Chairman of the Senate committee on Elder Grievances John McCain is boldly taking on Big Television to address an issue dear to wrathful retirement community members everywhere: the cable bill is apparently too damn high.
As someone who has to get ALL his channels from The Cable Monster -- and don't yammer at me about how you can watch TV on your phones and dishwasher now for free-- I have tpay $15 a month just to get the channels I used to get on my rabbit ears. AND they insist on throwing in THREE shopping channels and took away Antennae TV. So yeah, I'm w/ McCan on this one.
Call me a crank if you will, but I'm sort of simpatico with McCain on this. While I don't think that the bundling issue per se is a serious as he makes it out to be, it does annoy me that my cable provider has a govt. sanctioned monopoly on service in my area and that it apparently can increase rates at will. I wish that I could be as dismissive of cable service as Junior is here, but the plain fact is that in my area, no cable means no television and also no broadband internet. We are well beyond the broadcast signal of even our closest, "local" broadcasters, so there is no over the air option for us. It is simplistic to say that we could just ditch cable entirely and instead view everything via streaming over the interwebz, but streaming requires a broadband connection, and cable is pretty much the only game in town for that as well. (In an outlying area like ours, cell phone coverage is a bit spotty, and there ain't no public wi-fi either.) So we're stuck with cable, but that doesn't mean that we have to accept it as is, without pushing for improvements. Perhaps Junior and friends don't have any use for cable, but a very large portion of Americans do subscribe to it, so this isn't some issue that only affects a few grannies.
Where the hell can I get "expanded cable" for $54????? Oh, wait -- that's before the $53.99 in taxes, fees, surcharges, levies, duties, and tribute. How's about you fix THAT, Walnuts?
I don't know ... if the public could save a few bucks AND spare themselves from the sight of the Fucks Gnus blowhards, Murdoch and Ailes might never poison another innocent mind.
The NFL is like guns ... Americans have a right to it. (I'm going to write to McCain, and see if he can't do something to protect my right to beer.)
it's not like it would save anyone any money- they'll just charge a king's ransom for the popular channels and a pittance for the fluff. People will knock off 64 channels of crap and still be lucky to save a buck or two a month, if anything.
As someone who has to get ALL his channels from The Cable Monster -- and don't yammer at me about how you can watch TV on your phones and dishwasher now for free-- I have tpay $15 a month just to get the channels I used to get on my rabbit ears. AND they insist on throwing in THREE shopping channels and took away Antennae TV. So yeah, I'm w/ McCan on this one.
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner..
jon hamm and nikolaj coster-waldau are so worth $54 a month.
"But the Home Shopping Channels are what's keeping your current bill so cheap!"
Argument to be made by Big Cable in 3,2,1...
I think that's a penguin.
Why do they have two little statues of Cheney?
You can't avoid it. I don't even have cable and my teevee comes on with two or three hours of Benghazi every day.
Did the museum need a replacement for its collection of Charles Krafft ceramics?
Call me a crank if you will, but I'm sort of simpatico with McCain on this. While I don't think that the bundling issue per se is a serious as he makes it out to be, it does annoy me that my cable provider has a govt. sanctioned monopoly on service in my area and that it apparently can increase rates at will. I wish that I could be as dismissive of cable service as Junior is here, but the plain fact is that in my area, no cable means no television and also no broadband internet. We are well beyond the broadcast signal of even our closest, "local" broadcasters, so there is no over the air option for us. It is simplistic to say that we could just ditch cable entirely and instead view everything via streaming over the interwebz, but streaming requires a broadband connection, and cable is pretty much the only game in town for that as well. (In an outlying area like ours, cell phone coverage is a bit spotty, and there ain't no public wi-fi either.) So we're stuck with cable, but that doesn't mean that we have to accept it as is, without pushing for improvements. Perhaps Junior and friends don't have any use for cable, but a very large portion of Americans do subscribe to it, so this isn't some issue that only affects a few grannies.
Where the hell can I get "expanded cable" for $54????? Oh, wait -- that's before the $53.99 in taxes, fees, surcharges, levies, duties, and tribute. How's about you fix THAT, Walnuts?
I don't know ... if the public could save a few bucks AND spare themselves from the sight of the Fucks Gnus blowhards, Murdoch and Ailes might never poison another innocent mind.
The NFL is like guns ... Americans have a right to it. (I'm going to write to McCain, and see if he can't do something to protect my right to beer.)
Secret plan to get C-SPAN out of people's homes so they can't see first hand how terrible Congress is?
get out the big stick
it's not like it would save anyone any money- they'll just charge a king's ransom for the popular channels and a pittance for the fluff. People will knock off 64 channels of crap and still be lucky to save a buck or two a month, if anything.
Good for Walnuts- at least it keeps him from mumbling Benghazi!!1!1! in his sleep while the rest of the Senate is pretending to do something...