[kingattax]

try to imagine cable or satellite TV without all the shopping channels and infomercials.

[P8triot1]

I can.
The wife and I haven’t had a television for years.
Except for football sundays and superbowl we don’t watch.
Reading and listening to the internet has better pictures.

[MarkL]

Part of the problem is with "exclusive supplier" deals that many municipalities give to a single cable provider. No competition often means crappy service (after 2 years, TWC still hasn't buried my cable) and nearly always higher prices.

I have an aunt who lives in an area where the market has 3 different cable carriers, plus they've got the new fiber service from AT&T and I believe Verizon as well. In my area, while I can deal with AOL, Earthlink, or RoadRunner as my ISP (interestingly enough, all three charge EXACTLY the same monthly fees) but it all goes through Time Warner Cable. I have basic cable and high speed Internet, and pay $72.00 a month. She has the same cable and HSI service, plus telephone service for $38.00 a month. Her deal IS an introductory deal that she had to contract for an entire year. However, after that year is over, she can decide to move to a different provider if they jack up her rates. I had to sign a 2 year agreement to ensure that my rate wouldn't increase by more than $2 a year. If I back out early, there's a $275 fee. But it doesn't really matter, since I have nowhere else to go.

Mark

[CaspersGh0sts]

Netflix and then Blockbuster Total Access have completely replaced cable TV for me. I’d rather watch movies than most TV shows, anyway. And if there’s a TV show I want to watch, that’s what the season DVDs are for.

As for the price of cable, it is a bit ridiuclous. But probably not any moreso than internet access. By the time all the service fees and taxes are added on to things, cable almost seems like a good—though wholly unnecessary—expense relative to internet access.

Even my bottom of the barrel DSL line ends up costing me $40 per month when it’s all said and done.

[Condor51]

Comcast drives me nuts.

They nickel and dime ya to death. It *seems* like every few months the bill goes up by a buck and change, after a little while you notice it's $10.00 - $15.00 more.

[umgud]

Overall, prices for technology are always getting cheaper. Even cell phone rates are cheap compared to times past, but cable just keeps on truckin. Go figure.

[Proud2BeRight]

Have never purchased cable. I would run through the channels on cable when I stayed in hundreds of hotels over the years and could never see the point for paying for that crap. Maybe ESPN but that’s about it. Now we get many new channels in digital and high def off the antenna on the roof. I guess I’m cheap but then we retired early in life too. :)

[ml/nj]

Cable prices have risen 77 percent since 1996

How much has the NY Times price risen since 1996? I don't know I'm just asking. What I do know is that when I started to drive in 1963, gas was a quarter and so to were five daily copies of the NY Times. Now gas is four bucks and those five daily copies of the Times are six and a quarter. I wonder which increase the Times editors moan about.

ML/NJ

[VOA]

bump

[Paperdoll]

I got along very well without cable for a number of years, until I volunteered for Duncan Hunter and needed to have a broader view of how the campaigns were doing.

I signed back on to cable at that point. I now pay more for less than basic cable for networks plus HGTV and Hallmark, both of which repeat often than I did back in the nineties. So I will soon go back to my faithful rabbit ears because I really don’t have the set on that much (I do enjoy Glen Beck very much on HN, however.)

Fortunately, I have many interests outside of sitting, though I do spend some time at my computer, and actually get most of my more reliable news there.

[savedbygrace]

I’ve had DirecTV and Dish, and recently went back to cable.

I am amazed that the image quality on cable is better than DirecTV, which was better than Dish. That’s my professional opinion; I’ve been shooting and editing corporate and broadcast video for more than 20 years, and I’m picky about video image quality.

So, I’m willing to pay a little more for my cable package (also got cable phone service and 8Mbps Internet from them.)

[mysterio]

And to top it off, the comcast monopoly wants to restrict torrents.

[drc43]

AT&T just launched a new cable, faster service in our area, offering more for less than Comcast. Better TV pictures than Comcast.

Internet is 30 bucks instead of 50. Outages that were daily with Comcast have vanished. So far, we are very happy with it.

You would not believe the number of folks switching.

Comcast does not seem concerned..

Right..

[JoeGar]

Cable prices have risen 77 percent since 1996

The History Channel, Discovery Channel, Discovery Science, Military Channel, National Geographic Channel, HD channels, digital channels, and digital video recorders--all new since 1996--make cable worth the cost.

[TomGuy]

of the 118 channels available to them

'available to them' does not mean 'worth watching.'

I get 70 on my basic extended. I would gladly drop 40 crappers, just so I didn't have to pass through them to get to the 30 that may have watchable programming.

Having even 70 channels does not mean having '70 channels worth watching.'

If McCain would get cable-a-la-carte passed, I would support him for President. At least he would have finally done something worthwhile.

[pabianice]

In my town there is one cable provider and no satellite TV. I wonder why cable keeps raising its prices? /s

[dragnet2]

Cable, satellite etc is all a rip off.

I remember years ago when they first pushed "Pay TV" and "On TV" bull crap.

It was all billed as NO COMMERCIALS.

They lied....

Now all the suckers are PAYING TO WATCH COMMERCIALS.

[nyyankeefan]

try to imagine cable or satellite TV without all the shopping channels and infomercials...

300 channels down to about 6!!!!