"The End of TV and the Death of the Cable Bundle"

[RKP5637]

Interesting ...

See >>> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/the-end-of-tv-and-the-death-of-the-cable-bundle/259753/?google_editors_picks=true

"The End of TV and the Death of the Cable Bundle"

Two small pieces of news yesterday could make for a big headache for TV.

First, Viacom yanked its 19 channels -- including Nickelodeon, MTV and Comedy Central -- from DirecTV after the two companies failed to agree on subscriber fees. Second a federal judge cleared the way for Aereo, an exciting new startup that could bring local TV (NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS) to any device you wish, from a smart phone to an actual TV.

Every year, 100 million homes pay for a bundle of cable channels. Like any bundle, it's hard to see exactly what they are paying for. That is somewhat the point of bundling -- to disguise the true cost of the constituent items. If you watch ESPN and 17 other channels regularly for four hours a day, you are probably getting a good deal. And that means that millions of other people are getting a "bad deal" on their cable and are subsidizing your TV experience. For these millions of households -- who don't watch live sports; or only want HBO; or only need their Law & Order, ANTM, and Daily Show fix; etc -- an à la carte option for television would almost certainly be cheaper.

The Aereo story is different. It's not about cable. But it is about distributing broadcast networks online. Once sports fans can get the Olympics and NBA and other shows without a cable package, whenever they want it, it could serve alongside Netflix, Hulu and other services to replace the cable bundle.

The Internet is ruthlessly efficient at stripping cross-subsidies and allowing content to shine on its own. (As Jim Fallows has pointed out, newspapers once paid for international coverage with classifieds and cars. Now, if you want classifieds and cars, you go to a classifieds site or a cars site. Bye-bye, cross-subsidy.) Devices like Aereo combined with cases like Viacom's could be leading to an a la carte model for television. The question isn't really if the Internet's unbundling revolution will visit the television industry but when.

See >>> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/the-end-of-tv-and-the-death-of-the-cable-bundle/259753/?google_editors_picks=true

[phantom power]

1. It has always "amused" me how cable companies package their channels.

They know very damned well which channels are widely popular, and they make sure to put one or two of those in each package, along with 15-20 junk channels.

[RKP5637]

2. Yep, around here they put about 60 channels on basic cable for

about $70/month, something like that, but to get the good ones you need their next package up too which adds about 25 more channels. So, to get a bunch of channels to see about maybe 10 you use, you're up to about it seems $85 maybe $90 or more per month.

I don't know the pricing now for sure, I got rid of it all some months ago and now use digital TV over the air, get about 25 channels, and then use ROKU.com http://roku.com Internet TV for Netflix, HuluPlus and a bunch of stuff which only runs me about $17/month, and much of the other stuff is free.

When I got rid of cable I told the rep. (a really good company, seriously) I wished I could just get the channels I want, she said that's what everyone says. She also said the bundling is really out of their control, they just send out the feeds on the cable.

[JoePhilly]

3. They are making the same mistake that the phone companies made.

They think the "own" the customer.

[RKP5637]

4. Yep, exactly! n/t

[graywarrior]

8. Hey, with ROKU, are the only speakers the one that come from your computer?

[RKP5637]

9. ROKU has no speakers in/with it. It works off a WIFI or LAN line connection

to your router. It then has three outputs, audio (L, R) and video. You can then connect that to your TV, I think some also have a USB output. If you were connecting it to your PC, the only speakers would be your PC speakers. I'm not sure why you would connect ROKU to a PC, maybe there's a reason, can't think of one right now. Generally it drives a TV ...

[graywarrior]

13. Thankie!

[mmonk]

20. Half of our family viewing is on Roku, the other half cable.

I will love it when cable dies.

[wandy]

34. Don't know about ROKU, but..............

I use a PC with a good audio card (M-Audio) to drive the sound system. The Line out of most PC audio cards are compatible with, at least Tape Monitors, Aux In, CD in ect......
To my preamp the PC looks like a tape deck. Full read write, but analog.
Some PC sound cards and newer preamps will have digital/optical connections.
The audio ability of some laptops is rather poor but their are some very good USB connected sound devices. Some 5.1 capable.

[graywarrior]

49. That's good info

I was thinking of Netflix, not ROKU. My error.

[wandy]

54. If Netflix streams video similar to hulu, and you have a handy PC.........

Basic Hulu.com is free and their is tons of stuff out there.
Just looked up the ROKU box and it says it does Netflix and Hulu. Streaming video is streaming video.
Hulu.com might be a good way to get things set up.
Note that you will need a fairly quick DSL connection.
You can try hulu right from the PC you used to enter the post.

[graywarrior]

60. Ohhhhh, I see! Thanks!

[Hepburn]

66. Since I got my Roku...

...I am thinking about cancelling my cable TV subscription. I LOVE Roku and have turned a lot of my neighbors on to it. NO commercials...it's heaven. All of the old TV shows like Murder She Wrote plus some new ones. If you have not watched Monk, try it! My neighbor and I are total Monkophiles!

[yodermon]

69. Monk rocks. I like Psych too.

waiting for daily show/colbert to become available on the streaming services. Until that point it's eztv to watch those.

[xmas74]

79. The Roku box plugs into your television monitor.

I have one and love it.

[onenote]

17. If you read the article, its Viacom that is demanding programming be bundled

not the distributor. DirecTV along with a growing number of cable companies, including some of the larger ones, are pushing back against the programmers like Viacom, Disney, Discovery, etc. that dictate that if a distributor wants to offer its subscribers a popular channel like Nickelodeon, the distributor not only has to purchase another 16 channels that it may not want, but also has to put all of those channels together in a package, effectively forcing those viewers who don't care about certain channels to buy them anyway.

The programmers hold the cards -- if DirecTV holds out and continues not to be able to offer Nickelodeon to its subscribers, some of those subscribers are going to bail out and switch to another source (even if it simply means getting another bundle). So at some point, DirecTV will cave and it will end up having to continue to carry all of the Viacom channels and it will still be limited in how it packages them.

Its a broken system. And the problem is that the Internet isn't going to fix it so long as the programmers are able to demand that Internet distributors pay the same bundled rates and offer the same packages as cable and satellite. And the programmers will do that because every customer that switches to Internet would represent a loss in revenue to the programmer. So it will keep a close lid on how programming is distributed.

[justice1]

68. I don't think it will be long, before you will be able to stream premium stations, no need to bundle

I can already watch a few Cinemax series, from an app on my tv. My other tv has an HBO app, but so far, I can only watch the teasers.

[onenote]

76. It will only happen if the content owners let it happen

And they're not going to let it happen unless they are guaranteed to get as much revenue as they get from the current system.

[Egalitarian Thug]

5. One can only hope. TV is the single largest source of American anti-intellectualism

and ignorance. We are what we are (a global psychopathic clown) because we live for and through the TV.

[RKP5637]

10. Yep, the giant sucking sound Ross Perot used to talk about was not only

jobs being sucked out of the country, but also brains by the TV!

[Egalitarian Thug]

45. +1

[kurtzapril4]

48. TV will only make one as stupid

as that person wants it to make them.

You can use TV, or it can use you.

[RKP5637]

51. Yep, that's an excellent net/net of it all, similar to reading books and/or

using the internet, movies, etc.

[Egalitarian Thug]

52. All evidence is against you. There is no beneficial programming on corporate TV,

and public TV has been demolished by our corporate overlords. Sesame Street couldn't get a treatment appointment with NPR today.

It's a tool with great positive potential, but the powers that control it have no interest in anything except conditioning the population to accept the unacceptable.

[Art_from_Ark]

63. Corporate control of TV was the overlying theme of Max Headroom

which is why the corporate fat cats had to cancel it after only 15 episodes.

[Egalitarian Thug]

86. I loved Max Headroom. Channel 26's abuse of their franchise was a

little too close for comfort, especially when Max kept exposing them while foiling their nefarious plans.

[Sterling]

23. Depends on what you watch.

If you sit around watching Jersey Shore you are not learning anything, probably turning your mind and soul to mush. There is some very good educational programing if you want it.

Reading material is very similar in that it's what you choose to fill your mind with, not the media itself.

[Egalitarian Thug]

39. No, I will disagree with that, and I can give you endless examples of so-called

educational programming that is no only not educational, but is purposeful propaganda served up to the ignorant masses as fact for the sole purpose of indoctrination.

Television is the world's most powerful tool of mass social brainwashing yet invented. It's like introducing smoking to chimpanzees, they don't have the conceptual skills to make a decision, they simply consume the product, become addicted, and do as they are told to get the next bump.

If you don't believe me try this easy experiment. Turn off your TV for 6 weeks.

[Sterling]

65. I don't have any problem

With people who don't like TV. I get it. 95% of it is garbage. In terms of brainwashing? History is full of examples of information manipulation well before TV ever showed up. I don't recommend relying on any form of media as the only source of information. I think we would find agreement on the effect of TV on kids. When parents let the TV raise their kids it's really sad. At that age they are so much more vulnerable than an adult who has life experience to draw on to compare what they read, listen to or watch on TV.

I really enjoy history. People like Simon Schama and Eugene Webster have participated in creating extremely informative programing that I treasure. Webster's "Western Tradition" is basically his lecture's at UCLA with added B-roll images. PBS has done a lot to educate people of all ages.

AMC produced a show I mentioned before that was entertainment oriented but was very well written and viewers had to use their brains to absorb. The show was called "Rubicon". I like to laugh and people like Louis C.K., David Cross do work that just bring me a smile.

I have little patience for what has become mainstream programing. Yes I believe shows like American Idol, Jersey Shore and just about everything that seems to be outrageously popular have done their share to dumb down society but, those are not the shows that I personally enjoy and I think that is the nice thing about TV like any other media. You can chose when to not watch something and should be vigilant about what your children watch.

In the end to me it's just another form of information delivery and if used well can inform as well as entertain. If people balance TV with reading, using the net, talking with others and keep things in context TV is another potentially useful tool. There are some very smart people working in that industry like Rachel Maddow for example that work hard to deliver something special to the viewer. It comes down to what we, the viewer chose to do with what is available that is important.

Like I mentioned, I respect people who just don't like it, period and I wish there were more useful, tasteful options but, I am happy that it is there for me to use when I feel like it. I really enjoyed a recent documentary on PBS about 19th century UK history focusing on the Victorian years. I learned a lot about people like Benjamin Disraeli and his contemporaries. It helped me to gain a broader perspective on things I was only slightly familiar with. I found it not to have an agenda other than to inform.

I try to keep an open mind and make use of whatever means of informing myself that I can. There have been many times that right here on this site I have learned so much from thoughtful well informed members. So it is what we make of it when it comes to what and how we apply the lessons to be learned from whatever the source.

Yes there have been many abuses of the media for misinforming the people. Sincerely I am curious what some of your example's are that you write of. I have no doubt the exist, I have my own pet peeves of the same sort. If you care to share some of yours I would enjoy reading. That is the primary reason I spend any time on this site, many of the people here have taught me a lot and what I have learned from people here I apply to my base of knowledge that helps me know when I am being informed or misinformed.

[Egalitarian Thug]

80. Since my TV watching has been limited to when I visit friends & family that

have it on all the time, or when I'm out where it's on in public, I am far from an authority on it. But each and every time that I see one of these so-called historical programs, they have been full of errors, myths, and outright lies. Most Americans that claim to understand how our banking system works got their insight from Jimmy Stewart's speech in It's a Wonderful Life. That's why they think the national budget of the world's largest economy is like their household budget.

A person cannot learn what is or was when the information given is wrong. Let me ask you this. You own a company and there is a vital position in your company that requires a broad knowledge of cultural bias from an historical perspective of the middle and near east . Are you going to hire the person that produced the History Channel's six part series on the Crusades to fill it? How about someone who's qualification is that they watched it?

Learning is an active pursuit, it cannot be gained passively and it really cannot be gained in 6 minute filler segments between inane commercials.

I don't really dislike TV, there have been and I assume still are a few good programs. I just hate how it is being used to create a nation of automatons just waiting to be told what to do, what to think, and how to act.

[Sterling]

84. History Channel

Last edited Fri Jul 13, 2012, 06:40 PM - Edit history (1)

History Channel! I can't help but feel is made for near or complete racists and certainly has little objectivity. Most of the shows these days don't even have a connection to history in any way.

HC is really terrible I am afraid to say. It started with mostly WW2 docs back in the 90's. Some were decent like The "World at War Series" but, that was done back in the 1970's. It works in part because they still had access to people who were alive then and made pains to interview people from as many perspectives as possible. That series helped me grow a series interest in history and the world outside my town. My father and I watched together and it was a good experience for me in large part because I had his perspective to go along with the shows. Soon after that they bought me a massive books on that subject and others.

HC on the other hand became more and more dumbed down and does not in anyway represent a serious source of information. They like MTV should change there name. MTV used to play music now it is a boldface attempt to cater to the worst instincts in human character and rarely if ever has any cultural value (and hardly ever plays music at all and what it does is bad). When I was young MTV was still entertainment but it carried a broad range of musical styles. Since I lived in a half rural half suburban home it was my only way to find music and info about music that I had never been exposed to and that was of value to me growing up. I might in fact have never got out of my hometown and seen the world but as it turned out I became a professional musician and met some of my favorite artists and played with some top quality players in my career.

My mother was a teacher and was great about making sure I had lots of books and other sources of info to chose from. I tended to be drawn to history and maps in particular. While I was never a top student over all at my school somehow they saw fit to include me on the scholastic team from 9-12th grade as the History/Social studies rep. I would be dishonest if I said that access to TV was not part of my education. Most importantly my parents would watch with me and discuss what we watched. I think that is KEY for young people. I would like to believe that now I have a good enough filter to make good choices about what I spend my time reading, listening to and or watch.

In terms of what I read it is focused more on non fiction books and more recently I have found some really great history mags. BBC has a fascinating magazine that has content mostly from well respected educators in the field. Even still I enjoy observing the subtle biases that come from this mag being inseparable from the "British" perspective. That is in ways as educational to me as the content itself and that does not come from being manipulated, it is a sign that if one uses your entire base of knowledge and life experience you can get out of media what you are looking for. It is just a pity that many people never developed that filter for themselves. Obviously you have, even to the point that maybe you may miss a diamond in the rough from time to time from being put off by content that is offensive to your intelligence being so over represented.

Now here is a good question for us to all consider. Is the content so bad, even corrupting to the mind and soul because it is what most people really want? Or is it more sinister than that? Is it an effort to keep most people in the dark, manipulate developing minds into mindless consumerism? I really would love your thoughts on that. I tend to think that while it looks like a chicken or egg question that much of it is really intentional. Kind of like how some people don't want a well educated populace, they want a well educated elite. Knowledge is power and the powerful own our media. It is a natural consequence and should be countered in ever way possible. I may post a thread about this if I find the time today.

Your point about learning and 6 minute segments is obviously correct. As much as I study any topic I find there is almost always more to it than I have learned. So education is a life long endeavor and we should embrace that. I do think that a really good 6 minute segment can at least spark an interest for someone who is new to the topic but, when you call yourself the History Channel that is pretty pathetic.

There was a time when people who owned media outlets had an obligation to inform the electorate. Deregulation killed a lot of what there was of that. So you have to look and follow your own value's to get what you want from visual media, any media for that sake. But I promise there are people, talented, thoughtful people creating content even still. With the way the distribution system seems to be evolving (breaking into smaller and more numerous outlets for one matter) there will be much more content to choose from. Granted the ratio will still be skewed toward bad stuff.

[Egalitarian Thug]

85. LOL! You and I don't disagree at all, and your example of television being an inspiration

to study something is an excellent point. I hope it is more common than I imagine it to be.

The question of life imitating art or vice versa is, I think, a contemporary version of the chicken or egg debate. I would say however, that there are probably fewer people (a smaller percentage) arguing ideas like this today than there were before, and I still think in large part because of, the advent of television, and that can't be good.

Peace & good luck to us all.

[musiclawyer]

6. This year I am cancelling directv and getting an apple tv this year

that will seamlessly stream anything on my macbook to the screen. I can pay for soccer out of market games for 79 bucs a year. (Directv costs me 90 dollars each month) ESPN 3 will give me other games and other sports. Do the other professional sports leagues stream games direclty to the internet--fee or not?
I have netflix; I can watch comedy central and msnbc and a lot of other stuff soon after it airs.

Tell me, why are content makers not ditching the providers outright? Is there really a need for a middle man? What does Apple think?

[RKP5637]

11. Yep, the entire landscape is changing! n/t

[onenote]

19. why arent' the content makers ditching the providers? Because they make big bucks under the current

approach.

Not everyone watches ESPN, but virtually every cable and satellite subscriber pays for it because ESPN has the power to demand that it be carried as part of packages that virtually every subscriber takes. Even with Internet distribution, you'd be fooling yourself to think that ESPN would suddenly switch to a model in which they only get paid by the folks that actually want to watch ESPN. Instead, they will continue to find ways of making sure everyone pays. For example, some of ESPN's internet content is only available to folks that subscribe to a cable or satellite package that has ESPN. If you cut the cord, you lose access to ESPN. And ESPN insists that the cable and satellite companies, in order to be able to provide ESPN to their customers via an Internet connection, must ---you guessed it -- pay based on every Internet customer whether or not those Internet customers ever watch ESPN.

They're not killing that golden goose.

[sendero]

7. A la carte..

... tv channels, that is what I want. When I can get that, when I can pay for the channels I want and stop subsidizing the religious and informercial CRAP, then I will once again subscribe to satellite tv.

[RKP5637]

12. Yep, I used to spin the channels at night, all the infomercials and

religious stuff and said, WTF am I paying for all of this CRAP for, so cut the cable.

[madamesilverspurs]

78. My local comcast office

told me that a la carte channel selection is illegal. Seriously. That's what they said.

Landlady won't allow a dish nailed to the apartment building, so I had to upgrade the cable in order get something other than Fox "news". Working on getting an affordable wifi setup so I can tell comcast to take a hike. Wish me luck!

-

[Bluenorthwest]

14. That's the end of cable/sat monopoly, not the end of TV

For the television business, this is good stuff. For those who deliver content created by the television business the coming changes will utterly alter the way they do business, which is great because they are leaches.

[RKP5637]

16. Yep, it'll be a major change to the distribution model which is

excellent!!! This has been needed for years. It also seems at one time congress was going to do something to unbundle service, maybe it was the FCC, but nothing ever really came of it ... Maybe it was when the telecommunications act was done, can't recall now. ... but I see this as all good stuff that's happening!!!

[CreekDog]

15. I basically only watch HBO and Baseball, some MSNBC

And to see "Wheeler Dealers" and "Top Gear" I need to have Velocity.

And I pay over $100/month for that, for what works out to a couple hours of HBO or Giants/A's baseball each evening (can't watch both at the same time).

And I'm not even home many evenings --so whatever the per-day I'm paying is completely lost. I DVR, but it's not like I catch up on all programs, if I'm out more, I do watch less overall.

I'm getting hosed. I could downgrade all my services, but I'm at the minimum to get the baseball. The alternatives for baseball suck, because they either black out games or you don't get the usual broadcasters/audio, etc.

But I'm getting tired of paying this amount when I mainly want HBO and you don't need to bundle to have HBO. The moment I can resolve the baseball or sports thing, I'll be jumping ship, but sports are the last thing they are going to unbundle.

I honestly would rather pay a-la-carte, even though individual channels I'd balk at the price. But then again, ATT isn't getting charged to offer HSN or QVC, they are making money putting that in my bundle that I have to skip over to get to channels with content.

[HangOnKids]

59. I Hear You Creekie

Giants/A's and a bit of HBO. I loathe Comcast with a red hot fever!

[mikeytherat]

67. Almost all episodes of Wheeler Dealers, Auto Trader, Wrecks to Riches, Top Gear

are available online for free! Most of the episodes in the "new" season of Wheeler Dealers (with the Bentley, Citroen and Lotus Esprit), I have seen already! Google the shows, and you'll find BBC and YouTube channels for almost all of the episodes (and unedited/un-bleeped episodes of The Graham Norton Show)!

mikey_the_rat

[cascadiance]

18. Dish Network just canned AMC channels too recently...

So we're not getting Portlandia here in Portland either if we have Dish...

There are still problems for the internet as a distribution medium from taking on cable and satellite. They still need something that's easy to navigate and takes a lot of the mechanics out of it for the average user that today's internet users still have to go through that doesn't have any standards to allow them to work with more substantive quality television sets, etc.

Also, I'd be concerned about the rules being tweaked that allows certain content being favored over other in terms of transmission rates that could happen when the owners of the internet services want to push their own companies' or parent companies' content rather than others. That would really limit the scope of indy providers on the internet too. I would hope that someone comes up with some real creative hardware that can solve some of these issues and provide something that in effect "acts" like a cable or satellite receiver, but provides perhaps more opportunity to elevate truly independent providers of content to be accessed and in such a way that it can grow if enough people want it. Then such a move makes sense.

The transition costs for many people too at this time when the economy still sucks will make it very difficult for many people to ditch what they have and switch to a newer system. Need some other compelling reasons and avoidances of huge costs to make this a real possibility too.

[alphafemale]

22. AMC is going to Stream the Breaking Bad premier Free to DISH subscribers.

You can sign up for the stream starting at 3 PM Friday.

It would probably be out of bounds to post the link here since that might be seen as promoting a commercial interest.

But I'm sure you can Google it easily enough.

Or if you PM me I will send you the link.

[Sterling]

25. That's too bad.

AMC plays a lot of crappy movies and ads but they have developed some good original programing. I was so bummed when they let "Rubicon" go. That was a show that engaged the mind. That is probably why it got overlooked as well sadly.

[hifiguy]

21. Lordy lu, I would LOVE ala carte cable.

No Faux, no shopping channels, no CNN . . .

[alphafemale]

24. 95% or more of channels seem to be crap.

So many are just commercials or religious programming.

[reformist2]

26. I downgraded to the bare minimum .... $75 a month for "basic" was too much.

Now I pay just $16 a month for clear reception of the regular networks (plus a handful of boring/lame channels - lol).

I do miss MSNBC, but I'll gladly pay for that again once they move to an a la carte method. It *WILL* happen someday, but we need a lot more people to go on strike and downgrade their service, or cut the cable outright.

[RKP5637]

28. Wow, you are lucky! The cheapest service you can get here is now $68/mo. Maybe with

some promotional it would be cheaper initially.

[reformist2]

29. Are you sure? Many cable cos offer what's called "Limited Basic" - they just don't advertise it.

But be prepared to get a *really* stripped down set of channels.

ETA: I just checked.... Comcast actually offers two cheapie packages: "Limited Basic" and "Digital Family", both of which are under $20 a month.

[RKP5637]

30. Haven't asked about that, I was just checking their website. When I

canceled my cable they said I had the cheapest, unless it's something they keep hidden because too many might switch to it ... I'm using over the air digital TV now and get about 25 channels for free. In this area it works well.

[reformist2]

33. Sounds like you're saving more than me!

[RKP5637]

35. My initial cost was a little pricey, digital antenna in attic, converters for several TVs that

did not have digital and an amplifier to drive the cable system that used to tie into the cable company, but long term it should pay off. I figure I'm saving $60/mo (my old basic cable rate) so that's $720/yr I'm saving and the stuff I bought did not come to that. Wow, it's amazing how much cable TV adds up to year over year.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. That's what I have:

Local channels, including 2 of Minnesota's PBS channels, CNN, TBS, a couple of shopping channels (boo, hiss) and public access, which, in Minneapolis includes MHz Worldview (English-language newscasts from around the world during the day and European dramas and movies at night) and, of all things, NHK World from Japan (even though it's in English).

All I ever watch are PBS and MHz Worldview. The rest is streaming of Netflix and Hulu Plus, which includes the Criterion Collection of classic movies.

[L0oniX]

27. Cable will just raise inet rates again and again to make up for the loss.

Before ya know it you will be paying $60 a month just for a shitty 10mbs burst inet connection without tv.


Oh ...did I say that Brighthouse sucks salty donkey ****?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

31. I don't suppose they will pass the savings on to the consumer

Dish Network has cut several channels from my package in recent years. They recently cut AMC (meaning they don't have to pay them) and yet I just got a rate increase from Dish in my last monthly bill. It's a big "fuck you" by Dish Network to their subscribers.

[RKP5637]

36. I was wondering about that a little earlier, amazing, no savings passed on

to customers, and then a rate increase. What a ripoff.

[seabeyond]

32. i hate the system. so many crap channels. i dont watch. hubby wants his history channel that he

is not getting anymore. and kids only watch espn.

my husband was telling me that two of his employees that are younger dont own tv's. they watch everything off puter or whatever they do. they are all tech guys.

i dont like any of it. i know i am being screwed and i dont watch it anyways

i am all for a change, in this area

[xmas74]

81. Hook up an antenna

and buy a Roku box. With the Roku box you can subscribe to Netflix for eight dollars a month and they have quite a few free channels, some with classic movies, a few sports channels,etc.

Come this fall, Roku has a new model coming out and it's not even a box-it's a stick, like the little wireless sticks that people used on their computer towers a few years ago.

[lastlib]

37. I have long thought that eventually....

...all entertainment (TV, radio,cable narrowcast...) would be Internet-delivered.

[Spike89]

38. The OP has some logical flaws

First off, as others have pointed out, I don't see anything indicating the "end of TV". The newspaper analogy is hugely flawed. The problem is the flawed assumption that "bundling" is in itself a bad thing and that ala' carte is always better and cheaper. It can be, but rarely is. Let's look at the center of this discussion, cable channel bundling and highlight the ala' carte fallacy:

So, I want ESPN, History, and AMC, but don't want MSNBC, Nick, or ESPN2 and they are on the same "level" bundle. Great, it "should be" that getting rid of half the channels should lower my bill to half. That doesn't actually make sense economically. ESPN is going to need to raise its rates to the cable/sat. provider because it just lost 1/2 it's subscribers. For ESPN to maintain its business, it either charges double, or it kills ESPN2 (theoretically forcing those subscribers to ESPN1). Who wins in that scenario? No one, ESPN might be able to maintain its revenue, but only by making sure subscribers pay double and get 1/2 the choices.
The choices are really the same for "single" channel options. If say 1/2 the subscribers for the History channel cancel, it either doubles its rates (likely to cause more cancellations, resulting in more hikes, etc. etc.) or it cuts costs (lower quality, more repeats, leading to a downward spiral of lost subscribers, more cost cuts, etc. etc.).
Killing the shopping channels is even sillier! They are the cable/satelite equivalent of commercials for the networks. Virtually no one would pay for the shopping channels, so they would disappear (making their few fans very sad), but the cable company also loses a revenue stream and either must raise rates or cut programing that costs it money.

I'm all for options, and the cable companies are NOT my friends. However, ala' carte pricing isn't any solution at all. Whining about programs you don't watch makes as much sense as complaining you only wanted the free one in a "buy two, get one free" promotion.

[RKP5637]

43. Just curious, should the internet be bundled in a similar model based on

revenue streams?

[Romulox]

70. You begin from a flawed premise: that consumers have an interest in maintaining current revenue

levels for cable providers.

Moreover, what you are really arguing is that viewers who don't watch particular channels should nonetheless be forced to pay for them, and that this somehow makes things "more affordable" for all. The major flaw in this argument is that the channels you watch may well not be the channels I watch, and therefore any subsidy from one of us to the other will cancel out.

[Spike89]

73. Not quite right

I'm not interested in anyone's revenue. However, I am pointing out that you are NOT paying for the channels you don't watch--you are paying for a service that includes many choices. It is very much like going into a buffet restaurant with a full menu and insisting that because you want chicken, they need to rebate you any overhead related to their beef, pork, or vegatarian offerings.
Actually, a closer analogy is the Internet. You pay for access and once connected, you get the entire "free" Internet--you aren't paying for the parts you don't visit and it doesn't matter if you and I visit totally different parts.
With cable, we're paying for a television buffet. You can pretty much select some ala' carte programming through series DVDs, iTunes downloads, and Amazon. Because of the economics of providing ala' carte--watching a single season of a single series from a single cable channel on Amazon can cost much more than a month's cable bill.

[Romulox]

74. I never eat at buffets; generally to make up for the generous portions, the food is lousy.

"It is very much like going into a buffet restaurant with a full menu and insisting that because you want chicken, they need to rebate you any overhead related to their beef, pork, or vegatarian offerings."

How about ordering from a menu? You know, like at a real restaurant?

Actually, a closer analogy is the Internet. You pay for access and once connected, you get the entire "free" Internet--you aren't paying for the parts you don't visit and it doesn't matter if you and I visit totally different parts.

No, the buffet is the closer analogy, since the internet is not priced in manipulative "tiers". The fact is, many of us avoid buffets for just this reason--it's only an economically sound choice for the gluttons!

[Spike89]

75. Analogies only go so far, but even so

Let's stick with that restaurant and ignore buffets. Even in your regular restaurant with a menu, you're still paying for the variety that the place offers. Why should I pay for the cost of keeping poultry away from vegetables in the kitchen when I order beef? There are terribly specific restaurants that offer very few choices and they are almost never cheaper...but we are running this analogy into the ground.

I'm all for ala' carte, all I ever said is that it is not a economic model for cable pricing that would lower anyone's bill--just the opposite.

[Romulox]

88. If I want Italian, why should I pay for the overhead of a sushi-bar? Still makes little sense.

"I'm all for ala' carte, all I ever said is that it is not a economic model for cable pricing that would lower anyone's bill--just the opposite."

Like most metered usage, it would likely lower the bill for all but the most heavy users. If you enjoy CMT and BET, for example, under the present "all-you-can-eat" model you're golden. If you like LOGO and SPIKE, then it's a gold-mine! If you like the FITNESS CHANNEL as well as the Paula Dean channel, then it is a veritable dream-come-true.

But for most consumers? I believe a la carte would indeed lower prices. We'd quickly learn to live without the marginal channels if a price tag were to be put on each, that's for sure! Much like the print industry, the difference in revenues would have to come out of TV networks' budgets. Such is life.

[Spike89]

89. We seem to have different understandings of the market

I do think the print/publishing industry (my business) is very close to the model of cable in some ways. Newspapers need a broad base to be profitable, so they typically have a news section, a local section, sports, editorial, comics, classified, etc. It is understood that almost no one reads all of every paper. Killing the sports section isn't likely to save enough money to offset the loss of subscribers. When Craigslist decimated the newspaper classified sections, newspapers either jacked up their rates, cut staff (and local news), or went out of business.

The people who loved sports but never read the classified did NOT get cheaper papers. They paid more and the sports section became worse.

It costs money to make good television (or even crappy TV). It does cost something to deliver that content. If there was a way to deliver content cheaper or more efficiently, someone would have tried it already. The Internet isn't that new, but every television delivery system that has varied from the cable/satellite model has either been much more expensive, extremely limited, or quickly went out of business.

[SharonAnn]

82. I never watch sports, but I have to pay for ESPN costs in my "package" to get what I want.

The ESPN costs are way higher than many other channels, but they "bundle them so that I have to pay them even though I don't want them.

[madinmaryland]

40. It's been a week or so since we had a "I hate TV" and "I have dropped cable" thread.

[RKP5637]

42. What do you think about the emergence of Aereo? The distribution

models are changing ...

[onenote]

46. I think Aereo has a 50/50 chance of surviving an appellate court challenge

I've been following this case from the start. The broadcasters did a lousy job of making their case against Aereo and the judge felt constrained by the Second Circuit's earlier decision in the Cablevision case. But it would not surprise me in the slightest if the court of appeals distinguishes Aereo from Cablevision; if it doesn't, the question becomes whether the exclusive right to license public performances of video programming will be meaningless since all one would need to get around the requirement would be to create a way for viewers to start recording the content before they start viewing it. I just don't think the court will be prepared to allow that to happen. And even if Aereo is successful, there almost certainly will be new legislation revising the portions of the Copyright Act and the Communications Act that address video programming distribution in the next two years. That legislation will be written in large part by industry -- how do you think it will turn out?

[RKP5637]

50. My gut feeling is that distribution models will change drastically over the

next several years, hence I think Aereo (or like) has more than a 50/50 survival chance.

I also think the bundled notion will go by the wayside in the future.

Here is what I think well might happen ... Aereo will be successful (and/or like). That said, and I certainly agree, "there almost certainly will be new legislation revising the portions of the Copyright Act and the Communications Act that address video programming distribution in the next two years."

[sofa king]

58. You didn't ask me, but...

... I think that the cable company still has everyone by the gonads because they still largely control the low-latency data lines--the very lines on which Aereo will rely to reach those considering "dropping" cable. Those people will still have to pay The Man for the Internet access and a useful download rate so that they can use Aereo's option. It might drive the prices of the bundles down or force them to split them into more attractively arrayed sub-options, but it's just as likely to raise data rates and lower caps and overage fees.

On the other side of that coin, Aereo is perfect for the satellite companies, which can deliver high data throughput but with horrible latency, which is not a problem for streaming.

I think a satellite company will buy 'em as soon as they cool off a little.

[RKP5637]

62. Quite interesting!!! Thanks!!! n/t

[Raine]

41. Interesting, THANKS for this info & link. nt

[longship]

44. Here, there is no cable, no broadband INet.

I get INet on my iPhone, which is barely dialup speed, and often not.

I have TV via a roof antenna and rotor -- remember those?

I have two PBS channels, one of which broadcasts MHz Worldview 24/7, which can be very good, especially the foreign language dramas, but I am missing the Australian Football League, very recently dropped.

I also have a Fox channel which runs two channels, AntennaTV and This!, old TV and old flicks. But I get to watch Alfred Hitchcock Presents and The Outer Limits when reception is good.

I don't miss cable tv. But I'd sell my soul for decent broadband out here in the Manistee National Forest.

[RKP5637]

47. It must be an absolutely beautiful area! Fortunately I do have

broadband, but I'm using over the air digital TV (attic antenna) which in this area works quite well.

[hunter]

55. Pay TV is dead to me.

No satellite, no cable, and my internet is too slow for video streaming.

I can find a movie at the thrift store or on Redbox and be happy for a week.

[patrice]

56. It's mostly BORING trash. I can count the number of shows I like on one hand.

Will dump cable tv soon. It simply isn't worth anything, let alone what I'm paying for it.

[stlsaxman]

57. hopefully this won't mean the "death" of c-span...

that was the only reason i pirated cable in my youth until i got an online presence.

so- if "cable" as we know it is dead- who will bring us c-span?

[RKP5637]

61. My take is mostly what could happen is the distribution models

might be changing. ... but you bring up a really good point as to how/who would fund commercial free c-span. Maybe the conglomerates would still fund c-span, but bundling would cease, and there would be even more avenues for programming on many devices.

[Odin2005]

64. Good, the less people watching the Boob Tube the more progressive the US will become.

[4th law of robotics]

72. Like they were back in the 1950s and earlier?

[4th law of robotics]

71. It never made sense to me

being forced to pay for a bunch of channels you never use rather than being able to pick and choose the ones you want.

I guess it makes sense using old technology, in that it would have been hard to limit channels by household.

But once the internet came along the whole scheme was doomed.

[onenote]

77. Why do you think its "doomed"?

If you owned programming and you were able to force anyone who wants to distribute it to pay you based on every customer that distributor has, whether or not those customers actually have any interest in your channel, why would you change to a system that only gave you revenue from the people who actually watch your channel?

[4th law of robotics]

87. I have no doubt they wish to keep things as they are

just as book stores and record stores wanted to keep their lucrative deals.

But the fact that so much is available online for free or for a nominal price means that the balance is shifting rapidly away from the old system.

I don't suppose it will be too long before major networks will offer streaming online content to users for a nominal monthly fee.

After that you can pick and choose what you want.

Minor networks may bundle together online in the same way.

But cable is on its way out.

[SharonAnn]

83. It's like the old music model, pay for an album just to get a song.

That model still exists, but you also can buy just a song.

Not talking about freeloading or stealing, just buy what you want.