>>>I care that there is no advertising. At least not anything that would try to dance around my AdBlock+. I have a near zero tolerance policy on paying twice, and if it has ads, it was paid once already. So... we have canceled cable.
>>
>>A man of principle! A man who is missing some good shows, but a man of principle nonetheless ;-)
>>
>>Not sure I follow your point about paying twice, though. Advertisers pay for the ads. You pay for your subscription. (Well, you used to). Together these comprise the revenue of the networks and cable providers. Is there some rule now against businesses having more than one source of revenue?
>
>Yes, tree paragraphs above this one :).
>
>I didn't say they can't have multiple sources of revenue. It's just that I won't pay for something that someone already paid. IOW, if it has ads in it, it's to be tossed freely, like those magazines you can pick in the grocery.
>
>Missing shows? Not really - I've just discovered that they actually look much better on DVD (finally went Netflix, delayed it for a year because of their aggressive advertising). Did you know that by watching TV you actually waste an hour of your life for every five hours (or less - the 20% mark is for serials) on waiting for the commercials to crawl by?

You crack me up! Delayed for a year because of their advertising? I guess the only way for a company to reach you is to remain very quiet, LOL.

Have you checked out their new feature to download movies or TV shows instantly to your PC, or to your TV with an appropriate box? (I have a Roku, which costs about $100 -- and they hardly advertise! -- still laughing). They have about 12,000 titles available now and have announced it is going to expand greatly in the next few months.

You really seem stuck on this point of "something that someone already paid (for)." Who says that was enough money to pay for it in full?