or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Federal rules ensure Apple's iTunes has right to Comcast's NBC content
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Federal rules ensure Apple's iTunes has right to Comcast's NBC content

post #1 of 48
Thread Starter 
Comcast agreed to continue licensing of NBC content to online video services like Apple's iTunes in order to receive government approval of its acquisition of broadcast network NBC.

In the terms of the acquisition approved by the U.S. government, cable provider Comcast has agreed to let online rivals that compete with its own cable subscriptions and online "Fancast" product license NBC programming, according to The Associated Press. Though NBC's shows are already available on the iTunes Store, NBC has not participated in Apple's 99-cent iTunes TV show rental model for the new Apple TV.

"We do not think 99 cents is the right price point for our content," former NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker said last year. Zucker was fired by Comcast in September. "We though it would devalue our content."

But now it's also possible Comcast could allow NBC content to become available for rent on the Apple TV and iTunes in order to appease the federal government, based on the terms the company agreed to. Regulators scrutinizing Comcast's acquisition of NBC showed concern that online media services like iTunes would suffer from a cable provider owning a broadcast network.

Products like iTunes are sometimes used by customers to "cut the cord" and cancel their cable subscription. There's also the possibility that Comcast could "throttle" bandwidth for services like Netflix and iTunes, making downloads slower or streaming content stutter and become unwatchable.

Federal officials reportedly attached dozens of conditions to the government's approval of the Comcast-NBC deal. Specifically, Comcast must sell its content to online video services, though no specific provisions were made related to 99-cent Apple TV rentals.

In addition, Comcast may not interfere with video traffic for other, competing services over its broadband network, and it must sell standalone Internet services with 6 megabit download speeds for about $50 per month, without being tied to a cable TV package.

"Although these requirements offer no guarantees of success for new online video services, they aim to ensure that Comcast cannot impede the online businesses," the report said. "They also break new ground by giving Internet rivals some of the same protections that have long been available to satellite companies and other subscription TV competitors."

NBC has had a tumultuous relationship with Apple and its iTunes service in the past, before the Comcast acquisition. In August of 2007, NBC abruptly pulled its content from iTunes after Apple wouldn't agree to doubling the wholesale price of each TV episode.

NBC eventually returned to the iTunes Store in September 2008, when Apple began offering high-definition content for $2.99 per episode, compared with the standard-definition pricing of $1.99 for an episode. The new requirements from federal regulators would make it more difficult for Comcast to pull NBC content from iTunes again.

And while NBC has continued to hold out from offering content for the new streaming-centric Apple TV, rival networks Fox and ABC both agreed to be launch partners by offering 99-cent TV episode rentals. TV executives were said to be "uncomfortable" with Apple's pricing model, but some were willing to go forward with what they consider to be an "experiment."
post #2 of 48
Ha! 99¢ for an episode of ANYTHING on TV is way over-priced.

Try 25¢, and I'll think about it.
post #3 of 48
Now they can say that "the devil made me do it" and they can get back into the mainstream of the future delivery of content......:
post #4 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by RegurgitatedCoprolite View Post

Ha! 99¢ for an episode of ANYTHING on TV is way over-priced.

Try 25¢, and I'll think about it.

Well, if I watch it on TV, there's no incremental cost. Seems to me that $0.99 is free money for them.

Bottom line, though, is that the market will eventually determine the price. If demand is sky high, Apple can raise the price and the network will get more. If demand is low, then the price is probably too high.

Network execs can whine about the price all they want, but there's no way to know what the market will actually pay without trying it. Personally, I'm guessing that $0.99 is about right, but only time will tell.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #5 of 48
Great, now the merger can go ahead because NBC pinky-swore that they'd play nice.

Now all NBC has to do is allow apple to rent episodes for $17 each and the feds are happy. Perfect.
post #6 of 48
Hurray! More victories for the lobbyists!
post #7 of 48
While I'm happy that this happens to work out in consumers' favor, it's still sad that the Feds can tell a company what to do. Actual competition works so much better, and we don't even need to consider the long run.
post #8 of 48
What's the point anyway. Any content that NBC somehow manages to make that is worth watching will just get cancelled by them anyway. Community, Chuck, and Parks and Rec have survived, but there is too much quality in those shows, so NBC is rumored to be canceling all of them for next year. What a shame.
post #9 of 48
$0.99 for a "rented" show is more-than fair.

Ultimately though, this Apple TV will prove to be an everlasting-hobby until the day Apple can work out some sort of iTunes subscription model.

I have Sky+ here in Ireland and I can tell you they provide some of the worst service I have ever come across. You can't even opt-out of their monthly magazine. You can choose to get it by e-mail, but my understanding is that takes "a few months" to go through. They never respond to e-mail help and their telephone help costs "a small fortune". I'm talking a minimum of €15 per call, and sometimes much more. My brother paid over €40 for a call to Sky a couple of years back. And their website where you manage your Sky account? Holy crap it's the slowest most confusing "manipulative" website ever conceived. When you try to sign up you have to opt-out of them "sharing" your personal information. And rest assured they don't want you too. The form is design specifically so you miss that part. I don't trust them and I detest them. Murdock is a slime-ball.

You need someone like Apple to come along and clean up this MESS. Apple is clever because they know deep down it's good business and good for their brand if they actually care about users privacy and their experience(s). I complained the other night about the Zynga app to iTunes and they gave me two free movie rentals. I had an issue with a product sold on the App Store and I came away smiling. This is the kind of service we need in the TV space, and that won't happen until we have a monthly subscription.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #10 of 48
Assuming you're renting an hour long show, and you watch 24/7, $0.99/show works out to over $700/month. This is far higher than what cable is charging

Sure nobody watches 24/7, but no matter how you work it out $0.99/show is higher than what cable charges.
post #11 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnlyShawn View Post

While I'm happy that this happens to work out in consumers' favor, it's still sad that the Feds can tell a company what to do. Actual competition works so much better, and we don't even need to consider the long run.

I find it fascinating whenever I hear say this, or something like this. Mainly because I've always thought the opposite entirely and so when I find someone who thinks so differently it always makes me double take. I'm not stating an opinion on who is correct here, please understand this is not an attack just an observation.

I never really thought about how differently people talk until I heard a journalist from BBC Radio 4 talking about guns and how US citizens felt about them, what images it conjured up, and now! Fantastic.


My point of view is that intervention in businesses will always be required because the people running them have one goal, dominate their industry and absolutely grind everyone else down into the ground and then lift the price once no one else can give the consumer leverage (competition) to keep things low. Which would also mean effort, talent, productivity and class going out of that area of business as they can no longer be bothered to hire people with talent, just accountants who know something about TV shows.

For my part I see this as self evident and inevitable. Once the famous Henry Ford vs the Shareholders came down on the side of the shareholders it's said that, to run a business on behalf of shareholders requires a psychopath or at best, a sociopath to do 'hard' business requires.
post #12 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjwal View Post

Assuming you're renting an hour long show, and you watch 24/7, $0.99/show works out to over $700/month. This is far higher than what cable is charging

Sure nobody watches 24/7, but no matter how you work it out $0.99/show is higher than what cable charges.

I think in order to find the true value of iTunes content you'd need to do something like this.

$0.99 x number of shows you watch in a week.
minus how much you'd be willing to pay for no advertising.
minus what you believe been able to watch it on any of your devices is worth.
minus what you believe been able to watch it at a time of your choosing, without adverts is worth.

compare to cable cost per month.

If you want to be picky, try this.

When you buy an episode of a TV show on iTunes you are directly telling the shows producers and whoever else runs it that you paid for it. That's just not money, it's a vote which TV doesn't give you (I don't think). Might be worth something to some people.
post #13 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjwal View Post

Assuming you're renting an hour long show, and you watch 24/7, $0.99/show works out to over $700/month. This is far higher than what cable is charging.

This, for a start, assumes you don't work or sleep. I have to assume you do. That's your argument's first flaw.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #14 of 48
why not free with ads??? its the way they've been doing it since the beginning of television history.
sure, i hate ads and try to ignore them, but i'd rather watch ads than pay a dollar per episode.
post #15 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers View Post

Why not free with ads??? its the way they've been doing it since the beginning of television history.

Free? So you pay no monthly fee for TV then?
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #16 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Free? So you pay no monthly fee for TV then?

yes...
post #17 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by uberben View Post

I think in order to find the true value of iTunes content you'd need to do something like this.

$0.99 x number of shows you watch in a week.
minus how much you'd be willing to pay for no advertising.
minus what you believe been able to watch it on any of your devices is worth.
minus what you believe been able to watch it at a time of your choosing, without adverts is worth.

compare to cable cost per month.

If you want to be picky, try this.

When you buy an episode of a TV show on iTunes you are directly telling the shows producers and whoever else runs it that you paid for it. That's just not money, it's a vote which TV doesn't give you (I don't think). Might be worth something to some people.

If I disconnect my cable then the number of shows being rented would be quite large.
I agree that there is additional value for the reasons you have listed. I'm not sure I'm willing to pay $100s for that though.

The idea of voting for good TV shows is intriguing but given what "seems" to be popular on regular TV I'm not sure whether it is a good idea or not.
post #18 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

This, for a start, assumes you don't work or sleep. I have to assume you do. That's your argument's first flaw.

If you were able to read past the first sentence of my comment you would have seen that I qualified it. My conclusion is still valid.
post #19 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnlyShawn View Post

While I'm happy that this happens to work out in consumers' favor, it's still sad that the Feds can tell a company what to do. Actual competition works so much better, and we don't even need to consider the long run.

Complete freedom leads to powerful/rich/successful people taking advantage of weak/poor/unsuccessful people. If companies were allowed to do whatever they want, you'd be living in a company house, shopping at a company store, and would basically be an indentured servant. No really, read all about it in history books.

This isn't to say we need more or less regulation. Just that zero regulation is not desirable.
post #20 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjwal View Post

Assuming you're renting an hour long show, and you watch 24/7, $0.99/show works out to over $700/month. This is far higher than what cable is charging

Sure nobody watches 24/7, but no matter how you work it out $0.99/show is higher than what cable charges.

I watch about 3 TV seasons a year, making iTunes an absolute bargain over any cable subscription package.
post #21 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by limeymick View Post

I watch about 3 TV seasons a year, making iTunes an absolute bargain over any cable subscription package.

When iTunes has live local news, weather, sports, and financial reports, I'll consider canceling my TV.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #22 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by uberben View Post

I think in order to find the true value of iTunes content you'd need to do something like this.

$0.99 x number of shows you watch in a week.
minus how much you'd be willing to pay for no advertising.
minus what you believe been able to watch it on any of your devices is worth.
minus what you believe been able to watch it at a time of your choosing, without adverts is worth.

compare to cable cost per month.

If you want to be picky, try this.

When you buy an episode of a TV show on iTunes you are directly telling the shows producers and whoever else runs it that you paid for it. That's just not money, it's a vote which TV doesn't give you (I don't think). Might be worth something to some people.

That's a pretty ridiculous comparison. By your logic, my cell phone costs me thousands of dollars per month because it's $0.10 per minute -and if I used it every minute of every day, the cost would be stratospheric.

In reality, each person would have to calculate it for themselves. Let me show you how a RATIONAL person would do it:

I watch about 2 hours of TV per week. At $0.99 per half hour, that's $3.96 per week or about $17 per month. That's less than half of what my cable company charges me.

Obviously, people who watch TV a lot are going to have to pay more. But your blanket statement that it's too expensive is too absurd for words.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #23 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjwal View Post

If you were able to read past the first sentence of my comment you would have seen that I qualified it. My conclusion is still valid.

If nobody watches 24/7 then why even say that in your comment? It seems you should try to be less devious when trying to make a point.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #24 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers View Post

yes...

In my country we get ads and still have to pay $37 per month.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #25 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That's a pretty ridiculous comparison. By your logic, my cell phone costs me thousands of dollars per month because it's $0.10 per minute -and if I used it every minute of every day, the cost would be stratospheric.

In reality, each person would have to calculate it for themselves. Let me show you how a RATIONAL person would do it:

I watch about 2 hours of TV per week. At $0.99 per half hour, that's $3.96 per week or about $17 per month. That's less than half of what my cable company charges me.

Obviously, people who watch TV a lot are going to have to pay more. But your blanket statement that it's too expensive is too absurd for words.

So you watch 2 hrs of TV per week, I don't think you fit the demographic profile that TV programming is made for. In fact if everyone only watched 2 hrs per week I don't think there would be any programming produced at all.

I have a family of 4 and a rough estimate is more than 100 hrs per month. I believe that is less than the average viewer who according to Nielson watches 4 hrs/day.
post #26 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjwal View Post

So you watch 2 hrs of TV per week, I don't think you fit the demographic profile that TV programming is made for. In fact if everyone only watched 2 hrs per week I don't think there would be any programming produced at all.

I have a family of 4 and a rough estimate is more than 100 hrs per month. I believe that is less than the average viewer who according to Nielson watches 4 hrs/day.

If your family is watching 100 hours of TV per month, I'd suggest that you get a life.

The point - which you so obviously are incapable of understanding - is that no one can decide the RIGHT PRICE. Each person decides on the right price FOR THEMSELVES. The way the market works is that if too many people think a product is too expensive, they don't buy it and either the vendor lowers the price or goes out of business.

For me, $0.99 per episode would be a good deal. For you, a fixed price 'all you can eat' deal makes more sense. Neither one of us has the right to dictate what the 'right price' for the product is for anyone but ourselves.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #27 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That's a pretty ridiculous comparison. By your logic, my cell phone costs me thousands of dollars per month because it's $0.10 per minute -and if I used it every minute of every day, the cost would be stratospheric.

In reality, each person would have to calculate it for themselves. Let me show you how a RATIONAL person would do it:

I watch about 2 hours of TV per week. At $0.99 per half hour, that's $3.96 per week or about $17 per month. That's less than half of what my cable company charges me.

Obviously, people who watch TV a lot are going to have to pay more. But your blanket statement that it's too expensive is too absurd for words.

I have read and reread my original post and can find no connection, no matter how abstract with cost per minute, or mobiles or anything outside of comparing how much value someone gets out of their cable service and whether they would be better off with an iTunes service.

I think what I said makes it clear that each person would make their own evaluation of cost/benefit by the fact that it is a calculation based upon how someone might use and think of their subscription.

And again, my blanket statement that it is too costly to be worthwhile? I'm half believing you quoted my post by mistake and are replying to something else entirely because again, that isn't mentioned anywhere at all. If it's worth anything, I watch extremely little TV and it would be worth it to me personally.
post #28 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

If your family is watching 100 hours of TV per month, I'd suggest that you get a life.

The point - which you so obviously are incapable of understanding - is that no one can decide the RIGHT PRICE. Each person decides on the right price FOR THEMSELVES. The way the market works is that if too many people think a product is too expensive, they don't buy it and either the vendor lowers the price or goes out of business.

For me, $0.99 per episode would be a good deal. For you, a fixed price 'all you can eat' deal makes more sense. Neither one of us has the right to dictate what the 'right price' for the product is for anyone but ourselves.

I feel the need to call this it sounds really harsh suggesting that if a family of 4 each watches (on average) one and half hours worth of TV a day then they need to get a life.
post #29 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

In my country we get ads and still have to pay $37 per month.

It is unfortunate that you have no over-the-air option out there in iPad Land.
post #30 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Free? So you pay no monthly fee for TV then?

As a matter of fact, over-the-air terrestrial broadcast television is available to consumers in North America at no cost. (Aside from the price to purchase the TV set in the first place, plus the price to purchase the electricity you use to run it -- but presumably those aren't part of the fees you're thinking about.) Consumers can choose to subscribe to cable, satellite, or other such premium television services for a monthly fee, but it isn't mandatory to receive basic local stations.

I understand that in the UK, consumers are required to pay a fee for the right to even own a television set, even if it is only used to receive the local over-the-air terrestrial stations. I've heard stories about government inspectors keeping lists of households that do not hold TV permits, and performing spot checks to make sure those households don't have television sets on the premises. If the inspectors ever find such a household with a television set but no permit, the homeowner has to prove that the television set is non-functional, or else they'll issue a fine.
post #31 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

As a matter of fact, over-the-air terrestrial broadcast television is available to consumers in North America at no cost. (Aside from the price to purchase the TV set in the first place, plus the price to purchase the electricity you use to run it -- but presumably those aren't part of the fees you're thinking about.) Consumers can choose to subscribe to cable, satellite, or other such premium television services for a monthly fee, but it isn't mandatory to receive basic local stations.

I understand that in the UK, consumers are required to pay a fee for the right to even own a television set, even if they are only used to receive the local over-the-air terrestrial stations. I've heard stories about government inspectors keeping lists of households that do not hold TV permits, and performing spot checks to make sure those households don't have television sets on the premises. If the inspectors ever find such a household with a television set but no permit, the homeowner has to prove that the television set is non-functional, or else they'll issue a fine.

This is fairly close to the truth. They charge you if you can watch the BBC, since the BBC is broadcast over the TV wires the same as free channels if you can watch those free channels you can watch the BBC, and therefore have to pay. They are also broadcast by Sky and Virgin, so if you have either satellite or cable TV you have to pay for the BBC, nice little deal they have there. Chances of getting caught aren't huge (this doesn't make it okay) and if you are caught you have the chance to start paying the £11 a month instead of the fine (which doesn't make it okay either).

They can't just request to come into your house if your a none payer, they have to have proof which means driving past in a van with equipment that can detect what is been watched, which is costly so they don't do it a lot (this doesn't make it okay either).

I don't know whether it's because it's always been there or because the vast majority of people like the BBC (including the radio) but the BBC is generally well liked, not that am suggesting that makes a draconian system okay either.
post #32 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers View Post

why not free with ads???

This is an interesting idea. I think it would be technologically easy for Apple to add ads to AppleTV content.

However, I don't see much value added in this proposition, except for free content on-demand.

Big question is: will this sell enough AppleTV's to be worth the effort of negotiating contracts with the content providers. My guess is probably not.
post #33 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Great, now the merger can go ahead because NBC pinky-swore that they'd play nice.

Now all NBC has to do is allow apple to rent episodes for $17 each and the feds are happy. Perfect.

To take your point to the extreme, what if they charged $1000 per episode? Would the Feds be happy? Obviously, the Feds would see that as a ridiculous attempt to stifle the competition, and they would veto it forthwith. Now bring it to $500 per episode. Same result. Clearly, the Feds will be asking the question of whether the pricing is going to stifle competition. Will they let something like $17 pass muster? Doubt it. At some point, the Feds would have to keep hands off and let the free market decide. But I suspect that that would be at a point where your cynicism would lose its power... which is probably why you picked $17 as opposed to something defensible.

Thompson
post #34 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by am8449 View Post

This is an interesting idea. I think it would be technologically easy for Apple to add ads to AppleTV content.

However, I don't see much value added in this proposition, except for free content on-demand.

Big question is: will this sell enough AppleTV's to be worth the effort of negotiating contracts with the content providers. My guess is probably not.

I guarantee that this is not a new idea in the realm of the iTunes negotiations. My hunch is that Apple has been staunchly fighting this behind the scenes from the get-go. And we all know how stubborn Apple can be with regard to their view of the user experience.

In other words, I suspect that Hell will freeze over before you see commercials on iTunes content. To clarify: I know that mobile apps can be purchased via iTunes and that they can carry interactive "advertisements". But I'm not talking about *that*. I'm talking about basic video *commercials* embedded into the video stream, which the customer cannot choose to bypass. Apple isn't down with that.

Thompson
post #35 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by uberben View Post

I feel the need to call this it sounds really harsh suggesting that if a family of 4 each watches (on average) one and half hours worth of TV a day then they need to get a life.

Well the previous poster's first sentence may have been a little harsh, but it could have been stricken from his post without harming his true point: the value of the pricing is a matter of opinion and in the eye of the beholder. (In fact, his first sentence was COUNTER to his point, so it probably should be stricken!)

Thompson
post #36 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

If your family is watching 100 hours of TV per month, I'd suggest that you get a life.

The point - which you so obviously are incapable of understanding - is that no one can decide the RIGHT PRICE. Each person decides on the right price FOR THEMSELVES. The way the market works is that if too many people think a product is too expensive, they don't buy it and either the vendor lowers the price or goes out of business.

For me, $0.99 per episode would be a good deal. For you, a fixed price 'all you can eat' deal makes more sense. Neither one of us has the right to dictate what the 'right price' for the product is for anyone but ourselves.

Your point, that the value at a given price is subjective, would have been made and perceived much more strongly if you would have left the first sentence out. Note that at least one responder missed your point entirely because they were offended by that sentence. It is contrary to your point.
post #37 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

Well the previous poster's first sentence may have been a little harsh, but it could have been stricken from his post without harming his true point: the value of the pricing is a matter of opinion and in the eye of the beholder. (In fact, his first sentence was COUNTER to his point, so it probably should be stricken!)

Thompson

It was a little harsh and I only pointed it out, not because he just said that but because he had also responded to an earlier post of mine with, I can only call it puzzling ferocity. Maybe that made me post when otherwise I would have just considered it background noise.
post #38 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by uberben View Post

I feel the need to call this it sounds really harsh suggesting that if a family of 4 each watches (on average) one and half hours worth of TV a day then they need to get a life.

You need to go back and check your math (too much TV watching on your part, probably). 100 hours a month is over 3 hours per day.

If you have school kids, they probably get home about 4 pm and go to bed no later than 10 pm. That means that 50% of their time at home is spent watching TV. When you figure that they also have to take baths, do homework, eat, etc, then it's even more than 50% of their 'free' time - at least on weekdays.

Now, that's clearly tempered by the fact that they probably watch more on weekends and less during the week. And by the fact that not everyone is likely to be watching all 100 hours. But, still, 100 hours per month is a lot.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #39 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You need to go back and check your math (too much TV watching on your part, probably). 100 hours a month is over 3 hours per day.

If you have school kids, they probably get home about 4 pm and go to bed no later than 10 pm. That means that 50% of their time at home is spent watching TV. When you figure that they also have to take baths, do homework, eat, etc, then it's even more than 50% of their 'free' time - at least on weekdays.

Now, that's clearly tempered by the fact that they probably watch more on weekends and less during the week. And by the fact that not everyone is likely to be watching all 100 hours. But, still, 100 hours per month is a lot.

4 people times 1.5 hours = 6 hours a day.

6 times 7 days in a week = 42 hours a week.

42 times 4 (low estimate) weeks in a month = 168.

Yes, the family are likely to watch more on weekends then other days it's an average as I said. But what I said was right, 4 people watching 1.5 hours of tv a day is well over 168. If each person just watched one hour of TV a day then that is 112 hours a month. Yes programmes they watch will overlap and so forth but the point is 1 hour a day for someone watching TV is no reason to tell them to get a life.

I edited out my response to your latest personal insult.
post #40 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by uberben View Post

4 people times 1.5 hours = 6 hours a day.

6 times 7 days in a week = 42 hours a week.

42 times 4 (low estimate) weeks in a month = 168.

Yes, the family are likely to watch more on weekends then other days it's an average as I said. But what I said was right, 4 people watching 1.5 hours of tv a day is well over 168. If each person just watched one hour of TV a day then that is 112 hours a month. Yes programmes they watch will overlap and so forth but the point is 1 hour a day for someone watching TV is no reason to tell them to get a life.

I edited out my response to your latest personal insult.

How many households have 4 different people watching different TV shows all month? You never have two people watching the same show?

And if that IS the case, then you REALLY need to get a life - since watching TV by yourself is apparently more important to you than doing things with your family.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Federal rules ensure Apple's iTunes has right to Comcast's NBC content