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 137
    More: Hero, Intel, casual games, cable industry  
•       •       •

67253 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»



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


Archived thread
2013-01-02 12:27:36 AM
16 votes:
I'm for this if it's what finally kills MTV.
2013-01-02 12:11:24 AM
12 votes:
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 01:45:13 AM
7 votes:
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 01:20:10 AM
7 votes:
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 12:42:38 AM
7 votes:
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 01:20:14 AM
6 votes:
People still watch TV?
2013-01-02 12:12:57 AM
5 votes:
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 10:07:03 AM
4 votes:

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 01:36:26 AM
4 votes:
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 01:30:31 AM
4 votes:

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 01:26:26 AM
4 votes:
Already beginning

uncrate.com
2013-01-02 12:10:44 AM
4 votes:
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 11:17:02 AM
3 votes:

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 08:57:24 AM
3 votes:

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 06:47:06 AM
3 votes:

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 05:56:12 AM
3 votes:
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 03:01:09 AM
3 votes:
Can't read. Busy torrenting the 0.5% of mass media that interests me.
2013-01-02 02:41:59 AM
3 votes:

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 01:57:20 AM
3 votes:

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 01:43:07 AM
3 votes:
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 01:42:14 AM
3 votes:
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 01:39:17 AM
3 votes:

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 01:25:57 AM
3 votes:

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 12:37:17 AM
3 votes:
From one of the linked articles:

gigaom2.files.wordpress.com

Looks familiar...

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
2013-01-02 12:29:31 AM
3 votes:
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 11:56:32 AM
2 votes:
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 11:56:06 AM
2 votes:

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 10:24:50 AM
2 votes:
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 09:35:12 AM
2 votes:

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 08:49:52 AM
2 votes:

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 08:23:59 AM
2 votes:
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 07:24:49 AM
2 votes:
Call me crazy, but this seems like an incredibly stupid idea.
2013-01-02 07:06:47 AM
2 votes:
But will it bring back Firefly?
2013-01-02 06:34:43 AM
2 votes:

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 03:14:36 AM
2 votes:

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 02:18:35 AM
2 votes:

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 02:12:29 AM
2 votes:
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 02:11:04 AM
2 votes:

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 02:05:40 AM
2 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-01-02 01:57:46 AM
2 votes:

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 01:56:26 AM
2 votes:

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 01:43:30 AM
2 votes:

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 01:43:06 AM
2 votes:

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 01:31:10 AM
2 votes:
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 01:30:12 AM
2 votes:
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 01:24:10 AM
2 votes:
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 01:23:38 AM
2 votes:

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 12:39:32 AM
2 votes:

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.
2013-01-03 06:19:07 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-01-02 03:56:33 PM
1 votes:
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 01:27:29 PM
1 votes:

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 01:05:42 PM
1 votes:

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 01:05:32 PM
1 votes:

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 12:57:22 PM
1 votes:
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 12:51:07 PM
1 votes:
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 12:42:25 PM
1 votes:

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 12:29:17 PM
1 votes:
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 12:12:44 PM
1 votes:

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 12:00:00 PM
1 votes:
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 11:32:17 AM
1 votes:
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 10:42:21 AM
1 votes:

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 10:37:57 AM
1 votes:
I just need a "Live Sports and All The Shows Your Girlfriend Watches" package.
2013-01-02 10:36:45 AM
1 votes:

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 10:33:09 AM
1 votes:

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 10:24:52 AM
1 votes:

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 09:42:33 AM
1 votes:

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 09:33:19 AM
1 votes:

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 09:27:50 AM
1 votes:

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 09:23:09 AM
1 votes:

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 09:14:52 AM
1 votes:

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 09:08:04 AM
1 votes:

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 09:06:13 AM
1 votes:
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 09:01:29 AM
1 votes:
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 08:51:29 AM
1 votes:

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 08:40:47 AM
1 votes:

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 08:37:18 AM
1 votes:

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 08:30:24 AM
1 votes:
I'm in the biz, so "getting a kick" and all that. This isn't happening.
2013-01-02 08:16:39 AM
1 votes:
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 07:47:18 AM
1 votes:

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 07:37:51 AM
1 votes:
You all sound poor.
2013-01-02 07:31:57 AM
1 votes:
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 07:11:49 AM
1 votes:
Hello science channel, goodbye nasty nun.
2013-01-02 06:29:39 AM
1 votes:
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 06:29:28 AM
1 votes:
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 05:34:42 AM
1 votes:
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 05:19:23 AM
1 votes:

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 04:31:34 AM
1 votes:

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 04:15:29 AM
1 votes:
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 04:13:31 AM
1 votes:

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 03:48:55 AM
1 votes:

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 03:27:56 AM
1 votes:

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 03:17:54 AM
1 votes:

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 03:09:39 AM
1 votes:

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 03:04:48 AM
1 votes:

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 03:03:41 AM
1 votes:

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 03:02:34 AM
1 votes:

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 02:59:56 AM
1 votes:

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 02:55:40 AM
1 votes:

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 02:52:09 AM
1 votes:
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 02:51:21 AM
1 votes:
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 02:48:23 AM
1 votes:
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 02:46:07 AM
1 votes:

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 02:44:41 AM
1 votes:

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 02:37:32 AM
1 votes:
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 02:37:10 AM
1 votes:

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 02:36:45 AM
1 votes:
I play on the internet AND watch TV. How can you multi-task with one connection?
2013-01-02 02:34:19 AM
1 votes:

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 02:26:26 AM
1 votes:

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 02:18:42 AM
1 votes:
How much do I have to pay to NEVER hear of honey boo boo again?!
2013-01-02 02:14:22 AM
1 votes:
img690.imageshack.us
2013-01-02 02:08:49 AM
1 votes:

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 02:04:18 AM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com
2013-01-02 02:03:29 AM
1 votes:

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 01:51:30 AM
1 votes:

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 01:49:56 AM
1 votes:
like, i dont even have a tv
2013-01-02 01:47:19 AM
1 votes:

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 01:47:15 AM
1 votes:

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 01:44:34 AM
1 votes:
You guys trust these tards to tell you anything straight when they have a BS story about Neil Armstrong?
2013-01-02 01:44:31 AM
1 votes:

gregscott: Sports channels have the highest feels.


Sports channels will receive none of my feels.  NONE OF THEM!!!
2013-01-02 01:42:40 AM
1 votes:

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 01:42:30 AM
1 votes:
i816.photobucket.com
2013-01-02 01:42:27 AM
1 votes:
I'll go for it if the bring back the Appalachian Community Service Network.
2013-01-02 01:40:17 AM
1 votes:

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 01:35:10 AM
1 votes:
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 01:33:24 AM
1 votes:
That's why I pay Drew 5 bucks a month, he filters out all the dumb pos.......
2013-01-02 01:32:31 AM
1 votes:

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 01:32:04 AM
1 votes:
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 01:31:06 AM
1 votes:

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 01:31:02 AM
1 votes:

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 01:28:45 AM
1 votes:

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 01:26:36 AM
1 votes:

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 01:26:01 AM
1 votes:

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.


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

/of course you're right.
2013-01-02 01:24:39 AM
1 votes:
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 01:20:56 AM
1 votes:
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 01:19:54 AM
1 votes:

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 12:34:00 AM
1 votes:
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 12:32:55 AM
1 votes:
Who do I have to f*ck to make this happen?
 
Displayed 137 of 137 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report