CD to FLAC. How do you do that with Neo Geo AES cartridges or with GameCube discs?
Ever played NeoGeo on the android? Its great.
I tried playing NES on an Android tablet. I kept "whiffing", my term for accidentally pressing outside the range of the on-screen buttons. The same thing happened when I tried the free subset of Pixeline and the Jungle Treasure, a Mario clone on Google Play Store. I didn't get very far until I paired my Bluetooth keyboard. Because a flat sheet of glass has no tactile position cues, it's worse than playing on a Turbo Touch 360, and that's saying something. At least a Turbo Touch has physical trigger buttons, edges on the D-pad, and ridges inside the D-pad. True, emulators tend to support external gamepads, but a PlayStation Vita or Nintendo 3DS is far easier to carry than an Android tablet and a Dual Shock 3. If things like the Xperia Play (phone with slide-out gamepad) were still manufactured, or if JXD gaming tablets were sold in brick-and-mortar stores, it'd be different.
Seriously play around on the steam store for a minute and realize that the PC game market has about 10 times as many titles. Are all of them great? Obviously not. Lots of them are shit. But then lots of games on the console are shit as well.
I think the peasants' argument is that for any generation after the second, a random sample of 10 PC games will have noticeably more shit than a random sample of console games.
I think the amount of cable cutters depends on how it's measured. Some, if not most, cable companies have an Internet plan that is cheaper if one buys a package that includes a very basic channel selection which may include only the local broadcast channels. People who got rid of all higher level packages and just wanted Internet but took the less expensive package with some TV may not be considered cable cutters because they get cable provided Pay TV. What really needs to be counted are the changes in the numbers of subs to content providers as ESPN, CNN/MSNBC/CNBC/Fox News/ which are generally included in the next higher level Pay TV package. Loss in those subscribers would be a better measure of cable cutting. Oh, and many of those getting the local broadcast channel and Internet package may not even be watching the Pay TV content. Disney, owner of ESPN, seems to have some cash flow problems seen by the dismissal/loss of some of their expensive on air "talent". They've paid huge sums to some sports leagues, notably to the NBA, and may have trouble paying for that. Sports leagues could be in trouble.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
People may be cutting the cord, but they are still paying for TV. Now they are just paying Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and Sling, instead of Comcast, Time Warner, and Charter. Oh, wait, they still are paying Comcast, Time Warner, and Charter for the Internet service so they can also pay for streaming services. I'm not sure the total bill will be going down much.
My 4-tuner/4.5TB MythTV makes me a slave to my backlog, not the clock. Also, I can save episodes as long as i want (if I have space), and mark/delete the commercials manually (I don't trust the automatic commercial detection) more for saving space (commercials alone can be a gigabyte for an hour show) than for other reasons. With only an antenna, I've got more TV than I can watch.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
"sports fee" of $6 per month, No sports channels...don't do sports on tv $72 per year ? SNIP
The problem is to get line to your property, they must run wires through property you don't own and likely will have to dig up city streets. I agree it should be much easier for companies to get approval to do this, but you're making it sound like it's only your property that comes into play.
Companies are already pretty much free to lay cables around. Yes, they must have the permits, but some companies such as Google Fiber are doing it, and many more could do it. The problem is not that monopolies are forced by law or that market forces don't apply. The problem is that the barrier to entry is very high. The incumbents can simply lower the prices in a city with a new entrant until it runs out of business.
There is nothing different the republicans would do. They have been in power for many years and didn't change anything.
Read http://www.darkhorizons.com/ne... ... :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Where I live, the bundle is cheaper -- for the first 12 months. Then the price goes up so now those live sports and politics are worth an extra $100
First move to a city that has both a cable company and a viable competitor such as FiOS. Then follow sheetsda's procedure every year. This may keep you on the bundle pricing.
Read up about natural monopolies. There are plenty of places where there simply isn't enough population density to support a second set of infrastructure. Heck, there are places that don't even have enough population to support ONE set of wires, and only have service because of government subsidies or mandates.
I literally took a pair of snips and cut the cord, but then my internet stopped working almost immediately. I think Comcast did this as a putative measure, but I'm not sure how to prove it.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
I'm easily to the left of Jeremiah Wright, but I certainly don't harbor the bitter venom he has for the US.
As for leftist views, Individual liberty exists as long as individuals are equal. Once one group amasses more power, they tend to overrule the weaker side. I'm not sure if that makes me a leftist or a libertarian though. But Atheist and against the death penalty probably makes me more aligned with the Left than the Christian Right or Neo-Conservatives.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The big issues for them, if I understand the press releases, is partly to get access to more and better content than U-Verse can afford with its market alone, partly to get access to a lot more subscribers (who might be willing to buy other services), particularly in Verizon and CenturyLink parts of the US, and partly to get more access to the Mexican market.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I don't mind paying for quality content. I do mind paying for quality content packaged in with tons of junk. I cut back the package that I used to have even if that meant losing a few channels I liked. There were just too many craptastic channels in that bigger package that I no longer wanted to pay for. I understand that service providers buy the content in packages. So if they want channels A and B they also have to carry the right-wing propaganda news channel and the three shopping channels. I wouldn't mind that if I could block those channels effectively and if the packages were not so ridiculously expensive. Technically it is not a problem to have a pick and choose option, but that would be the end to shopping channels. The other issue are the ridiculous fees. There I like to see government to step in and end this. I pay a 'local sports fee' that supposedly pays for a channel that shows one or two high school basketball games per month. Seriously? And then all the other fees that even the provider cannot explain. It should further be allowed to buy your own equipment. Most cable boxes are between 40 to 60 bucks street price...so why do we have to pay rental fees? Likewise with sat companies, they insist on providing the equipment which is of dismal quality. In Europe you can buy your own sat equipment and receive hundreds of channels in top quality for free. Too bad that model was not introduced in the US, we would be watching in entirely different ways.
The internet is just a pipe, a way to send and recieve bits which makes it about as generic as possible. The bits could be anything (text, sound, pictures, videos, and more). I doubt it's going to go away anytime soon, as anything that can be described as bits can be sent over the internet. So our 3D digital holovision goggles will work just fine with the internet. Television on the other hand is just a way to send video. That makes television more analogous to services and technologies used on the internet, many of which have already gone away and replaced with something better, like Gopher, or are on the way out, like Flash.
That is the correct analogy with respect to cable companies and customers. They send more flies to bite more often (higher fees), is it any wonder we are restive in our cages and when we break out of the cage, how reluctant we are to enter the cage again.
Cable companies only thought is how to make a stronger cage (restricted competition via continuation of retransmission fees).
Now we have the ability to have a cloud of DDT suppressing the flies ( diverse wide band internet suppliers, that will allow the netflix etc to completely replace broadcasters)
It is any wonder that more and more of us yearn to escape the flies.....?