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  
•       •       •

4096 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
 
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If your business model is so outdated that your biggest problem is that younger people would rather get their content wherever, whenever they want instead of sitting in front of their couch, then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.
 
2012-11-20 06:24:20 PM

serial_crusher: 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.


PseudoTV and it can be configured to run 'adverts' in-between shows/movies as well; which ultimately involves it using the stash of trailers pulled from YouTube. It's an odd plug-in as whilst it's good for making some background noise whilst you do other stuff but beyond that... not so much. I suppose it's a bit more refined than a generic party/shuffle mode.
 
2012-11-20 06:28:05 PM
Football, local news and a couple cop shows OTA, HDMI jacked out of my PC into the TV, up-sampling DVD into other HDMI input for the rest. Fark cable.
 
2012-11-20 06:28:35 PM
www.vgcats.com
 
2012-11-20 06:29:40 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


You know little of what you speak young man


Internet+roku+ 50" big screen FTW
 
2012-11-20 06:30:18 PM
What's he biatching about? Cable internet is owned by the same people, they're getting my money either way.
 
2012-11-20 06:30:56 PM

exick: #oldpeopleproblems


I'm 50 years old and have never had cable. I get all my TV online basing my choices on recommendations I read on message boards.

My mum has cable and I have never seen such a collection of crap in my life. Toddlers in Tiaras, American Chopper, LA Ink - the list is long but distinguished.
 
2012-11-20 06:33:55 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


This, if I could pay 20 bucks a month and get 15 channels of my choosing, I would have it.
 
2012-11-20 06:37:14 PM

kab: 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.


It will bring us virtual cable packages. Instead of having the option for all or nothing, there will be packages offering all, some, some other set, and a variety of everything in between.

Virtual packagers will strike deals for shows, and others will go the HBO route and finance their own series.

I don't see how there won't be good series produced because right now people aren't signing.up for the fringe subsidized channels, they are signing up for the subsidizing channels.
 
2012-11-20 06:38:37 PM
we have 'cut the cord' for several years. Occasionally I go over peoples houses with cable and it is always the same deal of flipping through channels to see if anything decent to watch is on. Or seeing what is dvr'd. Meanwhile at home it is more like hmm what do I want to watch, then I have every episode ever aired of that on demand and readily available. Screw cost, if you get a good setup for online viewing, which you can for under $100 and more most people already have it if they have an xbox etc, it is just a much better way of viewing shows.
 
2012-11-20 06:40:10 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


What, you've never heard of Windows Media Center? XBMC? MythTV? Roku? Apple TV? Google TV? Smart TV? WDTV? Boxee? XBox 360? PS3? Wii U?
 
2012-11-20 06:41:40 PM

kim jong-un: kab: 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.

It will bring us virtual cable packages. Instead of having the option for all or nothing, there will be packages offering all, some, some other set, and a variety of everything in between.

Virtual packagers will strike deals for shows, and others will go the HBO route and finance their own series.

I don't see how there won't be good series produced because right now people aren't signing.up for the fringe subsidized channels, they are signing up for the subsidizing channels.


I doubt we will ever have a la cart shows. More likely you will have distributors that package them together and sell the content to the cable company. Your 'cable box' gets replaced with something similar to a roku and everything is on demand. You will subscribe to different packages like the 'movie' pack that unlocks movies, or the 'reality tv' pack that unlocks A&E shows etc.
 
2012-11-20 06:44:38 PM

kg2095: My mum has cable and I have never seen such a collection of crap in my life. Toddlers in Tiaras, American Chopper, LA Ink - the list is long but distinguished.


To me, one of the best things about not having cable is being entertained for a few hours by almost any random garbage when I'm trying to kill time in a nowhere motel when traveling for work or bored at my "virtually no internet because we're 15 miles from town" inlaws. If I had cable channels at home, I'd be bored out of my skull in those situations. Since there are hours and hours of Mythbusters or Ice Road Truckers or whatever junkfood I've never seen, I'm usually good. Of course, there are times when there isn't anything on the 30 or so channels the motel gets.
 
2012-11-20 06:45:18 PM
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Now Google, *please* set up internet in town so I can finally, wonderfully, happily, say F--K YOU to Comcast completely. Oh, it'll be a great day.

I didn't watch TV all that much, but I've had roommates for many years now. First two or three we got cable. After that streaming sites picked up speed and since the digital antenna = more random stations, none of my close friends (20-somethings plus a few 30-somethings) has a cable subscription anymore. We have a computer hooked to a flat screen, and it's in the basement now anyway.

/shrug
 
2012-11-20 06:54:37 PM
The other day my wife picked the girls up from daycare and took them out for dinner and shopping with her mom, leaving me with the house to myself for several hours. As a bonus, KU was playing Mich State that night, bonus.

I grab a greasy burger on the way home and load up the XBox to turn on ESPN3. Updating...updating...updating, horray! Oh but ESPN3 app needs to update too. Updating...updating...updating, horray! There's the game, load it up....

...blacked out. For pretty much the entire country east of the Rockies. For no other reason, apparently, than the game was on ESPN proper, and ESPN can't figure out how to stream the same number of commercials online that the broadcast over the air has.

I suppose somewhere, some television exec figures that artificial limitations on streaming content will make me want to subscribe to cable TV, but in reality it just makes me hate every company involved more. Cox, ESPN, Disney, hell Microsoft for no damn reason.

Fark cable TV. I wasn't sure if I'd enjoy it when we cut the cord ~a year ago, thanks to the lack of sports, but there's no way I'm ever going back.
 
2012-11-20 06:58:46 PM
Oh, I'm your problem? Good.
 
2012-11-20 07:00:49 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.


I too worked for Uverse about 4 years ago, those sales people were the slimiest farkers on Earth. always sold to customers who were too far away from the dslam
 
2012-11-20 07:01:04 PM

jayhawk88: The other day my wife picked the girls up from daycare and took them out for dinner and shopping with her mom, leaving me with the house to myself for several hours. As a bonus, KU was playing Mich State that night, bonus.

I grab a greasy burger on the way home and load up the XBox to turn on ESPN3. Updating...updating...updating, horray! Oh but ESPN3 app needs to update too. Updating...updating...updating, horray! There's the game, load it up....

...blacked out. For pretty much the entire country east of the Rockies. For no other reason, apparently, than the game was on ESPN proper, and ESPN can't figure out how to stream the same number of commercials online that the broadcast over the air has.

I suppose somewhere, some television exec figures that artificial limitations on streaming content will make me want to subscribe to cable TV, but in reality it just makes me hate every company involved more. Cox, ESPN, Disney, hell Microsoft for no damn reason.

Fark cable TV. I wasn't sure if I'd enjoy it when we cut the cord ~a year ago, thanks to the lack of sports, but there's no way I'm ever going back.


This, that shiat pisses me off so much. I just use the money I save on cable to go to the sports bar though when needed. I wind up having a good time there so its win/win.
 
2012-11-20 07:03:08 PM

jayhawk88: I suppose somewhere, some television exec figures that artificial limitations on streaming content will make me want to subscribe to cable TV, but in reality it just makes me hate every company involved more. Cox, ESPN, Disney, hell Microsoft for no damn reason.


ESPN3 is effectively the same thing as what cable TV companies are doing with all the shiat channels though. People who want Internet access can't just pay for Internet access. Your ISP raises rates to cover the costs they have to pay ESPN3 to be a carrier.

Pretty soon you'll have to pay $300 a month for slow Internet access, but it'll come bundled with access to a bunch of "members only" web sites that you don't give a shiat about and that mom and pop ISPs can't offer their customers.
 
2012-11-20 07:03:28 PM
Cable internet + Xbox + Huluplus + Netflix + Renting Movies and buying season passes in the Xbox video marketplace + password to parents HBOGO account (HBO actually has gone on records saying they're ok with that) = what's cable? Also I can watch all of ESPNs content including all the live stuff on the espn xbox 360 app. And if I really feel like watching Jeopardy or another live sporting event I switch over to the antenna. Never gonna buy cable ever again.
 
2012-11-20 07:06:27 PM
Cut the cord a few months ago in anticipation of the NHL lockout, and I doubt I'll go back. Netflix for the kids stuff, and OTA for local news.

Planning on setting up a dedicated VPN for US netflix and Hulu, and the eventual return of the NHL (regional Geo-IP blackouts) with GameCentre.

I was in Orlando for a conference last week, and the Netflix selection is far superior to what is offered here in Canada. And Hulu is really neat too.

/Geographic blocking really sucks.
 
2012-11-20 07:07:31 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


You know you can hook computers up to televisions these days, right? I mean I've been doing that for like 10 years now, but whatever bro.
 
2012-11-20 07:11:19 PM

NkThrasher: Oddly they haven't called back since about anything.


I wouldn't expect that to last. You said Comcast, right?
 
2012-11-20 07:12:15 PM

ModernPrimitive01: you just end up watching on your tiny a$$ computer monitor


My monitor has the same size screen my teevee had when I trashed it. It wasn't a small teevee either.
 
2012-11-20 07:13:37 PM

Aikidogamer: 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

This, if I could pay 20 bucks a month and get 15 channels of my choosing, I would have it.


It doesn't work like that though, and never will. The way the financials of the cable industry function, the channels you don't want to watch subsidize the channels you do want to see. I'm honestly surprised that the cable industry hasn't done more to undermine and destroy Netflix, which is doing a pretty good job at destroying multiple revenue streams.
 
2012-11-20 07:13:40 PM
I cut the cord a few years back - I never wanted cable period, but my ex-wife couldn't live without it.

People here in San Antonio look at me like I have the mark of cain across my face when I tell them that I just use rabbit ears. I get the four major networks +CW, Ion, IonLife, and 5 multiplexed PBS stations all free. I use Hulu-Plus as my DVR. I don't really care much about sports, but if I'm going to watch a game, I'll go out to a sports bar with fellow human beings instead of sitting home on the couch eating Doritos.

Sports bars are expensive, you say? I know people that pay $80+/month for cable, but BW3 is a luxury?

As a side note - my living room TV is hooked to a Mac Mini (2011 vintage) with a wireless keyboard. Can anyone recommend a good TV tuner peripheral to use for direct DVRing?

Fark on....
 
2012-11-20 07:14:48 PM

jayhawk88: The other day my wife picked the girls up from daycare and took them out for dinner and shopping with her mom, leaving me with the house to myself for several hours. As a bonus, KU was playing Mich State that night, bonus.

I grab a greasy burger on the way home and load up the XBox to turn on ESPN3. Updating...updating...updating, horray! Oh but ESPN3 app needs to update too. Updating...updating...updating, horray! There's the game, load it up....

...blacked out. For pretty much the entire country east of the Rockies. For no other reason, apparently, than the game was on ESPN proper, and ESPN can't figure out how to stream the same number of commercials online that the broadcast over the air has.

I suppose somewhere, some television exec figures that artificial limitations on streaming content will make me want to subscribe to cable TV, but in reality it just makes me hate every company involved more. Cox, ESPN, Disney, hell Microsoft for no damn reason.

Fark cable TV. I wasn't sure if I'd enjoy it when we cut the cord ~a year ago, thanks to the lack of sports, but there's no way I'm ever going back.


If someone on say the west coast wanted to trade tunnels with say someone in the mid west for the purposes of avoiding blackouts, then theoretically eip......
 
2012-11-20 07:17:35 PM
Maybe if they didn't gouge your freakin eyeballs out they would gain customers. $180 a month is BS for tv, internet and phone.
/ wishes he was tech savvy
 
2012-11-20 07:17:55 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: ModernPrimitive01: you just end up watching on your tiny a$$ computer monitor

My monitor has the same size screen my teevee had when I trashed it. It wasn't a small teevee either.


What year Corvette and/or Hummer do you own? ;)
 
2012-11-20 07:23:39 PM

serial_crusher: 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


At least one of the skins for Media Browser (itself an add-on for Windows Media Center) has a Channels option that randomly flips through a daily schedule of your collection, broke out into channels like Sci-Fi, Drama, etc... but it doesn't start mid-way through the show, whenever you pick a channel it starts at the beginning of the movie or tv show it had listed for your current time slot. If its 11:15pm and you picked Road House showing from 10:30-midnight, it doesnt start 45min in but at the beginning, which seems to negate any point of having the timeslots listed at all. just pick a random show and start it for me. I've bugged it and/or requested the already-playing nature as a feature.

Weird desire? Yeah, but how many times have you sat down and watched a movie on tv that you just ignored while looking through your DVD collection? The wife specifically asked for this when I sat up the media center in the first place and I've yet to be able to find a WMC-based solution. That XBMC offers is it something I'll need investigate.
 
2012-11-20 07:24:47 PM

jayhawk88: For no other reason, apparently, than the game was on ESPN proper, and ESPN can't figure out how to stream the same number of commercials online that the broadcast over the air has.


Oh, they can. They call that "WatchESPN", but only Comcast, TWC, Verizon FIOS, and one or two other providers get you access to that, and only if you are paying for "TV" anyway. But, they can and are streaming it.

The bait-n-switch is that last year you could watch a lot of ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU stuff on ESPN3 if you were an internet subscriber on an ESPN3-paying ISP (most of them, it's only a buck or so a month per customer). This was to try to get a portion of us cord-cutters readdicted to ESPN content. And I did enjoy watching a lot of KU b-ball last year. I won't watch nearly as much this year. Meh. ESPN3 now has reverted to its original role of showing cricket tournaments and MAC football. Meh.
 
2012-11-20 07:26:18 PM
Sounds like Time Warner is demanding every American has to buy some sort of national cable insurance.
 
2012-11-20 07:27:31 PM

Izunbacol: As a side note - my living room TV is hooked to a Mac Mini (2011 vintage) with a wireless keyboard. Can anyone recommend a good TV tuner peripheral to use for direct DVRing?


The best one on the market is the SiliconDust HDHomeRun. They're networked, so you can just hook them up to your video source and your router and access them from any supported device on the network. If you're just using OTA or ClearQAM channels, you can use the standard HDHomeRun. They do have a CableCARD-compatible model, the HDHomeRun Prime, but it sounds like you won't really need it. I'm not a Mac user, but from a bit of googling, it looks like there's a DVR app called EyeTV that is compatible with the HDHomeRun.
 
2012-11-20 07:30:11 PM

cig-mkr: Maybe if they didn't gouge your freakin eyeballs out they would gain customers. $180 a month is BS for tv, internet and phone.
/ wishes he was tech savvy


Bundling racks up taxes and fees, plus the advertised cost. Besides, it's usually something like "3x savings the first six months, then 2x for 12 months, than no savings for four years." Your telecom bill will look like something a tired student would write up to make his "work shown" answer look like the one in the back of the book. First they will save you $100, then add on that much in fees.

If you just get internet service without gimmicks the price should be lower.
 
2012-11-20 07:30:15 PM

Lawnchair: jayhawk88: For no other reason, apparently, than the game was on ESPN proper, and ESPN can't figure out how to stream the same number of commercials online that the broadcast over the air has.

Oh, they can. They call that "WatchESPN", but only Comcast, TWC, Verizon FIOS, and one or two other providers get you access to that, and only if you are paying for "TV" anyway. But, they can and are streaming it.

The bait-n-switch is that last year you could watch a lot of ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU stuff on ESPN3 if you were an internet subscriber on an ESPN3-paying ISP (most of them, it's only a buck or so a month per customer). This was to try to get a portion of us cord-cutters readdicted to ESPN content. And I did enjoy watching a lot of KU b-ball last year. I won't watch nearly as much this year. Meh. ESPN3 now has reverted to its original role of showing cricket tournaments and MAC football. Meh.


I am pretty sure espn3 and watchespn are the same thing now. I am watching a big on espn3 right now and it has a big WatchESPN logo on it. Usually all the games are on it that espn has access too, they just black the shiat out anywhere that you could actually watch it on espn.
 
2012-11-20 07:35:37 PM
Finally, there is the question of advertising. According to Bewkes, advertising-only models are not viable for most types of content, pointing to the era of the big three networks as a "wasteland" for TV. He called on companies to make more ads that people want to watch, citing a James Bond trailer or ads in GQ magazine as examples.


Is there such a thing as Ads people want to watch? Ads are the main reason I don't watch more TV in the first place.
 
2012-11-20 07:36:09 PM

NickelP: I am pretty sure espn3 and watchespn are the same thing now. I am watching a big on espn3 right now and it has a big WatchESPN logo on it. Usually all the games are on it that espn has access too, they just black the shiat out anywhere that you could actually watch it on espn.


ESPN3 is the branding for obscure things that aren't being carried on ESPN1/2/3/U or are on before 5PM local (i.e., trying to push midday sports to people at work). But, yeah, it's the same delivery platform, and they're using it to push the broader WatchESPN (only for TV subscribers, and even then costing your cable company even more).
 
2012-11-20 07:36:51 PM

Lawnchair: NickelP: I am pretty sure espn3 and watchespn are the same thing now. I am watching a big on espn3 right now and it has a big WatchESPN logo on it. Usually all the games are on it that espn has access too, they just black the shiat out anywhere that you could actually watch it on espn.

ESPN3 is the branding for obscure things that aren't being carried on ESPN1/2/3/U or are on before 5PM local (i.e., trying to push midday sports to people at work). But, yeah, it's the same delivery platform, and they're using it to push the broader WatchESPN (only for TV subscribers, and even then costing your cable company even more).


I get WatchESPN with Insight (now Time Warner) and don't have tv, just internet.
 
2012-11-20 07:43:44 PM

Count_0: Finally, there is the question of advertising. According to Bewkes, advertising-only models are not viable for most types of content, pointing to the era of the big three networks as a "wasteland" for TV. He called on companies to make more ads that people want to watch, citing a James Bond trailer or ads in GQ magazine as examples.


Is there such a thing as Ads people want to watch? Ads are the main reason I don't watch more TV in the first place.


I use to go to the international Adfest showings, there be gems within the rough. But yah, 99.9999% of them are just a nuisance.
 
2012-11-20 07:48:01 PM
images.tvrage.com
You people realize that if you go strictly a la carte, there's no farking way this show ever gets off the ground, right?
 
2012-11-20 07:58:07 PM

Nexzus: I was in Orlando for a conference last week, and the Netflix selection is far superior to what is offered here in Canada. And Hulu is really neat too.

/Geographic blocking really sucks.


Yep, I keep hearing about NetFlix so I tried it out, my god the selection is crappy. OFC this is NetFlix UK... not the US version. I'm seriously considering trying to set up a VPN that only relays calls to NetFlix and Hulu down its pipe.

Laughably the same Geo-IP system they use to lock us out would just as easily feed us region specific adverts... which I'd begrudgingly watch.
 
2012-11-20 08:01:45 PM

Trocadero: [images.tvrage.com image 600x600]
You people realize that if you go strictly a la carte, there's no farking way this show ever gets off the ground, right?


Why? People said the same thing about programming in general only a few years ago, they said you'd never get a decent Scifi show without this way of doing things. Then stuff like Pioneer One appeared and was totally crowd funded.

If your show is any damn good it'll make money. If it's crap that uses every cliché in the book to be 'dark and gritty' whilst following a boring and long established formula... it dies.

So... which is your show? Good and thus make money regardless or formulaic crap?
 
2012-11-20 08:02:59 PM
He argues that "cord cutting" is overstated and that the phenomenon is limited to a small segment of low income Americans.

You sure about that. I am not.

Bewkes pointed out that the "cord nevers" are not receiving the best content (it will be interesting to see if this argument one day sways them into signing up)

The problem is cable isn't the best content anymore. Maybe if you like sports or reality shows. If not the rock stars I see in forums, Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, ect are few and far between. Reality shows done for cheap are displacing other shows.

Finally, there is the question of advertising.

Why should I pay cable to watch commercials that usually take up 18 minutes per an hour.
 
2012-11-20 08:09:03 PM

Lawnchair: jayhawk88: For no other reason, apparently, than the game was on ESPN proper, and ESPN can't figure out how to stream the same number of commercials online that the broadcast over the air has.

Oh, they can. They call that "WatchESPN", but only Comcast, TWC, Verizon FIOS, and one or two other providers get you access to that, and only if you are paying for "TV" anyway. But, they can and are streaming it.

The bait-n-switch is that last year you could watch a lot of ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU stuff on ESPN3 if you were an internet subscriber on an ESPN3-paying ISP (most of them, it's only a buck or so a month per customer). This was to try to get a portion of us cord-cutters readdicted to ESPN content. And I did enjoy watching a lot of KU b-ball last year. I won't watch nearly as much this year. Meh. ESPN3 now has reverted to its original role of showing cricket tournaments and MAC football. Meh.


I keep waiting for Disney to announce an online-exclusive package deal to their channels/content for $50/a month or something like that, that isn't tied to having a cable TV subscription with a certain provider or anything like that. The CableCo's would have kittens, but at the end of the day, what are they going to do? Drop Disney/ESPN/ABC content from their lineups?

Eventually one of the big media companies is going to get brave enough to try this, and it'll be interesting to see where it goes from there.
 
2012-11-20 08:09:06 PM
I can't go a day without watching my favorite ugly rotating jewelry show.
 
2012-11-20 08:14:53 PM
I get Unlimted LTE.

I have an OTA antenna that lets me watch live football.

Netflix/Hulu gets me anything I'd want to watch.

Why in the hell would I get cable internet or TV?
 
2012-11-20 08:28:24 PM

kg2095: exick: #oldpeopleproblems

I'm 50 years old and have never had cable. I get all my TV online basing my choices on recommendations I read on message boards.

My mum has cable and I have never seen such a collection of crap in my life. Toddlers in Tiaras, American Chopper, LA Ink - the list is long but distinguished.


Yeah, I remember when Cable had good shows.

If I turned on the Discovery Channel, they had lots of nature documentaries, that or aviation documentaries. Now they spun off all the nature shows to Animal Planet, and the aviation shows to Discovery Wings. . .leaving Discovery with shiat. You want Animal Planet and Discovery Wings? Yeah, that'll cost extra for the super-special bonus bundle of channels which comes with an extra 100 channels you don't give a shiat about.

If I turned on History Channel, they had shows about World War II and the Great Depression or medieval times. Now it's all about aliens and ghosts and reality shows about lumberjacks and truckers.

If I turned on A&E or TLC, they had neat educational shows, not reality-show crap.

They expect us pay more, while the channels we like are gutted and turned to sensationalist tabloid crap.

When I got a cable connection in my apartment, fresh out of college, in 2003 I was paying $80/month for cable and internet, I only watched maybe a half-dozen channels and had dozens I didn't watch.

When I cut the cord last year, I was paying $160/month for the same cable & internet, for a half dozen channels that were watched and several hundred I didn't watch. I didn't really have the option to go back to the same package I used to have, it was either about $30/month for "basic cable" of the broadcast networks, news networks, weather channel, and public access or pay $110 for their "premium" cable and an extra $50 for the internet. Oh, and if you had the cable internet service, you couldn't have basic cable, it had to be premium, they said it just couldn't work the other way.
 
2012-11-20 08:28:52 PM
How about it costs too much and then has ads too
 
2012-11-20 08:29:45 PM
I cut the cord earlier this year. I'm by no means low-income but I decided that the $92/month that I was handing over for cable+DVR could be put to better use. For me, the eureka moment was when I realized that I hadn't turned-on my DVR in almost two weeks. Honestly, I don't miss cable. XBMC has plugins that scour the various network websites and index the content that they make available so I still have access to the most recent episodes of shows like Big Bang Theory almost as if I'd DVR'd them.
 
2012-11-20 08:35:30 PM

Vaneshi: Trocadero: [images.tvrage.com image 600x600]
You people realize that if you go strictly a la carte, there's no farking way this show ever gets off the ground, right?

Why? People said the same thing about programming in general only a few years ago, they said you'd never get a decent Scifi show without this way of doing things. Then stuff like Pioneer One appeared and was totally crowd funded.

If your show is any damn good it'll make money. If it's crap that uses every cliché in the book to be 'dark and gritty' whilst following a boring and long established formula... it dies.

So... which is your show? Good and thus make money regardless or formulaic crap?


I haven't seen Pioneer One, but just reading about it briefly it looks more like a passion project that hasn't really made that much money (if any) and has released six episodes in 18 months despite having production costs of less than $10,000 per episode. If "the future of television" is releasing episodes every three months, then I think most people will pass.

The reason Breaking Bad and other shows wouldn't get made is because the current television model does three things incredibly well that an a la carte model can't:

1) It spreads risk between all the parties involved (creators, production companies, networks, cable companies, advertisers) so that, if a show bombs, no party takes the whole fall. Television is an incredibly risky business. More than half of shows don't see a second season. You need to spread that risk so that people don't lose their shirts and when a critically well-received show bombs out (Lone Star).

2) The barrier for entry for creating new shows is relatively low. This is an especially great thing since, as I mentioned above, the failure rate for new shows is so high. A creator invests nothing in his show except for the original idea. A production company pays him for a script and the network pays for one episode. About $2-3 million gets invested to see if an idea is worth exploring and, usually, it's pay-as-you-go for the first few months a show is on the air. Without that piecemeal approach, shows will have to be produced in larger batches (7-13 episodes before air) because people won't want to spend money on a show they don't know will plan out.

3) The barrier for entry for watching a new show is, in most cases, zero. I can watch any new show on broadcast television or cable for free. How could it possibly be easier to try something new? Under an a la carte model, I have to pay for a show before can I ever even see it. Mad Men is, by all accounts, one of, if not the, best show on television. And yet fewer than a million people watched it during the first season when they didn't even have to pay for it. How many people do you think would have watched it if they had to pay for each episode or each season individually? Probably not enough to keep it on the air.

Until a la carte can figure out those problems, the current model is better for most people.
 
2012-11-20 08:38:51 PM
Cutting cable was the best thing I ever did.. Save a shiat ton of money..

Netflix + Seedbox + Private Trackers = I spent less to fund it and see the exact shows I want, when I want. Also, I get to see shows I never got to see before because I refused to sign up for anything but super basic cable. I refused to be raped by the "packages".. Pay extra so I can get TruTV at a premium? No thanks..

Comcast also unofficially officially raised their blast cap to 500GB.. If you check your status page where the meter is.. You'll notice the quota has doubled even though it says the 250GB cap is suspended. I'm at 250GB right now but the meter is only 50% filled.
 
2012-11-20 08:42:57 PM

Count_0: Finally, there is the question of advertising. According to Bewkes, advertising-only models are not viable for most types of content, pointing to the era of the big three networks as a "wasteland" for TV. He called on companies to make more ads that people want to watch, citing a James Bond trailer or ads in GQ magazine as examples.


Is there such a thing as Ads people want to watch? Ads are the main reason I don't watch more TV in the first place.


The only reason to watch the super bowl is for the ads...
 
2012-11-20 08:43:01 PM
Count me among the "cord nevers," at least for my house of 5 years.

A hundred channels of nothing but reality shows? No thanks. F*ck off, cable.
 
2012-11-20 08:45:45 PM
I cut the cord a long time ago, but I do miss having DVR. There's no shortage of stuff for me to watch on my high powered antenna, I just dont want to be tethered to the TV to watch it.

I'm eagerly waiting a set top streaming device that will DVR antenna broadcasts as well as have all the Hulu/Netflix/YouTube streaming apps. I could build by own box, but I know my non techincal wife isn't going to want to go through a computer and open up a lot of applications. She needs something all encompassing and seemless. The new Boxee set box that just came out this month has a 2 TV turner input, cloud DVR storage for over air broadcasts and a Netflix streaming app. I believe it also allows you to stream to your other devices. Trouble is they want you to subscribe to their DVR cloud service for $9 a month (combine that with a Netflix subscription and Hulu subscription and you might as well just go back to cable). Since they just kicked this off, they also just have DVR service for just a few locations. There is also a device that just came out called Simple.TV that has a 1 TV turner card, DVR (for $4 a month) for on air/satellite broadcasts and it streams to your Roku device (which is good since we have a Roku). They've already sold through all their first batch (it was Kickstarter funded project). Both the Boxee and Simple.TV devices just came out this year, and there's apparently a lot of first adaptor issues and some pretty spotty performance. Im thinking about just getting an old refurbed TIVO model with a pre-existing lifetime subscription off of ebay until they start perfecting this kind of product. I know there's a huge demand or such a thing.
 
2012-11-20 08:48:24 PM
Gotta get them while they're young or they'll never have a lifetime addiction.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-20 09:00:28 PM

rugman11: The reason Breaking Bad and other shows wouldn't get made is because the current television model does three things incredibly well that an a la carte model can't:

1) It spreads risk between all the parties involved (creators, production companies, networks, cable companies, advertisers) so that, if a show bombs, no party takes the whole fall. Television is an incredibly risky business. More than half of shows don't see a second season. You need to spread that risk so that people don't lose their shirts and when a critically well-received show bombs out (Lone Star).

2) The barrier for entry for creating new shows is relatively low. This is an especially great thing since, as I mentioned above, the failure rate for new shows is so high. A creator invests nothing in his show except for the original idea. A production company pays him for a script and the network pays for one episode. About $2-3 million gets invested to see if an idea is worth exploring and, usually, it's pay-as-you-go for the first few months a show is on the air. Without that piecemeal approach, shows will have to be produced in larger batches (7-13 episodes before air) because people won't want to spend money on a show they don't know will plan out.

3) The barrier for entry for watching a new show is, in most cases, zero. I can watch any new show on broadcast television or cable for free. How could it possibly be easier to try something new? Under an a la carte model, I have to pay for a show before can I ever even see it. Mad Men is, by all accounts, one of, if not the, best show on television. And yet fewer than a million people watched it during the first season when they didn't even have to pay for it. How many people do you think would have watched it if they had to pay for each episode or each season individually? Probably not enough to keep it on the air.

Until a la carte can figure out those problems, the current model is better for most people.


1> exists primarily because salaries and the like are highly inflated, driving costs of production way up. This is one reason reality TV has become popular; you're featuring nobodies who work for cheap, or possibly a pittance with a chance at one big cash prize. Lower costs to produce = less risk for all involved. And you'd still be spreading the risk among actors (pay them a salary plus percentage of profits, for instance), creators, and production company, at a minimum.

2> primarily exists because cable companies create piles of shovelware hoping something will work out and be profitable. If production companies weren't trying to fill X timeslots with "some crap we think might sell", but were instead investing in products they actually thought held merit and would be profitable, we'd be just as likely to see content being produced. Potentially even moreso, since you don't have the "oh, don't bother with anything worthwhile in that timeslot opposite American Idol" factor.

3> Do what drug dealers do. "Here, watch the pilot for free! Like the pilot? Here's the page where you can subscribe/buy episodes." If you want a more savory analogy, car dealerships and test drives. This also has the benefit of opening the show's potential audience to everyone, since there's no reason not to try it; it's not showing at the same time as that other show you like, or on a channel you don't get with your package, etc.


These are anything but insurmountable issues, and in many cases, are being created by the very industry that we're saying should die. They're symptoms of the disease, not proof that a cure isn't possible.
 
2012-11-20 09:04:14 PM
Jezzus titty farking christ. These companies think they're entitled to business. It's the farking free market you pussy-ass twats.

Watch as the whole West completes it's transformation into oligarchy.
 
2012-11-20 09:12:51 PM

serial_crusher:

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.


PseudoTV and it's awesome just for that. I cut the cord years ago but I do kind of miss having someone else chose what's on TV sometimes, and just the flipping channels thing. Of course on my box if you leave PseudoTV running too long it hangs itself and you need to kill the XBMC process...
 
2012-11-20 09:22:01 PM
I'm a TWC "cord cutter", but I have no problems using their fat cable modem pipe to stream content to my Roku. Road Runner + Netflix + Hulu Plus + Amazon on Demand = $52.33 a month. Cheaper than TV + Internet. Digital antenna covers my locals, so I still get my local NFL games on Sunday. Any games I can't get, I can go to the bar and watch.

So TWC, why do I need your TV service?
 
2012-11-20 09:22:31 PM

spman: Aikidogamer: 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

This, if I could pay 20 bucks a month and get 15 channels of my choosing, I would have it.

It doesn't work like that though, and never will. The way the financials of the cable industry function, the channels you don't want to watch subsidize the channels you do want to see. I'm honestly surprised that the cable industry hasn't done more to undermine and destroy Netflix, which is doing a pretty good job at destroying multiple revenue streams.


I know...I know. You are correct; I wish you weren't. This is why I will never have cable.
 
2012-11-20 09:31:56 PM

urban.derelict: Television rots the mind.



and the Internet frees your soul and increases brain cells.
 
2012-11-20 09:47:22 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.


You just put a horrible image in my head. And because of that, I am going to share it:

You know the introduction to Terminator II with the terminators walking forward over the human bones and skulls? Replace them with the Kardashians.

/Enjoy the nightmare.
 
2012-11-20 09:48:42 PM
Ostensibly they lived with their parents and had cable then, so yeah, they're cord cutters.
 
2012-11-20 09:48:47 PM
I use DSL to watch cable for free. I also use the internets to watch any damm thing I please.

/Only suckers pay for cable
 
2012-11-20 09:57:18 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


You can blame that from a coalition of porn channels and religious channels afraid that their channels would die a quick death when only a few people signed up for them.
 
2012-11-20 10:16:04 PM

Thorak: 1> exists primarily because salaries and the like are highly inflated, driving costs of production way up. This is one reason reality TV has become popular; you're featuring nobodies who work for cheap, or possibly a pittance with a chance at one big cash prize. Lower costs to produce = less risk for all involved. And you'd still be spreading the risk among actors (pay them a salary plus percentage of profits, for instance), creators, and production company, at a minimum.


You're half right. The reason costs of production are so high because that's what the shows can bank. Ashton Kutcher doesn't make $1 million per episode for shiats and giggles. He does because Two and a Half Men (however crappy it is) brings in about $6 million in revenue PER EPISODE between advertising and syndication costs. That revenue isn't going anywhere, so if the talent isn't going to get it, then the suits are.

Basically, you're suggesting we turn the television industry into the movie industry where there's basically no middle class, only blockbusters that sell on big names or low budget indie projects. The problem with that is that the best television right now is being produced by the middle class (scripted cable shows).

2> primarily exists because cable companies create piles of shovelware hoping something will work out and be profitable. If production companies weren't trying to fill X timeslots with "some crap we think might sell", but were instead investing in products they actually thought held merit and would be profitable, we'd be just as likely to see content being produced. Potentially even moreso, since you don't have the "oh, don't bother with anything worthwhile in that timeslot opposite American Idol" factor.

Except that one man's "shovelware" is another man's treasure. 98% of the country thinks Mad Men is crap. I don't understand why you would want to limit the amount of content. Yes, there's a lot of crap out there, but there's also a lot of really great content as well and swinging a heavy sickle is going to take out a lot of wheat with the chaff.

3> Do what drug dealers do. "Here, watch the pilot for free! Like the pilot? Here's the page where you can subscribe/buy episodes." If you want a more savory analogy, car dealerships and test drives. This also has the benefit of opening the show's potential audience to everyone, since there's no reason not to try it; it's not showing at the same time as that other show you like, or on a channel you don't get with your package, etc.


These are anything but insurmountable issues, and in many cases, are being created by the very industry that we're saying should die. They're symptoms of the disease, not proof that a cure isn't possible.


That would work, but it still doesn't help the great shows with small audiences, like a lot of what we're seeing on cable right now. .The problem is that the current model is really good at getting a lot of different things to a lot of different people for a relatively small cost. Going a la carte on a wide scale is only going to limit options while raising the per hour costs and I don't see how that's an improvement to the vast majority of people (i.e. not the fewer than 5% of people who are cord cutters or cord nevers).
 
2012-11-20 10:16:46 PM

SearchN: 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.

You just put a horrible image in my head. And because of that, I am going to share it:

You know the introduction to Terminator II with the terminators walking forward over the human bones and skulls? Replace them with the Kardashians.

/Enjoy the nightmare.

Now, are the Kardashians the terminators or the skulls? If in the latter case, I'm in.
 
2012-11-20 10:27:44 PM
Your problem is forcing captivated customers on products they don't want. Same thing as iTunes: there's money on the table if you know how to play ball.
 
2012-11-20 10:28:45 PM
Cord never. Why pay when I can watch anything I want any time I want for free?

/Streaming for the win.
 
2012-11-20 10:39:46 PM
When I first began living on my own, and became responsible for all subscriptions and bills, I subscribed to Insight (now Time Warner)'s cable TV service only because I had always lived in homes with cable TV service. After several months, I realised that I rarely watched television, that the little television that I did watch could be streamed over the Internet legally or viewed over the air using an antenna (and with a better high-definition image than provided by Insight's basic cable TV package).

I canceled the television service and I now save more than $200 per year.

Some time after cancellation, an Insight representative contacted me to ask if I had switched to satellite. She was unprepared to hear that I simply did not watch sufficient television to justify a cable TV subscription.
 
2012-11-20 10:41:25 PM
Directv subscriber here. I was young and signed up for the 225 channel package, not knowing that half of them were "Mom is 57, looks 27" really looking forward to the moment when I can drop them and go with netflix and hulu. Would do it now, but I don't want to pay the early termination fee. Fark directv
 
2012-11-20 10:42:55 PM

torusXL: Jezzus titty farking christ. These companies think they're entitled to business. It's the farking free market you pussy-ass twats.


It's this sense of entitlement that made me cut the cord in the first place. I hate it when big corporations whine like we owe them something. You want my money, you better earn it. Sell me something I'm willing to pay for, and at a price that won't cripple me.

To the cable companies, the RIAA, and the MPAA - we don't owe you a goddam thing. Adapt or DIAF. Otherwise, I'm perfectly willing to let you go out of business. That's how true capitalism works.

/End rant.
 
2012-11-20 10:44:01 PM

mr intrepid: SearchN: 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.

You just put a horrible image in my head. And because of that, I am going to share it:

You know the introduction to Terminator II with the terminators walking forward over the human bones and skulls? Replace them with the Kardashians.

/Enjoy the nightmare.
Now, are the Kardashians the terminators or the skulls? If in the latter case, I'm in.


Terminators. I did say it was a nightmare. If it was the Kardashians getting crushed it would be right back to that blissful utopia train of thought.
 
2012-11-20 10:44:07 PM

Trocadero: [images.tvrage.com image 600x600]
You people realize that if you go strictly a la carte, there's no farking way this show ever gets off the ground, right?


And the number of shows on Netflix would would slowly ground to zero.
 
2012-11-20 10:49:04 PM

Trocadero: [images.tvrage.com image 600x600]
You people realize that if you go strictly a la carte, there's no farking way this show ever gets off the ground, right?


I don't see how that would hurt good shows like BB. It seems like if people could choose specific channels, rather than getting a bundle with 500 channels there would be pressure to make a product that people actually enjoy. You couldn't just put out another "You'll watch it, because you're farking stupid" reality show, since it won't get lumped in with other channels that actually bring in customers.

Maybe I'm weird. I tend to find good movies, shows, and music (mostly music) through:
- recommendations of friends that have similar tastes
- every now and then watching the first couple episodes of some random thing I find on hulu or wherever
- spotify or youtube for music, just go to some band I like and look at "similar artists" or the videos on the side of the page. Maybe Wiki an artist you find there to see what else the band members have done, which leads to great stuff.
- reading forums where someone posts something like you just did for Breaking Bad, which I then look into out of curiosity
 
2012-11-20 10:50:46 PM
I didn't have cable before not having cable was cool.
 
2012-11-20 10:52:49 PM
I guess I am a cord never. I have never had cable to satellite TV. I had it by default in college though.
Every time I'm at someone's house that has cable I'll flip through 100+ channels to see absolutely nothing worth watching. some bride show, some fat people yellow at food, hillbillies driving trucks or some other reality garbage show, not to mention 50 religious stations and Mexican TV.

Now if it was a la carte and I could pick up some sports stations that showed the local MLB, NBA and all NFL games and F1 races, I would jump all over that. Sports and news are about the only thing you need channels for anymore, everything else should be on demand.

make an on demand/channel hybrid. Say have a basic access fee $5, add any show you want for $1-$5 a month, add a channel for $3-$8 a month. Then keep the same channel packages as well.

So maybe it would be like, you can have breaking bad for $2 a month or all of A&E for $4 a month.

Whether or not something like that would work, who knows. I know if I could get something that offfered a Sunday Ticket, all texas rangers games, all Mavs games, all F1 races, Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, Science, History and military channel for a reasonable price I'd jump all over that. hell that right there I'd probably pay $25 a month for it.
 
2012-11-20 11:03:34 PM

Unobtanium: 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.


distance to the central office doesn't matter, distance to dslam does. anymore than 2000ft on uverse and you're really gonna have a bad time, at least in my experience. anyone who had constant problems, all had fiber to note, and almost all were on long loops.
 
2012-11-20 11:12:30 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: You couldn't just put out another "You'll watch it, because you're farking stupid" reality show, since it won't get lumped in with other channels that actually bring in customers.


"No one in this world, so far as I know-and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me-has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people." -- H.L. Mencken

It's cheap to make and people watch. Let go of the illusion that people will watch a show just because it's good. That has never been true and it will never be true.

there their theyre: I know if I could get something that offfered a Sunday Ticket, all texas rangers games, all Mavs games, all F1 races, Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, Science, History and military channel for a reasonable price I'd jump all over that. hell that right there I'd probably pay $25 a month for it.


And this is the other big illusion: That you think you could get all of that for $25. In an a la carte world, that will cost as much as any basic package right now.
 
2012-11-20 11:12:40 PM
Anyone I know around my age is against the idea of paying for cable. It's viewed as an overly-expensive and unnecessary luxury...so, basically people see it for what it is. They don't help their case by charging so damn much. Younger people are spending most of their income on rent alone; demanding over 10% of that rent as an additional payment for something superfluous like a thousand useless channels is pathetic. Especially as almost all of them are either savvy enough to hook up downloading/streaming themselves or at least know someone who can do it for them. Adapt or die, assholes.
 
2012-11-20 11:19:42 PM

FishyFred: Don't Troll Me Bro!: You couldn't just put out another "You'll watch it, because you're farking stupid" reality show, since it won't get lumped in with other channels that actually bring in customers.

"No one in this world, so far as I know-and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me-has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people." -- H.L. Mencken

It's cheap to make and people watch. Let go of the illusion that people will watch a show just because it's good. That has never been true and it will never be true.

there their theyre: I know if I could get something that offfered a Sunday Ticket, all texas rangers games, all Mavs games, all F1 races, Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, Science, History and military channel for a reasonable price I'd jump all over that. hell that right there I'd probably pay $25 a month for it.

And this is the other big illusion: That you think you could get all of that for $25. In an a la carte world, that will cost as much as any basic package right now.


Which is why they will continue to not get my money. Hell not like I'm asking for all that much considering how television seasons and sports seasons run.
 
2012-11-20 11:22:00 PM

FishyFred: Don't Troll Me Bro!: You couldn't just put out another "You'll watch it, because you're farking stupid" reality show, since it won't get lumped in with other channels that actually bring in customers.

"No one in this world, so far as I know-and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me-has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people." -- H.L. Mencken

It's cheap to make and people watch. Let go of the illusion that people will watch a show just because it's good. That has never been true and it will never be true.


No. I don't want to live in that world. I will, however, gladly acknowledge that a show sucking ass won't discourage most people from watching. Of course, I guess most people would rather listen to Justin Beiber than take the time to dissect the instrumentals of some actual music and ponder the meaning of the lyrics. That's depressing. I'm gonna go listen to some Sisters of Mercy and feel better and more depressed all at once.
 
2012-11-20 11:23:33 PM

there their theyre: I guess I am a cord never. I have never had cable to satellite TV. I had it by default in college though.
Every time I'm at someone's house that has cable I'll flip through 100+ channels to see absolutely nothing worth watching. some bride show, some fat people yellow at food, hillbillies driving trucks or some other reality garbage show, not to mention 50 religious stations and Mexican TV.

Now if it was a la carte and I could pick up some sports stations that showed the local MLB, NBA and all NFL games and F1 races, I would jump all over that. Sports and news are about the only thing you need channels for anymore, everything else should be on demand.

make an on demand/channel hybrid. Say have a basic access fee $5, add any show you want for $1-$5 a month, add a channel for $3-$8 a month. Then keep the same channel packages as well.

So maybe it would be like, you can have breaking bad for $2 a month or all of A&E for $4 a month.

Whether or not something like that would work, who knows. I know if I could get something that offfered a Sunday Ticket, all texas rangers games, all Mavs games, all F1 races, Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, Science, History and military channel for a reasonable price I'd jump all over that. hell that right there I'd probably pay $25 a month for it.


You're vastly underestimating your costs there. At $2 per month, Breaking Bad would need 6-7 million subscribers just to break even, or about double what they're getting now. Realistically, they'd be more likely to get half the viewers or less, so you're looking at probably $2 per episode for the show, or about what they're charging now on iTunes.
 
2012-11-20 11:29:34 PM
I love my television antenna.
 
2012-11-20 11:34:42 PM
As someone whose cable got shut off because I could no longer pay for it, and only gets internet thru my phone, i'm so NOT getting a kick...

I would KILL for crappy reality shows and lame sitcoms right now...

/slowly going crazy
 
2012-11-20 11:45:45 PM
I have cable TV... finally got it after installing a Ceton InfiniTV Quad tuner in my PC. No cable box, though. It's nice, because I can watch and record all the shows I enjoy, including HBO (which was tossed in for free). Even nicer since live TV streams seamlessly to my Xbox 360.

$20/month for extended HD cable? Not too bad... certainly less than cost than the risk of pirating. I'll be legit when I can, and trying more and more each year. But definitely being able to record what I want to watch (and no DVR fees, even) at a later time rocks.
 
2012-11-20 11:54:44 PM

rugman11: there their theyre: I guess I am a cord never. I have never had cable to satellite TV. I had it by default in college though.
Every time I'm at someone's house that has cable I'll flip through 100+ channels to see absolutely nothing worth watching. some bride show, some fat people yellow at food, hillbillies driving trucks or some other reality garbage show, not to mention 50 religious stations and Mexican TV.

Now if it was a la carte and I could pick up some sports stations that showed the local MLB, NBA and all NFL games and F1 races, I would jump all over that. Sports and news are about the only thing you need channels for anymore, everything else should be on demand.

make an on demand/channel hybrid. Say have a basic access fee $5, add any show you want for $1-$5 a month, add a channel for $3-$8 a month. Then keep the same channel packages as well.

So maybe it would be like, you can have breaking bad for $2 a month or all of A&E for $4 a month.

Whether or not something like that would work, who knows. I know if I could get something that offfered a Sunday Ticket, all texas rangers games, all Mavs games, all F1 races, Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, Science, History and military channel for a reasonable price I'd jump all over that. hell that right there I'd probably pay $25 a month for it.

You're vastly underestimating your costs there. At $2 per month, Breaking Bad would need 6-7 million subscribers just to break even, or about double what they're getting now. Realistically, they'd be more likely to get half the viewers or less, so you're looking at probably $2 per episode for the show, or about what they're charging now on iTunes.


You are forgetting ad revenue. Comcast pays a carrier fee of around $2 for a&e per month per subscriber. So no, what I was proposing is not unreasonable.
 
2012-11-21 12:05:19 AM

Phil Moskowitz: Gotta get them while they're young or they'll never have a lifetime addiction.

[i.imgur.com image 350x254]


More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette
 
2012-11-21 12:10:05 AM

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


Um, I've had a computer of some sort or another attached to my TV for the last 6 years. Originally I was able to run coax from my desktop to the TV and display to either monitor or TV. After this proof of concept, I built a little micro ATX thing with a composite video out that ran XP off of a 1GHZ processor, 500GB HD and used a wiimote for a mouse pointer since wireless keyboards that could reach across the room cost big bucks back then. It was good enough to play MKVs, and that's what I was looking for. 3 Years ago it made more sense to build a new computer with a blu-ray player than it did to buy a dedicated blu-ray player since the prices were pretty close.

Now you people are talking about "smart" TVs. My 5 year old rear projection 59" HDTV runs windows 7, can be controlled from my smart phone or any other computer in the house, has a full keyboard and mouse that work from the couch, and holds 2TB of content.

Which is still small compared to the 78" computer screen thrown by the projector in the office, but that's not really a TV.
 
2012-11-21 12:10:40 AM

there their theyre: You are forgetting ad revenue. Comcast pays a carrier fee of around $2 for a&e per month per subscriber. So no, what I was proposing is not unreasonable.


Have you forgotten that the carriage fee would disappear in the a la carte world?
 
2012-11-21 12:19:36 AM

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.


Which is why Google's dabbling into delivering gigabit service is making their collective anuses pucker.
 
2012-11-21 12:21:34 AM

FishyFred: there their theyre: You are forgetting ad revenue. Comcast pays a carrier fee of around $2 for a&e per month per subscriber. So no, what I was proposing is not unreasonable.

Have you forgotten that the carriage fee would disappear in the a la carte world?


Because the consumer would.pay for it directly...
 
2012-11-21 12:25:54 AM

rugman11: You're vastly underestimating your costs there. At $2 per month, Breaking Bad would need 6-7 million subscribers just to break even, or about double what they're getting now


You missed a word, it's small but important. Globally.

It would need 6 - 7 million subscribers globally @ $2us p/m. That doesn't include additional, per device, costs or people appearing for one shots, bulk purchases of a season and so on.

That is actually a very low amount considering how many millions use the internet.
 
2012-11-21 12:34:39 AM
Cut the cord in 1998. Working as a programmer(not exactly low-income). Gave TV away the same day, And I have never looked back with regret.
 
2012-11-21 12:39:35 AM

there their theyre: FishyFred: there their theyre: You are forgetting ad revenue. Comcast pays a carrier fee of around $2 for a&e per month per subscriber. So no, what I was proposing is not unreasonable.

Have you forgotten that the carriage fee would disappear in the a la carte world?

Because the consumer would.pay for it directly...


Far fewer consumers. Not enough to make up the difference. Also, $2 per subscriber is unrealistically low. It underestimates the show's budget and the number of viewers, but the biggest problem with the number is that it doesn't include the cost of marketing and promotion.

Vaneshi: You missed a word, it's small but important. Globally.


For BB, it's not important at all. Gritty dramas don't travel well. Big dumb action movies travel well.
 
2012-11-21 01:16:40 AM
What little TV programs and movies I watch I enjoy purely through Netflix or other means if unattainable thru a streaming service or iTunes. I've never paid for cable. Nor will I ever. I don't even use my TV but for a little bit of Wii or SNES play time. Most my personal entertainment is with my laptop. Mostly I read news magazines and blogs (though mostly Fark links) and make bad days better by laughing with Imgur, but there is NOTHING that cable or even terrestrial TV offers that I care about. Most everything is reality shows anyways, and what very few well written and produced shows there are, I just catch them online at some point in time. Usually when I can catch a whole season at a time. I have plenty to occupy my free time. I just need a decent internet connection and I'm a very happy gal.
 
2012-11-21 01:17:49 AM
JusticeandIndependence : 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.

Sadly I live in a valley and get jack shiat for TV signals.

In a few years when I buy a house, I plan to buy or build a crazy antenna in the attic.
 
2012-11-21 01:32:32 AM

lordargent: JusticeandIndependence : 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.

Sadly I live in a valley and get jack shiat for TV signals.

In a few years when I buy a house, I plan to buy or build a crazy antenna in the attic.


Try this maybe Link
 
2012-11-21 02:02:51 AM
I can think of one or two shows on television that I'm interested in seeing that aren't legally available online.

So no, I'm not going to pay for cable for one or two shows. Sorry. Not farking worth it.

Your distribution model is archaic and restrictive. Evolve or die.
 
2012-11-21 03:17:25 AM
And why would a "cord never" pay $2 an episode for anything that they can torrent off The Pirate Bay? Piracy is the most efficient method of distributing content - and impossible to monetize (pirates simply edit out advertisements). Until piracy is made difficult for the average person, the average person will spend their $2 on a necessary expense rather than an "ethically optional" one.
 
2012-11-21 03:47:17 AM

narkor: And why would a "cord never" pay $2 an episode for anything that they can torrent off The Pirate Bay? Piracy is the most efficient method of distributing content - and impossible to monetize (pirates simply edit out advertisements). Until piracy is made difficult for the average person, the average person will spend their $2 on a necessary expense rather than an "ethically optional" one.


Eventually piracy gets tiresome. I'm in my early thirties and tech savvy, but frankly can't be bothered to pirate stuff anymore. Netflix and Amazon prime are cheap with loads of content, and I don't mind paying a bit for dvds or digital episodes of stuff I can't find elswhere. My local library either carries or can get any recent popular show as well. Piracy, unless it's changed a lot in the past ten years, can be a bit of a hassle, and I don't think worth the even slight chance of getting sued.
 
2012-11-21 04:00:20 AM

Fail in Human Form: 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.


When that starts to fail, encrypted random packets hidden as HTML.

Every block they try to implement will be circumvented. They have a team of 60 guys working on how to stop people, the internet has a team of 60,000,000 guys working on how to not let that happen...

wraith95: Piracy, unless it's changed a lot in the past ten years, can be a bit of a hassle, and I don't think worth the even slight chance of getting sued.


It`s changed a lot. Type the name of the show, film or game you want into google followed by the word torrent. As long as you have a torrent client installed you are two clicks away from your show, game or film. If you have encryption, peer guardian etc then there is pretty much no risk of legal anything either.

So, changes in the last ten years are, no hassle and no legal problems...
 
2012-11-21 05:40:05 AM

Trocadero: You people realize that if you go strictly a la carte, there's no farking way this show ever gets off the ground, right?


I know. History is full of examples of fully á la carte channels -- HBO, Showtime, etc. -- which have proven time and again they are incapable of producing any sort of decent programming or getting people to subscribe.

/ If you want to live in 1970s TV economics go ahead. There's no reason to drag the rest of us down with you.
 
2012-11-21 05:42:35 AM

rugman11: More than half of shows don't see a second season.


That's a limitation of the current economic model -- where you have to appeal to an enormously wide swath of viewers -- not of media production in general.
 
2012-11-21 05:50:27 AM

narkor: Piracy is the most efficient method of distributing content - and impossible to monetize (pirates simply edit out advertisements).


Piracy is hugely inefficient. It would be much easier to simply get the data directly from the producer, rather than pushing it through some distributer that pays for a huge distribution network (i.e. cable or broadcast), inserting advertising, recoding, stripping the advertising, re-encoding and re-distributing over the Internet. Direct distribution would cut out most of those steps while improving the end-user experience.

And near-line advertising is hardly the only method available to monetize a performance. It's arguably not even a good method for most businesses if you bother actually measure the results vs. costs. It's just the method the TV/radio developed in the past few decades, and that they're used to selling, so the people running those now-vertically-integrated businesses aren't keen to try anything else.
 
2012-11-21 06:37:59 AM
For me, the best part of not having cable is not needing to have an opinion about the relative merits and political slants of various cable news channels.
 
2012-11-21 07:10:39 AM
The only people I know who have cable are my 72 year old mother and her partner and they only have it because her partner is addicted to MSNBC because he is unable to form his own opinions on anything and likes/needs to be told what he thinks. They have never used their DVR and have no idea how to and schedule their lives rigidly around when their "programs" come on.

I've never had cable and can't imagine ever deciding to get it. I have a smart tv with built in Netflix etc., a laptop hooked up to it with which I can stream anything for free, 4TBs of media hooked up to that, a blu-ray player/burner, a dvd/vhs player/burner and an antenna so I can watch the local news --- in 3D!!! My dad had cable for a while when I was a kid and we watched a lot of Comedy Central and Nick at Nite and that was nice, but he dropped cable before it was cool to cut the cord and doesn't seem to miss it at all. He buys a lot of Criterion films and it can take days to go through all the extras on those discs.
 
2012-11-21 08:17:39 AM

profplump: narkor: Piracy is the most efficient method of distributing content - and impossible to monetize (pirates simply edit out advertisements).

Piracy is hugely inefficient. It would be much easier to simply get the data directly from the producer, rather than pushing it through some distributer that pays for a huge distribution network (i.e. cable or broadcast), inserting advertising, recoding, stripping the advertising, re-encoding and re-distributing over the Internet. Direct distribution would cut out most of those steps while improving the end-user experience.

And near-line advertising is hardly the only method available to monetize a performance. It's arguably not even a good method for most businesses if you bother actually measure the results vs. costs. It's just the method the TV/radio developed in the past few decades, and that they're used to selling, so the people running those now-vertically-integrated businesses aren't keen to try anything else.


I've always said if they dropped an ad-supported file on usenet at the same time as the show hit the air, I'd go ahead and watch that. I'm not pirating to avoid commercials. I'm pirating because I have to wait between 1 and 7 days to watch a show on Hulu, and even then I'm frequently not allowed to watch it in my living room for whatever reason.

Now, I'm intrigued that you talk about other monetization models. Care to expound on what options there are? I can think of subscriptions and product placements. I don't think either would fully fund the amount of content we consume these days (at least not without pissing off consumers). Product placement works in shows like Chuck where they made a big joke about it, but in serious shows you have to be a little more subtle. Subscription only services will probably turn into the same kind of crap you're paying for with cable ("look, I only wanted to pay $8 for Netflix because they had Star Trek and Law & Order. Now they've jacked the price up to 10 so they could pick up a bunch of Reality shows and crappy movies?!?!?").
A la carte subscriptions to individual shows might work but I'd figure you'd spend more per-show than you would otherwise. Look at the costs of buying a show on iTunes.

Are there any that I missed?
 
2012-11-21 09:20:50 AM

profplump: Trocadero: You people realize that if you go strictly a la carte, there's no farking way this show ever gets off the ground, right?

I know. History is full of examples of fully á la carte channels -- HBO, Showtime, etc. -- which have proven time and again they are incapable of producing any sort of decent programming or getting people to subscribe.

/ If you want to live in 1970s TV economics go ahead. There's no reason to drag the rest of us down with you.


HBO and Showtime don't get anyone to subscribe ... the cable providers do. HBO and Showtime model's work because they run on the backs of the Cable conglomerates to pay for all the overhead of marketing, subscription and getting their product into people's television sets, while they get to focus solely focus on providing content. Thus the reason why they'll never go independent and provide their content away from the subscription cable/satellite model (even access to HBOGo requires a cable/satellite subscription).
 
2012-11-21 09:30:14 AM

FishyFred: For BB, it's not important at all. Gritty dramas don't travel well. Big dumb action movies travel well.


Huh, really? So lets see...
NCIS, NCIS:LA, Detroit 187... Boardwalk Empire... all of these and more are on my XBMC machine. So yeah drama's gritty or otherwise travel well because they aren't on a machine in the states.

You were and appear to be continuing to do exactly the same thing as the people who run Hulu do; ignoring that the internet has no borders. You need 6 - 7 million globally and that is exceptionally easy for a decent show to do.
 
2012-11-21 09:31:34 AM
Also getting cable is like inviting organized crime into your house. Once you establish a "business relationship" with those people you lose all protection from the harassing phone calls, especially if you want to leave later.
 
2012-11-21 09:43:27 AM

NickelP: jayhawk88: The other day my wife picked the girls up from daycare and took them out for dinner and shopping with her mom, leaving me with the house to myself for several hours. As a bonus, KU was playing Mich State that night, bonus.

I grab a greasy burger on the way home and load up the XBox to turn on ESPN3. Updating...updating...updating, horray! Oh but ESPN3 app needs to update too. Updating...updating...updating, horray! There's the game, load it up....

...blacked out. For pretty much the entire country east of the Rockies. For no other reason, apparently, than the game was on ESPN proper, and ESPN can't figure out how to stream the same number of commercials online that the broadcast over the air has.

I suppose somewhere, some television exec figures that artificial limitations on streaming content will make me want to subscribe to cable TV, but in reality it just makes me hate every company involved more. Cox, ESPN, Disney, hell Microsoft for no damn reason.

Fark cable TV. I wasn't sure if I'd enjoy it when we cut the cord ~a year ago, thanks to the lack of sports, but there's no way I'm ever going back.

This, that shiat pisses me off so much. I just use the money I save on cable to go to the sports bar though when needed. I wind up having a good time there so its win/win.


Me too, I play a bit of Keno, as well, and come out significantly ahead most often.
 
2012-11-21 09:47:29 AM

dready zim: It`s changed a lot. Type the name of the show, film or game you want into google followed by the word torrent. As long as you have a torrent client installed you are two clicks away from your show, game or film. If you have encryption, peer guardian etc then there is pretty much no risk of legal anything either.


It's not even that hard. With private trackers and RSS feeds you can have downloaded automatically to your computer, you don't even need to go find it. Combine that with an HTPC running XBMC and, when you turn on your TV, you automatically have access to pretty much any content you want without having to do any work at all
 
2012-11-21 10:21:31 AM

Vaneshi: Huh, really? So lets see...
NCIS, NCIS:LA, Detroit 187... Boardwalk Empire


Procedural, procedural, police procedural... and a gorgeous period piece. BB is none of those.

I like how you're so sure that it would be easy to get 6 million people to pay $2 to watch Breaking Bad (which is an unrealistically low price AND is still too expensive for several billion of your potential customers) even though, without traditional TV, we would have just lost the most valuable avenue for marketing the show in the first place.

You are engaging in wishful thinking.
 
2012-11-21 10:44:11 AM

The My Little Pony Killer: ModernPrimitive01: you just end up watching on your tiny a$$ computer monitor

My monitor has the same size screen my teevee had when I trashed it. It wasn't a small teevee either.



Tiny? oh dear...
I have my media center computer hooked up to a projector on my wall. My screen is 112".
www.electronichouse.com
 
2012-11-21 10:44:55 AM
I did that in 1987.
 
2012-11-21 10:46:52 AM

Bukharin: www.electronichouse.com


I should have quoted MP01 and not Pony's quote.
Sorry about that.
 
2012-11-21 11:04:12 AM
I'm too old to be a "cord never", but I am an early cord cutter. I would have been completely cut off from cable if my ex-wife hadn't been so into live television and unwilling to learn new technology. My fiancee now is totally different. She's all for having the entertainment via my various Internet/Rental services, as long as I can get certain shows and content, which I can.

Between Netflix, Redbox, Amazon Prime, Vudu, Over-the-Air broadcasts, and Video-On-Demand purchases from either Amazon or iTunes, I can get any show or movie we want. More obscure stuff can be had, too, if one is creative.

And here's the thing: With over 60 years of TV shows behind us now, it's not like we're going to run out of things to watch. So few good things are made now, anyway. Instead of paying for cable to watch some shiatty reality show, we'll watch reruns of Kids in the Hall, The Addams Family, Buck Rogers, Dark Shadows, Three's Company, Greatest American Hero, and a bajillion other old shows.

We have enough content to last us forever. F♥ck the networks and their new reality show crap. I'll tune in (or pay for) episodes of Fringe, Doctor Who, Red Dwarf, The Venture Bros., Game of Thrones, and The Walking Dead. My fiancee is getting me into Once Upon a Time, and she likes Castle (I might learn to like it). That's about all the current lineup offers to us. (Oh, okay. Scooby Doo Mystery Incorporated, Young Justice, Adventure Time, and Regular Show, too.)

Between my PS3, my Wii U, my Sony SMP-N200 streaming media player, and my Micca Slim, we have the opportunity for great movie nights, awesome gaming entertainment (which we both agree is better than passive entertainment like TV), and the best cable TV can offer, served in affordable slices.

Pay for decent Internet service. Tell the cable company they can keep their channel line-ups. Get yourself some decent hardware and a good antenna. Save a ton over the course of a year. Save tens of thousands (or more!) over your lifetime.

Sorry, cable: We're not as complacent and easy to trick as our parents. We're tech-savvy. We're not couch potatoes. We're not surgically-connected to our "clicker" like the Baby Boomers are.

/I love my parents, but they would go crazy without the ability to flip channels.
//It's compulsive with their generation, I think.
 
2012-11-21 11:15:05 AM
Your problem is you're a greedy, unreachable monolith with IT monkey wage slaves and you sell something you paid off years ago at a ridiculous price and rarely actually deliver what you said you would. IT isn't all shiny and new, anymore and there's grease all over the kitchen, your parking lot is rubble and people are sending the food back. I realize that once you foist this dump off on some conglomerate and take all the cash you scraped out of it and move to the Caymans, you wont care, but asking us to care now is a bit insulting.
 
2012-11-21 11:43:37 AM
InmanRoshi: HBO and Showtime don't get anyone to subscribe ... the cable providers do.

So you're telling me that the cable providers pay for all of HBOs ads? Like on billboards and bus stops and the like?

And that HBO doesn't pay other cable operators to advertise their channels?

And that the cable operators don't tack their own fees on top of HBO so that they can make a profit on it as well?
 
2012-11-21 11:48:17 AM
ZeroCorpse : And here's the thing: With over 60 years of TV shows behind us now, it's not like we're going to run out of things to watch. So few good things are made now, anyway. Instead of paying for cable to watch some shiatty reality show, we'll watch reruns of Kids in the Hall, The Addams Family, Buck Rogers, Dark Shadows, Three's Company, Greatest American Hero, and a bajillion other old shows.

I watched all of that, what else you got? Especially in the sci-fi range.

// I even watched Andromeda, Lexx and Cleopatra 2525
 
2012-11-21 12:50:30 PM
Awwwwwwww maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan I don't feeeeeeel like breaking into this new market. Come ooooooon guyyyyzzz my service is already there it'd be too much work to make a new one. Jeeeeeeez.

As my wife puts it, when dudes whine, it kills her girl boner. This guy is definitely killing her girl boner.
 
2012-11-21 12:58:59 PM

BumpInTheNight: Count_0: Finally, there is the question of advertising. According to Bewkes, advertising-only models are not viable for most types of content, pointing to the era of the big three networks as a "wasteland" for TV. He called on companies to make more ads that people want to watch, citing a James Bond trailer or ads in GQ magazine as examples.


Is there such a thing as Ads people want to watch? Ads are the main reason I don't watch more TV in the first place.

I use to go to the international Adfest showings, there be gems within the rough. But yah, 99.9999% of them are just a nuisance.


And even the clever ones tend to get really annoying once you've seen them four times in the same evening.

/that's why I won't watch shows off of MTV.com anymore
//watched one episode of Beavis and Butthead, saw the same 2 commercials over and over and over and over again.
///sometimes the same commercial 3 times in a row in the same break
 
2012-11-21 01:46:35 PM

Bukharin: The My Little Pony Killer: ModernPrimitive01: you just end up watching on your tiny a$$ computer monitor

My monitor has the same size screen my teevee had when I trashed it. It wasn't a small teevee either.


Tiny? oh dear...
I have my media center computer hooked up to a projector on my wall. My screen is 112".
[www.electronichouse.com image 300x227]


Why XP, why?
 
2012-11-21 02:11:31 PM

MadMattressMack: Why XP, why?


It's not a Medic Center™ brand OS, it's just a center for my media. Nero... Winamp... Firefox... etc.

I tried WMC XP 2005 and that piece of shiat would freeze all the time, I had to reinstall it almost every year. I never tried Vista to compare, but I bet it was worse than Vista.
 
2012-11-21 02:39:02 PM

FishyFred: You are engaging in wishful thinking.


The $2 per month, 6 - 7 million subscribers to sustain/fund a show like "Breaking Bad" ARE YOUR FIGURES DIPshiat, IT'S ALSO THE SHOW YOU MENTIONED.

Now it's been proven that's possible you want to move the goal posts. NOPE. In the retard corner you go asshole.
 
2012-11-21 03:08:25 PM
I am also proud of all the media I steal. Let me tell you about it.
 
2012-11-21 04:08:00 PM

Vaneshi: FishyFred: You are engaging in wishful thinking.

The $2 per month, 6 - 7 million subscribers to sustain/fund a show like "Breaking Bad" ARE YOUR FIGURES DIPshiat, IT'S ALSO THE SHOW YOU MENTIONED.

Now it's been proven that's possible you want to move the goal posts. NOPE. In the retard corner you go asshole.


I'll give you the three million who watch in America. How are you going to get the other three million? Consider the following:

It's in English. It has little international appeal. Your suggestion that it could sell overseas is just wrong. How do I know that? Because Sony is trying to sell the concept internationally for LOCALIZED productions. (pops) They don't want to just hire some international voice actors to dub this show. And if they did, by the way, that's more production costs and your $2 price is looking sillier than it already does.

More than a billion people live on about $1 per day. And really, anyone who's below what would be considered the American poverty line is out of the question. Your international audience is starting to look very narrow.

You have no marketing budget and, without the force of cable marketing and channels, your show is about to get lost in a sea of other entertainment options vying for your attention. There isn't enough room for everyone. Why are you so sure people will choose BB over something else? Again, the subject matter doesn't have a lot of international appeal. People have a thing for localized productions. The American imports that work tend to be big dumb action movies, which aren't made anywhere other than Hollywood (and maybe Bollywood).

You have zero examples to draw from. You are the one working from bare-assed assertions. I'm not saying that there won't eventually be a first example to prove me wrong, but the idea that you can bring in as much money right now selling a show directly to consumers as you can in the current arrangement is utter nonsense.
 
2012-11-21 06:47:37 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: I am also proud of all the media I steal.


*You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means*
 
2012-11-21 09:11:16 PM

narkor: And why would a "cord never" pay $2 an episode for anything that they can torrent off The Pirate Bay? Piracy is the most efficient method of distributing content - and impossible to monetize (pirates simply edit out advertisements). Until piracy is made difficult for the average person, the average person will spend their $2 on a necessary expense rather than an "ethically optional" one.


Because I'm not a teenager and I know that people need money for content. I always try for a legal option before torrenting any show and I wish I had more.
 
2012-11-21 10:57:01 PM

Bukharin: MadMattressMack: Why XP, why?

It's not a Medic Center™ brand OS, it's just a center for my media. Nero... Winamp... Firefox... etc.

I tried WMC XP 2005 and that piece of shiat would freeze all the time, I had to reinstall it almost every year. I never tried Vista to compare, but I bet it was worse than Vista.


What the...!? *checks calendar*

Windows 7, man! Windows 8 is out but avoid it at all costs.
 
2012-11-21 11:15:19 PM

wraith95: narkor: And why would a "cord never" pay $2 an episode for anything that they can torrent off The Pirate Bay? Piracy is the most efficient method of distributing content - and impossible to monetize (pirates simply edit out advertisements). Until piracy is made difficult for the average person, the average person will spend their $2 on a necessary expense rather than an "ethically optional" one.

Eventually piracy gets tiresome. I'm in my early thirties and tech savvy, but frankly can't be bothered to pirate stuff anymore. Netflix and Amazon prime are cheap with loads of content, and I don't mind paying a bit for dvds or digital episodes of stuff I can't find elswhere. My local library either carries or can get any recent popular show as well. Piracy, unless it's changed a lot in the past ten years, can be a bit of a hassle, and I don't think worth the even slight chance of getting sued.


It's not a hassle but I would rather pay $2 and get a show honestly if the option is there.
 
2012-11-21 11:26:51 PM

FishyFred: Vaneshi: FishyFred: You are engaging in wishful thinking.

The $2 per month, 6 - 7 million subscribers to sustain/fund a show like "Breaking Bad" ARE YOUR FIGURES DIPshiat, IT'S ALSO THE SHOW YOU MENTIONED.

Now it's been proven that's possible you want to move the goal posts. NOPE. In the retard corner you go asshole.

I'll give you the three million who watch in America. How are you going to get the other three million? Consider the following:

It's in English. It has little international appeal. Your suggestion that it could sell overseas is just wrong. How do I know that? Because Sony is trying to sell the concept internationally for LOCALIZED productions. (pops) They don't want to just hire some international voice actors to dub this show. And if they did, by the way, that's more production costs and your $2 price is looking sillier than it already does.

More than a billion people live on about $1 per day. And really, anyone who's below what would be considered the American poverty line is out of the question. Your international audience is starting to look very narrow.

You have no marketing budget and, without the force of cable marketing and channels, your show is about to get lost in a sea of other entertainment options vying for your attention. There isn't enough room for everyone. Why are you so sure people will choose BB over something else? Again, the subject matter doesn't have a lot of international appeal. People have a thing for localized productions. The American imports that work tend to be big dumb action movies, which aren't made anywhere other than Hollywood (and maybe Bollywood).

You have zero examples to draw from. You are the one working from bare-assed assertions. I'm not saying that there won't eventually be a first example to prove me wrong, but the idea that you can bring in as much money right now selling a show directly to consumers as you can in the current arrangement is utter nonsense.


If only there were other English speaking countries in the world that consume US TV shows.
 
2012-11-22 06:07:26 AM
What I like about CEOs these days is by the time they've attained their position they've stopped thinking as humans and entirely converted to thinking like vampires. They look at consumers as food.
 
2012-11-23 09:43:20 AM

FishyFred: It's in English. It has little international appeal. Your suggestion that it could sell overseas is just wrong. How do I know that? Because Sony is trying to sell the concept internationally for LOCALIZED productions. (pops) They don't want to just hire some international voice actors to dub this show. And if they did, by the way, that's more production costs and your $2 price is looking sillier than it already does.


Article: The Russian free-to-air broadcaster has already aired several versions of Sony formats including Married With Children and King of Queens and discussions are underway about a local version of the sitcom, which still airs on broadcast network CBS in the US.

Wikipedia: The King of Queens is an American sitcom that originally ran on CBS from September 21, 1998, to May 14, 2007

Super fail.

/syndication, how does it work?
 
2012-11-23 09:45:31 AM

dletter: FishyFred: It's in English. It has little international appeal. Your suggestion that it could sell overseas is just wrong. How do I know that? Because Sony is trying to sell the concept internationally for LOCALIZED productions. (pops) They don't want to just hire some international voice actors to dub this show. And if they did, by the way, that's more production costs and your $2 price is looking sillier than it already does.

Article: The Russian free-to-air broadcaster has already aired several versions of Sony formats including Married With Children and King of Queens and discussions are underway about a local version of the sitcom, which still airs on broadcast network CBS in the US.

Wikipedia: The King of Queens is an American sitcom that originally ran on CBS from September 21, 1998, to May 14, 2007

Super fail.

/syndication, how does it work?


My bad, they were referencing "Rules of Engagement", not King of Queens.... slightly bad referencial english though.
 
2012-11-23 12:00:15 PM

dletter: /syndication, how does it work?


I didn't say that no shows get dubbed. I said that Breaking Bad is not dubbed.
 
2012-11-23 01:07:00 PM

FishyFred: dletter: /syndication, how does it work?

I didn't say that no shows get dubbed. I said that Breaking Bad is not dubbed.


Wasn't commenting on you was commenting on the article linked.
 
Displayed 187 of 187 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report