Glad I don't waste 700/year on cable

[Cable Shill]

SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>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.
>

Your head is too thick to consider all variables. You want only what
you want, want it cheap and damn the others. There's no way your $700
a year will render any profit for the cable company's efforts. Be off,
go troll some other newsgroup.
--
"From spongecake to satellites, it's gotta be Krebstar"

[David Johnston]

On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:18:26 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
<SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>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.

Well no. You'd still need to pay for the service itself.

[RickMerrill]

SFTV_troy wrote:
> 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.
>
>

There is an unadvertized special on for a cable box to replace the
channels you used-to-get.

[f/fgeorge]

>>I'm glad I canceled my Comcast subscription back in 2002 if this is
>>the kind of service they provide.
>>

And yet here you are 7 YEARS later still BITCHING about what it USED
to cost you or even what it COULD cost you if you still had it!!!! LET
IT GO DUDE! You are now officially a TROLL!!! SEVEN YEARS of bitching
is enough!!!

[SFTV_troy]

On Jun 3, 11:41*pm, Cable Shill <cable_sh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Your head is too thick to consider all variables. You want only what
> you want, want it cheap and damn the others. There's no way your $700
> a year will render any profit for the cable company's efforts.



You're right. You're not getting my $700 a year. I hope you and your
company go bankrupt (like Circuit City did). Poor service begets lose
of business.

And there are no "variables" to consider. Free tv is free tv.
Nothing Comcast cable has to offer can beat that. Even their
internet is overpriced - $60 a month??? Verizon DSL only costs me
$15.

[SFTV_troy]

On Jun 4, 1:00*am, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:18:26 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
>
> >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.
>
> Well no. *You'd still need to pay for the service itself. *



Okay add $5 for the hookup fee. $11 is still a heck of a lot cheaper
than their current price of $60.

[SFTV_troy]

On Jun 3, 4:37*pm, WQ <w...@email.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2:12*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >*(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..*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.




Except it's not forced. The cable company voluntarily pays those
subscriber fees; they could drop the channel if they think it's too
much. And of course you voluntarily subscribe to the company; you
could cancel it or drop to locals-only service (~$10 a month).

PBS on the other hand is not voluntary - the money's sucked directly
from your paycheck whether you like it or not.

[David Johnston]

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 14:26:01 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
<SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jun 4, 1:00*am, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:18:26 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> Well no. *You'd still need to pay for the service itself. *
>
>
>
>Okay add $5 for the hookup fee.

Really? You think that would pay the operational expenses of the
company do you?

[SFTV_troy]

On Jun 4, 8:35*am, RickMerrill <Rick0.merr...@gmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> SFTV_troy wrote:
>
> > 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...
>
> There is an unadvertized special on for a cable box
> to replace the channels you used-to-get.




Yes I know and it was advertised repeatedly. Comcast expected us to
rent a digital box for an extra $5/month to get TCM, which we used to
get free with the basic package. Greedy bastards.

[WQ]

On Jun 4, 5:31*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 4:37*pm, WQ <w...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 3, 2:12*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >*(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..*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.
>
> Except it's not forced. *The cable company voluntarily pays those
> subscriber fees; they could drop the channel if they think it's too
> much. *And of course you voluntarily subscribe to the company; you
> could cancel it or drop to locals-only service (~$10 a month).

--- Where do you get the idea that the cable companies voluntarily pay
subscriber fees? There's no voluntary at all when they have to pay
for all the cable networks they carry. It's voluntary if they could
decide for themselves who to pay whenever they want to pay them and if
they want to pay them at all while carrying their signals. Even if
they drop a signal that might be popular with viewers in the cable
universe, they'd still have to pay for a less popular signal they'd
replace it with, so there's no voluntary payment on their part, just
as there's no voluntary payment on yours when you subscribe to cable.
It's a system designed to subsidize cable networks that for the most
part have no business being in business because without that forced
extraction of money from you to support them, they couldn't exist.
There's nothing voluntary about anything in that. Of course, you
could decide not to have cable, but that's not the point. The point
is that once you get it, you're forcibly paying for stuff you really
don't want to get the few things you do want.

> PBS on the other hand is not voluntary - the money's sucked directly
> from your paycheck whether you like it or not.

--- There's a reason why it's called PUBLIC Broadcasting System. Then
again, if you're going to complain about any sucking sounds coming out
of your pocket, direct it at all those companies and banks that got
bailouts. At least PBS is providing some decent documentary, news and
cultural arts programming, not to mention more sensible kids shows.

[Bob (not my real pseudonym)]

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:06:21 -0700 (PDT), WQ <wq@email.com> wrote:

>On Jun 4, 5:31*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> PBS on the other hand is not voluntary - the money's sucked directly
>> from your paycheck whether you like it or not.
>
>--- There's a reason why it's called PUBLIC Broadcasting System. Then
>again, if you're going to complain about any sucking sounds coming out
>of your pocket, direct it at all those companies and banks that got
>bailouts. At least PBS is providing some decent documentary, news and
>cultural arts programming, not to mention more sensible kids shows.

If the shows are so good, why can't they support themselves without a
30% gov't subsidy? And it seems that just about any time I go by the
local PBS station these days, they are whining for more...

[$Bill]

Bob (not my real pseudonym) wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:06:21 -0700 (PDT), WQ <wq@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 4, 5:31 pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> PBS on the other hand is not voluntary - the money's sucked directly
>>> from your paycheck whether you like it or not.
>> --- There's a reason why it's called PUBLIC Broadcasting System. Then
>> again, if you're going to complain about any sucking sounds coming out
>> of your pocket, direct it at all those companies and banks that got
>> bailouts. At least PBS is providing some decent documentary, news and
>> cultural arts programming, not to mention more sensible kids shows.
>
> If the shows are so good, why can't they support themselves without a
> 30% gov't subsidy? And it seems that just about any time I go by the
> local PBS station these days, they are whining for more...

Geez, they don't have commercials to pay for their programming - how
do you expect them to broadcast without some sort of cash inflow ?
They depend on donations from wherever they can get them.

[Bill]

On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 04:12:19 -0700, "Bob (not my real pseudonym)"
<nerp@nope.nyet> wrote:

>On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:06:21 -0700 (PDT), WQ <wq@email.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 4, 5:31*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> PBS on the other hand is not voluntary - the money's sucked directly
>>> from your paycheck whether you like it or not.
>>
>>--- There's a reason why it's called PUBLIC Broadcasting System. Then
>>again, if you're going to complain about any sucking sounds coming out
>>of your pocket, direct it at all those companies and banks that got
>>bailouts. At least PBS is providing some decent documentary, news and
>>cultural arts programming, not to mention more sensible kids shows.
>
>If the shows are so good, why can't they support themselves without a
>30% gov't subsidy? And it seems that just about any time I go by the
>local PBS station these days, they are whining for more...

I can't remember the last time I watched something on PBS. Not only is
the programming incredibly poor overall, the constant begging for
donations is a deal breaker.

--
Bill

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

In alt.online-service.comcast SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>

If it is a waste of money as far as you are concerned, then I am glad that you
don't waste your money on it. Too many people waste money on things they
don't use the way it is. It is good that you are fiscally responsible; at
least; on this one point.

Having said that, one might argue that your intent was to actually troll this
group and it appears that you have done that with mixed results. I hope that
your expectations were met whatever your intent.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

[Mike Gibson]

"Bill" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:25bi2511joa8quojt26ru0j0021h1ng9re@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 04:12:19 -0700, "Bob (not my real pseudonym)"
> <nerp@nope.nyet> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:06:21 -0700 (PDT), WQ <wq@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 4, 5:31 pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> PBS on the other hand is not voluntary - the money's sucked directly
>>>> from your paycheck whether you like it or not.
>>>
>>>--- There's a reason why it's called PUBLIC Broadcasting System. Then
>>>again, if you're going to complain about any sucking sounds coming out
>>>of your pocket, direct it at all those companies and banks that got
>>>bailouts. At least PBS is providing some decent documentary, news and
>>>cultural arts programming, not to mention more sensible kids shows.
>>
>>If the shows are so good, why can't they support themselves without a
>>30% gov't subsidy? And it seems that just about any time I go by the
>>local PBS station these days, they are whining for more...
>
> I can't remember the last time I watched something on PBS. Not only is
> the programming incredibly poor overall, the constant begging for
> donations is a deal breaker.
>
> --
> Bill




The real kicker is every time they claim they only do so one week a year.
Last time I checked a year was 52 weeks. PBS seems to think a year is 28
days. Big Bird & company promoting same sex unions is not what I would call
quality children's programming. I'm damn tired of hearing that all Muslims
are my friends and it's my fault many of them want to kill me. Force feeding
the Spanish ( Mexican ) language on my children and grand children is
unacceptable. They do not *need* to be able to speak any specific foreign
language and if they want to they can take language classes for the
languages they want to learn without brain-washing techniques.

[AuldPhart]

On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:37:04 -0500, Bill <none@none.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 04:12:19 -0700, "Bob (not my real pseudonym)"
><nerp@nope.nyet> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:06:21 -0700 (PDT), WQ <wq@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 4, 5:31*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> PBS on the other hand is not voluntary - the money's sucked directly
>>>> from your paycheck whether you like it or not.
>>>
>>>--- There's a reason why it's called PUBLIC Broadcasting System. Then
>>>again, if you're going to complain about any sucking sounds coming out
>>>of your pocket, direct it at all those companies and banks that got
>>>bailouts. At least PBS is providing some decent documentary, news and
>>>cultural arts programming, not to mention more sensible kids shows.
>>
>>If the shows are so good, why can't they support themselves without a
>>30% gov't subsidy? And it seems that just about any time I go by the
>>local PBS station these days, they are whining for more...
>
>I can't remember the last time I watched something on PBS. Not only is
>the programming incredibly poor overall, the constant begging for
>donations is a deal breaker.
>
The only thing I watch on PBS are the British comedies on Sat. evening.
Everything else is liberal left wing crap or begging.

[Smarty Pants]

"AuldPhart" <auldphart@the.home> wrote in message
news:38bj251kuvdlp4c5uo18bq3tfgtl8ik1gv@4ax.com...
> The only thing I watch on PBS are the British comedies on Sat.
> evening.
> Everything else is liberal left wing crap

What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?

Did you Rush Limpdick dittoheads forget it's Joe Sixpack-Taxpayer that's
bailing out the capitalist insurance and elite banking geniuses?

> or begging.

Begging?

Isn't that what the banks, insurance and Wall Street geniuses are doing?

Hey, lets get a government bailout so we can reward our executives with
multi-million-dollar bonuses.

It's Robin Hood in reverse. Rob from the poor taxpayer and give to the
corporate elite.

[AuldPhart]

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 21:42:38 -0400, "Smarty Pants"
<smarty.pants@C0MCAST.NET> wrote:

>
>"AuldPhart" <auldphart@the.home> wrote in message
>news:38bj251kuvdlp4c5uo18bq3tfgtl8ik1gv@4ax.com...
>> The only thing I watch on PBS are the British comedies on Sat.
>> evening.
>> Everything else is liberal left wing crap
>
>What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?

I've never heard any truth from a left wing liberal.

>Did you Rush Limpdick dittoheads forget it's Joe Sixpack-Taxpayer that's
>bailing out the capitalist insurance and elite banking geniuses?

Ummm, I don't listen to Rush. He's a hard right winger. I'm an
independent.

>> or begging.
>
>Begging?
>
>Isn't that what the banks, insurance and Wall Street geniuses are doing?

Ummmm, no. Your messiah, Prez. Yomama forced it on them. They want
to pay it back, but Yomama says NO.

>Hey, lets get a government bailout so we can reward our executives with
>multi-million-dollar bonuses.
>
>It's Robin Hood in reverse. Rob from the poor taxpayer and give to the
>corporate elite.
>
Yeah, yeah...and I bet you watch Keith olbermann every night to get
your news. LMAO!!

[WQ]

On Jun 6, 12:14*am, AuldPhart <auldph...@the.home> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 21:42:38 -0400, "Smarty Pants"
>
> <smarty.pa...@C0MCAST.NET> wrote:
>
> >"AuldPhart" <auldph...@the.home> wrote in message
> >news:38bj251kuvdlp4c5uo18bq3tfgtl8ik1gv@4ax.com...
> >> The only thing I watch on PBS are the British comedies on Sat.
> >> evening.
> >> Everything else is liberal left wing crap
>
> >What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?
>
> I've never heard any truth from a left wing liberal.

--- Yeah, and we all know about the truths we've been fed by right
wingnuts, don't we? What was that reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq
again...?

> >Did you Rush Limpdick dittoheads forget it's Joe Sixpack-Taxpayer that's
> >bailing out the capitalist insurance and elite banking geniuses?
>
> Ummm, I don't listen to Rush. He's a hard right winger. I'm an
> independent.
>
> >> or begging.
>
> >Begging?
>
> >Isn't that what the banks, insurance and Wall Street geniuses are doing?
>
> Ummmm, no. Your messiah, Prez. Yomama forced it on them. They want
> to pay it back, but Yomama says NO.

--- You need to rewind a bit. It was Bush & Cronies that "forced" it
on them, and with no strings attached.

> >Hey, lets get a government bailout so we can reward our executives with
> >multi-million-dollar bonuses.
>
> >It's Robin Hood in reverse. Rob from the poor taxpayer and give to the
> >corporate elite.
>
> Yeah, yeah...and I bet you watch Keith olbermann every night to get
> your news. LMAO!!

[AuldPhart]

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 22:13:35 -0700 (PDT), WQ <wq@email.com> wrote:

>On Jun 6, 12:14*am, AuldPhart <auldph...@the.home> wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 21:42:38 -0400, "Smarty Pants"
>>
>> <smarty.pa...@C0MCAST.NET> wrote:
>>
>> >"AuldPhart" <auldph...@the.home> wrote in message
>> >news:38bj251kuvdlp4c5uo18bq3tfgtl8ik1gv@4ax.com...
>> >> The only thing I watch on PBS are the British comedies on Sat.
>> >> evening.
>> >> Everything else is liberal left wing crap
>>
>> >What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?
>>
>> I've never heard any truth from a left wing liberal.
>
>--- Yeah, and we all know about the truths we've been fed by right
>wingnuts, don't we? What was that reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq
>again...?

If you don't know, you're too far gone...!

>> >Did you Rush Limpdick dittoheads forget it's Joe Sixpack-Taxpayer that's
>> >bailing out the capitalist insurance and elite banking geniuses?
>>
>> Ummm, I don't listen to Rush. He's a hard right winger. I'm an
>> independent.
>>
>> >> or begging.
>>
>> >Begging?
>>
>> >Isn't that what the banks, insurance and Wall Street geniuses are doing?
>>
>> Ummmm, no. Your messiah, Prez. Yomama forced it on them. They want
>> to pay it back, but Yomama says NO.
>
>--- You need to rewind a bit. It was Bush & Cronies that "forced" it
>on them, and with no strings attached.

No strings attached, eh? Yomama won't let them pay it back.

This is the wrong place for this discussion. I'll be happy to go
somewhere else to continue.

>> >Hey, lets get a government bailout so we can reward our executives with
>> >multi-million-dollar bonuses.
>>
>> >It's Robin Hood in reverse. Rob from the poor taxpayer and give to the
>> >corporate elite.
>>
>> Yeah, yeah...and I bet you watch Keith olbermann every night to get
>> your news. LMAO!!