Slashdot Mirror
Streaming TV is Beginning To Look a Lot Like Cable (theverge.com)
The advent of streaming TV services and over the top devices that support them has come at a cost. They used to work on a simple, unwritten principle: being different from normal cable services. You didn't have to pay for large, non-configurable bundles of channels that played shows in linear fashion and required you to use a digital video recorder built into the box (often for an extra fee) if you wanted to create your own collection of programming to watch on your own schedule. But that's not the case anymore, argues veteran technology columnist Walt Mossberg. He writes: The general idea is that each of these TV services will appeal to cord-cutters and cord-nevers who merely consider old-style cable and satellite TV too costly. To overcome that, each offers what are called "skinny bundles" of channels, with fewer choices, at various prices. On Sling, for instance, you start at about 30 channels for $20 a month. On DirecTV Now, it's 60 channels for $35 a month. Both offer other, costlier plans, with more channels, or add-on plans for HBO, or for specialized programming such as sports, or kids' shows. Both are working on DVR offerings. In other words, while the bundles may be cheaper and skinnier, they're still bundles, not unlike the tiers of programming offered by traditional cable and satellite services. And you can't assemble your own custom bundle. Also, unlike in the Netflix / Hulu model, the emphasis here is on networks, not shows.
Streaming from the Dark Corners of the Web is also looking a lot like my new TV service.
Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
It's cable all over again. So, people who don't want cable won't buy it. End of story.
We don't want "channels" any more. We don't want to watch some program on your schedule. We want to stream specific things when we want to stream them. This is why netflix is cleaning house - it's on demand and doesn't force anyone to conform to their schedule.
Cord cutting is a revolt against three things - unreasonable cost, fixed schedules, and commercials.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
If I can't pick the show I want to watch and watch it when I want, then it's just cable with another name.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
It's the content providers, not the content deliverers, that push the fat bundles. Try licensing ABC broadcast network without also licensing the expensive ESPN. So long as the content providers are able to hold the content deliverers hostage via forced bundling, the fat bundles situation won't change
You still need an ISP to provide the internet connection so you can stream...
That and they don't want net neutrality so they can charge/deprioritize various providers to their hearts content. It'll be great when those Comcast customers get NBC at 1080p, but Netflix at 480i.
Yes, and the same company that had a monopoly on cable TV are also the same companies that have the monopoly on broadband ISP.
When I first cancelled my cable TV subscription, I was paying so much less overnight. The problem is, as other people have followed suit and "cut the chord" TWC has started charging more for internet service to make up for losing TV subscribers.
Now I'm paying the same amount for Internet that I used to pay for cable TV and internet... and then I have Netflix on top of that.
As long as cable companies are allowed to run local monopolies, they're going to get you one way or another. My cable company just happens to be the only broadband capable of streaming TV in my area. Unless Google decides to move into town, I'm screwed paying high prices if I want to watch anything other than over-the-air shows.
Allowing cable company monopolies was one of the most anti-consumer things the government did in regards to entertainment.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I'll never, ever pay to watch commercials.
If you must have commercials in your content, make it free to stream.
If you must ask me to pay for your content, don't put commercials in it.
This is non-negotiable. I will do without rather than pay for commercials.
As long as cable companies are allowed to run local monopolies, they're going to get you one way or another.
Here's how you solve this problem. Get together a billion dollars or so, go through the franchise process for some large city, pour a billion dollars or so into building infrastructure, and then find out that you are in a naturally limited market and are now fighting with the incumbent for the fixed subscriber base.
Cable companies are not "allowed" to be a monopoly. The ability of a government to grant exclusive franchises to cable systems went away a long time ago. They are a monopoly because nobody is stupid enough to dump a buttload of money into a new franchise just to lose it all.
Allowing cable company monopolies was one of the most anti-consumer things the government did in regards to entertainment.
Allowing exclusive franchises gave the LOCAL GOVERNMENT the ability to attract cable companies that would otherwise not bother competing in a market. There are places that don't have cable simply because even with an exclusive franchise there weren't enough potential subscribers to make it profitable. Imagine how many more places wouldn't have cable if two or more companies tried competing, couldn't survive, and went bankrupt? If you want to blame "the government" for cable monopolies, it is the local governments that are to blame -- the ones closest to the people who elected them.
But exclusive franchises have been illegal for a very long time now. The federal government took that ability away from the local governments, and any exclusive franchises have long ago expired.