Media, Business & Politics

Next month, Comcast will be announcing three exciting new services to join StreamPix: StreamJamz, StreamGamz and StreamPeeps. Like StreamPix, content downloaded or streamed from any of these new services will be exempt from the company’s monthly data caps.

StreamJamz is an unlimited streaming music service, similar to offerings from Spotify, Grooveshark and Sony.

StreamGamz is an unlimited video game download and multiplayer gaming platform, similar to offerings from Steam and EA’s Origin.

StreamPeeps is a VoIP 1080p HD video conferencing service, similar to offerings from Skype and Apple.

All 4 services are included with XFINITY HD Triple Play packages for no additional charge. You can add any of the streaming services to other packages for only $4.99 a month per service.

.
**********[ 3 months later ]***********
Comcast has announced the addition of an ‘Internet-Lite’ option for all of their XFINITY High Speed Internet plans. Any current plan can be converted to a ‘Lite’ plan, which will include a $20 discount off regular rates, and lower the monthly data cap to 10GB. This should come as great news for XFINITY Triple Play customers who already have unlimited access to XFINITY’s great SteamPix, StreamJamz, StreamGamz and StreamPeeps services for all of their streaming video, music, gaming and video-conferencing needs. One stop shop entertainment, no need to subscribe to multiple services.

.
***********[ 2 years later ]************
Comcast has announced that it will be raising rates on all of their XFINITY High Speed Internet plans by $25. This includes their 10GB capped ‘Lite’ plans, as well as their regular 250GB plans. At a recent stockholder meeting, a top Comcast executive was heard saying, “We believe the added value of our unlimited SteamPix, StreamJamz, StreamGamz and StreamPeeps services warrant the price increase, as they provide our customers with all of their streaming video, music, gaming and video-conferencing needs, without having to worry about silly data caps.

.
***************************************
And just like that, Comcast has managed to lower the data cap on their broadband plans to a measly 10GB, while actually raising the price, and putting Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, Grooveshark, Steam, Origin, Skype, Apple, all in a greatly disadvantaged competitive position. By not blocking any particular competing service, Comcast will have managed to sidestep Net-Neutrality restrictions, while severely limiting how much their customers can use any competing services. Yes, I made all of this up, but there’s nothing stopping Comcast from following this plan to the letter (including the stupid service plan names), if their new StreamPix service is allowed to proceed unchallenged by the FTC.

With nothing stopping them, Time Warner, Verizon, AT&T et al will surely follow suit. How long will Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, Grooveshark, Skype and the rest of the free-market competition last? How many new services, like the one Sony was considering, will never have been started? And most US customers don’t have many, if any options when choosing their ISP, so they can’t just go somewhere else if they don’t like Comcast’s (or whoever)’s offerings. The FTC needs to step in now, to stop ISP’s from dictating what their networks can be used for, and putting countless competitors out of business.

More at
ars technica, Engadget, Gizmodo

I was attempting to watch a YouTube video a friend posted on Facebook today; but since I was on my iPhone, I was instead served a message, ‎”The content owner has not made this content available on mobile.” I have the same problem on Hulu (Plus) on my iPad – videos are often marked ”Web Only,” which is Hulu’s way of saying they aren’t licensed for viewing on mobile devices. This is confusing to me; Shouldn’t content providers want me to watch their content, regardless of what device I’m using? They’re not going to make any money if I don’t view their content, or obtain it via unlicensed sources.

Quite a bit of Hulu’s content is available for free on a traditional computer; however, without a Hulu Plus subscription, none of that content is available on mobile devices such as the iPad. In and of itself, that’s an odd decision, since the free content is supplemented by ads on the PC, similar to broadcast (and most premium) content. But worse than that, even with a paid Hulu Plus subscription, some shows are still unavailable for viewing on mobile devices. And I’m not talking about premium content, at least in the traditional sense of HBO & Showtime. Shows from all major broadcast networks, including 30 Rock (NBC), Fringe (Fox), Happy Endings (ABC), and How I Met Your Mother (CBS) are all marked “Web Only” on the iPad, even with a paid Hulu Plus account. And rather than offer an option for a higher-tier ‘Super Hulu Plus’ subscription, or make those shows available for a small fee, you’re simply directed to watch it on a traditional computer, or not at all.

Sometimes when I run into one of these content-blocks, I just switch to my laptop, in which case the content owner gets their cut all the same. But sometimes I decide the content isn’t all that important, so I just don’t watch it, leaving the content provider out in the cold. Yet other times, when I do want to view the content on my iPad, I’ll connect to my computer, and with a few seconds of work, and after a few minutes of downloading, I’ll get a perfect copy from one of the myriad of unlicensed sources available online, ready to stream to my iPad. In two out of the three scenarios, the content owner doesn’t get my view, or my advertising-revenue-generating attention.

So it would seem the content providers would rather I ‘pirate’ a copy of their content than generate a return by allowing it to be viewed on my iPad or smartphone. Sure, for now they can say most people aren’t like me; Most people will just watch it on their computers. But for how much longer? Tablets and smartphones are already making a huge dent in the PC market; it won’t be long before mobile web browsing overtakes the PC, and eventually, many households will find they don’t even need a traditional PC anymore. At the same time, TVs are getting smarter, and consumers expect to have access to their online content sources there as well.

The reason content owners make (or buy) content is to make money off of it, usually by advertising during or around the content. So to maximize profits, they need as many viewers as possible. This is why they spend money advertising the content itself – they make the money back if there are enough viewers of the content, and likewise the advertising. So why would they in their right minds block access from any device? In the end, it’s their loss, not ours; but it would sure be nice if they could figure it out sooner rather than later.

I spend $5/mo on text messaging, for 200 texts. Under AT&T’s new rules, I will have to spend $20 to send the same number of messages. Does anybody else see a problem with this?

I currently use around 150 text messages per month. That means I send about 75, and I receive about 75. If you’ve ever had a text conversation, you know those texts can add up pretty quickly, but I’m disciplined about it. I’m still on an outdated plan where I pay $5/mo for up to 200 texts, and then $0.10 each additional. I very rarely go over, and that works for me. But under AT&T’s new rules, my only option will be to pay 4 times that amount – $20 – to send and receive the same number of texts. This is because AT&T is dropping all text packages except for their unlimited plan for $20/mo. They claim it’s because the vast majority of their customers are already on the unlimited plans; but that hardly justifies forcing users like myself to overpay by such a large factor.

It’s clear the reason AT&T is making this move now is the availability of free smartphone messaging services like Facebook Messanger and the soon-to-be-released iMessage for iPhone & iPad users. If the majority of SmartPhone users switched over to 1 or a combination of these free apps, their direct text messaging through the carriers will plummet; however, while there are still non-smartphone users out there sending ‘classic’ texts, even the free-app users will still need at least a few text messages every month to correspond with them. Under AT&T’s new plan, if a user were going to go on their per-text plan, at $0.20/text, if they were to use more than 100 messages in any given month, it would be cheaper to buy the unlimited plan. This is nothing more than AT&T’s way of extorting more cash from each one of their users, while supplying absolutely no additional service.

In my case, my 150 messages will now cost me $30 under the per-text plan, so I’ll be forced to upgrade to the unlimited plan. I’m going to be overpaying $15 every month, just to protect myself in the off-chance one of my friends decides to go text-crazy on me one night. For a lot of other people, it’s going to be $5 or $10 more than they’ve been paying for 1000 or 1500 message plans. That’s anywhere from $60 to $180 more per year, per subscriber, for absolutely no additional service. Multiply that by every American with a cell phone who uses less than 1500 messages a month, and we’re talking millions of dollars straight into AT&T’s money bin.

Now, imagine if we didn’t have to pay this text tax. We would have an extra $100 or even $240 per year that we could all spend on something else. All this talk about government taxes, and how we’re already spread so thin and we can’t afford mortgages and education and healthcare; and now we’re going to be charged $60 to $180 more every year for the exact same service? It’s a tax – by private companies – on Americans, for the right to communicate over the PUBLIC wireless spectrum; but because it’s a ‘free market,’ these companies are free to price their services as they see fit. The argument is, we can always take our business elsewhere — go to Verizon, for instance. The problem is, every time Verizon or AT&T has raised their texting prices in the past several years, the other followed suit within a few months. Now that T-Mobile is being swallowed up by AT&T, and Sprint is flailing, it won’t be long before there is no other choice, other than not texting at all, or paying this exorbitant tax. This will limit our ability to effectively communicate by pricing text messaging plans too high for millions of Americans.

These companies’ vulturous practices are what is bankrupting our country: Working Americans can barely afford gas to fill up their cars or power their stoves, but Oil companies are still handing out record bonuses; Cancer patients who can’t afford their medication because the Insurance company they’ve been paying all their lives denies their claim on a technicality, and the Drug company that supplies the pills sets the per-pill price in the thousands, all so the Insurance and Drug Companies can keep raking in billion dollar profits; Families being evicted from their homes because their Mortgage lender told them they could afford it, knowing they couldn’t, because it meant a hefty bonus for him; and Wireless customers, overpaying just to be able to send text messages with their phones.

So if gas & oil prices were a little lower, and insurance payed on what they promised, on the drug that isn’t overpriced 1000x its value, and bankers only sold loans to people who could afford their mortgage, and wireless providers stopped charging customers for messages that don’t cost them a thing, if we could cut the private-company-taxes we’re all paying every day, every family would have that much more money to start putting back into the economy, to buy new clothes, and new cars, and a better home. It’s not a silver bullet for our battered economy, but it would at least be a start. It’s too bad, under a ‘free market,’ this is the best we get. I don’t know about you, but I would like the government to be a little bit bigger when it comes to regulating what these multi-billion dollar companies are allowed to do, and charge, every American. If not, we will all end up paying more for communicating, and traveling, and trying to get better, just so that extra money can go into the pockets of someone who already doesn’t need it.that

I propose we start a new Tea Party that’s against all this private-industry taxing. That demands the corporations providing us with vital necessities must be kept in check, and not allowed to overcharge American citizens for services we need to live. That puts the wellbeing of the collective American people above that of pure profits. What’s good for 1 company, but bad for millions of people, is not good for the economy. If we were to keep these companies in check, perhaps we’d have a chance to start turning the economy around without cutting even more vital government programs. It’s not even tightening belts for these companies; it’s nothing more than shedding massive amounts of unneeded fat, so that our country can survive and thrive. Is that so much to ask?

iPod profits may have dropped 20% from the same quarter last year, but if you look back a few more years, you’ll see Apple is still making more on the iPod than it was just 6 years ago, a time when the iPod was considered a runaway success for the company. What’s astonishing is that in 2005, the iPod accounted for a little over 30% of Apple’s profits; and now, while still bringing in about the same amount of revenue (slightly more), it only accounts for 5% of Apple’s total revenue. This, of course, is due mostly to the iPhone, with a little help from the iPad and the halo effect around them.

So just to put this into perspective, imagine this:
It’s 2005. The iPod is on fire, bringing in more revenue than any of Apple’s other segments (desktops, laptops, music, or ‘other’). Apple stock has been on an absolute rampage, up over 400% over the past 2 years to a whopping $55/share. Someone who looks like an older version of yourself but with shaggier hair, jeans that are too tight, and neon 80s shoes, walks up and tells you to withdraw your life savings and put it all into Apple stock immediately. Of course that’s crazy, and you tell him not even the iPod can keep selling like this forever. But he says no, it’s not because of the iPod, although in 6 years, it will still be bringing in more revenue than it is in 2005; but by 2011 it will only account for 5% of Apple’s total revenue. It doesn’t even even make sense. The iPod is Apple’s saving grace, and everybody knows it. There’s no way they can top that; And it’s not like everybody’s going to go out and switch to Macs just because the iPod was a hit. Then he explains that it’s all because Apple releases a phone; and shortly after that, a giant version of that phone, called an iPad. Do you think you’d follow his advice? If you did, it would be worth a 600% increase over 6 years.

The numbers really are something. But I’m not writing Apple off yet. In another 6 years, maybe I’ll be writing the same thing about how the iPhone was dwarfed by… the iPad? Or even something else. Only time will tell. If only I had a time machine.

Disclosure: I own Apple (AAPL) shares and I do not plan on initiating any new positions within the next 72 hours.

I recently contacted my state Senators, urging them to fight for net neutrality laws that would keep the internet open, and limit how much control ISP’s are allowed have over what data comes over MY internet connection, and what they’re allowed to charge me extra for. In the past, when I contacted my senators on these kinds of issues, I’ve always received a letter back, describing how they’re trying to do exactly what I asked them to. Of course, in the past, all my Senators were Democrats. Recently, that changed, as with it, the kind of letter I was sent back.

For the uninitiated, net neutrality is the idea that internet lines consumers subscribe to should be free and open, with no restrictions on either certain websites, or certain kinds of data. For example, without net neutrality restrictions in place, your ISP may in the future offer packages, similar to cable, where the ‘entry level’ package would allow you to use your email and small / unknown websites at full speed, but all other websites, such as Facebook, Yahoo, Google and ESPN, would be throttled back to download at much slower speeds; or, you would be charged an additional fee every time you used them, similar to the per-text texting plans on cel phones. At this level, you may not even be able to access video sites like YouTube, Hulu or Netflix for free, but you could be charged a fee per minute of video you watch, again, similar to voice ‘minutes’ on your cel phone. Only a premium-priced plan would allow you to access any site on the internet without a speed penalty or extra charge. This may at first sound great, if most of what you do is check email and use small unknown websites; but what happens your cable company gives you full-speed access to all of their own offerings for ‘free’ but charges you more for a similar competing service? For instance, if you use Time Warner Cable for your broadband, and they have an online video service that directly competes with Netflix & Hulu, they could give you access to their own service for no additional fees, while charging you more for access to the others. If this had been the case when Netflix was first getting started with online streaming, there’s a good chance they never would have become a major player, and without strong competition, Time Warner would eventually be able to leverage their position and remove their own video offering from the low-end package, making you pay more for access. With no major competing offerings, your only choice is to pay up, or go without.

Of course, the media empires that connect us to the internet say they would never do something like that, so no regulation is needed. They have their lobbyists ‘convince’ government officials through ‘various means’ to argue that making net neutrality laws amounts to the government taking control of the internet, and that it will stifle economic growth. The truth is, net neutrality would in no way be a government takeover of the internet, any more than regulating media mergers is a government takeover of the airwaves; and to the argument about stifling economic growth argument, it has been shown many times over in other countries that when there is healthy competition in the broadband market, consumers have much faster internet connections, and pay a fraction of the price that Americans pay.

In any case, here’s the letter from my Senator. If you think it sounds more like a doctrine written by the media corporations themselves, you’re not alone.

Dear Chris,

Thank you for taking the time to write to me regarding the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the issue of net neutrality.

On December 21, 2011, the FCC voted to adopt net neutrality rules regulating broadband Internet providers. The issue is whether the Internet will be controlled by government regulators or by private enterprise and consumers in a competitive marketplace.

The term “net neutrality” might sound good, but it is just a clever name for government control of the internet. If the government were to control the internet through FCC regulations, the overall result would be bad news not just for consumers but also for the economy as a whole. Investment in broadband today is one of the few bright spots of the economy, with providers expected to invest some $30 billion per year in private capital into their networks annually for the next five years, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. I will resist efforts by the government to control the internet.

I believe one of my most important duties as your Senator is to listen to the views of the citizens of Wisconsin and, in turn, communicate my views. I hope I have accomplished that with you.

Thank you again for taking the time to share your concerns with me on this issue. I apologize for any delay you have experienced in receiving this reply. Since taking office in January, my office has received over 180,000 pieces of correspondence. We are working hard to respond to your concerns in a timely manner.

Please feel free to contact me in the future with anything important to you or your family. It is an honor to serve you and the good people of Wisconsin.

Sincerely,

Ron Johnson
United States Senator

And my response is below:

Senator Johnson,

I recently received correspondance from your office informing me why you are against net neutrality laws. You claim that it is a government takeover of the internet. This is no more true than government regulation of media mergers is a takeover of the airwaves, and you know it. Without net neutrality, there’s nothing stopping the media companies from slowing or blocking access to websites of their own choosing, making it easier to push their own offerings, and put other companies out of business. If Comcast decided to charge more for access to Netflix, while offering their own video service for no extra cost, it would be a major blow to Netflix. But without net neutrality, there’s nothing stopping Comcast from doing just that. The same could be said for Facebook, YouTube, Wikipedia, Twitter, Amazon, and millions of other websites that started from nothing, and relied on free and open access to the internet to establish their business, and continue to rely on it to survive and flourish. You claim net neutrality is a job-killer, but how many jobs would be lost at the expense of a few top dogs at the major media corporations, if all the major ISPs implemented a tiered system of internet access that blocks or slows access to select websites or services? Innovation would plummet because small start-ups wouldn’t have a chance against the established conglomerates. Millions, perhaps billions of jobs would be lost or never created, in the name of higher profits for already established media conglomerates.

It has been shown many times over in other countries that when there is healthy competition in the broadband market, consumers have much faster internet connections, and pay a fraction of the price that Americans pay. It’s only because we allow these giant companies to be the only options consumers have, that we’re stuck overpaying for mediocre services. Without government regulation, it would only get worse for consumers, not better.

If you continue to fight against net neutrality, then you, Mr. Johnson, are not MY Senator, and I don’t need you to lecture me on how helping huge corporations put more money into the pockets of their richest few is good for me and my country.

Sincerely,
Chris J Mischler
Milwaukee, WI

I just saw this article on PCmag.com and it nudged me to send my own letter to the FCC. Here’s how mine went:

Wireless communication is incredibly important to the wellbeing of our economy. That not only includes voice, but text and internet access as well. Already, consumers are being gouged by minimum fees for ‘voice’ plans – regardless of whether they use any voice ‘minutes,’ astronomically high fees for texting, when it costs the carriers virtually nothing to support, and now data caps and overage charges on wireless data. While we all are left with the burden of paying these higher fees, the wireless corporations are posting record profits, all the while buying out their competitors – competitors, mind you, that have LOWER PRICES than they do! We’re already down to a 4 player game, and Sprint & T-Mobile may be the only reason that AT&T and Verizon’s plans aren’t even more expensive. Take even one of them out of the game, such as allowing AT&T to buy T-Mobile, and it’s down to a 3 player game, and the 3rd player will probably have to drop out soon as the other 2 pump up their muscles even more. It will be a duopoly, and AT&T and Verizon will be free to keep hiking up prices on texts and wireless internet access. In an economy as hard hit as ours, if every consumer is forced to pay an extra $5, $10 or $20 a month (which we already are – just look at text prices) to be able to effectively communicate, that’s another $5, $10 or $20 we can’t spend on groceries or gas or even taxes to keep our government functioning. And instead, it just goes into an already huge money bin of just a few powerful CEOs.

Their next plan, if left unchecked, will be to charge for ‘services’ or ‘channels’ much like cable TV – where it will cost you more if you want to access Facebook or YouTube or even your email. These are arbitrarily placed pay-walls meant only to increase profits even more – and if there are only 2 major carriers, and they both impose the same kind of system, consumers will have no choice but to pay up.

Please don’t let the AT&T / T-Mobile merger go though; and if you do, regulate the hell out of it. Make them show how much it costs them to send a text through, or what it costs them when a customer goes over one of their arbitrarily set ‘limits’ – and compare it to what they charge consumers for those features. I think you’ll see they’ve already inflated their markup well over the reasonable amount that would be possible if they were competing in a truly competitive marketplace. Communication should be a right – so why are we being charged like it’s a luxury only meant for the rich? If we don’t do something soon to get these corporation in check, we may find that in the future, it will be only for the wealthy.

Fox News is making a big deal out of this. They moved from the 2nd row to the first, in the White House Briefing Room (made possible by Helen Thomas’ retirement). They’re finally joining the ranks of such networks as, oh, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Reuters, & AP. The problems is, they take it as a legitimization of their reporting, which sucks, because their ‘news’ reporting is only getting worse. I firmly believe they shouldn’t be able to call their cable channel “Fox News” as the great majority is entertainment programming designed to look like news (but never claiming outright to be news). Then there is their official “News” segments, which they make damn sure you know are *news* but in reality are anything but. They’re mostly sensationalized stories that shouldn’t even be mentioned, or biased slants on real news stories in order to push their political agenda. A more appropriate title may be “Fox Entertainment, Yellow Journalism & Clown Channel.”

[via Huffington Post]:
“Bill O’Reilly: I’m Going To Front Row Of White House Briefing Room (VIDEO)”

This shit is effin’ scary.. Honestly, even Jon Stewart would be more appropriate to be in the front row of the White House Briefing room – at least he asks his guests real questions without a blatant political agenda behind them, which is WAY more than I can say for most (or all?) of Fox News’ “News” shows. They disguise blatant bias, political agenda, racism, corporatism, … all behind the guise of news. They ask questions with such a slant that the question itself gives the viewer the impression that the answer doesn’t matter – the bias has already been set. It’s bad enough that *any* reporter from Fox gets to be in the front row; but one of their extremist journalists (O’Reilly, Hannity, Beck, as O’Reilly suggests)? It would make a complete joke of the briefing. I know Stephen Colbert is a parody of O’Reilly, but *he* would be more appropriate in that seat than any of those Fox ‘News’ clowns.

Jon Stewart at his best, and one of the best quotes I’ve ever heard. This was in response to Fox News Commentator Bernie Golberg’s criticism of Stewart, claiming he wants to be a social commentator more than just a comedian.

The fact that these Fox News commentators are even comparing Stewart to themselves exemplifies the very issue they’re trying to make against Stewart – and that is exactly Stewart’s point: A comedians’ very job is to make jokes in response to society; ‘social commentary,’ if you will, but with an added layer of humor. On the other hand, the job of social commentators  – especially those on a *news* network (and one that claims itself to be ‘fair and balanced’ no less) is *not* to entertain or to sensationalize – it’s to discuss what’s going on in society. That’s it. But when you mix the need for high ratings with the push for a particular political narrative, I can see how they might get confused by where the line is. But Stewart is exactly right – it’s not the comedians who are changing where the line is…

A few more choice quotes from the episode:

“You can’t criticize me for not being fair and balanced; That’s your slogan… which, by the way… you never follow.”

And in response to Goldberg’s suggestion that Stewart is a safe Jay Leno with the F-bomb, Stewart replied:
“If you think I’m Leno with the F-bomb, you know less about comedy than you do about media and politics.”

Stewart followed up his, well, commentary, with an over-the-top song and dance with an evangelical-style singer, complete with backup choir, singing a song with the chorus, “Go F**k Yourself.”

It’s 12 minutes long, but it’s some of the best 12 minutes in recent television history.

Read the AP’s take on it.

You see, I got hooked on The Daily Show & Colbert Report in college, when I got ‘free’ cable. When I graduated, cable just wasn’t in my budget, and I regretfully had to say good-bye to 2 very beloved shows. I have a Media Center PC, so I got by with watching clips here & there, and once in a while I’d watch a full episode online, but the video players sucked pretty bad (and sometimes crashed my browser), the quality was crap, and it was just a pain to go to and navigate the websites every time I wanted to watch an episode, and then wait through all the ads, so I just didn’t do it much. When Hulu picked up the shows, it was simple, high-quality, the video player was seamless, and there weren’t so many stupid ads. I could come home, sit on the sofa and with a few clicks of my remote, I’d be watching Jon Stewart, followed seamlessly by Steven Colbert, and then whatever other shows were in my Hulu queue for the day. I know the episode was from the day before, and while not idea, I was ok with that concession. Things were good once again.

So as you can imagine, I wasn’t happy to hear that Viacom was pulling so much content off Hulu. I get it – they want to hold on to their highly profitable subscription model, and Hulu just doesn’t fit. They probably figured they’d try the classic drug tactic – put the shows on Hulu for a while, get a huge new audience hooked, and then tank it, sending all the new fans to either the individual websites for the shows (which show more ads, and don’t need to give Hulu any commission), or back into the comfortable arms of a classic cable subscription.

Well neither of those options worked for me, so I went looking for an alternative. The only other legitimate source I could find was iTunes, where I could get a 16 episode Multi-Pass for $10. I considered it, but $20 for 16 episodes of just 2 daily news shows? If it were 16 episodes of a show with re-run value, I think $20 is fair; But these are daily news shows, so owning them has no value over viewing them once (ie. renting). So I decided $20 was just too much for these 2 shows every month.

After finding no other legitimate sources for these 2 shows, I went to the next logical source: online ‘pirating.’ It’s wonderful. There were plenty of options, but I finally settled on one. It couldn’t be easier – I can set up an auto-downloader, so when a new episode is released, it’s automatically downloaded while I’m at work. When I get home, it’s just like it used to be! I can just sit down, and with a few clicks of the remote, I’m watching all my favorite shows back to back. And even better than Hulu, there are no ads, and if I really like a particular episode, I just save it in my archives! (most episodes I just delete, because as I said, daily news shows don’t hold much re-run value). It sure beats crossing my fingers that it hasn’t expired on Hulu!

So thank you Viacom! You’ve made my viewing experience of your shows so much better by pulling them off Hulu! I know you won’t be receiving any advertising revenue from me for the ads Hulu ran during your shows, but it doesn’t sound like you’ll miss it. If you did, you’d surely put the shows back on Hulu. Oh, and sorry for calling you idiots. You’ve obviously found a clever way of making your viewers very happy – by making them no longer your customers. Brilliant!

And good luck with that subscription model – I’m sure it will continue to grow forever, even as internet connections and illegitimate sources alike continue to expand every day. Or I guess you could embrace this ‘futuristic’ internet streaming idea, and start giving customers what they really want (and I don’t mean just streaming episodes from your website). Heck, you might even see your revenues go *up* when millions more people have easy access to your content! I for one know that if all my shows were on Hulu, and I had a Hulu app on my TVs, I would never pirate anything again! But in the mean time, good luck holding on to all your subscribers!

Sincerely,

Chris J Mischler (ie. Johnny5k)
PeanutbutterEggDirt.com