Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If or when net neutrality ends I think you find a lot of censorship and the demise of many websites that many use . The large ISP's / telecoms are aware that cable tv is dying. They are hoping to corner you into a new generic corporate reality and offer you what they deem appropriate on the net. They will bundle group s of websites at extra cost, like cable does now. The rest will be severely throttled or simply not available.
It is really foolish to think this will not happen if net neutrality is killed. Everyone should pay very close attention. They are going to get the chord cutters back to a pay status and tell you what you can and cannot have access to. It is the goal to tame the internet . This is similar to changes that tamed cable tv in the 1980s but on a much larger and dangerous scale for the consumer.
I'm going to have to go with TV...I can do without it at this point.
What is this thing you call "TV"; is that a form of entertainment?
Seriously, before I can answer this question, I need a definition of TV.
I have told many on this site that I don't watch TV.......but it is not watching in the popular sense of the word. No cable, no broadcast, no satellite, no streaming.
My TVs are used essentially as monitors for the DVDs and VHSs (and then as speakers for CDs) and then an occasional feed from a USB or from the computer. Essentially, what I watched is all, entirely "canned".
So, for the purpose of this discussion, is that "TV"?
That's an easy question. I could much easier go without television than internet.
Gave up cable television years ago, because no one in the family really watches any or much TV....so who could justify the cost?
What we do watch, is streamed through the internet.
Our internet went down once for half a day, and I felt like I had lost communication with the world!!!!
That's ridiculous. There is no practical reason for this to be an either-or situation. I haven't had cable except for a couple years when I got it for my day in over 35 years. But I get my fill of streaming for a fraction of the cost via Internet.
However it is costing me $65 a month - and they're talking about raising that to $90. I am on a (very) fixed income. Can't afford it. I may have to do without it altogether soon. Or take my laptop to a hotspot.
I recently stayed in a (very expensive) hotel and they wanted $8 per day extra for internet access - which I have always gotten for free in cheaper motels. Huh-uh. I just watched the free TV for the couple of hours I waited in my room until time to meet others, and read the rest of the time.
You know. Books. Still free from your local library - and lots of classics downloadable for free from Project Gutenberg or the Internet Archives and the Wayback Machine. You can use a library computer or other hotspot for the download to a thumb drive or your laptop.
If asked would I rather go without tv, or Internet for a year, television. The internet can provide TV and so much more.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
