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.

(Business Insider)   Please, please, please let this be true   (businessinsider.com) divider line 357
    More: Hero, Intel, casual games, cable industry  
•       •       •

67260 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Jan 2013 at 1:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-02 12:10:44 AM  
What? You don't want A&E bundled in with the channels you want? But you need to watch 16 minute shows like Storage Wars.

/A&E - Too many f'ng commercials.
 
2013-01-02 12:11:24 AM  
You're salivating over a la carte channels?  Really grampa?  I hear they're getting ready to make these newfangled things called compact discs next year.  They're going to be like cassette tapes, except they'll have lasers!

"Channels" are already obsolete.  You people sit here and biatch that there are 200 channels you don't watch, but you're perfectly comfortable paying for 24 hours a day of programming, even though you only watch like 4 hours of it on average?  It's the same thing in a smaller chunk.

Let me subscribe to a show, and get the episodes instantly when they're released, instead of waiting until the next day.  That's where TV needs to head.
 
2013-01-02 12:12:57 AM  
by some estimates, only about 25 percent of cable customers actually watch ESPN on a regular basis. So if you unbundled ESPN, the per-subscriber cost might shoot up to $20 or more, to account for the 75 percent drop in its customer base.

So why not create bundles targeted at certain demos? Create a sports bundle for sports fans, a nerd bundle with stuff like Siffy, Discovery, The Science Channel etc. Seems like anything would be better than the one-size-fits-all system we have now.
 
2013-01-02 12:21:40 AM  

fusillade762: by some estimates, only about 25 percent of cable customers actually watch ESPN on a regular basis. So if you unbundled ESPN, the per-subscriber cost might shoot up to $20 or more, to account for the 75 percent drop in its customer base.

So why not create bundles targeted at certain demos? Create a sports bundle for sports fans, a nerd bundle with stuff like Siffy, Discovery, The Science Channel etc. Seems like anything would be better than the one-size-fits-all system we have now.


Why only worry about the people who watch ESPN regularly?  They have to watch everything on the channel?  The only sports I ever watch on TV are Virginia Tech football games, so I wouldn't be in the regular viewership category, but me and thousands of other people like me would gladly pay 10 bucks a season to watch all the Virginia Tech football games.  That's going to add up.

From there, it's easy enough to create other relevant bundles.  Make a college football bundle for the guy who likes to watch every game.  Make a Virginia Tech package that includes all the different sports, but only VT.  And have an "everything" package for the guy who just wants to watch sports.
 
2013-01-02 12:27:36 AM  
I'm for this if it's what finally kills MTV.
 
2013-01-02 12:29:31 AM  
I wonder what will happen to the shopping channels, which cable companies claim they need to include in order to offset their expenses?
 
2013-01-02 12:32:55 AM  
Who do I have to f*ck to make this happen?
 
2013-01-02 12:34:00 AM  
About 70% of the time I turn on the TV (and not some other service), I do it to flip through channels I don't normally watch until I land on some random show.
 
2013-01-02 12:37:17 AM  
From one of the linked articles:

gigaom2.files.wordpress.com

Looks familiar...

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-01-02 12:39:32 AM  

Triumph: I'm for this if it's what finally kills MTV.


Palladia HD is pretty good, and 95% of it's programming is live concerts of not just current pop stars.
In fact, it's virtually Bieber, Swift, and Kanye free.
I think I would keep that, and kick MTV, which I haven't watched in years, to the curb.
 
2013-01-02 12:41:13 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Who do I have to f*ck to make this happen?


Honey Boo Boo's mom, and don't forget to leave a bag of Cheetos on the night stand.
 
2013-01-02 12:42:38 AM  
Cancelled my cable a year ago. Netflix is way cheaper, on demand, and no commercials.

That's where TV needs to go. Of course it will never happen. Too many people whose only job is to sell you crap you don't need would watch their jobs get flushed away... The lawsuits are already incubating to make sure it never happens. They did it with the cable cards a few years ago to make sure you couldn't make your own DVR without giving them "their" cut.
 
2013-01-02 12:52:16 AM  
From the headline, I expected it to be a release announcement for a 10 foot Lego Death Star with optional 15kW Alderaan-buster.

Although I would certainly miss absolutely nothing on TLC.
 
2013-01-02 01:19:54 AM  

TommyymmoT: NewportBarGuy: Who do I have to f*ck to make this happen?

Honey Boo Boo's mom, and don't forget to leave a bag of Cheetos on the night stand.


I'll give him a sympathy screw afterward if its necessary. Holy crap. DO IT.
 
2013-01-02 01:20:10 AM  
Oh good. I can see it now.

TNT $20 a month
MTV $3 a month
Comedy Central $40 a month
SyFy $10 a month
and so on...

I get the feeling I'd be paying MORE because I like popular channels like CC, USA and TNT.
People who like dreck like MTV will probably end up paying less.
 
2013-01-02 01:20:14 AM  
People still watch TV?
 
2013-01-02 01:20:56 AM  
Going to end up costing more, and more people are going to miss surfing than they think. I don't miss actual TV at all, but I do miss random channel surfing when I'm sick,hungover or can't sleep.
 
2013-01-02 01:21:46 AM  

TommyymmoT: NewportBarGuy: Who do I have to f*ck to make this happen?

Honey Boo Boo's mom, and don't forget to leave a bag of Cheetos on the night stand.


Do I have to fark her vagina or is the neck flab an acceptable alternative?
 
2013-01-02 01:23:38 AM  

Zombie DJ: Oh good. I can see it now.

TNT $20 a month
MTV $3 a month
Comedy Central $40 a month
SyFy $10 a month
and so on...

I get the feeling I'd be paying MORE because I like popular channels like CC, USA and TNT.
People who like dreck like MTV will probably end up paying less.


THIS THIS THIS SO MUCH THIS.
 
2013-01-02 01:24:10 AM  
Then all of you will be pissed once you get this then wind up paying $75 for just the few channels you want, I hate the shop at home stations too but they do subsidize a lot of your cable bill. Sure you may not ever watch them but there are tons who do and buy all kinds of crap.
 
2013-01-02 01:24:39 AM  
The next time we hear about this, it'll be during the bribe-driven show trial portion of the massive multi-corporation lawsuit to stop it.
 
2013-01-02 01:24:49 AM  
Huh, I'd pay for that.
 
2013-01-02 01:25:16 AM  

fusillade762: Do I have to fark her vagina or is the neck flab an acceptable alternative?


First time this year I feel like throwing up.
 
2013-01-02 01:25:57 AM  

President Merkin Muffley: People still watch TV?


I came here to say this. I've haven't watched any TV for maybe 20 years. When I occasionally see it, my god, it's way way overwhelming.
 
2013-01-02 01:26:26 AM  
Already beginning

uncrate.com
 
2013-01-02 01:26:36 AM  

serial_crusher: Let me subscribe to a show, and get the episodes instantly when they're released, instead of waiting until the next day.  That's where TV needs to head.


This ridiculous. Controlling when content can be viewed is an excellent way of maintaining control over a population. For example, in Canada, traditionally traffic on city streets decreases significantly when Hockey Night in Canada is on. So does crime, hospital visits, etc.. it also means that a huge proportion of Canadians are available for targeted messages, like advertising, that runs the economy. Other messages, like political messages, can be run during HNiC as well.

Then let's look at social engineering experiments like reality tv shows where viewers vote. The CBC ran the first show like that, because private industries wanted to make the financial risks public. Canada tested it's infrastructure for cell phones, instant text messaging, and how business and government could coordinate hundreds of thousands of Canadians to obey a message all at once. It was also a cash cow, ensuring that the cellular companies at the time would get a guaranteed income on certain nights of the week, from customers who watched the show sending messages.

Your silly idea would not coordinate all of these things and would seriously fark up city planning, business, and government control mechanisms. It would bugger the economy in advertising alone. it is irresponsible.
 
2013-01-02 01:26:57 AM  
Won't the threat of more people switching to streaming tv just result in stricter bandwith limits? Or are American cable companies and ISPs run totally separately?
 
2013-01-02 01:28:45 AM  

Zombie DJ: Oh good. I can see it now.

TNT $20 a month
MTV $3 a month
Comedy Central $40 a month
SyFy $10 a month
and so on...

I get the feeling I'd be paying MORE because I like popular channels like CC, USA and TNT.
People who like dreck like MTV will probably end up paying less.


No see... now you get to directly fund things you want. Now scifi gets a bigger chunk of the pie if you like scifi, so maybe they can afford to make cool new shows instead of airing ghost hunters 800 times.

/At least, thats what im telling myself
 
2013-01-02 01:30:12 AM  
I'm predicting that within 10 years, professionally created video entertainment specifically for home consumption will disappear. Yes, even Law & Order.
People will still go to new movies for the communal experience.
People will still go to local theater for the novelty of watching live people perform.

But "television" will be replaced by whatever six people with a couple of cameras want to put on the Internet. They'll have day jobs. Their "reward" will be Internet viewings. If they're really good enough, they'll make their entertainment some sort of pay-per-view.
 
2013-01-02 01:30:31 AM  

serial_crusher: Let me subscribe to a show, and get the episodes instantly when they're released, instead of waiting until the next day. That's where TV needs to head.


Thisity thisity this.

Also, global synchronized releases, dubbing and captions on day one, low subscription price, multiple non-credit card payment options (paypal and all its local copycats). You will see global distribution for serialized shows go through the roof.

If you can convince a Chinese university student to pay 50 RMB to buy a pirated dvd box-set of Lost, you can sure as hell convince them to pay 10 RMB a month for a new show. It's all a matter of accessibility and pricing. There's a huge market out there the producers are leaving untapped.
 
2013-01-02 01:31:02 AM  

SquiggsIN: shouldn't the more popular it is, the better bargaining can be reached, thus the CHEAPER it becomes. These are basic principles of economics.


No... there's a limited supply. So the more popular something becomes the more expensive it becomes. Diamonds are very popular but there's only so many of them.
 
2013-01-02 01:31:06 AM  

serial_crusher: You're salivating over a la carte channels?  Really grampa?  I hear they're getting ready to make these newfangled things called compact discs next year.  They're going to be like cassette tapes, except they'll have lasers!

"Channels" are already obsolete.  You people sit here and biatch that there are 200 channels you don't watch, but you're perfectly comfortable paying for 24 hours a day of programming, even though you only watch like 4 hours of it on average?  It's the same thing in a smaller chunk.

Let me subscribe to a show, and get the episodes instantly when they're released, instead of waiting until the next day.  That's where TV needs to head.


Hi gramps. We have these things nowadays. Look up netflix and amazon and others. enjoy your new-fangled on demand services. :-)
 
2013-01-02 01:31:10 AM  
I'd be happy to pay for a channel that would deliver the content I want without me having to seek it out and identify it first. I mean, seriously, just give me the shiat I don't even know I want yet, already. And don't fark it up like with Caprica.
 
2013-01-02 01:31:31 AM  

Alonjar: Zombie DJ: Oh good. I can see it now.

TNT $20 a month
MTV $3 a month
Comedy Central $40 a month
SyFy $10 a month
and so on...

I get the feeling I'd be paying MORE because I like popular channels like CC, USA and TNT.
People who like dreck like MTV will probably end up paying less.

No see... now you get to directly fund things you want. Now scifi gets a bigger chunk of the pie if you like scifi, so maybe they can afford to make cool new shows instead of airing ghost hunters 800 times.

/At least, thats what im telling myself


You mean they could offer up to C grade movies instead of D?
 
2013-01-02 01:32:04 AM  
The key here is companies like HULU, Amazon, Netflix, maybe Redbox. companies like this needs to start buying programs outright, or individual "TV Channels" need to sell there own shiat, individually on a pay per series deal. After an appropriate 'This show sucks' period.
 
2013-01-02 01:32:07 AM  

Nofun: Cancelled my cable a year ago. Netflix is way cheaper, on demand, and no commercials.

That's where TV needs to go. Of course it will never happen. Too many people whose only job is to sell you crap you don't need would watch their jobs get flushed away... The lawsuits are already incubating to make sure it never happens. They did it with the cable cards a few years ago to make sure you couldn't make your own DVR without giving them "their" cut.


Got rid of cable 4 years ago....They just need to stream March Madness!
 
2013-01-02 01:32:31 AM  

roncofooddehydrator: Diamonds are very popular but there's only so many of them.


you can create all the diamonds you want these days
 
2013-01-02 01:32:37 AM  

Zombie DJ: Oh good. I can see it now.

TNT $20 a month
MTV $3 a month
Comedy Central $40 a month
SyFy $10 a month
and so on...

I get the feeling I'd be paying MORE because I like popular channels like CC, USA and TNT.
People who like dreck like MTV will probably end up paying less.


If that happens it'll give you even more incentive to ditch cable entirely and go to netflix/hulu/etc., like so many people have already.

Nobody's going to pay that kind of money for 3 channels (those 3 channels anyway). Networks can set prices like that if they want, but even a first-year business major can see how badly that will go. Instead of maybe attracting a base of people who wouldn't otherwise buy cable, you wind up alienating them and quite a few other people to boot.

Regardless, HOWEVER this a la carte pricing idea is received by the networks, it will "blow up" cable as we know it. It's whether or not there will be anything left afterward that's in question.
 
2013-01-02 01:33:12 AM  

Zombie DJ: Oh good. I can see it now.

TNT $20 a month
MTV $3 a month
Comedy Central $40 a month
SyFy $10 a month
and so on...

I get the feeling I'd be paying MORE because I like popular channels like CC, USA and TNT.
People who like dreck like MTV will probably end up paying less.


and if ala carte cable is more than package rate, people will stay with their current package.
DUH

on the flipside, if I could get exactly the channels which I watch, at a completely reasonable rate each, I would switch in a second.

premium package rates would be the same
I would need to buy:
comedy central
bbca
syfy (not sure WHY, but something must still be on that channel which I watch, right?)
AMC

meh, it would only save me $20 or so ... but still
 
2013-01-02 01:33:24 AM  
That's why I pay Drew 5 bucks a month, he filters out all the dumb pos.......
 
2013-01-02 01:33:43 AM  

TommyymmoT: NewportBarGuy: Who do I have to f*ck to make this happen?

Honey Boo Boo's mom, and don't forget to leave a bag of Cheetos on the night stand.


I'd go ass to mouth. I'd do it for you farkers and all the future generations.

/and when you speak of me...
 
2013-01-02 01:34:45 AM  
It would be nice if this would help bring AJE over.
 
2013-01-02 01:34:59 AM  

Alonjar: Zombie DJ: Oh good. I can see it now.

TNT $20 a month
MTV $3 a month
Comedy Central $40 a month
SyFy $10 a month
and so on...

I get the feeling I'd be paying MORE because I like popular channels like CC, USA and TNT.
People who like dreck like MTV will probably end up paying less.

No see... now you get to directly fund things you want. Now scifi gets a bigger chunk of the pie if you like scifi, so maybe they can afford to make cool new shows instead of airing ghost hunters 800 times.

/At least, thats what im telling myself


Then they could finally land a director to film my sci fi script!

/Ghost Hunters vs. Mansquito III: Son of Ghosquito
 
2013-01-02 01:35:10 AM  
I was already planning to fire Directv tomorrow, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

It's too expensive, and I need to spend less time planted in front of the TV anyway. Kids can get cartoons from Netflix etc anyway.

I just hope NHL Gamecenter will be satisfying to view should the league and NHLPA get their shiat figured out.
 
2013-01-02 01:36:26 AM  
Are you farkers under the impression that these channels are individual companies, or that their customers are you?

Bwaaa haaaa haaaaaa. Disney, Viacom, and other firms hold bundles of channels. Their customers are the cable and SatTV firms. The latter provide marketing, billing, customer service.

Now imagine you're a business who sells all of your output as one package, to only a handful of customers. Would you piss off your five or six customers, and break apart your core product to sell the high value parts separately, suddenly have to own a lot of the marketing yourself, to do business with a small niche player?

Intel's only hope - and it's slim - is to cut an agreement to sell bundles of channels in overseas markets. Even that is dicey as geo-IP is not hard to get around.

Know why its expensive if not impossible to get all of your sports, live, over the internet? Yeah, same reason this won't happen. Its a cozy arrangement for content and distribution providers. You are just the field they graze on.
 
2013-01-02 01:36:47 AM  

apoptotic: Won't the threat of more people switching to streaming tv just result in stricter bandwith limits? Or are American cable companies and ISPs run totally separately?


well, I have a cable modem ....
and basic cable is forced on everyone who lives in the building. DSL is pretty much the only other internet option and I am canceling DSL this month.
 
2013-01-02 01:39:17 AM  

7th Son of a 7th Son: Zombie DJ: Oh good. I can see it now.

TNT $20 a month
MTV $3 a month
Comedy Central $40 a month
SyFy $10 a month
and so on...

I get the feeling I'd be paying MORE because I like popular channels like CC, USA and TNT.
People who like dreck like MTV will probably end up paying less.

THIS THIS THIS SO MUCH THIS.


And you both would be completely wrong.

What is never mentioned in these a la carte vs all inclusive comparisons is that competition would fundamentally change. For the first time EVER the channels would be selling directly to the consumer. The costs aren't laundered through BigCableCo - they are directly charged to the customer. If your price is too high, your customers will look elsewhere. See, content providers can make a lot more money selling advertising than they get patting-down cable and satellite companies. They will actually want to keep access fees as low as possible or their ratings will drop. Low ratings means advertisers will seek greener pastures.

The key benefit of this is that a lot of the crap channels will start folding. And this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Instead of content copying each other, it is more likely to shift toward high-quality / high-loyalty programming. Essentially following the HBO model. The me-too hacks will fall because consumers will stop buying the expensive buffet and instead ordering exactly what they want off of the menu. You will also expect to see more advertisements for programming outside of the channel playing it.
 
2013-01-02 01:39:41 AM  

steamingpile: Then all of you will be pissed once you get this then wind up paying $75 for just the few channels you want, I hate the shop at home stations too but they do subsidize a lot of your cable bill. Sure you may not ever watch them but there are tons who do and buy all kinds of crap.


Read an article on shopping channels last week.  QVC does over $8 billion per year in merchandise sales.  Home Shopping Network, about $3.5 billion.
 
2013-01-02 01:39:58 AM  

roncofooddehydrator: No... there's a limited supply. So the more popular something becomes the more expensive it becomes. Diamonds are very popular but there's only so many of them.


"No" in pretty much every respect when it comes to entertainment content. 1500 people can watch a show as it airs from one guy's cable box if said box is streaming to the internet. One camera recording or DVD of a movie becomes 250k copies as people download it. The only scarcity even mildly related to the market is the ease or difficulty of viewing the original broadcast/showing.

It's been this way since the first Betamax players and blank tapes arrived on store shelves. Where were you?
 
2013-01-02 01:40:17 AM  

apoptotic: Won't the threat of more people switching to streaming tv just result in stricter bandwith limits? Or are American cable companies and ISPs run totally separately?


yeah, we have free enterprise here
;-p
 
2013-01-02 01:40:51 AM  
INTC at 20...
/off to check out
//wish i could play in the derivative markets
///this does have wifi, right
 
2013-01-02 01:41:15 AM  
I don't watch sports. Sports channels have the highest feels. I look forward to not having to pay channels I don't like that cost more than the channels I don't want.
 
2013-01-02 01:41:37 AM  
Stopped using cable 4 years ago. Now I use AppleTV and XBMC to see what I want when I want, which is more than I need because I rarely watch television anyway.

I like subscribing for the shows I want to watch. The Walking Dead is currently the only show I subscribe to and it's enough. I'm not tied to the television with the feeling I'm paying money for all this shiat so I need to watch to make it worth it. Plus, the anticipation of the next episode is nice, "Holy shiat! what's gonna happen next week?!?".... With normal television, I'd most likely forget about the next episode.

I just hope these cable companies don't decide to jack up broadband prices because of the drop in cable packages...

fark cable.
 
2013-01-02 01:42:14 AM  
If this is internet based, then you have to watch out for provider data limits. Comcast starts throttling and reserves the right to drop your service if you exceed 250 GB a month. I can see television streaming exceeding that pretty easily, and you know Comcast isn't going to be lenient about it when you're circumventing their cable.
 
2013-01-02 01:42:27 AM  
I'll go for it if the bring back the Appalachian Community Service Network.
 
2013-01-02 01:42:30 AM  
i816.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-02 01:42:40 AM  

MisterRonbo: Are you farkers under the impression that these channels are individual companies, or that their customers are you?

Bwaaa haaaa haaaaaa. Disney, Viacom, and other firms hold bundles of channels. Their customers are the cable and SatTV firms. The latter provide marketing, billing, customer service.

Now imagine you're a business who sells all of your output as one package, to only a handful of customers. Would you piss off your five or six customers, and break apart your core product to sell the high value parts separately, suddenly have to own a lot of the marketing yourself, to do business with a small niche player?

Intel's only hope - and it's slim - is to cut an agreement to sell bundles of channels in overseas markets. Even that is dicey as geo-IP is not hard to get around.

Know why its expensive if not impossible to get all of your sports, live, over the internet? Yeah, same reason this won't happen. Its a cozy arrangement for content and distribution providers. You are just the field they graze on.


This is the hurdle, Monopoly! 5 maybe 10 people are in control of Mass Media world wide.
 
2013-01-02 01:43:06 AM  

steamingpile: Then all of you will be pissed once you get this then wind up paying $75 for just the few channels you want,


If people actually pay it, then it is priced correctly.
Refuse to pay it, go outside and make a garden, or read a book, and the price will come down.
 
2013-01-02 01:43:07 AM  
Hollywood (and by that I mean American corporate content gatekeepers). You. Were. Warned. You could of played nice with the internet and the IT industry... you could of had strategic business alliances and kept a modicum of power.

Now get ready to see what actual, real, 800Lb gorillas appearing does to your industry. Welcome to the early days of the personal computer when IBM showed up to the party; you and your candy asses... well your farked.

Now... to get my hands on one of these three companies offerings (either the Google, Apple or Intel one) and see how well it works over a decent VPN.
 
2013-01-02 01:43:30 AM  

Alonjar: No see... now you get to directly fund things you want. Now scifi gets a bigger chunk of the pie if you like scifi, so maybe they can afford to make cool new shows instead of airing ghost hunters 800 times.

/At least, thats what im telling myself


That actually makes sense. I mean right now every channel shows the same crap because they're all trying to attract the same audience, i.e. the majority of people who have cable. There's no margin in being specialized because all you're doing is cutting yourself off from the largest market share of people who already get your channel. Simultaneously, there's no PENALTY for alienating the specialized audience, because you can always just throw a bunch of pro wrestling and fake reality shows up there and earn back all those rating points and then some.

If channels go a la carte it will, among other things, allow more specialized channels to exist and maybe be profitable. Instead of having to spend $80/mo to get the top "tier" just so you can watch weird channels, it'll cost something like $5 apiece, something that the more discerning viewer might be willing to pay. It'll also cut down on this homogenized pastiche of crap we have going on in terms of programming. If you have to pay for every channel individually you're only going to buy so many copies of the same horrible program lineup before you decide its enough.
 
2013-01-02 01:44:31 AM  

gregscott: Sports channels have the highest feels.


Sports channels will receive none of my feels.  NONE OF THEM!!!
 
2013-01-02 01:44:34 AM  
You guys trust these tards to tell you anything straight when they have a BS story about Neil Armstrong?
 
2013-01-02 01:44:51 AM  
Wow. You people talk a lot.


Id pay for this. I am however gullible so.
 
2013-01-02 01:45:04 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org

HBO/Showtime/GM/Ford/Pentagon Warehouse
 
2013-01-02 01:45:13 AM  
So people who like to watch ESPN will have their premiums go up because they won't have the rest of the people who don't watch ESPN subsidizing it for them?

aerojockey.com

/and would have been ok with this even when I was one of those guys who watched ESPN all the time
 
2013-01-02 01:45:16 AM  

Kittypie070: You guys trust these tards to tell you anything straight when they have a BS story about Neil Armstrong?


That's the Live Strong guy, right?
 
2013-01-02 01:47:15 AM  

Counter_Intelligent: Kittypie070: You guys trust these tards to tell you anything straight when they have a BS story about Neil Armstrong?

That's the Live Strong guy, right?


Yeah, the one who used to be in that boy band and then came out of the closet.
 
2013-01-02 01:47:19 AM  

Thraeryn: roncofooddehydrator: No... there's a limited supply. So the more popular something becomes the more expensive it becomes. Diamonds are very popular but there's only so many of them.

"No" in pretty much every respect when it comes to entertainment content. 1500 people can watch a show as it airs from one guy's cable box if said box is streaming to the internet. One camera recording or DVD of a movie becomes 250k copies as people download it. The only scarcity even mildly related to the market is the ease or difficulty of viewing the original broadcast/showing.

It's been this way since the first Betamax players and blank tapes arrived on store shelves. Where were you?


You're misunderstanding what the supply is. The supply is quality television. There's only so much of it. When there's a demand for it, the price goes up. That's why ESPN can charge $5 per subscriber. It's not some arbitrary number, it's the law of supply and demand at work.
 
2013-01-02 01:47:45 AM  
I'll take 2, 3, and, uh...5, no, 6.

/8, I should have taken channel 8.
 
2013-01-02 01:49:56 AM  
like, i dont even have a tv
 
2013-01-02 01:50:26 AM  
i don't have an hdtv, but OTA broadcasts are good enough for me. it's mostly in the background anyway.

WCIU Chicago holla
 
2013-01-02 01:51:27 AM  
Channels will cost a nickle a piece, right?
 
2013-01-02 01:51:30 AM  

thisiszombocom: like, i dont even have a tv


Oh, you should check them out, they've got knobs and dials, and the pictures move around like they were real.
 
2013-01-02 01:54:04 AM  

Counter_Intelligent: That's the Live Strong guy, right?


No, that's the Louisianan jazz musician.
 
2013-01-02 01:54:42 AM  
I don't care if it costs twice as much, if it puts the current cable companies out of business.
 
2013-01-02 01:55:05 AM  

Huck And Molly Ziegler: I'm predicting that within 10 years, professionally created video entertainment specifically for home consumption will disappear. Yes, even Law & Order.
People will still go to new movies for the communal experience.
People will still go to local theater for the novelty of watching live people perform.

But "television" will be replaced by whatever six people with a couple of cameras want to put on the Internet. They'll have day jobs. Their "reward" will be Internet viewings. If they're really good enough, they'll make their entertainment some sort of pay-per-view.


Maybe there could be a show....Fark TV?
 
2013-01-02 01:55:30 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: No, that's the Louisianan jazz musician.


How did you know I'm from Louisiana?
 
2013-01-02 01:56:26 AM  

madgonad: And you both would be completely wrong.

What is never mentioned in these a la carte vs all inclusive comparisons is that competition would fundamentally change. For the first time EVER the channels would be selling directly to the consumer. The costs aren't laundered through BigCableCo - they are directly charged to the customer.


Who is piping the data to the consumer? It's still the cable company. They'll get their money one way or the other, if cable television becomes obsolete, they'll simply hike the prices for internet service. They would actually need to if that happens because bandwidth would become an issue and they'd need to upgrade their infrastructure.
 
2013-01-02 01:57:20 AM  

Huck And Molly Ziegler: I'm predicting that within 10 years, professionally created video entertainment specifically for home consumption will disappear. Yes, even Law & Order.
People will still go to new movies for the communal experience.
People will still go to local theater for the novelty of watching live people perform.

But "television" will be replaced by whatever six people with a couple of cameras want to put on the Internet. They'll have day jobs. Their "reward" will be Internet viewings. If they're really good enough, they'll make their entertainment some sort of pay-per-view.


Holy crap that's a bad prediction.
 
2013-01-02 01:57:46 AM  

serial_crusher: fusillade762: by some estimates, only about 25 percent of cable customers actually watch ESPN on a regular basis. So if you unbundled ESPN, the per-subscriber cost might shoot up to $20 or more, to account for the 75 percent drop in its customer base.

So why not create bundles targeted at certain demos? Create a sports bundle for sports fans, a nerd bundle with stuff like Siffy, Discovery, The Science Channel etc. Seems like anything would be better than the one-size-fits-all system we have now.

Why only worry about the people who watch ESPN regularly?  They have to watch everything on the channel?  The only sports I ever watch on TV are Virginia Tech football games, so I wouldn't be in the regular viewership category, but me and thousands of other people like me would gladly pay 10 bucks a season to watch all the Virginia Tech football games.  That's going to add up.

From there, it's easy enough to create other relevant bundles.  Make a college football bundle for the guy who likes to watch every game.  Make a Virginia Tech package that includes all the different sports, but only VT.  And have an "everything" package for the guy who just wants to watch sports.


The only problem with this model is that it won't pay, or you would have to pay exorbitant fees to sustain it. The cost to televise VT football isn't any more or less than any other football game. But it'll be you and, say, 50,000 other VT fans who want to watch VT football. Add in another 100,000+ who might have it as secondary interest and you get about, oh, let's be generous, 250,000 viewers willing to pay for VT football. Well, $20/month for that isn't going to be enough to pay for all that televising for the whole season. They'll either say, "we'll get rid of VT football, Clemson football, and several other smaller interest teams" or, "we will have to charge $120/month for VT football."

That's the main problem. Currently, big name movies, TV shows and sporting events help pay for the production and broadcast of smaller movies, shows and events.

It will also require that shows have to have a bang-up first few episodes to catch people's interest, but no funding to make it happen.

I personally think that this selfishness by the viewer will be the death of television. Which isn't a bad thing in the grand scheme of things.
 
2013-01-02 01:58:08 AM  
Call me when cable tv is 100% on demand programming, no DVR, no cloud storage, just click and watch.  Until then I'll stick with Hulu and NetFlix.
 
2013-01-02 01:58:47 AM  

cretinbob: Huck And Molly Ziegler: I'm predicting that within 10 years, professionally created video entertainment specifically for home consumption will disappear. Yes, even Law & Order.
People will still go to new movies for the communal experience.
People will still go to local theater for the novelty of watching live people perform.

But "television" will be replaced by whatever six people with a couple of cameras want to put on the Internet. They'll have day jobs. Their "reward" will be Internet viewings. If they're really good enough, they'll make their entertainment some sort of pay-per-view.

Maybe there could be a show....Fark TV?


With sweat and dead man's balls?
 
2013-01-02 01:59:18 AM  

WhyteRaven74: roncofooddehydrator: Diamonds are very popular but there's only so many of them.

you can create all the diamonds you want these days


Which is why synthetic diamonds are cheap and natural ones are expensive...
 
2013-01-02 01:59:40 AM  
so if this actually comes true, what channels would you guys choose to pay for? i don't have cable at all right now because i don't watch television very much, but if they offered individual channels, i would get cartoon network (for adult swim), maybe fx (for the show archer) and the discovery channel (for mythbusters, until they finally cancel it). i'd also probably get whatever station broadcasts green bay packer games, but only during football season.
 
2013-01-02 01:59:43 AM  

gibbon1: President Merkin Muffley: People still watch TV?

I came here to say this. I've haven't watched any TV for maybe 20 years. When I occasionally see it, my god, it's way way overwhelming.


That makes three of us.I shut our cable off about seven years ago and only miss seeing the NYY games.I keep an old tv around for one grandson to play his games on(no one touches my computer).Netflix costs me less then $9 a month for the little I watch.Cable tv equals dull,wasted time.
 
2013-01-02 02:00:29 AM  

madgonad:

The key benefit of this is that a lot of the crap channels will start folding. And this isn't necessarily a bad thing.


thisiszombocom: like, i dont even have a tv


I own one but I only use it to watch old VHS tapes.

/No I don't have Beta, I'm not a hipster
 
2013-01-02 02:01:47 AM  
I have never owned a tv, and I castigated my parents for ever exploring that new technology when they were kids. No, that's a lie, I was just trying to be cool. I watch a lot of tv. I love tv. If I can get my fix cheaper, I'm all for it. But I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, I will continue paying for every channel that is available to me. Because I'm a dumb ass.
 
2013-01-02 02:02:00 AM  
Viacom is ready to troll us & stop this from happening.
 
2013-01-02 02:03:29 AM  

roncofooddehydrator: You're misunderstanding what the supply is. The supply is quality television. There's only so much of it. When there's a demand for it, the price goes up. That's why ESPN can charge $5 per subscriber. It's not some arbitrary number, it's the law of supply and demand at work.


So . . . companies that don't supply, who currently rely on very inclusive groupings, will find their profits dwindle. They'll have to up the quality of their content or go bankrupt. Companies that currently supply quality programming may be able to lower the cost the average subscriber pays because, instead of being in an inclusive grouping from which they only get a portion of profit, they'll be able to accrue subscribers paying them directly for their product. They'll accrue more subscribers like me, who don't currently pay for cable and would be unlikely to purchase a premium package over the basic ones.

I think some companies should be terrified, and others should be champing at the bit.
 
2013-01-02 02:04:18 AM  
i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-02 02:05:17 AM  
Unlikely.

My Holy Grail is to walk away from the set once and for all (save for the off-air freebies) and save my money and time that way.

Intel or no.
 
2013-01-02 02:05:24 AM  

sweet-daddy-2: .I shut our cable off about seven years ago and only miss seeing the NYY games.


I killed mine over 20 years ago.
And I pay for MLB.com (which is really, really done well) for my baseball fix.
 
2013-01-02 02:05:40 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-02 02:06:44 AM  
Enjoy paying big bucks a month for ESPN, Comedy Central, TNT, other popular channels, etc., and everything else that is in any way niche going out of business completely
 
2013-01-02 02:07:51 AM  

Triumph: I'm for this if it's what finally kills MTV.


Been considering canceling my cable for a while now... when my main TV blew up, I just never got around to replacing it; that was TWO Thanksgivings ago. 90% of what I watch, I watch online.. the rest is on a 22" flat screen that doesn't impress me.
If they can come out with this service... it would be great; probably only have like 20 channels (actually, I can only think of about 8 or so), but they would be what I actually wanted.

/since I would lose VIP status in dumping cable, I would just drop the phone, too.. go with Magic Jack and save even more $$$$ to spend of free porn
 
2013-01-02 02:08:49 AM  

gibbon1: President Merkin Muffley: People still watch TV?

I came here to say this. I've haven't watched any TV for maybe 20 years. When I occasionally see it, my god, it's way way overwhelming.


So you haven't watched TV in 20 years except for when you watch it. Huh, a new take on reality ill have to try. "No babe, I don't cheat on you except when I sexy time other girls."
 
2013-01-02 02:09:53 AM  

7th Son of a 7th Son: Zombie DJ: Oh good. I can see it now.

TNT $20 a month
MTV $3 a month
Comedy Central $40 a month
SyFy $10 a month
and so on...

I get the feeling I'd be paying MORE because I like popular channels like CC, USA and TNT.
People who like dreck like MTV will probably end up paying less.

THIS THIS THIS SO MUCH THIS.


I agree and you'll still have to deal with commercials. As much as I like streaming, most of the media we will watch/read in the future will be bought through apps. That is also what Micro Soft is heading for an interaction between Windows 8 and having apps along with the current internet. I see it working well for cell phones and tablets but for systems that do not have a touch screen it is still really all that great.

I am sure cable will work its way in there somewhere, if they do not innovate somewhere into this by offering a bundle of apps for a certain price for streaming or get on the wireless service where apps are bought and billed through them. Cable is all but done for.
 
2013-01-02 02:11:04 AM  

eddievercetti: Viacom is ready to troll us & stop this from happening.


Viacom don't have enough money to stop it happening. None of them do; even combined. If the business insiders are correct then Viacom would have to fight Apple, Google and Intel all at the same time. That is some serious 18 wheeled heavy mental thunder approaching.

Apple the company with a market cap larger than the worlds biggest oil company. Google, the darling of the internet who are about to release 'Google Glass', they don't know what its for, they haven't really got a a business model for it... but people are queuing up to pre-order the dev units and finally Intel. The company that makes the processors in everyones laptop/desktop and servers.

Viacom's small fry compared to that monster.
 
2013-01-02 02:12:17 AM  

enderthexenocide: so if this actually comes true, what channels would you guys choose to pay for?


The Golf Channel, CNN, three of DirecTVs music channels and FSN for baseball.
 
2013-01-02 02:12:29 AM  
This is an easy way for them to charge you more for all the same channels you already have but with a lot less channels.
 
2013-01-02 02:14:22 AM  
img690.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-02 02:14:47 AM  
I haven't had a TV that is/was connected to cable or an aerial since before I left to college. The only time I ever watch TV is when I head over to a bar to watch a game.

I watch only via DVD or, now, netflix streaming (or whatever I might find on youtube). The problem with my situation is that I'm not keyed in to all the hot new shows. I don't get the reviews of any recent shows so I don't know what's good to watch or not. Also, some shows that were good (Burn Notice, for me) has become a bit stale, and not very watchable as re-runs.

Movies are also way too long at 2.5Hr or longer. Where are the sub-110minute movies?
 
2013-01-02 02:18:03 AM  

fisker: This is an easy way for them to charge you more for all the same channels you already have but with a lot less channels.


But if you're paying double for the channels you want and the bill comes out to less than what you pay now would it not be better?

IE, a channel you like is normally $1. You pay $3 al a carte. You have 10 channels like this. Your bill is now $30 as opposed to $50.

Also, I still bet I get a better deal bundling like I do now for internet and TV.
 
2013-01-02 02:18:35 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: The next time we hear about this, it'll be during the bribe-driven show trial portion of the massive multi-corporation lawsuit to stop it.


QFT. America needs to grow a pair and actually deal with the bastards that produce media. At this stage they're shooting themselves in the foot half the time.

/Patent trolls, anyone?
//Seriously, creating a market where pirating is financially more viable than legal downloads is insane.
 
2013-01-02 02:18:42 AM  
How much do I have to pay to NEVER hear of honey boo boo again?!
 
2013-01-02 02:21:37 AM  

sweet-daddy-2: gibbon1: President Merkin Muffley: People still watch TV?

I came here to say this. I've haven't watched any TV for maybe 20 years. When I occasionally see it, my god, it's way way overwhelming.

That makes three of us.I shut our cable off about seven years ago and only miss seeing the NYY games.I keep an old tv around for one grandson to play his games on(no one touches my computer).Netflix costs me less then $9 a month for the little I watch.Cable tv equals dull,wasted time.


Wow. You rock.
 
2013-01-02 02:26:08 AM  

fisker: This is an easy way for them to charge you more for all the same channels you already have but with a lot less channels.


Yes.

Except all those clever farkers who don't watch tv. Very hip those folks...

No crutches for THEIR imagination....

fark CABLE!
 
2013-01-02 02:26:26 AM  

inclemency: sweet-daddy-2: gibbon1: President Merkin Muffley: People still watch TV?

I came here to say this. I've haven't watched any TV for maybe 20 years. When I occasionally see it, my god, it's way way overwhelming.

That makes three of us.I shut our cable off about seven years ago and only miss seeing the NYY games.I keep an old tv around for one grandson to play his games on(no one touches my computer).Netflix costs me less then $9 a month for the little I watch.Cable tv equals dull,wasted time.

Wow. You rock.


And you live alone.
 
2013-01-02 02:28:24 AM  

MadMattressMack: fisker: This is an easy way for them to charge you more for all the same channels you already have but with a lot less channels.

But if you're paying double for the channels you want and the bill comes out to less than what you pay now would it not be better?

IE, a channel you like is normally $1. You pay $3 al a carte. You have 10 channels like this. Your bill is now $30 as opposed to $50.

Also, I still bet I get a better deal bundling like I do now for internet and TV.


As pointed out in this thread, this doesn't work.

OMG: TV IS SOCIALIST!!!!
 
2013-01-02 02:29:55 AM  

serial_crusher: You're salivating over a la carte channels?  Really grampa?  I hear they're getting ready to make these newfangled things called compact discs next year.  They're going to be like cassette tapes, except they'll have lasers!

"Channels" are already obsolete.  You people sit here and biatch that there are 200 channels you don't watch, but you're perfectly comfortable paying for 24 hours a day of programming, even though you only watch like 4 hours of it on average?  It's the same thing in a smaller chunk.

Let me subscribe to a show, and get the episodes instantly when they're released, instead of waiting until the next day.  That's where TV needs to head.


Where did you get your economics degree?
 
2013-01-02 02:31:30 AM  
I'm thinking of cutting the cord to cable TV AND to the Internet (same company provides both) for one year just to see how my brain reacts and adapts - and to see how much money I save.

Two or three over-the-air channels should be able to reach the TV set I have left. (Work provides sufficient opportunity to keep up with televised current events.)
 
2013-01-02 02:33:45 AM  

Vaneshi: Viacom's small fry compared to that monster.


True, but Viacom has one thing at its disposal that Apple, Google and Intel don't: The MPAA/RIAA's dump truck convoy full of lobbyists, lawyers and bribers with seemingly bottomless pockets. Remember SOPA/PIPA/ACTA? The MPAA/RIAA won that battle despite the massive protests and blackouts; they'll have no problem with this one.
 
2013-01-02 02:34:19 AM  

serial_crusher: fusillade762: by some estimates, only about 25 percent of cable customers actually watch ESPN on a regular basis. So if you unbundled ESPN, the per-subscriber cost might shoot up to $20 or more, to account for the 75 percent drop in its customer base.

So why not create bundles targeted at certain demos? Create a sports bundle for sports fans, a nerd bundle with stuff like Siffy, Discovery, The Science Channel etc. Seems like anything would be better than the one-size-fits-all system we have now.

Why only worry about the people who watch ESPN regularly?  They have to watch everything on the channel?  The only sports I ever watch on TV are Virginia Tech football games, so I wouldn't be in the regular viewership category, but me and thousands of other people like me would gladly pay 10 bucks a season to watch all the Virginia Tech football games.  That's going to add up.

From there, it's easy enough to create other relevant bundles.  Make a college football bundle for the guy who likes to watch every game.  Make a Virginia Tech package that includes all the different sports, but only VT.  And have an "everything" package for the guy who just wants to watch sports.


Yes. That TEN DOLLARS.... PER SEASON NO LESS totally offsets the costs associated with filming and then running your amateur, waste of time, EXTREME niche market football team. Good idea.
 
2013-01-02 02:36:03 AM  

inclemency: sweet-daddy-2: gibbon1: President Merkin Muffley: People still watch TV?

I came here to say this. I've haven't watched any TV for maybe 20 years. When I occasionally see it, my god, it's way way overwhelming.

That makes three of us.I shut our cable off about seven years ago and only miss seeing the NYY games.I keep an old tv around for one grandson to play his games on(no one touches my computer).Netflix costs me less then $9 a month for the little I watch.Cable tv equals dull,wasted time.

Wow. You rock.


Being a boomer,I rock and roll.
( to old for sex and drugs)
or is that to obscure?
 
2013-01-02 02:36:45 AM  
I play on the internet AND watch TV. How can you multi-task with one connection?
 
2013-01-02 02:37:10 AM  

Huck And Molly Ziegler: I'm predicting that within 10 years, professionally created video entertainment specifically for home consumption will disappear. Yes, even Law & Order.
People will still go to new movies for the communal experience.
People will still go to local theater for the novelty of watching live people perform.

But "television" will be replaced by whatever six people with a couple of cameras want to put on the Internet. They'll have day jobs. Their "reward" will be Internet viewings. If they're really good enough, they'll make their entertainment some sort of pay-per-view.


That's really really stupid.
 
2013-01-02 02:37:32 AM  
I got rid of my television about four years ago. I replaced it with a much, much larger HD television and a surround sound system with five speakers and a sub-woofer. I can watch cable television, DVDs, play video games and watch shows via an HDMI cable connected to my computer's high speed internet connection. I don't see the upside to limiting choices by picking channels or shows. There would have to be a real cost benefit and I don't believe they will be able to deliver.
 
2013-01-02 02:37:50 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Vaneshi: Viacom's small fry compared to that monster.

True, but Viacom has one thing at its disposal that Apple, Google and Intel don't: The MPAA/RIAA's dump truck convoy full of lobbyists, lawyers and bribers with seemingly bottomless pockets. Remember SOPA/PIPA/ACTA? The MPAA/RIAA won that battle despite the massive protests and blackouts; they'll have no problem with this one.


If by "won" you mean "got the bill indefinitely delayed instead of outright cancelled" then yes, they "won".
 
2013-01-02 02:38:39 AM  

RoyBatty: [i.imgur.com image 850x287]
[i.imgur.com image 642x350]


god damn you so very very much
spacey is probably one of my top 5 actors
so NOW I need to get netflix??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
 
2013-01-02 02:40:35 AM  

Nofun: Cancelled my cable a year ago. Netflix is way cheaper, on demand, and no commercials.

That's where TV needs to go. Of course it will never happen. Too many people whose only job is to sell you crap you don't need would watch their jobs get flushed away... The lawsuits are already incubating to make sure it never happens. They did it with the cable cards a few years ago to make sure you couldn't make your own DVR without giving them "their" cut.


You underestimated... Not only does 'advertising' make a living off of convincing you to buy things you don't ned, thousands of people went to school to sit in rooms and figure out ways, via 30 second movie, to create a longing in your soul for these things you don't need.

If you're in marketing... *drumroll*, kill yourself. -Bill Hicks
 
2013-01-02 02:41:59 AM  

WhyteRaven74: roncofooddehydrator: Diamonds are very popular but there's only so many of them.

you can create all the diamonds you want these days


Also there is no shortage of diamonds just a monopolized and controlled market.
 
2013-01-02 02:42:00 AM  

dericwater: The problem with my situation is that I'm not keyed in to all the hot new shows. I don't get the reviews of any recent shows so I don't know what's good to watch or not.


That was probably a bigger problem when there were only three or four channels to tune to.

Now there's something to scratch every itch. Picking four or five providers for five bucks a month might make some sense.

One of traditional TVs benefits is just how passive a form of entertainment it is. There's something to be said for letting the box call the shots.
 
2013-01-02 02:44:41 AM  

gibbon1: President Merkin Muffley: People still watch TV?

I came here to say this. I've haven't watched any TV for maybe 20 years. When I occasionally see it, my god, it's way way overwhelming.


Wow. Our generation's Nostradamus. Or an idiot.
 
2013-01-02 02:45:44 AM  

fisker: This is an easy way for them to charge you more for all the same channels you already have but with a lot less channels.


Maybe, but if saves me $1 and I can drop the 200 channels I never watch I'm in.
 
2013-01-02 02:46:07 AM  

serial_crusher: You're salivating over a la carte channels?  Really grampa?  I hear they're getting ready to make these newfangled things called compact discs next year.  They're going to be like cassette tapes, except they'll have lasers!

"Channels" are already obsolete.  You people sit here and biatch that there are 200 channels you don't watch, but you're perfectly comfortable paying for 24 hours a day of programming, even though you only watch like 4 hours of it on average?  It's the same thing in a smaller chunk.

Let me subscribe to a show, and get the episodes instantly when they're released, instead of waiting until the next day.  That's where TV needs to head.


Really? Making fun of subby when you clearly didn't RTFA?
 
2013-01-02 02:48:23 AM  
You mean you want to be able to pick and choose the package you want rather than have a bunch of things you don't want?

Think hard now, because if you feel that passionately about doing so for cable television may I inquire why you are not screaming in RAGE over how health insurance works?

Or even more comically, if you believe in socialized medicine.
 
2013-01-02 02:49:10 AM  
Percentage of households that possess at least one television: 99
Number of TV sets in the average U.S. household: 2.24
Percentage of U.S. homes with three or more TV sets: 66
Number of hours per day that TV is on in an average U.S. home: 6 hours, 47 minutes
Percentage of Americans that regularly watch television while eating dinner: 66
Number of hours of TV watched annually by Americans: 250 billion
Value of that time assuming an average wage of S5/hour: S1.25 trillion
Percentage of Americans who pay for cable TV: 56
Number of videos rented daily in the U.S.: 6 million
Number of public library items checked out daily: 3 million
Percentage of Americans who say they watch too much TV: 49
 
2013-01-02 02:49:44 AM  

red5ish: I got rid of my television about four years ago. I replaced it with a much, much larger HD television and a surround sound system with five speakers and a sub-woofer. I can watch cable television, DVDs, play video games and watch shows via an HDMI cable connected to my computer's high speed internet connection. I don't see the upside to limiting choices by picking channels or shows. There would have to be a real cost benefit and I don't believe they will be able to deliver.


This is the American dream. To get rid of your television so you can buy a television with which to watch television.
 
2013-01-02 02:50:25 AM  

Beaver Knievel: inclemency: sweet-daddy-2: gibbon1: President Merkin Muffley: People still watch TV?

I came here to say this. I've haven't watched any TV for maybe 20 years. When I occasionally see it, my god, it's way way overwhelming.

That makes three of us.I shut our cable off about seven years ago and only miss seeing the NYY games.I keep an old tv around for one grandson to play his games on(no one touches my computer).Netflix costs me less then $9 a month for the little I watch.Cable tv equals dull,wasted time.

Wow. You rock.

And you live alone.


Incorrect. Hipster.

Who really feels the need to come to fark.com and let us know how foreign television is and COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THEIR LIFE! !.... In a television thread? Who, really?
 
2013-01-02 02:51:21 AM  
130 some odd television channels, unlimited adsl line for 30€ a month.
For another 15€ I get a 3g/4g equipped sim carte for my smart phone.
/lives in France
//let me know if you have similar offer in the states
 
2013-01-02 02:51:38 AM  
I can't see this going anywhere.

Intel isn't exactly renown for software interfaces.

The image in the article has a big nasty Boxee symbol. I got a Boxee Box, riddled with bugs that still aren't sorted out, needing to be reset fairly often. I can't get all buttons on the RF remote to work with my Harmony with an IR dongle... the browser is shiat, and many of the 'shows' streamed are pretty lousy. Local scrapping of files is filled with errors, Show/Movie art is incorrect or won't suddenly load for a show or two for months on end, to be replaced with a Russian version of a mainstream show... and today, it decides to be slow and unresponsive until I reboot the box. It will play any file I throw at it, but the bugs and interface are a farce. Oh, and Boxee up and left supporting the device a few months ago.
 
2013-01-02 02:52:09 AM  
Sorry if this has been said... actually no I'm not.

First of all, ISPs will put smaller caps on data. Why? Because Comcast will, to stop this.

Secondly, Comcast will never let its in-house channels and channels be sent over wire a la carte. The entertainment industry is a cartel and the other companies will likewise refuse to license their offerings a la carte.

Thirdly, Comcast will get away with this because it is a legal monopoly. Cable companies are regulated monopolies with guaranteed exclusive territories. Utilities own state governments. Expect this service to be blocked legislatively at the state level or through their agents on utilities regulation boards.

Is the announcement real? Absolutely. But they will have zero content unless they want to buy from independent studios. I have a series I'm developing that would be perfect for it, for example, but only because I won't give up control to the entertainment cartel.

I could see them doing a joint venture with Netflix for exclusive series content, if Netflix isn't too concerned with having existing content yanked.

This is a very high stakes game and Intel is trying to destabilize a highly regulated monopoly and a less legal but no less powerful cartel.

I would love to see the cartel and the monopoly both broken. I really would. It's been a pox on entertainment for too long. But I don't understand how Intel hopes to overcome the organized hostility they will face on all fronts.
 
2013-01-02 02:55:40 AM  

randomjsa: You mean you want to be able to pick and choose the package you want rather than have a bunch of things you don't want?

Think hard now, because if you feel that passionately about doing so for cable television may I inquire why you are not screaming in RAGE over how health insurance works?

Or even more comically, if you believe in socialized medicine.


I want to know what's wrong with
you. You're messed up and I'd like someone to alert the authorities and have you put in a padded room indefinetely to murmur 'libs libs libs' until you die you useless threadjacking troll.
 
2013-01-02 02:58:41 AM  
Two words- Bandwidth Caps.

Fix the farking infrastructure first, then we can talk serious business.


Stupid Netflix won't let me watch Breaking Bad tonight..

loading...loading...loading...
 
2013-01-02 02:59:56 AM  

namatad: RoyBatty: [i.imgur.com image 850x287]
[i.imgur.com image 642x350]

god damn you so very very much
spacey is probably one of my top 5 actors
so NOW I need to get netflix??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


It would be ironic if what broke the HBO, Showtime, Warner Brothers model was their refusing to give Netflix access to their movies, forcing Netflix to make their own....

I am not happy at the moment with Netflix's streaming selection -- far too few movies or shows I want. But it's also only $8 a month, and gives me far more than I can watch. I am thinking of getting Hulu Plus to fill in some gaps, also for I think $8 a month. For stuff that's still missing there's Amazon, Google, Vudu, RedBox, and even an occasional Blockbuster.

That's a far cry from my mom and others who I think, pay more than a hundred for cable.
 
2013-01-02 03:01:09 AM  
Can't read. Busy torrenting the 0.5% of mass media that interests me.
 
2013-01-02 03:02:34 AM  

BolloxReader: Sorry if this has been said... actually no I'm not.

First of all, ISPs will put smaller caps on data. Why? Because Comcast will, to stop this.

Secondly, Comcast will never let its in-house channels and channels be sent over wire a la carte. The entertainment industry is a cartel and the other companies will likewise refuse to license their offerings a la carte.

Thirdly, Comcast will get away with this because it is a legal monopoly. Cable companies are regulated monopolies with guaranteed exclusive territories. Utilities own state governments. Expect this service to be blocked legislatively at the state level or through their agents on utilities regulation boards.

Is the announcement real? Absolutely. But they will have zero content unless they want to buy from independent studios. I have a series I'm developing that would be perfect for it, for example, but only because I won't give up control to the entertainment cartel.

I could see them doing a joint venture with Netflix for exclusive series content, if Netflix isn't too concerned with having existing content yanked.

This is a very high stakes game and Intel is trying to destabilize a highly regulated monopoly and a less legal but no less powerful cartel.

I would love to see the cartel and the monopoly both broken. I really would. It's been a pox on entertainment for too long. But I don't understand how Intel hopes to overcome the organized hostility they will face on all fronts.


Television shows aren't free to produce. As has been mentioned in this thread, and I'll paraphrase here: cable packages subsidize production, especially after pvr use over commercials. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT FOR FREE OR THEY WON'T MAKE IT.

/work in restaurant industry
//pay 100 for cable monthly
 
2013-01-02 03:03:41 AM  

serial_crusher: Let me subscribe to a show, and get the episodes instantly when they're released, instead of waiting until the next day.  That's where TV needs to head.


Who is going to finance high quality professional production under this type of model?
 
2013-01-02 03:04:48 AM  

sweet-daddy-2: inclemency: sweet-daddy-2: gibbon1: President Merkin Muffley: People still watch TV?

I came here to say this. I've haven't watched any TV for maybe 20 years. When I occasionally see it, my god, it's way way overwhelming.

That makes three of us.I shut our cable off about seven years ago and only miss seeing the NYY games.I keep an old tv around for one grandson to play his games on(no one touches my computer).Netflix costs me less then $9 a month for the little I watch.Cable tv equals dull,wasted time.

Wow. You rock.

Being a boomer,I rock and roll.
( to old for sex and drugs)
or is that to obscure?


'Boomer' and a hipster? Where do you find the time to be smug?
 
2013-01-02 03:05:08 AM  
FTA: Disney, for instance, charges TV distributors about $5 for every subscriber that gets ESPN

And you guys biatch and moan about TF subscriptions.....
 
2013-01-02 03:09:39 AM  

yukichigai: If by "won" you mean "got the bill indefinitely delayed instead of outright cancelled" then yes, they "won".


SOPA and PIPA were shelved, but it was passed in semi-secret under the ACTA name. It hasn't gone into effect yet (as far as I know), but it was passed not long after the furor over the other two blew over.

/ACTA is technically a multinational "Treaty" version of the bill, but for all intents and purposes, it's the same damn bill regardless.
//Why are so few people aware of this?
 
2013-01-02 03:12:03 AM  

RoyBatty: namatad: RoyBatty: [i.imgur.com image 850x287]
[i.imgur.com image 642x350]

god damn you so very very much
spacey is probably one of my top 5 actors
so NOW I need to get netflix??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

It would be ironic if what broke the HBO, Showtime, Warner Brothers model was their refusing to give Netflix access to their movies, forcing Netflix to make their own....

I am not happy at the moment with Netflix's streaming selection -- far too few movies or shows I want. But it's also only $8 a month, and gives me far more than I can watch. I am thinking of getting Hulu Plus to fill in some gaps, also for I think $8 a month. For stuff that's still missing there's Amazon, Google, Vudu, RedBox, and even an occasional Blockbuster.

That's a far cry from my mom and others who I think, pay more than a hundred for cable.


I don't have netflix, looking into getting it as it's inexpensive and highly regarded by my peers.

But you complaining about the subjective 'lack of content', which I'm assured is a spurious declaration just makes all of us look bad. Look into 'not being entitled 101' at that college near you. Oh, and I hear 'at least it's not a phonograph' is great as well
 
2013-01-02 03:13:09 AM  
The guy in the article related to ESPN as a deal breaker. Supporting cable companies, he knew to do that.
ESPN has a lot overhead.

This Intel thing is feasible.
 
2013-01-02 03:14:36 AM  

BolloxReader: Sorry if this has been said... actually no I'm not.

First of all, ISPs will put smaller caps on data. Why? Because Comcast will, to stop this.

Secondly, Comcast will never let its in-house channels and channels be sent over wire a la carte. The entertainment industry is a cartel and the other companies will likewise refuse to license their offerings a la carte.

Thirdly, Comcast will get away with this because it is a legal monopoly. Cable companies are regulated monopolies with guaranteed exclusive territories. Utilities own state governments. Expect this service to be blocked legislatively at the state level or through their agents on utilities regulation boards.

Is the announcement real? Absolutely. But they will have zero content unless they want to buy from independent studios. I have a series I'm developing that would be perfect for it, for example, but only because I won't give up control to the entertainment cartel.

I could see them doing a joint venture with Netflix for exclusive series content, if Netflix isn't too concerned with having existing content yanked.

This is a very high stakes game and Intel is trying to destabilize a highly regulated monopoly and a less legal but no less powerful cartel.

I would love to see the cartel and the monopoly both broken. I really would. It's been a pox on entertainment for too long. But I don't understand how Intel hopes to overcome the organized hostility they will face on all fronts.


I think they're hoping to do it nice and businesslike, without nastiness. The reason being that they aren't without their own methods of applying pressure too.

If this was just some random startup I think you'd be dead on: there's no way this would go through, at least not without serious political pressure brought to bear to get it done. The thing is, Intel has the means to apply political pressure where they need to.

Comcast starts throttling bandwidth? Well ignoring a supposed Net Neutrality bill finally being passed, Intel could just say, "hey Comcast, you know all those tiny tiny little processors and transistors you buy from us to make your cable boxes and modems and such? We've decided to stop selling them to you. Have fun negotiating a new contract with AMD, who we will be sure to let know how desperate for a new supplier you are."

If the legislators get involved, Intel can do a WAY better job of paying them off than Comcast could. Between defense contracts and other things, they can easily afford to give any congresscritter enough money in kickbacks for them to build a mansion out of other, smaller mansions. There's also the classic, "gee Senator asshat, I have no idea how the shipment of microprocessors tagged for your specific pork project were all bad, making you eat a huge cost thanks to the nature of our contract with you. Very, very strange. On a related topic, how's that monopoly decision going?"

As someone else said, Intel is the real 650 pound gorilla in this situation. They have the weight to throw around and the capacity to do it. It would take every single company who isn't in favor of this teaming up to match the amount of political and financial pressure Intel could put into the whole arrangement, and that's not even counting Intel's likely heavy-hitting allies, like Apple and Google. The only hope for the networks is that nobody sells to Intel at all, but I'm not sure how likely that is, not to mention that whole "regulated monopoly" thing may actually obligate them to do so (monopoly regulations being very, very strange sometimes).
 
2013-01-02 03:17:54 AM  

inclemency: BolloxReader: Sorry if this has been said... actually no I'm not.

First of all, ISPs will put smaller caps on data. Why? Because Comcast will, to stop this.

Secondly, Comcast will never let its in-house channels and channels be sent over wire a la carte. The entertainment industry is a cartel and the other companies will likewise refuse to license their offerings a la carte.

Thirdly, Comcast will get away with this because it is a legal monopoly. Cable companies are regulated monopolies with guaranteed exclusive territories. Utilities own state governments. Expect this service to be blocked legislatively at the state level or through their agents on utilities regulation boards.

Is the announcement real? Absolutely. But they will have zero content unless they want to buy from independent studios. I have a series I'm developing that would be perfect for it, for example, but only because I won't give up control to the entertainment cartel.

I could see them doing a joint venture with Netflix for exclusive series content, if Netflix isn't too concerned with having existing content yanked.

This is a very high stakes game and Intel is trying to destabilize a highly regulated monopoly and a less legal but no less powerful cartel.

I would love to see the cartel and the monopoly both broken. I really would. It's been a pox on entertainment for too long. But I don't understand how Intel hopes to overcome the organized hostility they will face on all fronts.

Television shows aren't free to produce. As has been mentioned in this thread, and I'll paraphrase here: cable packages subsidize production, especially after pvr use over commercials. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT FOR FREE OR THEY WON'T MAKE IT.

/work in restaurant industry
//pay 100 for cable monthly


TV shows aren't free to make, but neither are movies. There are ways of making both outside of the mainstream system. For movies, you can go to an investor group like IndieVest. I know that Roger Corman's studio is working directly with Netflix on exclusive content. And so on.

There may not be the million-dollar payrolls with independent productions but if one backloads the contracts with royalties rather than front-loads them with guaranteed pay, it still can be worth it to participate.

The state of TV production today is a structural issue, not one inherent to the medium. There are plenty of profits to be made in funding entertainment. The problem is distribution. IndieVest cracked that nut in movies, and the tech companies pushing the new paradigm can easily set up similar investment companies to compete with the big boys. But by relying on traditional utilities to distribute the content they will still be hamstrung.

The utilities will NOT upgrade infrastructure to accommodate this data usage. They will use it to lower data caps to strangle the competitors. And it will all be done nice and legal.

There is as much money in entertainment as there are in the tech companies. It's just been accumulating in private hands and through the miracle of Hollywood accounting it's damned near invisible. An all-out brawl between tech on one side and entertainment/distribution would be very interesting to watch. I don't think either of the two understands the other or what is at stake.
 
2013-01-02 03:18:01 AM  

Counter_Intelligent: This is the American dream. To get rid of your television so you can buy a television with which to watch television.


Not just any television; HD television. 1080i with Dolby surround sound. Toshiro Mifune never looked better.
 
2013-01-02 03:23:18 AM  

BolloxReader: inclemency: BolloxReader: Sorry if this has been said... actually no I'm not.

First of all, ISPs will put smaller caps on data. Why? Because Comcast will, to stop this.

Secondly, Comcast will never let its in-house channels and channels be sent over wire a la carte. The entertainment industry is a cartel and the other companies will likewise refuse to license their offerings a la carte.

Thirdly, Comcast will get away with this because it is a legal monopoly. Cable companies are regulated monopolies with guaranteed exclusive territories. Utilities own state governments. Expect this service to be blocked legislatively at the state level or through their agents on utilities regulation boards.

Is the announcement real? Absolutely. But they will have zero content unless they want to buy from independent studios. I have a series I'm developing that would be perfect for it, for example, but only because I won't give up control to the entertainment cartel.

I could see them doing a joint venture with Netflix for exclusive series content, if Netflix isn't too concerned with having existing content yanked.

This is a very high stakes game and Intel is trying to destabilize a highly regulated monopoly and a less legal but no less powerful cartel.

I would love to see the cartel and the monopoly both broken. I really would. It's been a pox on entertainment for too long. But I don't understand how Intel hopes to overcome the organized hostility they will face on all fronts.

Television shows aren't free to produce. As has been mentioned in this thread, and I'll paraphrase here: cable packages subsidize production, especially after pvr use over commercials. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT FOR FREE OR THEY WON'T MAKE IT.

/work in restaurant industry
//pay 100 for cable monthly

TV shows aren't free to make, but neither are movies. There are ways of making both outside of the mainstream system. For movies, you can go to an investor group like IndieVest. I know that Roger Corman's studio is working directly with Netflix on exclusive content. And so on.

There may not be the million-dollar payrolls with independent productions but if one backloads the contracts with royalties rather than front-loads them with guaranteed pay, it still can be worth it to participate.

The state of TV production today is a structural issue, not one inherent to the medium. There are plenty of profits to be made in funding entertainment. The problem is distribution. IndieVest cracked that nut in movies, and the tech companies pushing the new paradigm can easily set up similar investment companies to compete with the big boys. But by relying on traditional utilities to distribute the content they will still be hamstrung.

The utilities will NOT upgrade infrastructure to accommodate this data usage. They will use it to lower data caps to strangle the competitors. And it will all be done nice and legal.

There is as much money in entertainment as there are in the tech companies. It's just been accumulating in private hands and through the miracle of Hollywood accounting it's damned near invisible. An all-out brawl between tech on one side and entertainment/distribution would be very interesting to watch. I don't think either of the two understands the other or what is at stake.


Thank you for that response. I agree with part of it, disagree with part of it but you at make a salient point.
 
2013-01-02 03:27:56 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: yukichigai: If by "won" you mean "got the bill indefinitely delayed instead of outright cancelled" then yes, they "won".

SOPA and PIPA were shelved, but it was passed in semi-secret under the ACTA name. It hasn't gone into effect yet (as far as I know), but it was passed not long after the furor over the other two blew over.

/ACTA is technically a multinational "Treaty" version of the bill, but for all intents and purposes, it's the same damn bill regardless.
//Why are so few people aware of this?


Multinational treaty != U.S. Law

Not only that, the White House only signed the damn thing. It still hasn't been ratified, nor has Congress or the Senate granted any approval to the treaty. We still need to get past that for the treaty to even start to THINK about applying to the U.S.

If the White House could unilaterally agree to international treaties about half the current congress would have strapped on explosive vests and started running for Pennsylvania Avenue by now.
 
2013-01-02 03:33:40 AM  
TommyymmoT : I wonder what will happen to the shopping channels, which cable companies claim they need to include in order to offset their expenses?

Well, people shop on the shopping channels, so give the channel away for free.

// think about it, if there was a shopping channel that sold some decent tech shiat. Like a Think Geek TV or something, would you watch it? Would you buy?
 
2013-01-02 03:37:42 AM  

yukichigai: BolloxReader: Sorry if this has been said... actually no I'm not.

First of all, ISPs will put smaller caps on data. Why? Because Comcast will, to stop this.

Secondly, Comcast will never let its in-house channels and channels be sent over wire a la carte. The entertainment industry is a cartel and the other companies will likewise refuse to license their offerings a la carte.

Thirdly, Comcast will get away with this because it is a legal monopoly. Cable companies are regulated monopolies with guaranteed exclusive territories. Utilities own state governments. Expect this service to be blocked legislatively at the state level or through their agents on utilities regulation boards.

Is the announcement real? Absolutely. But they will have zero content unless they want to buy from independent studios. I have a series I'm developing that would be perfect for it, for example, but only because I won't give up control to the entertainment cartel.

I could see them doing a joint venture with Netflix for exclusive series content, if Netflix isn't too concerned with having existing content yanked.

This is a very high stakes game and Intel is trying to destabilize a highly regulated monopoly and a less legal but no less powerful cartel.

I would love to see the cartel and the monopoly both broken. I really would. It's been a pox on entertainment for too long. But I don't understand how Intel hopes to overcome the organized hostility they will face on all fronts.

I think they're hoping to do it nice and businesslike, without nastiness. The reason being that they aren't without their own methods of applying pressure too.

If this was just some random startup I think you'd be dead on: there's no way this would go through, at least not without serious political pressure brought to bear to get it done. The thing is, Intel has the means to apply political pressure where they need to.

Comcast starts throttling bandwidth? Well ignoring a supposed Net Neutrality bill finally being passed, Intel could just say, "hey Comcast, you know all those tiny tiny little processors and transistors you buy from us to make your cable boxes and modems and such? We've decided to stop selling them to you. Have fun negotiating a new contract with AMD, who we will be sure to let know how desperate for a new supplier you are."

If the legislators get involved, Intel can do a WAY better job of paying them off than Comcast could. Between defense contracts and other things, they can easily afford to give any congresscritter enough money in kickbacks for them to build a mansion out of other, smaller mansions. There's also the classic, "gee Senator asshat, I have no idea how the shipment of microprocessors tagged for your specific pork project were all bad, making you eat a huge cost thanks to the nature of our contract with you. Very, very strange. On a related topic, how's that monopoly decision going?"

As someone else said, Intel is the real 650 pound gorilla in this situation. They have the weight to throw around and the capacity to do it. It would take every single company who isn't in favor of this teaming up to match the amount of political and financial pressure Intel could put into the whole arrangement, and that's not even counting Intel's likely heavy-hitting allies, like Apple and Google. The only hope for the networks is that nobody sells to Intel at all, but I'm not sure how likely that is, not to mention that whole "regulated monopoly" thing may actually obligate them to do so (monopoly regulations being very, very strange sometimes).


I think that the networks will either all sign agreements or all offer unacceptable terms. This is a direct assault on their business model. It literally is a matter of life or death for the cable channel business, whether it is Comcast or Disney or anyone else.

You bring up a good point about Congress. The tech companies can certainly do better there than the media companies. But they would have to assert jurisdiction over the state legislatures.

Ever seen a state law being written? The legislator hands you a blank template for a law and you fill it out so they don't have to. They decide whether they like you enough to sponsor that law you yourself just wrote. The committee chair decides whether he or she likes you enough to allow discussion. The sponsor decides whether he or she likes you enough to defend it. And then the committee decides whether to advance it, which is often another popularity contest.

Sure, there are some ideological wranglings but assuming it isn't about abortion or guns or unions or teachers, it's an easy sell... if they like you enough. And "enough" means more than anyone else who may stand to lose because of the new law.

Utility regulation has always been a state issue, and they will have every other utlility fighting to preserve their bailiwick. All the energy companies, water, etc will be drawn into the fight because it is far easier to control state legislatures than Congress.

Again I would love to see the system disrupted. The whole "legal monopoly" thing needs to go away. Every single one of them is abusive and unaccountable and guaranteed profits regardless of it.

But it would not be easy, nor would it be quick.
 
2013-01-02 03:38:53 AM  

cretinbob: Already beginning

[uncrate.com image 470x327]


Roku is great. Love my Roku. But outside of Netflix and Hulu Plus, the availability of current, full-length programs is spotty at best. I'm sure this market will mature. But in the mean time, I'm still watching Craig Ferguson on CBS.com's shiatty player because there's no way to watch full episodes on Roku - or at least no way that I've found. (And CBS has finally started cracking down on the Craig-centric YouTube channels.)

/yes, I've tried Plex - it's a pain in the ass, doesn't work right 70% of the time, and despite being a QA Engineer, even I have a hard time figuring out how the fark it works
 
2013-01-02 03:41:00 AM  

inclemency: But you complaining about the subjective 'lack of content', which I'm assured is a spurious declaration just makes all of us look bad. Look into 'not being entitled 101' at that college near you. Oh, and I hear 'at least it's not a phonograph' is great as well


That's funny, because it presents not just the idiocy of social justice warriors, but also your own personal ignorance of the great Netflix/Qwixster debacle and the difference between Netflix Streaming versus Netflix DVD and how Netflix is trying to shutdown Netflix DVD.

Anyway, you're a total dumbass, and if you're going to college to learn about privilege 101, I hope for your sake it's a cheap community college and that you enjoy service oriented customer facing positions where you can provide them their daily fries.
 
2013-01-02 03:42:40 AM  
lordargent still quoting in green. It's like watching Spectravision or ONtv.
 
2013-01-02 03:47:23 AM  
Soupysales: lordargent still quoting in green. It's like watching Spectravision or ONtv.

After over a decade, you think you would be used to it by now.
 
2013-01-02 03:48:55 AM  

BolloxReader: Again I would love to see the system disrupted. The whole "legal monopoly" thing needs to go away. Every single one of them is abusive and unaccountable and guaranteed profits regardless of it.

But it would not be easy, nor would it be quick.


Oh god no. This is going to be a long, knock-down, drag-out kind of fight. Shots fired back and forth all over this. Like you said, this is someone's livelihood, though I think it's possible that Intel may find a way to make it profitable, not disruptive, for the networks. That still leaves the cable companies though.

I do see this dragging on for a while though, but if Intel decides they're going to give it the full push, my money is on them winning in the end.
 
2013-01-02 03:52:48 AM  

Bennie Crabtree: serial_crusher: Let me subscribe to a show, and get the episodes instantly when they're released, instead of waiting until the next day.  That's where TV needs to head.

This ridiculous. Controlling when content can be viewed is an excellent way of maintaining control over a population. For example, in Canada, traditionally traffic on city streets decreases significantly when Hockey Night in Canada is on. So does crime, hospital visits, etc.. it also means that a huge proportion of Canadians are available for targeted messages, like advertising, that runs the economy. Other messages, like political messages, can be run during HNiC as well.

Then let's look at social engineering experiments like reality tv shows where viewers vote. The CBC ran the first show like that, because private industries wanted to make the financial risks public. Canada tested it's infrastructure for cell phones, instant text messaging, and how business and government could coordinate hundreds of thousands of Canadians to obey a message all at once. It was also a cash cow, ensuring that the cellular companies at the time would get a guaranteed income on certain nights of the week, from customers who watched the show sending messages.

Your silly idea would not coordinate all of these things and would seriously fark up city planning, business, and government control mechanisms. It would bugger the economy in advertising alone. it is irresponsible.


Funny that. In my country, they use those moment for the tax-, fine- and repo-men to come and pay a visit to your house.
 
2013-01-02 03:53:14 AM  
Im not sure whats up with all the bandwidth cap etc comments... while its still basically regulated monopoly, ive got the choice between Comcast cable, DSL, Verizon Fios, and if you want to include them.. several local wireless internet companies.

Will comcast try to be dicks about this? Yes... but it will just drive the customers to Fios etc where there are no caps and there is plenty of bandwidth, on a modern infrastructure.
 
2013-01-02 03:53:55 AM  

lordargent: Soupysales: lordargent still quoting in green. It's like watching Spectravision or ONtv.

After over a decade, you think you would be used to it by now.


Oh, I am. I have no issue with it. I was more making a play on the cable offerings that existed way back in the olden days, when we all were Farking by mail.
 
2013-01-02 04:12:22 AM  

yukichigai: Counter_Intelligent: Kittypie070: You guys trust these tards to tell you anything straight when they have a BS story about Neil Armstrong?

That's the Live Strong guy, right?

Yeah, the one who used to be in that boy band and then came out of the closet.


No, no. You're thinking of one of the Knights of the Round Table. He was often times given rhymes that were quite unsingable, not unlike a member of a boy band. A common mistake.
 
2013-01-02 04:13:31 AM  

roncofooddehydrator: SquiggsIN: shouldn't the more popular it is, the better bargaining can be reached, thus the CHEAPER it becomes. These are basic principles of economics.

No... there's a limited supply. So the more popular something becomes the more expensive it becomes. Diamonds are very popular but there's only so many of them.


There's a lot more of them than are on the market. Rubies are more rare, yet cost less, because there's no cartel jacking the price up by withholding supply.
 
2013-01-02 04:15:29 AM  
I'm with the what's-new-about-this crowd.  I gave up on $70/mo cable three years ago.  If there's something I want to see, I will pay for a season pass or I will wait until it's on DVD or streaming free.  The main reason I do this is because when I had cable, I discovered most of the programming revolved around reality shows I had no wish to see.  And of course, the other reason I did it was that even the shows I wanted to see  were laced with ads I didn't want to see.  So now I see the shows I want to see, ad-free.
 
2013-01-02 04:31:34 AM  

apoptotic: Won't the threat of more people switching to streaming tv just result in stricter bandwith limits? Or are American cable companies and ISPs run totally separately?


My Internet provider is also a cable company. If they can throttle torrent traffic, don't see why they wouldn't be able to throttle traffic to/from a device that has cost the a subscriber. I haven't had cable TV in over 5 years and don't miss any of it (except for baseball).
 
2013-01-02 04:39:57 AM  
I'd be happy if they just offered a non-sports package, since the bulk of the cable fees goes to pay for ESPN and simliar channels.  I don't watch sports, and I hate the idea that so much of my cable check would go towards them.
 
2013-01-02 04:46:35 AM  

serial_crusher: You're salivating over a la carte channels?  Really grampa?  I hear they're getting ready to make these newfangled things called compact discs next year.  They're going to be like cassette tapes, except they'll have lasers!

"Channels" are already obsolete.  You people sit here and biatch that there are 200 channels you don't watch, but you're perfectly comfortable paying for 24 hours a day of programming, even though you only watch like 4 hours of it on average?  It's the same thing in a smaller chunk.

Let me subscribe to a show, and get the episodes instantly when they're released, instead of waiting until the next day.  That's where TV needs to head.


Channels are not so bad. I own an mp3 player, but i sometimes listen to college radio because i want to hear something new. Channels remind me of what I used to like and introduce me to what i might like. A randomly programmed netflix channel could be kind of cool.
 
2013-01-02 04:53:26 AM  

MadSkillz: What? You don't want A&E bundled in with the channels you want? But you need to watch 16 minute shows like Storage Wars.

/A&E - Too many f'ng commercials.


I've been hitting the website for mine. And you are right. Average running time is 18 minutes.
 
2013-01-02 05:02:48 AM  

red5ish: Huck And Molly Ziegler: I'm predicting that within 10 years, professionally created video entertainment specifically for home consumption will disappear. Yes, even Law & Order.
People will still go to new movies for the communal experience.
People will still go to local theater for the novelty of watching live people perform.

But "television" will be replaced by whatever six people with a couple of cameras want to put on the Internet. They'll have day jobs. Their "reward" will be Internet viewings. If they're really good enough, they'll make their entertainment some sort of pay-per-view.

Holy crap that's a bad prediction.


I don't think he's too far off base.

Have you ever heard of Shay Carl, or Charles Trippy? These folks are far from extraordinary, but yet they have millions of viewers, and I'm sure they've managed to monetize what they do outside of their YouTube partnerships. I'd venture to guess that they actually have a larger viewership than some cable shows.
 
2013-01-02 05:16:44 AM  

Vaneshi: eddievercetti: Viacom is ready to troll us & stop this from happening.

Viacom don't have enough money to stop it happening. None of them do; even combined. If the business insiders are correct then Viacom would have to fight Apple, Google and Intel all at the same time. That is some serious 18 wheeled heavy mental thunder approaching.

Apple the company with a market cap larger than the worlds biggest oil company. Google, the darling of the internet who are about to release 'Google Glass', they don't know what its for, they haven't really got a a business model for it... but people are queuing up to pre-order the dev units and finally Intel. The company that makes the processors in everyones laptop/desktop and servers.

Viacom's small fry compared to that monster.


Viacom doesn't have enough money to stop this from happening?

That's what lobbyists and the FCC are for, silly!
 
2013-01-02 05:18:42 AM  

fusillade762: Do I have to fark her vagina or is the neck flab an acceptable alternative?


Thing is... you think your getting her vag... and then... SURPRISE! You weren't even close!
 
2013-01-02 05:19:23 AM  

randomjsa: You mean you want to be able to pick and choose the package you want rather than have a bunch of things you don't want?
Think hard now, because if you feel that passionately about doing so for cable television may I inquire why you are not screaming in RAGE over how health insurance works?


Okay, I want YOU to think really hard about this, and understand the false equivalency you just presented, but I'll let you think really hard about it first..

give up?

Cable TV is a WANT and a luxury. If you don't get cable TV, you won't die.
Healthcare is a NEED and a compulsory. If it is not provided for everyone equally all the time, people will die.

Furthermore, having choices in cable TV enriches the user experience. There is no choice when it comes to healthcare: You either have it or you don't. Cable TV has many purposes. There is only one purpose when it comes to healthcare: To be healthy.

To actually advocate that there is a "choice" when it comes to healthcare on par with cable TV subscriptions is what's wrong with the American healthcare industry.
 
2013-01-02 05:19:56 AM  
Meh. Bundle in some gigabit fiber at a decent rate and I'm in. Otherwise, no. I can live without Cable of any sort, and use OTT.
 
2013-01-02 05:21:42 AM  

WhyteRaven74: roncofooddehydrator: Diamonds are very popular but there's only so many of them.

you can create all the diamonds you want these days


...and you'd think the price would fall as a result. Sounds like a conspiracy!
 
2013-01-02 05:22:25 AM  

BolloxReader: Sorry if this has been said... actually no I'm not.

First of all, ISPs will put smaller caps on data. Why? Because Comcast will, to stop this.

Secondly, Comcast will never let its in-house channels and channels be sent over wire a la carte. The entertainment industry is a cartel and the other companies will likewise refuse to license their offerings a la carte.

Thirdly, Comcast will get away with this because it is a legal monopoly. Cable companies are regulated monopolies with guaranteed exclusive territories. Utilities own state governments. Expect this service to be blocked legislatively at the state level or through their agents on utilities regulation boards.

Is the announcement real? Absolutely. But they will have zero content unless they want to buy from independent studios. I have a series I'm developing that would be perfect for it, for example, but only because I won't give up control to the entertainment cartel.

I could see them doing a joint venture with Netflix for exclusive series content, if Netflix isn't too concerned with having existing content yanked.

This is a very high stakes game and Intel is trying to destabilize a highly regulated monopoly and a less legal but no less powerful cartel.

I would love to see the cartel and the monopoly both broken. I really would. It's been a pox on entertainment for too long. But I don't understand how Intel hopes to overcome the organized hostility they will face on all fronts.


Then the answer is obviously to break up these stupid monopolies. Derp.
 
2013-01-02 05:28:08 AM  

themasterdebater: fusillade762: Do I have to fark her vagina or is the neck flab an acceptable alternative?

Thing is... you think your getting her vag... and then... SURPRISE! You weren't even close!


If you hung the beast by its cankles and got the fat to flow away from the area, you might find it...

/dear god, the smell...
 
2013-01-02 05:34:42 AM  
I know people will accuse me of being a hipster or something but I haven't watched TV in years. Oh I have a TV of course and I do watch it, but only Netflix or shows that I've downloaded or bought on DVD. Watch what I want, when I want and without a bunch of stupid commercials every few minutes. Same deal with radio only I stopped listening to it in the late 90s, no idea how it's still around.

Anyway Intel will never be able to pull this off, the media conglomerates will never allow it. You'll let them screw you and pay for hundreds of crappy channels you don't want or you'll watch nothing! Good day Sir!
 
2013-01-02 05:35:14 AM  

themasterdebater: fusillade762: Do I have to fark her vagina or is the neck flab an acceptable alternative?

Thing is... you think your getting her vag... and then... SURPRISE! You weren't even close!


That could make 69ing more interesting. Or would that be a different number?
 
2013-01-02 05:36:22 AM  

moothemagiccow: serial_crusher: You're salivating over a la carte channels?  Really grampa?  I hear they're getting ready to make these newfangled things called compact discs next year.  They're going to be like cassette tapes, except they'll have lasers!

"Channels" are already obsolete.  You people sit here and biatch that there are 200 channels you don't watch, but you're perfectly comfortable paying for 24 hours a day of programming, even though you only watch like 4 hours of it on average?  It's the same thing in a smaller chunk.

Let me subscribe to a show, and get the episodes instantly when they're released, instead of waiting until the next day.  That's where TV needs to head.

Channels are not so bad. I own an mp3 player, but i sometimes listen to college radio because i want to hear something new. Channels remind me of what I used to like and introduce me to what i might like. A randomly programmed netflix channel could be kind of cool.


Kind of like pandora for tv. Yes, that would be a good thing.
Also porn. Pandora for porn.
 
2013-01-02 05:54:35 AM  

inclemency: RoyBatty: namatad: RoyBatty: [i.imgur.com image 850x287]
[i.imgur.com image 642x350]

god damn you so very very much
spacey is probably one of my top 5 actors
so NOW I need to get netflix??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

It would be ironic if what broke the HBO, Showtime, Warner Brothers model was their refusing to give Netflix access to their movies, forcing Netflix to make their own....

I am not happy at the moment with Netflix's streaming selection -- far too few movies or shows I want. But it's also only $8 a month, and gives me far more than I can watch. I am thinking of getting Hulu Plus to fill in some gaps, also for I think $8 a month. For stuff that's still missing there's Amazon, Google, Vudu, RedBox, and even an occasional Blockbuster.

That's a far cry from my mom and others who I think, pay more than a hundred for cable.

I don't have netflix, looking into getting it as it's inexpensive and highly regarded by my peers.

But you complaining about the subjective 'lack of content', which I'm assured is a spurious declaration just makes all of us look bad. Look into 'not being entitled 101' at that college near you. Oh, and I hear 'at least it's not a phonograph' is great as well


Your peers highly regard Netflix? Are you all wizards?
 
2013-01-02 05:56:12 AM  
This is great except for people like us in the boonies have very little options for high speed internet. Most of us can only get it from one provider - wait for it... the cable companies.
 
2013-01-02 06:01:58 AM  

yukichigai: Not only that, the White House only signed the damn thing. It still hasn't been ratified, nor has Congress or the Senate granted any approval to the treaty. We still need to get past that for the treaty to even start to THINK about applying to the U.S.


Yes, I know that. It doesn't change the fact that the WH signed it after heavy lobbying, and behind our backs to boot.

Fark the MPAA/RIAA. They're destroying their own business models and criminalising us (the consumers) for it, and they're all too retarded and/or money hungry to care.
 
2013-01-02 06:02:57 AM  

Macular Degenerate: This is great except for people like us in the boonies have very little options for high speed internet. Most of us can only get it from one provider - wait for it... the cable companies.


I can only get it from my phone company and it is slow as crap for what I pay, but at least there is no cap.
 
2013-01-02 06:06:48 AM  
And the ISPs will end up lowering the bandwidth caps to compensate.

Until something like Google Fiber is nationwide, we'll all going to have to put up with crappy cable.
 
Pav
2013-01-02 06:12:22 AM  
My cable company offers phone, vod, and the Internet service that is required to make this intel cable box work. Oh and they are quickly putting up wifi AP's to cover their entire footprint. But yeah if you think unbundled tv channels is going to destroy the cable company keep dreaming.
 
2013-01-02 06:20:54 AM  

fusillade762: From one of the linked articles:

[gigaom2.files.wordpress.com image 410x214]

Looks familiar...

[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 400x300]


s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-01-02 06:25:04 AM  

Seth'n'Spectrum: Also, global synchronized releases, dubbing and captions on day one, low subscription price, multiple non-credit card payment options (paypal and all its local copycats). You will see global distribution for serialized shows go through the roof


This is... unexpected.... yet totally predictable. (i just didn't predict it)

America will eventually fall to beg for global socialism, via their TV set. =0

/*Time-Paging Mr Orwell. Please adjust your set*
 
2013-01-02 06:29:28 AM  
So if you unbundled ESPN, the per-subscriber cost might shoot up to $20 or more, to account for the 75 percent drop in its customer base.

No farking way. Channels that sell advertising would see their revenue plummet if they reduced the size of their potential viewing audience. There would be a whole slate of free channels that just want to keep their numbers up, the same way over-the-air TV works.
 
2013-01-02 06:29:39 AM  
So people who are happy to torrent content for free without legal consequence are suddenly going to start paying for it ... and the ones that currently pay for it are going to continue to pay for stuff like SyFy (which is pretty torrented already) when they're offered a la carte ...

www.pressingsave.com
 
2013-01-02 06:34:43 AM  

lemonysprite: inclemency: RoyBatty: namatad: RoyBatty: [i.imgur.com image 850x287]
[i.imgur.com image 642x350]

god damn you so very very much
spacey is probably one of my top 5 actors
so NOW I need to get netflix??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

It would be ironic if what broke the HBO, Showtime, Warner Brothers model was their refusing to give Netflix access to their movies, forcing Netflix to make their own....

I am not happy at the moment with Netflix's streaming selection -- far too few movies or shows I want. But it's also only $8 a month, and gives me far more than I can watch. I am thinking of getting Hulu Plus to fill in some gaps, also for I think $8 a month. For stuff that's still missing there's Amazon, Google, Vudu, RedBox, and even an occasional Blockbuster.

That's a far cry from my mom and others who I think, pay more than a hundred for cable.

I don't have netflix, looking into getting it as it's inexpensive and highly regarded by my peers.

But you complaining about the subjective 'lack of content', which I'm assured is a spurious declaration just makes all of us look bad. Look into 'not being entitled 101' at that college near you. Oh, and I hear 'at least it's not a phonograph' is great as well

Your peers highly regard Netflix? Are you all wizards?


If you live in Canada, it sucks - most of these free/inexpensive services like Hulu are blocked. The goddamn copyright lawyers have pretty much strangled access outside of the US with charging huge fees to foreign providers. Plus there are "Canadian Content" rules watering things down.

So we have to go with very limited choice of online availability. Sure there are proxies available to get around it, but you need to subscribe to pay-for proxies to get the BW, so you are screwed there, plus you need a level of technical competence to figure out ways around the blocking that is beyond what 95% of the users are capable of.

The other problem is that a major carrier (Bell Canada) also have a lucrative satellite service that they wish to protect so they impose bandwidth caps that make it uneconomical to get TV via internet. Sure upstarts happen all the time that offer cheaper rates, but the major players eventually buy them up. Anti-competitive? Illegal? You bet, but Bell and their buddies have deep pockets and has a powerful lobby to prevent any politicians calling them out on it and to protect their business model.

The ironic thing, in the days of broadcast TV here in S Ontario in the 1950s through 1980s, we had one of the widest selection of FREE media available over the air from every major network from both sides of the border, plus a few smaller networks and some independents. Now we just curse Bell, Rogers and copyright lawyers.
 
2013-01-02 06:47:03 AM  
This also opens the door to something thats been in development for quite a long time - smart advertising. My neighbor and I might be watching the same NFL game and as much as BudLight wants to reach the far reaches of the universe, i dont drink the crap no matter how aware of the brand I am. Whiskey and coffee on the other hand, I drink the shiat out of. There's no reason why when the Broncos score a TD, and the NFL goes to commercial that they cant show a bud Light commercial to my neighbor and a Dewars or coffee commercial to me.

99% of advertising sucks because it is a 20' wide net drug across the population hoping that a handfull of people get the message and want the product. I am 10x more likely to buy something off a google ad because it tracks my internet usage, what i typically buy online and suggests shiat from people who sell products that I typically buy.
 
2013-01-02 06:47:06 AM  

Zombie DJ: Oh good. I can see it now.

TNT $20 a month
MTV $3 a month
Comedy Central $40 a month
SyFy $10 a month
and so on...

I get the feeling I'd be paying MORE because I like popular channels like CC, USA and TNT.
People who like dreck like MTV will probably end up paying less.


i212.photobucket.com

Cable, shows, and channels will be so fragmented that we won't know exactly how to get anything any more. Netflix is already doing exclusives which Hulu and Amazon won't get. These a la carte channels will be spread throughout different plans and services, some on the web sites directly. Pretty soon, this will be the only centralized location for all of your shows:

cdn-static.zdnet.com
 
2013-01-02 06:48:49 AM  

blue_2501: Zombie DJ: Oh good. I can see it now.

TNT $20 a month
MTV $3 a month
Comedy Central $40 a month
SyFy $10 a month
and so on...

I get the feeling I'd be paying MORE because I like popular channels like CC, USA and TNT.
People who like dreck like MTV will probably end up paying less.

[i212.photobucket.com image 618x347]

Cable, shows, and channels will be so fragmented that we won't know exactly how to get anything any more. Netflix is already doing exclusives which Hulu and Amazon won't get. These a la carte channels will be spread throughout different plans and services, some on the web sites directly. Pretty soon, this will be the only centralized location for all of your shows:

[cdn-static.zdnet.com image 220x287]


Life is short. I dont have 4 hours to search for a pirated version of Dexter that doesn't have Turkish subtitles or is loaded with WAREZ that destroy my PC
 
2013-01-02 06:49:20 AM  
i just watch whatever the neighbor lady is watching when i peep thru her windows.
 
2013-01-02 07:06:47 AM  
But will it bring back Firefly?
 
2013-01-02 07:11:49 AM  
Hello science channel, goodbye nasty nun.
 
2013-01-02 07:14:07 AM  

Relatively Obscure: About 70% of the time I turn on the TV (and not some other service), I do it to flip through channels I don't normally watch until I land on some random show.


Have Dish. What usually happens is, I scroll through the guide, see that either nothing interesting is on or that the only interesting things are on in four hours, then turn the TV off.

Single-channel subscription SOUNDS like a good idea, maybe there will be less crap on the air.
 
2013-01-02 07:17:33 AM  

Circusdog320: Nofun: Cancelled my cable a year ago. Netflix is way cheaper, on demand, and no commercials.

That's where TV needs to go. Of course it will never happen. Too many people whose only job is to sell you crap you don't need would watch their jobs get flushed away... The lawsuits are already incubating to make sure it never happens. They did it with the cable cards a few years ago to make sure you couldn't make your own DVR without giving them "their" cut.

Got rid of cable 4 years ago....They just need to stream March Madness!


I believe that CBS or the NCAA does. It's a paid subscription but only about $10 total for all the games. You can also stream on an iPad or iPhone and possibly other devices. We had it last year and it was wonderful.

This is what ESPN should adopt for their WatchESPN bullshiat. ESPN3 was great when it was basically 'Any Game, Any Where'. Now it's certain exclusive games on ESPN3 (with numerious providers) and any game anywhere with WatchESPN (which uses about four providers)
 
2013-01-02 07:24:49 AM  
Call me crazy, but this seems like an incredibly stupid idea.
 
2013-01-02 07:24:55 AM  

Bennie Crabtree: serial_crusher: Let me subscribe to a show, and get the episodes instantly when they're released, instead of waiting until the next day.  That's where TV needs to head.

This ridiculous. Controlling when content can be viewed is an excellent way of maintaining control over a population. For example, in Canada, traditionally traffic on city streets decreases significantly when Hockey Night in Canada is on. So does crime, hospital visits, etc.. it also means that a huge proportion of Canadians are available for targeted messages, like advertising, that runs the economy. Other messages, like political messages, can be run during HNiC as well.

Then let's look at social engineering experiments like reality tv shows where viewers vote. The CBC ran the first show like that, because private industries wanted to make the financial risks public. Canada tested it's infrastructure for cell phones, instant text messaging, and how business and government could coordinate hundreds of thousands of Canadians to obey a message all at once. It was also a cash cow, ensuring that the cellular companies at the time would get a guaranteed income on certain nights of the week, from customers who watched the show sending messages.

Your silly idea would not coordinate all of these things and would seriously fark up city planning, business, and government control mechanisms. It would bugger the economy in advertising alone. it is irresponsible.


My God, you people and hockey.
 
2013-01-02 07:30:09 AM  
My roomate is gonna be wondering what happened to Lifetime.
Fark you Lifetime. No more movies about how evil men are!
 
2013-01-02 07:31:53 AM  
Honest question for the law-talking guys around here: would the content providers refusal to play ball with Intel, coupled with their refusals to Google and Apple, be enough evidence of monopoly status for the government to break them up? I don't think they would act, but wouldn't that be suggestive?
 
2013-01-02 07:31:57 AM  
I'd have gotten rid of cable a long time ago except for a few things. One, the loss of a lot of live sports, not just football. I have a Roku, so I can subscribe to MLB and even NHL (if it ever comes back), but the NFL is trickier. SundayTicket isn't the answer. I don't want all football, just some. If the NFL gave me an option to subscribe to my team, I'd be all over it.

I'd love to be able to just pick a dozen channels I actually watch and have an HD antenna for the networks. Probably cut my home entertainment bill by 70%.
 
2013-01-02 07:33:18 AM  

TommyymmoT: I wonder what will happen to the shopping channels, which cable companies claim they need to include in order to offset their expenses?


I purchased my own DVR (A Moxie, not sure you can get them anymore) about two years ago.

One of the best features is the ability to 'remove' channels completely. They are no longer on the listing nor do they show up when you browse the channels manually. You can get them back if you want too.

Whacked all the sales channels, the PPV channels, the religious channels.
 
2013-01-02 07:33:22 AM  

uttertosh: Seth'n'Spectrum: Also, global synchronized releases, dubbing and captions on day one, low subscription price, multiple non-credit card payment options (paypal and all its local copycats). You will see global distribution for serialized shows go through the roof

This is... unexpected.... yet totally predictable. (i just didn't predict it)

America will eventually fall to beg for global socialism, via their TV set. =0

/*Time-Paging Mr Orwell. Please adjust your set*


You've lost me, more than slightly.
 
2013-01-02 07:37:02 AM  

steamingpile: Then all of you will be pissed once you get this then wind up paying $75 for just the few channels you want, I hate the shop at home stations too but they do subsidize a lot of your cable bill. Sure you may not ever watch them but there are tons who do and buy all kinds of crap.


If the channel is truly free I don't mind I can just ignore it.
If I have to pay for something I don't want because it's 'bundled' with something I want it pissed me off.
i don't watch ESPN. it's costing me money
 
2013-01-02 07:37:51 AM  
You all sound poor.
 
2013-01-02 07:38:33 AM  

Seth'n'Spectrum: uttertosh: Seth'n'Spectrum: Also, global synchronized releases, dubbing and captions on day one, low subscription price, multiple non-credit card payment options (paypal and all its local copycats). You will see global distribution for serialized shows go through the roof

This is... unexpected.... yet totally predictable. (i just didn't predict it)

America will eventually fall to beg for global socialism, via their TV set. =0

/*Time-Paging Mr Orwell. Please adjust your set*

You've lost me, more than slightly.


Global, simultaneous release of all shows, meaning every viewer is equal. It was a stretch, admittedly.

Anyone want to buy some straws? I seem to have more than can fit in my hand...
 
2013-01-02 07:42:35 AM  
I've been suggesting this for years. Glad to see it finally got around.
 
2013-01-02 07:44:00 AM  
If it's encrypted such that I can't record it unattended with my homebrew DVR, I'm not likely to be interested.

It's one reason why I have only basic cable.
 
2013-01-02 07:47:18 AM  

roncofooddehydrator: WhyteRaven74: roncofooddehydrator: Diamonds are very popular but there's only so many of them.

you can create all the diamonds you want these days

Which is why synthetic diamonds are cheap and natural ones are expensive...


Actually natural diamonds are plentiful , they are only expensive because of cartels like DeBeers.
 
2013-01-02 07:48:55 AM  

Thraeryn: roncofooddehydrator: You're misunderstanding what the supply is. The supply is quality television. There's only so much of it. When there's a demand for it, the price goes up. That's why ESPN can charge $5 per subscriber. It's not some arbitrary number, it's the law of supply and demand at work.

So . . . companies that don't supply, who currently rely on very inclusive groupings, will find their profits dwindle. They'll have to up the quality of their content or go bankrupt. Companies that currently supply quality programming may be able to lower the cost the average subscriber pays because, instead of being in an inclusive grouping from which they only get a portion of profit, they'll be able to accrue subscribers paying them directly for their product. They'll accrue more subscribers like me, who don't currently pay for cable and would be unlikely to purchase a premium package over the basic ones.

I think some companies should be terrified, and others should be champing at the bit.


Presumably the companies that produce the content people watch were already getting more of the money anyway from the bundled together price, so the difference to the channels might not be that large.
 
2013-01-02 07:50:21 AM  
Project Free TV.

I live in Poland and my internet sucks. Torrenting is slow. Project Free TV has feeds that are fast enough to not buffer every 10 seconds. And they have anything I've ever wanted to watch and more. Even movies.
 
2013-01-02 07:52:06 AM  

ElwoodCuse: Enjoy paying big bucks a month for ESPN, Comedy Central, TNT, other popular channels, etc., and everything else that is in any way niche going out of business completely


I'd pay for TNT and those others you mention can go hang.

Don't watch the niche channels enough to miss them.

TNT, USA , FX, Premium movie channels, cooking channel (till I record all the Alton Browns Good Eats). The networks for NFL. That's about all I need.
 
2013-01-02 08:09:08 AM  

TommyymmoT: Triumph: I'm for this if it's what finally kills MTV.

Palladia HD is pretty good, and 95% of it's programming is live concerts of not just current pop stars.
In fact, it's virtually Bieber, Swift, and Kanye free.
I think I would keep that, and kick MTV, which I haven't watched in years, to the curb.


We left Comcast for a Uverse family pack. I love the fact that I get HUB and BOOM now, but I am still weeping over the loss of Palladia. Damn fine channel.

//Itching for some Who isle of wight or Foo at the Wembly
 
2013-01-02 08:15:04 AM  
But Cable is like Obamacare, we all have to subscribe so that it keeps the cost low and the same for everybody.

Univision is like the free birth control pills for young women - I don't use it but I still have to pay for it (Univision)


\\ Maybe I should learn spanish and starting farking younger women.
 
2013-01-02 08:16:39 AM  
And instead of having to pay $80 a month for two hundred channels you don't want, you'll be able to subscribe to specific channels of your choosing.

And pay $120 a month.
 
2013-01-02 08:18:53 AM  
Intel is partly right. They'll have to do away with pop up ads during content to get me to buy a TV again.
Happy Horseshait is what it is. Give them a taste of something close to what they want and they'll settle for crap.
Kinda of like people who get married. It's a trap. Guild it all you want but it's still a trap.
 
2013-01-02 08:19:52 AM  
The thing is, we don't really know what the providers are paying the channels. How much does ESPN get from Comcast or Time-Warner? Who knows what the exact numbers are.

ESPN may not need to charge $20/month. Maybe by doing this they actually expand further. Maybe $5 x 100 Million subscribers per month is a way better deal than going through the cable companies.
 
2013-01-02 08:20:36 AM  
The thing is that you still have to subscribe to Time Warner/CommunistCast.

Sure, you can drop cable tv from your plan, but you'll still need to subscribe to their internet to get internet access.

And TW/Comcast have expected and prepared for this for a long time. Hence the tiered data plans and bundle plans that they've put together.

So yes, this is nice, but as Winston Wolfe said, don't all start svcking eachother's dycks quite yet.
 
2013-01-02 08:23:59 AM  
I'm going to file this under "be careful what you wish for".

The unintended and unforeseen affects of this could be far reaching.


as an example, i'm a conservative but i like to hear about issues from all angles.

So, i will on occasion watch msnbc.

But i will be damn if i explicitly pay for a channel devoted to progressive propaganda.

I am sure there are plenty of progressives that feel the same way about fox news.

Ala cart means fewer and fewer conservatives will pay for an watch progressive programming and vice versa.

which could lead to even more political polarization of the country.

if you can imagine.
 
2013-01-02 08:24:16 AM  
There's no reason they can't offer both.

I would be EXTREMELY interested to see the price points for subscribing to individual shows with basically cheap PPV/on demand for the rest.   Right now I DVR anything I want to watch, and pick up new things to watch by buying seasons of content after the fact, catching up, and then after i'm hooked ordering the new stuff as it comes out (haven't bought a DVD in AGES).   I don't particularly like the idea of having to subscribe to channels individually - I like the option of being able to watch one thing on a station that might generally overlook if it's something interesting - but there I'd be more than happy to pay for the one-time access ($1/hour would be fine).

I've tried Netflix - hated it (digital offerings suck, and I never watch the DVDs).   I tried Roku (mostly ditto).   I like Apple TV, but have had technical problems with that.   Still, having "a" box that lets me get to everything - even if I have to pay for everything I watch might not be so bad.   The INTERFACE will have to change substantially - Comcast's On Demand is particularly loathsome.

(I've been trying to get certain channels blocked at the cable company's end for years - CBN, and all of the other religious channels.)

Hubby still surfs channels so this model would NOT work for him.
 
2013-01-02 08:27:17 AM  

dericwater: The only problem with this model is that it won't pay, or you would have to pay exorbitant fees to sustain it. The cost to televise VT football isn't any more or less than any other football game. But it'll be you and, say, 50,000 other VT fans who want to watch VT football. Add in another 100,000+ who might have it as secondary interest and you get about, oh, let's be generous, 250,000 viewers willing to pay for VT football. Well, $20/month for that isn't going to be enough to pay for all that televising for the whole season. They'll either say, "we'll get rid of VT football, Clemson football, and several other smaller interest teams" or, "we will have to charge $120/month for VT football."


250,000 people paying $10 a season would be $2.5 million annual revenue.  For just that one team.  Chicken scratch, I tell you!  How am I going to light a cuban cigar with a $100 bill when Virginia Tech is only bringing in 2.5 mil?!

Would be interesting to see what ESPN's current revenue stream looks like and what the actual cost-per-game is (but not interesting enough to read through Disney's financial reports).
I don't think that expecting every casual football fan to pay $120/month is reasonable.  I'm talking about ways to get more people to purchase their product, not less.  i.e. I don't have cable now, but I'd pay for VT.  That's at least $10 a year that ESPN is losing out on, but I doubt I'm the only one.  And of course I'd be willing to pay more than $10/season if it came to it.  $25 is probably the highest I'd go before the pirate streams I use now would start looking attractive again though.
 
2013-01-02 08:30:24 AM  
I'm in the biz, so "getting a kick" and all that. This isn't happening.
 
2013-01-02 08:32:23 AM  
I've been without cable for almost 3 years now and only miss it occasionally. For hockey, the CBC streams all of their games, for free, other sports can be found streaming online. I found it cheaper in the long run to buy seasons of shows on DVD.

As someone pointed out if we go with this method of delivery we'll get 10 chanels of nothing but Honey Boo Boo and storage wars rip offs. Reality tv will dominate beacause it's cheap to produce, ther will still be gems, but they will be few and far between.
 
2013-01-02 08:34:35 AM  
Not trying to be the snob here, but I've gotten to the point where not only don't I not watch TV, I don't miss it. In fact, when I turn on network shows, the over the top "isn't this the greatest thing ever!?!" marketing crap just kills me. If there's a sports show I want to watch, I can go to a friend's or sports bar. Otherwise I can get individual episodes off the internet or just put in a movie.

The best entertainment, though, is not entertainment at all. It's fun...as in get out and do something fun and interesting.
 
2013-01-02 08:37:18 AM  

Ishkur: Okay, I want YOU to think really hard about this, and understand the false equivalency you just presented, but I'll let you think really hard about it first..

give up?

Cable TV is a WANT and a luxury. If you don't get cable TV, you won't die.
Healthcare is a NEED and a compulsory. If it is not provided for everyone equally all the time, people will die.


You are completely and totally missing the point, probably because you don't understand the issue, so I'll explain it to you.

When you get health insurance you are required to purchase packages that include things you may not want or may not need. You are not allowed to cherry pick the areas you want covered and pay only for those.

Does that sound... Familiar? Like... ooooh... Precisely what were complaining about with cable television? How you can't purchase packages that only include the channels you want?

If it's a problem for you in cable television may I ask why you are not screaming with absolute rage when precisely the same thing is done to you, by government mandate, with your health insurance? Something... you know... actually important? Then as I say, if you believe in socialized medicine then you want a system that is the "same" for everyone (hint: it never is the same for everyone)... where you have absolutely no choice what so ever in it.

But yeah, the fact that the cable companies do this to you? Totally outrageous and I can see why you're angry.
 
2013-01-02 08:38:34 AM  

Silent But Deadly: Hi gramps. We have these things nowadays. Look up netflix and amazon and others. enjoy your new-fangled on demand services. :-)


Netflix is effectively a "channel" though.  Sure, it's a great deal at only $10 a month! (disclaimer: I own Netflix stock...), but it's ultimately not where TV needs to head.  You pay for access to a big library that has a bunch of content you don't want.  Just like a cable subscription.  Seriously, they have an entire category of "Gay and Lesbian films".  Can I get a discount and not have those?  There's more than enough lesbian films on redtube for free...
Their recent deal with Disney got everybody worried that it would lead to higher prices.  They found a way to do it without raising prices, but I doubt their current pricing will hold forever.

Amazon and iTunes are closest to what I want, but their fatal flaw is that I have to wait until the next morning to access a new episode after it's been aired on TV.  So when I get into work I have to stick my fingers in my ears and say "nananana" whenever I go to the water cooler, or just stay up a little later and watch Dexter as soon as it makes its way to BitTorrent about 30 minutes after it's done airing.
 
2013-01-02 08:40:47 AM  

drewogatory: Going to end up costing more, and more people are going to miss surfing than they think. I don't miss actual TV at all, but I do miss random channel surfing when I'm sick,hungover or can't sleep.


Yup. People just cannot comprehend business, it's amazing. For $80, I get about 250 channels (my bill is $130, but the box rentals are where they get you, newsflash, that price is staying the same) That's about .32 cents a channel. Do you think you're going to get to buy these channels individually for that price? Of course not, but i bet you don't want just 1 or 2 channels, you probably watch at least 15-20. At even a modest $3 a pop, that's $60 a month to flip through only 15 channels.For another $20, you get 235 more. It just doesn't make sense for most people.

So now, if you like a channel that many people don't, guess what? They going to ass rape you on the price or go out of business/shut the channel down. Current is a suck fest, but some of you Libs are going to be paying $100 a month or something stupid, as they'd probably only have 1000 subscribers or less a month (based on their awful ratings). So instead of everyone paying a little bit of money for some channels they don't like, they're going to pay the same for a handful of channels.


Here's a fee table of many networks,
mediamemo.allthingsd.com
 
2013-01-02 08:43:07 AM  

Zombie DJ: Oh good. I can see it now.

TNT $20 a month
MTV $3 a month
Comedy Central $40 a month
SyFy $10 a month
and so on...

I get the feeling I'd be paying MORE because I like popular channels like CC, USA and TNT.
People who like dreck like MTV will probably end up paying less.


Excellent, because I have no interest in subscribing to any of those.

I am at the point where TV has gotten so completely unwatchable that there are literally one or two channels I actively want (NBC Sports Network and my local NBC affiliate for next year's F1 coverage), one channel I might occasionally watch if they improve their programming or are dirt cheap with their current programming (BBC America), and one channel I'd be forced to subscribe to because my wife is hooked on its shows, which personally make me stabby (Bravo TV).

So... that's the NBC affiliate that's free over the air, plus two or just possibly three channels over the cable. I don't see that costing even half what I pay now for overpriced crap like ESPN that I will never, ever, EVER watch.
 
2013-01-02 08:47:23 AM  

Thune: as an example, i'm a conservative but i like to hear about issues from all angles.

So, i will on occasion watch msnbc.

But i will be damn if i explicitly pay for a channel devoted to progressive propaganda.

I am sure there are plenty of progressives that feel the same way about fox news.


Actually no. Progressives don't really watch anything with the kind of fan loyalty that FOX viewers do. We watch specific clips about the topics that matter to us online rather than sitting passively through the derp and dreck of either MSNBC or FOX. But you make a good point in that people will be less likely to randomly hear a viewpoint different than their own while channel surfing.
 
2013-01-02 08:49:52 AM  

hbk72777: Here's a fee table of many networks,
[mediamemo.allthingsd.com image 708x643]


If that list is accurate, my chosen channels last year (Speed, BBC America, Bravo) together ran about 51 cents a month. Comcast expects closer to 50 bucks a month to get access to those.

For this year, I don't see NBC Sports Network on the list, but even if you assume it was as bad as ESPN that's still only $4.39 a month. I'm not naive, I'm sure they'd be gouging me for more like $20-30 a month retail, but that's still far below what Comcast expects from me currently for crap I will never watch and would prefer not to subsidize.
 
2013-01-02 08:51:29 AM  

Zombie DJ: Oh good. I can see it now.

TNT $20 a month
MTV $3 a month
Comedy Central $40 a month
SyFy $10 a month
and so on...

I get the feeling I'd be paying MORE because I like popular channels like CC, USA and TNT.
People who like dreck like MTV will probably end up paying less.


Actually, it should be in reverse. The popular channels with the most subscribers should have the lower costs and the niche dreck should cost more.

either way I am ignoring this whole premise, a la cart is exactly what we need. Can't wait!
 
2013-01-02 08:53:51 AM  

serial_crusher: fusillade762: by some estimates, only about 25 percent of cable customers actually watch ESPN on a regular basis. So if you unbundled ESPN, the per-subscriber cost might shoot up to $20 or more, to account for the 75 percent drop in its customer base.

So why not create bundles targeted at certain demos? Create a sports bundle for sports fans, a nerd bundle with stuff like Siffy, Discovery, The Science Channel etc. Seems like anything would be better than the one-size-fits-all system we have now.

Why only worry about the people who watch ESPN regularly?  They have to watch everything on the channel?  The only sports I ever watch on TV are Virginia Tech football games, so I wouldn't be in the regular viewership category, but me and thousands of other people like me would gladly pay 10 bucks a season to watch all the Virginia Tech football games.  That's going to add up.

From there, it's easy enough to create other relevant bundles.  Make a college football bundle for the guy who likes to watch every game.  Make a Virginia Tech package that includes all the different sports, but only VT.  And have an "everything" package for the guy who just wants to watch sports.


No, stop the farking bundling. Let me pick the channels I want - 3 channels for $1 with a $10/mo minimum. I will get EXACTLY what I want and nothing I don't. THAT is how it should work.
 
2013-01-02 08:55:11 AM  
Cable bundles are going out like land-lines and long-distance phone plans.
No technological possibility will force them to *change*. And long after they're wholly and trivially obsolete, the entrenched interests will *still* stubbornly gouge anyone who hasn't made the next technological leap. The country will just have to change around it.

The current mess is only going to disappear slowly and gradually. There'll be no sudden change.
Least of all because a technology company is pushing yet-another-stillborn-initiative.
 
2013-01-02 08:55:29 AM  
I cut my cable last year and got a Roku, with the Hulu+/Netflix/HBOGo combination I don't miss anything that I can't torrent and watch on Plex. I still get a minute or two of commercials on Hulu, but I'm saving about $80 a month by switching over. You can buy other channels, too, which gives me a ton of independent movie options, Baeble for live concerts (good music, not the crap on the radio), NBC, health and fitness channels, and cooking shows. Now browsing through channels on someone else's tv feels like a hassle, I prefer to just push the button I want and watch the show I want to watch without annoying commercials and whatnot being thrown into my face. I tend to lose things, too, so having an app that includes a remote is really handy.

/not a Roku employee/shareholder/paid spokesperson
 
2013-01-02 08:56:31 AM  

SDRR: Zombie DJ: Oh good. I can see it now.

TNT $20 a month
MTV $3 a month
Comedy Central $40 a month
SyFy $10 a month
and so on...

I get the feeling I'd be paying MORE because I like popular channels like CC, USA and TNT.
People who like dreck like MTV will probably end up paying less.

Actually, it should be in reverse. The popular channels with the most subscribers should have the lower costs and the niche dreck should cost more.

either way I am ignoring this whole premise, a la cart is exactly what we need. Can't wait!


Actually, pretty much everybody except the channels *nobody* wants (ie. the shopping stuff, who would have to pay for viewers rather than the other way around) would be more expensive.

The niche stuff would be more expensive because it would *have* to be to sustain its development cost from a smaller audience.

The popular stuff would be more expensive because it *could* be. (Even though there's no real supply / demand relationship for a product that can be replicated at essentially zero cost, providers would raise the price as high as demand allowed them to.)

But the point is, even with more expensive channels most of us would pay far less for what we *actually* watch.
 
2013-01-02 08:57:24 AM  

mosten: I'm in the biz, so "getting a kick" and all that. This isn't happening.


I was going to write the same thing, but you did it much more eloquently than I could have possible hoped.

Keep typing kids.... Until you know what it costs to produce a TV show and distribute it to millions of homes across America, you'll never understand why you can't just pay $14.95 a month for the three channels you want. Netflix at al are fantastic, but someone else has already paid for the show to be made and distributed long before it gets to your screen. All Netflix does is ad more money to the pockets of the producers. Sure, they'll be able to afford to put out the occasional original series like Arrested Development, but in order for them to do more than that, they'll need to either charge more to subscribers or start advertising.

You may see internet based a la carte TV, but enjoy your pop-up ads and 43 second commercials that get placed right in to the program so they can't be skipped no matter what you do...
 
2013-01-02 09:01:29 AM  
What, there are still idiots that pay for cable TV?

That shiat went out with 2006. This box is something that people call "IPTV" and has been around for over 5 years pretty much everywhere. Get out of your ConUS cave and see the world, people!

Oh, and iTS, Amazon Prime, Netflix, etc etc.

/I don't give two shiats about ESPN or any other sports-related dreck.
 
2013-01-02 09:01:48 AM  
You can only suppress market forces for so long. The technology to do this has been available for a decade or more. Cable companies have been trolling us with utterly crappy content for years. Honey Boo Boo was the last straw.

And remember we have many more entertainment avenues than we used to. I stopped watching TV as soon as video games came along to distract me.
 
2013-01-02 09:03:01 AM  

my lip balm addiction: No, stop the farking bundling. Let me pick the channels I want - 3 channels for $1 with a $10/mo minimum. I will get EXACTLY what I want and nothing I don't. THAT is how it should work.


Well yeah, I meant the bundles would be there as an upsell, but you'd still be able to pay for everything individually.  Like, let's say VT football is $2 a game (maybe $3 for bowl games, $2 for games against ranked opponents, $1 for games against shiatty second rate schools that we shouldn't lose to but for some reason regularly do) or $10 for the whole season.  VT Basketball, soccer, baseball, all have similar per-game pricing, $10 each for a season.  Or you can get all 4 sports for $30.

That sort of thing.  Then the folks who only watch one or two games can pick a plan that works best for them, and a guy like me might decide it's worth it to go ahead and pay $20 more and maybe I'll watch 5 soccer and 5 basketball games.  No baseball though.  Baseball is boring.
 
2013-01-02 09:05:23 AM  
Bullshiat they will. Too much money to lose.
 
2013-01-02 09:06:13 AM  
I remember hearing talk of this since I was working on my first MCSE (I have 3 right now). Offering a la carte is not a viable business model. Sure, you may pay more for the channels you want, but overall,you're going to pay more. For consumers, it's about bringing prices down. For providers, it's about maximizing profit. Their analysis shows they can maximize revenue if you only order a few channels. In one of my classes, we had a guy who worked for the cabl company,and he was spouting the advantages of a la carte programming, and this was 15-20 years ago.
I don't pay for cable or satellite.
Back before I got married, when I lived in an apartment, they were replacing some of the wood trim, and had removed it from the landing on the stairs. I saw the bundled coax, went inside, got a "T" connector. Cut mine and a neighbors cable, installed the connector, with their cable reconnected. The apartment complex replaced the trim, so it was covered up.
I had "free" cable for years, until I bought a house and moved out.
If you have cable/satellite, and have to pay for it, why then pay for commercials? And don't pull that that crap that it's to fund the local providers. They're just out to get as much as they can. And they think we're stupid, and we are if we believe it.
 
2013-01-02 09:06:35 AM  
They'll still manage to make it a rip-off.
 
2013-01-02 09:08:04 AM  

ringersol: The current mess is only going to disappear slowly and gradually. There'll be no sudden change.


Well but it has been changing for the last decade. That WAS the gradual change. Their loyal subscriber base is dying. No one under the age of 50 has the patience to sit patiently and watch crap all day. They will leave it on for background noise but its not like they will stop playing games on their laptop or put away their smart phones to watch something just because its on TV.
 
2013-01-02 09:09:40 AM  
Do any of you really think that business movements by the big boys are meant to or will benefit you?
 
2013-01-02 09:10:58 AM  
So if you unbundled ESPN, the per-subscriber cost might shoot up to $20 or more, to account for the 75 percent drop in its customer base.

If I have ESPN in my bundle but don't watch it, I'm not part of their 'customer base', no matter how they spin the numbers.
 
2013-01-02 09:13:23 AM  
See, you hook a receiver box to your TV and it brings you more channels with better programs. You pay for it, but there won't be any commercials.
Assholes.
 
2013-01-02 09:13:51 AM  

gweilo8888: I am at the point where TV has gotten so completely unwatchable that there are literally one or two channels I actively want (NBC Sports Network and my local NBC affiliate for next year's F1 coverage), one channel I might occasionally watch if they improve their programming or are dirt cheap with their current programming (BBC America), and one channel I'd be forced to subscribe to because my wife is hooked on its shows, which personally make me stabby (Bravo TV).


I've got to wonder - did TV actually get worse, or is it just that we have other ways to entertain ourselves? I know we have some farking awful reality TV, but how much of that is just because we have a lot more channels? Growing up in the UK, we had 3 TV channels. We now have hundreds.

I've nowadays always got something to do/watch other than TV. I can read blogs, watch funny/interesting stuff on YouTube, play some flash games, buy a game for a few £s on Steam, play flash games, dig out a DVD.

The thing for me is that cable just ain't worth it. It's like £30/month and for what? A couple of exclusive programmes? Films a few months before LoveFilm gets them (£8/month).
 
2013-01-02 09:14:52 AM  

quickdraw: You can only suppress market forces for so long. The technology to do this has been available for a decade or more. Cable companies have been trolling us with utterly crappy content for years. Honey Boo Boo was the last straw.

And remember we have many more entertainment avenues than we used to. I stopped watching TV as soon as video games came along to distract me.


You're forgetting - you're not subsidizing Honey Boo Boo by paying your cable bill. Honey Boo Boo is subsidizing you. Interesting, intelligent programming is supported and subsidized by the mass dreck that is cheap to produce and people love. Survivor, Honey Boo Boo, Dancing with the Stars, you name it. All of that crap drags in millions of viewers (ad revenue) while decent stuff gets 1/10 of the audience. But it can be supported in the sea of stupidity by the lazy stuff that rakes in cash. If nothing else, it allows for experimentation, which will be seriously suppressed if there is no free flowing capital to try out new things.

While the Netfilx or online options seem to be great alternatives, they suffer from a serious parasite syndrome. You're not going to get quality programming on the secondary markets (DVD, etc) without a strong and rich primary market to produce it.

I'm not saying that market can't adapt, and we can't get quality in other non-bundled TV packages. But I'm saying that we need a market that churns revenue (even through shiat programming) if you want targeted intelligent programming that can survive a smaller audience and be allowed to develop and grow without immediate pressures. Pushing all viewing to a secondary market is a temp fix that is ultimately self-destructive.
 
2013-01-02 09:23:09 AM  

gibbon1: President Merkin Muffley: People still watch TV?

I came here to say this. I've haven't watched any TV for maybe 20 years. When I occasionally see it, my god, it's way way overwhelming.

o.onionstatic.com
 
2013-01-02 09:27:29 AM  
Still inferior to using Netflix/Hulu.
 
2013-01-02 09:27:50 AM  

randomjsa: You are completely and totally missing the point


No, YOU ARE... which is the whole god damn problem with your stupid system. When you watch TV, you have a choice what channels to watch, or whether to watch any at all.

When you get sick, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE.... you have to get cured. There is no alternative option to "get healthy", since the medical practices are basically the same everywhere. The fact that you think you get to choose the healthcare you want belabors that basic fact: Healthcare is a need. Not a want.

Ideally, there should be no insurance for anything essential. Period Get rid of the health insurance industry and everything else will fix itself. Every other country in the world figured this out a long time ago.
 
2013-01-02 09:30:37 AM  
I installed an antennae.

Still don't miss cable.

Or Fark.
 
2013-01-02 09:30:53 AM  
I'm actually a little excited that someone is finally offering ala carte channels. Yes, it is late in the game, but I'll be happy to check out the pricing and compare it to other services rather than simply believing it will be terribly expensive and never work.

I have a lot of advantages to begin with. In the Twin Cities metro I get 35 OTA channels for free. The breadth of programming available through those channels is decent. I have a dedicated media server hooked to my HDTV which can easily run Crackle, Hulu Plus and Netflix for a grand total of $16 per month. My high-speed internet is only $20 per month for 12Mbps. I have access to thousands of movies through my second job at a mere $2 each, and box sets are $5.

My minimum per month for media/entertainment comes to a total of $36. If, when the actual pricing is available, I can pick up a few channels I wish to see live and still keep my grand total at or below $50 per month, I would consider that a win.
 
2013-01-02 09:33:19 AM  

Ishkur: randomjsa: You are completely and totally missing the point

No, YOU ARE... which is the whole god damn problem with your stupid system. When you watch TV, you have a choice what channels to watch, or whether to watch any at all.

When you get sick, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE.... you have to get cured. There is no alternative option to "get healthy", since the medical practices are basically the same everywhere. The fact that you think you get to choose the healthcare you want belabors that basic fact: Healthcare is a need. Not a want.

Ideally, there should be no insurance for anything essential. Period Get rid of the health insurance industry and everything else will fix itself. Every other country in the world figured this out a long time ago.


um.... I think you're confusing health care with health insurance in the argument. Not the same. You even make a distinction in this post, but can't seem to wrap your head around it in the discussion you're having with that other poster. Really odd.
 
2013-01-02 09:35:12 AM  

Nana's Vibrator: See, you hook a receiver box to your TV and it brings you more channels with better programs. You pay for it, but there won't be any commercials.
Assholes.


Yep. No commercials - brilliant! Now think about how much it costs to go to a movie at a theater, and imagine paying that - per episode - to watch TV.

TV shows don't magically appear. Most of them cost millions of dollars per episode to produce. The ones that don't are subsidized by the ones that do, so for all of you that think it's no big deal because you 'don't watch any of the network drivel anyway just the stuff on Siffy,' take a look at credits sometime and see how production companies work. See, networks don't (often) produce the shows. They are made by independent production companies that sell them to networks. So before it even gets on TV, there's already a profit beyond what it cost to produce. Now the show that cost $1,000,000 per episode (and that's on the real low side) has a price tag of $2,000,000 that has to be made up. You think it's going to continue to happen when it only has 250,000 viewers?

Like I wrote up higher - if you want to pay movie theater or UFC PPV prices to watch your favorite television show, then keep applauding this idea.
 
2013-01-02 09:42:33 AM  

Huck And Molly Ziegler: I'm predicting that within 10 years, professionally created video entertainment specifically for home consumption will disappear. Yes, even Law & Order.
People will still go to new movies for the communal experience.
People will still go to local theater for the novelty of watching live people perform.

But "television" will be replaced by whatever six people with a couple of cameras want to put on the Internet. They'll have day jobs. Their "reward" will be Internet viewings. If they're really good enough, they'll make their entertainment some sort of pay-per-view.


It's helpful to go back to the beginning.

Television set design was heavily influenced by the theater. Indeed, many early shows were shot live in theaters. Movie production techniques were also used, particularly as TV transitioned from live, staged productions to more elaborate sets and recorded episodes that could easily be repeated. Contrary to what you might be thinking, TV shows take many hours of off-camera production time in addition to the hours it takes to produce a single episode, and depending upon where they are shot and how many special effects are used, can have high production costs.

Sure, you can create compelling television with a few cameras at minimal cost as you suggest. Indeed, the cost of doing so has gone down significantly over the years. You can even still fool enough people to throw a party and get them to pay some astronomical amount of money to watch a live sports event (though if football ever went that way, it would be the death of the sport at the professional level). However, to suggest that such fare would dominate the industry to such a degree that people will simply stop making other types of television is a bit silly. I'm not entirely sure you understand how television production works.
 
2013-01-02 09:46:09 AM  

FilmBELOH20: Nana's Vibrator: See, you hook a receiver box to your TV and it brings you more channels with better programs. You pay for it, but there won't be any commercials.
Assholes.

Yep. No commercials - brilliant! Now think about how much it costs to go to a movie at a theater, and imagine paying that - per episode - to watch TV.

TV shows don't magically appear. Most of them cost millions of dollars per episode to produce. The ones that don't are subsidized by the ones that do, so for all of you that think it's no big deal because you 'don't watch any of the network drivel anyway just the stuff on Siffy,' take a look at credits sometime and see how production companies work. See, networks don't (often) produce the shows. They are made by independent production companies that sell them to networks. So before it even gets on TV, there's already a profit beyond what it cost to produce. Now the show that cost $1,000,000 per episode (and that's on the real low side) has a price tag of $2,000,000 that has to be made up. You think it's going to continue to happen when it only has 250,000 viewers?

Like I wrote up higher - if you want to pay movie theater or UFC PPV prices to watch your favorite television show, then keep applauding this idea.


We don't generally watch much TV ourselves, but when we do, we don't watch the commercials that come on, we're off getting a snack or something. I'm under no obligation to watch them. They can put them on, but until they shackle me into my chair, they're as useless to me for them as if they didnt have them at all.
 
2013-01-02 09:50:10 AM  

Alonjar: Will comcast try to be dicks about this? Yes... but it will just drive the customers to Fios etc where there are no caps and there is plenty of bandwidth, on a modern infrastructure.


Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winnah!!!

Cable uses the model it has based on the argument that its physical infrastructure comes with high fixed costs. Fine. Cable says my house is to far to service, so I have unthrottled terrestrial wireless that runs at 10 Mb/s, and for which I pay less than cable per month. For that I can watch Amazon, Netflix and a bunch of other services through my Roku, surf the web to my heart's content, talk on the phone, etc. Fark Big Cable.
 
2013-01-02 09:52:05 AM  

themasterdebater: WhyteRaven74: roncofooddehydrator: Diamonds are very popular but there's only so many of them.

you can create all the diamonds you want these days

...and you'd think the price would fall as a result. Sounds like a conspiracy!


memedepot.com
 
2013-01-02 09:53:51 AM  

Zombie DJ: Oh good. I can see it now.

TNT $20 a month
MTV $3 a month
Comedy Central $40 a month
SyFy $10 a month
and so on...


If only there were some kind of force, like a "market" force, that would causes prices to decrease based on what people would realistically pay.
 
2013-01-02 09:56:34 AM  
i246.photobucket.com

Cartman had MTV and Honey Boo Boo for lunch. What's for dinner?
 
2013-01-02 09:57:43 AM  
I have mixed feelings about this for very practical reasons. I've been bouncing around contracting gigs for like 7 years. And I FINALLY just landed a solid full time gig. With a cable company. So, as much as I disagree with many things about how cable is run (for instance, bundled channels, or non-competition), I would really like to keep this job. Anything interfering with that may well affect my livelihood. And I'm not particularly thrilled about that prospect.

Another thing that is pertinent to what I just mentioned - the non-competition thing... The company that I work for would give me my cable, internet, and phone for free. But I don't live in a servicable area. So, I'm stuck paying my $155 bill to the company that I don't work for. That sucks.
 
2013-01-02 09:59:47 AM  

durbnpoisn: I have mixed feelings about this for very practical reasons. I've been bouncing around contracting gigs for like 7 years. And I FINALLY just landed a solid full time gig. With a cable company. So, as much as I disagree with many things about how cable is run (for instance, bundled channels, or non-competition), I would really like to keep this job. Anything interfering with that may well affect my livelihood. And I'm not particularly thrilled about that prospect.

Another thing that is pertinent to what I just mentioned - the non-competition thing... The company that I work for would give me my cable, internet, and phone for free. But I don't live in a servicable area. So, I'm stuck paying my $155 bill to the company that I don't work for. That sucks.


sounds like you're really getting a kick out of this thread.
 
2013-01-02 10:03:09 AM  

o5iiawah: Life is short. I dont have 4 hours to search for a pirated version of Dexter that doesn't have Turkish subtitles or is loaded with WAREZ that destroy my PC


Find a nice private tracker. All of the legwork is done for you and anything bad is nuked before you ever see it.

I have a great private tracker for TV shows and I'll trade an invite to someone who has one for Movies.

If I could find a service that offered DRM free 720p downloads of new tv shows for $2 an episode the same day it airs I would jump on that.
 
2013-01-02 10:06:40 AM  

fanbladesaresharp: FTA: Disney, for instance, charges TV distributors about $5 for every subscriber that gets ESPN

And you guys biatch and moan about TF subscriptions.....


$5 for ESPN is pretty criminal now that most of their programming is a bunch of suits talking about sports instead of actually showing sports. If Wil Wheaton can show a bunch of people playing games for free, ESPN should be able to pay me if I want to hear about someone else's opinion about Tim Tebow.
 
2013-01-02 10:07:03 AM  

FilmBELOH20: Nana's Vibrator: See, you hook a receiver box to your TV and it brings you more channels with better programs. You pay for it, but there won't be any commercials.
Assholes.

Yep. No commercials - brilliant! Now think about how much it costs to go to a movie at a theater, and imagine paying that - per episode - to watch TV.

TV shows don't magically appear. Most of them cost millions of dollars per episode to produce. The ones that don't are subsidized by the ones that do, so for all of you that think it's no big deal because you 'don't watch any of the network drivel anyway just the stuff on Siffy,' take a look at credits sometime and see how production companies work. See, networks don't (often) produce the shows. They are made by independent production companies that sell them to networks. So before it even gets on TV, there's already a profit beyond what it cost to produce. Now the show that cost $1,000,000 per episode (and that's on the real low side) has a price tag of $2,000,000 that has to be made up. You think it's going to continue to happen when it only has 250,000 viewers?

Like I wrote up higher - if you want to pay movie theater or UFC PPV prices to watch your favorite television show, then keep applauding this idea.


Or...Or they can stop paying idiot actors tens of millions of dollars per season. And directors. Or phony middle-man production and distribution companies. Or syndications and local channels. You talk about the costs but you don't explain why making shows costs so much and why the viewer has to pay for things they're not willing to pay for. People talk about itemizing channels and not paying for ESPN because they don't watch it - what about itemizing the entire cost of producing a television show and getting rid of 50% of those costs? When the makers of expensive crap clean their shiat up and get rid of all their waste, I'll be willing to listen to anything you just wrote. Charlie goddamned Sheen was making one million dollars per episode of a show called Two and a Half Men. Keep drinking his Kool Aid. The producers that don't like paying idiots like Charlie Sheen instead don't pay amateur "reality TV" (only mostly scripted) people almost nothing and reap all time profits because they still take the same ad revenue. Keep drinking that Kool Aid.
I'll be quite happy when all I need to do is pay to watch a writer/director's own creation, and his/her only overhead is some lights, cameras, and actors.

Are you happy to pay Nina Tassler, Kelly Kahl, Deborah Barak, Wendi Trilling, Jack Sussman, Peter Golden, David Brownfield, Jennifer Bresnan, Angelica McDaniels, and Christina Davis's executive salaries? That's just one network: CBS. That has to be hundreds of millions of dollars per year alone. What about all the other networks? Those are all Senior Vice Presidents. What about all of their vice presidents, and senior directors, and directors, and supervisors, and managers that work underneath them? Closing in on tens of billions of dollars, and that's before even one second of anything gets onto your screen. If every one of the people mentioned dropped dead and were never replaced, I'm sure a few monkeys would come up with the next Survivor. There, I just saved a Billion dollars. Use your head.
 
2013-01-02 10:08:21 AM  
Those bundles are core to today's TV ecosystem. And the TV guys insist that consumers really don't want "a la carte" programming, because if they do, the channels/shows they like today will end up costing much, much more.



So where is that article from last month or so talking about the problem of not just the cord cutters, but the cord nevers?
 
2013-01-02 10:11:47 AM  

Zombie DJ: Oh good. I can see it now.

TNT $20 a month
MTV $3 a month
Comedy Central $40 a month
SyFy $10 a month
and so on...

I get the feeling I'd be paying MORE because I like popular channels like CC, USA and TNT.
People who like dreck like MTV will probably end up paying less.


Precisely.

Direct TV 300 channel bundle $39.95/mo!

Comcast starting $19.99/mo!* *$69.99/mo after the first 3 months

Or you can pay $2.99/mo per channel. There are 14 kids channels and you need all of them for your kids. There are 27 Movie channels and you need all of them or your wife will biatch.
 
2013-01-02 10:24:50 AM  
Yes I know USA is the whole world, but anyway...

In Denmark that's all ready possible.

HBO for instance costs 7 Euro a month, were everything is on demand. Ie. you get instant access to all the new shows, but can select from their whole back catalog as well.

Personally I pay 3 Euro a month for Eurosport, that's 3 channels of sport + access to anything they've produced before. Also, for stuff they produce themselves you can choose your own camera (if there's tennis on several courts for instance).

---

IMHO a problem USA has is bandwidth caps that doesn't allow the above.
 
2013-01-02 10:24:52 AM  

farkeruk: I've got to wonder - did TV actually get worse, or is it just that we have other ways to entertain ourselves? I know we have some farking awful reality TV, but how much of that is just because we have a lot more channels? Growing up in the UK, we had 3 TV channels. We now have hundreds.

I've nowadays always got something to do/watch other than TV. I can read blogs, watch funny/interesting stuff on YouTube, play some flash games, buy a game for a few £s on Steam, play flash games, dig out a DVD.

The thing for me is that cable just ain't worth it. It's like £30/month and for what? A couple of exclusive programmes? Films a few months before LoveFilm gets them (£8/month).


No, it's assuredly gotten worse. Almost every single channel follows one of two formats:

* The ten-minute soft-treatment "documentary / factual" spun out to a 30-45 minute program through endless repetition "Coming up... the clip that we'll already have shown you 95% of 17 times before we show you the remaining 5%"

* The "reality" show where we actively encourage people to behave as unrealistically as possible, then we film them screaming at each other, bleep it out, and stick in occasional "comments" from participants that are actually answers to leading questions posed by our producers, and which we chose solely to generate more bickering and childish confrontations.

NatGeo, History, et al. stick religiously to the former format. Bravo and their ilk stick religiously to the latter. Other channels pick and mix the two. There is very, very little quality content left any more in the US market, probably not even enough to assemble more than a scant handful of quality stations if you chose the absolute best of it. The UK, last time I was there, seemed to be slightly better, but not much.

/Offtopic: I grew up in a market with a grand total of four stations, of which only two were in my language, and those spent only about 14 of every 24 hours broadcasting. They too have dozens or maybe hundreds of channels now (not sure exactly), if you get satellite or cable. ANd I'd wager they too find most of that content to be dross.
 
2013-01-02 10:31:01 AM  
Sure, pay $75 a month for the 2 channels you watch and they will throw the others in for $10 each.

Grass looks greener over there
 
2013-01-02 10:33:09 AM  

bluefoxicy: Or you can pay $2.99/mo per channel. There are 14 kids channels and you need all of them for your kids. There are 27 Movie channels and you need all of them or your wife will biatch.


If your kids feel they "need" more than one or two channels, and you lack the balls to persuade them otherwise, you fail at parenting.

Will there be some idiots who will subscribe to every channel regardless of their needs? Sure. That doesn't mean I should be subsidizing their inability to do anything except gradually become attached to their sofa while drooling square-eyed at the screen all day.

And you know what? The existence of a la carte doesn't mean providers can't offer you packages at a discount still. It just means they have to also provide the opportunity to buy only the channels you want without buying ones you don't want (and may be philosophically opposed to.)

If every time you went to the supermarket to buy milk and eggs, you were forced to buy a bundle also containing a can of spam, a fruit cake, and a tray of badly-bruised bananas, would you also think that reasonable?
 
2013-01-02 10:36:45 AM  

TommyymmoT: I wonder what will happen to the shopping channels, which cable companies claim they need to include in order to offset their expenses?


Well, the claim is true, you know.

Those channels which are non-broadcast or lacking "must-carry" rights in certain markets pay to be carried on a per-subscriber basis.

Just like most of the religious channels, or any other channel for which there's no actual market.

Yes, I'm saying it: Religious broadcasting is nothing more than a racket, as bad (or worse, since you don't actually get anything) than shopping channels.

And, not coincidentally, their demographics are almost identical.

But the answer to your question is a) they'll go away, except in their small target demographic, and b) they'll spend a little bit of money to build Low-Power or Class A stations (essentially not full-broadcast facilities, but still licensed by the FCC) within 25 or 35 miles (depending on market size) of cable head-ends in major markets, and get "must-carry" rights, and still be part of any buy-in minimal tier of service.

Until the law gets re-written, which if the past is any guide, will happen about ten years after the market already effectively changed the business model. By which time I'll be retired, and I won't care any more.

/Been in the cable regulatory business for 25 years.
 
2013-01-02 10:37:57 AM  
I just need a "Live Sports and All The Shows Your Girlfriend Watches" package.
 
2013-01-02 10:39:59 AM  

bluefoxicy: Or you can pay $2.99/mo per channel. There are 14 kids channels and you need all of them for your kids. There are 27 Movie channels and you need all of them or your wife will biatch.


Even accepting your argument (which others here clearly don't) you are missing the point of TFA: Intel is bringing choice what has hitherto been a closed system. So pay your $70/mo to Comcast if that suits your needs and wants. I will pay whatever it costs for the channel that carries the F1 races, the 24 du Mons, and a few others without feeling ripped off for the other 300 channels I never watch.
 
2013-01-02 10:42:21 AM  

roncofooddehydrator: SquiggsIN: shouldn't the more popular it is, the better bargaining can be reached, thus the CHEAPER it becomes. These are basic principles of economics.

No... there's a limited supply. So the more popular something becomes the more expensive it becomes. Diamonds are very popular but there's only so many of them.


Diamonds are very expensive because a combination of marketing and artificial price controls have kept then expensive. Diamonds, themselves, are quite common.
 
2013-01-02 10:44:51 AM  
Today, $80 a month for 100 channels. Watch 5 of them.
In the bright and shiny future, be granted the freedom of subscribing to individual channels at $19.99 a piece.
Profit
 
2013-01-02 10:47:32 AM  

Vaneshi: You could of played nice with the internet and the IT industry... you could of had strategic business alliances and kept a modicum of power.


"Could HAVE", goddamit!

Seriously, that's a misuse that got my knuckles whacked, from my own parents!
 
2013-01-02 10:48:06 AM  

Bennie Crabtree: serial_crusher: Let me subscribe to a show, and get the episodes instantly when they're released, instead of waiting until the next day.  That's where TV needs to head.

This ridiculous. Controlling when content can be viewed is an excellent way of maintaining control over a population. For example, in Canada, traditionally traffic on city streets decreases significantly when Hockey Night in Canada is on. So does crime, hospital visits, etc.. it also means that a huge proportion of Canadians are available for targeted messages, like advertising, that runs the economy. Other messages, like political messages, can be run during HNiC as well.

Then let's look at social engineering experiments like reality tv shows where viewers vote. The CBC ran the first show like that, because private industries wanted to make the financial risks public. Canada tested it's infrastructure for cell phones, instant text messaging, and how business and government could coordinate hundreds of thousands of Canadians to obey a message all at once. It was also a cash cow, ensuring that the cellular companies at the time would get a guaranteed income on certain nights of the week, from customers who watched the show sending messages.

Your silly idea would not coordinate all of these things and would seriously fark up city planning, business, and government control mechanisms. It would bugger the economy in advertising alone. it is irresponsible.


Serious Canadian is serious.
 
2013-01-02 10:50:13 AM  
So I have to subscribe to both HSN and QVC??? How will I remember to do both?
 
2013-01-02 10:50:28 AM  

Stone Meadow: bluefoxicy: Or you can pay $2.99/mo per channel. There are 14 kids channels and you need all of them for your kids. There are 27 Movie channels and you need all of them or your wife will biatch.

Even accepting your argument (which others here clearly don't) you are missing the point of TFA: Intel is bringing choice what has hitherto been a closed system. So pay your $70/mo to Comcast if that suits your needs and wants. I will pay whatever it costs for the channel that carries the F1 races, the 24 du Mons, and a few others without feeling ripped off for the other 300 channels I never watch.


In my market, I need to pay $70 baseline before I can start getting channels like good racing channels. I could easily budget about $40/month on channels/shows that I want and likely be content.


gweilo8888: * The ten-minute soft-treatment "documentary / factual" spun out to a 30-45 minute program through endless repetition "Coming up... the clip that we'll already have shown you 95% of 17 times before we show you the remaining 5%"

* The "reality" show where we actively encourage people to behave as unrealistically as possible, then we film them screaming at each other, bleep it out, and stick in occasional "comments" from participants that are actually answers to leading questions posed by our producers, and which we chose solely to generate more bickering and childish confrontations.


Some lifetime or some such channel sits between two we watch from time to time. When flipping between the two, I catch a glimpse of what is on there. It nearly always seems to be some overly made up, silicon and plastic rich 'housewives' sitting in some living room biatching at each other. Does this actually get watched?

I wonder if some of the reluctance to going to streaming, on demand viewership is coming from the advertising companies. Once they can get exact stats of who is watching these shows, will they have more problems with selling ad time and ad campaigns when there are hard numbers at to what is being watched?
 
2013-01-02 10:51:00 AM  
Decided to give up cable moving to new place. Internet only. fark it.

I don't watch enough to justify the cost. Cost per minute is just too high. Half of what I watch is network TV anyway, and the transmission points in my area are within line of site thanks to being near the city, so I'll get a perfect 1080p signal for those. Internet for the rest.

Cable blew it. I now realized I don't need it. Good luck reversing that trend.
 
2013-01-02 11:05:41 AM  

Bennie Crabtree: For example, in Canada, traditionally traffic on city streets decreases significantly when Hockey Night in Canada is on


This just in: traffic decreases at night.
 
2013-01-02 11:08:26 AM  

radiumsoup: um.... I think you're confusing health care with health insurance in the argument. Not the same.


Well, it is in other countries. And that's the problem.
 
2013-01-02 11:17:02 AM  

hbk72777: drewogatory: Going to end up costing more, and more people are going to miss surfing than they think. I don't miss actual TV at all, but I do miss random channel surfing when I'm sick,hungover or can't sleep.

Yup. People just cannot comprehend business, it's amazing. For $80, I get about 250 channels (my bill is $130, but the box rentals are where they get you, newsflash, that price is staying the same) That's about .32 cents a channel. Do you think you're going to get to buy these channels individually for that price? Of course not, but i bet you don't want just 1 or 2 channels, you probably watch at least 15-20. At even a modest $3 a pop, that's $60 a month to flip through only 15 channels.For another $20, you get 235 more. It just doesn't make sense for most people.

So now, if you like a channel that many people don't, guess what? They going to ass rape you on the price or go out of business/shut the channel down. Current is a suck fest, but some of you Libs are going to be paying $100 a month or something stupid, as they'd probably only have 1000 subscribers or less a month (based on their awful ratings). So instead of everyone paying a little bit of money for some channels they don't like, they're going to pay the same for a handful of channels.


Here's a fee table of many networks,
[mediamemo.allthingsd.com image 708x643]


Do you know why people channel surf? BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING GOOD ON. 250 channels doesn't mean anything when they all play variations on the same crap.

You say "pay more for less channels" like it's something new. The way it stands, I'm basically paying full price for a handful of channels now, because the rest I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. Religious channels, shopping channels, any of the "documentary" channels which were once quality but now exist solely to repackage Reality TV in another format... I don't watch them, and I will not miss them. The only thing that will change is that my money will go to the channels I do watch, rather than being siphoned off by these parasite channels that do nothing to earn my money other than their parent company forcing the cable provider to bundle them.

You say this will destroy most of the TV channels out there? Good. Let them die.
 
2013-01-02 11:20:12 AM  

roncofooddehydrator: You're misunderstanding what the supply is. The supply is quality television. There's only so much of it. When there's a demand for it, the price goes up.


Electrons are still free.
 
2013-01-02 11:22:22 AM  

enderthexenocide: so if this actually comes true, what channels would you guys choose to pay for? i don't have cable at all right now because i don't watch television very much, but if they offered individual channels, i would get cartoon network (for adult swim), maybe fx (for the show archer) and the discovery channel (for mythbusters, until they finally cancel it). i'd also probably get whatever station broadcasts green bay packer games, but only during football season.


I would get the big 3 Canadian channels (global, ctv and cbc) plus teletoon, comedy network and space. I might also get CBS (price is right and let's make a deal are fun)
 
2013-01-02 11:28:03 AM  

vossiewulf: Although I would certainly miss absolutely nothing on TLC.


I would.

sooofabulous.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-02 11:32:17 AM  
It is not feasible around here, until you can stop Time Warner and AT&T limiting bandwidth to such low totals every month you would massively wind up overage charges. Especially since the NC house has blocked most the competition because they didn't bribe them enough money.
 
2013-01-02 11:34:46 AM  

griffer: I installed an antennae.

Still don't miss cable.


This.
Under $70, one time purchase, from Costco. Install it on the roof. Point it at the sources, and stopped paying for cable TV completely. Funneled the money into high speed internet and the "TV Shows" program that automatically torrents the series that want to my HD. Watch them through my jailbroken Apple TV.

Got TV on demand, as well as a live feed in case there's something live or on the news that I need to see.
 
2013-01-02 11:45:14 AM  
quickdraw: "Their loyal subscriber base is dying."

Some of it. But a non-trivial chunk are young people who almost never watch TV, but still pay for it because they want football and Game of Thrones.
So the gradual change has a ways to go and time alone won't do it.

More sports leagues need to follow in the MLB's footsteps.
And top-shelf content needs to achieve parity between network and streaming.

They'll get there. Each round of re-negotiations between networks/leagues and operators brings fewer restrictions on what/when they can stream.
 
2013-01-02 11:54:58 AM  

serial_crusher: moothemagiccow: serial_crusher: You're salivating over a la carte channels?  Really grampa?  I hear they're getting ready to make these newfangled things called compact discs next year.  They're going to be like cassette tapes, except they'll have lasers!

"Channels" are already obsolete.  You people sit here and biatch that there are 200 channels you don't watch, but you're perfectly comfortable paying for 24 hours a day of programming, even though you only watch like 4 hours of it on average?  It's the same thing in a smaller chunk.

Let me subscribe to a show, and get the episodes instantly when they're released, instead of waiting until the next day.  That's where TV needs to head.

Channels are not so bad. I own an mp3 player, but i sometimes listen to college radio because i want to hear something new. Channels remind me of what I used to like and introduce me to what i might like. A randomly programmed netflix channel could be kind of cool.

Kind of like pandora for tv. Yes, that would be a good thing.
Also porn. Pandora for porn.


Porndora?
 
2013-01-02 11:56:06 AM  

ElwoodCuse: Enjoy paying big bucks a month for ESPN, Comedy Central, TNT, other popular channels, etc., and everything else that is in any way niche going out of business completely


Bundling is used to get people to pay more than the goods or services they want are worth. Like a record album. The whole point is to paper over the fact, that you just paid $15 for a 2:34 minute song.
 
2013-01-02 11:56:32 AM  
Where have we heard this arguement before? Oh thats right, the music industry.

We wanted to buy individual songs and not entire albums full of crap. Guess who won...
 
2013-01-02 11:59:48 AM  
I don't see how it would end up really being more expensive. It'll provide direct feedback as to what people actually watch. Shopping channels will be kept by the people that watch them. But, like most things the price will go up regardless because its new and convienant so it must be more expensive.

Either way I haven't had cable for years. Netflix and Hulu cover my tv needs. The only thing I kiss watching is racing, but SPEED has become NASCAR channel anyway. I've heard there's a couple of channels picking up other events though. Good racing coverage is the only reason I'd get cable.
 
2013-01-02 12:00:00 PM  
You people are retarded.

Individual channels that also air commercials won't cost much. HBO - which has no commercials - has to charge the providers the complete cost of licensing movies, and original production costs + profits, and that is already a la carte since it is a premium channel. And that is around $10-12/mo for a dozen channels. Expect to see lots of bundled deals from vertically integrated companies like Time Warner, Comcast, and Disney. Now, ESPN will likely cost about the same as HBO, but even popular cable-only channels like AMC, TNT, and Comedy Central will probably be happy to charge a buck or two a la carte. And I would HAPPILY pay that.

Letting the market select against crap channels like Spike, MTV and Golf will allow the money that was flowing to them instead go to the channels that actually make something that someone wants to watch.
 
2013-01-02 12:03:43 PM  
If there's a God in Heaven .....

/Springsteen comes to mind
 
2013-01-02 12:12:44 PM  

Huck And Molly Ziegler: I'm predicting that within 10 years, professionally created video entertainment specifically for home consumption will disappear. Yes, even Law & Order.
People will still go to new movies for the communal experience.
People will still go to local theater for the novelty of watching live people perform.

But "television" will be replaced by whatever six people with a couple of cameras want to put on the Internet. They'll have day jobs. Their "reward" will be Internet viewings. If they're really good enough, they'll make their entertainment some sort of pay-per-view.


I'm sure other people have commented on this, but it's 11 AM CST and this comment filled my derpometer for the day.
 
2013-01-02 12:17:30 PM  

wingnut396: Stone Meadow: Even accepting your argument (which others here clearly don't) you are missing the point of TFA: Intel is bringing choice what has hitherto been a closed system. So pay your $70/mo to Comcast if that suits your needs and wants. I will pay whatever it costs for the channel that carries the F1 races, the 24 du Mons, and a few others without feeling ripped off for the other 300 channels I never watch.

In my market, I need to pay $70 baseline before I can start getting channels like good racing channels. I could easily budget about $40/month on channels/shows that I want and likely be content.


Yeah, that's why I dumped DirecTV. I was paying $70/mo plus the premium for Speedchannel to get F1 and sports car racing. When it dawned on me I was paying $35 per race to watch I dropped it. I miss watching the races, but not THAT much.
 
2013-01-02 12:29:17 PM  
Do you really think your ISP is going to let this happen? Think again, they have you by the balls now, they will jack up the rate on internet if you drop the bundle plan.
 
2013-01-02 12:31:51 PM  

wingnut396: Some lifetime or some such channel sits between two we watch from time to time. When flipping between the two, I catch a glimpse of what is on there. It nearly always seems to be some overly made up, silicon and plastic rich 'housewives' sitting in some living room biatching at each other. Does this actually get watched?


Sadly, it does. And it's almost always about how they were planning to throw a party, and biatching about who was going to be invited, followed by the party itself where they biatch about who is drunk, mouthing off and "ruining" the party. It's so clearly rehearsed and coached by the production team for the fake drama, it seriously makes me want to dig my eyeballs out with a rusty spork, and then use the handle end to rupture my eardrums so I don't have to listen to it either.

And not just that, but the same people who watch this crap also sit and watch the programmes where the annoying, vapid biatches are placed in a studio and biatch to each other about how they'd previously biatched to each other out in the "reality" party / house set, while some piece of total sleaze "host" prattles on about how "interesting" it all was, and the studio audience hoop and holler and applaud like it was the combined works of Shakespeare and Spielberg wrapped up in one.

/yes, I am regularly forced to listen to this shiat in the background; my TV spends more time on it than anything else
//I basically don't watch TV at all other than Formula One racing
 
2013-01-02 12:32:11 PM  
I already have an a la carte plan. It's called SickBeard.

Sorry, cable companies. You snooze, you lose.
 
2013-01-02 12:42:25 PM  

cig-mkr: Do you really think your ISP is going to let this happen? Think again, they have you by the balls now, they will jack up the rate on internet if you drop the bundle plan.


Different ISPs charge different rates.

www.myfacewhen.net
 
2013-01-02 12:51:07 PM  
Imagine a grocery store that only stocked items which were most popular.

There would be only booze and candy, no produce section to speak of.

When you let the public decide on content, you're not going to have smart content anymore.

Kiss the real science and educational channels goodbye.
 
2013-01-02 12:57:22 PM  
When I was a student I subsidized the jocks. Not only with every penny the university spent of my tuition and fees on jocks and athletic facilities, but through the meal programme and on-campus housing (repairs and maintenance mostly).

I ate like a normal human being--many of the jocks (even the skinny little guys--especially the skinny little guys) ate like Jughead Jones. I mean literally ate like Jughead Jones, namely a plate stacked high with a dozen Hamburgers washed down by eight glasses of milk. Then followed it up with desert and snacks stolen from the cafeteria kitchens (i.e., twenty pound blocks of chedder cheese, etc.)

I am a distinct minority when it comes to television viewing tastes. I don't like the popular shows for the most part (which are relatively cheap to produce because the overhead is divided between hundreds of millions of people) and only like a small part of the fringe and less-popular shows. I would not be a great loss (or even a great dead weight to carry) so I might be able to be a dead beat viewer at relatively low cost. Most people, however, are going to pay through the nose no matter what because an oligarchy or monopoly is a licence to print money and the media will always be oligarchic in structure, if not a monopoly, or rather, the opposite of a monopoly, which is not a free market, by the way, but a monopsony.

Look it up. Word of the day: monopsony. One buyer, many producers, like cable TV or the Big Three networks (now rebranded as basic cable, with Fox and PBS).

I figure on a pay-per-view or channel-by-channel-model, I could unload every single sports station, most speciality channels, a big chunk of basic cable, and actually come out ahead, and for once would not be subsiding guys who like to chase balls. I might even save enough money to buy a dog to chase balls for me. Of course, there is no way I can afford a big dumb jock to fetch for me. Owning your own private ball-chaser is a lot more expensive than cable TV.
 
2013-01-02 12:58:02 PM  
How much will they pay people to take MSNBC?
 
2013-01-02 01:02:11 PM  
The bad news - there are people who'd still be willing to pay $60 a month if they only got Fox News.
 
2013-01-02 01:05:32 PM  

TenJed_77: WhyteRaven74: roncofooddehydrator: Diamonds are very popular but there's only so many of them.

you can create all the diamonds you want these days

Also there is no shortage of diamonds just a monopolized and controlled market.


diamonds would be as cheap as glass without the monopoly
YES, the larger diamonds are scarce, but that's it.
 
2013-01-02 01:05:42 PM  

lohphat: Imagine a grocery store that only stocked items which were most popular.

There would be only booze and candy, no produce section to speak of.


How do you think grocery stores decide what to stock...

/Also, why is everything being
//slowly replaced with store brands?
 
2013-01-02 01:12:51 PM  

ProfessorOhki: lohphat: Imagine a grocery store that only stocked items which were most popular.

There would be only booze and candy, no produce section to speak of.

How do you think grocery stores decide what to stock...

/Also, why is everything being
//slowly replaced with store brands?


They stock a wide variety of good I and many others don't frequently buy. I'm not comparing the corner store to a cable company but a larger chain like Safeway.

At least rarely used items are on the shelf at all, in the brave new world of a la carte programming, the high-value channels with real info and not populist clap-trap will disappear.
 
2013-01-02 01:13:44 PM  
Trying to................watch streaming................HD video................through................my ISP................is sort................of like................this................so I'm................not getting................a kick................out of................the idea................of internet................television.

/DSL
//no cable on my road
 
2013-01-02 01:14:44 PM  
The cable/satellite/television content industry employs more lobbyists than there are members of congress so I can sum this story up in three words:

Never. Gonna. Happen.
 
2013-01-02 01:20:12 PM  

amindtat: Trying to................watch streaming................HD video................through................my ISP................is sort................of like................this................so I'm................not getting................a kick................out of................the idea................of internet................television.

/DSL
//no cable on my road


you would THINK that streaming would continue to improve: improved buffering, improved graceful dropouts, instead we still have crappy codex
 
2013-01-02 01:27:29 PM  

lohphat: ProfessorOhki: lohphat: Imagine a grocery store that only stocked items which were most popular.

There would be only booze and candy, no produce section to speak of.

How do you think grocery stores decide what to stock...

/Also, why is everything being
//slowly replaced with store brands?

They stock a wide variety of good I and many others don't frequently buy. I'm not comparing the corner store to a cable company but a larger chain like Safeway.

At least rarely used items are on the shelf at all, in the brave new world of a la carte programming, the high-value channels with real info and not populist clap-trap will disappear.


Really, I'd like to see it come about from the other end though. Have a bunch of Internet-only stations with original content start to make headway with set-top boxes to the point where it cuts into traditional cable's revenue severely enough that they have to compete with a similar model.
 
2013-01-02 01:30:18 PM  

red5ish: Huck And Molly Ziegler: I'm predicting that within 10 years, professionally created video entertainment specifically for home consumption will disappear. Yes, even Law & Order.
People will still go to new movies for the communal experience.
People will still go to local theater for the novelty of watching live people perform.

But "television" will be replaced by whatever six people with a couple of cameras want to put on the Internet. They'll have day jobs. Their "reward" will be Internet viewings. If they're really good enough, they'll make their entertainment some sort of pay-per-view.

Holy crap that's a bad prediction.


Yeah that has to be the stupidest non-political prediction I've heard in a long while. In 10 years there will likely be 20 new ways to consume entertainment in the home and each of those will bring revenue to content generators. And youtube video creators are already starting to make a living off ad revenue.

/Doomsayers gonna doom.
 
2013-01-02 02:01:53 PM  

roxtar10870: Holy crap that's a bad prediction.

I don't think he's too far off base.

Have you ever heard of Shay Carl, or Charles Trippy? These folks are far from extraordinary, but yet they have millions of viewers, and I'm sure they've managed to monetize what they do outside of their YouTube partnerships. I'd venture to guess that they actually have a larger viewership than some cable shows.


The demand for high production value, well written, well acted entertainment will not dry up in the next ten years. Personally I think he (Huck And Molly Ziegler) was joking, seeing how his Fark handle is the names of two peripheral characters from The West Wing, a high production value, well written, well acted television series.

I think we might be on firmer ground predicting the demise of movie theaters in the next ten years as technology makes the home viewing experience more attractive. The communal experience of viewing movies in a theater is not all it's cracked up to be. I believe the recent push toward 3D is a desperate attempt to keep the theater experience relevant. I don't find it particularly compelling.
 
2013-01-02 02:04:16 PM  

hbk72777: drewogatory: Going to end up costing more, and more people are going to miss surfing than they think. I don't miss actual TV at all, but I do miss random channel surfing when I'm sick,hungover or can't sleep.

Yup. People just cannot comprehend business, it's amazing. For $80, I get about 250 channels (my bill is $130, but the box rentals are where they get you, newsflash, that price is staying the same) That's about .32 cents a channel. Do you think you're going to get to buy these channels individually for that price? Of course not, but i bet you don't want just 1 or 2 channels, you probably watch at least 15-20. At even a modest $3 a pop, that's $60 a month to flip through only 15 channels.For another $20, you get 235 more. It just doesn't make sense for most people.

So now, if you like a channel that many people don't, guess what? They going to ass rape you on the price or go out of business/shut the channel down. Current is a suck fest, but some of you Libs are going to be paying $100 a month or something stupid, as they'd probably only have 1000 subscribers or less a month (based on their awful ratings). So instead of everyone paying a little bit of money for some channels they don't like, they're going to pay the same for a handful of channels.


Here's a fee table of many networks,
[mediamemo.allthingsd.com image 708x643]


I call bullshiat. They make money on advertising, not on the subscriptions. Advertisers will dry up if they don't have people seeing their ads.
 
2013-01-02 02:05:11 PM  

drewogatory: Going to end up costing more, and more people are going to miss surfing than they think. I don't miss actual TV at all, but I do miss random channel surfing when I'm sick,hungover or can't sleep.


I dropped cable, still hanging on to netflix and added amazon prime. Instead of channel surfing I end up thumb-nail surfing and after 2 hours call it a night of "watching" tv.
 
2013-01-02 02:25:16 PM  

CrazyCracka420: hbk72777: drewogatory: Going to end up costing more, and more people are going to miss surfing than they think. I don't miss actual TV at all, but I do miss random channel surfing when I'm sick,hungover or can't sleep.

Yup. People just cannot comprehend business, it's amazing. For $80, I get about 250 channels (my bill is $130, but the box rentals are where they get you, newsflash, that price is staying the same) That's about .32 cents a channel. Do you think you're going to get to buy these channels individually for that price? Of course not, but i bet you don't want just 1 or 2 channels, you probably watch at least 15-20. At even a modest $3 a pop, that's $60 a month to flip through only 15 channels.For another $20, you get 235 more. It just doesn't make sense for most people.

So now, if you like a channel that many people don't, guess what? They going to ass rape you on the price or go out of business/shut the channel down. Current is a suck fest, but some of you Libs are going to be paying $100 a month or something stupid, as they'd probably only have 1000 subscribers or less a month (based on their awful ratings). So instead of everyone paying a little bit of money for some channels they don't like, they're going to pay the same for a handful of channels.


Here's a fee table of many networks,
[mediamemo.allthingsd.com image 708x643]

I call bullshiat. They make money on advertising, not on the subscriptions. Advertisers will dry up if they don't have people seeing their ads.


This. AMC earns more money from 16 episodes of The Walking dead commercials than from a year's worth of carriage fees. Unless you're ESPN, you're making your bank on ads, not carriage fees.
 
2013-01-02 02:32:21 PM  

rugman11: CrazyCracka420: hbk72777: drewogatory: Going to end up costing more, and more people are going to miss surfing than they think. I don't miss actual TV at all, but I do miss random channel surfing when I'm sick,hungover or can't sleep.

Yup. People just cannot comprehend business, it's amazing. For $80, I get about 250 channels (my bill is $130, but the box rentals are where they get you, newsflash, that price is staying the same) That's about .32 cents a channel. Do you think you're going to get to buy these channels individually for that price? Of course not, but i bet you don't want just 1 or 2 channels, you probably watch at least 15-20. At even a modest $3 a pop, that's $60 a month to flip through only 15 channels.For another $20, you get 235 more. It just doesn't make sense for most people.

So now, if you like a channel that many people don't, guess what? They going to ass rape you on the price or go out of business/shut the channel down. Current is a suck fest, but some of you Libs are going to be paying $100 a month or something stupid, as they'd probably only have 1000 subscribers or less a month (based on their awful ratings). So instead of everyone paying a little bit of money for some channels they don't like, they're going to pay the same for a handful of channels.


Here's a fee table of many networks,
[mediamemo.allthingsd.com image 708x643]

I call bullshiat. They make money on advertising, not on the subscriptions. Advertisers will dry up if they don't have people seeing their ads.

This. AMC earns more money from 16 episodes of The Walking dead commercials than from a year's worth of carriage fees. Unless you're ESPN, you're making your bank on ads, not carriage fees.


Gah, my math is bad. AMC makes about 25% of what they make in carriage fees through The Walking Dead ads.
 
2013-01-02 02:34:51 PM  

lohphat: Imagine a grocery store that only stocked items which were most popular.

There would be only booze and candy, no produce section to speak of.

When you let the public decide on content, you're not going to have smart content anymore.

Kiss the real science and educational channels goodbye.


Exactly.

People are being very short sighted here. Almost every cable channel had a very slow beginning and would never have lasted if they didn't have other channels carry their weight until they got their footing.

I think cable is a decent value it's just that people are moving away so the cable + netflix + internet + hulu + etc, etc is causing them to reevaluate the cost of the cable package considering they use it less.
 
2013-01-02 02:41:26 PM  
about damn time. I got more channels i do not watch than what i do watch. Also this could be a heavy blow to shopping networks.
 
2013-01-02 02:52:58 PM  

griffer: I installed an antennae.

Still don't miss cable.

Or Fark.


Sadly, antennas are now useless in Canada. Went digital last year, i dunno if i'm supposed to go get a digital free tv box like they have in england or if i'm to just dow without if I don't want to pay exorbitant fees for stuff i don't care about. I'd be quite happy to just have CBC, Global and CTV if it meant not paying Rogers or Bell. Only thing i'd miss is Doctor Who, and I could go to my parents for the one night a week it's on.
 
2013-01-02 03:09:40 PM  

roncofooddehydrator: No... there's a limited supply. So the more popular something becomes the more expensive it becomes. Diamonds are very popular but there's only so many of them.


Your example cites a worldwide cartel that purposefully limits the supply of diamonds to keep the price artificially high; they're actually a fairly common mineral. If the free market was able to set the price based on competition between multiple suppliers, the price would drop significantly.
 
2013-01-02 03:15:18 PM  

Soulcatcher: serial_crusher: moothemagiccow: serial_crusher: You're salivating over a la carte channels?  Really grampa?  I hear they're getting ready to make these newfangled things called compact discs next year.  They're going to be like cassette tapes, except they'll have lasers!

"Channels" are already obsolete.  You people sit here and biatch that there are 200 channels you don't watch, but you're perfectly comfortable paying for 24 hours a day of programming, even though you only watch like 4 hours of it on average?  It's the same thing in a smaller chunk.

Let me subscribe to a show, and get the episodes instantly when they're released, instead of waiting until the next day.  That's where TV needs to head.

Channels are not so bad. I own an mp3 player, but i sometimes listen to college radio because i want to hear something new. Channels remind me of what I used to like and introduce me to what i might like. A randomly programmed netflix channel could be kind of cool.

Kind of like pandora for tv. Yes, that would be a good thing.
Also porn. Pandora for porn.

Porndora?


That's just wrong.

/No Boots! No!
 
2013-01-02 03:23:37 PM  

dopekitty74: Soulcatcher: serial_crusher: moothemagiccow: serial_crusher: Also porn. Pandora for porn.

Porndora?

That's just wrong.

/No Boots! No!


Yeah, can't believe I forgot to include that crucial yet obvious product name in my post.
I've been calling for Porndora for years, but it's still not here.  I discussed it with my boss once and he brought up a bunch of extra features I'd have to include for it to be a viable product.  My favorite was the "donkey knob".  You know, because you don't always want to see donkey porn, but for the times you do, there needs to just be a knob you can crank up to the correct amount of donkey porn that you want to watch that day.

/ cool donkey story, bro.
 
kab
2013-01-02 03:37:59 PM  
I'll enjoy the Roku / Netflix / Vudu thing while it lasts, but you'd have to be delusional to believe that either a) bandwidth capping or steep tiered usage is going to become status quo, and b) show quality and longevity will invariably suffer because of consumers who demand free shiat while being willfully ignorant of how much shows actually cost to create season to season.
 
2013-01-02 03:42:12 PM  

farkeruk: gweilo8888: I am at the point where TV has gotten so completely unwatchable that there are literally one or two channels I actively want (NBC Sports Network and my local NBC affiliate for next year's F1 coverage), one channel I might occasionally watch if they improve their programming or are dirt cheap with their current programming (BBC America), and one channel I'd be forced to subscribe to because my wife is hooked on its shows, which personally make me stabby (Bravo TV).

I've got to wonder - did TV actually get worse, or is it just that we have other ways to entertain ourselves? I know we have some farking awful reality TV, but how much of that is just because we have a lot more channels? Growing up in the UK, we had 3 TV channels. We now have hundreds.

I've nowadays always got something to do/watch other than TV. I can read blogs, watch funny/interesting stuff on YouTube, play some flash games, buy a game for a few £s on Steam, play flash games, dig out a DVD.

The thing for me is that cable just ain't worth it. It's like £30/month and for what? A couple of exclusive programmes? Films a few months before LoveFilm gets them (£8/month).


The UK has a lot more broadcast digital channels (local term "freeview") than the USA.

/ back home in Scotland this week
// bianaidh mhath ur and all that
 
2013-01-02 03:42:38 PM  

lohphat: Imagine a grocery store that only stocked items which were most popular.

There would be only booze and candy, no produce section to speak of.

When you let the public decide on content, you're not going to have smart content anymore.

Kiss the real science and educational channels goodbye.


Your metaphor actually undermines your point. Nobody forces you to buy a fifth of Jack and a Snickers bar along with your bunch of kale, and yet the supermarket is somehow able to sell enough kale to make it worthwhile to stock.
 
2013-01-02 03:49:10 PM  

serial_crusher: Chicken scratch, I tell you!  How am I going to light a cuban cigar with a $100 bill when Virginia Tech is only bringing in 2.5 mil?!


Do you have any idea how much it costs to operate a major college football program, realizing that due to title IX, most University foobtall programs also fund dozens of other non-revenue mens and womens sports? Of course you dont - you snapped at the first chance you could to sound like the smartest guy in the room.
 
2013-01-02 03:56:33 PM  
I didn't read the whole thread, so I don't know if it's been stated already.   But Comcast (which owns NBC, and a bevy of other networks) has it set up to rob y you on high speed internet here.  My total cable bill right now is 100 bucks, and that's for internet and digital tv with one HD box.  I only reactivated the TV for the football season,  as I had cut that service a year and a half ago.  My internet bill was 42, but that's only if I have it bundled with TV.  When I had just internet, they raised the price to 70.   When you also pay $7 for the modem (I don't, I bought my own, and love it).  That's pretty high.  Of course people are told "It's only 30 more a month if you get cable TV!  and they fall for that.

I wanted a la cart for years, but it's not gonna happen.  You may save a little on the cable TV side, though not much...maybe 10 or 15 a month, and I agree that you'll pay a lot for the bigger named channels.  Also, knowing Comcast, they will raise the price of just providing broadband internet, sans cable TV.  Here in Houston, other than DSL (bleh), they are the only game in town when it comes to high bandwidth and a reasonable monthly data cap at a moderate price.
 
2013-01-02 03:57:54 PM  
I put DirecTV in a few months ago, as I got fed up with the crappy DVR from Time Warner. I'm hoping it will be my last monthly contract for content. It's worth it right now for the convenience, and I'm a techie who had no trouble setting up torrents, Roku, a fileserver and all that stuff (I used to torrent stuff I paid for from TWC just because their DVR is so sucky)

The technology exists (Internet) to move from the broadcast to point to point model, and it has started to happen. Amazon, for example, has a lot of good series up in a pay-per-episode format. It's pretty pricey at $3 a show, but for the stuff I actually watch it will come out cheaper than $50-odd a month for DirecTV with HBO and Showtime.

I like TWC's internet (RoadRunner) and you'll pry it from my cold dead hands. What I'd like to see is all content going to pay per piece models, with Akamai style caching servers at big ISPs so it doesn't choke the internet to death (Netflix, I'm looking at you ....)

Of course, the cable companies won't like becoming the proverbial Big Fat Dumb Pipe but that is their future. Satellite is going bye-bye.

For anyone who thinks what we have in the USA is state of the art .... I am sitting in a village in semi-rural Scotland, and BT is putting in 100Mbps fibre to the door this year (it's been in cities for a couple of years), which will cost less than basic broadband in the USA. We get stiffed.
 
2013-01-02 03:58:55 PM  
So if you unbundled ESPN, the per-subscriber cost might shoot up to $20 or more, to account for the 75 percent drop in its customer base.

Fine, just so long as I don't have to pay for a channel I 'might' watch once a year... What do they cover, Monday Night Football, or is it Sunday? Either way, I only watch the once or twice a year that my team is playing on their channel, the rest of the time is a waste.
 
2013-01-02 04:09:11 PM  

Trayal: roncofooddehydrator: No... there's a limited supply. So the more popular something becomes the more expensive it becomes. Diamonds are very popular but there's only so many of them.

Your example cites a worldwide cartel that purposefully limits the supply of diamonds to keep the price artificially high; they're actually a fairly common mineral. If the free market was able to set the price based on competition between multiple suppliers, the price would drop significantly.


it is all about control. OPEC, de beers, etc. Even the price of gasoline (excluding taxes) is controlled by the fact that a few refineries control all of the gas in the US and the cost of building a new refinery, which would lower gas prices, is prohibitive.

WHY would an oil company build a new refinery, which would lower profit margins, when supply is currently being met by the existing refineries?? NEVER is the answer.
 
2013-01-02 04:10:22 PM  

FilmBELOH20: See, networks don't (often) produce the shows. They are made by independent production companies that sell them to networks. So before it even gets on TV, there's already a profit beyond what it cost to produce. Now the show that cost $1,000,000 per episode (and that's on the real low side) has a price tag of $2,000,000 that has to be made up. You think it's going to continue to happen when it only has 250,000 viewers?


That's all fine, but does your argument change when you realize the number of viewers is much closer to 10,000,000+ people for these shows that cost $2,000,000 an episode? If a show is only drawing 250,000 viewers, it will not be on TV today anyway, or CERTAINLY not costing $2,000,000 an episode if it is...

The big picture here is that these "independent production companies" can now sell directly to the consumers (perhaps even earning directly from the advertising revenue, as well). Imagine Chuck Lorre Productions not only getting $2 per user per month subscribed to their "channel" of The Big Bang Theory, Two and a Half Men, etc but also getting some percentage of all advertising revenue earned on their channel, directly. Essentially, cutting out the middle-man distributor path (ie, Warner Brothers, CBS, etc).

Would they get more money this way then they would have with the current method? No idea. No one here has enough data to know either way...but when you're talking MILLIONS of viewers, the concept isn't as silly as some here might think...
 
2013-01-02 04:26:59 PM  
I think I just came.
 
2013-01-02 04:36:02 PM  
I pay over $70 a month for basic cable, no premium channels (and of course, included in the lineup are channels that used to be broadcast: NBC, PBS, local independent stations, etc.).

I don't watch most of the channels. The Spanish language crap, the shopping crap, the religious crap, the sports crap, the news crap.

I watch about a dozen channels regularly. The rest of the junk I'm paying for now could disappear entirely and I'd be fine with that. Why the fark do shopping channels even exist? And no offense to the Spanish speakers, but I'm not one of them, so it's annoying to pay for those channels. I watch Food Network and HGTV semi-regularly, but honestly, both of those suck so hard now, I wouldn't be terribly sorry to see them go, either. I will occasionally tune into the Weather Channel, but since about 80% of their programming is now melodramatic rehashes of weather that's already happened (sometimes decades ago), it wouldn't bother me if it went away. I'll live without the shaky-cam reenactments of the Hurricane of 1936.

So when people boo-hoo about channels disappearing because there's not enough of an audience to support them ... oh, well. Bye.
 
2013-01-02 04:37:10 PM  

dopekitty74: Sadly, antennas are now useless in Canada. Went digital last year, i dunno if i'm supposed to go get a digital free tv box like they have in england or if i'm to just dow without if I don't want to pay exorbitant fees for stuff i don't care about. I'd be quite happy to just have CBC, Global and CTV if it meant not paying Rogers or Bell. Only thing i'd miss is Doctor Who, and I could go to my parents for the one night a week it's on.


It's not the antenna that's useless. It's the signal. You'll still need some kind of antenna to get the free over-the-air signals. In Canada, you do have to buy the converter box but they're not hard to find. They are not free from anything I've ever heard. Most big box stores carry them in the range of $50. Probably cheaper if you can find used. Not netflix cheap but a one-time investment that would be cheaper than netflix within the first year of use.

What's free on digital over-the-area will depend a lot on your location. Should be most if not all of the same stations you could get before the changeover though. Maybe more? Unlikely in Canada but who knows?

Also, I have cable so I can't say I've done this but it seems cheap and easy to me. Your own google searching will enlighten you if I'm wrong.
 
2013-01-02 04:38:52 PM  

o5iiawah: serial_crusher: Chicken scratch, I tell you!  How am I going to light a cuban cigar with a $100 bill when Virginia Tech is only bringing in 2.5 mil?!

Do you have any idea how much it costs to operate a major college football program, realizing that due to title IX, most University foobtall programs also fund dozens of other non-revenue mens and womens sports? Of course you dont - you snapped at the first chance you could to sound like the smartest guy in the room.


You're acting like their only source of income is TV viewership.  My couple-minutes-of-googling didn't show me the exact breakdown of how much the hokies make from TV (I assumed most of that went to ESPN, not the actual school), but it did come across this article:
Tech reported football income of $40.75 million for the 2006 season, the latest numbers available.
...
Most of the increase came between 2005 and 2006, when revenue grew 55 percent. The bulk of the jump came from increased ticket and luxury-suite revenue from the expansion of Lane Stadium, revenue sharing from the ACC and a 2006 schedule that featured eight home games.

Kind of like the old music piracy argument.  Live event tickets bring a lot more money to the entertainers than record sales.
 
2013-01-02 05:00:44 PM  

FarkGrudge: FilmBELOH20: See, networks don't (often) produce the shows. They are made by independent production companies that sell them to networks. So before it even gets on TV, there's already a profit beyond what it cost to produce. Now the show that cost $1,000,000 per episode (and that's on the real low side) has a price tag of $2,000,000 that has to be made up. You think it's going to continue to happen when it only has 250,000 viewers?

That's all fine, but does your argument change when you realize the number of viewers is much closer to 10,000,000+ people for these shows that cost $2,000,000 an episode? If a show is only drawing 250,000 viewers, it will not be on TV today anyway, or CERTAINLY not costing $2,000,000 an episode if it is...

The big picture here is that these "independent production companies" can now sell directly to the consumers (perhaps even earning directly from the advertising revenue, as well). Imagine Chuck Lorre Productions not only getting $2 per user per month subscribed to their "channel" of The Big Bang Theory, Two and a Half Men, etc but also getting some percentage of all advertising revenue earned on their channel, directly. Essentially, cutting out the middle-man distributor path (ie, Warner Brothers, CBS, etc).

Would they get more money this way then they would have with the current method? No idea. No one here has enough data to know either way...but when you're talking MILLIONS of viewers, the concept isn't as silly as some here might think...


How would they "sell" directly to consumers? Setup their own channel for single or few shows? Do you think a production company wants to get into that mess? The music model doesn't really work for television because it is and always has been heavily subsidized by ads and/or subscription fees.
 
2013-01-02 05:04:00 PM  
People have already been conditioned into paying for commercials. Now we are just negotiating how to narrow down the targeting demographics.
 
2013-01-02 05:12:19 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Your metaphor actually undermines your point. Nobody forces you to buy a fifth of Jack and a Snickers bar along with your bunch of kale, and yet the supermarket is somehow able to sell enough kale to make it worthwhile to stock.


Not really. The main reason there are items that hardly move when shelf space is valuable is because of brand bundling by the distributors.

Also, have you seen the amount of food discarded by supermarkets?
 
2013-01-02 05:21:44 PM  
Go on...
 
2013-01-02 05:33:12 PM  

lohphat: HeartBurnKid: Your metaphor actually undermines your point. Nobody forces you to buy a fifth of Jack and a Snickers bar along with your bunch of kale, and yet the supermarket is somehow able to sell enough kale to make it worthwhile to stock.

Not really. The main reason there are items that hardly move when shelf space is valuable is because of brand bundling by the distributors.

Also, have you seen the amount of food discarded by supermarkets?


But that's my point. In order for the "supermarket" metaphor to make sense, the supermarket in question would have to force you into one of a number of pre-built "packages" of groceries. But they don't. You go into a market, and you pick just the items you want. You purchase items a la carte. And yet, they still find a reason to stock specialty items, to one degree or another.
 
2013-01-02 05:33:36 PM  

HeartBurnKid: lohphat: Imagine a grocery store that only stocked items which were most popular.

There would be only booze and candy, no produce section to speak of.

When you let the public decide on content, you're not going to have smart content anymore.

Kiss the real science and educational channels goodbye.

Your metaphor actually undermines your point. Nobody forces you to buy a fifth of Jack and a Snickers bar along with your bunch of kale, and yet the supermarket is somehow able to sell enough kale to make it worthwhile to stock.


Ah, yes. The Jack & Kale, such an unappreciated cockta- fark it, I can't continue w/o turning green.
 
2013-01-02 06:18:46 PM  

FarkGrudge: FilmBELOH20: See, networks don't (often) produce the shows. They are made by independent production companies that sell them to networks. So before it even gets on TV, there's already a profit beyond what it cost to produce. Now the show that cost $1,000,000 per episode (and that's on the real low side) has a price tag of $2,000,000 that has to be made up. You think it's going to continue to happen when it only has 250,000 viewers?

That's all fine, but does your argument change when you realize the number of viewers is much closer to 10,000,000+ people for these shows that cost $2,000,000 an episode? If a show is only drawing 250,000 viewers, it will not be on TV today anyway, or CERTAINLY not costing $2,000,000 an episode if it is...

The big picture here is that these "independent production companies" can now sell directly to the consumers (perhaps even earning directly from the advertising revenue, as well). Imagine Chuck Lorre Productions not only getting $2 per user per month subscribed to their "channel" of The Big Bang Theory, Two and a Half Men, etc but also getting some percentage of all advertising revenue earned on their channel, directly. Essentially, cutting out the middle-man distributor path (ie, Warner Brothers, CBS, etc).

Would they get more money this way then they would have with the current method? No idea. No one here has enough data to know either way...but when you're talking MILLIONS of viewers, the concept isn't as silly as some here might think...


Which is all fine and good with established productions (though I still question whether even somebody like Chuck Lorre could finance a television show). But how does somebody with a good idea but no producer credibility get a show on the air? Matthew Weiner and Vince Gilligan were both just staff writers before they broke big with their shows. How does their show get on the air without a production company?

And you're also ignoring one of the biggest things that the current model does well: distribute risk. Television is an incredibly risky industry. Half of all new network shows won't see a second season. Right now, that risk of failure is spread out among the creators, the producers, the networks, the cable companies, and advertisers. Under your model, all that risk falls on to the production company. Sure Chuck Lorre productions put out 2 and a Half Men, The Big Bang Theory, and Mike and Molly. But you're talking about the most successful executive producer on the most successful network on television.
 
2013-01-02 06:31:32 PM  

rugman11: And you're also ignoring one of the biggest things that the current model does well: distribute risk. Television is an incredibly risky industry. Half of all new network shows won't see a second season. Right now, that risk of failure is spread out among the creators, the producers, the networks, the cable companies, and advertisers. Under your model, all that risk falls on to the production company. Sure Chuck Lorre productions put out 2 and a Half Men, The Big Bang Theory, and Mike and Molly. But you're talking about the most successful executive producer on the most successful network on television.


There'd be all sorts of shifts to compensate for it, you'd see a rise of VC and incubator-like entities for media production who would deal with financing v. profits. We'd probably even see some crowd funded pilots or channels. Besides, if you keep the channel model, you're not really condensing the production risk that much, are you?

I think the place where it would upset the current model is that people would be unlikely to subscribe to the "rerun channels," but people actually DO watch them now. "Oh, there's nothing on... flip to TBS and watch this episode of Big Bang Theory we've only seen 6 times," is a passive customer- they don't seek out the rerun, they settle for it. Of course, if the channel proper had on-demand content with ads as needed, they wouldn't have to run an entire subsidiary network just to get revenue off their old content. The whole, "see what's on" mindset is fading out pretty quick anyway; TV's due for a massive restructuring.
 
2013-01-02 06:39:08 PM  

ProfessorOhki: rugman11: And you're also ignoring one of the biggest things that the current model does well: distribute risk. Television is an incredibly risky industry. Half of all new network shows won't see a second season. Right now, that risk of failure is spread out among the creators, the producers, the networks, the cable companies, and advertisers. Under your model, all that risk falls on to the production company. Sure Chuck Lorre productions put out 2 and a Half Men, The Big Bang Theory, and Mike and Molly. But you're talking about the most successful executive producer on the most successful network on television.

There'd be all sorts of shifts to compensate for it, you'd see a rise of VC and incubator-like entities for media production who would deal with financing v. profits. We'd probably even see some crowd funded pilots or channels. Besides, if you keep the channel model, you're not really condensing the production risk that much, are you?

I think the place where it would upset the current model is that people would be unlikely to subscribe to the "rerun channels," but people actually DO watch them now. "Oh, there's nothing on... flip to TBS and watch this episode of Big Bang Theory we've only seen 6 times," is a passive customer- they don't seek out the rerun, they settle for it. Of course, if the channel proper had on-demand content with ads as needed, they wouldn't have to run an entire subsidiary network just to get revenue off their old content. The whole, "see what's on" mindset is fading out pretty quick anyway; TV's due for a massive restructuring.


I don't know about that. The average person still watches 34 hours of television per week and the vast majority of that (about 80%) is still watched live on television. I highly doubt that that's all appointment television. I think most people have a dedicated group of shows they watch, but a lot of time they just have the TV on while they're doing other things, and in that case they're still using the "see what's on" mindset.
 
2013-01-02 06:48:06 PM  

rugman11: I don't know about that. The average person still watches 34 hours of television per week and the vast majority of that (about 80%) is still watched live on television. I highly doubt that that's all appointment television. I think most people have a dedicated group of shows they watch, but a lot of time they just have the TV on while they're doing other things, and in that case they're still using the "see what's on" mindset.


I honestly didn't realize that the average person spends 25% of their waking hours with the TV. That's all sorts of depressing. Still, I'd make the argument that an ad in a program the consumer scheduled is several times more valuable than an ad in the background. The assumption being that if you selected it, you have an intention of watching it.
 
2013-01-02 09:13:16 PM  

drewogatory: Going to end up costing more, and more people are going to miss surfing than they think. I don't miss actual TV at all, but I do miss random channel surfing when I'm sick,hungover or can't sleep.


I don't miss channel surfing at all.

I dropped cable and just get OTA channels and the much smaller to look at schedule means I don't have to. I can see what's on in about 10 seconds. if there's nothing on, I'll find something else to do.

And before they start charging $40 a month for Comedy Central, consider that you can already watch some of their more popular shows on the internet (unless that's changed - you could at one point anyway) but most people aren't gonna pay (that much) for it.

Personally, I'm not a fan of Jon Stewart or Colbert and a lot of the "comedy" shiat they air is shiat. I might pay $1 a month for it, but I probably wouldn't bother.

I expect there will be commercials though and probably a whole shiat-ton of them. I watched something on Hulu the other day. There was a commercial every 5 seconds.
 
2013-01-02 10:21:33 PM  

steamingpile: Then all of you will be pissed once you get this then wind up paying $75 for just the few channels you want, I hate the shop at home stations too but they do subsidize a lot of your cable bill. Sure you may not ever watch them but there are tons who do and buy all kinds of crap.


That sounds fair enough. I was paying more than that and only watching the few channels I wanted when I dropped cable.

Alonjar: Im not sure whats up with all the bandwidth cap etc comments... while its still basically regulated monopoly, ive got the choice between Comcast cable, DSL, Verizon Fios, and if you want to include them.. several local wireless internet companies.

Will comcast try to be dicks about this? Yes... but it will just drive the customers to Fios etc where there are no caps and there is plenty of bandwidth, on a modern infrastructure.


Uh, about that. FIOS Internet and Phone service is available to almost 8 million people and the TV is available to 6.5 million households. Comcast has 23 million cable customers. Note the difference. FIOS is available (not used by) to about 1/3 of Comcast's actual customers.
 
2013-01-02 11:48:33 PM  

RoyBatty: I am not happy at the moment with Netflix's streaming selection -- far too few movies or shows I want.


I'm surprised when I hear people say this. Yes, there are things I want to see that I can't find, but what about shows like...

Breaking Bad
West Wing
How I Met Your Mother (I know, I know)
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia
Arrested Development
Futurama
Weeds
Rescue Me
Sherlock
Downton Abbey
American Dad
King of the Hill
The League
Louie

...The list goes on. That doesn't even begin to touch movies; they cover mindless action (District B-13 and its sequel, Ip Man, Ong-Bak) to mindless comedy (Half Baked, a bunch of boobie movies) to Oscar winners (The Artist, The King's Speech) to Jessica Biel nekkid (Powder Blue).

My queue is about 400 titles long; I honestly don't see how I'll watch it all. It does piss me off when some titles go out of availability before I get a chance to see them... But on the whole, I think $8 for the service is a steal, if you're willing to experiment a little.
 
2013-01-03 04:07:06 AM  

RoyBatty: inclemency: But you complaining about the subjective 'lack of content', which I'm assured is a spurious declaration just makes all of us look bad. Look into 'not being entitled 101' at that college near you. Oh, and I hear 'at least it's not a phonograph' is great as well

That's funny, because it presents not just the idiocy of social justice warriors, but also your own personal ignorance of the great Netflix/Qwixster debacle and the difference between Netflix Streaming versus Netflix DVD and how Netflix is trying to shutdown Netflix DVD.

Anyway, you're a total dumbass, and if you're going to college to learn about privilege 101, I hope for your sake it's a cheap community college and that you enjoy service oriented customer facing positions where you can provide them their daily fries.


You want unlimited entertainment and are budgeting 16 dollars a month. That's not entitlement?
 
2013-01-03 06:02:43 AM  
What is this "TV" you speak of?
 
2013-01-03 06:19:07 AM  
Live sports. That's all I want on TV. I will find a way to watch ANYTHING else I want.

I don't give a shiat about anything else. Right now I have an Apple TV, Netflix and internet. It's more than enough. Yes, the movie selection isn't perfect. However, so far I've found a way to watch a movie when I want to. If I'm dying to see a movie, I'll go see it in a theater, or rent it (maybe 2x a year) or just wait. Tons of good TV on Netflix if you are patient and don't watch TV 24/7.

I would pay $300 a year or more to subscribe to my NFL team and/or my MLB team for season long access on the device of my choosing. And that's not even league-wide access. Just let me watch the game, anywhere, sold out or not. A virtual season ticket if you will.
 
2013-01-03 09:36:43 AM  

inclemency: You want unlimited entertainment and are budgeting 16 dollars a month. That's not entitlement?


fark off social justice warror.

Netflix has or had about 90,000 DVD Titles to rent. They have about 12,000 titles to stream.

Link

That streaming number has gone up or down as movie studios stop renewing licences to stream major movie titles. This is precisely why Netflix is creating their own movies. You are ignorant of all of this, but that doesn't stop you from spewing shiat and drawing conclusions that have no basis.

My statement was

"I am not happy at the moment with Netflix's streaming selection -- far too few movies or shows I want. But it's also only $8 a month, and gives me far more than I can watch."

Which is a statement that 10,000 titles is much much less than 40,000, but that for the price it sure gives me a whole lot. How you go from there to entitled, or that I want unlimited entertainment for $16 per month is up your ass and through your mouth.

But no social justice warrior, you know better, because though you have no knowledge or experience, your friends told you.

Stop being a jackass.
 
2013-01-03 10:03:11 AM  

RoyBatty: "I am not happy at the moment with Netflix's streaming selection -- far too few movies or shows I want. But it's also only $8 a month, and gives me far more total shiat than I can watch."


Now with truthiness.
 
2013-01-04 04:31:52 AM  

RoyBatty: inclemency: You want unlimited entertainment and are budgeting 16 dollars a month. That's not entitlement?

fark off social justice warror.

Netflix has or had about 90,000 DVD Titles to rent. They have about 12,000 titles to stream.

Link

That streaming number has gone up or down as movie studios stop renewing licences to stream major movie titles. This is precisely why Netflix is creating their own movies. You are ignorant of all of this, but that doesn't stop you from spewing shiat and drawing conclusions that have no basis.

My statement was

"I am not happy at the moment with Netflix's streaming selection -- far too few movies or shows I want. But it's also only $8 a month, and gives me far more than I can watch."

Which is a statement that 10,000 titles is much much less than 40,000, but that for the price it sure gives me a whole lot. How you go from there to entitled, or that I want unlimited entertainment for $16 per month is up your ass and through your mouth.

But no social justice warrior, you know better, because though you have no knowledge or experience, your friends told you.

Stop being a jackass.


My bad. You're entitled to whatever you like, forever, for 16 dollars a month and are also entitled to complain about it.

I would never again dream about saying anything more about your entitlement(s).

/takes finger off your nerve.... Sorry I touched that
//entitled
 
Displayed 357 of 357 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report