I visited a friend this past Sunday. I don't have cable television
but he does, so we talked for awhile and then he turned-on the set.
Flip. Flip. Flip. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. 70 channels and
nothing worth watching. Eventually we stopped on a John Travolta
movie, but not for long since we both had seen it multiple times, and
we both agreed it was crap. Flip. Flip. Flip.
I've come to the conclusion that cable tv, like insurance, is a giant
scam to get people to waste their hard-earned money to get almost
nothing in return.
Contrast that with over-the-air TV where I get around 25 channels and
hundreds of shows at no cost. Much better deal in my humble opinion,
and for those few shows I don't get to see (like Battlestar Galactica)
I can rent on DVD for cheap. I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
a year on cable.
SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I visited a friend this past Sunday. I don't have cable television
>but he does, s
I'm so glad I don't have to put up with a customer as dense as
yourself, Enjoy OTA, it's made for you.
As for millions of others . . best value in a variety of entertainment
& education.
--
"From spongecake to satellites, it's gotta be Krebstar"
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 19:14:00 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
<SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I visited a friend this past Sunday. I don't have cable television
>but he does, so we talked for awhile and then he turned-on the set.
>Flip. Flip. Flip. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. 70 channels and
>nothing worth watching. Eventually we stopped on a John Travolta
>movie, but not for long since we both had seen it multiple times, and
>we both agreed it was crap. Flip. Flip. Flip.
>
>I've come to the conclusion that cable tv, like insurance, is a giant
>scam to get people to waste their hard-earned money to get almost
>nothing in return.
>
>Contrast that with over-the-air TV where I get around 25 channels and
>hundreds of shows at no cost. Much better deal in my humble opinion,
>and for those few shows I don't get to see (like Battlestar Galactica)
>I can rent on DVD for cheap. I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
>a year on cable.
700 dollars a year is cheap compared to hiring someone to excavate the
huge hill between me and the HD antennas. Then there is dim bulb next
door that planted a tree fence that is now 40 ft. high between me and
the antennas.
On 6/3/2009 4:14 AM, SFTV_troy wrote:
> I visited a friend this past Sunday. I don't have cable television
> but he does, so we talked for awhile and then he turned-on the set.
> Flip. Flip. Flip. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. 70 channels and
> nothing worth watching. Eventually we stopped on a John Travolta
> movie, but not for long since we both had seen it multiple times, and
> we both agreed it was crap. Flip. Flip. Flip.
>
> I've come to the conclusion that cable tv, like insurance, is a giant
> scam to get people to waste their hard-earned money to get almost
> nothing in return.
>
Somehow I know mentioning the devil's name would call him.
Bob wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 19:14:00 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
> <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I visited a friend this past Sunday. I don't have cable television
>> but he does, so we talked for awhile and then he turned-on the set.
>> Flip. Flip. Flip. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. 70 channels and
>> nothing worth watching. Eventually we stopped on a John Travolta
>> movie, but not for long since we both had seen it multiple times, and
>> we both agreed it was crap. Flip. Flip. Flip.
>>
>> I've come to the conclusion that cable tv, like insurance, is a giant
>> scam to get people to waste their hard-earned money to get almost
>> nothing in return.
>>
>> Contrast that with over-the-air TV where I get around 25 channels and
>> hundreds of shows at no cost. Much better deal in my humble opinion,
>> and for those few shows I don't get to see (like Battlestar Galactica)
>> I can rent on DVD for cheap. I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
>> a year on cable.
>
> 700 dollars a year is cheap compared to hiring someone to excavate the
> huge hill between me and the HD antennas. Then there is dim bulb next
> door that planted a tree fence that is now 40 ft. high between me and
> the antennas.
Same problem here. We had to do without cable for several years as we
have all underground services and big clunky thing on roof brought in
mostly fuzzy channels. Now even cell phones, you have to go outside for
clear reception. I got a neighbor on top of the hill that gets along
fine with just antenna but not me.
In article
<b94c0832-76c1-406f-89dc-f154319b6156@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I visited a friend this past Sunday. I don't have cable television
> but he does, so we talked for awhile and then he turned-on the set.
> Flip. Flip. Flip. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. 70 channels and
> nothing worth watching. Eventually we stopped on a John Travolta
> movie, but not for long since we both had seen it multiple times, and
> we both agreed it was crap. Flip. Flip. Flip.
>
> I've come to the conclusion that cable tv, like insurance, is a giant
> scam to get people to waste their hard-earned money to get almost
> nothing in return.
Well, not nothing. There are plenty of shows on cable that are NOT
available on broadcast TV, and never will be. But I agree, so much of
it is crap. I got rid of premium channels over 10 years ago because I
couldn't believe how little was on for my $10 extra/month.
> Contrast that with over-the-air TV where I get around 25 channels and
> hundreds of shows at no cost. Much better deal in my humble opinion,
> and for those few shows I don't get to see (like Battlestar Galactica)
> I can rent on DVD for cheap.
That's true, there's no doubt you will be able to see anything you want
by picking and choosing out of Netflix or similar.
And there are only so many hours in the day, so....just do the math.
$700 buys a lot of rental.
Put multiple people in the house, though, and the equation changes.
If/when you have a wife and children, you will look back at what you
wrote and laugh.
All that being said: because so much of it is utter crap, the only REAL
way to get your $700 worth is by using a DVR or two. Let the black box
watch TV for you, then spit it back out to you on YOUR schedule.
If you've never had a DVR, you'll never truly understand this concept.
The box is full of stuff that it's collected while you were out having a
life, and is now ready to show it to you when you're in the mood to veg
out or whatever. And it doesn't care what it shows you; whatever you're
in the mood for at that moment, it's ready to show.
No more being subject to what the networks want to show you when they
want to show it.
(And with ReplayTV's commercial skip, I don't even have to press a
button--I just don't see commercials. 3 hours of broadcasting contains
2 hours of program, and that's all I see, so I get that hour back. See
"having a life" above.)
In my mind, the DVR will ultimately be responsible for a shift for the
cablecos away from the typical "broadcast" mentality and toward a
Netflix-like streaming model--but it will take awhile, because old
habits die hard.
On Jun 3, 12:15*am, Cable Shill <cable_sh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I'm so glad I don't have to put up with a customer as dense
> as yourself, Enjoy OTA, it's made for you.
In what way do you consider my comment, "There was nothing to watch
across 70 channels of cable" a dense comment??? It really isn't.
It's a common observation made, not just by me, but also my friend,
his father, my brother, his wife, and so on.
I guess in your view insulting potential customers is "good service".
I'm glad I canceled my Comcast subscription back in 2002 if this is
the kind of service they provide.
On Jun 3, 7:00*am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
> Put multiple people in the house, though, and the equation changes. *
> If/when you have a wife and children, you will look back at what you
> wrote and laugh.
Perhaps but I doubt it. My brother has both a wife and kid, and they
both say they'd cancel the cable if it wasn't for their daughter. I
told them that we grew-up without cable television, and I'm sure the
daughter would survive just fine without it too. I also added that
they can get childrens programming 24 hours a day through Qubo, and it
costs nothing. There's also kiddie shows on PBS and the This movie
channel.
I'm slowly but surely convincing them that eliminating the $700/year
bill is a good idea.
> All that being said: *because so much of it is utter crap, the only REAL
> way to get your $700 worth is by using a DVR or two.
I have one and used it often back when I had cable. Even now for
broadcast television it's nice to have.
> (And with ReplayTV's commercial skip, I don't even have to press a
> button--I just don't see commercials.)
Hey I have that same DVR! But my Panasonic model doesn't have the
commercial skip. You have to press a 30-second skip button. Still
nice although I do feel a little guilty "stealing" television. When I
use the fastforward on my VCR I still see the ads - less guilt. ;-)
"SFTV_troy" <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b94c0832-76c1-406f-89dc-f154319b6156@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
>I visited a friend this past Sunday. I don't have cable television
> but he does, so we talked for awhile and then he turned-on the set.
> Flip. Flip. Flip. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. 70 channels and
> nothing worth watching. Eventually we stopped on a John Travolta
> movie, but not for long since we both had seen it multiple times, and
> we both agreed it was crap. Flip. Flip. Flip.
>
> I've come to the conclusion that cable tv, like insurance, is a giant
> scam to get people to waste their hard-earned money to get almost
> nothing in return.
>
> Contrast that with over-the-air TV where I get around 25 channels and
> hundreds of shows at no cost. Much better deal in my humble opinion,
> and for those few shows I don't get to see (like Battlestar Galactica)
> I can rent on DVD for cheap. I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
> a year on cable.
After the 6 month discount my cable TV cost will become uncomfortably large.
I have been trying to find cable channel shows to justify the expense, but
it is hard.
Currently, I have trouble with OTA signals, but in several months the signal
should improve as the Sutro tower is upgraded.
I wish I could order a la carte channels.
On Jun 2, 10:14*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I visited a friend this past Sunday. *I don't have cable television
> but he does, so we talked for awhile and then he turned-on the set.
> Flip. *Flip. *Flip. *Nothing. *Nothing. *Nothing. *70 channels and
> nothing worth watching. *Eventually we stopped on a John Travolta
> movie, but not for long since we both had seen it multiple times, and
> we both agreed it was crap. * Flip. *Flip. *Flip.
>
> I've come to the conclusion that cable tv, like insurance, is a giant
> scam to get people to waste their hard-earned money to get almost
> nothing in return.
>
> Contrast that with over-the-air TV where I get around 25 channels and
> hundreds of shows at no cost. *Much better deal in my humble opinion,
> and for those few shows I don't get to see (like Battlestar Galactica)
> I can rent on DVD for cheap. * I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
> a year on cable.
--- $700 a year for 70 channels? Somehow I must be getting a bargain
at $500 a year for 70 channels - well, actually, more like 60 or so.
Still. But yeah, I was much happier with TV when there was much less
of it and it came through free and without all those annoying station
logos and promo pop-ups all over the place cluttering up what I should
be seeing instead. What irony. One used to always get to see an
entire bug-free screen when TV was free, now one has to pay to see it
get all cluttered up by all sorts of useless junk not related to what
you really want to see.
QN wrote:
> "SFTV_troy" <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b94c0832-76c1-406f-89dc-f154319b6156@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
>> I visited a friend this past Sunday. I don't have cable television
>> but he does, so we talked for awhile and then he turned-on the set.
>> Flip. Flip. Flip. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. 70 channels and
>> nothing worth watching. Eventually we stopped on a John Travolta
>> movie, but not for long since we both had seen it multiple times, and
>> we both agreed it was crap. Flip. Flip. Flip.
>>
>> I've come to the conclusion that cable tv, like insurance, is a giant
>> scam to get people to waste their hard-earned money to get almost
>> nothing in return.
>>
>> Contrast that with over-the-air TV where I get around 25 channels and
>> hundreds of shows at no cost. Much better deal in my humble opinion,
>> and for those few shows I don't get to see (like Battlestar Galactica)
>> I can rent on DVD for cheap. I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
>> a year on cable.
>
> After the 6 month discount my cable TV cost will become uncomfortably large.
> I have been trying to find cable channel shows to justify the expense, but
> it is hard.
>
> Currently, I have trouble with OTA signals, but in several months the signal
> should improve as the Sutro tower is upgraded.
>
> I wish I could order a la carte channels.
>
>
>
After your deal runs out, go to the internet, Comcast and current deal
for your area. Call Comcast and tell them you want it. PITA but it
happens.
"SFTV_troy" <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b94c0832-76c1-406f-89dc-f154319b6156@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
>I visited a friend this past Sunday. I don't have cable television
> but he does, so we talked for awhile and then he turned-on the set.
> Flip. Flip. Flip. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. 70 channels and
> nothing worth watching. Eventually we stopped on a John Travolta
> movie, but not for long since we both had seen it multiple times, and
> we both agreed it was crap. Flip. Flip. Flip.
>
> I've come to the conclusion that cable tv, like insurance, is a giant
> scam to get people to waste their hard-earned money to get almost
> nothing in return.
>
> Contrast that with over-the-air TV where I get around 25 channels and
> hundreds of shows at no cost. Much better deal in my humble opinion,
> and for those few shows I don't get to see (like Battlestar Galactica)
> I can rent on DVD for cheap. I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
> a year on cable.
Cable is good if 1) You can't get decent broadcast reception or 2) If you
watch a lot of tv and have an interest in a lot of shows that aren't
broadcast.
I bet at least 50% of my viewing is on cable. Some of my favorite series
are there. They broadcast the Stanley Cup, Atlanta Braves baseball. Etc.
And there are all these weird little shows that are interesting as hell,
e.g. Whale Wars, which is about to crank up again.
On Jun 3, 11:21*am, WQ <w...@email.com> wrote:
>
> --- $700 a year for 70 channels? *Somehow I must be getting a bargain
> at $500 a year for 70 channels - well, actually, more like 60 or so.
I remember when cable only cost $42 a month. Heck I remember when it
used to cost only $30 a month a mere ten years ago, but now it's
doubled in my area. Thanks Comsucks. (Although to be fair a lot of
the increase came from individual channels increasing subscriber fees
from ~35 cents per home to 75 cents per home. Greed, greed, greed.)
On Jun 3, 12:17*pm, "Mason Barge" <masonba...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I bet at least 50% of my viewing is on cable. *Some of my favorite series
> are there. *They broadcast the Stanley Cup, Atlanta Braves baseball.
I used to watch TCM a lot, but when Comcast moved it from channel 65
to channel 100-something, I lost my ability to view it and the whole
cable lineup became rather pointless. Yes I still watched BSG or Monk
on other channels, but it's now cheaper to simply rent those shows on
DVD.
On Jun 3, 11:18*am, "QN" <hidingfrom...@example.com> wrote:
>
> After the 6 month discount my cable TV cost will become uncomfortably large.
> I have been trying to find shows to justify the expense, but it is hard.
> I wish I could order a la carte channels.
Me too. There are some cities that require a la carte as part of
their franchise, and they charge a mere $1 or $2 per channel added.
For me that would be great because I could get SciFi, USA, and TNT for
a mere $6 a month.
As for reception, try upgrading to a Channel Master 4228. I have on
setting next to my tv in my living room, and it works great.
"SFTV_troy" <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b94c0832-76c1-406f-89dc-f154319b6156@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
> I visited a friend this past Sunday. I don't have cable television
> but he does, so we talked for awhile and then he turned-on the set.
> Flip. Flip. Flip. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. 70 channels and
> nothing worth watching. Eventually we stopped on a John Travolta
> movie, but not for long since we both had seen it multiple times, and
> we both agreed it was crap. Flip. Flip. Flip.
>
> I've come to the conclusion that cable tv, like insurance, is a giant
> scam to get people to waste their hard-earned money to get almost
> nothing in return.
>
> Contrast that with over-the-air TV where I get around 25 channels and
> hundreds of shows at no cost. Much better deal in my humble opinion,
> and for those few shows I don't get to see (like Battlestar Galactica)
> I can rent on DVD for cheap. I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
> a year on cable.
Depending upon the package one has, it could cost more. However, basic
packages (which is what one has to compare off-air to) are usually about
$300-$400 depending upon provider.
The problem is that not everyone has the same reception or happens to live
in an area that allows for good reception. Cable/satellite is a convince and
not all the best shows air on cable stations.
Clear reception use to be the primary advantage of cable, but with the
digital switchover off-air has become more attractive. I could see a lot of
people choosing to drop cable for off-air. But only those who live in areas
of good reception can do that.
I know I could get by on off-air quite happily, although there's still a few
shows I catch on cable channels, and then there's The Movie Network which,
if made use of, works out to be cheaper than renting. I've got in the habit
of waiting for movies to appear there before watching them.
Only 9 days left.
--
Patrick McNamara
E-mail: patjmcnamara@gmail.com
My Toy Store: http://patrickjmcnamara.webs.com
Webpage: http://www.geocities.com/writerpatrick
Blue Hot Gossip comedy: http://bluehotgossip.blogspot.com
Podcast Ping: http://podcastping.blogspot.com
Torrentcast: http://www.mininova.org/rss.xml?user=PodcastPing
On Jun 3, 2:12*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 11:21*am, WQ <w...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > --- $700 a year for 70 channels? *Somehow I must be getting a bargain
> > at $500 a year for 70 channels - well, actually, more like 60 or so.
>
> I remember when cable only cost $42 a month. *Heck I remember when it
> used to cost only $30 a month a mere ten years ago, but now it's
> doubled in my area. *Thanks Comsucks. *(Although to be fair a lot of
> the increase came from individual channels increasing subscriber fees
> from ~35 cents per home to 75 cents per home. *Greed, greed, greed.)
--- See. That's what I keep telling everybody. Forced
subsidization. Cable channels couldn't exist without it. Remove the
subsidization and maybe you'd see only the 2 or 3 strongest cable
networks be able to survive on just ad revenue alone and all the other
few hundred channels disappear overnight. And that's how it should be
- survival of the fittest on the basis of ad revenue, not
subsidization. To think that a lot of people gripe about subsidizing
PBS through taxes and yet think nothing of the junk they're forced to
subsidize if they want cable at all.
SFTV_troy wrote:
> I visited a friend this past Sunday. I don't have cable television
> but he does, so we talked for awhile and then he turned-on the set.
> Flip. Flip. Flip. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. 70 channels and
> nothing worth watching. Eventually we stopped on a John Travolta
> movie, but not for long since we both had seen it multiple times, and
> we both agreed it was crap. Flip. Flip. Flip.
>
> I've come to the conclusion that cable tv, like insurance, is a giant
> scam to get people to waste their hard-earned money to get almost
> nothing in return.
>
> Contrast that with over-the-air TV where I get around 25 channels and
> hundreds of shows at no cost. Much better deal in my humble opinion,
> and for those few shows I don't get to see (like Battlestar Galactica)
> I can rent on DVD for cheap. I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
> a year on cable.
As long as you have a computer and high-speed Internet,
there is also Internet TV. Lots of TV channels broadcast over the
Internet.
You can get dozens of channels from foreign countries, something you
can't even get from your local cable provider (except a handful from
other North American countries). You can watch TV stations from Africa,
Asia, etc.
And soon, the HDMI standard will let you watch HD TV on your PC over the
Internet.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
In article <uuxVl.17579$pr6.4683@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com>,
"QN" <hidingfromyou@example.com> wrote:
> > Contrast that with over-the-air TV where I get around 25 channels and
> > hundreds of shows at no cost. Much better deal in my humble opinion,
> > and for those few shows I don't get to see (like Battlestar Galactica)
> > I can rent on DVD for cheap. I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
> > a year on cable.
>
> After the 6 month discount my cable TV cost will become uncomfortably large.
Just call back and ask them to reinstate the discount.
It's free to ask.
We have two wired cable providers going through my backyard; my provider
is happy to reinstate my $20 discount every year. They'd make it
permanent, at least the CSRs would, but the computer system is
programmed for yearly expiration--no doubt to get more money from people
who forget to call back and ask, or who are too AFRAID to ask. Sheesh.
$65 for 90 analog channels plus 15/2 broadband. A couple of ReplayTVs
watch it for me, and I watch ReplayTV.
In article
<c3a8d476-84ee-4b76-9923-a84292b81198@k20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Put multiple people in the house, though, and the equation changes. *
> > If/when you have a wife and children, you will look back at what you
> > wrote and laugh.
>
> Perhaps but I doubt it. My brother has both a wife and kid, and they
> both say they'd cancel the cable if it wasn't for their daughter.
If it weren't for the kids, I'd probably cancel and let the Replays
figure out OTA for me. Or just go Netflix/Hulu.
> I
> told them that we grew-up without cable television, and I'm sure the
> daughter would survive just fine without it too. I also added that
> they can get childrens programming 24 hours a day through Qubo, and it
> costs nothing. There's also kiddie shows on PBS and the This movie
> channel.
Kids grow up WAY more quickly than you imagine, and those are only
short-term solutions. OTOH, I agree completely--I grew up without
cable, and it didn't kill me. If you're a parent with some balls and
can stand the short-term grumbling, you can eliminate TV altogether.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks