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.
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.
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.
HBO just announced a deal with Google Play to make all their series available.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
I don't think so. I think these are the classes
Free Streaming: Hulu, major network sites, etc. Payment: 1 day lag, commercials
Cheap streaming: Premium Hulu, Amazon Prime, Netflix, etc. Payment: 1 low monthly fee.
Purchase: Buy DVD, iTunes, whatever: Payment: less then cable.
People pay for cable for convenience and timeliness. People are not willing to delay viewing. One example is sports. Nobody wants to watch yesterdays’ game, which is why ESPN is one of the most expensive chancels on basic TV. Game of Thrones is another example. I can either pay HBO big bucks now or I delay until the DVD comes out.
Even HBO GO requires a cable subscription ($80 + 15 for hbo), while you can buy episodes ala cart for $3, which is roughly an hours worth of entertainment. So if you watch more than 1 hour of it every single night then it could work out cheaper to subscribe.
Cheap streaming: Premium Hulu, Amazon Prime, Netflix, etc. Payment: 1 low monthly fee.
Except that last I heard, Premium Hulu still has commercials. For your payment you just get an expanded library of commercial-laden content. I have no idea who pays for that.
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 $10 / month.
I use my xbox for comcast video on demand service which thanks to a recent update now provides an HD option. So to me comcast on demand is just another streaming service for the the channels I pay for (boradcast+cspan) as well as the channels I don't (almost all the basic cable ones like BBCA and comedy central) as well as HD quality which I also didn't sign up for/pay for.
So I guess I'm the one really being subsidized.
"UNIX is very simple, it just needs a genius to understand its simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie
People are not willing to delay viewing.
Some people aren't, so they pay the premium. The producers of the content know that they want it so bad they can charge huge margins.
Over here, we only watch a few shows, but some of them are delayed a year on Netflix. They're just as enjoyable.
When I did have pay-tv service, I used to watch NFL Primetime - all the games of the week condensed into a half hour, which contained most of the plays that actually went anywhere. I don't watch it anymore, since we just have Netflix now - it was interesting, but I don't really miss it much.
I'm much happier to use the delta in cash for RL activities.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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?
So if you watch more than 1 hour of it every single night then it could work out cheaper to subscribe.
Does HBO even have an hour of watchable programming every night? Sure, there are certain nights of the week that there's a good program on, but I would only be watching maybe two shows that HBO produces, meaning 2 hours a week.
My own opinion is that cable subscribers shouldn't be paying for the shows through their cable either. They should be paying the cable company for distribution of content. Seperately, the content should be paid for either by the consumer, advertising, something else or some combination. If they were more separated they might focus on making money with better distribution and better content rather than locking the two together.
My ISP is the cable company.
At first, we just signed up for internet. The initial rate was $30/month. After a year, the cable company double it to $60. After another year, they sent notice that it would go up to $90. We called them to downgrade to the next lower tier. The customer service rep said if we bundled TV service, we'd only pay $80 and stay at the same internet service tier. After 2 years, that went up to $100 and has stayed there since. We have asked about dropping TV, but they told us they'd then have put us on a business account, which would be $120 per month - and, because of our location, the service would still be residential because our area is only wired for residential service.
I can only guess that they really want to keep their TV subscriber numbers up.
On the other hand, using the TV on demand feature does help us avoid hitting the monthly internet usage cap.
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
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
You allude to satellite in your post (Ie. the 2 year contract bit)
Nope, it's not just the satellite folks anymore. The cable companies have caught on.
A coworker nearly had to hire a lawyer a few months ago to get out of his cable contract after they dramatically changed the ToS on his Internet service.
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.
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.
I have internet cable, but no cable TV. It's not that hard. You're right that I "miss out" on Monday Night Football, but I also "missed out" on the Spanish Inquisition, and I miss both of those things approximately equally.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.