Posted on 06/12/2019 10:34:34 PM PDT by ConservativeMind
According to the far-left outlet’s own fact sheet, CNN is currently available in 90 million households. This means 90 million people pay money to CNN every month even though fewer than one million on average actually watch CNN.
The game is rigged, folks. And it is especially rigged against those normal Americans who on a daily basis are bullied, taunted, discriminated against, demonized, threatened, and menaced by CNN. You see, it works like this…
Even if you don’t watch CNN, you are still forced to pay for CNN. It is called a carriage fee, and every month you subsidize this hate network to the tune of about $1.00 a month, or around $12.00 a year.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
If only we could demand a-la-carte pricing from the cable and satellite TV providers. No, I am not sure my bill would be hugely cheaper in the end - given what channels I would chose to have available to me - but at least I would not be paying any carriage fees for channels I don’t want and never watch.
By the way, a lot of the bundling happens above the level of the cable TV and satellite TV providers. MANY TV channels are not stand-alone companies on their own, but are merely one channel among many a much larger company owns. Those companies demands on the cable TV and satellite TV providers is such that in order to get the popular channels a media company owns, the cable TV provider has to take all or some portion of the other channels the media company owns.
For instance, CNN is merely one channel among many media assets owned by Warner Media (now a subsidiary of AT&T). I don’t think Warner Media lets any cable TV or Satellite TV provider deliver HBO or some of their other movie channels to their customers unless they also deliver CNN.
If we can’t legally consider all the ways that bundling is done in the cable TV industry as “restraint of trade” and truly anti-competitive (it removes many channels from needing to actually compete at all in order to be seen), then cutting the cord is the only option we have left.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_WarnerMedia
YouTube TV has Bravo:
https://clark.com/technology/tvsatellite-cable/4-things-to-know-before-you-sign-up-for-youtube-tv/
Fubo TV has Bravo:
https://www.fubo.tv/welcome?irad=343747&irmp=198939
For $20 a month, you can get a lot of channels from just one service:
https://try.philo.com/
HBO Now is only an HBO channel over the Internet:
https://www.hbo.com/order
You don’t pay a thing for CNN, and you don’t get CNN.
Yes
I watch Fox News and business and TCM... that’s it
That’s fine for folks with a “smart” TV and Internet access for it, or folks who don’t mind watching TV on tablets and cell phones (not me). But smart TVs are only 32% of US households today, so your solution is not a general solution for most cable and satellite TV subscribers.
https://www.consumerreports.org/broadband/internet-fast-enough-for-streaming-broadband-speed/
Look at the graphic partly down the page for speeds needed for HD and 4K.
My mother has an eight year old ROKU that uses wireless to her non-smart TV.
Other services that would not pay CNN are more expensive than YouTube TV or Hulu TV for those three networks.
Sorry about that.
80 with playstation vue for a bank of channels inc HBO and Showtime vs. 160 with Directv via satellite. 1/2 the cost.
“My mother has an eight year old ROKU that uses wireless to her non-smart TV”
So what, the Roku boxes are even less in use than are smart TVs and without one or the other you don’t get Internet to your TV, so your “solution” is still not a solution for most cable TV subscribers.
What would be “better” would be to hugely expand the spectrum for broadcast TV and start dumping cable and TV over the Internet as mediums for TV at all. That would also dump all the invasive personal data acquisition and sale that accompanies how the Internet content providers are paying for their so-called “free” services/apps.
I don’t agree that a one time purchase of a $29 item for everyone’s existing Wi-Fi Internet is a show stopper for anyone getting cable today.
“I don’t agree that a one time purchase of a $29 item for everyone’s existing Wi-Fi Internet is a show stopper for anyone getting cable today.”
Your objection has no relevance. What do think, people should be forced to by a Roku device? The fact is they are not in wide usage, and apparently the majority of TV watchers have no interest in one. Of course the Internet personal data collectors would love it if everyone got their TV that way.
I think I’m paying around 35$ or so per month. Much less than basic cable.
I’m thinking of signing up for Fox Nation.
Thx...will look into it...don’t have a Playstation. ..and have to get rid of amazon prime
We live in rural NC in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mtns. We have and stream from DSL.
Wow, this explains a lot!
Bitterness is never pretty.
...capitalism dictates it’s not worth bring BB to the rural areas.
__________________________________________
In my area, a local company was formed. They have slowly increased their coverage (with some rural broadband grants). We fired Frontier in March. Signed up with the locals, save over $100/month, faster, smoother, and we even still have a landline (needed in event of power outages)
Why do you have to get rid of amazon prime?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.