DUmmies Discuss Cable TV Service

[GOBUCKS]

A whole host of DUmmies show up to complain about their cable TV. Since few of them work, we taxpayers are picking up the tab. I'd like to see a little more gratitude from these freeloaders:

mfcorey1  (1000+ posts)       Wed Jul-20-11 03:27 AM
Original message
Cable TV companies are the biggest rip off. I am trying to convince my daughter to downsize the premium package that she has. I am visiting her and a good deal of the channels are advertising infomercials. Why pay for someone's advertising? The cable company has the channel's package so "screw you" that if you want certain channels, the infomercials are wrapped in the package. This infomercial intrusion is especially dominant at night and late owls are subjected to everything for sale from bras to vacuum cleaners.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1528459
Everyone loves to get advice like that from their moonbat mother.

MADem (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-20-11 03:37 AM
Response to Original message
2. Grab the remote and change the channel. You can usually find a film or something
mindless on one of the 'specialty' channels to watch (that is not an infomercial).

 

I've never run into this DUmmy before. He has promise, and I hope he begins to post more often:

Enthusiast  (1000+ posts)        Wed Jul-20-11 03:48 AM
Response to Original message
3. This is what happens when the government represents corporate interests at the expense of the consumer. We should have REAL competition and reasonable prices. It's bullshit just like the rest of this suck ass second rate right wing nation.

   
With this one post, DUmmy Enthusiast has already provided more entertainment than the catbox squatter with his 100 posts per day.

KT2000  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-20-11 04:37 AM
Response to Original message
4. As a night owl
I am totally disgusted with the infomercial programming that is on most of the stations. I have satellite and live on the West Coast so the infomercials start early. When I complained to the company they said they are not responsible for programming?!?!?!

 

Raine  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-20-11 05:02 AM
Response to Original message
6. Those infomericials really piss me off. I have insomnia
and might still be awake till 5:00-6:00 in the morning and just about every network has that crap on. It's wrong that we are paying for those infomericials that go on for hours.   

   

eilen  (1000+ posts)        Wed Jul-20-11 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #6
27. Really? I find Home Shopping Network and QVC 
oddly soothing. There is little variation in tone and no flashy light changes.

 
It's tough being DUmmy eilen, functioning with nothing but a brain stem.

hobbit709  (1000+ posts)        Wed Jul-20-11 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. I tried internet streaming.
Unfortunately the shows I wanted to watch are NOT on Roku, Hulu, or Netflix.

I don't think any of those services offer hardcore pornography.

Frank Cannon (1000+ posts)        Wed Jul-20-11 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Netflix is continually adding to their catalog of TV shows
Sure, you have to wait for them to show up, but big deal. Patience is a virtue.

After going through all of their Mythbusters episodes, right now I'm working my way through every episode of Star Trek that I never saw before.

Frank Cannon (1000+ posts)        Wed Jul-20-11 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. I have not had cable TV in nearly 20 years.
I think I missed having it the first year. Now I only feel sorry for people who pay through the nose for that crap.

 
 

no_hypocrisy  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-20-11 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. Happy with my Ludite analog TV service.
And I rarely watch that.

The Luddite DUmmy no_hypcrisy may not be able to spell "Luddite", but he's the only DUmbass in the DUmp who still receives
analog TV service.


Gotta agree with this DUmmy:
ejpoeta 

(1000+ posts)        Wed Jul-20-11 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #10
20. i missed the history channel when it disappeared into the armageddon/alien/reality channel.

Raschel (1000+ posts)     Wed Jul-20-11 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
23. I hate that many channels on cable run the same show over and over. What variety.
I keep telling myself I'm going to cancel, just not sure what I should get to replace it.

I am going through chemo so I do need something to watch. If I wasn't, I would just chuck the whole dang thing.

I wish I could find another replay of today's Tour de France race.

 

Shagbark Hickory (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-20-11 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
24. I may be switching down from the top programming package myself...

Is DUmmy Shagbark Hickory a new incarnation of Pam Dawson?


 

[DumbAss Tanker]

...I'd like to see a little more gratitude from these freeloaders

Been trying out the wacky weed?

[Evil_Conservative]

Raine  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-20-11 05:02 AM
Response to Original message
6. Those infomericials really piss me off. I have insomnia
and might still be awake till 5:00-6:00 in the morning and just about every network has that crap on. It's wrong that we are paying for those infomericials that go on for hours.  

If you know the programming is crap, why turn on the TV at that hour?  I thought everyone knew that nothing good comes on until you all wake up, around noon.

hobbit709  (1000+ posts)        Wed Jul-20-11 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. I tried internet streaming.
Unfortunately the shows I wanted to watch are NOT on Roku, Hulu, or Netflix.

You can't find new shows to watch?  Ever since we got Netflix streaming through our PS3, I've found so many new shows and movies I probably never would have watched.

Frank Cannon (1000+ posts)        Wed Jul-20-11 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. I have not had cable TV in nearly 20 years.
I think I missed having it the first year. Now I only feel sorry for people who pay through the nose for that crap.

True.  We wouldn't have cable at all, but it's included in our rent.  Boo.  We had no cable when we lived in Phoenix.  I think Cox is a rip off.  The price in our rent is $42 a month for basic extended cable, not including HD channels (except for the local channels).  Huge waste of money.  We are much happier with the $9 per month rate for Netflix.

[I_B_Perky]

Raine  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-20-11 05:02 AM
Response to Original message
6. Those infomericials really piss me off. I have insomnia
and might still be awake till 5:00-6:00 in the morning and just about every network has that crap on. It's wrong that we are paying for those infomericials that go on for hours.   

I am reminded of an episode on the Beverly Hillbillies. Grannie (in doctor mode) was in with a real doctor. In walks this older lady telling the real doc that she still couldn't sleep. So Granny asks her what she did all day. Turns out, pretty much nothing. So Granny tells her to get out of her expensive dress, clean the floors, dust, etc. The lady horrified left in a huff. The real Doc gets on Granny for treating patients disrespectfully. Long story short, the lady came back the next day, said she did what Granny said, and slept like a baby.

SO dummy, my advice for your insomnia is this:

GET A FREAKING JOB!!!  After 8 hours of work (hey 10-12 hrs is way too much for dummies, gotta start somewhere though) I bet you will sleep like a rock.

[Karin]

Good point, Perky!  Look at at that quote from Raine.  It's got whiney victim written all over it.  As for OP, mind your own damned business with your grown daughter.  You're driving her nuts.

[compaqxp]

SO dummy, my advice for your insomnia is this:

GET A FREAKING JOB!!!  After 8 hours of work (hey 10-12 hrs is way too much for dummies, gotta start somewhere though) I bet you will sleep like a rock.

I'd like to say it's that simple and while I think many of the dummies just need an excuse, I can personally say it's not that simple.

Also ...

Cable TV companies are the biggest rip off.

I agree, thus the reason I get free over the air analog tv and stream the rest via the net.

[Doc]

Also ...

I agree, thus the reason I get free over the air analog tv and stream the rest via the net.

I realize that you're in Canada (and I have no clue what they are doing up there) , but in the US there is no such thing as "over the air analog" TV any longer......all of the analog (NTSC) transmitters were shut down in July of 2009......all off-air TV is digital (8 VSB) here.

The only way you can receive an NTSC analog TV signal here in the US is on a cable system, and they are scheduled to convert to all digital by sometime next year.

doc

[NHSparky]

My only gripe about cable companies is that they don't allow "ala carte" billing.  I don't watch 80 percent of the shit that I have in my cable package, but I'm charged for all those channels just the same.

ESPN, FNC, TNT, USA, a couple of movie channels, and local stations.  Everything else is a bunch of crap.

[TVDOC]

My only gripe about cable companies is that they don't allow "ala carte" billing.  I don't watch 80 percent of the shit that I have in my cable package, but I'm charged for all those channels just the same.

ESPN, FNC, TNT, USA, a couple of movie channels, and local stations.  Everything else is a bunch of crap.

There is a reason for that......revenue......the cable companies have to PAY royalties to carry the most popular programming, while the junk programming requires the network to PAY the cable companies to put it on.  Also the "shopping channels" are always included in the lower tiers because the cable companies get a cut of every dime in merchandise that is ordered by their subscribers.  The only government requirement of cable companies is that they "Must Carry" the local channels so long as they have a full-power license.

doc

[NHSparky]

There is a reason for that......revenue......the cable companies have to PAY royalties to carry the most popular programming, while the junk programming requires the network to PAY the cable companies to put it on.  Also the "shopping channels" are always included in the lower tiers because the cable companies get a cut of every dime in merchandise that is ordered by their subscribers.  The only government requirement of cable companies is that they "Must Carry" the local channels so long as they have a full-power license.

doc

I recall seeing a breakdown of pretty much all the networks/channels at the time and their relative cost to a cable bill.  Not surprisingly, ESPN Networks were by far the highest cost at something like $6 per month, while little-known, little-watched networks were mere pennies, with news networks like FNC, CNN, MSNBC being in the 80 cent-2 dollar a month range.

If the cable companies can have pay-per-view data and know what programs I watch and when, it shouldn't be terribly difficult to offer those networks to me on a per-use or monthly basis.  Much like if I rolled up to ESPN and I get the, "This channel will cost you X per month, do you confirm?" message, I could then watch that until the end of the billing period and be charged accordingly.

And if the lesser networks bitched, well, put some shit on that I want to watch, then maybe I'll pay to watch you, rather than have you leech off me.  Kinda like Democrats.

[franksolich]

This thing about television stations charging cable companies to carry them has always mystified me.

It seems more reasonable to expect the cable companies to charge the television stations.

After all, the television stations are getting a larger audience because of cable, and hence can increase their advertising charges, and hence an increase in their revenues.

I have no idea why such a situation exists; the television stations are getting the benefits, and at the same time are being paid by the cable companies to accept those benefits.

It's a very weird situation.

[GOBUCKS]

This thing about television stations charging cable companies to carry them has always mystified me.

It seems more reasonable to expect the cable companies to charge the television stations.

After all, the television stations are getting a larger audience because of cable, and hence can increase their advertising charges, and hence an increase in their revenues.

I have no idea why such a situation exists; the television stations are getting the benefits, and at the same time are being paid by the cable companies to accept those benefits.

It's a very weird situation.

The cable company doesn't pay a dime to the TV networks. It's exactly like a tax on any other corporation.  They take the money from us, and then send it to the network.

[franksolich]

The cable company doesn't pay a dime to the TV networks. It's exactly like a tax on any other corporation.  They take the money from us, and then send it to the network.

I'm thinking of a situation that happened in Lincoln, Nebraska, in the early 1990s.

One of the television stations there wanted to charge the local cable company a great deal of money for carrying their channel.  The cable company balked.

Because of the cable company carrying that station, its audience was tripled, as compared with what the audience would be if it wasn't carried by the cable company.

It seemed to me the television station was on the gravy train.....and demanding yet more gravy.

I dunno how it ever got resolved, because shortly thereafter I headed 8,000 miles east.

[TVDOC]

I recall seeing a breakdown of pretty much all the networks/channels at the time and their relative cost to a cable bill.  Not surprisingly, ESPN Networks were by far the highest cost at something like $6 per month, while little-known, little-watched networks were mere pennies, with news networks like FNC, CNN, MSNBC being in the 80 cent-2 dollar a month range.

If the cable companies can have pay-per-view data and know what programs I watch and when, it shouldn't be terribly difficult to offer those networks to me on a per-use or monthly basis.  Much like if I rolled up to ESPN and I get the, "This channel will cost you X per month, do you confirm?" message, I could then watch that until the end of the billing period and be charged accordingly.

And if the lesser networks bitched, well, put some shit on that I want to watch, then maybe I'll pay to watch you, rather than have you leech off me.  Kinda like Democrats.

Well....you've just described why they DON'T do it the way you want.......they either could never make any money out of it, or for the more popular channels they'd have to  charge such a high price on a pay-per-view basis that you wouldn't want it.

In a way it makes sense from a business model perspective......they use the revenue that they generate from giving you the junk that you don't generally watch to offset what is the increased cost of the more popular shows.

Look at it this way (they are not a non-profit organization), they could, on a ala carte basis let you watch QVC for $1.00 per month (because they derive income from QVC other than what your subscription costs are), but on the same basis they'd have to charge you $20.00 for monday night football (which they have to pay a large royalty to run).

If they priced every channel ala carte, you'd end up paying far more for the same programming than you do in a "package" due to the other revenue that is generated by offering you the stuff that you don't generally watch.  They get paid (by the network) just for making it "available", whether anyone watches it or not.

doc

[TVDOC]

The cable company doesn't pay a dime to the TV networks. It's exactly like a tax on any other corporation.  They take the money from us, and then send it to the network.

Absolutely wrong.....they don't pay a dime to the local over the air broadcasters (whether they are network of independent) ONLY....due to the "Must Carry" law.

All other programming that they make available such as sports, movies, channels like TNT, WGN, Spike, ESPN, HGTV, History, SiFi, etc. they have to pay for access, except for the shopping channels.

doc

[franksolich]

Absolutely wrong.....they don't pay a dime to the local over the air broadcasters (whether they are network of independent) ONLY....due to the "Must Carry" law.

All other programming that they make available such as sports, movies, channels like TNT, WGN, Spike, ESPN, HGTV, History, SiFi, etc. they have to pay for access, except for the shopping channels.

Well, this was a long time ago, but I got the impression from watching the controversy, that KOLN-KGIN in Lincoln was already getting a free ride, and then they were demanding to be paid for the free ride, too.

[Doc]

I realize that you're in Canada (and I have no clue what they are doing up there) , but in the US there is no such thing as "over the air analog" TV any longer......all of the analog (NTSC) transmitters were shut down in July of 2009......all off-air TV is digital (8 VSB) here.

The only way you can receive an NTSC analog TV signal here in the US is on a cable system, and they are scheduled to convert to all digital by sometime next year.

doc

Really? I thought I'd read that it would but I didn't recall if it had happened or not. Ours are *technically* going to shut down August 31, but only in some places. I'll still get free TV for at least a few more years after which I'll just get everything from online services.

[TVDOC]

Well, this was a long time ago, but I got the impression from watching the controversy, that KOLN-KGIN in Lincoln was already getting a free ride, and then they were demanding to be paid for the free ride, too.

Well.......the "must Carry" law is complicated, and is hard to explain.  The way it works (sorta) is any cable company within "reasonable receiving distance" (typically about 70 miles) of a city with a group of over-the-air broadcasters, the cable company has to carry their broadcasts in their lowest tier (basic) for free (no charge to the broadcaster, or the cable company).

If a cable company is more than the requisite 70 miles from the transmitter, OR the city with the stations is missing a network broadcaster.......in order for that network to be offered on the cable system is to PAY the cable company for access.

There have been a number of legal efforts by the major networks (CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, et al) to charge cable companies for their signal outside of the "Must Carry" radius.  I've never heard of one that has suceeded.

doc

[franksolich]

But 1991, 1992, was perhaps before this "must carry" regulation was invented?