Cable Bills Could Reach $200 A Month By 2020

[fattypants]

Frankly? Free market has failed in the cable sector, so it's time to introduce heavy regulation.

That and pitchforks and torches.

In North Carolina, they even purchased a bill to make it illegal for a city to vote in its own municipal broadband if they wished. Cable companies are literally anti-democracy.

 

[Stone Cold]

Anyone unwilling to drop their cable service for streaming internet is dopey enough to pay twice as much.

 

[nutzo]

The only reason there are so many useless channels on TV is because cable/satellite companies are beholden to the several large companies that own all the cable networks and basically force consumers to subsidize their existence. We should be able to get only the channels we want. For me that's basically a few sports channels. Other than live sports, TV serves no real purpose for me.

ESPN & other sports channels are the single biggest cost for basic cable. Hate paying for them since I never watch sports. Wish I could just pick a few local and a few cable channels (10 or 12 would do it) and just pay for them. Most the time I can sit down, flip through all 70+ channels and not find anything worth watching. The few shows we watch, are recorded on my HTPC, so we can watch them when we want to. Would be just as happy if the shows could be streamed so I could drop cable.

 

[nutzo]

Meanwhile your cable bill will go up and your internet speed will go down

They just raised my internet speed from 12mbit to 18mbit. Maybe they just want me to hit my cap sooner

 

[akg102]

'Free market has failed'

That and pitchforks and torches.

In North Carolina, they even purchased a bill to make it illegal for a city to vote in its own municipal broadband if they wished. Cable companies are literally anti-democracy.

This is not a free-market failure.....this is government choosing the winners and losers. If anything, a regulated economy that despises competition is failing. Regulation does nothing but give the government a monopoly over a service. Soon, they start taxing for internet usage, cable, etc....

 

[Wierdo]

This is not a free-market failure.....this is government choosing the winners and losers. If anything, a regulated economy that despises competition is failing. Regulation does nothing but give the government a monopoly over a service. Soon, they start taxing for internet usage, cable, etc....

I think the problem is that the infrastructure is privatized in the US, vs nationalized in many other places that offer superior market solutions.

If the infrastructure was state or government owned and maintained, and then leased as dumb pipes to companies then the barrier of entry would be much lower and we'd have hundreds of ISPs to choose from like they do abroad.

The system as it is right now simply encourages monopolies due to high cost for startups and regional control of infrastructure owning incumbents.

One concern I have with nationalized infrastructure is what if the gov tries to control or abuse it, but I guess they already do so now without owning it already.

 

[fattypants]

Regulation does nothing but give the government a monopoly over a service. Soon, they start taxing for internet usage, cable, etc....

Do you think they're doing a bad job regulating your other monopolies, like natural gas, garbage, sewer, water, electricity, roads?

Also, Wierdo's post.

 

[Tanis143]

As a cable tech I hear this time and time again. As an individual I completely understand. If I didn't work for a cable company I probably wouldn't have most of the tv services I do now. I do see many people now days doing streaming along with a clear QAM tv turner and an antenna. However, I do want to address a few things that are pet peeves of mine.

Al la cart: First off, right now its not possible. Plain and simple. Pretty much most MSO's still offer analog services. There is no way to do al la cart with analog. with 60+ channels that would mean they would need 60+ filters to filter out each channel individually. Not only would that be a nightmare of traps to carry, but would be impossible to put on a drop to a house. Even if they went all digital you would have to rent a digital box per tv to offer al la cart or at least a cable card device and rent a cable card. The cable company would have to have a way to block out the channels you dont' subscribe to while being able to secure the system from pirating unpaid for channels. So at this point in time al la cart is just not possible.

Second point of contention: Free market. When a cable company is in town they use their plant to deliver all the rf based services. These services take up a very very large chunk of bandwidth. Most cable plants are rated up to 1000mhz. But, each analog channel requires 6mhz. Digital can fit between 8 to 12 channels in one analog channel footprint, and HD can fit 2-6 channels per analog channel footprint. DOCSIS modems use one frequency but typically keep it in one analog channel to reduce cross talk. So, you figure 60+ analog channels, plus those channels and around 80 more for digital and HD channels (not to mention channels setup for on demand access) and now up to 8 docsis channels, thats a lot of frequencies they are using. Enough so that there is no way possible for companies to share cable plants. In order for there to be two cable companies they each would have to have their own infrastructure. And they DO have competition. For each cable company they have Dish, DirecTv, and in some cases Uverse or Fios. Thats up to four competitors with at least 3. Thats almost as much competition as there is between cell phone providers. Not only that, but TV is a commodity, not a utility. You are not forced to have cable, its a choice. So there is free market.

Ok, rant off. And I know there are going to be people who disagree with me, but spend some time in the industry and you'll see that the two points I made are correct. Does it mean I think this is an idiotic argument? Nope. The pricing affects everyone. Hopefully if enough people drop their subscriptions, and the broadcasters lose enough money, they will learn that fleecing the cable companies only drives away customers, which lowers their profits. But, they are like the oil company where they have the "screw the masses" mentality and just want their money. And in this, I agree with everyone here.

 

[Cmdrmonkey]

The only shows I even watch are Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones. If my wife weren't so addicted to crappy reality TV, we probably would have dropped cable a long time ago.

 

[night_2004]

Al la cart: First off, right now its not possible. Plain and simple. Pretty much most MSO's still offer analog services. There is no way to do al la cart with analog. with 60+ channels that would mean they would need 60+ filters to filter out each channel individually. Not only would that be a nightmare of traps to carry, but would be impossible to put on a drop to a house. Even if they went all digital you would have to rent a digital box per tv to offer al la cart or at least a cable card device and rent a cable card. The cable company would have to have a way to block out the channels you dont' subscribe to while being able to secure the system from pirating unpaid for channels. So at this point in time al la cart is just not possible.

If all the cable bandwidth were switched over to DOCSIS to provide IP connectivity, how much bandwidth would there be? Enough to implement a Netflix-like a la carte cable service I would imagine. U-Verse already does that (at least the IPTV that is). Since everything would be based on IPTV and used standard network protocols I'm sure it would be feasible for multiple content distributors to then share the IP bandwidth to deliver TV. Anti-piracy wouldn't be a problem either -- I'm sure plenty of people borrow their cable TV without trouble right now. Not saying it's right, I'm just saying it probably won't affect the cable company's bottom line.

Second point of contention: Free market. When a cable company is in town they use their plant to deliver all the rf based services. These services take up a very very large chunk of bandwidth. Most cable plants are rated up to 1000mhz. But, each analog channel requires 6mhz. Digital can fit between 8 to 12 channels in one analog channel footprint, and HD can fit 2-6 channels per analog channel footprint. DOCSIS modems use one frequency but typically keep it in one analog channel to reduce cross talk. So, you figure 60+ analog channels, plus those channels and around 80 more for digital and HD channels (not to mention channels setup for on demand access) and now up to 8 docsis channels, thats a lot of frequencies they are using. Enough so that there is no way possible for companies to share cable plants. In order for there to be two cable companies they each would have to have their own infrastructure. And they DO have competition. For each cable company they have Dish, DirecTv, and in some cases Uverse or Fios. Thats up to four competitors with at least 3. Thats almost as much competition as there is between cell phone providers. Not only that, but TV is a commodity, not a utility. You are not forced to have cable, its a choice. So there is free market.

The communication lines ARE a utility though, which is why it needs to be either a free market (see power utility companies in some states) or regulated (like telco companies and non-free market power companies are). Satellite isn't a (serious) option for internet and some places (especially apartment complexes or HOAs) may ban satellite entirely (not right but that's how it is right now). Given your argument I would say heavy regulation is probably the only feasible choice. That and severing the link between ISPs and content providers (see previous comments about IPTV).

Ok, rant off. And I know there are going to be people who disagree with me, but spend some time in the industry and you'll see that the two points I made are correct. Does it mean I think this is an idiotic argument? Nope. The pricing affects everyone. Hopefully if enough people drop their subscriptions, and the broadcasters lose enough money, they will learn that fleecing the cable companies only drives away customers, which lowers their profits. But, they are like the oil company where they have the "screw the masses" mentality and just want their money. And in this, I agree with everyone here.

You definitely raise some interesting points. Change certainly can't be easy but it needs to be done. Internet access is so critical to our lives that it's almost a basic right and I'm not going to pay an arm and a leg to get it. Neither will a lot of people I hope.

 

[Nahid]

I refuse to pay for cable now let alone $200.00 bucks a month!

 

[sir-gold]

...and now up to 8 docsis channels...

So what you are saying is that cable companies waste 140 channels doing the thing that 8 docsis channels already manage do (streaming media)? Is it really that hard to have a single location with 60-70 analog tuners all converting into 60-70 digital feeds that are streamed on demand? (hint: it must not be too hard, because websites keep doing it and the fcc keeps stomping them flat because of licensing). Plus getting rid of all that analog fluff should give you a whopping 68 docsis channels.

I don't understand why a channel HAS to go all the way to the customer as analog just because the content providers transmit in analog. No wonder cable internet in the US is slow, we have the equivalent of a rocket powered race car with roughly-carved stone wheels. The only reason I can think of for this silly analog nonsense is the anti-digital advertising campaign that cable companies ran in the years leading up to the digital broadcast conversion, that they are now stuck supporting until grandma's old RCA CRT dies

This is not a free-market failure.....this is government choosing the winners and losers. If anything, a regulated economy that despises competition is failing. Regulation does nothing but give the government a monopoly over a service. Soon, they start taxing for internet usage, cable, etc....

don't blame "government regulation", blame "government regulation FOR SALE" (huge difference)

 

[Ehren8879]

Cable prices raise because the content providers raise their prices.

Exactly. The mso I work for is in a constant battle with the greedy content providers. You'd thinkESPN is the cure for cancer with the prices it charges and its channel bundle demands.

 

[FrEaKy]

a la carte cable would be my wish;

Fox
Cartoon Network
Food Network
Travel Channel
Boomerang
and PBS for the wifey (Downton Abbey, good show).

 

[-Axiom-]

I've been paying $180+/month for cable tv & internet for quite a while now.

 

[pigwalk]

Anyone unwilling to drop their cable service for streaming internet is dopey enough to pay twice as much.

Streaming Sports SUCK online. Channel Surfing via streaming isn't the same at all. And Netflix' streaming selection is absolute garbage.

That being said, as soon as Basketball season is over, I'm ditching Dish, and then probably getting DirectTV next Season. Jump between the two every year or so once the promo period is done.

 

[madmat]

I had Comcast triple play a few years ago and was paying $260 a month so it's hardly surprising.

 

[madmat]

Streaming Sports SUCK online. Channel Surfing via streaming isn't the same at all. And Netflix' streaming selection is absolute garbage.

That being said, as soon as Basketball season is over, I'm ditching Dish, and then probably getting DirectTV next Season. Jump between the two every year or so once the promo period is done.

Direct tied me into a two year contract.

 

[eurin]

Sports are about the only tempting enough to get cable, but I'm just not willing to the current high prices. That means I pretty much only watch NFL over the local broadcast or whichever games stream on ESPN.com. Even if I had cable, I'd still have to watch bad streams of Eurosport, because coverage of a lot of non major sports blows here.

Everything else, I'm not in a hurry to watch. I'm willing to wait for Redbox or Netflix.

 

[dj_spanmaster]

I don't foresee anything real happening until the government pulls a Ma Bell-like breakup, and/or the service providers become the content makers.

 

[goodcooper]

That and pitchforks and torches.

In North Carolina, they even purchased a bill to make it illegal for a city to vote in its own municipal broadband if they wished. Cable companies are literally anti-democracy.

in my city in NC the local privately owned utilities company that provides water and electricity to 90% of the county's residents spent a lot of money running fiber to monitor meters with the future plans of providing internet, this law shut them down hardcore...

REALLY irritates me because our only two choices here are centurylink for DSL and TWC for cable...

i'm for the most part proudly neutral when it comes to politics, but this really is anti-democracy...

 

[HisSvt76]

I hate that i don't have more options for me its Comcast or DSL and thats it so i have comcast for internet and that's it TV is netflix,hulu and OTA HD TV. And that option still cost me almost $100 a month

 

[corrupted223]

I only have dish because I get it free working for them. Other than that, we stream everything from netflix or hulu.

 

[eggrock]

We'll finally have à la carte channel selections instead of the traditional bundled cable packages we see now.

If the providers switch to a la carte, pricing will probably start at $10 per channel, and there will be more advertising than content.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I already pay ~$160 a month for FiOS TV and Internet, and I don't even have any premium channels...

...just normal cable lineup, two HD boxes and a DVR.

looks like I was a little off. Here is what I currently pay. How does it compare to you guys for similar service?

Current Charges
4/1	 4/30	Double Play	99.99
•	FiOS TV Extreme HD	65.00	
•	FiOS Internet 25/25	34.99	
4/1	 4/30	HD Set Top Box Rental 2 @ 9.99	19.98
4/1	 4/30	Multi-Room DVR - High Definition	19.99
Current Activity Total	$139.96

Taxes, Fees and Other Charges
Taxes, Governmental Surcharges and Fees
MA State Sales Tax	2.50
Verizon Surcharges and Other Charges and Credits
PEG Grant Fee	5.53
Regulatory Recovery Fee - Federal	.08
Total Taxes, Fees and Other Charges	$8.11

Total: 148.07 /month

 

[Tanis143]

If all the cable bandwidth were switched over to DOCSIS to provide IP connectivity, how much bandwidth would there be? Enough to implement a Netflix-like a la carte cable service I would imagine. U-Verse already does that (at least the IPTV that is). Since everything would be based on IPTV and used standard network protocols I'm sure it would be feasible for multiple content distributors to then share the IP bandwidth to deliver TV. Anti-piracy wouldn't be a problem either -- I'm sure plenty of people borrow their cable TV without trouble right now. Not saying it's right, I'm just saying it probably won't affect the cable company's bottom line.

But, a good portion of cable subscribers still use analog, thats what my point was. To do what you described would be feasible, but would require development and deployment, all of which would drive the cost up. Not only that but contractual agreements with broadcasters would have to be renegotiated, and the price per channel would go up. So again, al la carte would not be feasible.

The communication lines ARE a utility though, which is why it needs to be either a free market (see power utility companies in some states) or regulated (like telco companies and non-free market power companies are). Satellite isn't a (serious) option for internet and some places (especially apartment complexes or HOAs) may ban satellite entirely (not right but that's how it is right now). Given your argument I would say heavy regulation is probably the only feasible choice. That and severing the link between ISPs and content providers (see previous comments about IPTV).

Internet access and tv subscriptions are not a utility. The phone side is regulated in which all phone companies pay the same fee's and the price is regulated as well. The other two are not utilities and therefore are not able to be regulated. Though you mistook my quote, I was referring to tv competition, not internet.

You definitely raise some interesting points. Change certainly can't be easy but it needs to be done. Internet access is so critical to our lives that it's almost a basic right and I'm not going to pay an arm and a leg to get it. Neither will a lot of people I hope.

Here in lies the crux of the problem: Bandwidth isn't cheap here in the states. Its just the nature of the beast. Since the US infrastructure was built for the sole purpose of providing profit, those costs are transferred down the line. The only way to fix that would be to hand control of the backbones to the government and have them provide bandwidth to the ISP's at cost. But, do you want the government to have control of that? Look at Iran, China, N. Korea and every other totalitarian regime.

Unfortunately there is no easy solution. At this time though al la carte just isn't a viable option for deployment and/or pricing reasons. And the free market does exist, though I will agree that its not to the benefit of the consumer. DSL will always be cheaper, but slower than cable. Satellite internet is slower, but widely available. Until a fast, competitive wireless solution is thought up consumers will have to pick which option fits their needs and budget. I can see people spending $100 bucks on month on high bandwidth/high cap internet and netflix/hulu for their tv needs. We in the cable industry actually see them as competition and no longer just a fancy of the few.

 

[mark_j]

A la cart will never work for television channels. I've worked in cable since 1992 and am extremely tired of hearing this demand. If you picked channels off a menu, you would pay as much for 10-12 channels as you do for 100+ now. Why?

1. The content providers base their pricing on being presented to as many eyeballs as possible. It drives the fees they charge the cable company and the amount they can charge advertisers for commercial time. Slashing the number of subscribers to certain channels would drive individual prices through the roof.

2. A small handful of content providers control most the programming. For example...Disney owns or controls ABC (!) ,Disney Channel, Disney XD, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPN Deportes, Lifetime, Lifetime Movie Net, and probably several more I cannot remember without looking. They force cable companies to add their "fringe" channels if they want to carry the good ones.

3. Cable companies do not make money on video service, at least not enough to make it a sustainable business model. They do make money on internet and phone service. A TV only subscriber gives an opportunity to sell internet and phone, and that is where the value is. Having a customer drop their "cable" service but keep the internet is not so horrible for the cable company. It hurts, sure, but it's not the end of the world.

Cable television is regulated by the FCC, by the way. I remember when it started in the 90's. The small system I was working for was charging $25 for basic cable. The FCC provided a "benchmark" formula to determine the maximum we could charge based on our demographics and expenses. We were allowed to raise our rates to $40 according to the formula!!!! Of course we didn't, but the whole "regulation" process led to higher prices not lower. Now....we're not regulated to the same degree a utility company is, but we're not a utility company. Television is entertainment, not a necessity.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

A la cart will never work for television channels. I've worked in cable since 1992 and am extremely tired of hearing this demand. If you picked channels off a menu, you would pay as much for 10-12 channels as you do for 100+ now. Why?

1. The content providers base their pricing on being presented to as many eyeballs as possible. It drives the fees they charge the cable company and the amount they can charge advertisers for commercial time. Slashing the number of subscribers to certain channels would drive individual prices through the roof.

2. A small handful of content providers control most the programming. For example...Disney owns or controls ABC (!) ,Disney Channel, Disney XD, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPN Deportes, Lifetime, Lifetime Movie Net, and probably several more I cannot remember without looking. They force cable companies to add their "fringe" channels if they want to carry the good ones.

3. Cable companies do not make money on video service, at least not enough to make it a sustainable business model. They do make money on internet and phone service. A TV only subscriber gives an opportunity to sell internet and phone, and that is where the value is. Having a customer drop their "cable" service but keep the internet is not so horrible for the cable company. It hurts, sure, but it's not the end of the world.

Cable television is regulated by the FCC, by the way. I remember when it started in the 90's. The small system I was working for was charging $25 for basic cable. The FCC provided a "benchmark" formula to determine the maximum we could charge based on our demographics and expenses. We were allowed to raise our rates to $40 according to the formula!!!! Of course we didn't, but the whole "regulation" process led to higher prices not lower. Now....we're not regulated to the same degree a utility company is, but we're not a utility company. Television is entertainment, not a necessity.

I would still prefer to pay a lot more for the few channels I like than have 100's of useless channels I never watch just bloating up my cable box and making it difficult to find the channels I like.

Don't even have to sell them channel by channel. Have "build your own package" plans. Like, a certain rate for 20 channels, but you pick which channels those 20 channels are. (premium channels, extra of course.

Me, I'd be happy with local news channels, + all network channels + BBC America + Comedy central, + History Channel, Discovery channel and a few more channels like that.

 

[Bootleg Usher]

I keep reading threads like this on this forum and I keep scratching my head wondering how people who only use the internet watch:

1. Live sports

2. The local news

3. Other live programming such as my local provincial election leaders debate

4. All the things that aren't on Netflix

I am not calling you out, I am legitimately curious. I have tried netflix and while there are some things on there I like, it is missing tons of stuff and I can find on TV. I have also tried watching programming on network websites, like family guy for example, and they only carry the latest two episodes. With my PVR TV watching is awesome. Pretty much no commercials ever, since I just fast forward through them.

Back to the original point of the post though, 200 dollars is way too much money.

 

[CrimsonKnight13]

I keep reading threads like this on this forum and I keep scratching my head wondering how people who only use the internet watch:

1. Live sports

2. The local news

3. Other live programming such as my local provincial election leaders debate

4. All the things that aren't on Netflix

I am not calling you out, I am legitimately curious. I have tried netflix and while there are some things on there I like, it is missing tons of stuff and I can find on TV. I have also tried watching programming on network websites, like family guy for example, and they only carry the latest two episodes. With my PVR TV watching is awesome. Pretty much no commercials ever, since I just fast forward through them.

Back to the original point of the post though, 200 dollars is way too much money.

1. I watch zero live sports. At most my wife watches gymnastics & the Olympics through HD antenna.
2. Don't care. I usually hear what I need to hear through others.
3. Same as above.
4. Google TV is quite useful, especially with Amazon Prime Instant Video. We got tired of Netflix's methods with taking TV shows off their library after so long. We also record shows we like through TIVO.

$50 for 25~30Mbps Cable Internet works for me. I'm not going to pay for HD Cable until they decide to allow custom plans.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

1. Live sports

Probably don't care

2. The local news

Bunny ears (free!)

3. Other live programming such as my local provincial election leaders debate

This stuff is usually streamed online.

That, and sadly many young people just don't give a rats ass about politics.

4. All the things that aren't on Netflix

They either don't, pirate it, or watch it on streaming webpages, like ABC's pretty excellent streaming page.

I am not calling you out, I am legitimately curious. I have tried netflix and while there are some things on there I like, it is missing tons of stuff and I can find on TV. I have also tried watching programming on network websites, like family guy for example, and they only carry the latest two episodes. With my PVR TV watching is awesome. Pretty much no commercials ever, since I just fast forward through them.

Keep in mind though, there are many people for whom TV really isn't that important. I'm one of them (but I still have cable as I live in a household of TV watchers ).

Personally, I keep a Netflix account because its cheap, and it fills my needs if I have a couple of hours to kill and want to watch something. Don't have the movie or show I was interested in? Meh, no big deal. i'll just watch something else.

My life doesn't revolve around TV, and its not important to me if I can follow the latest trendy show, but even then, it usually streams on the networks webpage for free. Until I married my wife and moved in with her and her two stepsons, I didn't even own a TV.

I can see how live sports might be difficult to follow, but there are streaming services on the major sports webpages that are much cheaper than subscribing to cable, besides, you are on a webpage of smart geeks, not a meat-head meeting spot. Who here watches sports anyway?

 

[eurin]

I keep reading threads like this on this forum and I keep scratching my head wondering how people who only use the internet watch:

1. Live sports

2. The local news

3. Other live programming such as my local provincial election leaders debate

4. All the things that aren't on Netflix

I am not calling you out, I am legitimately curious. I have tried netflix and while there are some things on there I like, it is missing tons of stuff and I can find on TV. I have also tried watching programming on network websites, like family guy for example, and they only carry the latest two episodes. With my PVR TV watching is awesome. Pretty much no commercials ever, since I just fast forward through them.

Back to the original point of the post though, 200 dollars is way too much money.

1) I basically only watch games broadcast, so that's NFL mostly these days. Some of the other major sports' bigger games and events tend to be on the free networks, too. The Olympics are also on the air. I watch some other games on ESPN.com if they are available, otherwise I just go without. I mostly miss out on seeing regular season games, so it isn't even a big deal to me.

2) The local news is just awful, It fills most of the program with segments that exploits people's fear of anything and everything.

3) I don't think there is much to debates around here. People on the far left and right don't want any reasonable discussion anyways, especially the tea baggers filling Indiana.

4) I have limited time and accept that. There is plenty for me to watch on Netflix. Same reasoning helps me skip a lot of the big over-hyped video game titles, too. There is just so much to do and so little time.

 

[Rattle]

looks like I was a little off. Here is what I currently pay. How does it compare to you guys for similar service?

Current Charges
4/1	 4/30	Double Play	99.99
•	FiOS TV Extreme HD	65.00	
•	FiOS Internet 25/25	34.99	
4/1	 4/30	HD Set Top Box Rental 2 @ 9.99	19.98
4/1	 4/30	Multi-Room DVR - High Definition	19.99
Current Activity Total	$139.96

Taxes, Fees and Other Charges
Taxes, Governmental Surcharges and Fees
MA State Sales Tax	2.50
Verizon Surcharges and Other Charges and Credits
PEG Grant Fee	5.53
Regulatory Recovery Fee - Federal	.08
Total Taxes, Fees and Other Charges	$8.11

Total: 148.07 /month

I would pay that for what your getting, I only have comcast and some local BS company to go through though.

I really want to ditch everything but my internet and get netflix and hulu but my GF would probably find it hard to adjust and comcasts 250gb limit doesn't help.

 

[Azhar]

I'm only paying $52 a month for Comcast 50/5 internet and phone. Not interested in cable TV. I have Netflix for that.

 

[F.E.A.R.]

I pay at the moment $30 for Dish Network. Don't have a lot of channels, but enough to keep kids and wife happy. Lately, I've been watching "IRIS" (excellent show BTW) on Hulu and Netflix and haven't really used cable.

 

[DarkStar02]

Oh I remember now! I had "Cable TV" for free with an apartment I rented. I'm assuming it worked but I can't tell you since I had a projector at the time (2002) and only watched movies I selected and either bought or pirated.

Why would I pay (Actually pay my hard earned dollars!) to have the ability to see thing which will make me less intelligent and emotionally/socially healthy which are interspersed with an increasing percentage of advertisements for things which not only do I not want but will also ruin life for myself and my fellow man? How much of TV air time is commercials? I don't know because, as I've already stated, I don't touch that shit. It must be close to 50% by now.... no? People are paying for that? Commercials are some of the most sophisticated brainwashing known to modern psychology.

Good luck TV watchers. I hope Darwin was right.

QFMFT

 

[Vashypooh]

Just dumped my cable because of the price.

 

[Manaknight]

I keep reading threads like this on this forum and I keep scratching my head wondering how people who only use the internet watch:

1. Live sports

2. The local news

3. Other live programming such as my local provincial election leaders debate

4. All the things that aren't on Netflix

I am not calling you out, I am legitimately curious. I have tried netflix and while there are some things on there I like, it is missing tons of stuff and I can find on TV. I have also tried watching programming on network websites, like family guy for example, and they only carry the latest two episodes. With my PVR TV watching is awesome. Pretty much no commercials ever, since I just fast forward through them.

Back to the original point of the post though, 200 dollars is way too much money.

1. no sports, can't stand them.
2. it's a shock and awe ratings show, i can get news online, including breaking news.
3. also usually available online, or I can go watch it live, or i can read about it immediately after to catch up
4. i literally watch national geographic, the history channel, the bbc (literally only for top gear, which is on netflix), and the science channel... i can't justify any cable bill for them. netflix + hulu + ... means if i want to watch something, i can.

i just don't get it...but i do have niche tastes...either way i see no point in most broadcast television

 

[fattypants]

A la carte programming would allow the free market to work its magic, but television content providers have not been interested in a free market since the dawn of their existence.

 

[sir-gold]

I'm only paying $52 a month for Comcast 50/5 internet and phone. Not interested in cable TV. I have Netflix for that.

I suspect there is FiOS in your area

Comcast in minneapolis charges 48.95 /month for 20/4 internet without phone.

forget ala carte, maybe all we need is forced price-matching so they can't pick-n-choose which markets to rape