paul, what i'm saying is:
in terms of mass entertainment value, cable is pretty much the only game in town. people want to plop down on the couch, push one button, and be entertained for a couple of hours -- cable provides this, computers don't. who the heck wants to read text after a hard day at work? explosions, car chases, large breasts... all on cable, none (well, maybe except for the last one) on internet. and it's pretty awkward for the whole family to crowd in around a pc's tiny monitor and one mouse and keyboard.
BECAUSE cable is the only game in town, it can provide bad service and people will keep coming.
by the way... how often is your isp down? how often do you think joe average has problems connecting to the net? but when's the last time you saw the ole earthlink van pull up to someone's house to help them connect?
and the last point. pay-per-view has been a tremendous cash cow for cable, while pay internet sites have been mostly a failure (again, with the exception of the porn stuff, but cable's made more money from that too). isn't this absolutely amazing? that a "broadcast" medium has been more effective at implementing pay-per-view than a fundamentally "one-to-one" medium?
i have no financial interest in the cable industry, and don't even have cable tv (or, heck, any kind of tv). |
