Also, part of the point I was making is that part of the reason T.V. can get away with so many adds and with charging customers so much for cable and charging people who want advertisement time so much is because of the complete lack of competition. Of course, thanks to the Internet, that’s changing now, but hopefully lobbying efforts by special interest groups won’t ruin it. People try to look at how much cable charges and they indirectly argue “because cable charges that much anything that charges less must somehow be unsustainable.” This is a nonsense argument, part of the reason cable gets away with charging so much is because they spend so much money on lobbying efforts (money they can spend on lowering prices and providing a better service which just demonstrates the fact that they can be sustained at a lower price with better service). Even if someone does make more on television doesn’t mean that current Internet models are unsustainable. It could simply mean that a lack of competition, due to lobbying efforts, in the cable realm is responsible. Sure the Internet might be cheaper for consumers but how is that a bad thing?

When you say something like “Mike’s posing this like they make more money online than they do on TV” you’re almost arguing that because cable T.V is so expensive there is something wrong with someone else providing a better service at a cheaper price. So what if T.V makes more money than online, why even bring that up? Is there something wrong with not exploiting customers for every dollar that you can by lobbying the government? Is there something wrong with providing customers with value at a decent price? Why bring it up unless you are insinuating that there is something wrong with it. And if you are insinuating that then you are implying that it should be stopped. In other words, you don’t like what the free market provides which might mean you are in favor of the government ruining everything for consumers.