3 ms·
No, if that's the cost of my 12 channels then I will continue to say no thanks. Currently I get nothing, save my $100, and I'm quite content with that. I'm not
by talmand 13y ago
No, if that's the cost of my 12 channels then I will continue to say no thanks. Currently I get nothing, save my $100, and I'm quite content with that.
I'm not sure I agree with your last point though. Because it seems the cable TV industry's idea is that the only thing to do is to increase costs for their customers over time regardless of the quality of the product. I stipulate that the quality of cable TV has gotten worse over the years even with the 300 channels they now offer. You're just paying more and more for low-quality noise you never watch.
- pbreit 13y agoI can't agree that cable tv quality has gone down recently. Game of Thrones, Mad Men, Breaking Bad? This stuff is not only the highest quality TV we've probably ever seen but higher quality than film as well.
- talmand 13y agoIn those cases you are quite correct, plus they are on channels that might not exist if not for cable TV. Surely the content of those shows would not exist on broadcast TV. And that's just two channels out of three hundred. Yes, there are examples of quality but they are severely drowned out by the noise. I guess I should say the average quality of cable TV has gone down over the years. I suppose if the majority of the channels on cable offered quality entertainment on the level of HBO's or AMC's offerings then my attitude would be different. But since I can access AMC content now with a agreeable arrangement and possibly get HBO's in the future, I don't feel the need to pay for all those channels I'll never watch. Right now I pay for the shows I want to watch. Plus, Netflix produced House of Cards of which I'd be happy to compare with any of HBO's or AMC's offerings.