Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cable Providers Still Have No Answer For Netflix As Cord-cutting Accelerates (bgr.com)

Posted by timothy on from the tv-networks-is-a-funny-term dept.

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from BGR about the rapidly shifting roles of cable companies and streaming media providers: While cable providers over the past few decades have grown fat off of exorbitant cable packages that overcharge and under-deliver, the rise of streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Video are finally righting the ship and shifting the balance of power towards the consumer. Clearly, the cable industry is in the midst of a transition. Netflix in particular, with its ever-growing stable of original content, has proven to be a particularly painful thorn in the side of cable providers who are increasingly struggling to keep subscribers from cutting the cord. Now comes word via The Wall Street Journal that cord cutting isn't just on the rise, but is accelerating rapidly. Citing data recently compiled by eMarketer, the Journal relays that the number of households with cable 'will fall at an accelerating rate for at least the next four years, reaching a 1.4% decline in 2019, eMarketer estimates.'

8 of 247 comments (clear)

  1. shocker... by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You mean consumers aren't willing to keep paying more for an increasingly ad-laden pool of mostly forgettable reality programming? Wake me up when it's over.

    The only reason I have any relationship at all with the cable company is that they're the only supplier of broadband Internet in my area. If that wasn't the case, I'd drop them tomorrow. Until then, I'll "subscribe" to their lowest tier programming because it would otherwise cost MORE to buy internet service from them.

    1. Re:shocker... by KGIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anything can be termed a civil right today. No, no I'm not entirely sure when the change occurred. I was probably high and missed it. At any rate, if you don't have it and you want it then it is your right - and it should be subsidized by others who have money because, fuck them, they've got money and it belongs to the person who has invented a new civil right.

      Also, property... You don't have a right to that. You don't have a right to the output of your labor. That doesn't belong to you. Just because you came up with an idea doesn't mean you get to own it. It now belongs to everyone. Information wants to be free unless, you know, it's your information and then it is an outrage.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re:shocker... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...Sports especially are one thing keeping people on cable; a huge percentage of Americans watch live sports,...

      30% of the people who receive ESPN watch ESPN.

      .
      Less than 10% of the people who receive YES channel watched 25% or more of the ballgames broadcast on it, and this was during the lead up to the playoffs.

      ESPN is having significant layoffs because of the people cutting the cord and not continuing to pay ESPN, running counter to what you assert. Some say they are cutting the cord because of the ESPN fees.

      I agree that sports are very popular, but sports channels should not be paid for by the people who do not watch them. The high sports salaries are being paid for by high sports channel monthly fees that everyone has to pay because ESPN is part of basic cable.

  2. Re: Try offering service to your entire... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why would they when no one else can compete against them?

  3. They haven't accepted that they're in 2 businesses by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The cable companies won't find a solution until they accept that they're in 2 businesses:

    1. The network provider business, where they supply the basic pipes that connect their customers to the world at large. This business doesn't deal with content except as streams of bits, and it lives or dies by it's ability to handle data to and from anyone anywhere. Users won't buy connectivity from a network provider that can't connect them reliably to whoever they want to connect to.
    2. The content provider business, where they supply content that users view. This business can't care who it's customers buy connectivity from, it has to be able to deliver content to anyone, anywhere. Again, users won't buy from a content provider who can't deliver the content they've bought unless they have no other options (and yes, pirated content is always an option).

    If the cable company limits it's content-provider customers to only it's network-provider customer base, it won't be able to take advantage of the scale of customer base of content providers like Netflix and Amazon. It won't have the customer base size to use as leverage to get licensing terms, and a smaller base means fewer customers to spread costs across and a higher per-capita cost. If they use their position as a network provider to try to force customers to their content, they're going to face even more of the backlash they're already seeing in support for network neutrality and for municipal broadband and other alternatives to their network access monopolies/duopolies. If they lose that monopoly position, they're done for.

    If they had the smarts, they could leverage their positions and their infrastructure into being real powerhouses. But they're too afraid of spending money and too locked into an MBA's focus on next quarter's results to do it, so eventually they're going to be wiped out by a combination of dedicated content providers like Netflix and Amazon and Google plus dedicated network providers operated as either public utilities or as an adjunct to a content provider who considers that aspect of their operation just a necessity for their content distribution and is happy as long as the network part pays for it's own operating costs.

  4. Sure they have an answer by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Data caps. If they lose revenue from cable cutting they will make it up by charging more for internet access. As long a they control the last mile to the user they will be simply change their revenue model. Those that own content as well will price the content to makeup for the shift in how it is delivered. The real losers will be the sparsely watch ed channels that, because eo fetch current revenue distribution model, make mor money than they would if the were priced separately.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  5. Here's your answer by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cable companies, here's your answer:

    1) Charge $1 per channel per month. That's what I'm willing to pay, period.
    2) Let us pick what channel(s) we want. Don't force any "bundling" or packages of shit-channels I'll never watch.
    3) No minimum number of channels. If I want 3 channels, let me have 3. If I want 50, let me have 50.

    Really...is this so hard to grasp? If you can't make money with this model, say "goodbye" and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  6. Re:Cox's Solution: A return to pay as you go prici by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It sounds like you disagree with the business ethics of the company for whom you work, but you are still willing to take payment from them regardless.

    Seems to me you're the problem here.

    I dunno. I think his/her one post above made his employment there a net positive for society.