If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Paid Content)   Time Warner CEO: Our problem isn't "cord cutters" -- people who get rid of cable in favor of streaming TV online; the problem is "cord nevers" -- young people who never signed up in the first place   (paidcontent.org) divider line 187
    More: Interesting, CEO, video clips, Paley Center, cord, Jeff Bewkes, youths  
•       •       •

4097 clicks; posted to Geek » on 20 Nov 2012 at 5:22 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



187 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-20 12:14:03 PM
Television rots the mind.
 
2012-11-20 12:54:42 PM
If your business model is so outdated that your biggest problem is that younger people would rather get their content wherever, whenever they want instead of sitting in front of their couch, then the problem is your inability to keep up with market expectations, not the end customer.
 
2012-11-20 01:14:18 PM
#oldpeopleproblems
 
Pud [TotalFark]
2012-11-20 02:40:16 PM
Cable companies have had the ability to offer a la carte programming options to their customers for decades with the advancements of digital signalling. They just chose not to in order to make you pay for the 92 channels that you NEVER watch in order to get the 5 that you do.

/I really don't want to pay for 17 Spanish only channels, but there are people that do. Why not offer what your customer actually wants. They'll probably stay with you just out of the convince of it. There are too may options available now, and the cable companies stick with the business model they developed in 1976
 
2012-11-20 02:41:57 PM
The NFL is on the broadcast channels, and there's more content in my Netflix instant queue than I can watch in the next year. Hockey isn't worth $60/month, even when it isn't locked out.
 
2012-11-20 03:04:19 PM
People aren't gonna pay for your shiat- come up with better or cheaper shiat.
 
2012-11-20 03:16:24 PM

No, your problem is selling 30/5 mbp/s, arbitrarily capping and uncapping it at 20 and then having Tier III toss out endless amounts of shirty, pissy malarkey from canned scripts when you're called on it by somebody who actually not only gets how this sh*t works, but is sick of 15/5, real world, for their money.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-20 03:22:13 PM
I don't think I will ever get cable. I have cable internet and it includes basic cable that I don't watch. I might sign up for an on-demand service from my provider if it can beat Netflix but I doubt that happens soon...
 
2012-11-20 03:27:00 PM
People are skipping out because they don't want most of the channels. If I had the basic channels plus HBO, USA and ESPN, I'd be happy. I don't want to pay as much as I'd have to for those few. You charge ridiculous amounts for content and offer very little for it. I'm more than willing to wait for content on Netflix or acquire it through more creative methods.
 
2012-11-20 03:29:28 PM
Sorry your buggy whips aren't selling anymore.
Maybe you should try making automobile parts instead.
 
2012-11-20 03:41:52 PM
Cable TV companies know that the day they offer a la carte programming is the day that cable tv channels IMPLODE from the hundreds of shiatty channels we now have to a few dozen channels that still offer something worthwhile. And those channels will know they must continue to offer content worth paying for or DIE. (Either alternative is fine with me).
 
2012-11-20 03:45:38 PM
But you can only watch full episodes of TruTV shows if you have cable!

Come on guys!

Guys?

Hello?
 
2012-11-20 03:47:55 PM

NutWrench: Cable TV companies know that the day they offer a la carte programming is the day that cable tv channels IMPLODE from the hundreds of shiatty channels we now have to a few dozen channels that still offer something worthwhile. And those channels will know they must continue to offer content worth paying for that appeals to the lowest common denominator or DIE. (Either alternative is fine with me).


FTFY.

It will not be the utopian revolution you seem to expect. It will just be a Kardashian sister on every channel.
 
2012-11-20 04:10:31 PM

GAT_00: People are skipping out because they don't want most of the channels. If I had the basic channels plus HBO, USA and ESPN, I'd be happy. I don't want to pay as much as I'd have to for those few. You charge ridiculous amounts for content and offer very little for it. I'm more than willing to wait for content on Netflix or acquire it through more creative methods.


do you really think the price of your cable bill would go down under an ala carte plan? the cable business model is almost all fixed costs, they can't scale pricing that way.
 
2012-11-20 04:29:48 PM
"It's a good thing to have more of them," said Bewkes, adding that multiple universal platforms are good for consumers because they mean the content industry "can't be held hostage" to a given distributor.

Well, except for when the company that makes the content (Warner Bros) is owned by the same parent company (Time Warner) as the existing distributor (Time Warner Cable), and colludes with them and the other legacy distributors in order to fix prices. Then they can still hold it hostage.

Or, is he saying Warner Bros going to start putting their content on Netflix the second it airs everywhere else?
 
2012-11-20 04:36:58 PM

NutWrench: Cable TV companies know that the day they offer a la carte programming is the day that cable tv channels IMPLODE from the hundreds of shiatty channels we now have to a few dozen channels that still offer something worthwhile. And those channels will know they must continue to offer content worth paying for or DIE. (Either alternative is fine with me).


I think you're too stuck on this idea of "channels", which is just a holdover from technical limitations in the past. If we move to a netflix-style model, you'll have content producers producing as much content as they want/are able to and posting it to be viewed at leisure. There's not going to be some clamor to fill a 24 hour schedule with something better than infomercials or Law & Order reruns. All the Law & Order episodes will just exist and people can either watch them or something else.
 
2012-11-20 04:46:40 PM

serial_crusher: NutWrench: Cable TV companies know that the day they offer a la carte programming is the day that cable tv channels IMPLODE from the hundreds of shiatty channels we now have to a few dozen channels that still offer something worthwhile. And those channels will know they must continue to offer content worth paying for or DIE. (Either alternative is fine with me).

I think you're too stuck on this idea of "channels", which is just a holdover from technical limitations in the past. If we move to a netflix-style model, you'll have content producers producing as much content as they want/are able to and posting it to be viewed at leisure. There's not going to be some clamor to fill a 24 hour schedule with something better than infomercials or Law & Order reruns. All the Law & Order episodes will just exist and people can either watch them or something else.


Exactly... and as the person quoted in the article actually "gets"... people coming of age now are not exclusively "tied" to the notion of a "channel" live previous generations were. Heck, I'd guess that people under 20 couldn't even tell you what "channel" some of their favorite shows are on... they just watch it from Hulu or Amazon or Itunes.

Really, the only benefit of TV is the "instant changeability" of the channels that internet streaming still doesn't have.... at least I've never seen an internet app that works as well as... "Switch to CBS".. "Switch to Fox"... "last channel button flips between both within 1 second". You could have two tabs open with both streams, but, now you have to pause one, flip to the other tab, unpause, etc.
 
2012-11-20 04:51:03 PM

dletter: Really, the only benefit of TV is the "instant changeability" of the channels that internet streaming still doesn't have.... at least I've never seen an internet app that works as well as... "Switch to CBS".. "Switch to Fox"... "last channel button flips between both within 1 second". You could have two tabs open with both streams, but, now you have to pause one, flip to the other tab, unpause, etc.


A buddy of mine told me about an XBMC app that would do this. Like, it would analyze your video library and make all these virtual channels that would show TV shows and movies at random, sorted by what network they were originally on, what genre, etc. And you could flip between one "channel" and the next, and it would pick up in the middle of the show. I forget the name of it though.

The bit about changing channels mid-episode seems a bit useless to me though. But I'd definitely like to be able to just put on a random playlist of sitcoms or something when I need background noise.
 
2012-11-20 05:20:32 PM
Considering that the Internet Providers and Cable Providers are now mostly the same companies, they're just going to start throttling Youtube and Netflix.
 
2012-11-20 05:31:20 PM
You have a shiatty overpriced product and your regional monopolies ensure that your customer service not only sucks, it's completely surly. Nobody is signing up for this experience any more.
 
2012-11-20 05:34:09 PM
I only have internet from my cable company. cost is just too much. and they want shiat like 10$ a month for a DVR, 10$ a month for HD, etc, etc.

If I lived somewhere with google fiber, I'd drop Insight in a hot second.
 
2012-11-20 05:37:39 PM
yeah... I'm not paying $60 a month for any service is nearly 50% advertisements.
 
2012-11-20 05:38:00 PM
And when the cord-nevers become plug-pullers for the cord-cutters, then you'll really be cord-buggered.
 
2012-11-20 05:38:37 PM
I'm a very proud TWC "cord cutter"

I'm not his problem he says. Check back in about 10 years Mr. CEO.
 
2012-11-20 05:40:19 PM
We dumped satellite about 6 years ago. We have terrestrial digital TV, and I need to get a better antenna on it, but we are generally satisfied with it, given how little TV we watch. Netflix fills in the gaps.

The other thing I want to do is go from copper DSL to U-Verse data only, but talking Mrs. Un out of POTS is the sticking point. Earthlink will let us keep our e-mail addresses for a nominal fee, and then port the land-line number to Ooma or a two-step port to Google voice.
 
2012-11-20 05:40:49 PM

JusticeandIndependence: I'm a very proud TWC "cord cutter"

I'm not his problem he says. Check back in about 10 years Mr. CEO.



And furthermore
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

He does know these still work right? In fact I'd say the picture I get with this is much better than the "HD" picture I used to get with TWC.
 
2012-11-20 05:42:51 PM
I'm a cord never.

i don't see the point.

other than nfl, the only reason for me to have cable is college football. but, cbs has started airing a lot of games online, and espn streams games... so, i get a lot of college football (oh yeah, and thank you very much cbs, awesome move to stream games... if i had any money i would buy stock in you just to show my appreciation - i am very pleased). 

/ although, it would be nice to have hbo... either way, not worth 100 bucks a month for one channel
 
2012-11-20 05:45:32 PM

Unobtanium: We dumped satellite about 6 years ago. We have terrestrial digital TV, and I need to get a better antenna on it, but we are generally satisfied with it, given how little TV we watch. Netflix fills in the gaps.

The other thing I want to do is go from copper DSL to U-Verse data only, but talking Mrs. Un out of POTS is the sticking point. Earthlink will let us keep our e-mail addresses for a nominal fee, and then port the land-line number to Ooma or a two-step port to Google voice.


I used to work for ATT on uverse. ONLY switch if you are going to get fiber to the home. fiber to the node sucks ass. they cut corners and sales often lied to people and would schedule installs on waaaay too long of loops.
 
2012-11-20 05:45:55 PM
So create a product that's competitive with the content options these kids are gravitating to, dumbass!

In the 1980s, people were paying $25/month for 25 channels and wishing for a la carte pricing because they only watched five of them. Now we pay $80/month for 240 channels... and only watch five of them. You're going in the wrong direction!
 
2012-11-20 05:48:06 PM

Pud: Cable companies have had the ability to offer a la carte programming options to their customers for decades with the advancements of digital signalling. They just chose not to in order to make you pay for the 92 channels that you NEVER watch in order to get the 5 that you do.

/I really don't want to pay for 17 Spanish only channels, but there are people that do. Why not offer what your customer actually wants. They'll probably stay with you just out of the convince of it. There are too may options available now, and the cable companies stick with the business model they developed in 1976


Actually, I used to be firmly in the camp that the cable companies are indeed being morons about that as well, but as my dad pointed out one evening: In Canada we have these requirements setup where there needs to be 'x' amount of Canadian content offered through the various companies' offerings and ala-carte would be virtually impossible to cater to that requirement. It certainly made me re-think where to place the blame on the situation (at least the entire blame), at least in Canada.

Food for thought, eh?
 
2012-11-20 05:49:13 PM

thomps: GAT_00: People are skipping out because they don't want most of the channels. If I had the basic channels plus HBO, USA and ESPN, I'd be happy. I don't want to pay as much as I'd have to for those few. You charge ridiculous amounts for content and offer very little for it. I'm more than willing to wait for content on Netflix or acquire it through more creative methods.

do you really think the price of your cable bill would go down under an ala carte plan? the cable business model is almost all fixed costs, they can't scale pricing that way.


Actually, they can.

Remember all those "Your service providers denying you XXXX channel" media campaigns from the companies trying to extract larger fees from the cable companies?

A la cart could actually work. You pay a connect fee + equipment rental and buy single/bundles of channels as you please. That way the media owners can't hold the cable companies hostage over one or two good channels while demanding big money for all of the other channels. Forcing cable/sat companies into the roll of aggregators removes the primary cost control of capitalism - cost competition. Allowing the channels to offer competitive prices direct to the consumer would create actual competition, but it WOULD destroy a lot of lame channels like Golf.

I am cord-cutter (and I am very far from poor) and the only way to earn my business back would be to offer a much lower price which would obviously require fewer channels. I would probably just want the networks, Comedy Central, Disney & Nick (for the kids), AMC, NFL and ESPN. I know it won't happen anytime soon though. It won't be long before I stop caring about TV and they will lose me for good. There are a lot better things to do with my time than wasting it in front of the TV.
 
2012-11-20 05:49:58 PM

spman: Considering that the Internet Providers and Cable Providers are now mostly the same companies, they're just going to start throttling Youtube and Netflix.


BitTorrent with random ports, problem solved.
 
2012-11-20 05:54:14 PM
FTA: Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes... argues that "cord cutting" is overstated and that the phenomenon is limited to a small segment of low income Americans.

Yeah not so much. I'm far from low-income and cut the cord 4 years ago, when I moved and just didn't sign up at the new place. I've never missed it. Between Hulu, Netflix, Redbox and YouTube. I've considered adding Amazon Prime, but I don't know if I'd use it what with all the other options that I already pay for or are free.

I watch MORE TV now than ever before. In fact I have a backlog of things I want to watch but don't have time for. Why would I pay $80+ per MONTH for cable when I won't pay that per YEAR for Amazon Prime?
 
2012-11-20 05:56:53 PM

pute kisses like a man: / although, it would be nice to have hbo... either way, not worth 100 bucks a month for one channel


If they'd just offer HBO Go as a standalone service, I think many of us would be set.

/until then, there arrrrrrrrrrrrrrre ways.
 
2012-11-20 06:00:21 PM
Comcast (Internet and cable) + normal land line = about $2500/year

Comcast (Internet only) + Skype home phone + Roku + HuluPlus + Amazon Prime = $896/ year.

Not exactally a difficult choice

/Cut the cord a year ago and haven't missed it
 
2012-11-20 06:00:35 PM
Remember when we had new music and new car designs and new ideas and new products instead of corporate fatasses queuing up to refit, siphon off, put a new coat of paint on and generally tart up a narrow band of offerings that offer the lowest outgo for the most income? Remember that? Remember calling a firm and somebody answered the phone? Until we as a nation get off of whatever pig titty the market for which, is being hacked up and monopolized, this week, we're gonna stick our noses up the ass of people who sell us trash and act like we're all "cutting edge" cause COMPUTERS! If people were still getting twitchy, hand crank models T's 40 years into automotive technology, you could still buy a buggy whip. There's nothing elite about appliances that don't work and people who sell you accessories you don't get. It's got a bear don it, folks. And we're still driving model T's and paying 3.499 a gallon and getting a half gallon for our money.
 
2012-11-20 06:02:04 PM

FishyFred: NutWrench: Cable TV companies know that the day they offer a la carte programming is the day that cable tv channels IMPLODE from the hundreds of shiatty channels we now have to a few dozen channels that still offer something worthwhile. And those channels will know they must continue to offer content worth paying for that appeals to the lowest common denominator or DIE. (Either alternative is fine with me).

FTFY.

It will not be the utopian revolution you seem to expect. It will just be a Kardashian sister on every channel.


How is that different from now?
 
2012-11-20 06:03:02 PM
beard on it. Still no Mavis Beacon disc.
 
2012-11-20 06:03:13 PM

thomps: GAT_00: People are skipping out because they don't want most of the channels. If I had the basic channels plus HBO, USA and ESPN, I'd be happy. I don't want to pay as much as I'd have to for those few. You charge ridiculous amounts for content and offer very little for it. I'm more than willing to wait for content on Netflix or acquire it through more creative methods.

do you really think the price of your cable bill would go down under an ala carte plan? the cable business model is almost all fixed costs, they can't scale pricing that way.


It doesn't matter if they save money. If you let them drop their bill by $10 and let them choose a la carte, everybody would. And then everybody would be happy.
 
2012-11-20 06:03:16 PM
Time Warner does not own Time Warner Cable.
 
kab
2012-11-20 06:03:23 PM

FishyFred: NutWrench: Cable TV companies know that the day they offer a la carte programming is the day that cable tv channels IMPLODE from the hundreds of shiatty channels we now have to a few dozen channels that still offer something worthwhile. And those channels will know they must continue to offer content worth paying for that appeals to the lowest common denominator or DIE. (Either alternative is fine with me).

FTFY.

It will not be the utopian revolution you seem to expect. It will just be a Kardashian sister on every channel.


^^^ x 1000

If you think a la carte programming would be dozens of channels of Deadwood quality shows instead of Honey Boo on DWTS, you're in for a big big surprise.
 
2012-11-20 06:04:39 PM
CSB from a 'cord never'

Comcast spent a few weeks a while back trying to contact me via phone to ask why I didn't want anything other than internet service. When I told them I had no desire to watch non-on demand television content and that their on demand listing didn't provide any content that I was interested in that wasn't available elsewhere the sales rep couldn't believe it. I explained that since Netflix has entire series available of many shows that my wife and I want to watch through we don't need "New" content on a slow release schedule, as we have plenty in library. The few currently releasing shows we're watching are all available on Hulu, albeit on a delay, but that doesn't bother us.

Oddly they haven't called back since about anything.

/CSB
 
2012-11-20 06:05:49 PM

Telos: FishyFred: NutWrench: Cable TV companies know that the day they offer a la carte programming is the day that cable tv channels IMPLODE from the hundreds of shiatty channels we now have to a few dozen channels that still offer something worthwhile. And those channels will know they must continue to offer content worth paying for that appeals to the lowest common denominator or DIE. (Either alternative is fine with me).

FTFY.

It will not be the utopian revolution you seem to expect. It will just be a Kardashian sister on every channel.

How is that different from now?


Right now you still have choices from smaller niche channels. Those are essentially propped up by bundles from both distributors like Comcast and content creators like Viacom. That's the irony of a la carte. In an effort to improve choice, it will end up destroying it.
 
2012-11-20 06:07:48 PM

FishyFred: Telos: FishyFred: NutWrench: Cable TV companies know that the day they offer a la carte programming is the day that cable tv channels IMPLODE from the hundreds of shiatty channels we now have to a few dozen channels that still offer something worthwhile. And those channels will know they must continue to offer content worth paying for that appeals to the lowest common denominator or DIE. (Either alternative is fine with me).

FTFY.

It will not be the utopian revolution you seem to expect. It will just be a Kardashian sister on every channel.

How is that different from now?

Right now you still have choices from smaller niche channels. Those are essentially propped up by bundles from both distributors like Comcast and content creators like Viacom. That's the irony of a la carte. In an effort to improve choice, it will end up destroying it.


Then let them go to an internet podcast + ads model or disappear.
 
2012-11-20 06:10:56 PM

SuperT: Unobtanium: We dumped satellite about 6 years ago. We have terrestrial digital TV, and I need to get a better antenna on it, but we are generally satisfied with it, given how little TV we watch. Netflix fills in the gaps.

The other thing I want to do is go from copper DSL to U-Verse data only, but talking Mrs. Un out of POTS is the sticking point. Earthlink will let us keep our e-mail addresses for a nominal fee, and then port the land-line number to Ooma or a two-step port to Google voice.

I used to work for ATT on uverse. ONLY switch if you are going to get fiber to the home. fiber to the node sucks ass. they cut corners and sales often lied to people and would schedule installs on waaaay too long of loops.


It's all fiber to node here, from what I understand. We have two friends who are doing exactly what I outlined above, so I can see how they fare. I'm right at 3 miles from the CO, we were lucky to get 1.5 down ADSL when it first came out.
 
2012-11-20 06:11:55 PM
Let me pay $0.50-$1.00 per channel, per month for everything that isn't a movie channel, and I'd gladly use cable.
 
2012-11-20 06:13:11 PM
is this where I come to post about how little t.v. I watch to help boost my ego about being on the cutting edge?

/you people still watch t.v., you just end up watching on your tiny a$$ computer monitor
 
2012-11-20 06:15:31 PM

ModernPrimitive01: is this where I come to post about how little t.v. I watch to help boost my ego about being on the cutting edge?

/you people still watch t.v., you just end up watching on your tiny a$$ computer monitor


One of these two bolded sentiments is in direct conflict with the other. Cutting edge knows how to get best of both worlds and at this point that isn't even cutting edge.
 
2012-11-20 06:16:59 PM
That'd be me.

I never have had cable since moving to Oregon. I have the over the air for PBS, then Netflix on the Wii, plus Hulu for the computer and other places that stream content (like Nickelodeon).
 
2012-11-20 06:24:17 PM

Pud: Cable companies have had the ability to offer a la carte programming options to their customers for decades with the advancements of digital signalling. They just chose not to in order to make you pay for the 92 channels that you NEVER watch in order to get the 5 that you do.


It's a psychological trick. They tell you about the 5 then rapidly show you a huge variety of stuff and you think "hey, there's always going to be something to watch" and sign up. What you then realise is that all you really got is 5 channels, that constantly repeat the same shows, or old TV, and that the other 92 are garbage.

I used to pay £22/month to get Sky, with a Sky+ box. Replaced it with a £150 PVR that records off regular TV and £8/month for LoveFilm. And it's better.
 
Displayed 50 of 187 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report