[iso1210]

As someone who grew up in the UK in the late 90s, with a taste for American media, especially scifi, and the Internet a widespread thing, it was infuriating waiting for TV shows to come to the screen months or even years behind the rest of the world.

I do remember one site that allowed me to do download SG1 episodes (about 128kbit, and this was probably cinepak or some form of mpeg1 compression) over a modem, and that was a lifeline.

When I got to Uni in Oct 2000, I could use BitchX/IRC on the lab irix machine to use a massive 10 MEGA bit connection to get voyager episodes. Compared with downloading on a 33.6kbit connection over a phone line that cost at least £2.40 (about $5-6 in today's money) that was an amazing experience.

Even recently they decided not to bother releasing Lower Decks internationally. Had to get a Bittorrent client to watch it. That's not the case with things like Discovery and Picard which were released pretty much simultaneously.

If a media company won't sell me what I want to watch, I'll go elsewhere. I paid $6 to my phone company to get a shocking quality copy of Voyager. For me, Piracy is not trying to avoid paying for it, it's about trying to get it.

They've mostly cottoned on to the fact it's a global market now at least.

[blooalien]

> "For me, Piracy is not trying to avoid paying for it, it's about trying to get it."

Sad thing is it's not even always about location exclusive dealings, either. It wasn't terribly long ago that I was prevented from paying for access to content available on Amazon's streaming services because my "platform isn't supported".

(I use Linux, and whatever DRM they used at the time wasn't available on Linux, and before anyone tries to tell me "Just use Windows then", the answer is and always will be "NO!" Been there, done that, quit Windows for very valid reasons, ain't goin' back ever. Period, full stop, end of story.)

So, yeah… Their "anti-piracy measures" actually lost them a sale that would have likely turned into a repeat customer, and as a consequence, they're one of the streaming services I actively avoid even looking at.

Instead of focusing on punishing those who will never pay them, they should seriously think about not punishing those who would willingly pay (as DRM really only hurts the honest customer).

[phreack]

It's Gaben being proved right over and over and over again. Piracy is a service problem, not a pricing problem.

[billytetrud]

To be fair, I think it's both. They're over pricing pay per view content, which drives people to subscription services. The problem is that subscription services are filled with low quality content. They need to stop being tricky and just sell this stuff for what it's actually worth. Paying $4 to watch a single movie one time is absurd when you pay $10 to watch unlimited content in a month. Pricing is very out of proportion too.

[eurasiantiger]

The ”premiere” fee for streaming the new Avengers movie was over 20 dollars, supposedly due to ”exclusive” access.

And you don’t even get to keep a copy.

[saiya-jin]

Well, you get the crappy channel subsidized with adverts, otherwise it would either be too pricey or server just utter cheap worthless unwatchable trash (mostly).

Would you like to pay say 1 dollar per movie and watch significant amount of ads during it?

[eurasiantiger]

If the ads appeared in-world instead of replacing the program material, I would have no problem with this.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

Advertising in movies and tv series is huge. I hadn't really noticed smoking on screen much at all in a decade or so until I got Netflix.

Netflix has a massive cigarette addiction.

The other two things I notice a lot are cars and phones / computers.

It has been projected that 11.44 billion U.S. dollars would be spent on product placement in the United States in 2019, up from 4.75 billion in 2012 - https://www.statista.com/statistics/261454/global-product-pl...

[billytetrud]

> Would you like to pay say 1 dollar per movie and watch significant amount of ads during it?

No I wouldn't.

[kruczek]

> So, yeah… Their "anti-piracy measures" actually lost them a sale that would have likely turned into a repeat customer

Yeah, and in the same vein, I skip buying games which have certain DRM systems in place (like the nefarious Denuvo). Again it's a lost sale for them, since often it's the only thing preventing me from buying an otherwise good game.

[blooalien]

Not just a lost sale. Multiple lost sales, because in cases like that I'll not only avoid that game, but others from that publisher, and I'll steer other folks away from them, too.

[lloydatkinson]

Funny, I’m torrenting SG1 literally right now because Netflix took the episodes down for no reason.

A few months ago someone used one of those AI/ML based upscalers and now I have the torrents in 1080p resolution. Obviously it’s not magic but there is a very clear noticeable difference in quality and texture detail and of course the higher resolution compared to the older torrents and even Netflix.

Highly recommend!

[TeMPOraL]

> Funny, I’m torrenting SG1 literally right now because Netflix took the episodes down for no reason.

They had SG-1 on Netflix?! It never was available on mine Netflix (which I keep subscribed to only because, and for as long as, they have the golden-era Star Trek series, i.e. TNG-ENT).

Exclusive regional distribution rights are legacy bullshit for digital content. And the sad thing is, people responsible for maintaining those are going to make things worse, because they now figured streaming is hot, and everyone is racing to create their own exclusive streaming platform.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

I have a sneaking suspicion Netflix dropped SG1 because people like me would watch it almost continuously and therefore it contributed disproportionately to their content delivery costs.

I lost count how many times I've watched DS9 and VOY, too.

[TeMPOraL]

> because people like me would watch it almost continuously

I would, too. Only this year I've completed another end-to-end rewatch of DS9, and continued with half of VOY (got interrupted by life) and then half of ENT. And I feel like the time to re-watch TNG is approaching again. Lord help me, if they had SG-1 on Netflix in Poland, I would have been watching it just as much.

[lloydatkinson]

Yeah they did in the UK!

[lloydatkinson]

It's a shame that the typical HN "thing" happened where people focussed on small details and argued strawman arguments instead of focussing on the main fact that some AI/ML upscalers can make older shows look much better.

[dylan604]

> because Netflix took the episodes down for no reason.

Wow, what an entitled viewpoint. There was a very simple reason on why the episodes were removed: their license for those episodes expired. The content owner only allowed Netflix to display that content for a certain amount of time known as a licensing window. That window is now closed. Now that there are several other streaming vendors, the content owner of SG1 is more than likely to hoping to get more money from someone else.

So while you may be disappointed in you not getting what you want when you want it, you're ire is totally pointed at the wrong people. It is always the content owner, not the distributor. At least learn a little bit about what you are clearly passionate about.

[fao_]

Both are at fault. The content owner wants to make money through Netflix and other distributors, without it they are limited by DVD sales which are dwindling. It would be very, very easy for all of the content distributors to band together into some sort of... 'union', that would help them strong-arm the owners and push back the incoherent decisions made by them.

Also, who is this post aimed at? Netflix isn't going to care if someone badmouths them on some random corner of the internet. And anyone who works there isn't going to give a shit just because someone on hacker news couldn't get SG-1 available internationally. I'm struggling to figure out why you felt that this post was at all necessary.

[mullingitover]

> It would be very, very easy for all of the content distributors to band together into some sort of... 'union', that would help them strong-arm the owners and push back the incoherent decisions made by them.

I think when competing firms form a 'union' like this it's called collusion.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

One person’s collusion is another person’s Motion Picture Association.

the MPA has advocated for the motion picture and television industry, with the goals of promoting effective copyright protection, reducing piracy, and expanding market access. It has long worked to curb copyright infringement, including recent attempts to limit the sharing of copyrighted works via peer-to-peer file sharing networks and by streaming from pirate sites.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association

[mullingitover]

This is kind of apples and oranges though. The MPAA is more of a lobbying organization, it isn't an agreement between firms about how they will compete (or not compete) in the marketplace

[fao_]

It seems closer to Refusal To Deal, but the wiki page on that is sparse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_deal

It doesn't seem to fit the FTC's definition of that, either: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

Not to mention, there is already precendence

[dylan604]

This is how I was interpreting the suggestion to "join" together as well.

[dylan604]

Why would any of the platforms join together? If all of the streamers had the same content, there'd be no point in having more than one streaming platform.

Why would the content owners want to work with only one streaming platform? There'd be nobody to bid against each other.

I want to see a show on Broadway, but I don't live in New York so I guess I should just find it on the pirate bay? No? How is it any different? I should start complaining on the internet? I want to see a concert in my town, but no promoter decided to bring that show to my town. I should again start complaining on the internet? A TV show/Film is not available in my available ways of viewing is totally acceptable to complain on the internet? So I go to the internet and complain, and then someone else has the gall to call me out on it? Please children, dad has a headache from the banality.

[sellyme]

> I want to see a show on Broadway, but I don't live in New York so I guess I should just find it on the pirate bay? No? How is it any different?

Yes. Is this meant to be some kind of gotcha? This is absolutely what you should do. There's no downside for anyone involved.

> I want to see a concert in my town, but no promoter decided to bring that show to my town. I should again start complaining on the internet?

Again, yes. If enough people complain the promoter will go "oh crap, we've got loads of fans over there, we're losing out on revenue by not including them on the tour".

> A TV show/Film is not available in my available ways of viewing is totally acceptable to complain on the internet?

Yep. Would you complain if you went to a cinema and were barred from entry because you looked like you were from the wrong side of the town? I sure as hell would, and geographic content restrictions online are exactly the same.

[thatguy0900]

"I want to see a show on Broadway, but I don't live in New York so I guess I should just find it on the pirate bay? No?" I mean, honestly, why not. I will never drive to New york to see it. So they will never receive money from me. So they lose nothing by me watching it online. Victimless crime.

[stale2002]

You seem to be the one complaining about other people's behavior.

Yes, if content is not available to someone else, any they wouldn't be able to see it otherwise, then their is little harm in piracy.

And you, not them, seem to be to most mad about other people doing things that doesn't really cause any harm.

[nextlevelwizard]

This is actually where I've drawn the line.

I am willing to pay to watch your movie/show/series, but if there is no way to do that then I will pirate the show.

Only reason I got a month of Netflix was Inside

Only reason I got a month of Disney+ was to check out Loki

Neither will be renewed.

I tried to search platform where I could watch the new Rick & Morty, but I wasn't able to find one in EU. I'm sure it exists, but if Google can't get me the answer within resonable time (like this time it failed to) I just downloaded the episodes (actually I was able to watch the S5E1 from AdultSwim's website) [BTW if someone knows EU streaming site where I can watch these as they get released I'd like to know so I can pay for couple months]

[shric]

Also, at least in my country (Australia), Rick and Morty was censored (bleeps every 15 seconds) on Netflix, so I pirated it for a better experience.

[LinAGKar]

Rick and Morty is available on HBO. It's also on Netflix, but they don't have season 5 yet for some reason.

[fao_]

> Why would any of the platforms join together? If all of the streamers had the same content, there'd be no point in having more than one streaming platform.

I don't think you understand. A 'union' is simply a group of companies aligning and talking about common interests, one of which is exactly what I said -- the ability to strongarm content owners into making content available internationally, so that their bottom line can be stronger.

It is not the same meaning as 'merger' -- you seem to have conflated the two? For the union I just proposed, there is historical precendece -- the International Intellectual Property Association and similar organizations put pressure on the US Government via lobbying to specifically 'protect' international copyright law (NB: I can't condone this organization, but it does exist). This is simply a different group of companies with different interests. It doesn't mean they stop competing with each other, it just means that they all agree to do one specific thing. In this case it might harm them all in the short term, but would be beneficial in the long term.

Without sales to Netflix and other content distributors the revenue of the content owners would dry up -- movie sales are dwindling due to increasing prices, DVD sales are drying up, therefore the content distributors hold the cards here which allows them to unilaterally negotiate better terms -- but that only works if they all do it at once. If one company decides to not participate, that leaves an opening for the content owners to go to them.

> I want to see a show on Broadway, but I don't live in New York so I guess I should just find it on the pirate bay? No? How is it any different? I should start complaining on the internet? I want to see a concert in my town, but no promoter decided to bring that show to my town. I should again start complaining on the internet? A TV show/Film is not available in my available ways of viewing is totally acceptable to complain on the internet? So I go to the internet and complain, and then someone else has the gall to call me out on it? Please children, dad has a headache from the banality.

Well this is the most jumbled wall of text I've seen today. You seem to be saying that someone complaining on the internet is bad? You seem to also be trying to insult me? It's highly immature and petty, whatever it is.

The original point was that the ire was directed at the wrong group of people, and I pointed out that it's not like the company is going to care that one single person is venting about them on the internet.

I'm still not sure why it matters that someone on the internet deigned to complain about Netflix as opposed to the content owners. Can you clear up why that distinction is necessary here?

[dylan604]

>Well this is the most jumbled wall of text I've seen today. You seem to be saying that someone complaining on the internet is bad? You seem to also be trying to insult me? It's highly immature and petty, whatever it is.

If you feel insulted, then that's something you've read into that isn't there. My whole jumbled wall of text (no worries, I'm not insulted) was to show how ridiculous the concept of "I can't stream a show that I feel like I deserve to watch so I'll do whatever I want to see it". There will always be people that justify whatever they want to do whatever they want, but the rest of us can just roll our eyes at it. You want to complain about something as petty as not seeing a TV show, then you can expect some people to tell you how that logic just makes no sense.

>I'm still not sure why it matters that someone on the internet deigned to complain about Netflix as opposed to the content owners. Can you clear up why that distinction is necessary here?

Because it's okay to blame someone that's not at fault while not blaming the person that is at fault? How does it even come close to being acceptable? Netflix did not make the rules. They need content on their platform, so they make deals with the content owners. It confounds me that you are confused by this.

[kaba0]

Why would it be an entitled viewpoint? He/she wants to watch a series on a service he/she pays for. It is entirely reasonable to expect said service to continue to serve previously available content - it was of course a legal way of operation that the owner didn’t extend their license and that Netflix removed episodes. But gp has every right to be upset that netflix due to any reason didn’t live up to expectations.

[johnchristopher]

Netflix is a rental platform. Like the old DVD and VHS rental shops. And regularly some content gets pull off the shelves because they don't have the licensing fees. It's a pretty well known fact some movies and TV shows come and go on Netflix.

And for what ? Pirating "culture" that is not available on Netflix ? Star Trek Voyager ? I am huge Trek fan but come on.

This is entertainment we are talking about.

> He/she wants to watch a series on a service he/she pays for.

It's like complaining a vegan restaurant doesn't serve meat.

Netflix has very few of the shows, movies and documentaries I can watch on ARTe. Do people complain that ARTe doesn't stream every Netflix shows and vice versa ?

There are a lot of comments on HN when this topic comes up that feel like people want their cake and eat it too "or else I'll just pirate, there's a gun to my head, they give me no choice".

[ClumsyPilot]

> "It's like complaining a vegan restaurant doesn't serve meat."

No, it's like complaining that a chain of restaurant randomly takes dishes off the menu, and it's different in every country. Eventually you get fed up with unpredictable menu and stop going there.

[johnchristopher]

> No, it's like complaining that a chain of restaurant randomly takes dishes off the menu, and it's different in every country.

Which is still ridiculous. Even McDonald's don't have the same menu everywhere.

All restaurants I know have dishes that are taken off (because if's off season, because a new chef, because they try something else, etc.).

Plus, the analogy is distorted, you can't complain about a different menu in another country, it's not like you can hop from countries to countries 20 times per evening to get your Mc Bulgogi Burger.

> Eventually you get fed up with unpredictable menu and stop going there.

Good, that's what competition is about between services.

[dylan604]

> But gp has every right to be upset that netflix due to any reason didn’t live up to expectations.

Those expectations are unrealistic, and quite frankly entitled. When did Netflix ever state that any content available now will be available for ever? It's the nature of the business that content is only made available for a set amount of time. What does complaining about it on the internet expect to do anyways?

[ClumsyPilot]

"Those expectations ... entitled."

He is the customer, Netflix is asking for his money

[abnry]

Right, he's the customer, but he violates the customer-supplier social contract by pirating.

[sillysaurusx]

What's wrong with being entitled?

We're entitled to our entertainment. If we don't get it, we torrent it.

[abnry]

You are not entitled to entertainment. If there is literally anything as petulant and first-world narcissistic it is the belief that one is entitled to entertainment.

[sbuk]

When they signed up for said service, was there an implicit agreement in place that said they would show whatever show he/she wanted, when they wanted? While I agree that the GP has the right to be upset that their expectations weren’t met, it doesn’t make the unreasonable expectations right. I’d argue that Netflix, or whoever, not carrying a show or file for whatever reason, save them explicitly stating that they would do and failing to do so, is unreasonable.

That would be, to me, entitled.

[lloydatkinson]

Did I ever say that I expected them to show X whenever I wanted? No, I simply eaid "for no reason". If I was entitled I'd have said "I demand to watch it".

Stop being an idiot.

[kaba0]

It frankly, doesn’t really matter whether it is a reasonable or an “entitled” reason a customer is upset. What matters is he/she is not happy with a service and thus will terminate his subscription.

[sbuk]

That's how commerce works...

[lloydatkinson]

It's tragically my experience of HN - someone posts an interesting fact or discusses something they've done and someone comes up and picks up the smallest irrelevant detail to argue about.

[lloydatkinson]

Put a sock in it and grow up

[2Gkashmiri]

in india, piracy is not seen as bad unless its some bigshot movie star who calls it a "heinous crime" that a user enjoys their movies and they arent getting paid. anyways, i have never paid for a windows license. maybe back in 98 days but never after that. we use cracks and it used to be sold for a dollar or less. get an iso, copy iso, copy crack and thats it.

people here have a problem accepting foss because they see windows as free so what benefit is switching to ubuntu?

about media. until few years ago, you could only watch movies in theaters or on cable tv. shops would resell torrented movies for few cents a pop because that is at most what people were willing to pay. i am not going to buy an original DVD 6 months after launch for $ 30 if i get screener for $0.2 dollars next day of launch.

its not about "robbing" the company, often purchasing parity means $10 is a days manual labour wages. paying $99 for a windows license used to make no sense when they already paid not more than $200-300 for an entire setup or a laptop.

[magicloop]

In those days Microsoft had a "curious" business strategy. They wanted Windows to be the dominant standard whilst trying to avoid monopoly litigation. So they'd charge everyone a license fee knowing that standard businesses would pay up, and those that wouldn't or couldn't were allowed to crack the software and use it. That portion of the market, the "piracy" sector wasn't in their view part of their market share numbers (they would say they weren't a monopoly). But having this in place meant it was harder for competitors to sub-divide the market into other Operating Systems and Enterprise productivity software. So it would end up as either Open Source or Windows. This is why they didn't reduce their prices for purchasing power parity purposes (to make it equally affordable in each market). The rich countries could drive their profits, and everyone else had a "free" ride just to shut the door on a competitor.

Of course, the history of Microsoft and Anti-trust litigation is well documented. Things didn't entirely work out for them.

[hellbannedguy]

Every computer I bought had a windies license fee tacked on wether I used their operating system, or not.

To this day, I try not to give Microsoft any money.

I have never really cared for Gates, nor his nonprofit that gives less than 1 percent back to the country that allowed him to flourish.

[realityking]

> nor his nonprofit that gives less than 1 percent back to the country that allowed him to flourish.

Do I understand you correctly, that your objection to the Gates foundation is, that they don‘t spend on projects in the US?

[riversflow]

Im gonna go out on a limb and say that, yes, that is their objection. Does that surprise you, or do you find it objectionable? Why? Im legitimately curious.

[mullingitover]

The Gates Foundation has done a lot to save lives and reduce suffering in developing countries. It's a bit tone-deaf to knock him on that point, and also pretty myopic. The US does not exist in a vacuum, and having third world countries develop faster because they're not getting hammered by easily preventable diseases actually can benefit the US. The people who are alive today (or maybe their descendants) might be buying products and services from the US down the road.

[CRConrad]

Is there any reason to think the money he made and is now giving away came mainly from the US? AFAICT there are a lot more users of Microsoft software outside the USA than within them. With that in mind: Yes, it seems rather ludicrous to demand that he use it for charity exclusively there.

Another reason being that the US is one of the richest countries in the world -- and therefore, logically, among the least in need of charity. (BTW, this shows the objection is ridiculous even if his fortune came mainly from the USA: If he had made his money from selling some luxury article, say Rolls-Royce cars or something, and then decided to spend the money so earned on charity -- should he have been expected to spend it only on helping the kind of people who buy Rolls-Royces?)

Both screamingly obvious reasons IMO, so I find it somewhat surprising that anyone needed to be curious about this.

[intricatedetail]

In the 90s and early 00s, the pirated software was like weed. If police didn't find anything on you, they'll get your computer and charge you with piracy. That time everyone had something, Windows or Norton Commander etc. I read about people having counted each file as a separate charge, to make them look like big fish. There were instances they counted expired trials too...

[CorrectHorseBat]

In those days?

Right now it's even easier. You don't even have to crack it, just select "I'll do this later" when you have to fill in your license code.

[gambiting]

€3 keys off eBay work perfectly fine and are legal since reselling OEM software has been explicitly ruled to be legal several times in EU courts now.

[bobiny]

I've read that these cheap OEM licenses could be cancelled after some time. Dunno if true or not. Could you give a link for EU courts' rulings?

[mrweasel]

I believe it’s this ruling in a case involving Oracle: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=12...

The ruling was appeal and a 2016 ruling in a higher court just confirmed that you can in fact resell software licenses.

[numpad0]

I know of a case where payment got cancelled: eBay found the seller fraudulent and refunded either out of pocket or from insurance, probably the latter.

That said, sometimes the licenses can indeed get cancelled. I’ve seen a really sketchy looking photocopied label that a guy “got” that didn’t work. Depends on the channel perhaps.

[userbinator]

It's interesting how Windows went from "worth pirating" to "don't want even if the upgrade is free" for me --- the user- hostile attitude MS has started to adopt has been a huge turn-off.

[blooalien]

> "people here have a problem accepting foss because they see windows as free so what benefit is switching to ubuntu?"

Because even if they gave you Windows free of cost, Windows has never been free as in freedom, and probably never will be. That's the thing people seem unable to wrap their brains around about FOSS is that it's about freedom, not cost. The fact that it's also cost-free is just added bonus that nobody in their right mind should complain about.

[fao_]

How many times have you altered Firefox, though? Or Chromium? Or GIMP? Or any other large software project?

Free as in freedom doesn't mean shit when codebases are so large as to be inscrutable and induplicable.

[blooalien]

While I myself have only modified smaller codebases, modified forks of Firefox, Chromium, and GIMP (among many others) do in fact exist. Some of those forks have even gone on to become quite popular (although none yet as popular as their parent codebases).

[userbinator]

Meanwhile, people have been patching and modding Windows despite the lack of source code.

[i0nutzb]

LPT: go to ebay, search for windows license. You can get one for 3-4$ or so. You can even find dedicated sites that sells cheap licenses of Windows or Office.

[Qahlel]

>>> I do remember one site that allowed me to do download SG1 episodes (about 128kbit, and this was probably cinepak or some form of mpeg1 compression) over a modem, and that was a lifeline.

sg1archive.com

[GekkePrutser]

Lower decks is on Amazon prime here in Spain. I have the service but I still download it because I hate all the restrictions. Also prime shows annoying trailers before every episode.

[Zenst]

> When I got to Uni in Oct 2000, I could use BitchX/IRC on the lab irix machine to use a massive 10 MEGA bit connection to get voyager episodes. Compared with downloading on a 33.6kbit connection over a phone line that cost at least £2.40 (about $5-6 in today's money) that was an amazing experience.

There was some way cheaper ISP offerings about in that time/era. Most ISP's used a local 0845 call charge number, so wasn't that bad, however there was also some 0800 ones.

Was one that in the late 90's offered an 0800 to share holders and could get shares for sub £20 mark, unsure how they did it and indeed didn't last long, was also able to use two accounts to do a bonded line (ISDN). Only downside was it would drop the line every 2 hours, but with me OpenBSD firewall/gateway I setup, easy scripted around. That was my favourite of the dialup era as paid total of sub £40 for unlimited 128kbit internet and oh did I abuse that.

Then in 2000 the cable companies arrived and the start of what I would call real internet, no dialup messing about or charges - if you was lucky to be in the catchment area that is and inside the M25 helped there, though even today there are parts of London inside the M25 that the cable companies don't cover (I know as I found such an address not in there coverage due to cost of laying a cable across the road).

> I do remember one site that allowed me to do download SG1 episodes (about 128kbit, and this was probably cinepak or some form of mpeg1 compression) over a modem, and that was a lifeline.

I know exactly what you mean about TV shows back then and delays. For me southpark was the one that got that ball rolling, initially was realmedia encoded and ironically I watched every single episode almost religiously within an hour of it premiaring in America. Ironic as in 2003 I was in America when a new episode was out and fell asleep just before it came on and with that the first southpark episode I didn't watch within an hour or so of it airing was the only time I could of watched it live.

These days, it's mostly dip into some streaming subscription for a month or two every now and then, flitting around the offerings, munching thru their offerings in that period and comming back to subbing them a year or so later once new things are there to make it worthwhile.

But I'm not sure if it's age or my tastes, the enthusiasm and offerings just don't have me eagerly sitting in anticipation for the next episode or series these days as they did back then. Sure there are the odd gems that do that, but far less so than in the early days and a bit of choice/saturation overload perhaps, though mostly it's a case of many offerings just install a sense of ennui. With that, I would say the only TV show that has had me at the same enthusiasm level, would be the Mandalorian. beyond that, nothing jumps out at me really today and even South Park, I've become apathetic and not seen the last season (or maybe two).

One change though, that I do approve of that many streaming serious releases do. Which is, they release the entire season at once, and that I love as you can keep your momentum going. Albeit you shift you wait from weekly episode releases towards yearly season releases, though that was always been the case.

[iso1210]

about 97ish the best you could do was local call rates (either 0845, or just a local dial in number). At the weekend that was 1p per minute. Downloading a 40 minute episodes would take 4 hours, so £2.40. That's £4.50 today, or $6.25.

[Zenst]

Reminded me of late 80's when I had an Amstrad PPC640DD which had a built in 2400 baud modem. Was in an Hotel and spent a couple of hours on a BBS...£50 charges for phone when checking out for those two hours usage.

Soon learned some tricks and list of outdials (ICL had some nice ones as did IBM, if you had the number, that was all you needed). Though doubt anybody wardials thesedays.