Let Them Eat Cake

Via Atrios, this story about how cable is losing customers contains this "gem" of a comment from DISH CEO Joseph Clayton:

Dish Chief Executive Officer Joseph Clayton said yesterday that one of his goals is to reposition the company away from marketing to lower-income customers. Instead, he wants Dish to rely on its technology and promotions to persuade customers to buy more expensive offerings and increase average revenue per user.Clayton rejected the idea of relaxing credit standards to appeal to lower-income people, saying he’s “looking for a better class of customer.”

I look forward to the day DISH files for bankruptcy. What an a**hole.

Speaking for me only

< Wednesday Morning Open Thread | The Pledge >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Dish (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:00:44 AM EST
    was horrible even before this. I'm glad I got rid of them.

    Charlie Ergen is RENOWNED (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:11:17 AM EST
    for being a first class jerk/tightwad.

    There was a time in the late 90s and early 00s when Dish was the best deal in TV and provided a better service than cable. But they can't compete anymore.


    ugh (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CST on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:02:48 AM EST
    DISH $ucks, comcast also $ucks, they are such a monopoly/rip-off it's not even funny.

    I'm seriously thinking of ditching it all and going straight netflix.  I don't need to be watching so much TV anyway.  But I don't think I could give up live sports.

    Live sports... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:27:59 AM EST
    and some of the HBO & Showtime original stuff...other than that I could easily forego as well.

    And hitting the pub for all live sports would dwarf the cable bill...could always mooch off friends and fam cable I guess:)


    yea well (none / 0) (#12)
    by CST on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:41:23 AM EST
    I've decided I can live with mooching off friends for the HBO & Showtime stuff.  Plus showtime makes it to netflix eventually, just a few seasons behind.

    Live sports is the real kicker though.  Unlike TV shows, I actually care if I watch them live.  And yes, going to a bar for all the games, or even a friend's house, would be a bit much.  Especially in a city with 4 sports franchises that regularly make the playoffs.


    That was an intentional low blow... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:53:59 AM EST
    And ya got my main man Shaun Ellis after we insulted him with a veteran minimum offer after 11 years of service.  Bad form Woody.

    At least now Shaun has Beiber's ear so he can collect on what he's owed for chasing Bledsoe into Mo Lewis.  


    hehe (none / 0) (#17)
    by CST on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:59:07 AM EST
    yea, and it maybe will give him a little extra incentive when playing the Jets again.

    I did like Rex Ryan's dig to the rest of the league about the Jets needing help beating the Pats.  Your boys have had our number the last few years, certainly enough to make me nervous before any game.  But the rest of the league still hasn't figured us out.

    I am now onto hoping that the Jets miss the playoffs entirely :)

    It's hard not to get preemptively giddy about the Pats this year.  They have trained me the last few years not to get my hopes too high though.


    That's not a bad plan. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 10:14:48 AM EST
    I hate Comcast as well. I have the bare minimum TV services from them. I do have Comcast internet. But I mostly watch Netflix and buy programs from Amazon on my wifi enabled Vizio television. I hate paying for a gazillion channels that I'm not remotely interested in watching. I'd rather pay per episode to Amazon. At least I'm paying for what I want to watch.

    If he wants a better class of customer (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:05:26 AM EST
    He should have a better class of services too.  They have rang our phone off the hook for over a year now.  When we first moved in we had Dish.  Our house is older though we needed new cable installed with our dish and they wouldn't do it.  The old cable on the house was too old though and it really wasn't up to the newer standards.  We were in a hurry though then, the old cable became a real problem too.  When our contract was up I asked them to consider replacing it and they told me to get bent.

    I called DirectTV and they said they would be right over.  And they were, and their service person was here for about six hours installing the new cable.  And sorry, but DirectTV is just superior in many other ways too Mr. Clayton because they understand something about pleasing customers.  And stop calling me, I don't like you already and you are setting it in concrete like Comcast did.

    We had the same experience with (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:20:49 AM EST
    DirecTV, although we had nothing to compare it to, since there was no cable out our way.  They came when they said they would, they stayed until everything was up and working, called later to see if we had any questions, and encouraged us to call if we thought of any, or encountered any problems.

    That being said, we do plan to be calling DirecTV, to request that since we have been good customers for a couple of years, and they are now offering NFL Sunday Ticket free to new subscribers, that they give us the same deal.

    Friends and family who have Comcast have such a terrible time getting through the nightmare of menu choices that never seem to apply to whatever it is they need help with - or, once the do get through, finding anyone who gives a crap, that they literally pray they won't have any problems - especially with billing, which is, apparently, an experience that makes sticking needles in your eyes seem like it might be fun.

    Interesting though, that Dish is pursuing a business model built on elitism; I have a feeling that's not going to work out too well for them.  Oh, well...


    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 01:13:02 PM EST
    There HD channel line-up is pitiful, who does he think he's catering to ? I always assumed Dish Network's niche was the cheap no frills.

    I had Time Warner, the best ever, then Comcast bought them and my bill went up 50%, a real nightmare.

    So took the DirectTV plunge and a couple years ago and I really like it.  Like a month ago, my remote stopped working, called in morning, and that night some dude showed up with a new one and even programed it to my TV, and it was free.  I am a sucker for quality human customer service because it's rare.

    Off Note, I just remembered, DirecTV has limited SiriusXM stations, wonder if I can DVR BTD ?  What channel was he going to be on ?


    About 30 years ago, (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Makarov on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 12:17:22 PM EST
    Comcast was negotiating for a franchise agreement with the city of Philadelphia. The city, appropriately, required they wire up everyone - from Fishtown to West Diamond to Rittenhouse Square to Passyunk Ave.

    Comcast argued many low income people simply wouldn't subscribe, and thus they couldn't make a profit. The city stood its ground.

    What happened was a big surprise to the marketing geniuses in the cable TV industry - low and moderate income households both bought cable service at a higher rate that high income households. It was cheap entertainment.

    Reassured of their subscriber base, the industry has never done a lot to push back demands from programmers for more $ per door. They simply acted as a pass through - higher salaries to actors and athletes translated to higher costs for networks which ultimately led to higher monthly cable bills. Every passing year, whether a boom or recession, meant your cable bill went up.

    As some speakers noted at June's NCTA trade show, 30 years of stagnant wages for the bottom 80%, combined with programming costs rising much faster than inflation, have made cable too expensive for many low income households. If you have school age children at home, your better entertainment value is high speed internet versus cable TV.

    The problem today isn't lack of "al a carte" choice in cable channels. You don't pay for the 3+ home shopping channels, Spike, the Outdoor Network, or even the new Fox Business Channel. You pay for the old broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC), ESPN, Discovery, and Comedy Central. Sure, there are large swaths of channels you may never watch; children's programming, teen/young adult, cable news.

    Yet, the only area where you're possibly paying a lot for something you don't care about is sports, ESPN and other sports channels in particular. If you don't care about seeing sports, ever, you should downgrade to the lowest tier of video programming (only if you care about seeing American Idol or The Bachelor live), or cancel cable altogether. Live sports is the primary draw for both ad $ and cable $. Nearly everything else you can legally see for free through Hulu or broadcasters' own websites. You just can't see them as they air.

    Once you go old school for an antennae... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by magster on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 03:51:12 PM EST
    and free TV(which works great with an HD TV set) you realize just how little you miss cable especially if you subscribe to Netflix and stream replies of shows from Network web-sites. I miss watching Denver Nugget games the most, but we have a good radio guy. Saved about $800 last year too.

    If I was on the board of directors (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 06:09:27 PM EST
    I'd be looking for a better class of management! His comments are offense and show very poor business judgement. In this economy any customer is a preferred customer.

    No doubt (none / 0) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:14:18 AM EST
    No doubt, he's a d*ck.  

    However, it's much smarter these days to cater to the rich...as the lower income folks lose their disposable income, via loss of COLAs, lowered wages, having to pay higher insurance premiums, have their Medicare eligibility age increased, etc.  

    I don't blame him too much for changing his strategy.  I only blame him for his words.

    In fact, if I were starting a new business, it would be to cater to folks making over $200,000.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:45:28 AM EST
    this was the trend back in the 80's when I  was in retail. Everybody and I mean literally everybody was wanting to get rid of their lower income shoppers. This is actually one of the reasons Wal-Mart got so powerful. Nobody was catering to this class of people and were all wanting to focus on that top 5%. It was disastrous for many retail stores because there simply aren't enough of those people to make your sales and besides most of the people like that get on a jet to NYC to shop or go to downtown Atlanta. They don't shop in SC unless it's a very select few specialty shops.

    This guy is going to go down just like all the others did back then.


    Yep - he is certainly not alone (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:17:41 AM EST
    Not even alone int he entertainment industry. I paid 10.50 to see the Harry Potter movie the other day. Can't tell me they are catering to low income folks.

    The obvious trend (none / 0) (#8)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:26:57 AM EST
    in the last 30 years is to dump off a considerable segment of the population, a segment that's growing by the day.

    I think they do so... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:36:12 AM EST
    at their peril...for the reasons you stated, broked*cks are the largest growing segment of the population.  If ya wanna make money, ya better find low cost offerings to serve them, or your bottom line will suffer.

    Cell phones outfits are smart like that...prepaids.


    BTW, this is the Apple product strategy (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:34:21 AM EST
    I don't begrudge trying for luxury appeal. The problem is that Dish can't compete with cable or fiber on service. It can't bundle high speed internet (or phone, for people who care about that).

    The only thing I can say for Dish in that arena is that, when I last used them, the user interface on their STBs was LEAGUES better than any of the buggy, unreliable, garbage available from cable.

    This is only an Apple strategy (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Gisleson on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:47:20 AM EST
    if Dish saves you money over the long haul. Quality vs cheap is one argument, but upscale marketing strategies speak to another mindset entirely.

    This is the future of our economy. While the poor scramble for money to pay their utilities, more and more of the internet will disappear behind paywalls while cable and dish get all the first-run entertainment while b'cast media peddle reality crap.

    The insulting part is that digital allows infinite distribution at almost no cost (while creating infinite piracy problems and the suits simply cannot figure out how to make money from free, even though everyone else does well by that model).

    We live in a world of Wall Street's making, and this is pretty petty stuff compared to what's coming!


    Here's the thing (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:50:03 AM EST
    though. Apple offers great service. They offer great apps. My husband's company went with Apple because their apps for business were 10x better than the other tablets out there. Friends on Facebook have talked about going to the Apple store with a problem and Apple fixing it at no charge and even being nice about it.

    My experience with Dish is that they have crap customer services. Are a bunch of greedy jerks who told us when we moved that they were going to do us a GREAT BIG FAVOR when they said they weren't going to charge us when we moved the dishes. We were STILL going to have to pay to get them reinstalled at the new house. I said NO THANKS.


    Dish installation (none / 0) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 12:32:38 PM EST
    is, I think, a separate deal from the service itself.  At least in my (rural) area, installation is contracted out to small local companies, some of which are more competent than others.  I don't know this, but my impression is that Dish pays these companies a flat fee per customer install.

    The guys who hooked up my service (the dish itself was already on the house from the previous owner, and I was not charged anything for that, just for stringing the cables and setting up the receivers properly) told me they were given a high number of installs to do per day and it was up to them to get them all done before the end of the day, no matter how late they worked, and were paid a flat daily rate for the work.

    They said the number was way too high, and as a result they were unable to get to customers when they'd been promised, worked until late in the evening (on their own dime, essentially), etc.  As a result of that, turnover was high, so there weren't a lot of experienced installers, and therefore everything took longer, etc., etc., etc.

    By contrast, when I've had a problem with the service itself (ie, the receiver goes bad), I've had terrific competent, prompt, informative service, better than any other large "utility" company I've ever dealt with-- MILES AND MILES better than the &*&^%^ Comcast service I struggled with where I used to live.


    ok, so if i understand (none / 0) (#21)
    by cpinva on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 02:09:02 PM EST
    this guy correctly, he's expecting to generate $100,000 per year of revenue, per customer, based on the number of customers his company will end up with, as this depression (and that's what it is) continues?

    i would love to be there when he explains that to the various investor publications. now THAT would be entertainment!

    My cable bill (none / 0) (#23)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 03:34:33 PM EST
    is @25.44 a month(and I consider that extreme). I'm guessing you and I don't really belong in this conversation.

    Those crappy religious channels (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 06:40:04 PM EST
    either pay to be on the lineup or get on because of Must Carry.

    Well done! (none / 0) (#44)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 12:57:15 AM EST
    I get a huge line-up of religious channels, too, which is ironic for the service to the least religiously observant state in the country.

    My Dish satellite (none / 0) (#43)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 12:55:01 AM EST
    is something like $75 a month (sans HBO, etc), and that's only because there's one channel I really need that they have in an "upper tier."

    I get several hundred channels and only ever watch less than a dozen of them.  Drives me absolutely nuts to have to pay for all those expensive sports channels I never watch for one single second.  I REALLY resent having to pay for other people's entertainment choices.  Let the people who want those channels pay for them, not me.

    I have to say, though, even with the occasional brief outages for heavy rain (for some reason, snow doesn't bother it much), I have far fewer reception problems with satellite than I did with Comcast cable back in the burbs.


    Let me know when to (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 03:41:20 PM EST
    spend money to watch Michigan football and/or Padres. A real moneysaver at present.

    Why is he a d*ck? (none / 0) (#26)
    by bocajeff on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 04:02:46 PM EST
    He runs a business and is looking to get more revenue for his shareholders. If someone doesn't like let them start a company and cater to those with lower incomes. Al Gore and Current TV is a start. How about Soros or Turner? Libs, put your money where your mouth is - compete in the market place - and you should make a profit. Or you won't.

    With all the alternatives available I don't see the big deal at all.

    Does Starbucks cater to low income people?

    No, and neither does BTD. (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 04:22:27 PM EST
    sorry...a**hole, not d*ck (none / 0) (#37)
    by bocajeff on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 08:52:39 PM EST
    Who does BTD cater to (none / 0) (#39)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 10:11:42 PM EST
    exactly, and when did he describe himself as catering only to an "elite" class?

    Pretty sure you can access TL at a public or school library.  Or via free wireless, etc.


    though the idea of who TL caters to is also interesting.

    Well ther was a company called (none / 0) (#28)
    by Rojas on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 05:06:48 PM EST
    Northpoint who tried to go head to head with the satellite guys with ground based towers that would use the same spectrum. You simply point your dish at one of their towers instead of one of Charlie's birds.
    It got shot down somehow because charlie owns/has exclusive right to the spectrum that in theory belongs to the people.

    No big deal with all the alternatives available...


    because "somehow" (none / 0) (#35)
    by bocajeff on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 08:47:47 PM EST
    because "somehow"...how exactly is that the business owners fault?

    Fault? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Rojas on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 07:57:10 AM EST
    I think the term you are looking for is welfare. Corporate welfare to the savvy business man courtesy of the coin operated congress.

    Perhaps you may have noticed all those little dishes point to the southern horizon. Thats where the satellites are locked in orbit with the rotation of the earth. If you don't point the dish in just the right direction you can't decode the signal.

    Northpoint was going to install a ground based system with cells located in the north. There was no interference issue which is the reason we grant license to property that belong to the public.


    one persons insensitivity (none / 0) (#36)
    by bocajeff on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 08:51:26 PM EST
    is another person not being polite. I don't consider what Whole Foods did as being d*ckish especially since they make a point of carrying food complying with Muslim dietary laws. D*ckish would be making the comment and NOT offering the foods (and even then it can be a business decision).

    People get caught up in so many things that really don't amount to much while Rome burns...


    More than impolite (none / 0) (#38)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 09:14:30 PM EST
    You can candy coat it all you want. It a stupid statement. I would expect an executive that sells a product or service to the masses to use more descretion. His comments won't win him any customers and may very well cost him business. It makes no business sense.

    In fact, my next door neighbor had been debating about switching to Comcast. After reading his comments she's cancelling her Dish subscription.


    heh (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 10:20:52 PM EST
    Clayton rejected the idea of relaxing credit standards to appeal to lower-income people, saying he's "looking for a better class of customer."

    Sounds like he has been watching the housing market.


    Why is that funny? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:01:34 PM EST
    Of course not (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 12:13:22 PM EST
    Those Las Vegas cocktail waitresses making $40K were not poor... they just couldn't afford a $300K home yet they bought'em by the millions.

    So his comment makes perfect sense in context.

    If you want to promote Social Responsibility, you can always send a check to the US Treasury!


    "Las Vegas cocktail waitresses" (none / 0) (#55)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 01:11:40 PM EST
    ... were buying $300,000 houses "by the millions"?


    Well, ... it's about as believable as the myth that the housing/mortgage meltdown was caused by lending to "lower-income people".  Which is to say, ...

    ... not at all.


    Obviously you remain (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:12:09 PM EST
    uninformed and unable to grasp the point.

    Now, don't forget that check!


    And you obviously ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:20:54 PM EST
    ... enjoy fairy tales.

    Don't forget to polish your hall monitor badge!


    winger myth.. (none / 0) (#56)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 02:32:27 PM EST
    you just have to remember the simple formula: whenever a major crisis in the country occurs, or is looming on the horizen, blame it on the county's small fry (those least able to publicly defend themselves) and liberal "social programs", and ignore or actively succor the gangsters at the upper end of the food chain.

    kick down and kiss up, in other words.


    Another case of Jondee (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:16:28 PM EST
    deliberately misunderstanding.

    The point being (I'll try to keep it simple for you) is that houses costing $300k and up were purchased by people making $40K.

    Not rich, but not poor. But they should have never been sold the houses.

    In some cases it was real estate agents and banks screwing over them. In some cases it was the screwed over being willing to be screwed. Greed is not limited to the rich.


    Thanks for "keeping it simple", but ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:33:56 PM EST
    ... let's see if you can keep it factual, instead.  How many people earning $40,000 took out mortgages of $300,000 or more?  Let's ignore your prior claims ("millions") and see if you can post just one piece of information that supports your claim.  Of course, you won't ...

    ... because you can't.

    "Simple" .... heh.

    Sure is ...


    Then all the claims about the evil banks and (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 09:58:07 AM EST
    real estate people are not true????

    You need to keep your talking points straight.

    And you need to read "The Big Short" available on Amazon


    BTW - Your method of attacking a comment made in general by claiming that it is wrong because of some unimportant fact, in this case an example, is classic Dark Avenger.

    The only thing you don't do is copy a thousand words from some off subject source to try and reframe. But then people do learn.



    A link to a book ... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 10:22:14 AM EST
    ... on Amazon is the best you can come up with?


    BTW - Unlike you, I don't spit out talking points, Jim.  It's called facts, studies, evidence and logic.

    Probably why you keep getting confused ... maybe why you also keep suggesting I'm DA.  Gotta tell ya, though ...

    ... the paranoia is pretty amusing.



    Yman, (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 03:41:08 PM EST
    Please note, this is not in reference to Jim.

    I've always been a buff for those small, insignificant to most, factoids that are used (misused?) by most of our population. Things like the difference between "imply," and "infer." Or when to use "i.e." or "e.g." Or  the commonly misspelled and/misused (non) word, "irregardless."

    So, today's word, frequently used, and also frequently misunderstood, is........."jerk."  Most people use it interchangeably with "dope, idiot, dumbbell, and many others, but they would be wrong. For example, let's say you're an avid, over-the-top fan of, oh I don't know, the Giants. So the Giants lose a very, very important game, and you descend into grief stricken depression. A "Dope" might come up to you and say "nah, nah, your team lost." But upon being told how much that loss hurt you, even a dope would say something like, "aw, jeez, I didn't know he was hurting that much, wow. sorry."

    But now, insert our good friend, the "Jerk" into that role and he would say "Really?? Cool, wish I stuck around and seen the tears." What separates a "Jerk" from all the rest is, as he's strutting away, with a $hit-eating grin on his face, he truly believes he did something cool, and more importantly, he truly believes all who witnessed it also believe it. Bottom line, a "Jerk" never learns, and never will learn.

    Now, aren't you glad I cleared that up for you?


    Uhhhhmmmm ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 03:44:46 PM EST
    ... I think so ...

    LoL! (none / 0) (#68)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 11:51:28 PM EST
    Based on my experience (none / 0) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 01:00:31 AM EST
    she will deeply regret that switch.

    Comcast may not make obnoxious public comments, but they're even more obnoxious in their business practices and customer service inadequacy than Dish by a long shot.

    Just for one thing, my Comcast bill went up every single year, and Dish has stayed the same for me for the last five. <knock on wood!>


    No cable. No satellite. No Netflix. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 07:58:52 PM EST
    I don't see a reason to have cable, satellite, or netflix.  I do have antennas (interior) at my two places and get some free HD but my old TVs won't show it.

    I use converter boxes for tuning the new digital signals, and a nice Panasonic DVR with a tuner and a load of other things like USB2, SD, DVDRAM, etc.

    The trick is not be be addicted to live NFL or MLB or NBA.  

    I get many movies from the various Red boxes or the new Blockbuster boxes for $1.00.

    Yes I am behind in my viewing but eventually the movies get to the boxes, and there is just a time lag of a few months, but once you make the adjustment, there isn't a delay in the virtual world.

    I can stream movies and TV from Amazon at no additional cost with my Prime membership, and if I want to I can stream the TV shows that don't come on broadcast.  

    About live broadcast- I don't tie myself down to a broadcast or playing schedule.

    One trick to financial liquidity is to watch your monthly bills closely, and cut them to the quick.  Then you can have real money, never use credit and buy good stocks cheap when they go down on black Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday.

    After an initial adjustment period, you actually have excess money for investment or even an extra wife or two.  (I put that in just to show I wasn't claiming to be perfect.)

    Oh, so bravo to you! (none / 0) (#46)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 01:03:41 AM EST
    You're soo sooo virtuous!  Some of us, though, live in places too mountainous for broadcast TV (I get one channel badly over the air where I am with a huge roof antenna).  Some of us also don't have genuinely high-speed Internet available for any amount of money.  I could no more stream movies on my set-up than fly to the moon.

    Hey g-falcon (none / 0) (#49)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:04:59 AM EST
    I have spent many a month on a ship back in the "good old days" where we had traded VCR tapes in a basket by cable from one vessel to another to see a new movie.

    You adapt to where you are.  

    It sounds like you are in the mountains.  Still you should get DSL and I think Amazon only recommends a minimum of 1.2Mbps which is fairly low.

    And I know you have grocery stores, drug stores, etc., with Red Boxes, Blockbuster boxes and one other we had for a while.  Something like DVDExpress.


    I'm 43yo (none / 0) (#41)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 10:34:36 PM EST
    and have been living on my own since I was 20.  And in my entire adult life, I have never, ever had cable.  I have always seen it as a waste of money.  Growing up we had it, but it just seemed like nothing was ever on (except for MTV and that started to suck around 1988).

    I'm glad I never got used to the idea of having it.  And when I see the leadership of companies like Dish make those types of comments, it makes me move even further away from EVER wanting it.

    Too many good books to read anyway.

    Hey man. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:10:05 AM EST
    You got the right idea.

    Get a Kindle and get bunches of books free or cheap.
    Buy used books at Amazon, and B&N for as little as 1 penny a book with 3.99 or less shipping.  (Books for $4 or less!)

    Or download books.  You can put those on your Kindle also, but I usually read them on a computer.  A regular tablet or even a large smartphone will also do as a reading device.


    there are these things called (none / 0) (#57)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 08:48:33 PM EST
    libraries...and they've worked for me since I got my first library card in 1972.  :)

    I have to sort of agree with this guy. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 10:11:12 AM EST
    I used to manage rental properties for my sister in Fort Worth. I had problems collecting rent from some tenants. Seems they all had cable TV but couldn't pay the rent. And this was long before the digital conversion. You could easily watch TV in DFW with rabbit ears. I did it. To me, rent comes before entertainment. Wish Sammons cable had the same ideas about not marketing to low income persons.

    YOU ARE (none / 0) (#58)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 08:49:16 PM EST
    definitely a FW person if you said Sammons Cable.  I worked for them on West Vickery!

    That would be EX FW (none / 0) (#65)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 11:20:55 AM EST
    person. I bailed out of Texas a few years ago. Like Stevie Ray, I couldn't stand the weather. Or the people.

    "relaxing credit standards..." (none / 0) (#53)
    by diogenes on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 11:49:25 AM EST
    You know, if Fannie, Freddie, and the crooked mortgage brokers hadn't relaxed credit standards before 2008 our economy would be in a lot better shape today.