Social Feed

My 26 year old son doesn't want to use traditional sat or cable now and only uses streaming apps and he is not on them as much as we were with satellite, using it for back ground noise while we do other things around the house. He doesn't even care about antenna ota TV either. Mind you he had a satellite receiver in his room since he was born and didn't want one after he got to be a teenager. So I took it out. I mainly used it to load up kid shows on the Dvr , so he would be entertained while I was doing stuff around the house when he was a baby and toddler. So Gen Z will not care one bit about live TV services going the way of the Dodo bird.

Some interesting information was in this article-


This first-

The total pay-TV sector (traditional service providers and virtual MVPDs) shed 885,000 subscribers in Q2 2026

So with the loss of 2.03 Million in the first quarter, already at 2.915 Million gone this year, two quarters left to report.

#2-

The segment ended Q2 with 61.51 million subs comprising 27.5 million cable video subs, 21.42 million vMVPD customers, 9.56 million satellite TV customers, and 3.01 million telco TV subs.

There are approximately 133.97 million households in the United States, according to recent YCharts US Households Data from mid-2026.

That means more than 72 Million households do not have a paid live TV service, about 54% of the total.

What is worse, 7 years ago, paid live TV had over 80% of the population subscribing ( about 100 Million), almost all were Cable/Satellite customers.

Today, only about 37 Million subscribe to Cable/Satellite, less than 28% of our population.

#3-

At one time, Satellite TV (Dish and DirecTV), had about 34 Million subscribers added together, now, 9.56 Million.

That is over a 70% loss for those who subscribe to Satellite TV.

For Cable TV, not as bad, since they have broadband to help against the losses ( bundles), but as more options appear ( 5G, fiber, starlink, etc), I expect a big increase in those leaving cable.

Also expect YTTV to really start gaining even more subscribers, for those who still wish to have a live TV service, based on price point and it is a really great service.

Looks like Optimum Communications ( formerly CableVision) is collapsing, due to it's high debt, lenders/creditors are taking over-

Sony is discontinuing it's last 4K disc player, Panasonic has been rumored to be doing the same, the end of physical media is unfortunately, about to happen.

Got a Sony 700 at WM dot commie.

I think.

Ordered, anyway. Amazon let me go thru entire process but then said no inventory.

Hopefully,, WM will come thru.

dishstaller said:

I'm surprised Walmart hasn't banned this guy from all of their stores. He has been on their CASE the past few months.


View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/f3zr37ekgKM?feature=share

Click to expand...

When walmart set a price...they weigh the container and the product...the product label only shows the weight of the product...I am sure if you brought your own plastic baggies to bring the product home you could get the cheaper price

Juan said:

When walmart set a price...they weigh the container and the product...

Click to expand...

Then they are stupid. Everyone knows that the price per ounce should be the price per ounce of actual product.

dishstaller said:

Then they are stupid. Everyone knows that the price per ounce should be the price per ounce of actual product.

Click to expand...

You are paying for the whole thing

Juan said:

You are paying for the whole thing

Click to expand...

Well, the bag can't weigh that much, right? But by law food product packaging must display the actual net weight of the product, i.e., the contents of the container, so by any logic, if not law, a store's stated per-ounce cost should reflect that figure. But since there's not any law regulating shelf statements, a store can say whatever it wants without violating any rules. So I guess the answer is more consumer legislation. Or simply caveat emptor.

telstar_1 said:

Well, the bag can't weigh that much, right? But by law food product packaging must display the actual net weight of the product, i.e., the contents of the container, so by any logic, if not law, a store's stated per-ounce cost should reflect that figure. But since there's not any law regulating shelf statements, a store can say whatever it wants without violating any rules. So I guess the answer is more consumer legislation. Or simply caveat emptor.

Click to expand...

But a box can weigh more than an ounce..maybe 2...a can might weigh 5 ounces..a bag...not much

Juan said:

.a bag...not much

Click to expand...

Well, according to the price per ounce on that first bag of coffee he mentions, that would mean the bag weighed over 6 ounces. That bag does NOT weigh 6 ounces. According to Google, an empty bag weighs half an ounce.

dishstaller said:

Well, according to the price per ounce on that first bag of coffee he mentions, that would mean the bag weighed over 6 ounces. That bag does NOT weigh 6 ounces. According to Google, an empty bag weighs half an ounce.

Click to expand...

You need to weigh the actual bag...a deli bag weighs less than that but a thick coffee bag is gonna weigh around an ounce...an empty tin can has some weight

Juan said:

You need to weigh the actual bag...a deli bag weighs less than that but a thick coffee bag is gonna weigh around an ounce...an empty tin can has some weight

Click to expand...

Products sold by the ounce, pound, etc, should always be priced for the product only. Only the shipping weight should include the packaging.

NYDutch said:

Products sold by the ounce, pound, etc, should always be priced for the product only.

Click to expand...

Unless the specific product or its packaging is known at the time of weighing, estimating the tare weight for a PoS system is a tall order.

I'm pretty sure that produce bags can't get any thinner.

You certainly don't want to put unbagged produce on a belt, scale, or in a clerk's hands (gloved or not).

harshness said:

Unless the specific product or its packaging is known at the time of weighing, estimating the tare weight for a PoS system is a tall order.

I'm pretty sure that produce bags can't get any thinner.

You certainly don't want to put unbagged produce on a belt, scale, or in a clerk's hands (gloved or not).

Click to expand...

I would think that all the packaging would already be accounted for ... they weigh the container, subtract that from the scale, then add the product , so its weighing the Product only

Juan said:

but a thick coffee bag is gonna weigh around an ounce...

Click to expand...

Obviously you didn't read my post.....google says a coffee bag weighs half an ounce. But let's say you are correct and it DOES weigh a full ounce, that would still fall 5 ounces shy for Walmart's numbers to match.
You wouldn't happen to be kin to Bernie would you

dishstaller said:

Obviously you didn't read my post.....google says a coffee bag weighs half an ounce. But let's say you are correct and it DOES weigh a full ounce, that would still fall 5 ounces shy for Walmart's numbers to match.
You wouldn't happen to be kin to Bernie would you

Click to expand...

None of it means a hill of coffee beans...the price is the price...its not going to get any lower...as long as you pay the price on the shelf at the register..there is no crime

Juan said:

None of it means a hill of coffee beans...the price is the price...its not going to get any lower...as long as you pay the price on the shelf at the register..there is no crime

Click to expand...

I can't BELIEVE this is being such a difficult subject. The issue isn't the price....it's the advertised price per ounce. A lot of shoppers, myself included, use the price per ounce in determining which is the better value....with that number being inaccurate, it can trick someone into thinking that one product cost less per ounce than a competing product. Is this a crime?...above my pay grade. Is it dishonest? Yes.

dishstaller said:

I can't BELIEVE this is being such a difficult subject. The issue isn't the price....it's the advertised price per ounce. A lot of shoppers, myself included, use the price per ounce in determining which is the better value....with that number being inaccurate, it can trick someone into thinking that one product cost less per ounce than a competing product. Is this a crime?...above my pay grade. Is it dishonest? Yes.

Click to expand...

Again it makes no difference...call the ftc and file a complaint...maybe your lawyer can file a class action lawsuit and you can collect your 25 cents

Losing 144,000 internet customers surprises me more.

dishstaller said:

Losing 144,000 internet customers surprises me more.

Click to expand...

people are moving to fiber, which is better up and down and also not Comcast.

savarese04 said:

people are moving to fiber, which is better up and down and also not Comcast.

Click to expand...

dishstaller said:

Losing 144,000 internet customers surprises me more.

Click to expand...

Cord cutting 2.0. Not just fiber, 5G is really taking a toll on the cable companies.

dishdude said:

Cord cutting 2.0. Not just fiber, 5G is really taking a toll on the cable companies.

Click to expand...

I agree, for $35 it aint perfect but just as reliable as my cable was. And that was twice as much and still rising

I Wish I Could Have Been There is an amazing song. Rest in peace Mr Anderson.

mikew said:

I Wish I Could Have Been There is an amazing song.

Click to expand...

That's one of those songs that hits a little too close to home for me. I like the song but just can't listen to it. It's kinda like that song "Daddy never was the Cadillac kind".....reminds me too much of my Grandfather who died Feb 18, 1995.

R.I.P. I thought he was older…

R.I.P.
Got a few songs on my 'setup' (old cell phone with music) that I can listen to while working

RIP

dfergie said:

R.I.P. I thought he was older…

Click to expand...

Same here. I thought he was older......RIP

That's not really unusual. Cable companies like to the provide the box too. The phone company provided the phones in until the government forced them to allow third-party phones.

Strega said:

That's not really unusual. Cable companies like to the provide the box too. The phone company provided the phones in until the government forced them to allow third-party phones.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Western Electric phones that says "Bell System Property, NOT FOR SALE, Western Electric".

Almighty1 said:

Yes, the Western Electric phones that says "Bell System Property, NOT FOR SALE, Western Electric".

Click to expand...

In my very early work life I installed and repaired those phones.

Almighty1 said:

Yes, the Western Electric phones that says "Bell System Property, NOT FOR SALE, Western Electric".

Click to expand...

someone is showing their age

AZ. said:

someone is showing their age

Click to expand...

LOL. It depends if the person saw it during the years when they were actually still available which is 1968 to 1983 meaning the person could be 43-58 years old or they can even be a few years old if they learned to read and write at a young age and actually saw a telephone with that label somewhere recently just like even here in San Francisco, payphone still exist physically in public places but whether they can be used or not is a different issue. It still looks like this even today:

I opened my Radio Shack in Sept 1984 and right about that time they did the whole deregulation thing with the phone companies. I bought TONS of those phones that had been refurbished with a new outer shell. You could throw one of those out of a 3 story high window and it would still work.
That was an interesting time in history. I would have older customers come in and ask about phones.....they were terrified that they were going to get into trouble hooking up a second phone without the phone company knowing about it. One of the funniest episodes of WKRP was the one where Johnny thought the cops were showing up because they had an unregistered phone. I guess younger folks can't conceive of a time when you were limited to the number of phones you could have in your house....and limited to the length of the cord

Bobby said:

In my very early work life I installed and repaired those phones.

Click to expand...

And I kept them working through the ESS offices.

llokey said:

And I kept them working through the ESS offices.

Click to expand...

The two central offices in the area I worked were actually step by step offices.

dishstaller said:

I opened my Radio Shack in Sept 1984 and right about that time they did the whole deregulation thing with the phone companies. I bought TONS of those phones that had been refurbished with a new outer shell. You could throw one of those out of a 3 story high window and it would still work.
That was an interesting time in history. I would have older customers come in and ask about phones.....they were terrified that they were going to get into trouble hooking up a second phone without the phone company knowing about it. One of the funniest episodes of WKRP was the one where Johnny thought the cops were showing up because they had an unregistered phone. I guess younger folks can't conceive of a time when you were limited to the number of phones you could have in your house....and limited to the length of the cord

Click to expand...

Speaking about cords, I actually did drop a Trimline phone from probably 3 feet high on the floor when I was about 10 or so and it caused a small crack, this was the one with the modular jacks and it was hooked up with I think a 50 ft or longer RJ11C cable from Radio Shack. I still use the phone today connected to a Obi VoIP adapter and the cord is my custom made 6 position RJ11C, not sure of the official name for it without looking it up and Belden MediaTwist Crescent shaped Cat6+ cable.

Almighty1 said:

LOL. It depends if the person saw it during the years when they were actually still available which is 1968 to 1983 meaning the person could be 43-58 years old or they can even be a few years old if they learned to read and write at a young age and actually saw a telephone with that label somewhere recently just like even here in San Francisco, payphone still exist physically in public places but whether they can be used or not is a different issue. It still looks like this even today:
View attachment 194957

Click to expand...

so that persons in hiding lol

remembers when ATT had stores and leased home phones