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 44
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-20 12:54:42 PM
8 votes:
If your business model is so outdated that your biggest problem is that younger people would rather get their content wherever, whenever they want instead of sitting in front of their couch, then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 03:27:00 PM
5 votes:
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
4 votes:
Sorry your buggy whips aren't selling anymore.
Maybe you should try making automobile parts instead.
Pud [TotalFark]
2012-11-20 02:40:16 PM
4 votes:
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 06:00:21 PM
3 votes:
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 05:37:39 PM
3 votes:
yeah... I'm not paying $60 a month for any service is nearly 50% advertisements.
2012-11-20 03:04:19 PM
3 votes:
People aren't gonna pay for your shiat- come up with better or cheaper shiat.
2012-11-20 06:00:35 PM
2 votes:
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 05:48:06 PM
2 votes:

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 05:31:20 PM
2 votes:
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 05:20:32 PM
2 votes:
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 04:36:58 PM
2 votes:

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 03:47:55 PM
2 votes:

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 03:41:52 PM
2 votes:
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 03:16:24 PM
2 votes:

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 01:14:18 PM
2 votes:
#oldpeopleproblems
2012-11-20 11:29:34 PM
1 votes:
I love my television antenna.
2012-11-20 10:42:55 PM
1 votes:

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 10:39:46 PM
1 votes:
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 10:28:45 PM
1 votes:
Cord never. Why pay when I can watch anything I want any time I want for free?

/Streaming for the win.
2012-11-20 08:43:01 PM
1 votes:
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 08:35:30 PM
1 votes:

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 08:28:52 PM
1 votes:
How about it costs too much and then has ads too
2012-11-20 08:28:24 PM
1 votes:

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 08:02:59 PM
1 votes:
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 06:45:18 PM
1 votes:
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 06:29:40 PM
1 votes:

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 06:28:05 PM
1 votes:
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 06:15:31 PM
1 votes:

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 06:13:11 PM
1 votes:
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 06:04:39 PM
1 votes:
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
kab
2012-11-20 06:03:23 PM
1 votes:

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 06:03:16 PM
1 votes:
Time Warner does not own Time Warner Cable.
2012-11-20 05:49:58 PM
1 votes:

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 05:49:13 PM
1 votes:

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 05:45:55 PM
1 votes:
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 05:42:51 PM
1 votes:
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 05:40:19 PM
1 votes:
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 05:38:00 PM
1 votes:
And when the cord-nevers become plug-pullers for the cord-cutters, then you'll really be cord-buggered.
2012-11-20 04:51:03 PM
1 votes:

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 04:46:40 PM
1 votes:

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 04:10:31 PM
1 votes:

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 03:22:13 PM
1 votes:
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 02:41:57 PM
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report