Slashdot Mirror


Columnist Mocks The Case Against Cord-Cutting As 'Too Many Choices' (techhive.com)

An anonymous reader quote TechHive: The cord-cutting naysayers are trotting out a new argument in favor of cable, and it's even more absurd than the old ones: Having too many high-quality, standalone streaming services, they say, is actually bad for consumers, who are apparently helpless at using technology or making sound purchase decisions... The New York Post's Johnny Oleksinski concluded that all those sneering hipsters who've had the nerve to ditch cable are about to get their comeuppance -- in the form of additional services to choose from... By now, anyone who's actually cut the cable cord should be screaming out in unison: No one's making you subscribe to all these services! You can pick the ones you care about most, rotate between services, or occupy your screen time with a growing number of other digital distractions...

I will concede that if you want to use multiple streaming services, trying to sift through them all can be confusing. But even this concern is blown entirely out of proportion by naysaying pundits, who seem to ignore solutions that already exist. Roku, Amazon Fire TV, and Apple TV all offer universal search across services like Netflix and Hulu, while features like Roku Feed and the Apple TV TV app demonstrate how system-wide browsing is getting easier. Besides, using a handful of apps to get what you want isn't that burdensome -- especially for the growing audience of people who've been raised on smartphones... consumers are smarter than they're getting credit for. That's why cable subscriptions continue to plunge, even as these bogus stories keep popping up like clockwork.

25 of 314 comments (clear)

  1. 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's 2017 and those are 90's arguments.

    1. Re:2017 by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One guy makes a point that you might not save a lot of money by cord cutting and buying into several streaming services. Then we get a spate of reactionary articles that take some kind of offense like he's out to stop cord cutting. Guess there's not much better to do on a Sunday.

    2. Re:2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be fair here, it is going to be problematic when everyone wants to have their own paid streaming service. Instead of being able to watch everything on a few services, like Netflix or Amazon Prime, it is looking like everyone wants their own specific streaming site, sometimes paid with ads, and is pulling their content to put it on their own service. The issue is not that 'people are confused' so much as people are annoyed, and that everyone wants their own piece of the pie to the point where the ideal situation of having what you want on demand is going to be quite costly when you effectively have to pay for every 'channel' separately.

      This isn't an argument for cable (which is technologically obsolete and will inevitably go the way of the radio drama), so much as it is one against overly fracturing streaming services. I already pay for Netflix and Prime quite happily, and I'm not inclined to pay for a dozen more things, except maybe for a biennial one month subscription to binge watch several shows and then cancel. That seems to be what Disney ect. want, so rather than a constant revenue stream, that's what they'll get. Well, that and some piracy.

    3. Re:2017 by sycodon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just wondering who asked this guy anyway?

      Seems like an opinion in search of an issue.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    4. Re:2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      you might not save a lot of money by cord cutting and buying into several streaming services.

      And this right here is why I'm staying with piracy. The cable companies force me to buy bundles of crap channels just so I can get the three or four I actually watch. And now streaming services want me to subscribe to all or nothing, and I need to subscribe to three competing services to get those three or four channels I watch. And if I want to watch a sports game, I basically need to buy another Ferrari for one of the players....

    5. Re:2017 by Vermonter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The columnist misses the point. No one is complaining that $99.99/month for 700 channels they want isn't a good deal, people are complaining that they are paying $99.99/month for the 3 or 4 channels they want, and they get 696 channels thrown in that they don't want. The problem for most people is not the value of the channels (although that certainly is it's own debate), the problem is you have to buy all this stuff you don't want just to get the little you do want.

      How would you feel if you only had one place you could go to for ice cream, and even though you only want one scoop of vanilla and one scoop of chocolate, you are forced to buy one scoop of ever flavor and pay $50? That business model wouldn't work, even if it were a monopoly, because people realize they don't need ice cream *that* badly. And people are starting to realize they don't need TV *that* badly, either, especially since their need for video content is being more and more fulfilled by the internet.

    6. Re:2017 by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lots of reasons. Netflix and Hulu let you watch what you want, when you want. HBO is scheduled viewing but they have an on demand service now as well. But the biggest draw (for me) is that the shows are not interrupted by ads. After a couple of years of netflix, HBO (and sure: the Pirate Bay as well), I found cable TV to be unbearable to watch, what with the ridiculous amount of advertising.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    7. Re:2017 by jandrese · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We are talking about $80-$100 a month for cable service here once you include all of the taxes and fees and mandatory rentals. It takes a TON of streaming subscriptions to hit a number like that. Honestly, an OTA antenna, Netflix, and Amazon Prime (which you probably already have) will cover 90% of your requirements easily. Maybe add Hulu if there's something on there you want to watch. You're still somewhere around 1/3 the price of cable, and unlike cable your shows don't have ads (except on the antenna and maybe on Hulu).

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  2. helpless at making sound purchase decisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They're not wrong about that part. The REASON monopolies that fail us exist? We allow it. We pay them to. Consumerism as we know it marches us into bondage.

    "who are apparently helpless at using technology or making sound purchase decisions"

    1. Re:helpless at making sound purchase decisions by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think its just that sometimes change due to market forces is pretty slow. In the case of cable television, change away from them is slow because the cable market has never really been free. The market has to route around government intervention itself in this case, and its still a long road ahead.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:helpless at making sound purchase decisions by Rockoon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ++

      The cord cutting black market (pirating) is the best experience of them all which is evidence that government is at the core of the problem.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  3. Fragmentation by renegadesx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The fragmentation of services like HBO and the new Disney service will lead to a case against cord cutting, but the same can be said for piracy. A legit case against cord cutting is also a case that can be made for piracy.
    You would have thought they learned their lesson.

    --
    Make SELinux enforcing again!
    1. Re:Fragmentation by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Piracy is the better experience precisely because of the artificial monopolies granted. It isnt just the local cable company artificial monopolies (franchise agreements) granted by government, but also the content owner artificial monopolies (perpetual copyright) that have also been granted by government.

      Everything produced before 2003 would now be public domain under the original copyright law in America. These new proposed streaming services like Disney's would have no teeth under 14 year copyrights.

      As far as I can tell the teeth Disney currently has is based on Star Wars and Marvel properties, yet a lot of that should already be public domain. For Star Wars, only episode 3, episode 7, and that silly tweener movie would still be copyrighted. For Marvel several of the X-Man movies, Spiderman, and other assorted would already be public domain.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  4. Or... by scdeimos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... you could, you know, just go outside and have a life away from screens.

    1. Re:Or... by Known+Nutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I waited until the last season before I accidentally caught an episode of Breaking Bad in a hotel room one night. When I returned home, I started watching it on Netflix. Ultimately, I waited years before I started watching the show and life has gotten on pretty well despite this atrocity.

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
  5. Easy by jabberw0k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Age 51, computer geek since 1977. My dad began with RCA in 1947 installing television sets. We never had cable or satellite, the concept of paying for television being bonkers, so what's there to miss? Movies and CDs I can check out from the library. Seriously, paying for television?

    1. Re:Easy by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know about your library, but it takes an insane amount of time to check anything useful out from mine, and if they have a popular show the wait for it is months. Some people are happy with old shows, I guess that's fine, but there are shows that are on today that I want to watch. It's not like it's the only thing I can talk about socially, but it's nice to see a show before you hear someone talking about it or read spoilers in an article.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  6. what if you cut the cable... by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...because you were tired of spending your limited time on earth staring at a TV? Because besides being $160/month richer, you also have a lot more time to actually do stuff and learn things and talk to people and take your dog for a walk?

    Too many choices? If you say so. I think people can handle having choices. I personally choose not to participate.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  7. Re:Cord-cutting by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's absolutely a viable option. There is more produced every day than you could ever hope to consume in a lifetime. "Cord cutting" is mainly a matter of getting over your current addiction, and acquiring a new one.

    Whatever it is that you 'want' to watch on cable, there's another option online that will entertain you just as much.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  8. It is, though. by bistromath007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Having too many streaming services isn't "too many choices" it's "too many bills."

  9. No decent programs since decades by jabberw0k · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Other than Jeopardy, Masterpiece Theatre, Nova, and Nature, there hasn't been a show on television I care to watch since Cosby and Frasier. All the new stuff is full of swear words and sex, bleh, not in my living room.

    1. Re:No decent programs since decades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All the new stuff is full of swear words and sex, bleh, not in my living room.

      How do you know?

  10. Re:Cord-cutting by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Also there is a huge logical fallacy in the articles argument, which is that you will subscribe full-time to these services instead of switching every few months.

    When I first used Netflix streaming, I held the plan for about a year. Since then I subscribe for ~2 months per year because I've already exhausted their core catalog. They have some content I am not getting elsewhere, but I dont need a 24/7/365 plan to consume it.

    Amazons non-prime model is pay as you go, while their prime model is tied to more than just streaming video. Disney can do the first and that would be great, but they cant do the second at all. They are going for the Netflix model and that just isnt going to land 24/7/365 business.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  11. Too many channels? Use Netflix DVD by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My own cure for the problem of that interesting show being on the streaming service I don't have is to wait for the end of the season, which means only about 10 episodes these days anyhow, and then view it on Netflix DVD.

    The streaming market is now in that phase after a new tech becomes popular when there are large numbers of brands on the market. It was this way with cars in the 1920s. After the forthcoming big wave of consolidation, it won't be so much of a problem.

  12. Buy Internet, get TV at almost no extra charge by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The key issue people have had with the subscription service we call "cable TV" is their (former) monopoly status.

    "Former"? In many areas, the incumbent cable ISP retains a monopoly on home Internet access with a data transfer quota exceeding 100 GB/mo. This lets the cable ISP dump TV service on its Internet subscribers by pricing a bundle of Internet access and basic TV the same as Internet alone, leaving the subscriber to pay only the local network affiliate retransmission consent royalty and the regional sports royalty. The competing ISPs would charge several times more for the same cap, as they're limited by their satellite or cellular last mile.