All this whinging about Foxtel getting first access to BBC programming gets to me. It's just another example of how we think we are so entitled to get everything for free or cheap.
Not trying to start anything, but if you really want to watch these shows, pay for them.
There's that word again. I don't think it's an entitlement at all, but to previously have something and then to have it taken away, there's nothing wrong with expressing anger, disappointment or frustration with this.
Entertainment like that already isn't free, which is why it's paid for by advertising or taxpayer money. Why should we have to pay for the privilege to be advertised to? Also, if I want to watch one thing on Foxtel, why should we have to pay ridiculous premiums just to access it? If I go to JB and want to buy a DVD or BD box set, I'm not asked to buy another 3 or 4 before I'm allowed to do so; what Foxtel does is no different to this, how does expressing distaste for such things sound like "entitlement"?
When I watched Foxtel, it was one channel with the Rugby League on it, Fox Sports 2. But you need to buy the basic package and then the sports package on top of that. $72 per month for
one channel. It's not an outrage that these things aren't free or that we have to pay for them, but that we're forced to pay for unwanted garbage on top of it. They cannot hide behind the cost of infrastructure or maintaining the equipment in my home and various other things when Foxtel on 360 has the same shortcomings; users provide their own equipment and pay for their own bandwidth and yet the same pay structure remains.
I'm sure if there was the ability to pay to just access that which we want, no one would complain. It's not entitlement at all, it's anything but.
