Sorry, cord-cutters.
June 4, 2014 10:25 AM Subscribe
Cable TV apps (aka 'TV Everywhere') are soaring in popularity, according to the Adobe Digital Index.
"driven mainly by interest in sports programming..."
This seems to be the buried lede, here. I haven't had cable in years, and whenever I mention that to co-workers, their response is almost always "if I could catch team/sport X online..."
posted by KGMoney at 10:38 AM on June 4, 2014 [7 favorites]
This seems to be the buried lede, here. I haven't had cable in years, and whenever I mention that to co-workers, their response is almost always "if I could catch team/sport X online..."
posted by KGMoney at 10:38 AM on June 4, 2014 [7 favorites]
When it comes to online video, people may not want to cut the cord. Instead, they want to take the cord with them.
This is dumb. These apps are only available if you already have cable so it's not so much that people don't want to cut the cord, it's that they can't.
posted by octothorpe at 10:40 AM on June 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
This is dumb. These apps are only available if you already have cable so it's not so much that people don't want to cut the cord, it's that they can't.
posted by octothorpe at 10:40 AM on June 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
Youtube is getting closer to live sports. I think they are having some problems with licensing or something (fancy that).
Here's their live sports page (mostly international stuff)
posted by bbqturtle at 10:40 AM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
Here's their live sports page (mostly international stuff)
posted by bbqturtle at 10:40 AM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
Only the NFL cannot be streamed online... MLB, NHL, and NBA can all be purchased directly from those entities. Even College Football can be streamed. I too cut the cord a while ago, but at least I can use the antenna to get HD local football.
posted by joecacti at 10:41 AM on June 4, 2014
posted by joecacti at 10:41 AM on June 4, 2014
I get offers to add cable (with HBO, no less) to our internet service for another $15 a month. That suggests that cable is a tougher sell. On the other hand, Comcast keeps raising internet rates a dollar or so every few months, and they now get revenue from Netflix et al., so they are making their money coming and going.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:41 AM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:41 AM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
The secret of this is that these metrics do not include netflix...
posted by advil at 10:42 AM on June 4, 2014
posted by advil at 10:42 AM on June 4, 2014
Only the NFL cannot be streamed online... MLB, NHL, and NBA can all be purchased directly from those entities.
Except you usually can't watch your home team if you live in its TV market, which defeats the purpose.
posted by schoolgirl report at 10:44 AM on June 4, 2014 [8 favorites]
Except you usually can't watch your home team if you live in its TV market, which defeats the purpose.
posted by schoolgirl report at 10:44 AM on June 4, 2014 [8 favorites]
Only the NFL cannot be streamed online... MLB, NHL, and NBA can all be purchased directly from those entities.
But are still subject to blackout rules, which means that if I want to watch Local Sports Team play online, I'm SOL because Local Sports Network That Comes In A $75 A Month Cable Package has exclusive rights to their games in my metropolitan area. I can watch Non-Local Sports Team I Don't Care About, though!
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:45 AM on June 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
But are still subject to blackout rules, which means that if I want to watch Local Sports Team play online, I'm SOL because Local Sports Network That Comes In A $75 A Month Cable Package has exclusive rights to their games in my metropolitan area. I can watch Non-Local Sports Team I Don't Care About, though!
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:45 AM on June 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
Why do we even need a cable company at all? Why shouldn't we be able to pay a standalone internet provider for the pipe, and then pay the content providers a la carte for programming? If I could subscribe to HBO/AMC/etc. in the same way that I do Hulu and Netflix, I'd be a happy man. Split the cable/internet monopolies in two, I say.
And for the record, I don't give the slightest flying fricative about sports, nor do I have the desire to subsidize anyone else's viewing of the same, so any talk of bundling is strictly a non-starter.
posted by Strange Interlude at 10:45 AM on June 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
And for the record, I don't give the slightest flying fricative about sports, nor do I have the desire to subsidize anyone else's viewing of the same, so any talk of bundling is strictly a non-starter.
posted by Strange Interlude at 10:45 AM on June 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
Only the NFL cannot be streamed online... MLB, NHL, and NBA can all be purchased directly from those entities. Even College Football can be streamed. I
Not in market. MLB/NHL/NBA you can stream but not your local market team (ie no SF Giant streaming in SF). For that you'll need a DNS/proxy service or VPN to get around the Geo-Restrictions. Which if you've cut the cord is a small and worthwhile investment. I cut the cord in Jan and get my Giants via Unlocator on my Xbox.
NFL all comes in via an "over-the-air" antenna which is actually really good quality HD, better than cable in many cases.
posted by bitdamaged at 10:46 AM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
Not in market. MLB/NHL/NBA you can stream but not your local market team (ie no SF Giant streaming in SF). For that you'll need a DNS/proxy service or VPN to get around the Geo-Restrictions. Which if you've cut the cord is a small and worthwhile investment. I cut the cord in Jan and get my Giants via Unlocator on my Xbox.
NFL all comes in via an "over-the-air" antenna which is actually really good quality HD, better than cable in many cases.
posted by bitdamaged at 10:46 AM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
My sense is that a lot of people cut the cord and then borrow log-ins from their friends who have cable. FWIW.
I cut the cord, got Apple TV, and paid for an iTunes season pass for Mad Men, which is the only cable TV show that I really care about seeing in real time. I'm definitely saving some money, even after factoring in my Netflix and HuluPlus subscriptions, but that's not even the biggest impetus for me. The biggest reason that I cut the cord is that I hate my cable company with a burning, overwhelming passion, and it gave me great satisfaction to tell them to screw themselves. It brightens my day every time I get an offer in the mail asking me to come back, and I can throw it away. I don't watch sports, though, and I'm ok waiting until shows come out on Netflix or I can check the DVD out from the library.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:47 AM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
I cut the cord, got Apple TV, and paid for an iTunes season pass for Mad Men, which is the only cable TV show that I really care about seeing in real time. I'm definitely saving some money, even after factoring in my Netflix and HuluPlus subscriptions, but that's not even the biggest impetus for me. The biggest reason that I cut the cord is that I hate my cable company with a burning, overwhelming passion, and it gave me great satisfaction to tell them to screw themselves. It brightens my day every time I get an offer in the mail asking me to come back, and I can throw it away. I don't watch sports, though, and I'm ok waiting until shows come out on Netflix or I can check the DVD out from the library.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:47 AM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
If I could subscribe to HBO/AMC/etc. in the same way that I do Hulu and Netflix, I'd be a happy man.
Unfortunately HBO is owned by the same people who own the cable company – it's a way to get more people paying for cable every month. Getting the cable companies out of the Internet business means they'd have even less reason to offer online-only subscriptions, because they wouldn't be getting any cash from your Internet account.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:49 AM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
Unfortunately HBO is owned by the same people who own the cable company – it's a way to get more people paying for cable every month. Getting the cable companies out of the Internet business means they'd have even less reason to offer online-only subscriptions, because they wouldn't be getting any cash from your Internet account.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:49 AM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
My sense is that a lot of people cut the cord and then borrow log-ins from their friends who have cable. FWIW.
First rule of borrowing cable log-ins is do not talk about borrowing cable log-ins. I know HBO officially doesn't care if you do, but the cable companies are going to start caring soon and crack down on that shit.
posted by Rock Steady at 10:49 AM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
First rule of borrowing cable log-ins is do not talk about borrowing cable log-ins. I know HBO officially doesn't care if you do, but the cable companies are going to start caring soon and crack down on that shit.
posted by Rock Steady at 10:49 AM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
In Soviet American Cable Monopoly, cord cuts you.
posted by grumpybear69 at 10:50 AM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 10:50 AM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
Why shouldn't we be able to pay a standalone internet provider for the pipe, and then pay the content providers a la carte for programming?
Because the cable provider owns the pipe, and they are trying like hell not to become commodity transit providers. Hence their continual efforts to provide "value added" services, and all the shitty bundling practices, all of which make it difficult to compare one provider to another.
In a reasonable world you'd be able to choose various content providers and get that content delivered via one of multiple transit providers (via coax cable, fiber optic, DSL, wireless, etc.), and there would be competition at each level. Margins would be thin, especially for transit. If some company offered you x GB of transfer at y MB/s for z dollars less than your current provider, and x and y were acceptable, you could switch and not have any change in content.
The cable and telephone companies desperately want to avoid that, and will do and have been doing everything over the past decade or so, to ensure that it never comes to pass.
The closest we ever got to it was the competitive DSL market, and the telcos succeeded in getting that killed off years ago. It's been a downhill ride for consumers ever since, and I have absolutely no faith that the marketplace is going to reverse that trend.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:55 AM on June 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
Because the cable provider owns the pipe, and they are trying like hell not to become commodity transit providers. Hence their continual efforts to provide "value added" services, and all the shitty bundling practices, all of which make it difficult to compare one provider to another.
In a reasonable world you'd be able to choose various content providers and get that content delivered via one of multiple transit providers (via coax cable, fiber optic, DSL, wireless, etc.), and there would be competition at each level. Margins would be thin, especially for transit. If some company offered you x GB of transfer at y MB/s for z dollars less than your current provider, and x and y were acceptable, you could switch and not have any change in content.
The cable and telephone companies desperately want to avoid that, and will do and have been doing everything over the past decade or so, to ensure that it never comes to pass.
The closest we ever got to it was the competitive DSL market, and the telcos succeeded in getting that killed off years ago. It's been a downhill ride for consumers ever since, and I have absolutely no faith that the marketplace is going to reverse that trend.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:55 AM on June 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
There's also these magical places called "sports bars" where you can watch live sports AND get beer periodically delivered to your table, for less than the cost of cable!
Yeah, yeah, it's not for everybody, but it works out well for me. On the rare occasions I want to watch an event live and it's not on network and not available to stream, yay sports bar! (And, yeah, the psychological satisfaction of NOT giving Comcast money far outweighs my desire to see any shows or events I can only see through them. Literally prefer giving up TV to paying Comcast, and I like TV.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:58 AM on June 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
Yeah, yeah, it's not for everybody, but it works out well for me. On the rare occasions I want to watch an event live and it's not on network and not available to stream, yay sports bar! (And, yeah, the psychological satisfaction of NOT giving Comcast money far outweighs my desire to see any shows or events I can only see through them. Literally prefer giving up TV to paying Comcast, and I like TV.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:58 AM on June 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
Unfortunately HBO is owned by the same people who own the cable company
Its not actually, "TimeWarner Cable" is independent of "TimeWarner" which owns HBO, they just license the TimeWarner name and will likely soon be known as "Comcast".
The reason none of these guys separate from cable isn't ownership its carriage fees. ESPN makes literally billions off cable subscriber fees every month (~$5 of your bill goes to ESPN whether you own it or not), this is consistent across the board outside of a few of the premiums like HBO and Showtime. HBO is deeply ingrained with the cable ops but I bet they could tell you when and if it would ever make sense to offer a standalone offering.
posted by bitdamaged at 10:59 AM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
Its not actually, "TimeWarner Cable" is independent of "TimeWarner" which owns HBO, they just license the TimeWarner name and will likely soon be known as "Comcast".
The reason none of these guys separate from cable isn't ownership its carriage fees. ESPN makes literally billions off cable subscriber fees every month (~$5 of your bill goes to ESPN whether you own it or not), this is consistent across the board outside of a few of the premiums like HBO and Showtime. HBO is deeply ingrained with the cable ops but I bet they could tell you when and if it would ever make sense to offer a standalone offering.
posted by bitdamaged at 10:59 AM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
If I could subscribe to HBO/AMC/et
One positive development is that older HBO (incl. all of the wire) is now on amazon prime, as of a few weeks ago.
posted by advil at 11:01 AM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
One positive development is that older HBO (incl. all of the wire) is now on amazon prime, as of a few weeks ago.
posted by advil at 11:01 AM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
The question of a la carte programming has been examined for decades and the general conclusion has always been that it would result in higher cost for the consumer, and less choice.
posted by stbalbach at 11:02 AM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by stbalbach at 11:02 AM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
If I didn't care about sports, I would cut the cord immediately. Not sure why non-sports fans would have cable at this point.
posted by Rock Steady at 11:04 AM on June 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Rock Steady at 11:04 AM on June 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
There's also these magical places called "sports bars" where you can watch live sports AND get beer periodically delivered to your table, for less than the cost of cable!
I live most of a continent away from the college I went to and whose football team I still follow. My odds on getting a sports bar to devote more than one muted screen to my alma mater are roughly nil.
posted by Etrigan at 11:05 AM on June 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
I live most of a continent away from the college I went to and whose football team I still follow. My odds on getting a sports bar to devote more than one muted screen to my alma mater are roughly nil.
posted by Etrigan at 11:05 AM on June 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
> There's also these magical places called "sports bars" where you can watch live sports AND get beer periodically delivered to your table, for less than the cost of cable!
That's really enticing but man, the Tour de France and World Cup combined will cause cirrhosis of the liver.
posted by ardgedee at 11:08 AM on June 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
That's really enticing but man, the Tour de France and World Cup combined will cause cirrhosis of the liver.
posted by ardgedee at 11:08 AM on June 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
ArbitraryAndCapricious: "My sense is that a lot of people cut the cord and then borrow log-ins from their friends who have cable. FWIW. "
Came here to say the same thing. I'd happily watch sports on my dad's login if it were possible. Instead, I've found an alternate solution - take the $16/month extra I would have to spend for Comcast to add a sports package to my local-channels-only cable, and use it in a bar watching the game with other humans.
posted by caution live frogs at 11:11 AM on June 4, 2014
Came here to say the same thing. I'd happily watch sports on my dad's login if it were possible. Instead, I've found an alternate solution - take the $16/month extra I would have to spend for Comcast to add a sports package to my local-channels-only cable, and use it in a bar watching the game with other humans.
posted by caution live frogs at 11:11 AM on June 4, 2014
Only the NFL cannot be streamed online.NFL does offer a service for international markets called NFL Gamepass, for which you need at least a proxy or dns based unblocker (must access from outside US or Mexico). Once in you still have to pay* for the season but the quality is great and without blackouts. It's as legal as watching Netflix from another region.
* NFL fans in the Netherlands are encouraged to check it out...
posted by infinitelives at 11:13 AM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
* NFL fans in the Netherlands are encouraged to check it out...
Huh. How about that.
posted by MartinWisse at 11:18 AM on June 4, 2014
Huh. How about that.
posted by MartinWisse at 11:18 AM on June 4, 2014
and less choice.
This isn't a bad thing and it's exactly the point of a la carte: I pay for only the 10 channels I actually watch. Oh, the Soviet horror of no longer being able to "choose" ESPN1 thru ESPN85, and good riddance to shopping channels.
posted by rhizome at 11:18 AM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
This isn't a bad thing and it's exactly the point of a la carte: I pay for only the 10 channels I actually watch. Oh, the Soviet horror of no longer being able to "choose" ESPN1 thru ESPN85, and good riddance to shopping channels.
posted by rhizome at 11:18 AM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
To be honest, I may be one of the few people who actually would want more channels, as long as they're not gouging me for the privilege. Give me all the Discoveries, all the British channels, not just the BBC ones and so on.
Also would be handy if the local UPC discovery app could actually stream video on non-UPC networks, ie. away from home when you actually need it.
posted by MartinWisse at 11:23 AM on June 4, 2014
Also would be handy if the local UPC discovery app could actually stream video on non-UPC networks, ie. away from home when you actually need it.
posted by MartinWisse at 11:23 AM on June 4, 2014
and less choice.
This isn't a bad thing and it's exactly the point of a la carte:
A la carte would kill every niche channel, and you'd be amazed at what counts as "niche." It would make it much more difficult for even those remaining channels to take chances on programming (Mad Men and Breaking Bad flat-out would not exist without cable packaging, because no one would have paid AMC enough to take a flyer on original programming all by itself?).
Netflix and Hulu operate on the exact same business model (pay for the package, get the prestige stuff) -- they're just slightly more finely sliced.
posted by Etrigan at 11:31 AM on June 4, 2014
This isn't a bad thing and it's exactly the point of a la carte:
A la carte would kill every niche channel, and you'd be amazed at what counts as "niche." It would make it much more difficult for even those remaining channels to take chances on programming (Mad Men and Breaking Bad flat-out would not exist without cable packaging, because no one would have paid AMC enough to take a flyer on original programming all by itself?).
Netflix and Hulu operate on the exact same business model (pay for the package, get the prestige stuff) -- they're just slightly more finely sliced.
posted by Etrigan at 11:31 AM on June 4, 2014
Oh, the Soviet horror of no longer being able to "choose" ESPN1 thru ESPN85, and good riddance to shopping channels.
I think the point is that plenty of not-really-so-niche channels would stop being profitable, too, and providers could charge damn near as much for what would be left.
That said, if I could pay for nothing but Jeopardy, the Mets, and HBO Go / Showtime Anytime, I'd cut the cord in a heartbeat.
posted by uncleozzy at 11:33 AM on June 4, 2014
I think the point is that plenty of not-really-so-niche channels would stop being profitable, too, and providers could charge damn near as much for what would be left.
That said, if I could pay for nothing but Jeopardy, the Mets, and HBO Go / Showtime Anytime, I'd cut the cord in a heartbeat.
posted by uncleozzy at 11:33 AM on June 4, 2014
It bears mentioning, I think, that we are using a definition of “cannot be streamed online” where I can find at least five different ways to watch any given televised sporting event in North America with only a slight delay to account for Internet speeds, whether or not the leagues want to authorize it. There's no streaming of the NFL [or in-market streaming of other sports] in the same way that major motion pictures and TV shows aren't available for DRM-free download.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:45 AM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:45 AM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
>"driven mainly by interest in sports programming..."
This seems to be the buried lede, here. I haven't had cable in years, and whenever I mention that to co-workers, their response is almost always "if I could catch team/sport X online..."
Although my son loves NHL hockey, we don't have cable tv. It has not been a big deal because CBC streams games online. That all changes next season when Rogers takes over (I think it's a dumb move because Rogers will likely make hockey a premium product and not as many people are going to pay through the nose to see hockey content).
I don't have a lot of time to watch television, but the only thing I miss are baseball games and I have thought about purchasing an MLB subscription to see that content.
posted by KokuRyu at 12:14 PM on June 4, 2014
This seems to be the buried lede, here. I haven't had cable in years, and whenever I mention that to co-workers, their response is almost always "if I could catch team/sport X online..."
Although my son loves NHL hockey, we don't have cable tv. It has not been a big deal because CBC streams games online. That all changes next season when Rogers takes over (I think it's a dumb move because Rogers will likely make hockey a premium product and not as many people are going to pay through the nose to see hockey content).
I don't have a lot of time to watch television, but the only thing I miss are baseball games and I have thought about purchasing an MLB subscription to see that content.
posted by KokuRyu at 12:14 PM on June 4, 2014
That's really enticing but man, the Tour de France . . . will cause cirrhosis of the liver.
That used to be a risk for the riders as well.
posted by yerfatma at 12:16 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
That used to be a risk for the riders as well.
posted by yerfatma at 12:16 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
A la carte would kill every niche channel,
Canada's Conservative government is set to mandate a la carte programming (the government here has tremendous power to influence broadcasters), and it is going to kill unique Canadian content.
That's not the intent, of course. The Conservatives have taken on the broadcasters and telecomms as part of a vote-getting populist crusade, while ignoring the business and economic environment of trying to run a broadcaster/telecomm in a small market like Canada (same size as California) with little or no ability to develop economies of scale.
posted by KokuRyu at 12:17 PM on June 4, 2014
Canada's Conservative government is set to mandate a la carte programming (the government here has tremendous power to influence broadcasters), and it is going to kill unique Canadian content.
That's not the intent, of course. The Conservatives have taken on the broadcasters and telecomms as part of a vote-getting populist crusade, while ignoring the business and economic environment of trying to run a broadcaster/telecomm in a small market like Canada (same size as California) with little or no ability to develop economies of scale.
posted by KokuRyu at 12:17 PM on June 4, 2014
A la carte would kill every niche channel, and you'd be amazed at what counts as "niche." It would make it much more difficult for even those remaining channels to take chances on programming
Except that has been the norm on "Broadcast" TV for decades. If people pay only for the channels they want then those channels who want to stay in the game will just have to try harder to distinguish themselves. Most of the packaged channels (I'm talking to you Discovery) are filled with marathon re-runs each and every night. So clearly there are too manychannels, and not enough programming. There are several versions of Swamp people and towing companies, and storage seekers and hoarders. We can find Bigfoot virtually any night of the week, and I've learned I never want to go near a pawn shop in Detroit or get repossessed in Florida or Louisianna. I'd be very happy with fewer channels if it meant improved programming.
posted by Gungho at 12:18 PM on June 4, 2014
Except that has been the norm on "Broadcast" TV for decades. If people pay only for the channels they want then those channels who want to stay in the game will just have to try harder to distinguish themselves. Most of the packaged channels (I'm talking to you Discovery) are filled with marathon re-runs each and every night. So clearly there are too manychannels, and not enough programming. There are several versions of Swamp people and towing companies, and storage seekers and hoarders. We can find Bigfoot virtually any night of the week, and I've learned I never want to go near a pawn shop in Detroit or get repossessed in Florida or Louisianna. I'd be very happy with fewer channels if it meant improved programming.
posted by Gungho at 12:18 PM on June 4, 2014
The other thing is, cable just works. You turn on your tv, its on. Have you tried watching anything on Amazon Prime? It fucking sucks.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:22 PM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:22 PM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
KokuRyu: "and it is going to kill unique Canadian content."
Will it take Caillou first?
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:00 PM on June 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
Will it take Caillou first?
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:00 PM on June 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
A la carte would kill every niche channel
Assuming this is true, what's wrong with a provider offering both package deals and a la carte? Heck, the technology exists to enable subscribing to a channel for an arbitrary length of time, FOX for Superbowl Weekend, etc.
Providers are indisputably dragging their feet here, so the jury is still out on what will be killed or not, what kind of revenue splits shake out, and so on.
posted by rhizome at 1:10 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
Assuming this is true, what's wrong with a provider offering both package deals and a la carte? Heck, the technology exists to enable subscribing to a channel for an arbitrary length of time, FOX for Superbowl Weekend, etc.
Providers are indisputably dragging their feet here, so the jury is still out on what will be killed or not, what kind of revenue splits shake out, and so on.
posted by rhizome at 1:10 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
A la carte would kill every niche channel, and you'd be amazed at what counts as "niche." It would make it much more difficult for even those remaining channels to take chances on programming
Except that has been the norm on "Broadcast" TV for decades.
I'm sorry, are you arguing that broadcast television is an example of "tak[ing] chances on programming"?
If people pay only for the channels they want then those channels who want to stay in the game will just have to try harder to distinguish themselves.
Do you think that they'll take bigger risks, or do you think they'll start going after the median viewer rather than the fringe viewer? Based on the entire history of mass media, I'm going to guess that the median viewer is the way they're going to go.
I'd be very happy with fewer channels if it meant improved programming.
Do you think we're in a golden age of television because there are too many channels? No, it's because (as I noted) AMC gets enough money from being part of a package that it can experiment with Mad Men and Breaking Bad.
posted by Etrigan at 2:08 PM on June 4, 2014
Except that has been the norm on "Broadcast" TV for decades.
I'm sorry, are you arguing that broadcast television is an example of "tak[ing] chances on programming"?
If people pay only for the channels they want then those channels who want to stay in the game will just have to try harder to distinguish themselves.
Do you think that they'll take bigger risks, or do you think they'll start going after the median viewer rather than the fringe viewer? Based on the entire history of mass media, I'm going to guess that the median viewer is the way they're going to go.
I'd be very happy with fewer channels if it meant improved programming.
Do you think we're in a golden age of television because there are too many channels? No, it's because (as I noted) AMC gets enough money from being part of a package that it can experiment with Mad Men and Breaking Bad.
posted by Etrigan at 2:08 PM on June 4, 2014
I don't even need full a la carte. If they could just get the packages set up so that I'm not paying toward whatever crap ESPN is asking for I might go back to cable.
posted by ckape at 3:10 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by ckape at 3:10 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
I've only had cable when living with roommates who were into sports, never when living alone. I'll probably wind up having to pay for it, though, once the FCC is done gutting Net Neutrality. Damn.
posted by Thoughtcrime at 4:20 PM on June 4, 2014
posted by Thoughtcrime at 4:20 PM on June 4, 2014
The ISPs and media companies are trying to become vertically integrated, that is produce content AND distribute it. This is terrible for us consumers.
As a thought experiment, think about what it would be like if Ford built roads, and only Ford cars were allowed to drive on Ford roads. And the same for every other car manufacturer. If the FCC manages to kill net neutrality, that is the world we're heading for.
posted by Triplanetary at 5:07 PM on June 4, 2014
As a thought experiment, think about what it would be like if Ford built roads, and only Ford cars were allowed to drive on Ford roads. And the same for every other car manufacturer. If the FCC manages to kill net neutrality, that is the world we're heading for.
posted by Triplanetary at 5:07 PM on June 4, 2014
Cable will continue to make their money. The days of unlimited internet will be coming to a close. You are still receiving unlimited but all the cable companies have removed that mention as a part of your service. They all have 250 or 300 gb caps. They are not charging you for overages yet. They are coming. Your Cable TV company is not a Cable TV company. They are internet and they control the pipe.
posted by MightyMike at 8:03 PM on June 4, 2014
posted by MightyMike at 8:03 PM on June 4, 2014
Have you tried watching anything on Amazon Prime?
Sure...on my Vizio Smart TV, Roku box on the "dumb" old XBR4, through Google Chrome on a laptop, and on my PS3. All pretty awesome, PS3 seems to be the best, then Roku, then Vizio...
I've probably dropped $100 on content already not including what I will watch for free (though I haven't made the decision to ditch Netflix), mostly Disney movies and episodes of Poppy Cat that my kids can easily watch anywhere. It gets cheesy when you want to actually download movies to your PC and use their weird player, which I haven't gotten into.
posted by aydeejones at 10:26 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
Sure...on my Vizio Smart TV, Roku box on the "dumb" old XBR4, through Google Chrome on a laptop, and on my PS3. All pretty awesome, PS3 seems to be the best, then Roku, then Vizio...
I've probably dropped $100 on content already not including what I will watch for free (though I haven't made the decision to ditch Netflix), mostly Disney movies and episodes of Poppy Cat that my kids can easily watch anywhere. It gets cheesy when you want to actually download movies to your PC and use their weird player, which I haven't gotten into.
posted by aydeejones at 10:26 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
Unfortunately HBO is owned by the same people who own the cable company
Can we get some kind of alarm whenever someone says this? Maybe even send an electric shock through their input device? It's been 6 years, and repeatedly corrected here. Like every time to or two cones up.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 10:46 PM on June 4, 2014
Can we get some kind of alarm whenever someone says this? Maybe even send an electric shock through their input device? It's been 6 years, and repeatedly corrected here. Like every time to or two cones up.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 10:46 PM on June 4, 2014
« Older It's like The Oscars, but with just the good parts | Selling Buddhism -- Selling Out the Religion Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I feel like if the internet company wasn't also trying to benefit the content, a lot of things would be different and for the better :)
posted by bbqturtle at 10:35 AM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]