Over 400,000 Homes Have Cut The Cord So Far This Year... But Cord Cutting Is Still A Myth?
from the reality-smacking-that-myth-around dept
For a few years now, we've been hearing pay TV execs (and some of their favorite Wall Street analysts) claiming that cord cutting in the US is some sort of myth, even as the numbers continue to prove otherwise. The latest stat is that, since the beginning of this year 400,000 households have cut the cord and dropped pay TV services. At what point will the TV guys realize that cord cutting is real? They still like to blame it all on the economy, but the fact is that the vast majority of these users are never going back. Until TV execs realize that's a fact, they're never going to understand how to adapt.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cord cutting, pay tv, tv, watching
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Cord-nevers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cord-nevers
So...what's your plan, media conglomerates? How are you going to entice me into paying you? Oh wait, I know how. By limiting your online selections, locking everything away as much as humanly possible and then suing the very people who you are trying to entice into becoming customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cord-nevers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cord-nevers
Hang on, that's weird. Earlier on, when I went to check out Hulu, it said there were geo-blocks.
Now it isn't.
Huh. That's a head-scratcher right there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cord-nevers
Plus, any arguments they might make to support different prices in different regions are bullshit. It's the same product, being given to me on my own internet connection. With physical goods, you have shipping and customs costs to take into account when dealing with international customers: not so when you're dealing with an online retailer who's not in the same country as your customer. That's why if I were to buy a book/song/movie (digitally) off of Amazon US, despite being in Ireland, I would be charged the exact same price by Amazon as a US customer. The only extra charges I would see would be from my bank, from converting my euroes into dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cord-nevers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cord-nevers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cord-nevers
It was pretty damn obvious years ago that the internet and television would eventually merge (Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, e.g.). Now we just need the media companies to realize that and stop trying to keep that from happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cord-nevers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cord-nevers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cord-nevers
Cut your stupid cords and go enjoy life!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They were by turns horrified and annoyed by:
1) interruptions from advertising
2) inability to watch a show from the beginning
3) inability fast forward through credits
4) inability to stop watching, and pick up show from same spot again later
5) inability to select what to watch
If/when they develop a sense of what "money" is, I can only imagine their bouts of confusion as on that day I explain to them that to get the interrupted, unpausable broadcast that caused them so much annoyance, they'd have to pay a lot more than netflix (which they love).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've yet to be forced by YouTube to watch a video uploaded in 2003, with 4 minute ad breaks every 10 minutes.
RIP, Television.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Criminals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Criminals
Isn't that repetitive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Criminals
Isn't that repetitive?
The first kills your body. The second, your mind and soul. I'd rather be shot than watch reality TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Criminals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Criminals
Or did you mean Reality TV as a punishment worse than death for those who stop subscribing to cable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Criminals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Criminals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The internet is all I need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But in the long term sports is losing the next generation. I am the mentor to one of our campus's residence halls. Students are not connecting to the free cable TV that is provided by the University. Most of them do not even have TV's. Most of the ones who do have TV's are connecting them to the Internet but not the cable outlet. Keep in mind that the cable is provided FREE, students just have to buy their own patch cable. But in my dorm the TV outlet is in an inconvenient location, so it isn't worth hooking up for most students. This is the flip side of "you can't compete with free." In this case free can't compete with paid services like HuluPlus and Netflix.
Ten years ago if you went to the residence halls on Friday or Saturday you would hear football or basketball coming from most of the rooms. Now it is rare to hear even a single TV on football on Sunday afternoon. Sports is losing a generation because they are dependent on cable revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WOW, THAT'S A GREAT STORY!!
When free can't even compete with free, your business model is walking-dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is why I keep my basic cable. I'd gladly give ESPN $10/month to keep them and drop everything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i have been a medium sports fan over the years, but i'm willing to give most of it up JUST because i am so pissed at Big Media...
however, SWMBO is probably even more of a sports fan than i, and don't think she is willing to go cold turkey off the glass teat...
IF i had a ways of getting those sports online to her satisfaction, the cord would not only be cut, but un-earthed, coiled up, and thrown back in the face of Big Media...
fuckers
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cord-Cutting is NOT a new phenomenon
As for the current situation, I think the key item in the article cited was the phrase "regular programming blackouts," as the studios and distributors squabble over who gets to keep which slice of the rapidly shrinking pie, leading to more and more customer desertions.
We're finally seeing a (sort of) answer to the old question "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" There's a war, and the customers are leaving in droves.
Me, I'm stocking up on popcorn, laughing like hell, and watching the show. I don't think there's going to be any programming blackout on THIS soap opera.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cord-Cutting is NOT a new phenomenon
Good thing you did...There is only so much WWF/WWE a person can watch on Sy-Fy before you give up and watch something else. I never understood the link between Science Fiction and wrestling, but apparently that was Sy-Fy's main demographic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cord-Cutting is NOT a new phenomenon
You don't understand the link between fiction and pure fiction? Good grief!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pride and Predjudice and Zombies!
If there aren't any robots or super serum involved, a wrestling story has no business on the Sci-Fi channel.
On the other hand: there are a great number of Sci-Fi movies (classics even) that are nowhere near the Sci-Fi channel. In fact, if you are interested in Sci-Fi classics you're better off watching AMC and several other channels.
I have a database and I am not afraid to use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pride and Predjudice and Zombies!
Since Jane Austen's works are all in the public domain, we could easily rewrite them to include robots....
On the other hand: there are a great number of Sci-Fi movies (classics even) that are nowhere near the Sci-Fi channel.
Amen brother. When I had cable, I watched the Science Channel far more than Sy-Fy, because the Science Channel tended to play far more Science-Fiction movies and made-for-TV versions of Science Fiction books, complete with discussions from Scientists on the movie (ala History Channel's Real-to-Reel.) Science Channel even played classics like Firefly, which Sy-Fy never played. Only thing I was happy about Sy-Fy for was the first six years of Stargate SG-1, but really, Showtime had more to do with that then Sy-Fy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cord-Cutting is NOT a new phenomenon
Nowadays I don't seem to care what is put out by the Hollywood Industry.I am more interested in INDIE & Local Art & Films.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cord-Cutting is NOT a new phenomenon
At that point we realized we were dealing with some kind of subhuman parasitic life forms who were impervious to logic or even good business sense. We cut the cord and we've never looked back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just wait, now that Individual Mandate has been ok'd by the Supreme Court, it is only a matter of time before we see a new tax on the various copyright industries and on cable subscriptions. If the government can force you to buy health insurance, and can fine you if you don't, I figure there is only a little while longer before they can force you to buy cable AND satellite coverage and fine you if you don't. If it isn't in a bill already sitting in a Senator's inbox, it will be shortly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The law is the law.
Once a stupid precedent becomes law then all sorts of nasty unintended consequences can occur. It's an obvious result of a "do something" mentality as opposed to a "what are we allowed to do" mentality.
When you remove the rule of law completely, all sorts of strange things are possible.
The fact that this can even be portrayed as a "political" issue is somewhat obscene.
Yeah. Rules, who needs them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But don't worry, that is one of those "ridiculous" cases that will never happen thanks to our great democratic process according to those who support the SCOTUS decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They did. I also believe they now have that tax for hard-drives too... Music CDs are sold in the US that have a similar tax...so it is always better to avoid those if you are using CDs to back up data, or for purposes other than music.
But don't worry, that is one of those "ridiculous" cases that will never happen thanks to our great democratic process according to those who support the SCOTUS decision.
I know you were being sarcastic, and agree with the sarcasm (my comment was sarcasm as well, which apparently some missed.) I don't think it will happen, but considering the slippery slope and unintended consequences of other "good" laws, I suspect it has already been thought of by those in power over at the RIAA/MPAA. They will likely push for it, if they feel they can get away with it. Hopefully they don't think they can get away with it, or if they do, that we don't let them get away with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This would be amusing.
Considering the kind of flak that the NEA goes through on a regular basis on even barely controversial art, I'd love to see the broadcasters go through taking tax dollars to make reality tv.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Too late it has already started down that road, The cable Co.'s have already gone to the FCC about encrypting the free over the air channels the carry!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suppose I'm not a cord cutter, strictly speaking...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I suppose I'm not a cord cutter, strictly speaking...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I suppose I'm not a cord cutter, strictly speaking...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Short sighted profits
Let's not forget that the cable companies in the US control a huge share of the broadband market. So even if they lost the pay TV market, they will just squeeze more from their pipes. They will just continue to claim there is a bandwidth shortage and ratchet up the metering on the pipes until that market is disrupted (Google, anyone?.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Short sighted profits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, losses of 400,000 - and gains somewhere else of 275,000. Net, you are looking at 125,000. Considering the economy, that is a very small fraction of subscribers being lost.
Also there is no indication if these are true cord cutters (getting ride of all wire line style services), or are they dropping pay TV and maintaining their internet connections. As an example, it might be interesting to see how many of these people have shifted to tablet PCs with 4G as their main source, making their home internet connection redundant, and therefore leading then to also turn off the TV channels.
There is a significant lack of information in the story from which to draw any conclusions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The term "cord-cutting" generally refers to opting out of cable TV offerings, not necessarily opting our of cable-based internet services.
About 75% of the people I know have stopped cable TV service and all of them have cable-based internet service (as it's the only realistic option in my area). Very few people I know use 4G for regular streaming because they're afraid of hitting usage caps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Would you care to cite proof? I can pull numbers out of my anal orifice, too.
Regardless, every avalanche starts with a snow-flake.
Also there is no indication if these are true cord cutters (getting ride of all wire line style services), or are they dropping pay TV and maintaining their internet connections. As an example, it might be interesting to see how many of these people have shifted to tablet PCs with 4G as their main source, making their home internet connection redundant, and therefore leading then to also turn off the TV channels.
The whole statement is redundant. The suggestion was already made by several posters previous to you. Why did you even bother to write that?
There is a significant lack of information in the story from which to draw any conclusions.
And you post adds precisely nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even if is a little disingenuous that his hypothetical appears to be an assertion of fact. It's still a valid question, two actually: How do these numbers compare to the net shift? and How significant a shift is it, really?
Also, he did preface the statement as something that "need[s] to get looked at." So maybe it wasn't really dishonest at all.
"As an example, it might be interesting to see how many of these people have shifted to tablet PCs with 4G as their main source, making their home internet connection redundant, and therefore leading then to also turn off the TV channels."
I also thought this was interesting. Yeah someone else mentioned 4G. This guy suggested a possible research topic, a rather well-defined one, too. I found that worth thinking about.
"Regardless, every avalanche starts with a snow-flake."
Way to attack an argument from silence with a slippery slope fallacy. You killed him good! An eye for an eye! Who cares if they're both blind already.
Incidentally, some avalanches start with a really mean and nasty jerkwad throwing stones to blow off steam. Just sayin'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wrong. The 400k losses were from traditional cable/satellite companies - Comcast, TimeWarner, DirecTV.
From the article:
"Also the newer entrants to the TV market -- Verizon Communications' FiOS TV and AT&T Inc's U-verse -- added 275,000 customers during the quarter."
While the 275k is more of a switch to the competition, it is competition from a new outside source - not a traditional competitor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Offer me a la carte programming, in HD, with a max of 3 minutes of commercials per 30 mins of video, and make it either on-demand or psuedo on-demand (aka "recordable via DVR) and then offer it at a price that makes it competitive and you might get a customer back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cable TV is obsolete
It was due to the limited technology of the day that entertainment had to be divided up into into "channels" that used valuable spectrum -- whether you or anyone was actually watching or not*. To make life worse, in the age before DVR's, they didn't broadcast those shows at all odd hours of the night when your DVR could record them. Instead you had to adjust your life around when your favorite show came on -- or miss it.
So it was sliced and limited in one dimension by channels, and slice and limited in another dimension by time slots. And as the major-international-sporting-events-that-must-not-be-named** illustrates, Prime Time is everything. People are expected to organize their life around a time slot, in order to learn about events that already happened and are over -- but we can't let the actual news of what happened escape in real time.
With Internet instead of Cable TV coming into my house, I don't need the bandwidth for all those HD channels. All I need is bandwidth for the one that I am watching right now. And in principle, this internet-thingy technology doesn't have any built in limit, in principle, on how many possible servers could exist to serve entertainment to me. Eg, they aren't limited by the finite resource called spectrum. Furthermore, the internet tv can be on-demand -- when I want to see it. And even more inconceivable to the old broadcast TV, I can watch it from anywhere, in principle, across the country or across the globe. And on any device, for example, while riding the subway using WiFi, or a cellular data plan. No worry about moving "out of range" of the broadcast area.
Cable TV has gotten lazy. 200 channels, and still nothing to watch. All trash, 24 hours a day. Reality TV. Info-tainment style soft news. The History channel has, yes, Ancient Aliens. The Science channel has, (gasp!) Ghost Hunters or Oddities.
They just can't seem to believe there may be some upper limit to how many commercials they can put in front of our eyes. Even after a commercial break, they interrupt your show for the first couple of minutes with animated distractions that cover up part of the reason you were watching in the first place. Even when those end, there is always the ever present annoying bug in the corner with the logo superimposed on the program. At some point, Enough is Enough.
*Philosophical question: If a reality tv show is broadcast, and nobody watches, does it still use up valuable spectrum?
**This reference is in no way meant to imply anything official or unofficial about any particular sports related event that may or may not be going on in London in 2012.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cable TV is obsolete
Don't knock Ancient Aliens! The best comedy show the History channel ever had!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry if my examples are stale or inaccurate: I haven't watched network TV since the 90s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
propoganda
This is nostalgic. I can't put my finger on it. Something about a ca wearing headphones, free music files...Nap-something?
But seriously, it's time to get online and on-demand moving full steam ahead. I haven't had a cable connection in over 3 years...I know I'm not a mutant...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: propoganda
They aren't underplaying a shift, rather I suspect they are watching with a little bit of amusement because the shift is from watching their content HERE to watching their content THERE.
They are more concerned that, in the long run, you need up with too many mooches getting the material for free without a valid financial structure in place, and you end up with not enough money to make the content.
Everyone bitches about reality TV, but reality TV is the outcrop of your desire for hundreds of channels. They have to fill the air with something, and they have to do it at a reasonable cost. Reality TV is cheaper by the hour than sitcoms are by the half hour, generally.
The content people realize that when they stop making the content because not enough people are paying, that the "alterative" is also lost, because they are the alternative to themselves. There really isn't enough else out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: propoganda
I have a hard time believing that people rally want hundreds of channels just for the sake of having hundreds of channels. I think people would pay much more, and be happier about it, per-channel if they could only have a dozen channels but got to choose which channels those dozen were.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: propoganda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: propoganda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: propoganda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: propoganda
I don't want 500 bad channels. I want 10 or 20 good ones.
Discovery and History splitting up into multiple channels is nothing that benefits me and nothing that I am clamouring for. If anything it seems like a cheap bid to extract more money out of my and my cable provider.
"See, you're getting more. Now pay us more."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: propoganda
> to ignore all of the crap channels you don't want.
You mean most, or in some regions, all of them.
My cable system doesn't get Logo (although it's become crap now), but has three Espn channels that I will never watch.
> You still have to pay for them though.
Not after I cut the cable. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: propoganda
Another component of reality tv is that it is cheaper than scripted tv and no one pirates it as it is so bad or is a contest type format that only lends itself to watching live.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: propoganda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: propoganda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comcast has a novel way to fight it
A few months ago, Comcast dropped off a cable box for the basic channels that I would now get free as part of my internet subscription. So now, I guess, I am part of their statistics of "not a cord cutter".
Of course, it took me a couple months before I even bothered to hook the cable box up; and, in the process of troubleshooting internet connection problems, we discovered the cable splitter installed back in 2001 was bad, so it's been removed and the cable goes straight into the cable modem, so the cable box is no longer connected. But if it makes them feel better to have one less "cord cutter" on the books....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comcast has a novel way to fight it
I stopped splitting any cables coming in off the street to ensure my modem gets the cleanest possible signal flowing to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comcast has a novel way to fight it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They never get it
I still recall the sales person asking this final question: "Sir, what is it AT&T could do to let you keep your TV service?" My reply: "Offer me a package that is 10 dollars a month and consists of 5 channels of my choosing." Surprisingly the representative I talked to says he gets that message a lot, and constantly submits it as feedback to the higher ups, but nothing changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They never get it
The final straw for me was when I got charged out of the blue when my "Trial" of showtime ended. I worked out the numbers and I could save over $30 a month if I bought all my shows off of xbox live & bought DVD's to fill the gaps.
What these guys don't get is that it's not about the money. I would gladly pay upwards of $50 a month for Netflix if they had new shows and movies. I also wish they would have stuck with their guns and went forward with the online and DVD mail split.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They never get it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many new customers are signing up?
How many new customers are signing up?
I assume they are losing customers; as opposed to gaining them, but this article doesn't tell the full story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How many new customers are signing up?
DirecTV makes first customer loss of 52,000
* Time Warner Cable loses 169,000 video customers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now all I need is for Google Fiber to come to Rochester and my entertainment needs will be set.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trying to hide the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also a cutter several years ago
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Add to it the amount of stupid shows put on. I got more entertainment value watching the people watching the tv than the program that was on. Add to this that the programs I like were not being made at the same rate as the stupid shows. Maybe one or two a month actually new.
When I looked at my watching habits, I found that it was being used more for background noise than it was for interesting programs. Why in the world was I paying for this?
The younger generation is the future for cable and PPV. Just like most have little inclination to pay for music, most don't care about tv either. Whether big entertainment cares about it or not, future change is in their upcoming agenda. Prices are already all the market will tote and more. It's over priced and over valued.
I no longer own a tv. Didn't buy one when the digital changeover occurred and have no interest in buying one today just to be served commercials. They can take their over priced, commercial loaded crap and feed it to someone else. I won't be part of it as I am never going back to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VERY INTERESTING..
NONE of which came to fruit.
1. less commercials, Now we have channels that are ALL commercials.
2. ALMOST if not free.
I wont get into it..but WHY do we need 200+ channels?
Many people have forgotten that Broadcast TV is alive and well. in many locations you get Many channels.. Im in very rural area(farming) and get all the basic and Independent channels(about 20+ total)..
Major metro should have Tons more then I can get.
but its the Basic hardware. $50 antenna and $50 Signal booster. Then getting the antenna up HIGH enough to get good signal.
You can get MORE locally then with cable/sat. Adverts for an area on cable sat. ARE NOT local business. You can only see National business's on Cable/sat.
Local channels advert LOCAL business. As well as national corps.
Out of all the channels you can get on Cable/sat..how many do you REALLY watch?
most people can break the list down to BELOW 20 channels. but, YOU ARE STILL paying for those other channels.
ESPN is the highest PAID channel selection, about $5 per month, PER PERSON. You dont watch GOLF on ESPN, you still paid the $5. you dont watch Basketball?? 3 months, you paid for it..
DOES any of this money go to the PLAYERS?? NOPE. they have to sign contracts, that say THEY DONT GET ANYTHING for the representation of them in the media.
So,
Why charge for cable?
What would it take for ALL these TV companies to install HARDWARE to get access to ALL the people in the USA?
ANTENNA' sites all over the USA to get the customer to WATCH their channels? TONS of money. and it would be free.
CAble can be the sleeping dragon.
They COULD CUT the service. FORCE these companies to Understand..Cutting the Advertising ability of a company is a MAJOR HIT..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forget Cord-Cutters: Cable Companies Should Worry About Cord-Nevers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forget Cord-Cutters: Cable Companies Should Worry About Cord-Nevers
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/08/forget-cord-cutters-cable-companies-should-wor ry-about-cord-nevers/55380/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]