It's just like Cable TV (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-06-03 17:46 (#ABZ3) When cable TV was first introduced, we were promised no commercials because the revenue was coming from the monthly fee, and the channel selection would attract more customers and revenue. Well, there were two bad effects from that. First, the content providers very quickly went to commercials, I suppose instead of raising rates, and worse we ended up getting forced to buy content we don't want. Although I dropped cable over 15 years ago, and satellite about 5-6 years later, I never appreciated having to pay for ESPN. I'm sure the programming is fine, but I'm not interested in sports, but there was never an option to not pay for it.Now Netflix is in the same boat. Obviously, they are looking to generate more revenue, but given that selection isn't a big draw, no commercials is a major feature. If they want to use commercials, they need to offer an option out with a higher-priced tier. I don't watch a lot of movies on Netflix (because the selection isn't so great, but there's a lot of cool older stuff on there), I mostly watch old TV shows (right now I'm reliving "M*A*S*H"), which I really enjoy and find it a great value. I _will_ pay more for no commercials if I have to, and if I can't, I'll consider dropping Netflix. Re: It's just like Cable TV (Score: 1) by billshooterofbul@pipedot.org on 2015-06-03 21:43 (#ACDD) Well, for the record. With At&t uverse they have a decent kids package without ESPN. I like ESPN, but not at the price of packages that include it. I'd pay $5 a month during football season for it, but that's about it.
Re: It's just like Cable TV (Score: 1) by billshooterofbul@pipedot.org on 2015-06-03 21:43 (#ACDD) Well, for the record. With At&t uverse they have a decent kids package without ESPN. I like ESPN, but not at the price of packages that include it. I'd pay $5 a month during football season for it, but that's about it.