What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
189 Comments
- inactive, on 06/24/2009, -1/+191For those that dont know. Here is why this is bad.
For years Cable Companies have been selling ads on the cable channels you watch. Ever wonder why you keep seeing Comcast ads to sell you VOIP Phone service? Travel outside of the city and its the same ads, only Time Warner is selling the service. Well they insert those into a cable channels 'ad block'. But most of the time, local companies buy the ads, its cheap and the cable companies make alot of money selling ad slots on MTV, CNN, USA, etc. DirectTV and Dish are at a disadvantage because they don't control any local demographic and end up dealing with national companies, which is more expensive. All of this is fine and dandy, as long as you don't mind more and more ads being squeezed into a 30 min block of programing.
Now comes the internet, then comes broadband speeds, now fiber optic speeds! Speeds so fast that you basically plug your cable box into the internet and stream channels. Give this 10-20 years and your choices of Cable/TV companies to choose from will explode. cable companies wont have a monopoly anymore and that scares the ***** out of them. Sites like Hulu & YouTube, the cable companies have no control over, they cant sell ad time on it because they don't own or control it. They stand to lose their money machine.
Its very similar to how local video stores are dying out, which cable has no problem help driving out of business with Video On Demand. Cable companies may find themselves suffering the same fate, being driven out by a competing technology. Best way to stop it, is to attempt to control it and this is the only way they know how. - Eboyd1079, on 06/24/2009, -3/+175***** comcast
- AaronPDX, on 06/24/2009, -2/+160***** them both. This does not bode well for the consumers.
- mieos, on 06/24/2009, -12/+88. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _________
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./ It’s a trap!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _,,,--~~~~~~~~--,_ . . . . ._________/
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ : : : :::: :::: :: : : : : :º ‘-, . . /. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ :: : : :::: :::: :::: :::: : : :o : ‘-, . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ :: ::: :: : : :: :::: :::: :: : : : : :O ‘-, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .,-‘ : :: :: :: :: :: : : : : : , : : :º :::: :::: ::’; . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .,-‘ / / : :: :: :: :: : : :::: :::-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ; . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . /,-‘,’ :: : : : : : : : : :: :: :: : ‘-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;| . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . /,’,-‘ :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : ::_,-~~,_’-, ;; ;; ;; ;; | . . . . . . .
. . . . . _/ :,’ :/ :: :: :: : : :: :: _,-‘/ : ,-‘;’-‘’’’’~-, ;; ;; ;;,’ . . . . . . . .
. . . ,-‘ / : : : : : : ,-‘’’ : : :,--‘’ :|| /,-‘-‘--‘’’__,’’’ ;; ;,-‘ . . . . . . . .
. . . :/,, : : : _,-‘ --,,_ : : : ||/ /,-‘-‘x### :: ;;/ . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . / /---‘’’’ : # : : : : : | | : (O##º : :/ /-‘’ . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . /,’____ : : ‘-# : , : : : : ‘-,___,-‘,-`-,, . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . ‘ ) : : : :’’’’--,,--,,,,,,¯ :: ::--,,_’’-,,’’’¯ :’- :’-, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .) : : : : : : ,, : ‘’’’~~~~’ :: :: :: :’’’’’¯ :: ,-‘ :,/ . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .,/ /|\| | :/ / : : : : : : : ,’-, :: :: :: :: ::,--‘’ :,-‘ . . . . . . . .
. . . . .\’|\ |/ ‘/ / :: :_--,, : , | )’; :: :: :: :,-‘’ : ,-‘ : : : , . . . . . . .
. . . ./¯ :| | : |/ :: ::----, :/ :|/ :: :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : ‘’-,,_ . . . .
. . ..| : : :/ ‘’-(, :: :: :: ‘’’’’~,,,,,’’ :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : : : :,-‘’’\ . . . .
. ,-‘ : : : | : : ‘’) : : :¯’’’’~-,: : ,--‘’’ : :,-‘’ : : : : : : : : : ,-‘ :¯’’’’’-,_ .
./ : : : : :’-, :: | :: :: :: _,,-‘’’’¯ : ,--‘’ : : : : : : : : : : : / : : : : : : :’’-,
/ : : : : : -, :¯’’’’’’’’’’’¯ : : _,,-~’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : :| : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : :¯’’~~~~~~’’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : | : : : : : : : : : - CanIGetAWitness, on 06/24/2009, -1/+57Anyone old enough to remember when they said TV would always be free?
Anyone? - pocketjacks, on 06/24/2009, -1/+47Comcast = Time Warner. They each own 50% silent partnerships in the other. They swapped several markets a few years ago.
- Rollinwinds, on 06/24/2009, -0/+45Thanks for the explanation. 5/5
- jer2eydevil88, on 06/24/2009, -1/+45The 600lb gorilla (TPB) already stole this market from you guys while you were sleeping.
- sodoh, on 06/24/2009, -1/+40TV is an outdated technology. You don't have choice over what you want to watch and when. Add to that you are spammed to death with adverts in/out/over the program.
What I want (that I would pay for)
- Ability to watch a program when I want for as l want.
- I pay for the program/season and it is mine forever. No renting.
- Ability to download to PC/player and watch on device I want.
- No advert spamming or adverts at all.
- No DRM. It has no impact except to annoy people who buy the stuff legally.
There are already models like this for music/software (eg. iTunes/Steam) why not TV programs? - srujanlive, on 06/24/2009, -0/+39On the contrary, it is the content providers/owners that made Hulu. ABC, NBC, Fox are content providers while TWC and Comcast are cable companies. This is at the heart of the argument. Cable companies could control ADs locally on the channels delivered by them but are unable to do so when those same shows are streamed on the internet. Hence these control methods.
- NUMBER4940, on 06/24/2009, -2/+37By doing what, offering porn with commercials?
- doctorgrim, on 06/24/2009, -0/+30It doesn't matter what they do. The pirates will continue to fill the voids.
- HCProgramr, on 06/24/2009, -0/+28I don't remember that, but I do remember 'Here comes cable, no more ads because the customers pay for it', and stations not being 24/7/365.
Though the latter is a nice thing for those poor guys that have to be up all night, we all saw how well the former worked out. 30 minute blocks are down to what now, 21, 22 minutes of actual programming? I remember when it was 27...and yes, get the f*ck off my lawn. (/s) - inactive, on 06/24/2009, -0/+23No experience with Time Warner, but Comcast = BAD. From a consumer perspective I'm sure this will end up sucking in some way.
- jemka, on 06/24/2009, -0/+21http://www.funnyassblog.com/lifes-annoyances/comca ...
- Jektal, on 06/24/2009, -0/+21I was so happy the day I got to call up Comcast and tell them I was dropping their service.
They asked why, and I just told them I was switching to an ISP that didn't cap my service. They immediately guessed correctly that I was going to Verizon (not like I have a choice of any other ISP here, actually.)
The connection isn't as good as with Comcast, but I feel better not supporting a company which is castrating the future of the internet to preserve an outdated and overvalued revenue stream. - sHockz, on 06/24/2009, -1/+20You forgot to mention that when people start plugging their TV's into the computer instead of the cable box, they have more to work with at the fingertips. I can watch EVERYTHING I ever wanted to watch on my computer, WHEN I want to watch it. I think whats making the cable companies scared, it is that people are moving away from using the cable box as the main hub for what they look at. My cable box is plugged into my computer, and I can watch TV in a seperate program. But I almost never watch TV because I feel I am watching commercials 40% of the time. I usually just google the show I want to watch, and there it is.
- smack1700, on 06/24/2009, -0/+18Fire up your torrents, maties! These scurvy sea-dogs be fixin' to control our internets!
- shutaro, on 06/24/2009, -1/+18Y'arr!
- PRlME, on 06/24/2009, -5/+22i dont know why people hate Microsoft when they are companies like comcast around.
- NJank, on 06/24/2009, -1/+17Fail - verb - definition: Your understanding of how cable, media, and communication monopolies formed in relation to the free market.
Cable and telecom companies were granted local monopolies by municipalities to add incentive for the companies to lay out expensive infrastructure. The free market had NOTHING to do with it. It actually happened in clear avoidance of free market forces.
Now, we have these monopolies. A distorted market exists where local competition only occurs between technology types. Cable competes with satellite and now with fiber-services. There is no cable-to-cable competition (at least, it's very rare). Service quality had no incentive to improve until a competing technology made an improvement in quality. Availability in certain areas also eliminates almost any competition. DSL still isn't available everywhere, yet alone fiber, making cable internet the only option. Some places, Crappy DSL is all they have. Price of service stagnates or inflates despite related cost of service decreasing. corporate response to customer demand is nearly non-existent.
This is the result of the permitted creation of local monopolies. this is not the result of free market forces allowed to take their due course. granted, left to pure free market forces, the cable television market probably wouldn't have evolved like it did. costs to lay line were/are high, and having to compete with 10 other companies laying line would have been a mess dealing with right of way. (Imagine if power companies had to lay their own line to your door, and there were 10 competing. that's why power competition is limited to generation and distribution is still a local monopoly.) If the government forced a corporate separation of line and content, maybe we could get closer to free market and prices would trend toward costs (look what happened to long distance prices in the 90's).
BUT this is not the result of a free market. - borez, on 06/24/2009, -1/+16Charging for premium content on the internet = the beginning of the end for net neutrality = Not in anybodies ***** interest apart from media companies and advertisers = terrible news.
Soon, coming to a town or city near you... the *****. - jarontea, on 06/24/2009, -9/+24If it were a true free market, we would have many choices for TV/Internet. Regulations are what cause gaint corporations.
- RoboDonut, on 06/24/2009, -0/+15They're not mutually exclusive. You can hate both.
- nysus, on 06/24/2009, -12/+26Don't worry! The free market solves everything. As long as government gets out of the way and lets big, giant corporations figure out the best way to part us with our money in order to maximize their profit growth, we'll be fine.
- JimmyRyan, on 06/24/2009, -0/+14In Dallas we had Comcast 2 years ago. Time Warner bought the market so now we have Time Warner. Trust me. They are both worse than bad.
- EarlOfLade, on 06/24/2009, -9/+22What always amuses me, is the claim from right wingers that the free market always solves it's own problems without involvement from outside. The cable companies are clear examples that this is not the case, it's quite the opposite in fact. This is of course why a good set of rules and regulations are necessary in every area of society for it to function optimally.
The "free market" has here given close to monopoly in geographic areas to companies who couldn't care less what the market wants and is clearly not following the right wing wet dreams.
And even more funny is it that the "free market" has only managed to bring about crappy DSL and cable modem connections with narrowband speeds, e.g. sub-10Mb speeds and at an extortion fee. The "free market" has basically turned the US into a third world country when it comes to bandwidth and the ability to choose providers. - dmbftp, on 06/24/2009, -9/+21You do know that cable companies are granted local monopolies by the government and therefore means that it isn't the free market, right?
The "good set of rules and regulations" that you talk about are part of the problem.
Thanks for trying to take a stab at something you know nothing about though. - bobbknight, on 06/24/2009, -0/+12Torrent TV FTW!
- Yankees368, on 06/24/2009, -0/+11Whatever happens here, we end up screwed.
- drmangrum, on 06/24/2009, -0/+10You can't really blame them for trying. However, they made their bed, they need to sleep it. They make cable TV expensive as hell, of course people are going to look for alternatives. I wouldn't mind paying my cable bill every month if I could get the stations I cared about and didn't have to pay for 200 others i would never watch.
Give us an a la carte system for channel subscriptions that can be modified through a website.
Give online customer service that actually works. Why do I need to talk to a representative to get pricing plans?
Give us FAIR pricing plans. Why do I get charged one price if I go online, another price if I go to my local branch office, and a 3rd price if I call and complain?
Instead of trying find new ways to bend us over a barrel, give us what we want. What a concept, giving the customer what they want. - sirellyn, on 06/24/2009, -1/+10You've got things really mixed up. If you think you had a "free market" with cable over the last three dozen years you are dreaming. A free market is basically unregulated. Not only that but the barriers of entry for new companies are protected to a point. That is anyone and his dad could start a cable company, advertise and start showing shows. And the big guys would face ridiculous competition each day. Unless they were providing the most loved affordable solution they would be out. Sounds like the internet doesn't it?
Internet broadcasting most closely resembles what a free market is supposed to look like.
Also, for all their talk, it's a complete myth that businesses "like" the idea of free markets. They only like them when it's advantageous to do so. When they are small they'll love them. When they are big and don't want to lose power they'll lobby and push rules in to keep them at the top. They'll conveniently forget the principles that allowed them to get to the top in the first place. - dirtycanucker, on 06/24/2009, -0/+9FTA-"This coming together of large media companies and cable companies over Internet video should put the anti-trust officers in Washington on red alert. They should be paying attention to not only these moves but also the metered broadband efforts of cable companies."------operative word being SHOULD. With the way the US government is in bed with mega corps and with the vested interest that they ALL have in your mind control and herding the sheep, I SERIOUSLY doubt that the US government does ***** all when it comes to this.
- Lamnent, on 06/24/2009, -3/+12Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck
- angryfirelord, on 06/24/2009, -1/+9Actually, it did used to be that way. Remember the dial-up days? You have a huge load of ISP providers to choose from. But cable, for some reason, has never been allowed to play by the same rules as other forms of information like newspapers.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa034.html
http://mises.org/story/1297
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0598d.asp - therealrico, on 06/24/2009, -1/+9Its your own fault cable companies, you force these 100's of channels down our throats when all we want it a few shows. Sorry, I don't want the oxygen, and logo networks and Disney channels.. The internet allows me to watch what I want when I want it, if it weren't for sports, I would have said so long to my cable subscription long ago!
- Maddoktor2, on 06/24/2009, -1/+9This will not end well...
- NJank, on 06/24/2009, -0/+8damn you. i just wasted 20 minutes of my life on that blog. The open letter to porn was dead on, though.
- Gerz1219, on 06/24/2009, -0/+7Well, if the cable companies wanted the cable box to be everyone's entertainment hub, maybe they should have innovated in that segment instead of pretending like it's 1997 and ceding the market to TiVo, Windows Media Center, Apple TV, Xboxes and Playstations, etc. etc. I mean, my last Time Warner cable box couldn't even be bothered to redo the menus in HD. It's ridiculous.
If ten years ago, they'd started selling cable boxes with a usable DVR interface, internet connectivity, and network video streaming, then none of those other products would have even bothered to enter the market. Internet video is only cannibalizing traditional cable TV content to the extent that the two have always been mutually exclusive due to hardware limitations. If people had been able to watch online video through their cable box all along, then the online video market would have evolved in a way friendlier to cable providers. - toekneebullard, on 06/24/2009, -2/+9I use Over the Air TV...I still pay for it...watching ads is using my time, which is paying for it.
Don't ever forget that "free with ads" is not "free"
Not saying ad supported things are horrible, just saying they're not free. - yaosio, on 06/24/2009, -0/+7Obviously Comcast content won't count against the cap because they understand how important video is to their subscribers.
- inactive, on 06/24/2009, -1/+8nope
- inactive, on 06/24/2009, -1/+8oh they wont block sites or services, theyll just meter your bandwidth. while comcast offers a generous 250GB per month, other cable isp's are far lower.
- Jektal, on 06/24/2009, -0/+7They would actually be great as an ISP. Not because they're Google and can do no wrong, but because they've got a ton of cash and a very vested interest in promoting high-speed internet coverage.
- DirtyVicar, on 06/24/2009, -0/+7Even in a truly free market, the "big boys" wield a lot of power. All they have to do is file a few frivolous patent infringement suits, for example, and they can bankrupt the little guys with legal costs. A free market does not automatically mean fair competition.
- neoq36, on 06/24/2009, -1/+7Dear Comcast,
This is why people hate you. Your customer service sucks, your installation process sucks because you never get the order right. Your billing seems to be random because each month it's a different price. Your internet connection and speed goes up and down like a junkie. Your phone service is laughable. You are the Countrywide of TV/Internet/Phone.
From a former Comcast customer - method7670, on 06/24/2009, -0/+6Yeah never going to do business with comcast.
- forcedfx, on 06/24/2009, -0/+6Can't wait till the day I can do that. I just moved into a new development and while we're setup for FiOS it isn't activated yet.
- binaryecho, on 06/24/2009, -1/+7***** is comin. You can smell it on the *****, bubbles.
- wild, on 06/24/2009, -3/+9I agree with your sentiments completely, but lets stop using labels like "right wing" and "left wing" as they make a whole lot of generalizations and no longer really label anyone properly. It is time our internal labeling systems grow-up. Think about a tag cloud for a blog post. Many specific tags are preferable to one blanket label.
So in your example, you should have said "free marketers" which is more accurate, and makes the discourse more nuanced and intelligent. (And removes the emotional heat from words like "right wing," allowing us to actually get somewhere in a discussion.) -
Show 51 - 100 of 194 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is