Y2HH

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 02:32 PM) If the largest fraction of their cost is the fees paid to the networks, isn't that exactly what you'd expect? Not when a lot of the networks are owned by them, no. You'd expect to see certain variance based on the number of viewers those channels command, in what they can ask for in terms of group pricing, etc. For example: ESPN+CSN+CSNPlus+Disney+AMC would cost more than FOOD+HISTORY+, etc., and being that Comcast owns CSN/CSN+, you'd think their own subscribers would get slightly better prices for them, but they don't. I don't think they're going out of their way to "price fix" with artificially high prices, because they'd get caught, but I don't think they're doing much to lower them, either.

This had to be the most boring press conference/announcement ever.

To elaborate, I find it very VERY coincidental that AT&T and Verizon charge almost the exact same monthly fees ... for everything. As do Comcast, DirecTV, Dish, etc. Outside of their special "on contract" pricing deals, everything is priced almost identically.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 02:20 PM) I find that if I am not watching tv, I am usually wanting to go out...and if I am going out a lot, I am spending s***loads more than $4-5 that the tv programming is costing me a day. I get that it seems like money that could be better spent, but if you consider it part of your overall entertainment budget, in-home tv is one of the smaller culprits in my monthly budget. In the grand scheme of things, it's not all that expensive, you're right about that. But I think it, just like cellular providers (namely the big two), there could be more competition than there is. The pricing schemes are eerily similar regardless of provider, and that bothers me. Competition should drive prices down, but when it comes to TV/Internet (specifically those two things), it actually drives it up.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 02:08 PM) Netflix + Hulu + OTA (free) is $16 a month IIRC and covers almost everything I want to watch. I can buy Breaking Bad or a couple of other shows on a season pass or per-episode basis and still come out way ahead. If not for MLB's dumb blackout rules, you could throw another $8.33 a month on there. I'd be doing exactly this if my wife wouldn't destroy me for it. I don't watch much TV, I'm more of a browser. I'll look around the movie channels to see if there is something I want to watch, which is usually already half over by the time I turn it on. She records a ton of shows and watches them, though. I'd really love to not be spending 70-100$ a month on TV.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 02:00 PM) You're just moving the provider around but the customer is still paying the same. When large companies own a variety of networks, they will always be bundled together to make the maximum amount of profit. Demand really doesn't factor in here. And you're still missing the fact that a company like DirecTV or Comcast has a gigantic subscriber base, so it makes more financial sense for the networks to stay with those providers. Netflix, Hulu and Amazon will just become another Comcast or DirecTV, or an HBO depending on if they want to create their own content. You aren't really paying the same at all, that's the point. Netflix + Hulu + Amazon Prime + MLB.TV costs a COMBINED less than Basic Cable. I'm not claiming their serving the same content, but taking those 4 services and having all the functionality of them can, for some people, serve everything they need to the point where they don't need Comcast or DTV, etc. And they WILL save money.

...wait, they changed the opening video at the park from that awesome one with the piratey johnny depp music?! They better not have.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 01:53 PM) I'm still interested to see how Netflix actually works out as a content provider. Too early to tell. It seems inevitable that it will all just be delivered over the internet at some point the future. Maybe when fiber networks are more common?! A lot of it is already delivered that way, and that demand/ability will only increase as time goes on to a wider audience. As for how well Netflix will be able to work as a content provider, I agree, the jury is still out, because it costs a LOT of money, but it shows that it IS possible for a new guy to enter the market and make it happen with or without the permission of cable operators.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 01:28 PM) Here's a good write-up of why al-la-carte won't happen anytime soon: http://gizmodo.com/5972517/the-future-of-t...not-be-worth-it It's getting to the point where it may not be necessary to have cable or other television service at all. You can get Netflix, Hulu Plus, MLB.TV, and Amazon Prime for a combined cost of LESS than it costs for BASIC cable with no movie channels. The few things missing are things like access to HBO shows, etc...but it's coming...it's just a matter of time before there are other services out there that allow you to replace "cable" by combining a few of them together. We are closer to that now than ever before.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 01:34 PM) Get your VHS tapes in the mail? I hope they were still offering betamax.... Point is they weren't a streaming internet service with their OWN television shows. They are now.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 01:25 PM) If by a few years ago you mean 15, then ok. That IS what I mean, yes, however, I mean it in context. While they incorporated in 1997, they were NOT doing what they were doing in 1997 what they're doing now. Point is, a company CAN rise up very quickly and do exactly what Netflix did. Apple was also around since the 70's, but that doesn't mean they were selling iPhones since the 70's, either, now does it? Of course you knew that. But I sometimes wonder if you actually do.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 01:14 PM) Sure, so that's two channels at what, 20-30 bucks a month. What do you think ESPN could charge? Or AMC? I mean, yes, if you're a person that literally needs 4 channels and that's it, it would probably make financial sense. But anything beyond that and you're basically paying the same amount you pay now for 300 channels. Doubtful they'd cost anywhere near that much. But the market would set the price. If HBO wanted 40$ a month for a single channel, they'd probably have a hard time getting it to a mass number of people.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 12:43 PM) The al-la-carte model doesn't benefit anyone but the consumer. The provider and networks all make out better with the current system. And really, i'm not convinced that the consumer would make out better. Even if you watch a relatively low number of networks (say below 15), the price per network would still have to be pretty small, i.e. less than $7-8/month to keep your bill smaller than it is now. I doubt any network would be to operate at those figures. And that's not even considering the drop in quality content. Would AMC ever take off and take a chance on Breaking Bad or Mad Men if they were using only the money they got from their subscriber base? Nope. I understand your point, but they're going to have to deal with this one way or another...it's going to end up going that direction regardless of how much they resist. Networks will still come and go, changes will be made and chances will be taken. Case in point, Netflix didn't exist a few years ago, now it's bigger than a lot of the networks. The current model doesn't benefit anyone but the suppliers. I see this as price fixing as much as I see AT&T and Verizon price fixing the cellular market. The biggest names/brands all have the near exact same pricing schemes year after year. I don't find it to be a coincidence, either.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 12:45 PM) HBO? Showtime? I'd pay for HBO right now if I could do it without getting 500 channels I'll never watch. Same.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 12:21 PM) BTW, I think this is insane. I'm sure I'll get flack on a sports message board for thinking that. Why are you in here messing with us and our first world problems?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 12:13 PM) Wow i'm getting screwed. I'm in year 2 of my contract and I pay $120 for the mid-tier programming package, hbo and showtime, one HD DVR and one regular HD box and the whole home DVR deal (not the newer Genie system). I think i'm going to have to wait until my 2 year contract is up and then demand the genie package upgrade. Everyone has to do this every two years, because its all a scam. Pay for 543 channels, of which you actually want and watch 13 of. The absolute second true al-la-carte programming is available, I'd be all over it. Meaning I get all the major sports, locals, and the specific movie channels I want, and that's all I pay for. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen so long as the providers can prevent it.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 11:57 AM) I need some advice. I am looking for a good online backup option for our photos and some videos. Currently, I use Google Drive, but it's tied to my email address (I have a free Google Apps for business account). It's about $5/month for 100GB of storage. Amazon now has Cloud Drive that is $4.17/month for 100GB of storage. Drop Box is $8.25/month for 100GB, Which is the best option??? I am leaning towards switching to Cloud Drive and setting up an Amazon account that my wife and I can both access (we currently each have separate accounts). It really depends on specific use requirements. If you're looking for free, I think MegaUpload gives you 50 gigs free. But I'm not very trusting of Dotcom's stuff. Otherwise, look for the cheapest option that you can share with your wife, as you stated you'd like to do.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 10:52 AM) Matt Abbatacola Joe West Doc Edwards Matt Abbatacola's cost about a one-hundred-sixty dollar bill.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 10:39 AM) STREEEETCH is new in the last 15-20 years So is, you Gotta be Bleepin' me Wegener!

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 10:36 AM) Eh, that's not accurate in the least. Of course, the Sox would likely promote Farmio or some bulls*** instead of giving us what we crave (a legit broadcasting voice) so it doesn't matter. Ok, so who is this legit broadcasting voice you so desire, that is actually available and would want the job? I think the reality is, when Hawk is gone, he's going to get replaced by a "robotic boring" announcer that couldn't care less about the White Sox, and they may as well have Apple's Siri or Google's Voice broadcast the play by play.

QUOTE (Joxer_Daly @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 10:17 AM) I can relate to a lot of what you're saying there. What Jake said there was well said. I also agree.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 10:07 AM) Well one issue is that many people are limited and/or uncomfortable drilling holes into their walls to get that cat5 wiring into every room. I know it was pretty damn hard for me and my brother just to get 1 ethernet cable from the router to our 360 in our basement since we had to go through a ceiling and over a bathroom, etc. It's a hassle, just like speaker wire. And even the houses that advertise they are pre-wired for speakers typically don't have them wired in the exact places that you would want the speakers to be. Yes, this is absolutely true, which is why most times, people have wires wrapped all over the outside of their house, so they can get tv or internet service to specific rooms. Wireless will eventually proliferate throughout peoples homes to the point where none of these wires are necessary (outside of a main feed), but until then we have to deal with what we have, and/or to the level you want to deal with it. I'm personally anti wire, I think they make everything ugly, and that's part of my problem with Comcast, or anyone else. I like wires run internally, and depending on the location of a television set, sometimes internal wiring is the only way to invisibly reach the destination.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 10:09 AM) Stupid question, if you replace your DVR, do you lose what you had stored? Yes, so watch everything first. You'll also lose all of it when the DVR's drive eventually breaks, so either way it's not a forever thing. If you still have their old huge silver/grey DVR's, go get them replaced. The new ones are leagues better.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 10:01 AM) No one said cancel Comcast's internet. That's sort of my point, though, I already *have* to deal with them.

QUOTE (Big Hurtin @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 09:46 AM) Yay, more baseless projection. If you honestly think it's baseless projection for me to say people will be posting threads about him here, and on every other White Sox message board paying their respects when he retires and/or dies, you've...you've gotta be bleepin' me Wegner!