So he kinda pissed me off, but I'm really more angry at cable than I am at Wade. The exchange:
Hey Wade,
Just read the article on how I am subsidizing your access to shows. Well done. Just the right amount of snide "I'm smarter than you" rhetoric. You must be really proud of yourself to have "discovered" and taken advantage of streaming video. With an IQ like that, well, you are ALREADY great. Thanks for writing and letting some of it rub off us peons.
Now I'm going to tell you WHY I am subsidizing you. I mean, I have the Internet, obviously. I even have a "network capable" TV with it's own IP address. And my DVD player has a gigabyte USB device on it expressly for watching streaming video. It uses something called OrbCaster. Pretty cool. I'm right on the brink of firing Comcast, so why don't I?
Because, Wade, my Internet connection is limited to T-1 download speeds. That's 1.544Mbps on a DSL connection furnished by Centurylink (The former Quest). And you know what? It's not fast enough to stream much of anything. Even a YouTube video jerks along slowly. But an hour-long TV program? Not a chance, Wade. I'd rather watch the damn commercials than endure the gaps while it is "buffering." Now I've asked for a higher speed. I live in an affluent community which would lap up higher speeds faster than a new model Lexus. I've been on the list quite a long time now. When they "upgrade services" for their DSL lines I'll be the first to know.
I've been waiting about 15 years so far. Before that I tried satellite Internet. Every time it rained, the Internet went out. And I live near Seattle, so you know the Internet was down more than it was up.
I do have an alternative. There is one provider that will give me about 6Mbps for about the same price I am now paying Centurylink. That provider is
Comcast.
See the problem now, Wade? I knew you would. And I don't even watch sports.
His answer:
Thanks for your thoughts about my article. The snide act was intended to get readers riled up; I had hoped it would be recognized as satire. I wasn't trying to tell 100 million cable subscribers that they're stupid. I was trying to rile them up about being forced to overpay.
That said, quite a few readers have been reading the piece as a direct insult, so it sounds like I didn't strike the tone I'd wanted.
I totally understand that there are lots of people in your situation who don't have the broadband speeds needed to make extensive Internet video viewing practical, and I'm all in favor of policies to improve broadband delivery around the country. But given that the article was a bit of a comedy sketch, my feeling as I was writing was that it would have weakened the effect if I'd insert a bunch of caveats like that.
Anyway, thanks, and I totally get your point that the alternative to cable that I was suggesting is only available to people lucky enough to have fast broadband.
Wade