MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Saturday, September 20, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 66.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

I'm still not paying for cable, assholes

Badgers, Packers, Mallards. Paddling, running, golfing. And bikes!

I'm still not paying for cable, assholes

Postby pjbogart » Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:45 pm

I'm getting sick of this ESPN/Big Ten Network, money grubbing sportscasts that cut me off from a rare instance where I actually want to watch something on TV. I couldn't tell you the night or time of a single syndicated television show and my television rarely leaves HDMI 1 (Blu ray player) or HDMI 2 (Xbox). So I picked up some beer and hot wings and sat down to watch the national championship game tonight... doh! You have to be fucking kidding me! I checked ESPN3, which I used to be able to use to watch a game but now it asks you to sign in with your cable provider. Really? You can't throw a few ads at me here and there and let me stream the game?

Fuck ESPN. And ABC/Disney. You want less people to watch the game? Really? Congratu-fucking-lations. I'm not watching. I'm not watching the game, I'm not watching the ads during the game. I guess you can only sell beer and pizza to people who pay for cable, right?

Assholes.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6154
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: I'm still not paying for cable, assholes

Postby Stebben84 » Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:50 pm

I felt the same way with the Rose Bowl. Assholes.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4843
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: I'm still not paying for cable, assholes

Postby fennel » Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:24 pm

I never quite grocked the idea of paying money to watch TV that has ads. But I might pay for TV if I didn't have to encounter or subsidize spurtz channels. (Once every four years, I might watch a bit of the World Cup, but that's it.)

And unless you're talking about Soylent Green, it's fewer people, not less people.
fennel
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3173
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: Inside the Green Zone, Madison

Re: I'm still not paying for cable, assholes

Postby pjbogart » Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:53 pm

Stebben84 wrote:I felt the same way with the Rose Bowl. Assholes.


I worked during the Rose Bowl. That was on ESPN too? Wow, what a bunch of assholes.

Seriously, if it were pay-per-view I'd consider it a calculated business risk. You might shut out some fans, but those who pay will make it more profitable. But this is ESPN. It's owned by ABC/Disney. They CHOSE to shut out fans. What, the advertising during CSI-Fargo is so profitable that you couldn't air the National Championship? On a fucking Monday night???

Well, the game is a blow-out anyway. I'll save my wings for a movie... absolutely free to watch, fuckwads! Have you ever watched The Spiderwick Chronicles while eating hot wings? It's excellent. Almost as good as Mountain Dew and Colby cheese. But I don't have any Mountain Dew or Colby cheese so I'll go with Leinenkugel's, hot wings and The Spiderwick Chronicles.

With Marzetti's Chunky Blue Cheese. Hey, you spelled that wrong, jackasses. It's Bleu cheese! Unless you're a fuckhead like Flanders, in which case it's "American moldy cheese that's not made in France but still tastes like my sister's ass."

I Probably should have put this in the drunk post thread.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6154
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: I'm still not paying for cable, assholes

Postby scratch » Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:02 am

pjbogart wrote:I Probably should have put this in the drunk post thread.


Or perhaps you could have posted it to Charles Barkley's list of "White People's problems."
scratch
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 741
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:00 pm
Location: Dane County

Re: I'm still not paying for cable, assholes

Postby green union terrace chair » Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:29 pm

fennel wrote:I never quite grocked the idea of paying money to watch TV that has ads. But I might pay for TV if I didn't have to encounter or subsidize spurtz channels. (Once every four years, I might watch a bit of the World Cup, but that's it.)

To be fair, there are lots of media that you pay for and have ads. Magazines, newspapers, movies, DVDs. Without ads the cost would be a lot higher.

I'd love to see what the TRUE COST would be if you could order your cable channels a la carte. But it would probably mean I get the ten channels I watch the most and still pay the same monthly rate.

And I am also on board with the rage against Disney/ABC/ESPN for not showing the Rose Bowl on ABC.
green union terrace chair
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2876
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:33 pm
Location: Memorial Union

Re: I'm still not paying for cable, assholes

Postby Crockett » Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:02 pm

Via The New Yorker:

The simple argument for unbundling is: “If I pay sixty dollars for a hundred channels, I’d pay a fraction of that for sixteen channels.” But that’s not how à-la-carte pricing would work. Instead, the prices for individual channels would soar, and the providers, who wouldn’t be facing any more competition than before, would tweak prices, perhaps on a customer-by-customer basis, to maintain their revenue. That doesn’t necessarily mean that Bravo would suddenly cost fifteen dollars a month, but there’s little evidence to suggest that à-la-carte packages would be generally cheaper than the current bundles. One recent paper on the subject, in fact, estimated the best-case gain to consumers at thirty-five cents a month. But even if it wasn’t a boon to consumers an à-la-carte system would inject huge uncertainty into the cable business, and many cable networks wouldn’t get enough subscribers to survive. That’s a future that the industry would like to avoid.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial ... z2HQLkXoGs
Crockett
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1206
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:37 am

Re: I'm still not paying for cable, assholes

Postby Kenneth Burns » Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:48 pm

My problem with paying for cable, and the reason I don't have cable, is that I don't care about what's on cable. I'm not a sports fan, and reality TV mainly bores me. The yammering on news channels makes me want to claw my eyes out. I'm interested in prestige dramas like "Mad Men," but not enough to shell out for cable when I can catch up via streams or downloads later.

I use a DVR to record broadcast stuff only (an unusual application, I realize), and I have Netflix streaming and Amazon Prime, and sometimes I download rental videos from Amazon. And I have more than enough to watch.

Cable used to be special. There's a reason you still see hotel signs that say HBO. But the traditional broadcast and cable programming models won't last forever. The day will come, probably before long, that debates about à la carte cable channels will be moot.
Kenneth Burns
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2991
Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 3:14 pm

Re: I'm still not paying for cable, assholes

Postby fennel » Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:07 pm

green union terrace chair wrote:
fennel wrote:I never quite grocked the idea of paying money to watch TV that has ads. But I might pay for TV if I didn't have to encounter or subsidize spurtz channels. (Once every four years, I might watch a bit of the World Cup, but that's it.)

To be fair, there are lots of media that you pay for and have ads. Magazines, newspapers, movies, DVDs. Without ads the cost would be a lot higher.
There are? Lemme think ... Nope. I do eviscerate the weekly New Yorker on arrival, so I don't see many ads there. And that's about it. No newspaper ads, since I read online. No movies ads, unless you're talking about product placement. I don't know what a DVD ad is. No ads in print books ...

Depsite Surowiecki's interesting article, I'd sure like to try a 3-channel ad-free option to see whether it works for me. Until then, in any case, ours will remain a cable-free household
fennel
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3173
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: Inside the Green Zone, Madison

Re: I'm still not paying for cable, assholes

Postby Kenneth Burns » Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:23 pm

fennel wrote:No movies ads, unless you're talking about product placement.

Oh, how I wish you were right. How I wish I could get back the 25 minutes that I spent watching ads before a "Skyfall" screening the other day.
Kenneth Burns
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2991
Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 3:14 pm

Re: I'm still not paying for cable, assholes

Postby pjbogart » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:14 pm

Alright you jokers, you're getting off-track. The issue is: if Disney owns ABC/ESPN and ESPN bids a big pile of money to air the Rose Bowl or National Championship game, why can't they put it on ABC so everyone can watch? What interest do these dickfors have in shutting out a sizable segment of the population from watching the game? Broadcasts make money off ad revenue. Cable channels get less ad revenue than network TV because they reach less viewers. So why would you buy the broadcast rights and then limit your ad revenue?

Seriously, we need to put Alex Jones on this one. Who's paying who to keep major sporting events off of Network TV? Are the cable companies giving a kickback to ESPN? Are they better able to justify obscene user fees to sportsbars by ensuring that a certain number of major sporting events are cable only?

And why would the NCAA agree to this setup? Don't they have an interest in protecting their brand by maximizing their audience? The NFL also sells games to ESPN, but even if ESPN is the highest bidder, don't they risk alienating fans by limiting viewership? Is next year's Superbowl going to be on ESPN? IF that's the case, why not just make it pay-per-view?
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6154
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: I'm still not paying for cable, assholes

Postby O.J. » Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:55 am

pjbogart wrote:Alright you jokers, you're getting off-track. The issue is: if Disney owns ABC/ESPN and ESPN bids a big pile of money to air the Rose Bowl or National Championship game, why can't they put it on ABC so everyone can watch? What interest do these dickfors have in shutting out a sizable segment of the population from watching the game? Broadcasts make money off ad revenue. Cable channels get less ad revenue than network TV because they reach less viewers. So why would you buy the broadcast rights and then limit your ad revenue?


They believe it will lead to increased revenues down the road.

... ESPN became the exclusive broadcaster of the BCS (and almost all bowl games) and wanted to highlight that accomplishment by televising even the most marketable games on the cable flagship, rather than its more widely-viewed broadcast cousin.

Though Disney certainly sacrificed some ratings to air all the bowl games on ESPN, it figures to see a ratings boost across all 35 bowl games throughout the four-year television agreement by streamlining its telecasts across the Worldwide Leader.
O.J.
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2988
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:13 am

Re: I'm still not paying for cable, assholes

Postby fisticuffs » Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:00 am

There's a watch ESPN app for almost every platform, and also a website that streams live ESPN.
http://espn.go.com/watchespn/index

If you don't want to pay for cable, don't bitch about not being able to see programming that's only on cable. No one owes you a Rose Bowl free over the airwaves. It's a product that got sold for a very very high price and not giving it away for free isn't that ridiculous.
fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7800
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison

Re: I'm still not paying for cable, assholes

Postby Stebben84 » Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:00 am

fisticuffs wrote:
If you don't want to pay for cable, don't bitch about not being able to see programming that's only on cable. No one owes you a Rose Bowl free over the airwaves. It's a product that got sold for a very very high price and not giving it away for free isn't that ridiculous.


Fair enough, but why stop there? With this in mind they should probably put all major sporting events on cable. Superbowl, playoffs, world series and hell, while they're at it, all of the Olympics as well.

If you think about it, with what it costs to make tv shows and other programs, they should just eliminate network programming altogether. A couple hours of the news and then infomercials.

Aside from the snark, I just wish ESPN and others would make it possible to watch streaming WITHOUT having one of their selected providers. If I've got those carriers I can probably watch it on the tv anyway. Charge me a couple bucks or something for a game online. Unless there is a way to do this and I missed it.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4843
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: I'm still not paying for cable, assholes

Postby fisticuffs » Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:06 am

Aside from the snark, I just wish ESPN and others would make it possible to watch streaming WITHOUT having one of their selected providers. If I've got those carriers I can probably watch it on the tv anyway. Charge me a couple bucks or something for a game online. Unless there is a way to do this and I missed it.


It's not ESPN, or HBO or any other content provider it's the cable companies. They also spent a very large sum of money for that programming and don't want ESPN etc. giving it away for free on the internet. And no it doesn't bother me. If you don't want to pay for cable you can find someone who does and go to their house or any bar/restaurant to watch these games. Or you can pay for cable. See, you have choices.
fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7800
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison

Next

Return to Sports, Recreation & Biking

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar