Watch movies on Web?

2oldman wrote:

monkey44 wrote:
AND, they all do it, so it doesn't matter what you hear, the final billing is ALWAYS more on these monthly services.

Try getting a good estimate from a hospital for surgery!

No thanks - would rather watch a movie. Heck, have you ever tried to interpret a hospital bill AFTER the surgery. Good luck with that. :)

monkey44 wrote:
AND, they all do it, so it doesn't matter what you hear, the final billing is ALWAYS more on these monthly services.

Try getting a good estimate from a hospital for surgery!

PawPaw_n_Gram wrote:

monkey44 wrote:
Don't know about anyone else, but we only care about the size of the bill, never how it's figured.

Then you have to remember the electric company model - the more you use, the more you pay (or someone has to pay).

Like a lot of people, I really love my fast fiber optic internet connection at home.

But I also realize that speed only is possible where I can pay for a dedicated hookup at a flat rate (and my internet monthly rate does vary by how fast I want that connection to be).

It cost a lot of money to provide that type service any other way - and if I want that service - I'll be the one to pay.

I'm old enough to remember when we had to pay for on-line services by the minute, and early internet access. The same way type things I would do to minimize my on-line bill in 1988, and internet bill in 1994 work today with cell hot spot data plans.

Correct, we get what we pay for -- but still, those that want it pay for it. Pay more for it - but still, no matter how it gets there, the number at the end is what you pay, anything in between mean nothing to our checkbook.

Cracks me up, or upsets me - whichever - for example when Sprint says, "Cell phone is $50 a month" - Then the bill comes and it says, "$50 for minutes, $3.21 tax, $1.80 for line fee, $2.20 for access fee, $1.94 Sprint operation fee ... and the check I write comes to $59.15 - so, how does that equal $50 a month ... well, it doesn't.

But just because Sprint can label a 'fee' it does, and adds (not subtracts) from the actual charges. What is annoying? Well, just tell me the REAL charges not the FAKE charges ...

Bean Counters and Ad Execs try every way in the world to "semi-deceive" the customers with words and numbers and labels. AND, they all do it, so it doesn't matter what you hear, the final billing is ALWAYS more on these monthly services.

I'd just like to see total honesty in the information. Add the fees up and tell me what it costs, not what it costs before all the mandatory fees. Matter of fact, Sprint even has a 'Sprint fee" that it even tells you is NOT mandatory, but Sprint charges it anyway, "Because we can."

The fact that we pay these service fees remain irrelevant, we all pay, and we all want some kinds of services. You need a math degree to figure it out ... and we'd all buy it anyway, even if the 'semi-deceiving' part was more truthful.

We can easily buy less service and have less bill per month - that's not the point - we pay a little more, get a little more because that's our choice.

But of course, that kind of honesty went out with prohibition... :)

monkey44 wrote:
Don't know about anyone else, but we only care about the size of the bill, never how it's figured.

Then you have to remember the electric company model - the more you use, the more you pay (or someone has to pay).

Like a lot of people, I really love my fast fiber optic internet connection at home.

But I also realize that speed only is possible where I can pay for a dedicated hookup at a flat rate (and my internet monthly rate does vary by how fast I want that connection to be).

It cost a lot of money to provide that type service any other way - and if I want that service - I'll be the one to pay.

I'm old enough to remember when we had to pay for on-line services by the minute, and early internet access. The same way type things I would do to minimize my on-line bill in 1988, and internet bill in 1994 work today with cell hot spot data plans.

docj wrote:

wa8yxm wrote:
this is kind of a change of topic but I was reminded of something today.

Google NET NEUTRALITY and read up on it.

The courts have struck down FCC rules which say all comers must be treated by the same rules on the net.. This will allow ISP's to give higher rates to some types of data.. Such as Hulu and Netflix and other streaming videos.

Could lead to some good size bills for those who stream a lot of video. (I hope, though in the larger view I think it's a bad decision but I really do not want to get into the politics.. What is above is fact, I will not defend it, you can google it,, My dislike is opinion and I'll not defend that either)

I believe the net neutrality issue pertains to the content providers such as Netflix and not the individual users. I believe the issue is that Netflix has a lot of data to transmit (as do lots of others) but they need their data moved at high speeds. If this ruling were to stand it could mean that Netflix, for example, would have to pay more for its internet connection than another content provider that doesn't require the speed but moves the same amount of data (for example, DirecTV Cinema which is streaming data but it is stored on your DVR, not necessarily watched right away.)

The net result might be that your Netflix subscription might cost more per month, not that you will be charged more for streaming it.

docj -- doesn't matter what they call it - or how they derive the billing - fact is, IT will go up, not down. Right? :)

Don't know about anyone else, but we only care about the size of the bill, never how it's figured.

docj wrote:

wa8yxm wrote:
this is kind of a change of topic but I was reminded of something today.

Google NET NEUTRALITY and read up on it.

The courts have struck down FCC rules which say all comers must be treated by the same rules on the net.. This will allow ISP's to give higher rates to some types of data.. Such as Hulu and Netflix and other streaming videos.

Could lead to some good size bills for those who stream a lot of video. (I hope, though in the larger view I think it's a bad decision but I really do not want to get into the politics.. What is above is fact, I will not defend it, you can google it,, My dislike is opinion and I'll not defend that either)

I believe the net neutrality issue pertains to the content providers such as Netflix and not the individual users. I believe the issue is that Netflix has a lot of data to transmit (as do lots of others) but they need their data moved at high speeds. If this ruling were to stand it could mean that Netflix, for example, would have to pay more for its internet connection than another content provider that doesn't require the speed but moves the same amount of data (for example, DirecTV Cinema which is streaming data but it is stored on your DVR, not necessarily watched right away.)

The net result might be that your Netflix subscription might cost more per month, not that you will be charged more for streaming it.

docj -- doesn't matter what they call it - or how they derive the billing - fact is, IT will go up, not down. Right? :)

wa8yxm wrote:
this is kind of a change of topic but I was reminded of something today.

Google NET NEUTRALITY and read up on it.

The courts have struck down FCC rules which say all comers must be treated by the same rules on the net.. This will allow ISP's to give higher rates to some types of data.. Such as Hulu and Netflix and other streaming videos.

Could lead to some good size bills for those who stream a lot of video. (I hope, though in the larger view I think it's a bad decision but I really do not want to get into the politics.. What is above is fact, I will not defend it, you can google it,, My dislike is opinion and I'll not defend that either)

I believe the net neutrality issue pertains to the content providers such as Netflix and not the individual users. I believe the issue is that Netflix has a lot of data to transmit (as do lots of others) but they need their data moved at high speeds. If this ruling were to stand it could mean that Netflix, for example, would have to pay more for its internet connection than another content provider that doesn't require the speed but moves the same amount of data (for example, DirecTV Cinema which is streaming data but it is stored on your DVR, not necessarily watched right away.)

The net result might be that your Netflix subscription might cost more per month, not that you will be charged more for streaming it.

wa8yxm - pretty interesting read. Sorta of illustrates the issue of 'net quality' as well. Showing everyone (if transparency in fact occurs) that those with 'higher spending habits' can buy special treatment. Not exactly a new phenomenon in our world. Depends on which side of the bit you chomp whether that's good news or bad. But I agree with wa8yxm, bad court decision for most of us. Thinner wallets always seem to draw the shortest straw.

this is kind of a change of topic but I was reminded of something today.

Google NET NEUTRALITY and read up on it.

The courts have struck down FCC rules which say all comers must be treated by the same rules on the net.. This will allow ISP's to give higher rates to some types of data.. Such as Hulu and Netflix and other streaming videos.

Could lead to some good size bills for those who stream a lot of video. (I hope, though in the larger view I think it's a bad decision but I really do not want to get into the politics.. What is above is fact, I will not defend it, you can google it,, My dislike is opinion and I'll not defend that either)

If you want newer or newest releases, then DTV PPV is good, or a real theatre. I'd sure rather wait a few weeks and pay DTV 5 or 6 dollars and not have to go anywhere. Theatre sound is terrific, but, HD movies are sometimes better than a theatre picture.

I pay for 16G of data when we're travelling, so I can watch a lot of old TV on that much data. It's a 'sunk cost' for me with a working spouse.