![](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/CuttingEdge123.jpg\"\/)
My little tech bloggers are beside themselves with it. Well, because there is a feature in it called zero-rating . Now, stick with me on this. AT&T owns DirecTV. DirecTV is a satellite delivery system. If you are an AT&T customer and you sign up for DirecTV now, the internet streaming video package that will effectively replace cable TV if you want it to, AT&T customers will not be charged data usage to watch and stream the video.<\/p>\n
And they say that violates net neutrality, and they say that violates competition. It\u2019s anti-competitive, that other networks, other providers can\u2019t provide it because they\u2019re not providing the — It\u2019s a great illustration of how people who think they are for competition are actually for Big Government and heavy regulation and are anti-competitive. <\/p>\n
You know, AT&T wanted to buy T-Mobile, and the Obama administration said no to the merger. You know why? T-Mobile is a maverick, and they are very competitive. They\u2019re not a major firm, and, as such, they make unique deals to attract customers, and we don\u2019t want to take that away from the market. Well, customers are gonna find what the market makes available. It\u2019s not AT&T\u2019s fault that they invested in DirecTV. And it\u2019s not AT&T\u2019s fault that they have the ability to not charge their own customers data charges as they stream video from this new offering. <\/p>\n
Well, it\u2019s not AT&T\u2019s fault they offered something different from what Verizon has or T-Mobile or take your pick. But the net neutrality game is to make everybody the same so that there\u2019s no difference and the prices are the same and if these Millennials got their way nothing would cost anything. But it\u2019s classic. This is a great illustration. Net neutrality is being stood upside down which is good because it\u2019s pro-competition, it offers customers options. <\/p>\n You don\u2019t have to sign up for DirecTV now, and you don\u2019t have to become an AT&T customer in order get this deal. But if you want it, guess what you have to do? You have to sign up with AT&T. Okay, so AT&T is using market advantages based on its own investments and here come these little anti-competitive little liberals who actually think they are promoting competition when they\u2019re not. It\u2019s just classic. <\/p>\n It\u2019s a great, great, great illustration of how the free market works and how the left wants no part of it because they think it\u2019s unfair because somebody has something that somebody else doesn\u2019t. Somebody can offer something somebody else doesn\u2019t. Somebody can buy something that somebody else can\u2019t. Not fair, so we need to net neutrality which basically regulates the internet from a command-and-control center in the government making it identical and the same for everybody no matter where you go. <\/p>\n If you don\u2019t like cable TV and you want to be able to stream and if you have the ability to project what\u2019s on your phone on your iPad to the TV set in your room and as long as you\u2019ve got an internet connection, bammo! You are set to go. I don\u2019t know about local affiliates yet on this. That\u2019s the one thing I haven\u2019t been able to find out yet. I\u2019ve got the channel lists here for all this. But it is… It\u2019s a fascinating subject to me. <\/p>\n BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n RUSH: We now start on the phones in Seattle. This is Dave. It\u2019s great to have you, sir. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.<\/p>\n CALLER: Hey, thanks, Rush. It\u2019s an honor. I want to talk about that net neutrality thing. Right now, you know, AT&T and DirecTV have… If you have it at home, you get it on your phone with the DirecTV app streaming all the channels you got anyway. So —<\/p>\n RUSH: Well, but you\u2019ve gotta have a Genie receiver to do it if you want to stream what you record. And what you can\u2019t get on the satellite, you have to have a special receiver. But still, you\u2019re right. I mean, it does exist. But what is…? I didn\u2019t mean to interrupt you.<\/p>\n CALLER: No. That\u2019s okay if you happen to. So Netflix doesn\u2019t have a receiver on your roof.<\/p>\n RUSH: No.<\/p>\n CALLER: So basically AT&T or DirecTV is going in competition with Netflix and Google and all the other online services you got streaming now, and they\u2019re offering it the same way, right? You pay for it; you get it.<\/p>\n CALLER: And your streaming only depends on your carrier, your plan with your phone carrier. If you have unlimited data they may throttle you a bit but it\u2019s still the same thing. So I guess I don\u2019t get what the —<\/p>\n RUSH: You don\u2019t understand what the tech —<\/p>\n CALLER: — and why.<\/p>\n RUSH: Yeah. Well, okay. I would love to explain this to you, and I\u2019m gonna do it as briefly as I can because of the constraints of time, and the first thing… Look, I know I sound like a broken record. The first thing you have to understand about these people that we are discussing is they are liberals. That will explain 75%. That will cover the general opposition they have to anything corporate. The other 25% gets specific. <\/p>\n What the techies are upset about, is they\u2019re upset that AT&T is offering this new deal starting tomorrow. They\u2019re calling it DirecTV Now. It has nothing to do with DirecTV, by the way. They\u2019re just calling it that. It\u2019s a branding. It\u2019s DirecTV Now, where they are offering four different tiers of channels that you can stream to your phone or your tablet or your computer. It\u2019s all internet. There\u2019s none of it over the air. There\u2019s no cable box needed, just an internet connection, and they\u2019re charging whatever they want to charge, $35 to $70 a month, depending on the tier. <\/p>\n And they\u2019ve got some first-day deals that they\u2019re offering, and for the most money you get the most channels. It\u2019s a basic channel list. It\u2019s pretty inclusive for 35 bucks to start. But there\u2019s an added bonus. If you\u2019re already an AT&T subscriber on your phone, if AT&T is your wireless carrier, you get an AT&T deal. You are not gonna be charged any data you use streaming any of this programming if you\u2019re already an AT&T customer. They are making… That\u2019s called… In the net neutrality lexicon, that\u2019s called zero-rating. <\/p>\n They have invested who knows what in getting their subscriber base. And if they want to lock this down and freeze out other competitors from offering something the same, they make a deal like this. Well, the techies think it\u2019s unfair. They think it\u2019s anti-competitive. They want net neutrality — which is the FCC — making sure that nobody can offer something nobody else can offer. That\u2019s neutral, that\u2019s fair, and they call it completely competitive. It isn\u2019t competitive. <\/p>\n That\u2019s anti-competitive when you set everybody up as the same price, offerings, quality, quantity, all of that. It\u2019s absurd. Now, Verizon could do this. They have FiOS. They could have gone out and they could have made a deal with content providers, but for whatever reason they didn\u2019t. AT&T did, and they\u2019re first to market with it, and the little tech buddies are very unhappy. At root, they don\u2019t think entertainment ought to cost anything. They hate cable. They hate anything they have to pay for, and I\u2019m not just exaggerating about that.<\/p>\n BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n RUSH: So I got an interesting email. I\u2019m glad I got this email. It\u2019s an email complaining. “Dear Rush: I can\u2019t believe that you are spending so much time on net neutrality. What are you talking about? We want to know what Trump\u2019s gonna do with secretary of state and his flag burning comment, and you\u2019re talking about TV?” And I\u2019m glad I got this email. You know why? Ladies and gentlemen…<\/p>\n Now, those of you who are regular listeners know this already, but we have a tune-in factor here that is almost like it was when we began back in 1988, \u201989, and \u201990, and that means there are a lot of people here listening without context. This may be their first day, second day, third day and they come here having heard all kinds of drivel about this program. So they\u2019re trying to figure it all out. Let me tell you something straight up. I never talk about things that don\u2019t matter. I never talk about things that are unimportant.<\/p>\n I always talk about things that interest me. And while net neutrality may not be front and center today, it\u2019s going to be once Trump\u2019s inaugurated and his FCC starts fixing the things Obama broke. Not just the FCC, but all throughout this administration. This is why I say, “If you listen to this program, you\u2019re going to be on the cutting edge,” meaning you\u2019re gonna hear about things here long before you hear them in the mainstream. <\/p>\n What\u2019s gonna happen is, sometime down the road this net neutrality thing is gonna blow up, and you\u2019re say, “Yeah, yeah, I know about that. Rush talked about that a couple months ago.” That is gonna be your reaction to it. Now, I don\u2019t want to spend a whole lot more time on this right now, but it is key because what we do here is expose the left. We deconstruct them and expose them. They are ruining this country, and they\u2019re doing it under the guise of transforming it and “modernizing” it and ridding it of the baggage of the founding.<\/p>\n It\u2019s horrible what they have been doing, and they have been doing it at every level of government and society and culture. So this guy called, and he wants to know why the techies are so upset about this, and he used Netflix in his example of various things that you can stream, and he wanted to know why the left is so upset at AT&T and the way they\u2019re offering their cable package. By the way, AT&T\u2019s taking a huge risk here. <\/p>\n We think we know, but we don\u2019t know. Net neutrality is a big deal to the left because it puts the government in charge of the internet. It puts the government in charge of content. It lets the government choose what you can watch and what you can\u2019t watch and what you pay for it. And that\u2019s bogus. In the name of competition, they want to take competition away from the net. They\u2019re leftists. They lie to you about what they want to do. And some of…<\/p>\n Like these little tech bloggers may even be dupes. They may not even know what they\u2019re doing. They just think they do. So when they talk about net neutrality promoting competition, who knows; they may actually think that it does. But it doesn\u2019t. If AT&T wants to invest in some offering to consumers and offer a deal to their existing subscribers, why shouldn\u2019t they be able to? If you can\u2019t afford it, you can\u2019t afford it.<\/p>\n You know, I don\u2019t know about you, folks. When I was growing up, I never expected to be able to afford everything I wanted. There are certain things I couldn\u2019t afford. I didn\u2019t run around blasting those companies or those things. I just decided I was gonna have to, if I really wanted it, find a way to pay for it. But that doesn\u2019t seem to be the attitude today. The attitude today is if you want it, you should have it. And if you can\u2019t afford it, it\u2019s not your fault. It\u2019s the provider\u2019s fault because they\u2019re corporations and they rip you off and they kill you. <\/p>\n It\u2019s strict liberalism, which this program has taken on as a challenge to educate everybody about. This AT&T deal to me is highly intriguing. I want to see if it works. I want to see if they\u2019re able to make it work, online streaming, no interruptions. Can they handle the load? Are people that pay for it gonna get what they want? What are gonna be the market concerns and reactions if they succeed? About Netflix… The reason techies love Netflix is because it\u2019s cheap. <\/p>\n It\u2019s like nine bucks a month for everything in the Netflix library. But people who watch, for example, series television, network series TV, if they only watch it on Netflix, they watch it a year or two late. You want to watch, say, I don\u2019t know, Law & Order SUV on Netflix, you\u2019ll watch this season in a year or two, but some people think it\u2019s okay, I don\u2019t need it to be current \u2019cause I\u2019m only paying nine bucks for it. Well, this is gonna be a direct competitor to Netflix, although it\u2019s gonna cost more than Netflix does.<\/p>\n But Netflix will be streamed just like this will be streamed. The cord-cutting generation hates cable TV \u2019cause they think they\u2019re corporations and they rip people off and they make you buy a bunch of channels you never watch in order to get the channels that you do watch. They\u2019ve always said, “We want to be a la cart. We want to be able to cord-cut. We want to be able to watch what we want.” So it\u2019s now evolving where if they only want to watch HBO they can but they have to pay for it. If they only want to watch Cinemax, they can, but have to pay for it. <\/p>\n It\u2019s turning out that buying all these things a la carte is gonna cost them much more than the old fashioned cable package was, and they\u2019re devastated and disappointed, and they can\u2019t believe it\u2019s working out that way. So there\u2019s… To me here, there\u2019s a lot going on that\u2019s fascinating culturally, economically, and technologically in terms of innovation and advancement. And there\u2019s also a lot of factors that figure into this in terms of the way it\u2019s being reported. You probably, if you\u2019re on the edge of things, think net neutrality is a good thing. <\/p>\n Look at the way liberals name things. “Net neutrality.” It\u2019s like Switzerland! They don\u2019t take sides, everybody\u2019s fair, everything\u2019s the same. It\u2019s not what it is. Net neutrality rules are anti-consumer and anti-competitive. By definition, liberals don\u2019t believe in competition, and you know that. Competition is the root of all evil, as far as leftists are concerned, \u2019cause there are winners and there are losers, and the losers are sad and disappointed, and that\u2019s unacceptable. So everything must be the same. Nobody can have more than anybody else.<\/p>\n Nobody should be able to offer anymore than anybody.<\/p>\n Nobody should have to pay more than anybody else. Nobody should make more than anybody else. Everything is supposed to be the same. It\u2019s the only way it\u2019s fair. It\u2019s the only way feelings don\u2019t get hurt. So when circumstances like that exist, they call that anti-competitive. Anti-competitive means they can\u2019t afford it. This is a… If you\u2019re an AT&T customer, it\u2019s a great deal. If you\u2019re not and you want this, and you cancel your Sprint, your Verizon, T-Mobile — you really want this and you cancel your existing carrier — well, it\u2019s the free market. You should be able to do so, if you want to. This is how prices are kept down. This is how supply is plentiful and abundant, is with this ongoing competition. <\/p>\n But net neutrality is rooted in a number of leftist assumptions, and that is that all corporation is evil, that all profit is evil, and that all people in corporations are not people, because corporations aren\u2019t people. A gigantic rip-off. Then you couple their own economic circumstances into this and the way they\u2019ve been raised, thinking if they want it, they should have it, then you get this so-called informed media and opinion about all this stuff. <\/p>\n But, believe me, everything is fine. I guess it\u2019s rooted in the way people were raised, it\u2019s generational. I know it\u2019s different today than when I was growing up, and that\u2019s fine. But I have never been somebody, even when I was earning $19,000 a year, I never ran around whining and moaning about what things cost. What they cost was what they cost. And if I couldn\u2019t afford it, then I had to find a way to afford it or forget about it for now. It\u2019s just the way it was. <\/p>\n But it seems to me that a lot of people do, and I don\u2019t have much patience for it, particularly in matters like this. But if you start with the presumptions that liberals do, that corporations are evil and it all descends from that and that government is great and that government\u2019s there to make sure corporations play fair and are not mean and do not rip people off, there\u2019s a little bit of truth in everything. Some corporations are bad, some corporations have done bad things, but as a general rule, it\u2019s dangerous to subscribe to things like that. <\/p>\n At any rate, AT&T\u2019s thing debuts tomorrow. We\u2019ll see how it goes. But you are gonna be hearing about this because Trump is going to get rid of net neutrality. His FCC is gonna broom it. And when that happens, you\u2019re gonna hear caterwauling like you haven\u2019t heard caterwauling, right along the lines I have been describing. And when it happens you\u2019re gonna be able to say, “I know about this. Rush told me about this all the way back in December.” Actually, November. <\/p>\n BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n RUSH: Here is Jordan in Redding, Pennsylvania. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.<\/p>\n CALLER: Awesome! Thank you, Rush. I thank you for taking my call. Long, longtime listener. I\u2019m a Rush Baby basically. I\u2019m 28 years old and you\u2019ll get a kick out of this. Back in \u201992, my parents traded their Chevy cavalier station wagon for a Buick LeSabre.<\/p>\n RUSH: (chuckling)<\/p>\n CALLER: I didn\u2019t know how radio worked at the time but basically I gave my… I said, “Oh, this is a great car because here\u2019s the first thing we turned on,” and Rush Limbaugh was on the radio in that car.<\/p>\n CALLER: Yes.<\/p>\n RUSH: Thank you. That\u2019s a great remembrance.<\/p>\n CALLER: Yes. Anyway, basically what I wanted to talk about is I\u2019m glad you brought up the deal with the net neutrality thing. Let me say I am all for competition and I agree with all of your points as far as if you can\u2019t afford it, don\u2019t buy it, and I\u2019m actually excited for the AT&T, the DirecTV Now.<\/p>\n RUSH: So am I.<\/p>\n CALLER: I am excited about that. I\u2019m gonna sign up myself. But one thing I wanted to talk about with the net neutrality, though. The point I wanted to make is that net neutrality — I\u2019m a techie, I\u2019m in the tech sector — and net neutrality, though, from my understanding, though, was supposed to level, like, the playing field so there could be better off competition that doesn\u2019t discriminate based on content. So whether I\u2019m listening to Rush Limbaugh on streaming radio or downloading a movie, it doesn\u2019t discriminate, like, either throttle or count against my cap, \u2019cause, like, with AT&T. So with DirecTV Now, they are not being counted against that cap. And the same thing, like, in Comcast, like, had a streaming service or what have you, it doesn\u2019t count against the cap, but something like that Netflix does count against the cap.<\/p>\n RUSH: Okay, by “cap,” you mean on your data, whatever monthly service you\u2019ve agreed to pay your provider.<\/p>\n CALLER: That\u2019s correct.<\/p>\n RUSH: See, there\u2019s a cap on the data for the price. You go over it, then you get charged additional.<\/p>\n CALLER: That is correct.<\/p>\n RUSH: And you say Netflix, if you go over the cap, there is a cap on Netflix, but there\u2019s no cap for AT&T customers on DirecTV Now. That\u2019s called zero-rating. I know the net neutrality people think it\u2019s unfair. I had a long conversation with FCC commissioner about this in the early days of net neutrality because the whole name of it confused me. This whole business of “net neutrality.” And I must admit I\u2019m prejudiced: When liberals are behind something, I\u2019m automatically suspicious. <\/p>\n So net neutrality was gonna make sure that all the providers were governed by the same rules. And he said, “Well, that may be one of the things they\u2019re pursuing. The real objective of this is ultimately to control content.” And it was, in his view, it was aimed at being discriminatory against conservative-oriented websites and providers under the pretext that there\u2019s way too much conservative media. There\u2019s Drudge, there\u2019s Rush Limbaugh, there\u2019s all these other sites. And the left hasn\u2019t been able to compete against them in the marketplace.<\/p>\n So they had to level the field and give the left equal access by limiting the access of conservatives who had been successful. Now, this is one of the early — very early — concerns about people who were opposed to net neutrality. So I studied it on that basis and I started examining people who were for it as they wrote about it, and then I have a couple of friends who are scholars in the whole concept of telecommunications, and I trust these people implicitly. <\/p>\n In fact, before our program today, I called one of my buddies who is an expert in this to ask about this very story I saw today ripping the whole concept that AT&T has zero-rating. Meaning, again: AT&T, the provider for cellular service is offering (starting tomorrow) a program called — a business — called DirecTV Now. It has nothing to do with DirecTV, which they own. It\u2019s just the brand name of it. They\u2019re gonna offer four different tiers of television content at various price points. <\/p>\n Net neutrality proponents think that is grossly unfair to people like Netflix or any other, Hulu, you name it, any other provider of content where, if you use your phone or your iPad to stream and you\u2019ve got a monthly data plan and you\u2019ve got a cap, therefore, and based on what you\u2019re willing to pay for it. If you exceed that cap then the overage is very expensive. You won\u2019t run into that if you\u2019re an AT&T customer and you subscribe to DirecTV Now. But if you are a Verizon customer and you subscribe to AT&T now, your cap is in place, and if you go over, you\u2019ll be charged for your data that you use to stream. <\/p>\n And this is considered by the net neutrality proponents to be grossly unfair and advantageous to AT&T because Verizon customers, T-Mobile customers, and Netflix all have caps on the amount of data you can stream from your provider. It\u2019s not fair that AT&T can provide it, so they want net neutrality to either make everybody else offer what AT&T offers or punish AT&T and not let them offer it. In that sense, I view it as anti-competitive. <\/p>\n If there were no controls on the internet — and I shudder to think at letting certain people have control of it, \u2019cause I know — Jordan, don\u2019t doubt me — I know you will, but I wish you wouldn\u2019t. It is content related. Ultimately what they want to control and police is the content. They\u2019re liberals! They want to eliminate opposing points of view. They do it with political correctness, which is censorship. They do it in the Drive-By Media by simply ignoring all kinds of news that is not palatable or it conflicts with their worldview, they just ignore it and don\u2019t even cover it. It\u2019s inarguable. <\/p>\n But if AT&T, the way I look at it, if AT&T\u2019s made the investment to buy the satellite provider, even though it has nothing to do with this, and if they\u2019re making the investment, if they\u2019re going out and cutting deals with the content providers in order to have access to all of these channels, and then they want to go sell it, and they want to turn a profit eventually, one of the things they can offer as an incentive to sign up is if you already are an AT&T subscriber, you\u2019re gonna have no data charges. Well, hell\u2019s bells. That\u2019s a heck of a deal. And it\u2019s a great competitive advantage for them that they can do. <\/p>\n And I know some people look at it, that\u2019s just like grossly unfair because the other companies don\u2019t have the same thing to offer. Well, they could have if they wanted to. You know, Verizon has FiOS. If they wanted to go out and cut of their — Apple was gonna do this but Apple didn\u2019t get it done. I don\u2019t hear anybody complaining about how Apple got aced out. You\u2019re gonna be able to get this app, this DirecTV Now, it\u2019s gonna be an app, it\u2019s gonna be on your phone, it\u2019s gonna be on Apple TV. You\u2019re gonna be able to sign up on Apple TV and watch this stuff, and you\u2019re gonna have on your Apple TV access to everything you\u2019ve got on cable. <\/p>\n I don\u2019t know about local over-the-air broadcast channels yet. I haven\u2019t gotten into that. But Jordan\u2019s point was this represents an unfair structure that advantages AT&T over the others, but the others are customers. Verizon has customers. Netflix has customers. T-Mobile has customers. And they do not have the same opportunity. It\u2019s gonna cost them more. Well, not if they sign up with AT&T. This is what competition looks like. Competition is cutthroat. <\/p>\n When you get down to the meat and potatoes of genuine capitalism, it is cutthroat, vicious competition, and the consumer always benefits in the end. Look at the AT&T customer. The AT&T customer is getting a hell of a deal here. This is one heck of a deal. And the people opposed to it, by definition, have to be anti-competitive. <\/p>\n Yet they have set themselves up to be pro-competitive and anti-corporate. They want to be able to deny any arrangement like this. There\u2019s no reason AT&T should be able to offer something Netflix can\u2019t. There\u2019s no reason Verizon should be able to offer something AT&T, Netflix, and T-Mobile can\u2019t. And you need a command-and-control central authority to regulate this and to punish people who violate it? <\/p>\n But what do you end up with if it succeeds? You end up with sameness. There\u2019s no difference in anything, and then you\u2019re gonna get mediocrity, because then there\u2019s no need on the part of any of these companies to offer anything superior \u2019cause it isn\u2019t going to matter. If they leave you and sign up with a competitor, it\u2019s gonna be the same thing because everybody\u2019s gonna have the same limits, and it leads to a mediocre product and anti-competitive pricing, and it\u2019s not good. <\/p>\n But on the surface it does appear unfair because not everybody\u2019s an AT&T subscriber. It\u2019s classic the way liberalism works. If anybody has an advantage over anybody for any reason, it\u2019s not permitted. It\u2019s not fair. And it\u2019s got to be regulated and equalized. And in the process, competition\u2019s destroyed and when competition goes, so do consumer advantages. Anyway, Jordan, I appreciate the call. <\/p>\n BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n RUSH: By the way, one other thing, T-Mobile, these cellular providers offer all kinds of data deals to get you to sign up. You can stream Netflix on T-Mobile, I think, with no cap. There\u2019s all kinds of opportunities for people out there. You don\u2019t need command-and-control central authority trying to regulate all of this stuff because all of it, again, is about punishing success from the left. <\/p>\n<\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" RUSH: Are you all aware that AT&T, which just bought Time Warner — it hasn\u2019t been closed yet, it hasn\u2019t gotten regulatory approval. It may not with Trump. Never know. But AT&T has announced — this is a big deal for the cable TV industry. They have announced that starting tomorrow you can buy internet […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":70,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n![](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/RushNetNeuNetflix.jpg\"\/)
![](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/ObamaNetDicSwitch.jpg\"\/)
![](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/millenialsmoney-B1.jpg\"\/)
![](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/RushNetNeutralitySmash.jpg\"\/)
![](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/RushCord-Cutting-Rush-1.jpg\"\/)
<\/a>Nobody really knows yet just how extensive so-called cord-cutting is.<\/a> The best indication we\u2019ve got that it\u2019s real is the subscribers ESPN is losing. They are losing some… They are over 600,000 subscribers down now. Cable companies have to pay ESPN almost $6 per subscriber. That\u2019s three times what they have to pay for HBO or anything else, and ESPN is losing gazillions of dollars with these cancellations. Now, are they losing these people because people are tired of cable TV? Are they losing \u2019cause they\u2019re tired of ESPN becoming political sports? We don\u2019t know yet. <\/p>\n![](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/RushRealvilleSignSmokinRush.jpg\"\/)
![](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/RushPhonesWeGo.jpg\"\/)
![](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/RushOnAirRadioCongress.jpg\"\/)
![\"original\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/MillennialsTech.jpg\"\/)