What is Digg?89 Comments
- jkash23686, on 11/07/2009, -8/+91Mark Cuban is a *****.
- mkriss5681, on 11/07/2009, -4/+79I pay for cable. I watch commercials.
***** off Mark Cuban. - WriterSD, on 11/07/2009, -1/+58Would this mean less reality TV?
- Palestrina, on 11/07/2009, -3/+58If they don't charge for content, why am I paying $100 a month for TV already? *****.
- aznhomig, on 11/07/2009, -3/+45So a billionaire who's out of touch with reality speaking nonsense.
Sounds about right. - Gillos, on 11/07/2009, -0/+34A good thought, but the only problem is, a lot of people don't think the garbage on TV is WORTH paying for. It is nice to have, but not so nice that they want to buy it. Without free sources of TV shows (Hulu, Youtube, Whatever) I just wouldn't watch them, and I would be OK with that.
- hroo772, on 11/07/2009, -11/+34What's gonna be next? Force us to buy your content we don't even want. This idea of 'entitlement' in media needs to go away, let capitalism work, stop ***** with the system to forcefully fill your coffers.
- meed, on 11/07/2009, -1/+20If your going to make me pay for content, then don't subject me to advertising or infomericals. I stopped paying for cable after getting tired of coming home from work at 3am to find infomericals running 80% of the channels I was paying for.
- Kate1240, on 11/07/2009, -1/+20Cuban is rich enough he doesn't need to care.
- mhf03, on 11/07/2009, -1/+19Uhh... Networks receive money from advertisers and the more viewers a program gets the more networks can charge for that spot. There is no way in hell I am going to pay for network TV when its been free for years.
One of the main reasons I stopped paying for cable was because they only showed crap that I had no interest in watching aside for ESPN. 60 plus channels of crap.
Sites like Hulu were created to redirect viewers who had turned to piracy to a medium where networks could receive money from advertising. If Cuban got his way piracy is just going to increase. - whahaa, on 11/07/2009, -0/+15wrong. most of that money goes to the carrier fees the networks make the cable/satellite companies pay. cable/sat providers make very little profit off of customer subscriptions. that may not be enough money to produce the shows, but it's still money that comes out of my pockets and goes into theirs. the rest comes from the advertisements that waste my time, and as we all know, time=money too.
trust me. if we weren't already paying for content, we wouldn't have content. - ssttuu, on 11/07/2009, -1/+14That sir, is the first argument I've heard that makes me want paid content!
- inactive, on 11/07/2009, -4/+17I'll just watch shows by streaming them or downloading them. Hulu intends to start charging, rather then get money just from the ads they force you to watch before a show begins (usually 15-30 seconds, not bad). I've asked a bunch of adults who watch TV mainly from Hulu what they intend to do once they start charging and I've gotten a universal "***** that" from them followed by "I'll just find somewhere else to watch my shows." That was even before they knew of streaming sites or torrents. Could be wrong but I think they'll lose more money from the loss of viewers then they will gain from charging.
- HeDiggMe, on 11/07/2009, -1/+12Makes sense. I already pay for HBO. I'd happily pay less for all the channels I don't use and pay for the few I do if I could buy them a la carte.
- TheZorch, on 11/07/2009, -0/+10If networks start charging for content then what about commercials?
I doubt corporations would allow TV networks to get rid of commercials, but when paying for content and having to sit through commercials is tantamount to double-charging customers. First you impose a monetary fee to access the content then you make viewers watch commercials. To me that feels like I'm being charged twice, or it would feel that way if this happened.
However, I can't see it ever happening because corporations depend too much on commercials. They'd never allow it and the consumer backlash from skyrocketing cable TV fees would be huge. It would be a disaster. The idea of the TV networks charging for their content isn't feasible in this current market. Not with the cable companies charging over $100 for service. The only way it can happen is if the content providers subsidized cable TV so having it your home doesn't cost you anything and you only pay for the channels you subscribe to. Basically, the networks would pay Comcrap, Verizon, TimeWarner, Cox, etc. who would then provide the pipeline to people's homes for free and you just pay for the channels you want. The networks would pay the cable companies for access to their content delivery pipelines. This is the ONLY way it could be made to work, any other way would drive the cost of cable TV so prohibitive high the TV networks would be forced to go back to free content with commercials to stay alive. Reality is a bitch isn't it? - ssttuu, on 11/07/2009, -1/+10Let Capitalism do its work? Surely then paid content would see the successful stuff survive and the crap fail. Paid content is capitalistic.
- appleseed1234, on 11/07/2009, -1/+10What the ***** is this nickle and diming philosophy that seems so ***** rampant these days? What happened to the days you could just ***** tune in?
I swear to god, if a day ever comes where factories have polluted the air to the point where it's unbreathable, they'll be the ones charging us for oxygen. - CanIGetAWitness, on 11/07/2009, -0/+9Make it all more expensive?
I think this is all a great way to get kids outside playing again and break the back of the boob-tube sucking family brains. - scoottie, on 11/07/2009, -1/+10Because Cuban doesnt have enough money
- roxgod666, on 11/07/2009, -1/+10If there are no commercials involved and the price is reasonable, i would pay.
- therage96, on 11/07/2009, -1/+7For me its not that its free, its more so that if I start paying, I want a better product for my money. 480p quality will not cut it, the bare minimum would be 720p and really should be 1080p (if the content in question is available at that quality), and I should be able to download portable versions of content to my computer or media player. I don't really care if its time-bombed where I need to renew the license every 7 days, that's fine. However iTunes already has this market cornered pretty well.
If they want to charge for the same product I was getting free 2 days ago, then forget about it. I'll take my advertising impression generating browser elsewhere thank you very much. - WhoDoneIt, on 11/07/2009, -0/+6I'll tell you something that I would love...
Parent and Child channels. And in that I mean, take for example, you are watching Baseball on Ch. 30
You could choose which camera angle you want to stay on to watch the game, being able to be in control of what YOU want to see.
If I want to watch the home plate camera behind the batter then I can do that, on Ch 30a. Or Left field camera on Ch 30b etc.
It could be used on many "live" sporting events.
Of course it would take the networks to give up some control. - Howitzer86, on 11/07/2009, -2/+8No one is forcing you to do anything.
- jimrooney, on 11/07/2009, -1/+6Hahaha, yup... spot on... have a look at the Newspaper Industry.
Too true... yes, you are going down that road as well... you too can enjoy a slow and painful death. "Hello oblivion! How's the wife and kids?" - greevar, on 11/07/2009, -1/+6That's funny PorchSong. I could swear that's what Fox News does.
- user500, on 11/07/2009, -0/+5fine...you can drop NBC CBS Fox Propaganda , for most part a good chunk of the lineup.
- RusskiGuy, on 11/07/2009, -0/+5Showtime, HBO, Pay-Per-View already work like that whether you pay for access or for each viewing and they all have their customer bases. If you're satisfied with basic cable, you're just not who they're after.
- generalalcazar, on 11/07/2009, -1/+6Actually, most people do pay for their TV already. It's called cable.
- PhairOh, on 11/07/2009, -0/+5When people use words like "*****" during an argument I have a very hard time trusting what they say. No, I haven't a clue how expensive live satellite feeds are, but I have a very strong suspicion that neither do you.
- WhoDoneIt, on 11/07/2009, -1/+5Kinda like Digg?
/s - txballer, on 11/07/2009, -2/+6The Fox News Channel is cable/satellite not broadcast.
- user500, on 11/07/2009, -1/+5that wont happen. you will pay for the content and the program. Just like going to the movies, you get raped at the door and the concession stand and still got to sit though 15 minutes of commercials before the previews for a crappy movie (mike bay I'm looking at you). That is why I stopped going to movies.
- dt40, on 11/07/2009, -8/+12What about the idea that people are entitled to free content? What should happen with that entitlement?
- peestandingup, on 11/07/2009, -0/+4Im convinced that if people werent force-fed most of the current garbage on TV, there's no way they'd actively go out & seek it. Which is why cable & networks are scared of online streaming as the sole source of people's "TV" entertainment. Because it puts them in charge of the programming & how, when, & where they view it. SO they'll have to actually *gasp* make good shows again. Whatta ***** concept.
Oh well, accept the change or keep fighting a no-win battle. - SigmaEcho, on 11/07/2009, -3/+7Mark Cuban is right, IF he means they should provide BOTH options: paid ad-free content AND a free ad-supported version. For the shows I am a big fan of, I am willing to pay to see it ad-free and uncensored, especially if I get to see it early. Other shows, I'm willing to just watch casually, and I don't care if there are ads. And if the networks were smart, they would hook you with the free version, and then sell you on the paid-version. Tell me you wouldn't pay to see early uncensored, extended ad-free versions of Firefly or Lost or Arrested Development or The Office or Heroes or South Park, Simpsons, Family Guy, etc... And if they were REALLY smart, they would give away the first 3 episodes of every series for free on the internet, then more people would get hooked on that show, buy the DVDs, etc...
But I think the ship has sailed on this opportunity, as it's looking like unlimited on-demand subscription services like Netflix are the way of the future. Who's gonna pay for cable when you can watch everything ad-free for $8.99 a month? - hddigger, on 11/07/2009, -0/+4Yeah, anything that could cut down my $180 monthly cable bill would be welcome. If I could only accept losing sports in HD I could give up on cable altogether.
- giyad, on 11/08/2009, -0/+3you're absolutely right, I never used to watch TV shows until I started downloading them... if they found a way to take that back i'd just stop watching them... I'd only pay if I get to choose EXACTLY what, when, where and how I want to watch, which content providers are not willing to give me.
so ***** 'em - Schmidtopolis, on 11/07/2009, -1/+4I'd pay for cable... if they stopped airing adverts every 7 and a half minutes.
You either get my money up front for premium content (that I can decide when to watch i.e: 'On Demand', without advertisements), or you give me free content laced with advertisements.
The internet was Pandora's Box for me. Now that I see what is possible with new media, I can't go back to old media ethos. It'll be interesting to see what happens once the 20-somethings come into real power over such things. - falcyn, on 11/08/2009, -0/+3Hulu has not decided to start charging. Executives from Fox believe they should - but Fox only owns 33.3% of Hulu.
- LinuxLiberty, on 11/07/2009, -0/+3TV is a dying technology, it is going the way of record album and 8 track player. Everything will be on demand in the future. I don't have a problem with media outlets charging for content in an on demand type of system. If they stopped the commercials and put out a much higher quality product, I would pay for it. It would be nice to have a real news outlet that simply didn't promote government propaganda and was at the mercy of its advertising sponsors.
- TheZorch, on 11/07/2009, -0/+3Ah, but you forget the corporations have Congress in their back pocket. They have power alright.
- ninjaofpatience, on 11/07/2009, -0/+3Bit hostile aren't you newchap, in every post you made so far you've gone out of your way to insult the person you are replying to.
Alright post a few links with the numbers to back up your claim. Even if only a dollar a month from the 58.4 percent of the population that has cable goes to content producers that's still over 100 mil a month toward producing shows.
(survey of american homes with cable)
http://www.marketingcharts.com/television/snl-kaga ... - louie10, on 11/08/2009, -0/+3Go ahead, use newspapers as a model, and then when you go out of business next year I'll get my media for free somewhere else...
- carlosos, on 11/07/2009, -0/+2Premiere in Germany has that type of feature since 1998 or so. First used for F1 racing where you can choose different drivers for camera and overall the cameras.
- mksmothers, on 11/07/2009, -0/+2I'm already charged for television, its called Dish Network. I don't mind paying it because they package it reasonably well and allow me to DVR it.
- NYConcepts, on 11/07/2009, -1/+3The Mavs suck!
- generalalcazar, on 11/07/2009, -1/+3Bottom line: It takes money to make quality content. Therefore, the money has to come from somewhere - whether it is advertising, such as broadcast television - or paid, such as cable TV.
- TheRushReportDG, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2if all of you mindless drones would stop watching so much television these scumbags wouldn't be in a position to do this kinda crap. kill your tv, read books, use the internet. television is garbage.
- dpknc84, on 11/07/2009, -1/+3Hulu has already stated that whenever they do decide to charge (as there is no set date), it will be a sort of "tiered" system. The Hulu that we know now will remain. You'll still get to watch your shows with ads, however those of us who will pay for it will get extra web exclusive content and probably a few other perks like no ads or advanced episodes.
I'd be willing to pay for a premium Hulu account if the options were right honestly. It'd still probably be cheaper than my existing cable bill. -
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is