Y2HH

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 5, 2013 -> 08:50 AM) This is something that they say so they can, quite literally, steal your money. Exactly.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 5, 2013 -> 08:38 AM) The idea of Social Security contributing to the deficit is a big con job, it's literally impossible for Social Security to go bankrupt unless suddenly people stop being born. I guess people are ok with being told otherwise, though. It's not that it's insolvent, it's just been pillaged. There are a lot of misconceptions about Social Security out there, and repeated enough over time, they've become accepted facts. And they'll bang this drum until they convince every last young voter that Social Security will be gone before they're eligible for it. It won't be long now, as soon as the boomers step aside, they'll have convinced every young idiot out there that social security needs drastic reforms, and that you should trust them with these reforms since the alternative is never collecting anyway. And that's how they'll get their hands on that money. It's not insolvent, and won't be for many many years, over which that insolvency can be fixed quite easily. The problem is, they don't want to fix it, because they want to be able to invest that money the same way they "invested" the pensions. I know, I'm crazy.

I never found visiting Blockbuster to be fun. I found it even less fun to have to return the movie afterward as an added bonus.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 5, 2013 -> 06:54 AM) I grew up thinking Hawk was the most awesome thing ever and even still, some of his one-liners are great and I concede there's nobody else like him. However in the past few years, on a day by day basis, he's intolerable, boring, and at times embarrassing and on MLB.tv ill mute the game, and it was so painful to listen to him when they played the Twins I'd actually listen to the Twins broadcast... It was that bad. Kind of how I feel about you on my Facebook feed, sometimes you need to be muted, too.

QUOTE (Jake @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 05:41 PM) The crux of my argument is that you don't always know what you want -- when you have easy access to things you didn't think or know you wanted, you are more likely to happen upon them and realize they are in fact good for you. Obviously, you are more likely to get stuck with crap as well but crap doesn't hurt you. Lack of good choices hurts you. This isn't perfectly applicable, but it is unfathomable how much good content I've been exposed to solely because I saw it on Netflix and knew the only price to watch was my time. If Netflix had asked me if I only wanted to pay for a particular type of movie or $1/movie or whatever else you can think of, I wouldn't have tried for this stuff. If someone told me I had to pay more for AMC a year ago, I would have told them to f*** off. I watched some Mad Men in a class and suddenly had this desire to have access to AMC. Not everyone studies media and will happen upon good television in compulsory screenings for class. Even so, I wouldn't have spent money to see more Mad Men until I was able to watch more on a "free" basis (I was paying for a subscription, but not to see AMC) IMO, all set-ups will benefit the biggest companies. I think the little guy gets f***ed in most incarnations of the pay-per-content model that I've heard speculated upon to this point. This isn't to say that "the little guy" has it made now, but they can team up with other little guys and mutually help each other by being packaged together. If you abolish the channel format, who is to say that shows like The Walking Dead and Breaking Bad are able to succeed without riding the coattails of Mad Men? It's inevitable that the channel format will die like all old tech formats die. They will resist so long as they can, but it's a past technology, much like going to Blockbuster to rent a DVD is now looked at as a past not to mention laughable way to distribute movie rentals. On demand digital media is the future, in any format, that can be broadcast to ANY device we own, not only devices attached to a DVR/Cable feed. Everything will be broadcast over the Internet (TCP/IPv4 or v6), including live TV, and eventually, it will all be done with no wires. The content won't go away, but the method in which it's currently distributed WILL. We're the future Charles, not them. They no longer matter.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 04:49 PM) Right you are arguing about collusion and that can only occur in certain markets, one of them being where it is very difficult to produce the product. It occurs in the auto industry because it is generally price prohibitive to build your own car. It occurs in the television industry because only X companies can supply television, so it dramatically reduces the options thus allowing for easier market collusion. But market collusion is old. Cable companies are basically OPEC. They are the only ones with the material, thus they can set whatever price they want and restrict the supply how they want. Yes, exactly, and that's why I'm b****ing here. I hate that they're "competitors" that don't really do much to compete. Oh well, that model will eventually die...and there is nothing they can do about it. Just like the billion dollar movie rental industry changed, so will this, eventually.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 04:37 PM) Just like a 6 pack of Bud, Miller and Coors Or a 12 pack or a case. Its nothing new, this is an old model. Its an oligopoly. Right, but in most of these other industries, there is no path for them to sell them differently. It would take a new manufacturing process, a new packaging process, etc. For the cable industry, it wouldn't. They can shut of individual channels with a simple on-off switch. If you wanted a car without a radio, they'd have to create a new assembly line that lacks the radio portion, a new dash, etc. There is no "to market" for this. Same with beer. They package them in 6's, 12's, etc...they'd have to design a new line to package them in 3's. They DON'T have this issue with the cable industry. They CAN offer single channels, because they do it now. HBO can be purchased separately, etc. The argument here isn't that they don't have a way to go to market with this, they already are. They simply don't want too because it'd cost them money.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 04:36 PM) If you look at the first quote, you werent really saying that. You may have meant to say it, but you were arguing that in most consumer products, you arent being forced to buy something you dont want, which is just not true. When you buy a tv, it has a mute button, even if you never intend on using it. In fact 90% of tvs have almost identical features, so that you are almost always paying for something you dont want. When you buy a car, it has a radio, even if you dont want it, to my knowledge, no new cars are made without radios. Computer (pre-made) it has an operating system, even if I dont want it. Im not sure I can list a product that I have bought that did not have something I did not want in it, mainly because that thing was "industry standard". I see your point here. But you CAN build your own computer. You CAN build your own car. I'm not saying you'd want too...but the option exists. No such option exists in the cable content world, they control the content -- and amongst them, supposed competitors -- they all sell it in the exact same way. Yes, I believe what they do, and this also applies to the big two in the telcom industry, they should be investigated for price fixing. I don't really find it coincidental that their introductory packages are all priced about the same mostly with the same 2 year contract, and their more advanced packages also seem to carry very very similar prices. Again, the fact that an iPhone on either AT&T or Verizon, with the cheapest package, comes out to about 100$ a month is very very coincidental to me. Take last year for example, Verizon instituted a one time 30$ fee for all cell phone upgrades. Low and behold if AT&T doesn't suddenly apply that same exact fee for cell phone upgrades a few months later. I'm not even sure how they get away with it, it's SO similar.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 04:26 PM) isnt that what you are suggesting? If every cable company is offering the exact same packages, with no variation, isnt that colluding to artificially drive up price? As soon as 1 company offered an alternative it would drive prices down for everyone... They offer arbitrary variation to skirt the law. Also, they'd have to actively be caught colluding together. So long as DirecTV doesn't call Comcast to set their prices, they're NOT price fixing. Here IS what they do, however. Comcast package 1 includes : HBO, SHO, History, Disney and AMC for 25$. DirecTV package 1 includes : HBO, STARZ, History, Disney and AMC for 25$. They're "not the same", thus not illegal. But in reality, they're almost exactly the same. They know exactly how to skirt the law, and they're doing exactly that.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 04:22 PM) No this is a different argument. You are saying that there is collusion, that isnt about how the product is packaged, that is a group of companies working together to break the law. This is the only argument I'm making. So I'm not sure what you're talking about anymore. I'm talking specifically about the content delivery system employed by the cable/dish companies. They're identical across the board. While they're not "in on it together" in some sort of grand price fixing scheme, they're not really working against each other, either. The same can be said of Verizon and AT&T. Same packages, same prices in almost every regard, with just enough variance between them that they can't be considered non-competitive. I already said in my first post that applying models from different industries to every other industry wouldn't work. You said you can't get 20 minutes of a ski lesson, maybe you can't from instructor 1, but you could from instructor 153,324. Specifically, you CANNOT do that with Comcast, Cox, Dish, DTV, etc. They all sell the SAME packages of channels for the same prices, again, with little variance.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 04:22 PM) No this is a different argument. You are saying that there is collusion, that isnt about how the product is packaged, that is a group of companies working together to break the law. They'd have to actively price fix for that to be illegal. What they're doing could be called price fixing, but you'd have to prove they actually worked together in order for it to be illegal.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 04:20 PM) I stand by what I said. Almost every company builds their products with unnecessary features that they charge for. If I want an ipod that doesnt skip backwards because I dont want to pay for that feature... If I want a phone that only can make outgoing calls because I dont want to pay for the feature of receiving incoming calls... Every product is filled with stuff that you may or may not want. Most people just dont take the time to look at their products and go: "Hey this keyboard has a print screen button, I dont want that. Can i pay $1 less for this keyboard that doesnt have a print screen" The answer is no, the product is what it is. This is even more true in the service industry. You only offer lessons for either 45 minutes or 1:30, but I want a 20 minute lesson. I want to ski at Vail, but I only want to use certain chair lifts, thus I shouldnt have to pay full price. Now your arguing software options, which is the same as arguing fast food. It wouldn't make sense to release 50 version of the same program, since the development already took place.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 04:12 PM) This post makes no sense man. Its kind of all over the place. First of all your examples are exactly what Im talking about (well besides for a computer because you could build that on your own). When buying a lawn mower, you only have the options of models that are available. You seem to be arguing that there are "more lawn mower options" but that is just like saying, there is dish, directtv, comcast, and each of those providers have multiple "cable" or "mower" options. But when you buy a mower, you are likely to be buying at least 1 feature, that you do not need, which is the same as paying for a channel you dont need. I also bolded a part, because you seem to be suggesting other alternatives to tv dont exist, which is not true. You dont have to buy cable, you can most shows without ever paying a cent to a cable company. Now you may have to pay netflix, you may have to buy the season at bestbuy, walmart, etc. But that is exactly the same as being able to buy a bike instead of a car, or being able to buy a car without air conditioning. A better example would be a radio. Lets say I dont want a new car with a radio. Basically every car has a radio standard. I am paying for something I didnt want. There is really almost no difference. (Edit) And almost every company that I know of uses this model. You stick in extras, you charge for them, you make more money. But I'll respond to this one anyway, because you aren't getting it. I'm saying of the content providers, DirecTV, Dish, Comcast, Cox, etc...every last one of them sells channels in the same packages via the same exact models, with nearly identical pricing schemes. So alternatives to purchasing from them in THAT way don't truly exist. Buying content from an Xbox is not the same as buying content from a cable/dish provider, they're different. One broadcasts channels that carry content, the other broadcasts content and only content, not entire channels. What you said about lawnmowers is completely incorrect, by the way. You can purchase a lawnmower with the exact options you want. There are probably 5,000 models of lawnmower out there, not to mention parts available to completely build your own. Nothing like that exists in the cable industry.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 04:12 PM) This post makes no sense man. Its kind of all over the place. First of all your examples are exactly what Im talking about (well besides for a computer because you could build that on your own). When buying a lawn mower, you only have the options of models that are available. You seem to be arguing that there are "more lawn mower options" but that is just like saying, there is dish, directtv, comcast, and each of those providers have multiple "cable" or "mower" options. But when you buy a mower, you are likely to be buying at least 1 feature, that you do not need, which is the same as paying for a channel you dont need. I also bolded a part, because you seem to be suggesting other alternatives to tv dont exist, which is not true. You dont have to buy cable, you can most shows without ever paying a cent to a cable company. Now you may have to pay netflix, you may have to buy the season at bestbuy, walmart, etc. But that is exactly the same as being able to buy a bike instead of a car, or being able to buy a car without air conditioning. A better example would be a radio. Lets say I dont want a new car with a radio. Basically every car has a radio standard. I am paying for something I didnt want. There is really almost no difference. (Edit) And almost every company that I know of uses this model. You stick in extras, you charge for them, you make more money. Yea, sorry I was on the phone when writing, I went back and cleaned it all up.

:headbang :headbang :headbang

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 03:40 PM) Not true, almost every product you pay for something you may not really want. When I buy a big mac, I dont really want onions. Even if I say "no onions", they charge me the same amount. So buying a Big Mac, is the same as buying a cable package, you are often stuck with "extras" that you dont really want, but end up paying for. So most prepackaged goods are similar to cable, youre buying filler that you dont really want. Using the food service industry as a comparison was a bad idea from the get go. Not getting onions doesn't really change prep time to the point it would alter how much the burger costs, ESPECIALLY in the fast food industry. In relation to what you said about almost every product you buy makes you pay for something you don't want, this isn't really true. Alternatives surly exist where you can get exactly what you want. In this specific case, no other option exists, because all of the other options do it exactly the same, with the same packages, at nearly the same costs. This doesn't apply to most consumer products, however. For example, it doesn't apply to computers, lawnmowers, home improvement, cellular phones, etc. In most areas, you get exactly what you pay for, and if you want less, you'll pay less. Arguably, this model cannot be applied because were talking about content distribution. The telecommunications industry used this same design, forcing you to purchase options you don't want...because they can. You don't text message? Too bad, you're paying for it anyway. Let's stop pretending they didn't design this model from the ground up with this thought in mind. They knew, from the beginning, it would make them more money, and that's why they did it.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 01:41 PM) If Santana is going to throw 89 MPH fastballs right down the middle, he's going to give up more than just 3 home runs. Let's hope so.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 12:27 PM) S3 was probably the slowest up to that point but it was still good and S4 is some of the best TV ever. Maybe I'll have to check it out again and give it a few extra episodes.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 11:44 AM) Well done.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:57 AM) More importantly, why is the only AMC show you watch the mediocre Walking Dead and not the one-of-the-best-shows-ever Breaking Bad? edit: at least through xbox, they've been offering "season pass" options for TV shows. I know Archer was one, and WD might have been another. $25/season, which is a little steep imo, but the model's out there. I don't know, I never got into Breaking Bad...I watched the first episode and didn't care for it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:53 AM) The providers aren't going to go for that, though. If you're carrying Viacom, I'd imagine that they will only agree to an all-or-nothing basket for their channels. Just like how telcom providers would never, ever give a 3rd party company control over their phones/software/baseband. Until Apple did exactly that.

QUOTE (Jake @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 08:14 AM) I'm leery of the pay-per-channel model. Someone used AMC as an example of a channel that has benefited by more or less being forced on us, and it's a fine example. If you think you know what you want, you are unlikely to just find a channel that has revamped their programming like AMC. Likewise, they are unlikely to be able to afford to revamp their programming when they have about 7 subscribers. It is worth asking whether the customers will benefit in a pay-per-channel model because many channels will die if they aren't attached to a group of others. New channels would have to come from the big conglomerates who can afford to risk a loss, which again can't be good for the customer. This isn't to say the current system is perfect or benefits me perfectly, but I'd certainly rather have too many choices than too few. The point is you don't really have choice to begin with. You either take everything they give you, or you take nothing. I agree that pay for specific channels will never work in this system for multiple reasons, some of which you covered, but, they CAN break them into better tiers with better choices. For example, a package where you HAVE to pick 10 channels from group A, 10 from group B and 10 from group C, but they're still your choices from those groups, tailor made for you by you. As a parent, I would flood my choices with cartoon/kids channels, where a non-parent may want other channels in that tier that they'll actually watch. If anything, a system like this could even increase viewership, because people would have channels from each tier they chose and would actually take a look at them. Also, pay per channel isn't necessarily what people like myself are really looking for, I'm more interested in pay for content. The only show on watch on AMC is Walking Dead, so I'd like to purchase walking dead, nothing else. And if/when I decide to try a different show on AMC, perhaps they give away an episode along with my walking dead subscription and if I watched it and enjoyed it, I can then purchase that show, too.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 04:30 PM) Your wife provides the internet around your household?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 02:53 PM) I'm not disputing that people who only watch a few shows or channels could easily get by. What i'm arguing is that (1) for the average viewer, it's still probably more cost-effective to buy a 300+ cable channel package than to opt for an al-la-carte option at the prices that the 10-15 channels will most likely be able to demand in the market, and more importantly, (2) that the networks themselves make out better with our current system. IMO the future is pay-per content, not pay-per network. And we're going to get stuck with $5 episodes with ads to cover the shifting costs. Eh, most things have commercials no anyway. I think I've grown immune to commercials. Back when cable first started, it's entire selling point was no commercials...ever...

I have to care about it, I think they broadcast like 2 Sox games a year, and they're ALWAYS the games I'm home to watch for some reason. :/