On every jukebox I've seen there's been a notice saying that not all selections will be played. When you think about it, there might not be enough time on a given night to play all the songs that are requested. Not being reimbursed when your song isn't played is not new, but this happening because someone paid more probably is.
I've never seen a sign like that, and I've been in many bars. Oh, and there's a difference between loading 20 songs on the juke at 10 minutes until close and doing it in the middle of business hours.
The particular bar at which I would currently call myself a 'regular' -- by the way the owner and staff would agree with me -- even non-regulars have a right to hear the music for which they paid to hear. Other patrons might not like it, but the owner (and staff) understand that money was paid for that service... and a service it is.
We actually just had this discussion regarding the "Play Next" feature of the juke at that establishment, and we came to the consensus that unless you're stepping on your own paid-for selections, the feature shouldn't exist at all. Just like the feature proposed in the OP shouldn't exist... yeah, let's come up with another way to cheat people out of their money, Great Job, Google!:~P
Why should Comcast supply a service that is used to get people to drop their cable TV subscription? It is like the phone company supplying DSL service so their customers can drop the phone service and go with Vonage. You can say the cable TV service should be independent of the cable Internet service all you want, but the truth is that one has subsidized the other since the beginning. For DSL the service wouldn't even exist without the driver of phone landline service to begin with. We are starting to see the fallout of this. Certainly the cable companies are realizing they are assisting in the cannibalization of their own customer base - and they are going to stop doing that, one way or another. Hulu is just the beginning.
Comcast shouldn't be in the business of running a monopoly on the services to which I have access then. Time for a Ma-Bell style split, in my honest opinion.
I happen to be one of those 20% under their monopoly and am sick and tired of subsidising 500+ channels (and their outrageous equipment rental fees) when we watch maybe 10 of them.
Netflix: check
Hulu+: check
OTA: in progress
Flipping Comcast cable services the bird: very, very soon indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
There were a place that children could go, and be taught by experts (or at least knowledgable people) about topics their parents we not experts in...
Maybe we could call it... SCHOOL.
And if only this place was free, and there was no barrier to entry...
Oh yes, we have that.
This is what school is for. Send the child to school.
I'm guessing that you don't have children. It may be public school, but it sure isn't FREE.
On every jukebox I've seen there's been a notice saying that not all selections will be played. When you think about it, there might not be enough time on a given night to play all the songs that are requested. Not being reimbursed when your song isn't played is not new, but this happening because someone paid more probably is.
I've never seen a sign like that, and I've been in many bars. Oh, and there's a difference between loading 20 songs on the juke at 10 minutes until close and doing it in the middle of business hours.
The particular bar at which I would currently call myself a 'regular' -- by the way the owner and staff would agree with me -- even non-regulars have a right to hear the music for which they paid to hear. Other patrons might not like it, but the owner (and staff) understand that money was paid for that service ... and a service it is.
We actually just had this discussion regarding the "Play Next" feature of the juke at that establishment, and we came to the consensus that unless you're stepping on your own paid-for selections, the feature shouldn't exist at all. Just like the feature proposed in the OP shouldn't exist ... yeah, let's come up with another way to cheat people out of their money, Great Job, Google! :~P
Why should Comcast supply a service that is used to get people to drop their cable TV subscription? It is like the phone company supplying DSL service so their customers can drop the phone service and go with Vonage. You can say the cable TV service should be independent of the cable Internet service all you want, but the truth is that one has subsidized the other since the beginning. For DSL the service wouldn't even exist without the driver of phone landline service to begin with. We are starting to see the fallout of this. Certainly the cable companies are realizing they are assisting in the cannibalization of their own customer base - and they are going to stop doing that, one way or another. Hulu is just the beginning.
Comcast shouldn't be in the business of running a monopoly on the services to which I have access then. Time for a Ma-Bell style split, in my honest opinion.
I happen to be one of those 20% under their monopoly and am sick and tired of subsidising 500+ channels (and their outrageous equipment rental fees) when we watch maybe 10 of them.
Netflix: check
Hulu+: check
OTA: in progress
Flipping Comcast cable services the bird: very, very soon indeed.