Hacker News Reader

Comment by cenhyperion | Hacker News Reader

> I don't know why any broadcaster doesn't make the same move, becoming the "Internet Superstation".

I'd argue Netflix beat them to the punch when it started creating original, acclaimed content. How many < 30 year olds don't regularly watch TV, but pay monthly for Netflix? I'm one.

View on HN

I'm the same, no cable subscription, but I have both Netflix and Amazon Prime. However, I do miss slumping down after work and seeing some real-time, curated content like Adult Swim or Stewart / Colbert. It would also be nice to catch some morning news while I'm getting ready, or the occasional baseball game. All those things require real TV, not Netflix, and although I'm happy living without them, people like those kinds of content experiences and they are admittedly nice sometimes when vegging out is the purpose, and you don't want to even make a choice about what you watch.

You can get Stewart and Colbert on Hulu for free if you don't mind the ads, and TPB if don't care about IP rights. I'd pay for Adult Swim though, and I'm 32 (I grew up on Adult Swim late nights; still remember their hilarious bumps).

A lot. Its a fairly common topic of conversation with the <30 demo when you move calling comcast/time warner and requesting "Internet without TV or phone".

Most sales people get kinda bent hearing this. Hearing some of the deals they throw at you is hilarious, "We'll throw in channel package XYZ for only an extra $15 a month more then your internet." "Why would I pay more for something I'm not going to use?" "Well you own a TV don't you?" "Yes and its connected to a computer."

I love that conversation

> "Don't you own a TV?"

> "No, I don't. I own a 50 inch computer monitor. It's hooked to a Chromecast, Roku, and PlayStation. We don't own a 'TV' of any kind."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com