Slashdot Mirror
Cable Companies Hate Cord-Cutting, but It's Not Going Away (Video)
On May 29, Steven J. Vaughan Nichols (known far and wide as SJVN) wrote an article for ZDNet headlined, Now more than ever, the Internet belongs to cord-cutters. A few days before that, he wrote another one headlined, Mary Meeker's Internet report: User growth slowing, but disruption full speed ahead. And last December he wrote one titled, Reports show it's becoming a cord cutter's world. SJVN obviously sees a trend here. So do a lot of other people, including cable TV and local TV executives who are biting their nails and asking themselves, "Whatever shall we do?" So far, says SJVN, the answers they've come up with are not encouraging.
NOTE from Roblimo: We're trying something different with this video, namely keeping it down to about 4 minutes but running a text transcript that covers our 20+ minute conversation with SJVN. Is this is a good idea? Please let us know.
NOTE from Roblimo: We're trying something different with this video, namely keeping it down to about 4 minutes but running a text transcript that covers our 20+ minute conversation with SJVN. Is this is a good idea? Please let us know.
Give me the transcript or just audio. The videos are mainly 2 people with headphones on talking to each other via the computer. And the person asking the questions seems like they are reading the questions for the first time.
but running a text transcript that covers our 20+ minute conversation with SJVN. Is this is a good idea? Please let us know.
YES, thank you!
I can read all the transcripts I want at work, but unless the video starts with the Microsoft theme song and immediately proceeds to Mark Russanovich telling me how to make Windows its bitch, I'll pretty much never look at anything requiring sound.
They thought cable guaranteed them an income without them having to provide any additional value, or even any value.
They are slowly - very slowly - beginning to get a dim idea that that might no longer be the case.
I do not feel sorry for them. I will continue to boycott them no matter how much they may pretend to change.
I used to pay Comcast $39.95 a month for Internet and TV service bundled for basic TV, which I barely used. So, I dropped the TV service which saved me all of $5.00. When I moved to New Jersey, Optimum Online now charges me $54.95 a month for Internet only. Thinks $119.95 for "Triple Play" is a bargain (I already get a year of Skype for $60 which works out to $5.00 a month), and I could get Netflix or Amazon Plus for much less for the differential between $59.95 and $119.95. If they don't want people to cut the cords. LOWER PRICES! This is marketing 101. It's obvious that people are cutting the cord because we can get a lot of the same content cheaper over the air with an antenna, over the internet, or by some other method without paying such high prices. Cable companies have to make money by VOLUME, not by trying to squeeze every penny from a dwindling number of subscribers. You charge LESS to MORE users, not MORE to LES and LESS users. What business school did these geniuses go to? They used to offer me triple play at $89.95 a month. You mean to tell me rhat yers later, with more users to spread the costs out over, you need to charge $119.95 a month to keep doors open?
Video interviews are a pain in the keyster to watch. The more you can do to get rid of them, the better. Videos should only be used when you actually need to show the audience something visual. Watching a web cam pointed at someone's face for 20 minutes adds absolutely zero value whatsoever to the story. And cutting it down to 4 minutes doesn't necessarily add much value if I have to go and read the transcript anyway. If I have to read the transcript anyway, the video serves no purpose.
Trouble is, transcripts of interviews aren't much better anyway. Reading an interview is a painful process. It wastes too much time because I have to sift through a bunch of conversation to glean the useful information out of the transcript. And far too often the signal to noise ratio in an interview isn't very high. I much prefer articles where a journalist takes the useful information out of the interview and presents it in a clear and concise article about the topic.
So yeah, the more you can get rid of interviews on video, transcripts of conversation, etc. and replace them with well written articles, the better.
Been without TV for more than a decade now and have zero regrets. More time to waste on things that are actually fun. TV has gotten so bad, the only thing it does for me is getting my blood-pressure up on the rare occasions I am exposed to it.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Cables companies will primarily become internet providers and satellite companies will provide programming to the peeps in the boonies. Personally, I say "freaking awesome". Both industries treated their customers like crap for decades. Reap what you've sown you jackasses.
If you hated the old regime what till you see the new one. The new battle ground will be usage caps. Cable companies will start offering tiers of data. Want to stream video 24x7. No problem, just buy our gazzilion GB package at $200 per month. Oh, you want fast speeds? Upgrade to Speed plus for a $20 more. They will simply change the pricing to make money off of the pipe, not the content.
Content companies need to buy into the new model as well. The really small channels very few people watch such as SciFi or F/X will see their revenue drop significantly and some will simply go under. The big guys, such as ESPN that gets something like $6 per subscriber will not want to have to try to get their current revenue from the people who actually watch the channel(s). More than likely, when all is said in done you'll see a variety of companies that bundle packages of channels and sell them as a bundle, such as SlingTV. Apple seems to be getting into the business as well and for premium content sellers such as HBO selling al la carte may be more viable because that is what they already do so it's more of a way to get more revenue by tapping into cord cutter stain changing a business model. As for the bundlers, that sound a a lot like, wait., a Cable Company. Except now they will compete with companies like SlingTV while still controlling the pipe and its pricing.
Until Google or someone else offers an alternative pipe they have you where they want you and the hearts, minds, wallets will soon follow.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
For me, "cord cutter" still means people who drop all PSTN phone service and just use cell phones as their only number.
I'm in Canada and I've been moving away from cable. I've managed to get the wife down to basic cable. We still have Internet from our cable provider though.
Here's the thing though. The price of our internet has gone up. Even with Netflix, our Internet usage is barely 100 GB / month.
It's almost like they want their $130-$150 a month for cable/internet/phone. It almost doesn't matter if you from one, they'll just jack up the rates of the other eventually.
Such is the power of monopoly.
Cut cords all you want. As soon as it starts effecting their bottom line they'll just raise the isp rates to compensate. I can't believe this isn't more obvious to people.
I read somewhere not long ago that the big networks negotiated high per-subscriber charges in the early days of cable that are still in effect, long after the networks have lost relevance. I don't know if that includes ESPN. (Probably not.) Point is, what the cable companies pay the networks may not be an accurate representation of actual viewership, as many of those contracts were negotiated long ago and are still in effect. (Or so I'm told.) I can actually see a situation where a cable/ISP might be glad to dump the cable business and its unprofitable legacy contracts, and look for new, more stable revenue sources.
Side note, the Comcast salescreature that comes by once a month insists that Frontier (which we have) is "getting out of the cable business -- your cable is GOING TO GO AWAY" (like this is a huge tragedy). Fact is, we haven't had cable TV for many years. With fiber to the house, and the content available over the internet, it's just not necessary. (Except for sports, which is why I still have an old-fashioned antenna.) Side-side note, I wonder if this is why ISPs are resisting with all their might the laying of fiber in metropolitan areas -- that maybe when people get reasonable internet speeds, they'll realize they no longer need cable TV?
On streaming -- yes, it's inefficient and wasteful and will probably cost a lot at some point. But we have a mature tool to solve this, if only the content creators could figure out how to work it into their business model -- torrenting, and (at least temporary) local storage. (Side note: Local storage has never been cheaper.) People have had years of experience (since the advent of the VCR) with the usage model of deciding what you want to watch, programming an appliance, and then watching it at some later time. Torrents are a modern extension of that model.
The pieces are all there. It'll just take a very bright collection of people to turn it into a viable business. And then Comcast will come along and figure out how to make it behave badly... But I digress.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Sports needs to be in it's own HBO like package.
Maybe even Disney channel as well it's cost is about X2 the price of nickelodeon.
As for sports in most EU sat / cable systems / Foxtel / sky (NZ) sports is it's own add on pack.
canadian systems have pick and pay tv soon (and some older plans have theme packs where you don't have to take sports I think you can still have them if you keep them on bell sat tv)
canadian systems also let you buy the box / rent to own without the $8-$10 outlet / mirroring fees that we have in the USA.
Cable card flopped hear and systems still hit you with $6-8 outlet fees + cable card rent fees on them as well. BHN even used to bill you to rent the SDV tuner.
The problem is that sports are what most of the people who opt for something other than basic channels want. ESPN knows this and charges a fortune. The high prices aren't all the fault of the cable companies. ESPN has been what's kept even more people from cutting the cord.
Not even close. In my case going from Dish Network to Comcast 105mbs cable internet my bill went from $160 to $65 even with all those add ons.
Robert Murray Wilson, talking about transparent superconductors he's developed.
Chris, from ClickSpring, talking about building a clock.
Myfordboy showing how to cast aluminum at home.
Kevin Karsch et. al. rendering synthetic objects into legacy photographs
It's no great effort to find interesting and informative videos on the net. If you have the time to tape someone talking, you have the time to seek out things that nerds might want to see.
Also, there's really no feedback from the slashdot submission process. If a video doesn't meet your requirements, it's impossible to tell *why* they don't meet them, so that submitters could modify their selection process.
But this is beside the point. I'm not suggesting that you show other peoples' videos, I'm suggesting that *you* use the medium properly when making your own videos.
These same points were made back when Slashdot started video'ing people, to no great effect. Vinegar is needed to catch your attention. You have the perfect opportunity to use "directed practice based on feedback" which would turn you into a world-class videographer in a couple of years.
viz: The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance
Seriously. You have access to high-end feedback you could leverage to improve your technique. You should use it.