Fox vs. Cablevision Pissing Match Ends In Baseball Blackout

Just in time for the NLCS and the World Series, the very public slap fight between NewsCorp and Cablevision hit an impasse on Friday night, with Cablevision subscribers in the New York City and Philadelphia metro areas no longer having access to their local Fox affiliates.

This sting will be felt by fans of the Philadelphia Phillies (aka the greatest team in the history of baseball, even during all the years they really sucked), whose National League Championship Series games are set to begin airing on Fox on Saturday night.

As has become standard with these broadcaster/provider disputes, both sides are doing their best to point the blame finger at the other.

“We deeply regret that Cablevision refuses to recognize the value of our programming,” said some Fox suit in a statement.

Meanwhile, Cablevision has taken the high road by posting not-at-all-inflammatory statements on their site like “In an act of corporate greed, News Corp has pulled FOX 5 and My9 from your Cablevision channel lineup. This is an unfortunate attempt to get unreasonable and unfair fee increases from Cablevision and our customers.”

Fox is also in the middle of a similar fracas with satellite provider Dish Network. The broadcaster has already pulled access to more than a dozen local Fox Sports outlets from Dish while the two sides hash out a deal.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter who is to blame in these kinds of fights. It will eventually end up with the two parties coming to an agreement — and with customers being charged more.

What do you think of broadcasters and providers making their fights public — Does it serve to educate consumers or merely muddle the waters?

Cablevision Drops Fox [NewsCorp Press Release]

NewsCorp wants over $150 million [Cablevision Statement]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. hansolo247 says:

    I really think all of the cable and satellite companies should just call their bluff and take fox off.

    Fox will come back 2 days later offering the same price or lower. They literally have to, as almost all of their audience is on the cable/sat networks. No audience, no ads, no money.

    The CBS station and the Fox station in my area have been pulling this crap. I could care less if it comes off, ATSC is free.

  2. sly_61019 says:

    Can’t you get fox with an antenna?

    • Christopher Wilson says:

      All I can get is a religious channel. I might be able to get it if i got a giant antenna and tower put in, but still most likely wouldn’t get it.

      • Alvis says:

        I live over an hour outside NYC and can pick up Fox 5 HD no problem.

        • Christopher Wilson says:

          I can’t. And according to all the antenna websites its highly unlikely I would even with a roof antenna.

          • richcreamerybutter says:

            NewsCorp and Cablevision already know that many residents in the tri-state area are going to have issues with building (or other) interference and digital signals. In theory you should be able to receive these channels over the air, but there are no guarantees you’re able to do so. Because there are also so many renters in multiple unit dwellings, satellite access is problematic for various reasons. If my landlord was able to enable dish service, I would happily pay to subscribe. Otherwise, I refuse to pay for the one cable “option” in my neighborhood.

      • grumpskeez says:

        Thats probably Fox. Just keep watching

  3. DancesWithBadgers says:

    Would not miss Fox at all, especially if it meant paying less for service.

  4. thewritejerry says:

    Will my bill include a “We’re not carrying 2 channels you pay for” discount?

  5. enomosiki says:

    I’m glad that I’m not into watching sports games.

    The last time I actually sat down and watched the TV was three months ago. Before that my regular diet consisted only of CNN and the History Channel.

    I really need to drop the cable TV.

    • vastrightwing says:

      You’re not missing a thing. I dropped cable years ago, the Internet has taken up the void and reading and socializing. So there expensive cable companies. I don’t miss you one bit!

    • pawnblue says:

      Netflix has all kinds of history channel stuff on instant view now. So for a month or two of cable fees, you have your on demand history channel fix all year long. Plus 1 DVD at a time.

      • laffmakr says:

        You’re saying Netflix costs the same as two months of cable?

        • caradrake says:

          Roughly. One month of Netflix, for their basic package, is just under $10.

          Cable usually runs $50 a month for the basic package, at least around here and where I last lived.

          2 months of cable = $100. One year of netflix = $120. If you get the free trial for your first month, you’d only pay $110 for that first year.

          Your mileage may vary due to your own cable costs.

    • JulesNoctambule says:

      Is ‘Too good for cable TV’ a square on the Bingo card yet? It ought to be.

  6. jp7570-1 says:

    Don’t feel too sorry for Rupert Murdoch and his US FOX network. He pulls this nonsense worldwide and he is still a billionnaire.

    I am sure there are numerous other alternatives to get FOX programming, not the least of which is going back to OTA (over the air) antennae television. Online options can replace the rest of FOX’s programming.

    In general, we the paying public are sick and tired of these seemingly annual feuds between the content providers and the cable/satellite systems. In the end, the cable/satellite systems give in and the subscribers end up paying the increased cost.

    This is just another argument for a la carte pricing.

  7. PercussionQueen7 says:

    Just wanted to say, Chris…

    GO GIANTS!!!!

  8. energynotsaved says:

    I just signed a 24 month contract before all this began. Comcast had been so limited and so expensive. I was so excited about my new range of choices for the same money. Now, I’m looking at this mess. It will get settled. I’ll end up getting hit for more money.

    The lesson for me? At the end of this 24 month contract, I hope I disconnect and add an antenna. Hope I’m not too lazy. Hope I learn something.

  9. sgtyukon says:

    When I turned on the TV this morning, Cablevision had changed the settings on my cable box from its end so it turns to Cablevision’s propaganda channel 1999 instead of tuning to the channel it was tuned to when I last shut the set off.

    In addition to missing the NLCS game tonight, I also hate when Cablevision changes my preferences for the way to receive its service. I changed it back, but I’m pretty sure a lot of Cablevision subscribers don’t know how to do that.

    • DarthCoven says:

      I noticed that too. I thought my wife was dicking around with the settings or maybe my dog sat on the remote. I forgot that Cablevision had the ability to do this and I’ll certainly be calling to complain about it when I get home later.

  10. Patrick says:

    Normally I hate vague attribution but “said some Fox suit” really made me laugh this morning. Very Onionesque.

  11. catnapped says:

    From what I’d read, Fox wants anywhere from double to quadruple what they were being paid before.

    • theduck says:

      According to Cablevision, that’s true. But again, that’s according to Cablevision.

      BTW, as long as we’re on the subject of Cablevision, I’m sure people in Cablevision’s service area have seen the ads Cablevision’s run saying how 40% of FiOS subscribers have switched back to Cablevision. To set the record straight, I am one of that 40%, and the ONLY reason I switched back to Cablevision was because they offered me far too good a deal to say “no” to (and I called Verizon in order to see if they’d even come close to what Cablevision was offering. They said no then, and of course now they’re dangling offers in front of me to come back). In any event, I’d imaging that’s how they got many of the 40%. Sorry to go off-topic, but this has been bugging me for a while.

      I’ll miss Turner Classic Movies, but I think it’ll be time to go back to an antenna soon…

  12. Straspey says:

    First of all, I have a small TV in my kitchen without a cable box because we only really use in the mornings to watch the local news while having breakfast. Fortunately I purchased a DTV converter box before the “transition” and so I will have no problem viewing any sports programming on the local FOX 5 station here in NY City.

    And secondly –

    Hey Chris…please let all of us know what’s the point of you making an ad-hominem slap in the face to the Phillies fans and how is that germain to your story ?

    Of course, I’m guessing you were born sometime after 1981, which means you weren’t around between 1964 and 1976, while the NY Yankees were stinking out the joint so badly they had to PAY WPIX to carry their games on local television here.

    Or maybe it’s because you filed your story at 12:41 in the morning and it was the beer talking ?

    • YouDidWhatNow? says:

      …maybe someone takes their sports a liiiiiiitle too seriously.

      • Straspey says:

        It’s not about how seriously I take sports – it’s about Chris’ un-called-for disparaging comment and slap-in-the-face to Phillies fans.

        What does that have to do with the programming issues with between FOX and Cablevision ?

        I dunno – you’re probably right, my comment was a bit over the top – I just seemed to me that Chris’ opinion on the Phillies and their fans had nothing to do with the point of the story, and I found it annoying.

        • snobum says:

          He was saying they were the greatest team even when they sucked. He’s pointing out he’s not just rooting for them because they’re good now. I’m a relatively young yankees fan but remember when the yankees sucked in the late 80s-early 90s. I was a fan then and sometimes it’s important to point that out to people :-)

        • Chris Morran says:

          You read way too much sarcasm into my comments, especially as I sit here now in a Phillies sweatshirt and cap, eagerly counting down the minutes until Game 1.
          I was born a Phillies fan and will remain one until the day I die…

          • Straspey says:

            Phil -

            Please accept my apologies. I would have replied sooner but I’ve been out all day at work.

            I had no idea you were (are) a long-suffering Phillies fan yourself – but that really has nothing to do with it because I readily admit that my comments to you were rude and out of line – especially that crack about the beer – and I stand here ashamed and remorseful – and I am being 100% totally honest with no sarcasm intended.

            Having been a loyal fan of the Yankees (and football Giants) for many years, I can certainly relate and respect the loyalty of any true sports fan.

            I enjoy reading and participating in this board, and appreciate all the hard work you and all the rest of the staff put in to come up with interesting and informative stories every day.

            I did not wish to insult or demean you personally in any way, and I apologize for having done so.

            Also – my apologies to the other people here for my being an a**hole today.

          • Straspey says:

            Chris

            Please accept my apologies. I would have replied sooner but I’ve been out all day at work.

            I had no idea you were (are) a long-suffering Phillies fan yourself – but that really has nothing to do with it because I readily admit that my comments to you were rude and out of line – especially that crack about the beer – and I stand here ashamed and remorseful – and I am being 100% totally honest with no sarcasm intended.

            Having been a loyal fan of the Yankees (and football Giants) for many years, I can certainly relate and respect the loyalty of any true sports fan.

            I enjoy reading and participating in this board, and appreciate all the hard work you and all the rest of the staff put in to come up with interesting and informative stories every day.

            I did not wish to insult or demean you personally in any way, and I apologize for having done so.

            Also – my apologies to the other people here for my being an a**hole today.

    • ryder28910 says:

      Slap in the face to Phillies fans? What the hell are you talking about? First of all, there were absolutely years that they (and any team) really sucked. And secondly, Chris has pointed out time and time again that, despite living in NY, he grew up in Philly and is very much a Philly sports fan.

      I’m pretty sure you need to stop reading between the lines for things that don’t exist.

    • Doncosmic says:

      you do realize that the Phillies have lost more games than any any other team in baseball, by quite a bit, so yes they have had several pretty bad years. Also Phillies fans deserve anything critisism they get, while they may not ALL be horrible people, enough of them are to make a definite impression on the rest of the country.

  13. YouDidWhatNow? says:

    The ultimate way to fix this, and virtually every other problem people have with cable/satellite programming, is to regulate said industries to require cafeteria-style pricing.

    Charge $X per each channel you want…and only for the channels you want. The carrier gets $Y of that charge, and the channel gets $Z of that charge. There, I fixed it.

    Yes…vast numbers of networks will go under over night – which they should, because no one actually wants them and they exist only by virtue of the fact that you have no choice but to pay for them. Cable/satellite TV is like a little microcosm of anti-capitalism that way.

    And if the carrier/network comes up with a per-channel fee that consumers feel is too high…they won’t sell any subscriptions to that channel, and they’ll either adjust the fee to a price point people are willing to pay, or that carrier/network combo goes away. The open market will *actually* be in effect. Although, on that note, the localized monopolies that cable carriers have need to get outlawed too.

    The cafeteria plan needs to happen, and is realistically the only way this industry can ever operate in a consumer-friendly manner. Pressure from online/streaming video should be putting the screws to these people to find a way to make people want them…this is how to do it.

    • DanRydell says:

      /facepalm

      A la carte pricing would not be nearly as great as so many people think it would be. The carriage fees are based on a channel’s audience, so all of those channels that you never watch are costing you very little, while the channels that you DO watch are being paid for by the people who watch other channels. With a la carte pricing you’d no longer be paying for the channels you don’t watch, but you’d be paying a hell of a lot more for the channels you DO watch.

      • YouDidWhatNow? says:

        That’s not true in any way.

        The channels that people don’t watch would die. And there are likely a number of channels that you’re paying a premium chunk of your fee for that you don’t watch…for example, you might be paying through the nose for CBS and NBC, but actually don’t ever watch them. Or MTV, or whatever else.

        On a cafeteria plan, the market will set the rates to appropriate levels…because if an individual channel is priced higher than people are willing to pay, they won’t pay for it.

        It would engender a massive cost-restructuring throughout the entire industry…and the current providers like Comcast and T-W may well just flounder and go bankrupt. But the pieces will be picked up and someone will use modern technology to efficiently provide the services people want…and only the services people want.

        If they come at you with a $5 per-month fee for the Discovery channel, tell them to think about that a bit harder while you watch Mythbusters stream from the website instead. That’s how it’s going to work.

    • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

      i’d love to be able to pay per channel and then vote for my channels to carry certain programs. if only that meant things like bridezillas would go away and scifi … oh, i mean “syfy” would stop showing wrestling and go back to showing scifi

    • frank64 says:

      Something has to happen, but I see the problems others have stated. I think a hybrid may work, increases or something above a standard rate would need an opt in for an extra charge. Right now channels strongly desired by some pushed on everyone because the channels get more that way. Of course we all end paying way extra for these channels we might not even watch. There needs to be a market mechanism employed.

      Cable co’s used to be less militant because of consumers were pretty accepting of price increases. Now we have a choice and they need to do something, and they know it. I haven’t had cable for years due to the high cost, but now I am finding it easier and easier to watch what I want. Something is going to have to give pretty soon.

  14. Macgyver says:

    This is all NewsCorp fault. How can their be asking for more then double of what they were getting last year? What they are asking for is unfair.
    This is going to hurt NewsCorp, no shows + no ads =no money.

  15. TinaBringMeTheAx says:

    F them both.

    They are both such scummy companies, it’s hard to know for whom to root.

  16. Klay says:

    What? You can’t use an antenna? NYC and Philly have at least two Fox affiliates each within easy broadcast (OTA) reach.

  17. OBEYshiba says:

    that pic is of a shiba, not a fox.

    for more helpful details about what a shiba is and is not, i suggest checking sfnc’s handout:
    http://tar0shiba.tumblr.com/post/1098027550/shibafactsviaphineasetheshiba

    • dadelus says:

      Was wondering if someone had pointed that out yet. Shibas rule!!!

    • Excuse My Ambition Deficit Disorder says:

      Yes, the Shiba-Inu freaking rule….this article sucks…

      Hate it when people say my 8 year old Shiba looks like a fox…I then have to point out the differences to my wife…

  18. vastrightwing says:

    Let this go like the baseball strike of 1994. I find it unreasonable that content providers keep raising rates every year even when their costs don’t actually go up. This is like charging money to enter a mall: the advertisers are paying all the freight charges and consumers simply pay more. You sports fan will simply have to find a different form of entertainment for a year.

    • ChuckECheese says:

      Sports fans have to pay whatever is charged, because if they don’t have sports, they will become ghey.

      • frank64 says:

        That’s the thing, so many times have people said or posted “cable is not worth it, I would cancel it if not for sports” I guess it IS worth it then? That sentiment alone has raised cable prices for everyone quite a bit I am sure.

  19. maynurd says:

    OK, so don’t carry the Fox network, so what. The same things has gone on in my area between Sinclair broadcasting and Mediacom. The cable company saves money by not paying any of the broadcast fees, but may loose some customers. The network will end up loosing money from advertising over time. The only people getting burned are the customers, which is basically the norm.

  20. Not Given says:
  21. Woodside Park Bob says:

    According to the Associated Press, “While Fox didn’t dispute Cablevision’s claims, it called Cablevision “hypocritical” because it pays more for two of its sister company channels, MSG and MSG Plus, than it does for all 12 Fox channels. MSG and MSG Plus are owned by Madison Square Garden Inc., which like Cablevision is controlled by the Dolan family.”

    This is exactly why the Comcast – NBC merger has to be stopped. After a merger, Comcast will have an incentive to pay higher and higher charges for NBC programming and pass those charges along to its cable subscribers, just as Cablevision does for MSG.

    There should be a complete ban on cable companies owning or having common ownership with program suppliers.

  22. PsiCop says:

    And when either side claims it’s looking out for viewers’ best interests, one can always point out that a blackout is never in viewers’ interests (because there’s nothing for them to “view”).

  23. Bojangles says:

    If I’m under agreement with Dish, does that also include the programs that I have paid for? Could one start a lawsuit to be reimbursed for the channels that were not provided?

    • catnapped says:

      Nope…read your contract.

      However, some people claim they’ve called and bitched and gotten some compensation (credits)

    • aaron8301 says:

      I don’t know what the contract says, but if they’re not providing you with the channels they said they would when you signed up, then they’re not holding up their end of the agreement. Thus, like when wireless companies raise rates (as we’ve seen on this site may times before), you should be able to get out of the contract and cancel.

      As a Dish and DirecTV installer for years, I know they always try to sell to customers based on channel packages and what those packages include. I also know that I’ve installed a few DirecTV systems the last two weeks for now former Dish customers when Fox pulled this crap with Dish on Oct. 1, because the customer couldn’t watch FX.

      http://consumerist.com/2010/10/fox-plays-hardball-with-dish-network-pulls-19-regional-sports-channels-and-fx.html

      On a different note, this also shows that Fox is being just plain greedy. First Dish Network, now Cablevision.

  24. Torchwood says:

    When did television turn into a exercise of frustration? More importantly, why do some people treat the loss of several channels as a “life-or-death” situation? Notice how the timing of the contract expiration for the channels correspond directly to a major sports or television event, just to make people upset.

    Of course, this may be a good time for cable subscribers on the affected systems to threaten cancellation and see what deals are available. For me, once my two year contract is over, I’m canceling. The cost/benefit ratio sucks. Why should I watch a weekly series when, at the end of the season, it gets released as a box set anyways?

  25. UncleAl says:

    So, if you have cable or satellite, the NLCS may be blacked out. OTOH, if you reply on OTA for television, the ALDS, NLDS and ALCS are all blacked out due to lack of access to TBS. One more reason that Bud Selig gets my vote for worse baseball commissioner ever.

  26. svengali84 says:

    It’s really unfortunate that FOX, Disney, etc are able to pull over-the-air channels during these disputes. It’s a free broadcast channel, they really shouldn’t be allowed to pull it. Not everyone has a signal where they live to get it over the air. I’m surprised the FCC allows this to happen.

  27. DracoSolon says:

    If the cable companies would go to ala cart billing then they would be in a much better position with their customers to deflect this kind of corporate blackmail. They could then say – “Look the price we were charging us for these channels was $1.00 per month, but now they are demanding that we pay them $2.00 a month – a 100% increase! If you think that’s fair then pay it, if not call or email Channel or Corporation X and complain.” But since the cable companies want to have their cake an eat it too they don’t really have much leverage here.

    • mbd says:

      Cablevision has actively and publicly supported ala-cart pricing. It is the cable channels that refuse to allow this, because while the “big” channels will survive, most of what is on now will not.

    • gman863 says:

      It may actually DECREASE pricing. Look at magazines. With few exceptions, advertiser supported magazines live or die based on how many paid subscribers they have. This is why they offer yearly subscriptions at 60-80% off the newsstand price.

      Based on this, cable channels would have to adopt the same business model. It is likely multiple channels owned by a single company (Disney, FOX, Discovery, etc.) would offer further discounts in a bundle of their combined networks.

      • gman863 says:

        To expand on the “live or die” magazine comment: Ad rates are based on the number of subscribers. If a cable channel lost half its audience their ad revenue would go down the toilet.

  28. Torchwood says:

    According to Gizmodo, Fox content on Hulu is blacked out for Cablevision customers as well. See http://gizmodo.com/5665721/news-corp-bans-cablevision-customers-from-watching-hulu

  29. RogueWarrior65 says:

    And nothing of value was lost.

  30. DustoMan says:

    Fox is having it out with Dish Network too. At this point, Fox can really go screw themselves. If two separate companies are having issues with the rates they want to charge for their programming. There’s something fishy going on there if you ask me.

    • dadelus says:

      Not just them. AT&T had the same dispute with them awhile ago. Apparently they came to some sort of deal though. I was actually hoping all the fox stations would go away.

  31. lchen says:

    A few weeks ago Cablevision (or some survey company they hired) called twice doing a survey on whether or not they should fight Fox on this issue, if I was willing to go without Fox channels and ‘who’s at fault’ if the channels went off air. I said go ahead and drop them, Fox sucks. I could always watch it online if I really wanted to.
    Also, that’s a photo of a shiba inu (I have one) and not a fox.

  32. psanf says:

    I’m with Cablevision on this one. Fox programming isn’t work beans.
    Let them stay off the air, I say. Maybe without all of the lies and “journalism” coming from Fox people will actually start educating themselves about politics instead of listening to talking heads.

  33. gman863 says:

    Since FOX pulled sports channels off DISH, the houston FOX broascast outlet (KRIV-26, owned by Fox) has been filling unsold ad time with announcements of “DISH NETWORK HAS DROPPED FOX SPORTS HOUSTON! FIND ANOTHER TV PROVIDER BY GOING TO (website)!”

    As other posts have stated, the technology exists for “a la carte” channel purchasing. It’s time to start turning up the heat on cable and satellite companies to offer it.

    First, consider the stupidity of the current channel “packages”. If I subscribe to Time Magazine, does that mean I have to pay for and receive Newsweek, US News, People, Sports Illustrated and dozens of other rags I care nothing about? The same should apply for TV.

    Under this plan, there would likely be a base monthly charge for the cable/satellite connection. My current bill for DirecTV is about $90/month. I have a HD DVR but do NOT subscribe to premium channels (HBO, Starz, Showtime, etc) or order PPV movies. In order to get certain channels I like (such as Nat Geo and History Int’l) I had to purchase an “extra” package of 30 more channels.

    Here’s my “fantasy draft” for TV channels I’d keep and dump (your list may differ; this is only to point out the potential savings):

    * I get better picture quality (plus the local digital Accu-Weather) on my free antenna. Local stations DO charge cable/sat providers a monthly fee! Using the antenna, they don’t.
    DEDUCT AT LEAST $5/MONTH.

    * Other than The Simpsons and Family Guy, I would not care if FOX and NewsCorp died tomorrow. Ixnay FOX News, FX, FOX Sports and DEDUCT AT LEAST $5/MONTH.

    * I don’t watch chick channels. The Oprah Newtork, Lifetime, HGTV, Food Network and any other channel who’s primary advertisers sell tampons and yeast infection cream. Get off my satellite box so I can DEDUCT at least $5 (likely more) EACH MONTH.

    * “M-I-C (See? Never) K-E-Y (Why? Because I’m over twelve.) M-O-U-S-E” Drop the Disney Channel, NICK and Boomerang (OK, I’ll keep Cartoon network for Adult Swim). Not having kids should save me (see a pattern here) ABOUT $5/MONTH.

    * Drop the audio-only music channels (they’re not “free” due to music royalty fees); I have Pandora and over 10,000 mp3 files at no cost.

    This leaves me with CNN, The Weather Channel, the crime channels (TRU, ID) and the intelligent “geeky” offerings such as Science, Discovery, History and Nat Geo. Even if each channel I really want charged $2/month for a la carte; dropping the channels I never watch should easily cut my bill by $30 or moreper month.

  34. ARP says:

    Wait until Comcast owns NBC. There’s no way they dramatically increase rates to provide NBC, Bravo, Sy-Fy, etc. to their competitors.

    /snark

  35. thor79 says:

    This kind of crap will become more commonplace as viewers find alternatives to this crap. As subscribers numbers drop they will have to charge more to the people still sticking with them. Leading to showdowns like this, which will result in even more people going to a la carte alternatives.

    I already do this. I pay for and watch only the shows I like…and nothing more…all delivered via my Comcast internet. Local channels I get with the cost of my internet connection off of ClearQAM (the big stations are in HD no less) over my internet’s cable connection. Couldn’t be happier.

  36. MaarekElets says:

    Part of the agreement is that Dish reserves the right to change pricing, packaging or programming without limitation at any time. It’s in the paperwork you sign and also is stated to you (or shown) anytime you make changes your programming. Direct TV, Comcast, Cox, AT&T…eveyone else really…. have the same stipulations in their contracts.

    The idea here is that based on the agreement, losing a specific channel (especially if it is replaced with a similar channel, which Dish has done) would not be considered materially adverse as Dish has the right to modify the channel lineup according to the agreement. You could argue that the channel replacing is not equal to what was lost, but that might be pretty hard to prove. Your best bet would be to talk with Dish and express your frustration and see what options they were willing to offer you. It’s been helpful to me in the past, and the phone people have always been nice…even if I didn’t get exactly what I was looking for.

  37. ClaudeKabobbing says:

    Customers can only be charged more if they keep paying. I am moving to new apartment next and and I am moving back into the stone age. The broadcast TV I an get will be with an antenna. Its gonna suck not keeping up with all my favorite programs, but I can get them eventually thru netflix and online and still have the satisfaction of telling cable TV content providers and satellite providers enough is enough.

    If only I could do the same with internet and still have internet.

  38. c152driver says:

    The networks and pay television providers are sort of like AOL in the year 2000. They just don’t know they’re dead yet. More and more people are going to be cutting the cord and turning to Internet television. This is the kind of behavior exhibited by companies in declining industries (also witness the behavior of the RIAA and MPAA).

    I myself plan on cutting the cord soon. I just put up an OTA antenna and am putting together a Home Theater PC to replace my DirecTV DVR. With that and a Roku box, we’ll ultimately be able to replace about 90% of our programming.

  39. Excuse My Ambition Deficit Disorder says:

    Hey that’s not a fox in the picture…that’s a Shiba Inu….the best doggy ever….