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.

Comments

Streaming from the Dark Corners of the Web

[thechemic]

Streaming from the Dark Corners of the Web is also looking a lot like my new TV service.

Re:Streaming from the Dark Corners of the Web

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly I've been really disappointed at just how much 'streaming' shows is just like 'normal' television. Netflix and HBO Now both let me watch what I want when I want, sadly I can't get that with most of the other streaming services.

I really just want to watch what I want on my schedule. I don't care about other people's schedules or how 'magical' some evenings are. I want to sit and watch as many episodes of a series as I choose to on a night that I'm doing TV.

So don't buy it

[Anonymous Coward]

It's cable all over again. So, people who don't want cable won't buy it. End of story.

Re:So don't buy it

[MightyMartian]

Exactly. Services like Netflix suit me just fine. I don't watch sports, have little interest in most network TV offerings, so cable, in whatever form they try to deliver it, simply is of no interest to me.

Re:So don't buy it

[NatasRevol]

And sports (huge, huge interest from population) are starting to get it.

NHL - $150 for year of streaming all games
MLB - $110 for year of streaming all games
NBA - $170 for year of streaming all games (but requires other provider)
NFL - $250 for year of streaming all games (but requires DirectTV subscription for now)

Re:So don't buy it

[slinches]

Those are great options as long as you don't want to watch your local team's games live, which happens to be the only reason I would want such a service.

Until they quit blacking out local sports, those services are useless to me.

Not to mention...

[MitchDev]

You still need an ISP to provide the internet connection so you can stream...

Re:Not to mention...

[ausekilis]

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.

Re:Not to mention...

[Oswald McWeany]

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.

Re:Not to mention...

[Obfuscant]

Ridiculous. We've see this with Google Fiber.

Google Fiber is an internet service, not a cable TV service.

Anyplace they managed to build out the price of the monopoly internet magically dropped by half. So the monopolies are fighting tooth and nail to prevent Google from competing.

Of course they are, and of course prices drop when there is direct competition of similar services. That doesn't prove that the cable TV company has a government-granted monopoly.

If it were really such a bad deal they'd welcome upstarts and watch as they fail on their own.

You really don't understand the economics of the system, do you? Google has a billion dollars to dump into building infrastructure. When they get a subscriber, it is almost always going to be an ex-cable customer. That means that the cable system loses revenue. When the incumbent is forced to drop prices to compete, they lose even more money. It could turn out that the incumbent actually loses money on their operation.

So of COURSE cable companies are fighting Google Fiber, because they know that they will lose money when Google takes subs from them. They can't wait for Google to go bankrupt because Google has the money for the long battle. It isn't a given that it will be Google that goes bankrupt. But it is enough of a long shot that it keeps Fred from creating his own cable company, because Fred can't afford the money to compete.

The solution is simple: force the ISPs to divest everything except the "pipes" then force them to sell access to whoever wants to purchase.

Unfortunately, you have to have internet service to use those pipes to get to an alternative ISP. it's part of the pipe system. It's not like electricity where every electron is the same and when you buy from an alternative energy company you are just counting how many electrons you use and they are getting paid for putting electrons on the wire; internet service "electrons" are specific to the source and destination. If there is no internet service to start with, then the concept of routing and gateways goes away.

Just like they did in the old days with long distance voice phone.

Long distance phone requires you to have local phone service before you can get access to the LD carrier of your choice. The "pipe" to your house is still bound to your local phone company, it's just the LD side that goes a different way. If this is your analogy, then I will point out that you can get Comcast internet on the Comcast pipe and then pay for access to internet services from other companies. That's exactly like getting CenturyLink local phone service and then paying another long distance company for LD calls.

Unlike the Netflix/Hulu model?

[93 Escort Wagon]

Has the author not noticed that Netflix, with its strong move away from third party content and towards its own self-produced stuff, is basically turning itself into another network?

Hulu was created by the old-school networks as well... although, surprisingly, it's probably the least "network like" of all the major services.

Perhaps the author should've said "unlike the Crunchyroll model"?

Article misses the point

[kuzb]

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.

Re:Article misses the point

[AmiMoJo]

The other major improvement with Netflix is that you can subscribe for a month. No 12 month minimum contracts with set-up fees. When they run out of content you want, you can cancel immediately and without penalty, and start up again when they release some new stuff.

View on Demand

[Macdude]

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.

Misleading Article, Basically Lies

[Thruen]

This article focuses entirely on Sling and Direct TV, neither of which was ever intended to be like Netflix. Those services are both designed to function like a regular cable service, just over the internet instead of a dedicated cable line or satellite dish. Streaming services that aren't trying to be like cable are still nothing like cable.

Clickbait maybe? I don't know. Just a bullshit non-story that shouldn't be on the front page.

Re:Misleading Article, Basically Lies

[Rakarra]

I don't want to subscribe to a damned streaming service. I don't want to subscribe to Amazon Prime. I don't want to subscribe to Netflix. I don't want to subscribe to HBO. I want to subscribe to specific shows. Everyone has always been interested in shows, not channels, not networks. If I want to watch Game of Thrones, Orange is the New Black, and Mozart in the Jungle, I have to pay expensive monthly subscriptions to HBO, Amazon, and Netflix. Just for those three shows. Or I can pirate.

This has always been a "networks vs consumers" thing -- because the network controls the show, they force a bundling that the customer does NOT want. Maybe the article was off on its Sling comparisons (Sling is not what most people think of with "internet show streaming"), but TV streaming really does look like cable: you subscribe to get a ton of content that you don't want, just so you can get the small amount of content you do.

It's the content providers

[QuietLagoon]

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

Re:It's the content providers

[nateman1352]

The reason why is because The Walt Disney Company owns both ABC and ESPN. So they force you to buy all the channels they own, or none. Nothing in between. Disney isn't the only one that does that of course, every company that owns multiple networks does. The only way that will change is if the US Government forces them to offer a la carte. The government would also have to force them to not set pricing such that the a la carte cost for 1 channel is the same as the cost of the bundle (maybe a legally mandated 10% max bundle discount or something.)

Netflix sort of has the right model... almost

[sjbe]

This is why netflix is cleaning house - it's on demand and doesn't force anyone to conform to their schedule.

Except that they don't offer much than I'm interested in watching. I've been a subscriber twice and dropped the service twice. I very much like what they offer in principle - ala carte all you can eat programming on my schedule. That's great. But the problem is that they don't have much that I actually want to watch. Their movie catalog was mostly old or B movies that I wasn't interested in. Few recent releases or stuff that I hadn't already seen. I don't care at all about their original programming though that's not a commentary on its quality - just doesn't suit my tastes. And navigating Netflix to find anything worth watching was a painful experience. I'd spend upwards of an hour looking through a crappy interface and end up finding nothing I wanted to watch.

I'm not interested in Sling because they don't offer DVR features worthy of bothering and it's not truly ala carte with the channel selection. I'm not going to waste my time sitting through a bunch of commercials so if I cannot skip them or fast forward through them I'm just not going to watch.

Youtube has come closest with the commercials in a manner that is almost acceptable. I might sit through a 5 second commercial but nothing longer and only one. Honestly if you cannot tell me about your product in 5 seconds you need to work on your pitch. I'm not going to sit through anything longer. It's just not worth it.

I have little interest in subscribing to a bunch of different streaming services. First one to get it right gets my money.

Re:TV is for boring people.

[Anonymous Coward]

In my little world, "cord cutting" isn't about finding a different delivery method, it is about not watching.

After working full time, my free time is rare and precious, with an overwhelming set of options competing for that time. Watching TV is seriously scraping the bottom of the barrel. A way of sleeping while still awake.

None of my friends are fans of TV either. And, though it is a completely unfair generalization based on a heavily biased and microscopic sample size, the people I do know who watch TV are all a bit shallow.

Sorry for being an elitist prick, but, I have exercises to do, knowledge to gain, skills to master, challenges to overcome, people to interact with....you know...stuff...

I can't believe you're wasting time on Slashdot instead of climbing Mount Everest, or solving world hunger. People I know that post online instead of creating Michelin Star restaurants that use only ingredients found in other people's dumpsters, are all a bit shallow. Perhaps you should spend less time online, and try setting some goal, maybe swim the atlantic, or dive into an active volcano. Doesn't your lawn need cutting? With Scissors to make it perfect instead of cheating with a lawn mower?

Room for both models?

[TheFakeTimCook]

I think there is room for both "packages" and ala carte shows.

Most people still grew up with a TV that had a big round dial, or at least a remote with a "channel" keypad, and a group of shows associated with that "channel".

Those people seem somewhat alienated and lost having to search for programs by name, and the cutesy "wall of VCR boxes" - type results interface is a VERY inefficient way to present a simple results list. Think of how hideous and utterly useless Google would be if it showed the Home Page of each of the websites returned in a Query?

And if you live in a home with a person utterly incapable of typing, like I do, having to search by typing is RIGHT-out. And even with something like AppleTV, which has the Siri Remote, there doesn't seem to be enough crossover content between cable TV content and NetFlix/Hulu content to really be a viable replacement for cable, but it is slowly getting better.

And, although we all hate commercials, one of the GOOD things about cable (and OTA TV) "channels" is that there are "promos" for upcoming shows. And quite frankly, that is one of the major ways most people learn about content that might be interesting. The "wall of VCR boxes" approach is simply abysmal for that, too. The streaming aggregators haven't figured that one out, and a "teasers channel" doesn't work either; because who wants to sit an watch trailer after trailer, promo after promo?

But, the person who figures out how to make streaming services "feel" MORE like TV channels has a fortune with their name on it, just waiting for them!

It's the commercials

[JoeWalsh]

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.

It's all a scam

[whoozwah]

all of it. cable, satellite, streaming. It's all a scam intended to numb your brain, confuse, control and separate you from the only little bit of power you have...your money.

So let them die.

[JustNiz]

The can keep trying different ways to fleece us, but any cable or cable-like companies that still stubbornly refuse to get a clue that the internet has already blown their entire monopoly-based business model away will simply have to accept going bankrupt.

2017: Still falling for the 'streaming media' meme

[Rick Schumann]

Okay, I'm being very flippant about it, but I stopped using cable TV about 10 years ago, started using an antenna for broadcast stations, and never looked back once. My DVR always has more sitting on it than I have time to watch. Some shows pile up, and I'll watch those during the 'dry spell' times of the year when things are in reruns anyway. I know my situation isn't available to everyone (I can have an antenna, and I can get every major network plus a range of 2nd-tier ones), but I still say if you can use an antenna effectively to get shows for free, then by all means do it.