Yes. I used to watch it regularly. I liked the Coast Guard series and the Canadian winter tow truck series. The storm coverage was good as background entertainment. I would pay another few dollars to get it back.
You do realize that The Weather Channel has virtually nothing to do with weather anymore, right?
Besides, doesn't FiOS have WeatherScan?
Like others have said, blame the owners of ESPN, they are the ones that force the bundling of channels. It was just mentioned that Verizon got sued by Disney for trying to do exactly that.Exactly. The only time ESPN is on in our home is when a visitor is watching it. I get sick when I think how much money I've wasted paying ESPN over the years but OTA is hopeless here and Comcast doesn't allow breaking up their bundles. Too bad antitrust laws are either toothless and/or not enforced anymore.
I understand that you don't want to pay $30 per subscriber, so you're saying I have to subsidize your ESPN and pay more for it than any other channel even though I don't watch it? Sounds like a good deal for you. At least they bundled the "Watching Paint Dry Channel" with it to soften the blow for me.I would rather my bill go up than channels get touched. I am still upset that FiOS dropped the Weather channel months ago.
Random slight necro...
I may sound like a dick when I say this, but I'm finding it pretty ridiculous that the majority of cord cutters comes from places like these forums. I'm sure most of us make atleast a semi-decent salary, the issue is we just can't justify the outrageous costs anymore.
In yet... I hear we have government subsidy programs from the cable companies that allows "eligible households" to pay only $10/month for the same cable that everyone else pays boatloads for. That seems a bit ridiculous considering we're cutting the cords at home. I want to get in on this government subsidy Frankly, I'm having a hard time understanding how TV is a right. It's not like the internet where you learn things and research topics.
Example: http://deadline.com/2011/11/cable-c...o-low-income-households-for-9-99month-192839/
slightly old, but gets the point across.
Where's the old fusetalk confused smiley when you need it? The article you linked is literally about broadband internet access.
It's not so much that you sound like a dick, but it's bewildering to me that this is the kind of thing that gets you angry. Poor people being able to watch TV. Not the fact that our regulatory system is so broken that the only thing that brings lower prices and higher broadband speeds is Google Fiber.
http://www.technologyreview.com/review/538411/the-wait-for-google-to-do-it-strategy/
I mean, I really just can't understand it. How can you read an article like that and not get nauseas?
Random slight necro...
I may sound like a dick when I say this, but I'm finding it pretty ridiculous that the majority of cord cutters comes from places like these forums. I'm sure most of us make atleast a semi-decent salary, the issue is we just can't justify the outrageous costs anymore.
In yet... I hear we have government subsidy programs from the cable companies that allows "eligible households" to pay only $10/month for the same cable that everyone else pays boatloads for. That seems a bit ridiculous considering we're cutting the cords at home. I want to get in on this government subsidy Frankly, I'm having a hard time understanding how TV is a right. It's not like the internet where you learn things and research topics.
Example: http://deadline.com/2011/11/cable-c...o-low-income-households-for-9-99month-192839/
slightly old, but gets the point across.
Where's the old fusetalk confused smiley when you need it? The article you linked is literally about broadband internet access.
It's not so much that you sound like a dick, but it's bewildering to me that this is the kind of thing that gets you angry. Poor people being able to watch TV. Not the fact that our regulatory system is so broken that the only thing that brings lower prices and higher broadband speeds is Google Fiber.
http://www.technologyreview.com/review/538411/the-wait-for-google-to-do-it-strategy/
I mean, I really just can't understand it. How can you read an article like that and not get nauseas?
Good. Fuck ESPN and their tearing away of games that used to be available OTA. That includes Monday night football and as of this year NFL playoff games. I hope people wise up to the college sports network channels to and give them the finger. Local games that used to be locally televised on OTA channels now got sucked into Big 10 & SEC networks. It's a horrible trend.
Voting with your wallet is the only way that this stuff is going to get better.
Arizona - Carolina wild card game was on ESPN this last yearAmen.
As to the bolded....what??
My bad, yo.
It's not the fact that poor people are watching TV. It's the fact that poor people are watching cable TV with tons more channels than I have, working less hours than I am (or not at all), and I can't even afford cable.
Again, I speak to all the cable cutter's when I say that. We aren't broke. We are living par with middle-class, but since we aren't low income we can't qualify for many things - so we have to do away with them. It almost sounds advantageous to be lower income.
Comcast is starting to roll out service for cord cutters, with some restrictions.
http://9to5mac.com/2015/07/13/comcast-web-tv-package-apple/#more-388631
-KeithP
No ESPN. No Leverage over competition.
It was also Steinbrenner leading the capitalization of TV rights. By creating his own YES network, he essentially issued a monthly household Yankees "tax" on every household in their baseball viewing area.
And Delaney, the Big 10 commish loved that idea, tax every house in B1G states? (Why else do you think they added Rutgers?). So this becomes more than a TV cost talk and now a sports league alignment issue, too.
Random slight necro...
john oliver did a great show on how bad the tax payers get fucked over by stadiums. really eye opening.
There are tons of cases where the stadiums end up generating a SHIT TON of revenue. The entire point is for the city to help build it so that afterwards you have 100,000+ people showing up to the stadium everytime to....
the Miami Marlins as an example: the team that got almost $500 million "by pleading poverty," but leaked documents showed that they made $50 million over two years.
It really depends though.
There are tons of cases where the stadiums end up generating a SHIT TON of revenue. The entire point is for the city to help build it so that afterwards you have 100,000+ people showing up to the stadium everytime to....
1. Pay Taxes on event seats
2. Pay Taxes on Drinks (beer)
3. Pay taxes on shit food (Coke, peanuts, etc...)
All and all, I can see why it's done.
Now there are other issues - For example right now in Brazil for their World Cup and their scheduled Olympics hosting, they are building an ass-fuck load of stadiums (some in the middle of no-where) to be used.... ONE time... and never be used again.... There is absolutely no way in fuck that is profitable.
I understand that you don't want to pay $30 per subscriber, so you're saying I have to subsidize your ESPN and pay more for it than any other channel even though I don't watch it? Sounds like a good deal for you. At least they bundled the "Watching Paint Dry Channel" with it to soften the blow for me.