Slashdot Mirror
Are Cable Subscribers Subsidizing Internet-Only TV Viewers?
waderoush sends a tongue-in-cheek open letter to cable TV subscribers from somebody who has cut the cord in favor of streaming shows over the internet.
"Dear Cable TV Subscriber: I don't think I've ever told you how grateful I am. I haven't paid a cent for cable television since 2009. Yet I have on-demand access via the Internet to a growing cornucopia of great shows like Game of Thrones, Homeland, Mad Men, and Breaking Bad, at reasonable à la carte prices. And it's all because you continue to pay exorbitant and ever-increasing monthly fees for your premium cable bundle (around $80 per month, on average). After all, your money goes straight to the studios and networks that produce and distribute all the expensive first-run programming that I'm perfectly happy to watch later at heavily discounted prices. So in effect, you're subsidizing my own footloose, freeloading, cord-cutting TV habits. I don't know how to thank you!"
Is it possible to mod an entire Slashdot article as "Flamebait?"
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Thank you streaming subscriber for subsidizing my torrents. Sorry to sound like a snide dick, but once you got things rolling I decided, why not?
...just as soon as they're not the best internet provider in town.
It sounds like the OP is still paying for TV, just somewhat less than others who have access to many, many more shows. If you don't watch that much TV, you can save money buying just the shows you want to watch. If you want to see more than a few HBO series, though, it's cheaper to just subscribe to HBO. If you want to be able to easily channel surf and watch shows as soon as they're released, you probably need to pay a provider.
dom
Where are these reasonable prices the writer speaks of??? Unless he's talking about "free as in piracy"?
Afterall, it's cable subscribers that are recording the shows that get put on the torrent sites. Call it getting a ROI.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
Where!?! I'll move! (And I'm only half-kidding.) Right now, to watch GoT when it airs, I'd have to subscribe to my local (monopoly) cable provider at their full rate (or agree to a contract for 2 years to get the service I only want 4 months out of the year), pay all their installation and equipment fees, pay an additional fee to upgrade my package, and then I can pay yet more in order to get the one channel I want. I would cheerfully pay HBO a good $25 or $50 a month while GoT is on to stream it on my media center PC, rather than facing the choice between torrenting it or having to dodge spoilers at work and from scattered family members for months until the DVD set comes out (and then having no one to talk to about it).
The Slapocalypse is almost upon us! An hour and a half from now _shit is going down_
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
I'm paying about $2.50/day for 60+ megabit internet.
I'm also paying about $1/day for HDTV cable.
Plus $8/month or so for Netflix and another $4/month for a legal anime site.
Not really a problem.
The cable TV model is broken. You know what, TV isn't that important. Screw them.
It'll probably have to crash and burn until something reasonable emerges. We've had direct-to-DVD for awhile, and we're starting to see direct-to-streaming-services. There may come a time when big expensive TV shows can't be produced anymore, but that model is broken too. Screw them also.
I suspect that things will transition to something new, and the studios and networks and content providers that refused to evolve will die. And that's fine. And if TV devolved to public access, that'd be fine to. Sometime last century we were trained to believe that TV is essential. If the entire broadcast/cable TV system collapsed with nothing to take its place (which I think is unlikely) at very least, we'd find out that TV really isn't essential after all.
So yeah, the last of the "tv generation" is paying the exorbitant salaries and production costs for three-and-a-half men. Serves them right.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
All you have to do to say "thanks" is get hooked on some show, and then occasionally pay iTunes' high prices for early access to new episodes. That's all. Simple, really, isn't it?
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
I admittedly only skimmed the article. But where are the "reasonable" a la carte prices?
Both Amazon & iTunes charge $2.99 ($3.99 for HD) per episode for "Game of Thrones" S1. (Yes, a bit less per ep if you buy an entire season, but that doesn't really count as a la carte anymore, does it?)
I would gladly pay at least the same, maybe even slightly more, than I pay now for cable, to be able to watch everything commercial free/when I want without having to Tivo them.. But I'd pay a LOT more than cable, if you use the current prices of every single individual show.
You obviously haven't taken a look at Comcast's balance sheet if you think that $80/month is going to the studios.
Okay, you want to fix this problem? Just nationalize the studios and distribution systems and have the government run all of it, and pay for it out of taxes. That way, the rich will pay the bill for all of us freeloaders. That'll be much more fair.
This is an incredibly strange point to try to make when an ENORMOUS amount of people are paying the CABLE company for their basic Internet.
You obviously haven't taken a look at Comcast's balance sheet if you think that $80/month is going to the studios.
I heard a stat that cable companies pay $6 per month for ESPN/ESPN2. That's just two channels. Most channels are not that expensive, but if you have 100 channels....it is not hard to see how you're going to get a lot of that money going to content providers.
Other note I would make is that it is not exactly new to have "dry" cable internet. There are millions out there with cable internet and no TV -- and the cable companies do it willingly; I don't think they would do it if it really caused significant price pressure on the TV side of the house.
Considering Verizon still charges me 10$ a month just to txt people, please don't give my cable providers any ideas either. Jerk.
I don't know if I qualify as a cord cutter: cable internet is cheaper if you get it bundled with TV service where I am so I got the bare minimum tv service with internet. My cable box (can't get TV without their box) hasn't even been connected is nearly a year (set it up in case visitors were insistent). I calculated out the tv portion to be about $10 / month.
I use my xbox for comcast video on demand service which thanks to a recent update now provides an HD option. So to me comcast on demand is just another streaming service for the the channels I pay for (boradcast+cspan) as well as the channels I don't (almost all the basic cable ones like BBCA and comedy central) as well as HD quality which I also didn't sign up for/pay for.
So I guess I'm the one really being subsidized.
"UNIX is very simple, it just needs a genius to understand its simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie
Where!?! I'll move! (And I'm only half-kidding.) Right now, to watch GoT when it airs, I'd have to subscribe to my local (monopoly) cable provider at their full rate (or agree to a contract for 2 years to get the service I only want 4 months out of the year)
There is no such thing as a pay TV monopoly. You can watch GoT as it airs on Dish or DirecTV. Just saying...the fact that one company owns the cable franchise in a given town is not the reason that prices for pay tv are exorbitant.
You allude to satellite in your post (Ie. the 2 year contract bit) but I just don't see what your point is.
When I grew up TV was free over the air waves. Even the poor had access to great television programs.
Now get off my lawn.
Cable subscribers are subsidizing sports.
Comcast owns sports teams. The teams ask ridiculous amounts of money for broadcast rights. Comcast passes the cost on to their customers.
And then their's ESPN....
I often wonder what cable would cost if I didn't have to subsidize the sports franchises.
The same goes for my local taxes.
Imagine if the sports teams had to pay for their own stadiums?
And I haven't looked back.
I've long since found that the regular networks you'd watch the show on will actually frequently stream many of their most popular shows right on their own website - one usually only has to wait until the day after it has aired to watch it online.
Okay, so if I do things this way, I'm stuck in their online streaming application (invariably flash-based for the desktop, or else a native app for mobile viewing), and I'll still have to deal with commercials like I would over the air... but in the end, I'm still not shelling out any money for cable.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Are you crazy? Only a small portion of that goes to them, the rest all goes in the pocket of your service provider
And so should some other people.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
that Cable TV companies wont be jerked around
recently my cable provider had Turner Networks cut them off of several channels because my cable provider refused to accept a 50% increase of charges for access, so my cable provider has several blank channels where Turner Network channels once occupied, things like CNN & Headline News, TNT, Turner Classic Movies, Cartoon Network, (Turner's programming), a few empty spots once occupied by Turner's channels already been filled with other programming,
the point i am trying to make is by allowing streaming video content on cable internet shows providers like CNN that they are not the only method of content distribution (competition)
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Ponies!!!!
Awesome!!!!
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Thank you, dear torrent user, for seeding all this content when I in fact do not.
I can tell you that as of the last couple years, if you're going the "free, legal streaming" route watching on network pages, there are more commercials online than ever. 4+ commerical breaks of 5-6 commercials at 30 seconds a piece. I have two Tivos that record over the air so I'm able to skip through commercials normally for most of my viewing. Online there is no skipping if you go the "honest" route. Networks are definitely not giving it out free online with the subscription subsidy. They are getting subscriptions AND ads for both OTA and online. They're winning in that sense.
I don't watch Game of Thrones and have no gun in that fight. All the rest of the shows I have any interest in watching from cable networks are available after a set period of days and I'm fine with that. Tivo HD with lifetime subscription in 2007 was one of the best purchases I could have made to eliminate an unnecessary luxury bill, but still simply watch shows I may show an interest in.
If the cable companies or satellite companies offered service without commercials (and a la carte) I'd sign back up in a heartbeat.
I'm not paying for commercials ever again. Seriously.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
BB had incredible content and was not on premium cable but on standard cable and free to view online through AMC website. This should be the new normal. If their content is not even half as good as BB then why even pay at all. Just saying.
Most of what I watch is free and legal. In theory, it is advertiser supported, since there are commercials if I watch shows in the evening. Yet if I watch late at night, I rarely even see a commercial.
In my mind, that doesn't make sense. Advertising is a way to generate revenue, so forgoing advertising late at night seems like a lost opportunity. It is not as though advertising is inherently bad either. I am perfectly fine with advertising in moderation (i.e. less than half of what is on broadcast TV) and if it reflects the content rather than the consumer (i.e. I don't like tracking). To the unnamed broadcaster who is streaming the unnamed shows to me: you are welcome to generate some revenue from my viewing habits. Be reasonable about it so that you don't alienate me in the same way that over the air broadcast TV or cable TV channels have alienated me, but I do respect your right to earn money for the services rendered.
I do pay for one fee based streaming service. Their model doesn't make sense either. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the opportunity to watch series and movies for a flat fee. I appreciate the ability to do so regardless of how much I watch. Most of all, I appreciate that I can do so without advertising. Yet all of that appreciation reflects lost opportunities for the service provider. Now that doesn't mean that I'm willing to hand over huge globs of money and put up with copious amounts of advertising. That is what drove me away from broadcast and cable TV in the first place. But I do respect your right to earn reasonable amounts of money for the services provided.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want to be gouged. When it comes to television, I have demonstrated that. I have never subscribed to cable or satellite TV. I don't want to be abused either. Again, I have demonstrated that since I have rarely watched over-the-air broadcasts. Yet there is a world of difference between not wanting to be gouged and not wanting to have one's time wasted (via advertising) and being willing to provide reasonable compensation for services provided. I am willing to provide reasonable compensation, according to my definition. I am also willing to go without if it isn't reasonable by my definition. This is TV after all. I can do without it. That's a bit unlike the Internet.
When HBO refuses to sell the GoT matroska files, implying that people who want DRM-free media should pirate instead, the pirates don't call that "subsidy." The word is "stupidity." HTH.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
That is how I am doing it now. I record OTA to my DVR and computer. Internet for the rest.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
What controls the prices of services like Netflix is piracy, not cable TV subscribers. If there was no piracy Netflix would be a lot more expensive and so would be cable TV subscriptions.
How many of the congresscritters in the 105th Congress got primaried for passing the No Electronic Theft Act, Copyright Term Extension Act, or Digital Millennium Copyright Act?
That's called an antenna. Say it with me. "An-TEN-na." It magically sucks network TV signals right out of the air. For everything else, we have Netflix and Hulu. And you don't. Get off my lawn.
With antenna + Netflix + Hulu Plus, you still miss out on Monday Night Football. And without cable, you may end up stuck on slow DSL.
You could try waiting until the series has aired in its entirety, after which point seasons should start entering the DVD bargain bin.
There are millions out there with cable internet and no TV -- and the cable companies do it willingly; I don't think they would do it if it really caused significant price pressure on the TV side of the house.
Anonymous Coward reports that some cable companies charge more for dry Internet than for Internet + TV.
So what do you do when the network's own website confronts you with "Please log in with the username and password provided by your cable or satellite provider"?
My cable ISP, if I ping google I get one of my ISP's servers addresses. If I put that IP into the address bar, I get the google web page. If I put that IP into my phone on the cell network, I still get a google web page. But it's my ISP's server. Am I slow?
I get my cable for free. I have a P-Key, a terminator tool, and a 9/16" 30 inchpound torque wrench. I don't pay a fucking dime for my cable TV.
Get your free Dropbox account with 2 GB Free storage!
Content providers have to pay to get on networks too, since they get all the advertising profits. Not all do, some get paid, but cable companies get more money from companies paying to get onto the network than they have to pay to others. This open letter would make sense if it was completely true, but the ones paying are the people buying the products that get advertised and the ones watching the shows via cable, not the cable companies.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Cable subscription fees don't pay for programming. Advertising pays for programming. Cable subscriptions pay for nothing but cable company overhead. There's a reason that nearly every MTV Networks (incl. Comedy Central et. al.) show is officially and freely streamed online as soon as it airs. More viewers = more advertisement revenue.
I dropped TV services when the digital OTA change took place. I get about 30 programs, although some are duplicate. I couldn't take paying for bringing all that paid programming into my house. Besides the shopping channels, too much is just 1/2 hour commercials. I especially didn't like paying such a huge amount for ESPN, NESN, and YES.
Have you looked at what your internet service includes? All cable/DSL/FIOS/uVerse services include ESPN3, Music Choice and Nick Jr. Boost for "Free!". Nothing is free. You're paying for TV, even if you don't use it.
My Cox 5 Mbps internet only is going up 14% next month to $49. They know they're losing TV and phone customers. There's nothing else available except satellite with low caps. Even if I could get DSL in my area, AT&T stays with a couple dollars of the cable rate. I use an old Ooma, so phone is still free, but I need internet.
Ah but they're "Hi-Def" half hour commercials ;-)
If you have cable internet, you're already paying the SAME folks who bring you your TV. You're not paying the studios, but the ISP/TV content provider. How they get their money doesn't matter to them, as long as they can vacuum it out of your pockets...
If you think modern "push" media has a future, I have bridge to sell you. It still has the advantage only in purely linear storytelling. Move to any newer form of multipath stories (aka "video games"), or any form of on-demand stories (aka "books"), and you can consider the anomaly of the past 50 years of broadcast TV as... Well, as an anomaly.
Or my favorite: interactive fiction (aka Slashdot)
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
So he kinda pissed me off, but I'm really more angry at cable than I am at Wade. The exchange:
Hey Wade,
Just read the article on how I am subsidizing your access to shows. Well done. Just the right amount of snide "I'm smarter than you" rhetoric. You must be really proud of yourself to have "discovered" and taken advantage of streaming video. With an IQ like that, well, you are ALREADY great. Thanks for writing and letting some of it rub off us peons.
Now I'm going to tell you WHY I am subsidizing you. I mean, I have the Internet, obviously. I even have a "network capable" TV with it's own IP address. And my DVD player has a gigabyte USB device on it expressly for watching streaming video. It uses something called OrbCaster. Pretty cool. I'm right on the brink of firing Comcast, so why don't I?
Because, Wade, my Internet connection is limited to T-1 download speeds. That's 1.544Mbps on a DSL connection furnished by Centurylink (The former Quest). And you know what? It's not fast enough to stream much of anything. Even a YouTube video jerks along slowly. But an hour-long TV program? Not a chance, Wade. I'd rather watch the damn commercials than endure the gaps while it is "buffering." Now I've asked for a higher speed. I live in an affluent community which would lap up higher speeds faster than a new model Lexus. I've been on the list quite a long time now. When they "upgrade services" for their DSL lines I'll be the first to know.
I've been waiting about 15 years so far. Before that I tried satellite Internet. Every time it rained, the Internet went out. And I live near Seattle, so you know the Internet was down more than it was up.
I do have an alternative. There is one provider that will give me about 6Mbps for about the same price I am now paying Centurylink. That provider is
Comcast.
See the problem now, Wade? I knew you would. And I don't even watch sports.
His answer:
Thanks for your thoughts about my article. The snide act was intended to get readers riled up; I had hoped it would be recognized as satire. I wasn't trying to tell 100 million cable subscribers that they're stupid. I was trying to rile them up about being forced to overpay.
That said, quite a few readers have been reading the piece as a direct insult, so it sounds like I didn't strike the tone I'd wanted.
I totally understand that there are lots of people in your situation who don't have the broadband speeds needed to make extensive Internet video viewing practical, and I'm all in favor of policies to improve broadband delivery around the country. But given that the article was a bit of a comedy sketch, my feeling as I was writing was that it would have weakened the effect if I'd insert a bunch of caveats like that.
Anyway, thanks, and I totally get your point that the alternative to cable that I was suggesting is only available to people lucky enough to have fast broadband.
Wade
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
"What are you going to do when the TV providers 'win' and you will have to verify subscription to a pay-service before you can stream anything?"
Hulu has already started this trend; I'm sure once the technology exists to a "universal" degree; all the other providers will have to fall in line.
Cable TV: one way or another; we're going to get your money; even if you don't subscribe to us.
So what do you do when the network's own website confronts you with "Please log in
They don't.
HBO Go does, and I'm told even some of the basic cable networks do as well.
Why would they?
To encourage people to subscribe to a participating cable or satellite TV provider that pays a royalty per subscriber for the network's bundle of channels.
I'm not sure what his point is. He claims people pay a premium for sports and lush serial dramas, because people wouldn't pay for them if the cable companies didn't provide them... duh. I get cable mainly because I want to watch sports. If they didn't offer sports, I wouldn't be paying for the service.
He claims he gets on demand access to Game of Thrones. Where does he do that legally? They only place I see where you legally get Game of Thrones is the DVDs, not on demand and not cheap.
He also mentions the money goes straight to the studios and networks. And then talks about how the cable companies charge high fees for some stuff so they can bundle other stuff. So not all of the money goes straight to the studios.
Everyone has been paying exhorbitant fees $$$$$$$$ to subsidize those who watch sports.
Cable TV would be much more economical if we us nerds didn't have to pay for sports.
I started with cable internet at $40 a month. They went to raise it to like $68. Just for internet. Comcast started charging a $18 fee for not have cable TV, granted the basic cable was $21/month.
It got to the point where for another $20 on a promotion I got cable TV+HBO (for Game of Thrones).
Seriously, I don't even get BBC. Since Doctor Who went big, they moved that up to the upper echelons of plans. I want 5 channels. That's about it.