You're Paying 40% More For TV Than You Were 5 Years Ago (businessinsider.com)

I am? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 06:41 · Score: 1, Interesting

I cut cable a long time ago. I pay 40 for Internet, and I pirate, so for 40 bucks a month I can watch whatever I want, and the good stuff I can hoard and watch forever.

Re:I am? by unixisc · 2016-09-23 06:42 · Score: 2

Precisely! I stopped owning a TV since 2008, and haven't looked back ever since. I have 2 tablets, 2 laptops, 3 phones but no TV.
Re:I am? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 06:53 · Score: 1

Must ... resist ... temptation to post Onion link.
Are individuals necessarily paying more? The average would also increase if cord-cutters had been disproportionately at the low end before they cut the cord. That sounds plausible if they were already on the off-ramp.
Re:I am? by HumanWiki · 2016-09-23 07:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

I cut cable a long time ago. I pay 40 for Internet, and I pirate, so for 40 bucks a month I can watch whatever I want, and the good stuff I can hoard and watch forever.
That's great and all, but you can't talk about the benefits of pirating like it's a true cost savings. Many people could say things like, yeah I only spend 20.00 on groceries, and I steal, so for 20.00 a month I'm eating steak and lobster every night with high dollar wine.
It's still stealing, even if you don't agree with the costs.
Re:I am? by The-Ixian · 2016-09-23 07:13 · Score: 1

I also have not paid for a television subscription since... around 2010 or so.
I do the standard Netflix, Prime and Hulu ad-free which comes up to $35/mo or so.
I am not a sports fan and I really not a movie fan but I do like to binge watch tv episodes during the weekend sometimes. Because of that I would rather wait for old series to filter down to the streaming services than to try to watch them week-by-week.
I am currently 4 seasons in to Midsomer Murders and love that I still have like 14 seasons to go...

--
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Re: I am? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 07:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

So you have no ethical issues pirating content? Please no BS about sticking it to the media corporations--that is just rationalizing the fact you are just a cheap jerk with no morals.
Re: I am? by HumanWiki · 2016-09-23 07:18 · Score: 3, Informative

If you steal food, you go to jail.
If you download media, nothing happens. Distributing is the crime. No one has ever gotten in trouble for downloading, it's that when you're torrenting you're uploading at the same time, which is the crime.
So no, they're not comparable.
Actually, that is incorrect. They are both considered crimes. People actually don't always go to jail for stealing food, so you're also wrong there. Some have had things happen for simply downloading.
Man, you're just full of wrong.
Re:I am? by Shalian · 2016-09-23 07:19 · Score: 1

With small sample size, Cord-Cutters tend to have been on higher tier plans and just replaced them with streaming services. I know a several who use HBO Go and NFL season passes rather than $150/mo cable packages.
Re:I am? by pr0fessor · 2016-09-23 07:19 · Score: 1

I didn't own a tv for about 10 years while in college and a few years after that eventually I got a TV and just watched OTA programing for maybe 5 years occasionally mostly for weather I got cable sometime around 2005 and cut the cord around 2010. Now I have Plenty of TVs but only internet and a netflix account, I buy DVDs for movies I want to see and just put them on my media server. (sometimes I'll take them to a place that trades DVDs and get some I haven't seen to put on my media server and then recycle)
Re: I am? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 07:26 · Score: 1

Give me a link where someone was arrested for downloading media. Not uploading, just downloading. If it's illegal, surely you can find one example.
Re:I am? by houstonbofh · 2016-09-23 07:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you steal food, they no longer have the food. If you "steal" content, they still have the content. It took a lot of work to twist the English language around copying be "theft." It may still be a crime, and it may have some disproportionately stiff penalties, but it is not stealing.
Re: I am? by Jason+Levine · 2016-09-23 07:31 · Score: 3, Informative

People think that downloading is legal because people don't get prosecuted for it. The truth of the matter is that downloading is hard to prosecute. The MPAA would need to either operate a honeypot or get access to a torrent server's log files to get a list of IP addresses. Then - for each one - they'd need to get a court to agree that the ISP needs to turn over the information. Finally, they would sue the individual. However, all of this effort would likely be for a single count of copyright infringement. ("He downloaded this ONE movie and that's it.") It's a waste of the MPAA's resources and even they know it.
Thus, they go after the uploaders. Not only do you get multiple counts of infringement for one individual ("he shared a thousand files") but removing the large uploaders leaves the downloaders with nothing to download. (In theory.)
The big trouble downloaders get into is when they don't realize that their software is uploading as well. They think that they're invisible when, in reality, they're telling everyone what they're up to.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re: I am? by lgw · 2016-09-23 07:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

So you have no ethical issues pirating content?

I have 0 ethical issues pirating content when the company won't take my money. Give me a (practical) way to pay for that thing I want to watch, either directly or through my Netflix sub, and I do. Companies are (finally) wising up to this, and beginning the fight against the legacy of region-specific distribution deals, culture of delaying release in some formats, and so on.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re: I am? by ArmoredDragon · 2016-09-23 07:54 · Score: 1

Do I know it's wrong? Yeah. Do I care? No, not particularly. I've personally written software that I've had people pirate, and was just like "meh, whatever". I guess it's kind of like speeding, which I do all the time, and the cops don't seem to care as I've had several watch me do it and I've never gotten a speeding ticket.
Re:I am? by Gr8Apes · 2016-09-23 07:58 · Score: 2

I got the HDHomeRun OTA receiver and paired it with some DVR software. That combination with a media server works really really well for 99.9% of what I would ever want to watch.

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Re:I am? by AF_Cheddar_Head · 2016-09-23 08:15 · Score: 1

Where do they get the NFL season pass if they aren't subscribing to DirectTV? I thought it was only available to students at university and DirectTV subs.
Re:I am? by sjames · 2016-09-23 08:21 · Score: 1

That presupposes that I would or even could pay the amount they are demanding. If those aren't true, they benefit in no way at all from me not enjoying that content.
Or another case. Let's say I plan to watch something on cable that I subscribe to, but 30 minutes in, the idiot up the street manages to cut a tree down and take the cable with it. In that case, I already paid the cableco which already paid the broadcaster who already paid the content producer, etc etc. So who would I be stealing from if I download the torrent posted by the guy upstream of the idiot with a chainsaw?
Re:I am? by pr0fessor · 2016-09-23 08:24 · Score: 1

Unfortunately I'm in a bad location for OTA...
Re: I am? by hackwrench · 2016-09-23 08:33 · Score: 2

I have no ethical issues with the way the copyright system is set up. Until we sit down and talk about forming some ethical underpinnings as to if copyright makes sense and if so for how long, I take the position that it is a government law infringing on the normal operation of culture and free speech. The original intent of the earliest forms of copyright was to censor and I can only assume that is its primary effect today.
Re:I am? by ZipK · 2016-09-23 08:34 · Score: 1

Where do they get the NFL season pass if they aren't subscribing to DirectTV?
You stream it on the interweb: https://nflst.directv.com/
Re:I am? by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-09-23 08:37 · Score: 2

Same here...I stopped watching broadcast and cable TV more than a decade ago and I don't feel as though I've missed anything.
My son gave me one of his Netfix logins, but I don't use it much, maybe a few times a month. I spend more time searching for something to watch than I do actually watching whatever it is I found.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Re: I am? by NotAPK · 2016-09-23 08:39 · Score: 1

Please don't compare copyright violation to speeding.
You can torrent all day long and no one is hurt.
You can speed all day, all year, but eventually you may end up killing or paralyzing someone. If you were *not* speeding then their life may have been spared. Kinetic energy goes up with the square of the velocity. Please do *not* trivialize speeding!!!
Re:I am? by houstonbofh · 2016-09-23 08:58 · Score: 1

If you steal food, they no longer have the food. If you "steal" content, they still have the content. It took a lot of work to twist the English language around copying be "theft." It may still be a crime, and it may have some disproportionately stiff penalties, but it is not stealing.
This is my only reply to you, because you lack the simple understanding of how economics works with something like content. You are still stealing from someone by not paying for the content, because you took part in the content w/o compensating the creator(s) and the theft is their revenue, from the money charged, that represents time/materials on their part.
So I can "steal" the GNP of the entire planit, and double our productivity? The theory of "lost revenue" implies that the revenue was there to be lost.
Re: I am? by Joce640k · 2016-09-23 09:00 · Score: 1

So you have no ethical issues pirating content?
Ethics? LOL.
After all the artists they've ripped off? After all the laws they've have bought? After all the evil things they've done?
No, none at all. They reap what they sow.

--
No sig today...
Re: I am? by hackwrench · 2016-09-23 09:13 · Score: 1

I am not sure about the most of my life part and I have illness that limits my output, but I generally work to create content for nothing and if you want you can trawl the qb64 and probably FreeBASIC sites and find lots of free content. Steam Workshop-supporting titles have a lot of content created for free.
Re:I am? by houstonbofh · 2016-09-23 09:49 · Score: 1

Linus?
Re:I am? by h4ck7h3p14n37 · 2016-09-23 09:50 · Score: 1

I don't want to pay for cable service, but Comcast requires me to sign-up for basic cable in order to get Internet service by cable modem. I'm paying a little more than $100/month for 25Mbit service which is about twice what I should be paying. Unfortunately there's no competition in my area, so I'm stuck with Comcast.
Re: I am? by hackwrench · 2016-09-23 09:55 · Score: 1

He is saying things that make well enough sense without resorting to the conclusion that he is trolling.
Re: I am? by NotAPK · 2016-09-23 10:25 · Score: 1

Wow. I'm actually speechless. Next you'll be telling me that loud pipes save lives? Right?
Slow down.
Slow down.
Slow down.
Slow down.
Try not to fall for bullshit such as this from someone who thinks they are *much* smarter than they actually are.
Re:I am? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 10:44 · Score: 1

Had to lol at the predictable "theft" post and "uh uh, no it's not" reply, but.... I'll try to present a less heard idea.
"Let me know when you spend most of your life creating content for free... Until then you're just an AC and have 0 value."
Let me know when you find a way to view those films that will never be in the public domain before all the stock is rotted.
You do realize that they actually consider 50yo films entering the public domain, to be a form of (legal) competition with their movies from say, 10 years ago, right? Even 75 years... 100. This number has been increasing every single time the 1920's comes up. The original deal was a monopoly on profit, for a limited time. It's now turned into some legal equivalent of a real estate scam. There have actually been books that were in the public domain, and YOINK stolen back. And it is in fact theft, because the public domain no longer has theirs.
Don't support copyright maximalism: Because Jack Valenti had below 0 value.
Re:I am? by The-Ixian · 2016-09-23 10:47 · Score: 1

Look, the only reason that you are able to pirate is because the majority of people pay for the content they consume.
You can make all kinds of excuses about depriving or not based on the incidental fact that it is a digital good. But the fact remains that someone made that content is asking a price for it. If you take it... sure, you are not depriving them of that content, but you are also not paying them what they asked so, in my book (and I am far from alone here) that is stealing.
If everyone did what you do, then there would be no content to steal. You are a leech living off the rest of society.

--
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Re: I am? by hackwrench · 2016-09-23 11:21 · Score: 1

I'm not speaking as to the truth of his statements, just that there is enough substance there to not be trolling.
Re:I am? by Megane · 2016-09-23 15:09 · Score: 1

I keep buying hard drives for my antenna MythTV.

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re: I am? by u801e · 2016-09-23 17:56 · Score: 1

You can speed all day, all year, but eventually you may end up killing or paralyzing someone.
Not really. Most speed limits are underposted compared to actual traffic speeds. For instance, for decades, the maximum speed limit on US interstates was 55 mph, yet most people drove at least 10 mph above that speed. That's still the case in states that held on to that limit to this day (e.g., I-66 outside of Washington DC). Since 1995, the vast majority of states have raised their limits beyond 55/65 mph, and yet, the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles is quite a bit lower now than it ever was during the NMSL (National Maximum Speed Limit) era.
Re: I am? by jbarr · 2016-09-23 23:55 · Score: 1

Technically, I don't count the price of internet access, because I paid for it when I had DISH Network. I'm going to pay for internet access regardless of how I consume TV content.
We dropped DISH, and with Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime, we're saving about $85 per month.

--
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
Re: I am? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-24 01:36 · Score: 1

Downloading is legal because the content companies reneged on their side of the bargain.
We had a social contract, we put up with their artificial scarcity & buy their records/movies/etc... and in exchange for their fake monopoly on the content, they agreed to release it to public domain after a certain period.
Since public domain has been suspended, we are now under no obligation at all continue to uphold our end of the bargain. Why would we be?
Re:I am? by Tough+Love · 2016-09-24 12:36 · Score: 1

I would rather wait for old series to filter down to the streaming services than to try to watch them week-by-week.
I remember when you had to know what happened last night on the latest soap or not be part of the office conversation. Sad, really.

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Re:I am? by GeekWithAKnife · 2016-09-25 03:21 · Score: 1

You may care to acknowledge that copying is and always was part of humanity. Copying each other's actions, words and ideas enriched human societies overall and allowed humans to advanced rapidly the faster they could copy off each other.

Corporations spend vast amounts of resources to become exclusive, to build demand, to have a monopoly, to leverage their wealth to improve their already superior position.

You seem to be confused about what and who are the leeches in the story. A leech

The real leeches are the ones depriving others of content at an affordable price due to greed. By definition a leech in relation to people is; "a person who clings to another for personal gain, especially without giving anything in return, and usually with the implication or effect of exhausting the other's resources; parasite. "

Note one "personal gain" - consumption of entertainment, information etc is personal gain. Agreed but this is not said in isolation the context is "without giving anything in return" - 1. Copyright infringers often PAY for more content than the average person. 2. Free promotion of content by soi called "pirates", that is considered worthwhile, contributes to sales.

Of note for this definition is "...and usually with the implication or effect of exhausting the other's resources; parasite." - When COD was copied and shared for free across the internet and many generations of games which resource was exhausted or reduced? -When Game of Thrones was just an uncommonly known series what made it famous worldwide?

The real leeches are those that refuse to share content and jack the price to the detriment of society for the greed. They are the ones that restrict you from playing your purchased DVD anywhere on any machine. They are the ones that make Chinese farmers work more hours for even less while putting another $50 on their latest phone.

You can make all kinds of excuses about depriving...indeed you can. You hold on to a belief because it is convenient to you. Factually you may find that things are not so black and white.

--
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Re:I am? by peawormsworth · 2016-09-25 04:57 · Score: 1

In similar news, another company refuses to make less money on a dying company business model, so it raises prices to cover subscriber loss.
People who watch subscription TV should realize that they will pay for company losses due to a shrinking market. And they should also know, that their Internet rate is going up because we are all paying for those same people to stream their favourite TV shows online.
My advice is to cancel your TV subscription now and figure out how to get your entertainment over the Internet. That or switch to digital OTA if is available in your area.
Re:I am? by Rakarra · 2016-09-26 07:56 · Score: 1

That presupposes that I would or even could pay the amount they are demanding. If those aren't true, they benefit in no way at all from me not enjoying that content.
Or another case. Let's say I plan to watch something on cable that I subscribe to, but 30 minutes in, the idiot up the street manages to cut a tree down and take the cable with it. In that case, I already paid the cableco which already paid the broadcaster who already paid the content producer, etc etc. So who would I be stealing from if I download the torrent posted by the guy upstream of the idiot with a chainsaw?
That's where I draw the line, too. I have no problems 'pirating' content I've already paid for.
I didn't have a problem either when I torrented Game of Thrones episodes after my GOT Blu-Rays developed some strange bit-rot making a few episodes unreadable.
Re:I am? by Rakarra · 2016-09-26 07:58 · Score: 1

So I can "steal" the GNP of the entire planit, and double our productivity? The theory of "lost revenue" implies that the revenue was there to be lost.
Yet you gained value from it, value that was only offered in exchange for money.
Re:I am? by Rakarra · 2016-09-26 07:59 · Score: 1

Non-sense. When the entertainment industry starts a tip jar I'll start contributing.
I'm sure if you send them money, they'll be quite happy to take it!
Re:I am? by houstonbofh · 2016-09-26 08:13 · Score: 1

But if there was no money to pay, there was no revenue to have "lost" in the first place.
Re: I am? by DarthVain · 2016-09-26 08:38 · Score: 1

No to just about everything in probably 2/3rds of this entire topic really.
It isn't stealing. It isn't theft. These are words used intentionally to the public to incite and inflame. In LAW it is Copyright Infringement, which is and sounds boring. Basically that means that someone has might a right to copy, to which you are going to do anyway without such right are would be thusly infringing upon the rights given to them. Sure those rights lasts for all intents and purposes forever now (as they keep getting extended)...
At any rate, people are also mixing up criminal and civil court. If you download a movie, the cops an't about to bust down your door, and throw you in jail forever. In fact they likely don't care one whit really. You may get sued for "damages" by the rights holder for what they believe is lost income they would have been entitled to due to said right. Again somehow that means getting sued into financial oblivion for a couple infractions (at least in the US). Should you not pay, well then you might be violating a court order, to which the police do tend to frown upon. But again it gets way more complicated than that.
If you're a media distribution kingpin enabling millions to infringe upon copyright, then they will bust you for something else your likely doing to hide your ill gotten gains (like money laundering).
Anyway all that aside the best example of all this ridiculousness is remember when Limewire got sued for 80 Trillion dollars... those were good times.
Re:I am? by Jake+Griffin · 2016-09-27 05:30 · Score: 1

So, you ARE paying 40% more. And 40% less. And 3000% more. Because 5 years ago, you were paying $0.

--
SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.

Maybe so by ichthus · 2016-09-23 06:44 · Score: 3, Funny

Maybe so, but that's only because I've voluntarily donated 40% more to my favorite private tracker.

--
sig: sauer

I am paying 40% more for TV than I was 5 years ago by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 06:45 · Score: 1

At the same time, I am paying 100% less than I was 10 years ago.

Math checks out 1.40 * 0 = 0 by netsavior · 2016-09-23 06:48 · Score: 5, Funny

actually it looks like I may be paying a quintillionteen jillion percent more for TV than I was 5 years ago.

Since I haven't paid a television bill since 2004.

I most definitely am not! by Ecuador · 2016-09-23 06:49 · Score: 2

I most definitely am not! I do watch shows free on Amazon since I have Prime anyway and when I was in the US I also had Netflix which is under $10/month, while now in the UK where Netflix has less stuff I complement Amazon with the free catch-up service of BBC and ITV. Why would I pay the exorbitant amounts listed for TV, especially if we are talking about regular programming and not on-demand, even if I had no other choice, I'd probably just go without TV...
The only people I can understand having a reason to pay are sports fans. I do enjoy watching sports myself now and then, not enough to actually pay extra, but I guess others are willing to pay big bucks for that.

--
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS

Re:I most definitely am not! by imidan · 2016-09-23 07:10 · Score: 1

I pay for HBO streaming at $15 per month. I got that for Game of Thrones and originally intended cancelling during the off-months, but I discovered that there's enough content there that I enjoy that I decided not to cancel. And my girlfriend's family has Netflix, which we don't pay for. I have Amazon Prime, so I get that content, and I guess you could count a part of the Prime subscription as TV costs. Call it $5 per month, which is probably overestimating--I get a lot more value out of Prime in shipping costs than in media. We pay the cable provider for Internet, at $50 per month, but we use Internet access extensively for work and other things that aren't streaming video. So 15 + 5 + 20 = $40 per month, as an upper bound? And all but the HBO subscription are costs that we would still have even if we never watched TV.
Re:I most definitely am not! by swb · 2016-09-23 08:03 · Score: 1

The HBO Now service has a better selection of movies than Netflix does.
Re:I most definitely am not! by imidan · 2016-09-23 08:22 · Score: 1

Yeah, but we like some of the Netflix exclusive content, too. My girlfriend watches Orange is the New Black and House of Cards, and we both dug Stranger Things.
I had a Netflix account many years ago, and I watched a bunch of streaming movies there, but after a pretty short time, it became scraping the bottom of the barrel. Also, I was constantly annoyed that my browsing pages were cluttered with so much kids' content. I remember browsing for shows and having whole pages that were entirely Dora and Caillou and Thomas and the construction guy and that mouse princess and on and on and on... with one or maybe two shows that might appeal to adults. That was a long time ago, so maybe it's better now. I complained and got an email that said they were working on it.
Re:I most definitely am not! by Tough+Love · 2016-09-24 13:16 · Score: 1

I got that for Game of Thrones and originally intended cancelling during the off-months...
Now that Game of Thrones has jumped the shark it's hard to use that to justify anything. No cable TV here, bought the series up to season 5 on Blu-ray, enjoyed it, although less as it wore on. Won't bother with season 6 or later.

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.

I cut the cable back in 2002. by Chas · 2016-09-23 06:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

Other than a few favorite shows, I haven't missed a damn thing.

I have Netflix and an Amazon account if I want to watch something.

Since I'm the "techie" in the family, if I HAVE to watch something NOW, I can log into my parents' account and stream, as they haven't divorced themselves from TV.

But, for the most part, I simply don't miss it.

And somewhere in the past, my child TV addict self screams in horror.

With the equipment costs, and the push towards a "$100 minimum" bill and all these fucking channels you don't give a shit about...

Seriously, who the fuck needs 8-10 distinct ESPN channels both in SD and HD?
Plus "insert network" Sports Channels, etc?

I'm not a goddamn sports nut. Bundle all that crap into an optional package
I want a package for Scifi/Fantasy, maybe home improvement and science/technology.
And "news" channels can go DIAF.

The thing is, the cable companies want that "$100 minimium" no matter what.

So even if we get "a la carte", they're likely to screw with us no matter what.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

Re:I cut the cable back in 2002. by clonehappy · 2016-09-23 06:59 · Score: 1

Since I'm the "techie" in the family, if I HAVE to watch something NOW, I can log into my parents' account and stream, as they haven't divorced themselves from TV.
So basically, someone else is subsidizing the few programs you do watch on live TV.
Re:I cut the cable back in 2002. by Chas · 2016-09-23 06:59 · Score: 1

And remember, you have 3 main "natural" or "grabber" price points.
$20, $50 and $100.
Technicaly $19.99, $49.99 and $99.99, but I'm lazy and not going to worry about fudging a penny (which they kinda count on).
Basically things like cell phone service, single lines for service talk about something right around the $50/month price point. And shared plans are all around $100.
Same thing with cable. They, for a long while were $50/month (plus fees, etc). Now they've climbed into the $100 range.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Re:I cut the cable back in 2002. by Chas · 2016-09-23 08:50 · Score: 1

Barter economy.
It's not like I charge my parents for my services. Hell, I don't even charge them gas money or insist they feed me.
Plus, they have access to one of the streams on my Netflix account.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

No, I'm not. by clonehappy · 2016-09-23 06:57 · Score: 1, Troll

I've been paying Comcast roughly the same amount of money per month since 2007. Since then, my Internet speeds have gone from 8Mbps to 125Mbps, and I have a whole slew of HD channels I didn't used to get a decade ago. And never mind that I moved to Comcast to consolidate what, before, was phone and DSL from the telco and TV from satellite, and I was paying a lot more for less back in those days.

Oh, and if you take inflation into account, let's just say I'm paying a lot less than I ever have for my TV service. Stupid study is stupid.

Just compare the prices of other utilites by no-body · 2016-09-23 06:58 · Score: 2

Electricity
Water
"Natural" gas
Sewer
Garbage

against TV

and what you get as net gain and how much abuse you have to take

is it really worth it?

Re:Just compare the prices of other utilites by reboot246 · 2016-09-23 09:20 · Score: 1

Why did you put quotes around natural? What's not natural about natural gas? Do you think the methane is manufactured somewhere?
Re:Just compare the prices of other utilites by no-body · 2016-09-23 11:01 · Score: 1

Why did you put quotes around natural? What's not natural about natural gas? Do you think the methane is manufactured somewhere?
There are some voices that "natural" gas is not of organic origin, but formed or occurring deep down in the planet at a time long before organic processes existed nor, when they existed, those would not capable of creating such amounts:
http://origeminorganicadopetro...
That's not my point though. The term "natural" implies being OK, renewable, then good to use. While it may be better than crude oil derived fuels or coal, it still is a carbohydrate when oxidized, creates CO2, a greenhouse gas contributing to global warming currently creating climate havoc on this planet.
So, IMHO, it's a hogwash misleading term for the use of large corporations securing their established way of business and continuing creating profits at the cost of others.
You may think of all that what you want, won't make a difference at all...
Re:Just compare the prices of other utilites by slinches · 2016-09-23 11:20 · Score: 1

Because it's really supernatural gas. You're burning the ghosts of dead dinosaurs!!!!

--
Knowledge Brings Fear
Re:Just compare the prices of other utilites by HiThere · 2016-09-23 11:32 · Score: 1

Well, it is indeed a "hogwash misleading term", as it no more deserves the term "natural" than does white sugar or beer. It's a highly processed refinement of a naturally occurring substance.
Forget thinking of it as green-wash though, since the term is a lot older than that. It wasn't new in the 1950's, when I was surprised that my grandfather used propane rather than "natural gas". This doesn't keep it from being a misnomer, though I guess that it may have earned the term when being distinguished from "water gas". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Just compare the prices of other utilites by n3r0.m4dski11z · 2016-09-23 15:02 · Score: 1

"The term "natural" implies being OK, renewable, then good to use."
Uh you can redefine words all you want, but don't act like your hipster defintion is correct.
NATURAL: (1) existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial)
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
This is what happens when you listen to too much marketing, and let the advertisers change language for you. But i bet you think "organic" means something other than "characteristic of, pertaining to, or derived from living organisms".
Face it, you've been duped, but please don't advise other people on "correct' language use referencing your silly newspeak.
Besides "natural gas" is a noun. Its not implying anything (adjective). Its hardly a propagandists twist like "clean coal". People have been using the noun "natural gas" for hundreds of years.

--
-

We need to be able to buy the box with no outlet f by Joe_Dragon · 2016-09-23 06:58 · Score: 1

We need to be able to buy the box with no outlet fees / mirroring / tv fees / receiver fees / etc.

Why offer better service? by thevirtualcat · 2016-09-23 07:06 · Score: 1

Why offer programming people want to see when you can just impose a "reasonable" 300GB/month cap on your internet-only offering for "network management" that magically goes away when you pay an additional $30-50/month or bundle in a TV package?

Netflix and chill? by sanf780 · 2016-09-23 07:07 · Score: 1

Does this article - you know the thing you shall never read - consider Netflix and other stream-only subscriptions? My take is that people want to watch new series at their own pace, maybe recall what the 90s were with Friends. What nobody wants is to sit through comercials. After all, are not subscribers paying for the content already?

Re:For certain value of "you're" by BarbaraHudson · 2016-09-23 07:09 · Score: 1

Um, no. 20%. You would get 25% if it were in the ascending direction.

Lets round if off. From $10 to $8, you subtract 1/5 (20%) of the value of $10. $10 divided by 5 = $20%. 10 - $2 (or 20% of the original $10 price) leaves $8.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.

Not surprising by redmasq · 2016-09-23 07:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

Cable networks, partially out of necessity, sells in packages. These packages come because networks sell their channels in sets in order to maximize profits for their shareholders (more channels mean more advertising slots to sell). I would imagine that cable companies have a hard to negotiate against larger networks so those channel groups in packages represent an (almost) fixed overhead. As cable companies get few customers, they raise prices to keep their own margins up. Unfortunately (for them), this only accelerates the number of subscribers lost. In the meantime, streaming services, in spite of decreasing the breadth of their selection, are still providing more individual programs which is better satisfies the busyness in everyday life without requiring an extra fee for a DVR. If networks were able to sell individual channels to people rather than packages, I would assume that more subscriptions would occur. That said, cable companies might be better off ditching the idea of selling video services directly and spin off new companies from themselves that does video subscriptions separately leaving all of that bandwidth to compete with fiber.

In other news... by darkain · 2016-09-23 07:14 · Score: 1

In other news, Free OTA HDTV is still as free as when it started. I've also recently started experimenting with network connected HDTV tuner hardware so that every device on the network has access to the OTA broadcasts with just a simple app.

Re:In other news... by Jason+Levine · 2016-09-23 07:37 · Score: 1

I tried that with an HDHomeRun. I wanted to get some DVR software running on my computer, but couldn't get it to work right.
Then again, we subscribe to Hulu which acts like a DVR for us anyway, so it wasn't a high priority for me to get working.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:In other news... by cayenne8 · 2016-09-23 08:18 · Score: 1

I tried that with an HDHomeRun. I wanted to get some DVR software running on my computer, but couldn't get it to work right.
I did that years back with HDHomerun and MythTv.
I just now switched to OTA again..this time, I priced out the hardware needed and found that the Tivo Roamio OTA unit was only about $399...and it was cheaper to do that for a 4 tuner unit than to buy the HDHomerun units (2 of them) and the computer to run it on.
Look into the Tivo OTA unit...lifetime service for $399.
I got the Tivo minis to stream from main unit to tvs in bedrooms and office..each only about $125 or so.
It works great although setup is a bit clunky for the tivo minis takes a long time for registration on them to take online and have it pushed to main unit.
You have to reboot the main one after it gets the update (up to 24 hours later)....but once it all hooks up, works flawless and great tivo guides and ease of use.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:In other news... by Megane · 2016-09-23 23:20 · Score: 1

Does it let you download the raw unrestricted MPEG files to a computer?

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:In other news... by cayenne8 · 2016-09-26 01:30 · Score: 1

Does it let you download the raw unrestricted MPEG files to a computer?
The Tivo?
No, I do not believe so...but why would I want to?
LOL..there's nothing on tv really that I find worth long term storage or archiving.
That being said, there is a way to get video off the Tivo....not sure the format.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Piracy by fluffernutter · 2016-09-23 07:15 · Score: 1

Well this dispels any myth that the industry is trying to fight online piracy in a meaningful way.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.

Seeso by ThatsNotPudding · 2016-09-23 07:17 · Score: 1

Got an email from a comic I like saying he had a TV special coming up... on Seeso (NBCUniversal / Comcast).

Sorry pal, but nope. Not even worth a trial / cancel trick as those effers can't even be trusted with my CC info (I don't have Comcast, thank FSM).

No I'm not by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 07:23 · Score: 1

I'm paying way less actually. $20/mo for Netflix and Hulu plus a few rentals and purchases from Google and Amazon. Plus the $70/mo for internet, I'm still under $100/mo, which is about $120 less than Comcast was charging. I could purchase 10-15 movies/seasons of shows per month on top of what I'm paying and only then would I be paying what Comcast was charging.

I see from another post HBO has a standalone streaming service so I might be increasing my cost by another $15/mo and still be ahead.

We watch what we want, when we want. Comcast is a scam from the ground up and offers nothing of real value.

Re: We need to be able to buy the box with no outl by jmac_the_man · 2016-09-23 07:25 · Score: 1

This option is exactly what TiVo is. You buy your TiVo equipment, and rent a Cablecard from your existing provider. Per FCC rule, the fee to rent the Cablecard is capped (IIRC, at $5.00/month, although Comcast charges like $3). One Cablecard can support up to 6 TVs.

Except for the Cablecard, your cable company won't be charging you an equipment fee because you own your own devices.

Hmm I've saved money by future+assassin · 2016-09-23 07:27 · Score: 1

No cable
No Netflix
Not buying any more new DVD's
Yes to Piratebay
Yes to pawnshops for $2-5 DVD's

Do I feel guilty for buying probably stolen dvd's/cd/br at pawn shop so actors and music artists can't get paid. Nope its actually leave the money they would have sucked out of me in my pocket and I'm ok with that.

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*

Re:Hmm I've saved money by Prien715 · 2016-09-23 10:11 · Score: 1

probably stolen dvd's/cd/br at pawn shop so actors and music artists can't get paid
So instead of paying for Netflix, you'd rather support literal theft (by paying for stolen property)?

--
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Re:Hmm I've saved money by future+assassin · 2016-09-23 10:13 · Score: 1

Since its been vetted legally by Canadian laws regarding pawnshop its all kosher to me.

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*

No... by galabar · 2016-09-23 07:37 · Score: 1

I don't have a cable subscription. So, no.

It's okay, inflation is only 1.6% by Maxo-Texas · 2016-09-23 07:39 · Score: 1

Due to the MAGIC of hedonics.

Have to pay $1250 for a big screen TV to replace your $250 27" CRT screen?

By the magic of hedonics, you are actually experiencing -7.1% inflation! Because the "fair" price of that big screen tv should be $1345!

(yes this is an actual example from the BLS site).

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.

Re:It's okay, inflation is only 1.6% by AvitarX · 2016-09-23 09:07 · Score: 1

This makes no sense, I dont recall 27 inch tube TVs screens ever being that cheap, and now a 27 inch flat screen is closer to $100.
I need more context to understand what you're saying.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Re:It's okay, inflation is only 1.6% by Maxo-Texas · 2016-09-23 16:38 · Score: 1

Look at the BLS hedonic inflation adjustment page. Besides some long hairy formulas that's all they give.
Adjusting for inflation can be tricky- I admit that. New products can destroy several older markets (no mp3players any more).
But the facts are that all meat is up about 25% over the last 6 years. TV Dinner are up bout 25% over the last 6 years (and showing strong signs of going to 35% soon). Vegetables are up over 25%. Admittedly Gasoline is down. The things people actually buy are going up faster than CPI. But the closer your income is to being just enough to buy food, the stronger the inflation you have experienced (the poor and the elderly)
So the BLS hedonically assumes that as beef gets to expensive you'll go to turkey. Or when your 27" CRT dies, you'll get a big screen TV.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re:It's okay, inflation is only 1.6% by buck-yar · 2016-09-24 21:24 · Score: 1

"The things people actually buy are going up faster than CPI."
Have you actually looked at a CPI report? CPI is broken into categories, its not one number. You can view the report and see which categories are rising and which are falling.
Re:It's okay, inflation is only 1.6% by Maxo-Texas · 2016-09-24 22:03 · Score: 1

yes I have.
And I don't find them trustworthy. Trillions of dollars are at stake in keeping that number low due to COLA implications. It's not a wonky neutral number- it's a highly politicized number.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re:It's okay, inflation is only 1.6% by AvitarX · 2016-09-27 07:09 · Score: 1

The TV adjustment seems pretty reasonable to me (if we're talking year on year).
I suspect towards the end of CRTs availability, sticking with 27" CRTs would have resulted in larger negative inflation, not less. In reality, nobody was replacing a 27" CRT with a 42" Plasma at that price increase within a year.
The reality is that TVs have overall been getting less expensive or holding fairly steady.
1996, TV is 490 2011 dollars, or 340 nominal cost, in 2011 it's 319.
in 77 a TV a discontinued 25" TV was nominally $530.
TVs have been roughly the same nominal cost, or slightly negative for much of the time since their inception (not as extreme as that -7% from the BLS page, but it's not fair to pretend they went up 400% as you imply either.
that 27" CRT was replaced either for a very cheap CRT, or a roughly the same nominal price 32 inch flat-screen.
sources:
https://theawl.com/how-much-mo...
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cp...
Your point stands to a point, but it's not quite as extreme as you imply it.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Re:It's okay, inflation is only 1.6% by Maxo-Texas · 2016-09-27 08:38 · Score: 1

That's fair. And I'm only positing that CPI is a little lower. Like say 1.6% vs 2.6%. A little higher for meat (about 5%) but balanced by things like Gasoline. I think inflation is a little higher than that (say 3%) for the lower two quintiles (and hence people on social security and retired veterans) and it may be higher for the top 1% too.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.

Well, let's discuss ethics then by Weaselmancer · 2016-09-23 07:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

So you have no ethical issues pirating content? Please no BS about sticking it to the media corporations--that is just rationalizing the fact you are just a cheap jerk with no morals.

Is it ethical to give your money to an organization that will do this sort of skullduggery with it?

I'm being serious.

It's theft if you download content and view it for free, sure, but you're not exactly morally in the clear if you do pay. Your money is lining the pockets of famously and spectacularly corrupt middle men, with only pennies on the dollar going to the artists you love.

The correct thing to do isn't as clear as you might suppose. Morally, it may be more correct to pirate their content then buy a t-shirt or something from them, because they'll see most of that money. Most notably George Lucas is wealthy because of merchandise, not movies.

I'm not saying what to do, what not to do, or what I do - I just want you to think about it a bit before tossing out moral absolutes.

--
Weaselmancer
rediculous.

Re:Well, let's discuss ethics then by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 09:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

Here's a moral absolute:
Support your local libraries. You can get just about any TV/Film/etc. content you want there for free. Well, ignoring the taxes, but those are quite arguably a morally social good.
If they don't have it, buy a copy, watch, then donate to the library.
And BTW, read a library book! It's good for you, and it supports the crucially important idea of libraries.
The societal good of library access to all far outweighs any of the negatives you mention.
Moral Dilemma: solved. Thank you, I'll be here all my life.
Re: Well, let's discuss ethics then by hackwrench · 2016-09-23 09:53 · Score: 1

I don't have to justify something I don't see as morally wrong. It is up to the other person to convince me I should see something as morally wrong.
Re:Well, let's discuss ethics then by chihowa · 2016-09-24 02:20 · Score: 2

"The correct thing to do isn't as clear as you might suppose. Morally, it may be more correct to pirate their content then buy a t-shirt or something from them, because they'll see most of that money."
Morally it's quite clear, you simply don't consume the content. Justifying theft because of (supposed) shady business practices is not remotely moral.
Not listening to your favorite musician's music hurts them far more than pirating it does, so even that isn't morally quite clear. If you simply don't consume the content, you're considerably less likely to ever buy their merchandise or attend any of their concerts (and financially benefit them) and you're much less likely to indirectly turn others onto their music.
Again, I'm not condoning piracy, but it really isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

--
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.

Yeah, but.... by GerryGilmore · 2016-09-23 07:40 · Score: 1

...we're getting way more than 40% more ads today, so - it's a win! /s

I sincerely doubt that ... by Thanatiel · 2016-09-23 07:42 · Score: 1

I've stopped watching TV about 22 years ago.
When you have books and video-games, ... who needs biased, or simply wrong "news", sports, bad shows and heaps of advertising ?
Besides, even DVDs and BluRays are cheaper than before, for the few select TV shows that are worth it (Breaking Bad, ...)

--
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.

I'm paying 100% less, like the other slashdotters by BenJeremy · 2016-09-23 07:43 · Score: 2

Cord-cutting. My live sports is less-than-legit, but honestly, it is worth about $20/mo for sports, and nobody wants to offer me a decent legit alternative at that price. Worse, NHL Center Ice blacks out my favorite team's games in favor of cable coverage.

Otherwise, we went all last summer without turning on the cable box... why pay for it? We can't stand being tied to TV schedules, either.

Re:Netflix is not going to last... by YouGotTobeKidding · 2016-09-23 07:50 · Score: 2

I dont think it 'defeats' the original intent. No more than converting from DVD mailer to streamer company did. Their intent has been to give customers entertainment at a reasonable price. Just because the market demands they start making their own instead of streaming rehashed dog turds does not mean they have strayed too far from their original goal. Hell the end result is a net win for consumers as DD and their other original content is getting better all the time... AND showing others that NO you dont have to bow down to big companies to 'get' good entertainment. IMHO the faster the dinosaurs dragging their feet die off and are replaced the better it will be for society.

Milking the Stubborn by mentil · 2016-09-23 07:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

There are many in the older generations who are anti-Internet and are seemingly afraid that if they even sign up for Internet access their bank balance will disappear and their grandchildren will get kidnapped. Others have Internet access but barely use it; you know the ones, they check email or Facebook and maybe one or two other sites and that's it; they don't do web searches or visit new sites regularly.
These are the people who will, most likely, NEVER sign up (on their own) for Netflix or cut the cord, no matter how expensive their cable/satellite bill gets, because as far as they're concerned, there's no alternative. They wouldn't know how to get Netflix on their TV and have no idea how to find out.
So, the pay TV companies are raising rates in order to milk these older generations as much as possible before they die off or figure out how to connect a Roku to their TV (or someone else shows them); or before they buy a smart TV that puts all these cord-cutting options on the screen they're looking at, accessible with the remote they're holding.
The older generations are also set in the "watching what's on" paradigm; while the newer generations have had access to on-demand, home video, and file sharing, allowing for "watching what you want". With Netflix, there is no mindless "watching what's on", you have to choose what to put on, at least a series to autoplay. If you don't like it, you can't claim lack of responsibility a la "these networks air nothing but crap nowadays. yep", it's all on you for putting that show on.

--
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.

Re:Milking the Stubborn by XXongo · 2016-09-23 08:45 · Score: 1

There are many in the older generations who are anti-Internet and are seemingly afraid that if they even sign up for Internet access their bank balance will disappear and their grandchildren will get kidnapped.
Yeah, I hate it when that happens.
Best solution, if you want to use the internetz, is to not have a bank balance and not have children (thus nicely preventing grandchildren as well). Which seems to be how most slashdottahs do it.

Re:CABLE and SATELLITE by cayenne8 · 2016-09-23 07:51 · Score: 1

Cut the cord!

Yep, I"m just about to tell ATT Uverse to cut me off an keep their high $$ service.

I had the U200 package and it was about $113/mo.

I've set up an OTA antenna, and grab all my local channels, and have that set up with a Tivo OTA box (new version with lifetime service included) which was about $399.

I priced out building my own DVR box using HDHomerun tuners and for a 4 tuner system like the Tivo, it would have been about the same or a bit more, plus I'd have to do it.

I got 2 of the Tivo mini units for my other bedrooms, and office, so I have OTA dvr and streaming to all tvs.

For what I call the "cable channels" that I would miss...I have some amazon fireTV units at each tv, and on them I have Playstation VUE, their mid priced $35/mo package that streams 70+ channels, including all the ESPN ones, the SEC channel (the only sports I watch are college football really), I get all the cable news channels (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business, etc...). I also get TCM, TBS, FX, FXX...and much more.

I havne't done the HBO type channels in so long...after a week you've seen everything you need for a month...not worth it to me.

I have Netflix and Amazon Prime.

With me..my internet is a business connection and I need it for my livelihood, so I do not count it towards any cost savings or cost for my TV needs.

I had netflix and amazon before too.

SO, i'm basically dropping from $113 a month, to $35/month.

The system is sound and works...and besides having 3 remotes at each TV, I don't really notice anything the Cable gave me that I don't have now.

I'm only noticing I won't have AXS or the Velocity channel anymore....but I didn't watch them all that often.

I figured roughly on the hardware I'll break even in about 7 or so months....

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Indeed by OneHundredAndTen · 2016-09-23 07:56 · Score: 1

They are losing subscribers, so they have to charge more. This is an exponential process, which will keep going slowly for a while. However, if left untouched, at some point it will start growing explosively, as the higher and higher fees will compel more and more subscribers to cut the cord. Pay TV as we know it has its days numbered.

One word: sports by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 07:57 · Score: 1

It's fun to talk about not paying for TV, but the reality is that if you don't pay for TV, what you are really saying is that you don't watch major sports. There is no way to get F1 programming, for example, without a TV subscription of some kind. I also suspect many of those not paying for TV are getting some from the 82% who are. It's like a car. Not owning a car absolutely doesn't mean you don't drive or ride in a car. you just know/pay someone who does. /shrug

Re:For certain value of "you're" by lgw · 2016-09-23 07:59 · Score: 2

His (and my) cost of "TV" went up 25%, from $8 to $10, when Netflix's grandfathering ended.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.

Fuck off with the clickbait/America != The World by wonkey_monkey · 2016-09-23 08:00 · Score: 1

You're Paying 40% More For TV Than You Were 5 Years Ago

Jesus Christ. You know, some of us are capable of being interested in a headline even if it doesn't try to directly address us.

It's so fucking condescending.

According to data from Leichtman Research's annual study, pay TV subscriptions keep going up and up. So much so that in the last five years, they have gone up by 40 percent.

...in the USA, I assume this means. There are other countries, Slashdot. And even if that wasn't the case, your average Slashdotter is probably more likely to have "cut the cord" than most people. Know your readers.

Look at the original headline: "Americans are paying 40% more for TV than they were 5 years ago." Informative and to the point without treating the reader like a five-year-old.

My "subscription" hasn't gone up my nearly that much.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

I'm not by stabiesoft · 2016-09-23 08:04 · Score: 1

I've used OTA all my life and no plan to change. Way back in early 2000's bought a rokuHD and a PCI card that could capture HD OTA. After I had that, it was easy to time shift anything I wanted to watch. I am going to be pissed if FCC decides to sell the HD airwaves to the wireless carriers.

Re:I'm not by JustNiz · 2016-09-23 09:18 · Score: 1

> I am going to be pissed if FCC decides to sell the HD airwaves to the wireless carriers.
What? Is that actually being considered?
Re:I'm not by speedlaw · 2016-09-23 15:02 · Score: 1

Is that sarc/ ? Google "repacking". The FCC is selling off the higher UHF channels to the wireless carriers. There will be loss of HD TV coverage, but hey, Verizon can charge you $30 for 2gb of spotify, so there's that.

Netflix + Hulu + digital Antenna = $20. by CaptnCrud · 2016-09-23 08:27 · Score: 1

Not regretting anything since cutting everything 5 years ago...

Re:Fuck off with the clickbait/America != The Worl by CaptnCrud · 2016-09-23 08:35 · Score: 1

You do realize this is a US based news site, right?

Your complaint would be like me going on the register and bitching about UK centric news headlines, in which the primarily UK readership there would appropriately tell me to sod off....

No I'm not by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-09-23 08:35 · Score: 1

"You're Paying 40% More For TV Than You Were 5 Years Ago"

No, I'm paying exactly the same amount....zero. (And I've always found it to be a super bargain at that price.)

Between stuff like Putlocker, PirateBay, and Netflix, the notion of paying a fee for monthly cable TV service is not only quaint, it's downright hilarious.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...

Stop paying for TV by Rick+Schumann · 2016-09-23 08:36 · Score: 1

Get an antenna. Voila, you're not paying for TV anymore. I haven't paid to watch TV for about 10 years now and haven't regretted the decision even once. Honestly, between all the crap channels you're paying for that you don't and won't ever watch, and the way the signal is recompressed within an inch of it's life, you're getting ripped off like you wouldn't believe. The only way to possibly reverse the trend of being price-gouged by cable, satellite, and now streaming Internet companies, is to opt-out of the entire game and go back to free, OTA broadcast television, or just give up and watch nothing but DVD and BluRay. They lose enough customers and enough profits they'll have to change. Continuing to pay them out of inertia or flat-out apathy just gives them your consent to keep bleeding you.

Re:Stop paying for TV by drinkypoo · 2016-09-23 13:16 · Score: 1

I live in the sticks and there's no digital television here, you insensitive clod! I could barely pull in any analog broadcasts.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

And who is putting a gun to people's heads? by cpotoso · 2016-09-23 08:41 · Score: 1

Sorry, I don't give a rat's a$$ for this. The cable tv can charge anything they want, I am not buying. You don't like it, don't buy it. It is not a human necessity to have cable. Entirely optional. I have not had cable for 25 years (except for brief 1 month periods every 4 years for the world cup). Stop whining and get a life.

Per what? by XXongo · 2016-09-23 08:41 · Score: 1

.... In 2011, subscribers were paying an average of $73.63 for cable or satellite, but now that average stands at roughly $103. From a ...

Just curious, $73.63 and $103 per what?

Per year? Per month?

(I own a TV, but I haven't turned it on since I think maybe 2007 or so, and I have no idea how much people pay for cable access.)

Re:Per what? by baboon · 2016-09-23 09:53 · Score: 1

Oh, come on, be serious.
It's pretty obvious that they're talking about $103 per year. That comes to about $8.60 per month. For me, I'd rather pay the 16% more for Netflix instead, to avoid the endless commercials, but I can see how it's a tradeoff that some people would be willing to accept.
Huh. What was that? Are you kidding?

Incorrect by kuzb · 2016-09-23 08:44 · Score: 1

I'm paying 100% less now for cable than I was 10 years ago. Once the internet became a mainstream thing there was no point in paying absurd amounts of money to cable companies for content that is mostly ad-riddled garbage. I don't mind paying for content, but make it on-demand, and make it things I actually want to watch.

--
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.

Re:Demand over-the-air receivers by AvitarX · 2016-09-23 09:00 · Score: 1

Why? I'd rather they stop paying for towers and let me stream.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg

Not surprising by mu51c10rd · 2016-09-23 09:02 · Score: 1

I realize that most Slashdotters are probably not sports junkies...but where did people think all this new TV revenue coming into professional and college sports was coming from? Sports is really what is driving the rising prices. Once sports leagues make realtime streaming deals, the days of traditional cable/satellite TV are numbered.

Makes perefect sense by waspleg · 2016-09-23 09:14 · Score: 2

they're trying to mitigate the damage cord cutters are doing (haven't had cable tv for more than 10 years; still have comcast for internet no good alternatives) and keep their earnings projections from tanking and taking their stock with it.

Not me. by MikeDataLink · 2016-09-23 09:17 · Score: 1

I cut the cord.

--
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!

Cable is just a way to subsidize the NFL by WillAffleckUW · 2016-09-23 09:26 · Score: 1

Know this and get rid of it.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Uk by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 09:38 · Score: 1

Meanwhile for comparison, in the UK the BBC licence costs $15 per month and gives access to about 60 BBC and commercial channels via broadcast and satellite (Freeview and Freesat). No ticker tape adverts and ad breaks every 20 or 30 minutes (no ads on the BBC of course).

Re:Fuck off with the clickbait/America != The Worl by wonkey_monkey · 2016-09-23 09:44 · Score: 1

You do realize this is a US based news site, right?

Is it? I hadn't seen a flag on it. It doesn't give much, if any, indication of where it is based or who it is aimed at. According to Alexa only 45.3% of its readers are US based.

Your complaint would be like me going on the register and bitching about UK centric news headlines, in which the primarily UK readership there would appropriately tell me to sod off....

It's not about UK or US centric, it's about not being clear when dishing out statistics.

Can you find a headline/story at the Register which similarly gives a statistic in this way? If anything, they go out of their way to be clear when they are talking about "UK jobs" or "British universities" rather than just assuming everyone will know that's what they meant.

Still, I suppose Slashdot can't really write the headline in the proper shitty clickbait style ("You/your") if they're expected to be clear who it applies to, because they want everyone to think it applies to them.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

Re:Fuck off with the clickbait/America != The Worl by Guybrush_T · 2016-09-23 09:54 · Score: 1

It can be US based and still not US-centric. It's just that a lot of readers are in the US and tend to forget that there are other countries. And I agree with OP, that's very annoying, even when you live in the US (but happen to have lived in other countries). The fact that proposed articles are written that way is normal, but editors should modify them to be more generic if they want Slashdot to be a general tech web-site.

Since there is only one Slashdot (except slashdot japan), it should not be US-centric. My opinion.

Re: Stealing by hackwrench · 2016-09-23 09:58 · Score: 1

Well they are stealing from the public domain, so there's that.

TV is like health insurance by fustakrakich · 2016-09-23 10:02 · Score: 1

We need to force people to subscribe to TV so the price will be lower for everybody. If you don't subscribe you're stealing from those that do.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:Ah, but do you own a TV? by HiThere · 2016-09-23 11:24 · Score: 1

I only own a TV in the sense that I own a monitor that could theoretically work as a TV if I attached an antenna.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

A matter of other options? by No+Longer+an+AC · 2016-09-23 11:47 · Score: 1

I have always complained about paying for cable TV and I resisted it for a long time but while I had a job making a decent but not extravagant salary I could easily pay the exorbitant prices and I did. I have since cut the cord and only pay for Netflix.

I don't know about this CEO's kids but I imagine they're doing okay financially and could easily afford it if they wanted to so I doubt cost is the issue. Perhaps they see all the other options for media consumption as enough for them. That is of course pure speculation, but certainly plausible.

Perhaps they're huge consumers of streaming services and physical media.

And being children of NBC's CEO it wouldn't surprise me if they have access to their content that isn't available to the general public.

Personally I hate cable providers with a passion especially Comcast (which owns NBC Universal). I hope cable TV dies off or at least is reduced greatly in price. I would love for downloading and streaming to be so prevalent that the market forces CATV into submission or death.

How many ? by fahrbot-bot · 2016-09-23 11:49 · Score: 1

Burke has five "millennial" children, ages 19 to 28, and exactly "none" subscribe to cable or satellite, ...

As opposed to approximately "none". Perhaps all his children are just dumb too.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .

"Pay"? by AMMalena · 2016-09-23 12:15 · Score: 1

"Pay" for TV? What, like cable or a satellite connection? (rofl) Okay. Gave up on that years ago. There's too much available for us without paying for "TV". Sheesh.

--
AMMalena (www.Malena.net) "The avalanche has already begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote." (Kosh, B5)

In Other Words... by xlsior · 2016-09-23 13:17 · Score: 1

...People who subscribe to the top-tier ultimate everything-included cable package with umpteen premium channels are less likely to cancel their cable subscription than light casual viewers who are fine with just netflix/hulu, thereby driving up the average price paid by the few remaining cable co customers?

Re:Didn't watch it. by speedlaw · 2016-09-23 13:46 · Score: 2

You can't watch anything without a DVR. From the Sony HDD 250 I used to have, to the lifetime Tivos now, to even the $40 homeworx box and cheapo disc connected, I never, ever watch any TV in realtime. Not only are the ads too many, they are obnoxious and repetitive. My teens don't know what a network is, what appointment or water cooler TV is, and don't care to. Most TV is watched on a laptop. I was in a hotel with cable recently. It took ten minutes to turn off, and realize how bad it truly is.

Yak, yak, yak by ThatsNotPudding · 2016-09-23 13:53 · Score: 1

If you steal food, they no longer have the food. If you "steal" content, they still have the content.

But what it *does* do is enable / justify the creeping surveillance state. Thanks.

Re:One word: sports by Tony+Isaac · 2016-09-23 16:34 · Score: 1

I don't know about F1, but you can now stream ESPN 1, 2, and 3 on Sling TV for $20 per month.

Look at it from this perspective then by Weaselmancer · 2016-09-23 17:02 · Score: 2

Again, I'm not telling anyone what to do. I'd just like the question to be explored a bit more.

Morally it's quite clear, you simply don't consume the content. Justifying theft because of (supposed) shady business practices is not remotely moral.

Well, what if you don't think of it as theft? What if the movie is an advertisement, and the actual product is the merchandise? That's basically how it is, at least from the point of view of the creators of the content.

Let's say you love Star Wars. A safe assumption. And you want to reward George Lucas for putting something in your life that you love. Which makes more sense to do:

A) Buy the latest remastered blu ray. It'll set you back maybe $15, and George will see maybe a nickle of that. Corrupt Hollywood middlemen will see the other $14.95. They didn't have jack to do with the movie, they have just paid lawyers and positioned themselves in the middle as a barrier that must be crossed to get to the stuff you love.

B) Pirate it online, then buy a Jar Jar Binks figure. It'll set you back maybe $5, but George will see a dollar of that, and the corrupt assholes in the middle get bupkis.

Again, I'm not saying what you should do. Pirating movies is illegal and can get you in some serious hot water. I'm just asking people to think about the actual dynamics of the situation.

--
Weaselmancer
rediculous.

OTHER than debating the morality of piracy... by SpiralBound · 2016-09-24 02:02 · Score: 1

I am not surprised cable is costing people more. Their customer base shrinks every quarter. Frankly, I'm surprised all of the cable providers even bother to push it any more. MAny of them also offer internet and phone services, I predict that in a few years you'll see companies like Bell and others start dropping "cable TV" from prominence in their services and marketing. It'll still be technically available, but they'll be focusing their sales efforts on internet mostly with home phone service as a distant second. A few years after that, (say in 10 or 15 years?) they'll finally start dropping calbe TV completely as by then their cable TV customer base will have died off (in some cases literally) to below profitable levels. If they're REALLY savvy they also invest in a range of direct to the consumer media services such as online subscription to specific programs, and other such online media distribution models to replace the decline of cable TV, although I've seen very little indications that the majority of the cable companies are this forward thinking... :-/

--
Avatar of the God(s) Random

Cable has the least value. by martinfb · 2016-09-26 02:57 · Score: 1

I see little value to cable. Same shows over and over and over. Especially the premium channels!

It is quite obvious that cable providers keep trimming their costs and raise their prices because:
1) Their shareholders and Chief Execs need to pay their ever-increasing salaries, and;
2) see #1.

When you get right down to it, cable company ethics are just plain bad.
Think about it: You will pay MORE for plain internet that if you were to get a TV pkg included in any subscription!
Why?

--

Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.

Re:Ah, but do you own a TV? by netsavior · 2016-09-26 04:31 · Score: 1

I own a large form factor monitor with integrated speakers, sold as a "Television" yes.

Re:Fuck off with the clickbait/America != The Worl by Rakarra · 2016-09-26 08:12 · Score: 1

I think his complaint is valid, so much that the headline is just stupid. It's clearly trying to imitate the exceptionally tabloid and low-brow ads which try to "hook" someone in by making a stupid assertion. It's fishing for clicks the same way tabloids shout "Prince Harry's indiscretion!!!" about something that turns out to be bullshit. Not surprisingly, Slashdot has also partnered with ad networks that do the same thing, making Slashdot look like a shitty low quality site like Looper or TMZ. Not that that Slashdot ever had great-quality ads, but the the ads they have now make the site look cheaper and crappier than ever. Current Slashdot ad titles: "What Producers of Knight Rider Hid From Fans," "Epic Bungee Jump Takes Unfortunate Turn," "The Amish Kept These Details Hidden For a Good Reason." Those are the Sponsored Links.

Which headline is more informative and carefully written? "Most US cable subscribers pay 40% more for TV than they did five years ago," or "You're Paying 40% More For TV Than You Were 5 Years Ago?" Journalists who take themselves seriously don't use the second person in headlines. Puff pieces with no substance that look for ways to haul people in like carnies at an amusement park do.

Slashdot Mirror

You're Paying 40% More For TV Than You Were 5 Years Ago (businessinsider.com)

139 of 219 comments (clear)