Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Streaming and Cord-Cutting Take a Toll On the Pay-TV Industry

samzenpus posted about 10 months ago | from the I-want-to-watch-it-now dept.

Television 261

First time accepted submitter ClarkSchultz writes "Harris Interactive confirms that consumers streaming video content prefer the practice of binge viewing.The news isn't a big shocker to streaming concerns such as Netflix, Amazon, and Redbox Instant which have been mining viewer habits data, but it has an important read-through for broadcasters like CBS, NBC, Fox, and ABC. Though ad rates could fall if more viewers wait until series are available for streaming, the payoffs for quality content are proving lush: 1) CBS says it paid $700K per episode for streaming rights to Under the Dome 2) AMC Networks has pointed to Netflix as contributing to the success of Breaking Bad after initial ratings were soft. If streaming wins, who loses? Front and center is the Pay-TV industry. A wave of merger rumors (Charter/Cox/Time Warner Cable/Comcast/Dish Network) indicates the industry knows the trend of subscriber losses to the cord-cutting phenomenon will continue. An online TV initiative from a tech heavyweight like Sony, Apple, Google, or Intel could also disrupt the industry enough to put cable and satellite companies into an even bigger tailspin."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

costs (2)

xobyte (255771) | about 10 months ago | (#45703329)

140 bucks per month for Dish... I'm really thinking about going to just streaming and getting the Tivo with 4 ota tuners.

Re:costs (2)

DogDude (805747) | about 10 months ago | (#45703377)

Does that mean that you have 4 people in your household, all watching "TV" at the same time, on a regular basis? Do you run a nursing home, by any chance?

Re:costs (5, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | about 10 months ago | (#45703605)

Nah, 4 tvs in one room, tuned to skinemax, spice, weather channel (don't ask) and playboy for an extended jack off session.

Re:costs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45703715)

Here in LA they have some pretty hot ass bitches doing the weather. It's one of the only things I'll watch on TV.

Re:costs (1)

Megane (129182) | about 10 months ago | (#45703763)

I recently built a MythTV with 4 OTA tuners (2x Hauppage 2250), and sometimes there's just stuff you want to watch on 3 or 4 channels at the same time, especially if your PBS has a good secondary channel like KLRU-Q. In fact, before I added the second tuner card, I had one time where I was recording two channels, and watching a third via my old Channel Master DVR. I'm finally confident enough in it that I think I can shut off the Channel Master now for one less splitter tap from the antenna. The best part, though, was finding that I can run the frontend on my laptop, and watch live TV anywhere in the house.

It's great knowing you can keep what you've recorded, but you have to watch out, that stuff can really pile up if you don't pay attention, even with just OTA. It took me a while to learn how to edit cuts and transcode, so I'm down to about 300G on a 1.5T partition with a lot of full-bitrate stuff that hasn't had commercials cut yet. I'll be adding a 3T drive at the end of the month. (And while it has a commercials detection function, I find it to be less than perfect, especially with false-positives.)

Re:costs (1, Insightful)

DogDude (805747) | about 10 months ago | (#45704043)

Wow, that's a tremendous amount of time and money expended. Why not just download what you want to watch?

Re:costs (2)

jedidiah (1196) | about 10 months ago | (#45704711)

> Wow, that's a tremendous amount of time and money expended. Why not just download what you want to watch?

It's illegal and you have to put a big fat "KICK ME" sign on your back while doing it. While #1 may not be a big deal for a lot of people, #2 certainly should be.

Re:costs (1)

Megane (129182) | about 10 months ago | (#45704717)

I only download stuff I can't get on an antenna, like current season anime from Japan, and Dr. Who within hours of the BBC showing. MythTV gets stuff for me automatically, at full bit rate, and a lot of what I get isn't the prime-time stuff that you're going to find on TPB. Plus, you can't watch it live on the internet (while taking a bath, no less!) with other people commenting during the broadcast, if you have to wait to download it first.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's stupid.

Re:costs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45704549)

I rolled my own dvr that tried to guess what I wanted to watch. I had to decommission it when the free channels went encrypted and I was too lazy to use an antenna.

Re:costs (4, Interesting)

dpilot (134227) | about 10 months ago | (#45704585)

I've found that MythTV helps me watch less TV.

Because MythTV is on the job, you don't have to watch the show NOW, when it's scheduled. Because MythTV lets you put gobs of hard drive there for recordings, you don't even have to watch it this week. At some point, you realize that you don't really have to watch it at all.

As long as the computer is doing something useful besides MythTV, the only "wasted" cost is the tuner and the dedicated hard drive space.

Plus some time you might actually WANT to watch that TV show or movie - "Day of the Doctor", anyone?

record concurrent shows (3, Interesting)

SpiceWare (3438) | about 10 months ago | (#45704449)

I get 113 channels OTA here in Houston. With that many channels it's not uncommon to have 4 shows being recorded at the same time (especially older series that are broadcast just before/after midnight). I've been recording older shows like That '70s Show and watching them in order. Have seen a number of episodes I missed back in the day. Also recording cable series I'd missed in the past, like Burn Notice and Psych, that are now being broadcast OTA.

I purchase other cable series, like Dexter and The Walking Dead, à la cart from iTunes or on physical media. I've saved $1300 since dropping DirecTV in January (savings = old DirecTV bill - à la cart series).

I went a little overboard on the Mac mini setup (Drobo raid system, extra RAM, CPU upgrade, etc) so it'll probably be another year before the savings pay off the hardware investment.

If anybody's interested, I've been documenting my DVR Project in my blog [atariage.com] .

Cut the cord years ago... (4, Informative)

TWX (665546) | about 10 months ago | (#45703397)

...and really don't miss it. We've found that there are so many free options that it doesn't really make sense to pay for TV, especially when there are repositories with large numbers of episodes available, legally, completely free with no ads, and there are other repositories like Crackle with lots of movies and TV shows free with the caveat of having to sit through an ad every little bit.

Last time we had cable, there were ads that we had to sit through. If I'm going to have to see ads, I don't want to pay out-of-pocket for the content.

Best part is, it's easier to turn off the damn TV to go outside or to go do something else when one isn't paying for it and isn't so dependent on a set schedule.

Re:Cut the cord years ago... (2)

Megane (129182) | about 10 months ago | (#45703899)

We've found that there are so many free options that it doesn't really make sense to pay for TV

Clearly you don't care about live sports, and neither do I. In my opinion, that's the only real reason to have cable. Sure, I like some of the shows on cable (whenever I visit my mom, I usually end up watching a whole day marathon of something like Pawn Stars), but it's not worth $50+ a month plus some crappy cable box with a slow UI.

I'm old enough to remember TV in the '70s, where you had an antenna and rotator and still got a crap signal, and how the original point of cable TV was to get a good picture. With ATSC, I do have to point my roof antenna toward the transmitter farm, but I get a perfect signal most of the time. I've even used ten feet of speaker wire as an antenna in a pinch. Bad weather can cause signal loss, especially high winds blowing the antenna, but usually I can get a whole show recorded without glitches.

I don't mind ads much, having gotten used to ignoring them, but there are some ads that are actively annoying. And there are some that are cool, too. I have more of a problem with ads taking up space in a DVR, but MythTV lets met cut them.

Re:Cut the cord years ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45704015)

Who gives a crap about sports? Grown men fighting over a ball...

Re:Cut the cord years ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45704159)

Here! Here!

The only reason cable hasn't bitten the dust yet is because of the grip they have on sports(fans). Aside form heroin, I've never seen a group so willing to pay anything for their fix.

Re:Cut the cord years ago... (1)

dugancent (2616577) | about 10 months ago | (#45704239)

Sports have existed as long as society has. Don't expect them to disappear any time soon.

Re:Cut the cord years ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45704395)

a lot more interesting than most of the shows on TV
by the time you get to 40 and have seen most of the plots you can figure the show out in the first few minutes. at least with a lot of sports games you never know who is going to win or what is going to happen

Re:Cut the cord years ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45704569)

I usually end up watching a whole day marathon of something like Pawn Stars

I'm so sorry for your loss.

Re:Cut the cord years ago... (5, Interesting)

geek (5680) | about 10 months ago | (#45703991)

I'm just the opposite. I cut the cord for about two years and am now back to DirecTV. My wife and I were insanely bored with the Netflix/Amazon Prime offerings and I grew incredibly tired of them suddenly removing content we had on our lists. I was also sick of the sudden outages and after Netflix deleted my list for the 3rd time I had enough.

We can watch the new shows as they come on and can DVR them. I dont have to catch the shows I missed on TPB or Kickass.to and download them. I have access to everything I want AND I still have my Amazon Prime account should I actually want it (hint: we havent touched Prime since we got DirecTV back).

I'd love to cut the cord but the offerings out there are pathetic still.

Re:Cut the cord years ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45704537)

You must work for DirecTV. I guess you don't have anything better to do than troll Slashdot. Maybe you could watch TV since you don't have anything else going on.

Re:Cut the cord years ago... (1)

Danathar (267989) | about 10 months ago | (#45703997)

I have to agree with this.

I have a Roku, and that in combination with a Plex media server even negates using Hulu plus in many circumstances. In fact, it's BETTER as the PLEX plugins for the major networks (it's a little bit of a chore to find some of them) stream them in HD without any commercials at all.

In my case (and many I'd guess) is that I live 40 miles from the major affiliates stations, so getting OTA signal is going to require a big honking antenna with a pre-amp.

Re:costs (5, Interesting)

SCHecklerX (229973) | about 10 months ago | (#45703401)

With a good antenna, OTA is really nice these days. Unfortunately, most new tvs no longer include it, but ota also includes an episode guide.

Rather than spend money on a tivo, look into the homeworx or iview units. $40 for a digital tuner that acts as a pvr with your own USB drive.

I also use kat to catch other things. I'd pay for a similar service if it were available, but alas it is not, nor will it ever be.

Re:costs (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 10 months ago | (#45703721)

With a good antenna, OTA is really nice these days. Unfortunately, most new tvs no longer include it, but ota also includes an episode guide.

My complaint with the OTA episode guide is the too brief calendar. When my local stations provide information at all, it's rarely for more than a day or two in advance. Perhaps they've improved in the past year, but I haven't checked lately. In a fit of poor planning, I mounted the TV in a room adjoining a toddler bedroom, so evening TV disturbs her sleep. But my wife is happy watching her stories online on her laptop, so remounting the TV elsewhere and patching the holes in the wall can be deferred indefinitely. I guess we are one of the cable (and broadcast) defectors. Except that the internet comes from Time Warner Cable . . .

Re:costs (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 10 months ago | (#45703999)

You could try getting a PC ATSC tuner and downloading your program guide data off the Internet. Then you not only have guide data longer in advance, but you get DVR functionality too.

Re:costs (2)

Megane (129182) | about 10 months ago | (#45704083)

Unfortunately, most new tvs no longer include it

If you want to sell it as a "television" (and not a "monitor") in the US, it is required to have an ATSC digital tuner. It may also be required to have an NTSC analog tuner (which many cable TV systems still use), but I haven't heard of TV sets with ATSC-only tuners, just external tuner boxes.

but ota also includes an episode guide.

The problem is that the guide data is almost always only for 12 hours ahead, and never that I've seen yet for more than 24. Apparently there were problems when they tried to make it longer, probably due to bugs in receivers. (I think the spec allows a full week.) There also seem to be some glitches with this data, because I have a DVR where the extended descriptions will randomly vanish, and on MythTV they often get attached to the wrong program. And one of the local PBS subchannels apparently has a guide encoder system that can't propely handle shows that don't start on exact half hour intervals (like :55). And then there's sports going into overtime, which the guide source can't automatically update to delay your recording.

There used to be a TVGOS (TV Guide On Screen) signal that had one week for all local channels, but it was owned by (mac)Rovi(sion) and they abruptly ended it last year, demanding the equipment back. (Some Sony DVRs used TVGOS as the only way to set the clock!) It was also proprietary, though my Channel Master DVR could decode it. It was a sad day when it ended; now I basically have to check the schedules when I get home from work every afternoon to see if there's something I want to watch that I didn't already have scheduled by show name.

Re:costs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45704653)

Those two quote fragments actually go together. Let's fix it:

OTA includes an episode guide; unfortunately, most new tvs no longer include support for it.

Re:costs (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 10 months ago | (#45704755)

Thank you for this. I've been planning for our near-inevitable cord cutting for some time. OTA is nice, but without a DVR you just go back to "I need to be at home and not interrupted to watch this show." Tivo is nice, but very expensive - especially when you consider either having to pay a monthly fee or spend $300 on a lifetime subscription. The HomeWorx, though, looks perfect. Inexpensive ($46), no pay-for-guide data (that I can see), and would work on OTA broadcasts. Combine this with our existing Netflix and Amazon Prime subscriptions along with some Amazon VOD purchases (to get must-see cable shows without cable) and cable's days in my household are even more numbered.

Re:costs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45703427)

Probably now. Multiple OTA streams allow recording shows that air concurrently during primetime.

Re:costs (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45703511)

Is your contract up?

Don't be so sure. If you made any changes to your service during the initial contract period, you automatically get re-upped for another 2 years.

Free installation? Autmomatic 2 year contract. Added ESPN? Another 2 years. Eliminate something else? 2 more years.

And the customer service people do not tell you. And when you try to cancel, oh, there will be a $300- $400 cancellation fee.

It's not just them - they all do it.

That's why cable and satellite TV providers can all go to Hell for all I care.

cocksuckers

Re:costs (5, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 10 months ago | (#45703901)

Is your contract up?

Don't be so sure. If you made any changes to your service during the initial contract period, you automatically get re-upped for another 2 years.

Free installation? Autmomatic 2 year contract. Added ESPN? Another 2 years. Eliminate something else? 2 more years.

And the customer service people do not tell you. And when you try to cancel, oh, there will be a $300- $400 cancellation fee.

It's not just them - they all do it.

That's why cable and satellite TV providers can all go to Hell for all I care.

cocksuckers

Not sure how well it will work with your provider, but I've gotten out of a lot of those bullshit fees and unauthorized contract extensions by demanding to be provided with a physical copy of the alleged updated agreement bearing my physical signature. No physical signature, no legal grounds, so fix it or I'll see you in court.

YMMV as always, but I've been amazed at how often that actually works.

Re:costs (2)

Bigbutt (65939) | about 10 months ago | (#45704149)

Comcast:

My ex decided to get a 2 year contract for Xfinity about a month before she left. After 16 months, I realized I hadn't turned on and watched TV for at least the past 30 days, certainly longer. So I took the cable box/DVR combo down to the local Comcast outlet. I wanted to switch to higher speed internet and dump the box. Unfortunately since they now encrypt all channels, I needed to get a little decrypter box in case I wanted to watch the news or something.

Since I had 8 months left on my contract, I expected a high disconnect/change fee. Turns out it wasn't that bad. A few bucks a month for the disconnect fee totaling around $35 and I cut my cable bill by almost half ($132 before, $78 after). Since work lets me expense $50 a month, my cable bill is $38 a month.

Plus, we chatted for a few minutes about my setup and he checked my account. Turns out when the original (ancient) box died last year, they replaced it with a wireless cable box. He gave me a new box and a receipt that I had returned the box and said to just drop the old box off when I had a few minutes.

Seemed like a pretty good experience to me and I've never had a problem with Comcast. I've been with them since the mid 90's when it was telephone upload and cable download and have moved four times since then (so different cable plants).

[John]

Simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45703331)

Just stream shows over the internet. Same as cable, they make money through ads

Re:Simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45703369)

That is basically the situation we are heading towards anyway.

Re:Simple solution (2)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 10 months ago | (#45703579)

Maybe. It has been a losing game so far.

There is the old quip for business that advertisers always wastes 50% of you money – the problem is figuring out which 50%. So, on one hand advertisers can better target ads – so less money is wasted so few advertising dollars. On the other hand you can now target your ads and thus charge more.

IIRC, over the past 20 years, less money as a percentage spent on advertising, has gone towards T.V. (broadly defined to include all streaming services.). Data is a few years old so take it with a grain of salt.

The cablecos have monopolies on cable and internet (2)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 10 months ago | (#45703373)

And they also own the politicians who might otherwise support net neutrality. That gives them a lot of power in this fight. Basically, most people (in the U.S. anyway) have to rely on cablecos for internet. The only other option for most of us is DSL (which is much slower, such as in my area where the DSL isn't even fast enough for Netflix HD).

Re:The cablecos have monopolies on cable and inter (4, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 10 months ago | (#45703491)

The only other option for most of us is DSL (which is much slower, such as in my area where the DSL isn't even fast enough for Netflix HD)

Yet another reason that TPB is so popular. Again, not only is it free, but better. My DSL connection sucks. Trying to stream HD from the iPlayer or 4OD or something is painful in that it comes out blocky, jerky and stops for buffering.

Or, I can go to TPB and download a nice, high quality file which I can view without all the problems. And yes, I do actually get stuff off TPB which is available on 4OD (I am a license payer!) since the service is substantially better. For iPlayer I use the get_iplayer script which uses some mild back door to save it to a file. Though I must say finding stuff on TPB is easier than the on the BBC.

H.265 and DSL (3, Informative)

Danathar (267989) | about 10 months ago | (#45704021)

Although it's going to take a couple of years, you can expect H.265 to help DSL big time. I've read and watched several industry talks on H.265 and by far the two biggest things that H.265 will help is mobile/low bandwidth content delivery (DSL users were specifically mentioned) and of course video conferencing.

Figure a DSL user has a downstream capacity of 1 to 1.5Mb/s of downstream capacity. H.265 will make decent 720p over those throughput capacities a reality.

Re:H.265 and DSL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45704765)

What kind of crap DSL are they still selling where you are? Good god... 1.5Mbps? What is this, 2000?

I had "plain" 1.5Mbps (A)DSL from 2000-ish, then upgraded to 3Mbps service (ADSL2) when it became available at my address (around 2008).

Then AT&T brought U-verse (VDSL) to the neighborhood. Old-school DSL speeds went to crap (they de-prioritized it at the node), so I switched. (It was actually cheaper to get 12Mbps U-verse than to continue with 3Mbps DSL.) I could've gotten as fast as 24Mbps with their FTTN setup.

Now they're bringing the U-verse fiber to the building (row-house style condos), which should give me the option for somewhere north of 50Mbps. Within the building it's still running over 45-year-old POTS copper with god-knows-what bridge-tapped into it. I may start a neighborhood petition with the other owners in my building to run full fiber in the building and terminate to AT&T's box... FTTH... Yum. If AT&T offers >100Mbps service, Charter can just give up.

Re:The cablecos have monopolies on cable and inter (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about 10 months ago | (#45703573)

While I have a tendency on Slashdot to post conservative posts. (I try not to be crazy conservative though). However I think it the governments responsibility to offer us a high speed Internet Infrastructure, and not the Cable, and Telephone industry who is in essence competing against itself.

Companies nowadays don't want to get involved in big infrastructural projects, such as laying fiber to every home. Because of a lot of reasons. But much like Power it is becoming a situation that the internet is needed to function in modern society.

Re:The cablecos have monopolies on cable and inter (5, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 10 months ago | (#45703989)

My problem is that the government allowed the telecom industry to charge the public to build the infrastructure [pbs.org] to build high-speed and they've taken the money and done nothing with it. And the government hasn't taken the industries to task.

Re:The cablecos have monopolies on cable and inter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45704401)

The first step to recovery from the mental illness known as conservatism is admitting that the free market often gets things wrong and the natural outcome is the formation of large monopolies that control governmental policies to maintain their monopolistic practices. If you freely admit the free market has failed with broadband, maybe you can open your eyes and take a look at the other free market failures such as healthcare that stem from the same root causes.

You've got all the hospitals in many areas owned by the same corporation. You have the AMA acting as a cartel limiting the number of doctors that can enter the system and blocks foreign competition. Then there is the large overhead dealing with insurance companies and the amount the insurance companies skim off the top for themselves. The same free market that makes wages for everyone middle class and below plummet and stagnate, magically can't do the same for the insane amount of money paid to doctors and insurance compaines.

Re:The cablecos have monopolies on cable and inter (3, Interesting)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 10 months ago | (#45703611)

That's the position I'm in. I can use Time Warner Cable for my ISP or Verizon DSL. Not only is DSL slower, but Verizon has all but said they want out of the DSL business. They've ignored their DSL lines and outright ditched them where possible. Verizon didn't run FIOS to my neighborhood so that's not an option. Meanwhile, Time Warner Cable and the other cable ISPs have financial interests in people not doing a lot of video streaming. That's why they've introduced caps and "per bit billing." They frame it as a "fair billing" or "protect our network from data hogs" practice but really it is a method of killing streaming so that people go back to their (uncapped) VOD solutions.

Re:The cablecos have monopolies on cable and inter (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 10 months ago | (#45704041)

The problem in my area is the total lack of real competition. In my area, I can only get Time Warner. Verizon FIOS isn't available. AT&T U-verse is not available. Another cable provider is not available. Yet most of them clutter my mailbox with flyers and ads about their service that I can't get. In Austin, it looks like AT&T is offering fiber finally (but only because Google is coming). My friend who works in the industry says that AT&T is hedging their bets by offering it in adjacent areas that Google Fiber will not initially service (if only to survive).

Re:The cablecos have monopolies on cable and inter (4, Interesting)

andyring (100627) | about 10 months ago | (#45704125)

Yeah, it sucks, but there are other options. Here's one. Start your own ISP. No, I'm not crazy. Here's an excellent example. Here in Lincoln, Neb., a guy with an idea started a company called WideRange Broadband. (standard disclaimer, I have no connection to them other than as a very satisfied customer) They're a wireless ISP. They rent tower space on a few tall radio antenna towers around town, toss some Ubiquity antennas up there, and call it good. Yes, that's over simplifying it, but in the end, I have a little antenna on my roof about the size of my forearm, and I get a solid high speed connection for $30/month. And they're pissing off the local telco (Windstream) and cableCo (TimeWarner) because they can offer as good or better speeds for less money. Yes, there are some line-of-sight issues if you're in an older neighborhood with lots of tall trees, but it's a solid start. Shortly after I cut off TimeWarner, I had one of their people stop by the house trying to get me to resubscribe (at $49/month). I told him who I was using, and he got a nervous look on his face and said "Oh, they're not a real company, that's just someone's hobby" and left. I mentioned that to the WideRange installer a few months later when we bought a house and they were moving my antenna. He chucked and said "Yeah, we hear that a lot."

Re:The cablecos have monopolies on cable and inter (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 10 months ago | (#45704607)

Starting my own ISP would require investing time and money into the project: Two things that are in short supply for me right now. I have a full time job, have no time to start an ISP business on the side, and can't take the financial risk of quitting my job to launch an ISP in my area. I have nothing but respect for the people who do this and if someone like this was available in my area I'd definitely look into it as a possibility, but launching it myself isn't really an option.

DSL gets a bad rap; in-city had 25Mbps, out 10Mbps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45704193)

If your service sucks it may be due to the wires or distance. Ultimately it just might not be an option for everyone. For those it is an option for its great. I have not had any problems streaming HD content over DSL- ever. There is also one side benefit in that its cheaper (at least in my area) than cable. If your a heavy user (multiple streams for instance) I'd probably just get a 2nd DSL line. Cable companies are evil. They advertise one thing and provide another. Always. It's just how the networks are designed. If it wasn't for that they advertise cable as being faster when its not and the speeds advertise never what are promised I probably wouldn't object so harshly. But sadly we see additional steps to reduce cable companies traffic (from shaping VOIP to the point it doesn't work to killing torrent traffic).

Sympathy for the Diablo (1)

korbulon (2792438) | about 10 months ago | (#45703385)

Goddamn. Now I'm gonna have this fucking tune in my head for the rest of the day.

I won't be Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45703387)

I can't see Apple doing a big takeover unless they start opening up their platform so that your iTunes purchases can be viewed with Roku, Android devices, etc.

Re: I won't be Apple (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45703495)

This is Apple here. They won't do this. Why should they have to when millions of hipster faggots will buy anything with their logo on it?

Re:I won't be Apple (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 10 months ago | (#45703747)

My personal opinion is that Apple really couldn't care less. They sell media because it sells devices which makes much more than content. Opening their platform does nothing to sell more iDevices.

Broadcaster roulette sucks (4, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 10 months ago | (#45703395)

Will they finish airing the season? Will they air episodes in the correct order? Will they move schedules around so you have no idea where to find a program? Ahhh... obsolete broadcast model.

Re:Broadcaster roulette sucks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45703529)

Will football run the show an hour and a half late so your tivo doesn't even catch it and then never re-air it?

Re:Broadcaster roulette sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45703911)

ah the good ol' Firefly approach to things.

Re:Broadcaster roulette sucks (1)

boristdog (133725) | about 10 months ago | (#45704181)

I can't get TV (even cable) where I live, and my bandwidth sucks, so we just use Netflix and purchased DVDs.

Usually the wife or I will hear about a show from a friend or the internets then we get the first season from Netflix. If we like it, we buy the whole series on DVD and watch as we please, when we feel like it. No commercials and much easier than depending on the networks.

Re:Broadcaster roulette sucks (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about 10 months ago | (#45704493)

The situation's worse when watching American shows outside of the USA.

That, and the increasingly pervasive advertisement in the form of pop-overs, commercial breaks that seem to appear more often and last longer, made me turn away from TV and to streaming / downloading. I dunno, with increased competition from other advertising channels, did the stations decide to drop their price and make it up on increased volume? TV stations pretty much crapped the bed they sleep in, I do have subscriptions to HBO and Netflix, but most of the stuff I watch comes from TPB or via Sick Beard.

They'd still be ok if they weren't crappy ISPs (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 10 months ago | (#45703399)

I know many people who still have cable television simply because it was cheaper to have a cable + Internet bundle than it was cable alone, or it was only $5 extra if they rolled in a phone line to their DSL connection, and so on.

The problem is that they let the quality of service as an ISP suffer compared to the pampering they give their primary business. Last week while we were at a friend's house streaming off Netflix, the cable Internet cut out at least three times. Yet the cable TV in the living room rolled along with no problems.

As more and more alternative ISPs are added that allow people to break away from the monopolies of Time Warner, Comcast, and Charter, customers will seriously consider dumping their cable package in favor of an ISP that doesn't break on a nightly basis.

Re:They'd still be ok if they weren't crappy ISPs (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 10 months ago | (#45703509)

I know many people who still have cable television simply because it was cheaper to have a cable + Internet bundle than it was cable alone

You mean "cheaper than Internet alone," right? That's the situation I'm stuck with (neither DSL nor even Wi-Max works at my house), and words cannot express how much I resent Comcast for it.

Re:They'd still be ok if they weren't crappy ISPs (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 10 months ago | (#45703575)

In my case, we still have cable only because they gave us a good deal on cable TV + Internet. The amount we'd save just going to Internet-only would be chipped away at by needing to purchase programs that we can't get from Netflix or Amazon Prime streaming. (For example, new episodes of Mythbusters and Doctor Who.) There were enough of these that it just didn't pay to cut the cable. However, my cable company (Time Warner Cable) has indicated that they're not cutting deals of this sort anymore. If they don't then cable will be going away when our current deal ends. I simply can't afford to pay $100 more a month for cable. We'll get our TV entertainment from OTA, Netflix, Amazon VOD (both Prime and pay-per-episode), and DVD rentals from our local library.

Re:They'd still be ok if they weren't crappy ISPs (1)

east coast (590680) | about 10 months ago | (#45703735)

The problem is that they let the quality of service as an ISP suffer compared to the pampering they give their primary business. Last week while we were at a friend's house streaming off Netflix, the cable Internet cut out at least three times. Yet the cable TV in the living room rolled along with no problems.

Not to question your ability here but are you sure it was the internet that failed?

I have two streaming boxes in my house (Apple TV and a Samsung smart BluRay player) and both of them seem to have buffering problems with NetFlix to the point that I don't even use them for it anymore. At first I thought it was my router since performance on the router degraded after using either one of the units but even after replacing the routers with a new one the problem contiued on the boxes while the router didn't suffer from the latency issues that the old one had.

I'm not real happy with the whole set up to be honest with you and I find it hard to believe that my story is typical given how popular these kinds of devices are. As a side note, my AppleTV streams great through AirPlay from my laptop. I really haven't tried any of the other services on the Samsung unit as I've just resorted to watching Comcast OnDemand for as much as I watch that TV anyway. It's only about an hour a day when I'm riding my stationary bike.

To the best of my knowledge I have not lost my internet feed from Comcast at any time.

Re:They'd still be ok if they weren't crappy ISPs (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 10 months ago | (#45703783)

The PS3 was giving DNS errors. (I had to explain to a non tech person what DNS was.) It's entirely possible that the problem was on Sony's end, not Charter's end, but resetting the modem resolved it each time.

Sell content within 24 hours. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45703443)

1. Show your programs as scheduled.
2. After the show ends, post the episode for purchase within 24 hours.
3. After the season ends, post the entire season at a discount over individual episodes.

People want content and they want it right away. If you wait too long they will pirate it, or they'll just stop caring. Get the money while you can and stop worrying about breaking your business model, because TV is dying anyway. Adapt or die a quick death.

Re:Sell content within 24 hours. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45704237)

been like this on itunes for years

Re:Sell content within 24 hours. (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about 10 months ago | (#45704583)

That would work on a national level, but it would kill the lucrative overseas market for series. Stations here in Europe tend to wait a little and see how a series does in the USA (or wherever it airs first), then pick it up if successful. And they pay a deal less for content that has already been distributed by some other means (streaming / DVD).

Of course, revenue from streaming to overseas customers might make up for lost sales to TV stations there. Plenty of viewers here seem willing to pay to watch episodes when they want, especially if they can do so at the same time or soon after it has aired in the USA.

Get Auto Commissions (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45703539)

Get Auto Commissions revieww
Get Auto Commissions [blogspot.com]

This is going to be an epic fight (5, Interesting)

xtal (49134) | about 10 months ago | (#45703609)

There's billions at stake, created out of virtually nothing (replicating a digital signal). This supports thousands and thousands of rent-seeking monopolists. The holy grail of capitalism.

The RIAA/MPAA fights are just kindergarden name calling compared to the fight that's getting ready to be fought.

From society's perspective, we should be well into the fiber optic cabling of the entire planet. These people will fight that, because it obsoletes their model. Once you have fiber to your door - and I do, in small down Canada - it's over. It's just a matter of time and everyone knows it.

Google's fiber projects are just a small piece of what's to come. The dirty little secret is rolling these networks out isn't hard. It's all legislation and poltics stopping. The tech is ready.

Get some popcorn. It'll be fun. I haven't had a TV subscription in 7 or 8 years now.. saving me $100/mo or so. That's a lot of money, especially when it starts paying dividends.. but I sure don't own any broadcasters. :)

Re:This is going to be an epic fight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45703885)

time warner cable has run fiber under all the streets in NYC, almost to people's doors

Re:This is going to be an epic fight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45704435)

Correction! There's POTENTIALLY billions at stake.

I correct you, and people in general on this matter, because the narrative for stories related to income associated with service products, cellular/media/etc... is often shaped in a way that it is seen as guaranteed and expected income. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is all entirely possible income, but never guaranteed income. That Companies and Wall Street gamble off these 'possibilities', and that they're reported as certainties, business as usual, glosses over the underlying instability of these markets, and just how much capital the consumer sector has at their disposal.

/end rant

Re:This is going to be an epic fight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45704665)

Take a look at the credits at the end of the Hobbit. You think all those people would work for free under your model? What studio is going to shell out millions of dollars to create it if it were legal for everyone to steal it. Replicating the digital signal isn't what's costly, it's creating the digital signal is whats expensive. The digital = should be available for free to everyone doesn't work if you want to watch media that costs millions of dollars to create.

Good luck creating a movie like the Hobbit on a James Rolf or Doug Walker kind of budget. Without people paying money for entertainment thats the only kind of drivel your are going to get.

Re:This is going to be an epic fight (1)

XcepticZP (1331217) | about 10 months ago | (#45704697)

This supports thousands and thousands of rent-seeking monopolists. The holy grail of capitalism.

The dirty little secret is rolling these networks out isn't hard. It's all legislation and poltics stopping.

There, I put those two together for you. Otherwise you might not see the damn connection.

Good, now that we have that cleared up. Stop bashing capitalism for something solely created by the truest monopoly there is, government.

GOOD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45703659)

Everyone involved with 'traditional' broadcast tv have done everything they could to give a terrible experience.

And commercials are at the top of that list. Even on the 'pay' networks you still have commercials.
Disgusting commercials too. I can hear all about some chicks yeast infection, but can i see one titty? Nope.
Gotta goto the 'premium' pay networks for that. Can you just add that to a tv? NOPE! You have to buy several hundred channels you don't want before it's even an option!

And my god. The program repetition. How many times are we going to see iron man. I'd bet it's been on tv now at least 100 times.

I could complain for several hours. But lets just leave it at GOOD! FUCK THOSE PEOPLE!

The faster tv dies off the better things will be. For everyone NOT in the tv industry.

Why do they all fight technology? (1)

digitalhermit (113459) | about 10 months ago | (#45703671)

All of these media "giants" became giants because they offered alternatives. Yet, they all think that their business model will be eternal. The studios fought against cassette tape recorders, VCRs, video rentals, streaming TV, MP3s, torrents, iTunes, time shifting. In other words, anything that made it more convenient for viewers to -- you know -- view their content was seen as something horrible. If they had their way, we would adjust our schedules around the 6PM Tuesday timeslot to watch some sitcom. Why do they fight technology so fiercely when they should be embracing it? Find out what people like to do and offer a solution... Or, develop a new way and people will flock to it.

Re:Why do they all fight technology? (2)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 10 months ago | (#45703795)

If they know everyone is adjusting their schedules to watch the 6PM sitcom, then they can charge advertisers twice as much for that slot.

Re:Why do they all fight technology? (1)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | about 10 months ago | (#45703829)

All of these media "giants" became giants because they offered alternatives. Yet, they all think that their business model will be eternal. The studios fought against cassette tape recorders, VCRs, video rentals, streaming TV, MP3s, torrents, iTunes, time shifting. In other words, anything that made it more convenient for viewers to -- you know -- view their content was seen as something horrible. If they had their way, we would adjust our schedules around the 6PM Tuesday timeslot to watch some sitcom. Why do they fight technology so fiercely when they should be embracing it? Find out what people like to do and offer a solution... Or, develop a new way and people will flock to it.

It's not fighting the technology that is the issue, it's about fighting the distribution method that is their business plan. If they could quickly monetize the new distribution methods, they would embrace the change. The problem is that large corporations are not agile enough to adapt quickly enough to the ever changing technological shifts that take place today. They invest billions (along with tax payer funding at times) in an infrastructure that is meant to provide a stream of income to profit from, only to be obsoleted in a shorter time frame then was projected. These large companies can not just change on a dime and expect to stay profitable.

Re:Why do they all fight technology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45704089)

because the model for the last decade has been to set up a channel with one good show and the rest crap or reruns
force the cable company to carry it as part of a bundle of your other 2 dozen channels
and raise the total price the cable company pays by $1 or more or whatever
profit

except the price for TV is too high and there is an on demand distribution model now that will cause the profitability of the content creators to go down

Sports, only thing hold me back (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45703701)

If I could get Big Ten Sports and ESPN streamed I would cut the cord today. That is currently the only thing holding me back. My family never watches "live" TV everything is either streamed or DVR'ed for later viewing.

Here is why... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45703723)

The REAL REASON is the fsking advertising.
When Congress has to pass a LAW banning loud commercials something is seriously wrong.
Every 8 minutes there is an interruption to the content you are paying for, so they can get paid more? ADHD anyone? Train your brain to only pay attention for 8 minutes at a time? Advertising has killed TV IMHO.
I have not had Television for almost seven years now, I read and listen to music for entertainment in lieu of television. I feel I am better for it, just my opinion.

Re:Here is why... (1)

Camaro (13996) | about 10 months ago | (#45704189)

I agree completely. I watch a fair bit of retro programming (mostly series from the 70s and 80s). Remember when the show itself was 49 minutes long? And the theme song itself was a whole 90 seconds? The cable/satellite companies seem to believe we'll blindly keep paying for LESS content. Yeah, right.

Life as it should be lived, fully (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 10 months ago | (#45703727)

My first experience with binge viewing was discovering House in season 4 and back-watching seasons 1-3 over a few weeks on Hulu. Shortly thereafter I watched all of Dead Like Me where, as I approached the end, saw it had been cancelled years before.

Then Hulu started sucking with 300 seconds of commercials between segments, like regular TV, so I abandoned it. Recently I signed up for Netflix, online-only (apparently, there's a DVD mail service, WTF grandma). Currently round-robin binging on half a dozen series, 5-6 shows at a crack.

Re:Life as it should be lived, fully (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 10 months ago | (#45703749)

Boy that sounded like an ad for Netflix.

Re:Life as it should be lived, fully (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45703903)

DVD mail service, WTF grandma
for the junk they do not have on streaming. Which seems to be about 60-80% of the stuff I want to watch...

Re:Life as it should be lived, fully (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45704375)

Ditto that. There's also a fair amount of older (40+ years) "cult classic" type films that Netflix doesn't have on disc either, they're not available on Vudu or Amazon as PPV, and torrents/usenet in some cases is the only place they can be found without buying a used DVD or VHS from a third party. Granted, the latest explosion/sex/drugs/comedy/action movie will not be hard to find, so I'm aware that I'm in a vanishingly small minority. I have not tried brick-and-mortar libraries as mentioned in another comment, so that might be the perfect place.

We did it and don't look back (1)

andyring (100627) | about 10 months ago | (#45703769)

We cut the cord about a year ago when our Dish subscription was up for renewal. My wife was a little hesitant at first because she watched some primetime shows, but with a combination of Netflix, Hulu Plus and Glenn Beck's "The Blaze" network (hey, don't flame me, we enjoy watching him and there's nothing wrong with that), we ended up saving almost $100 a month. My 8-year-old doesn't care either, he can find whatever he wants on Netflix kids area. I stuck a couple HDTV antennas in the attic as well, so if there is something OTA that I may want to watch like a football game or the evening news, we still can. We've got an AppleTV and a Roku 3, each of which costed, for a one-time purchase, what we were paying monthly to Dish.

Well what does the pay industry expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45703839)

They have been taking advantage of their monopoly for decades now.

I would gladly keep cable TV service if it was a reasonable price. However paying over $140\month for Internet, TV and no movie channels is absurd.

I saved money by switching to Verizon's FIOS from Comcast, however this also has drawbacks. While I get a much increased and more reliable Internet connection, the TV part is terrible compared to Comcast.

If I could, I would use FIOS for Internet and Comcast for TV, but they make is so this is also impossible.

Even though I pay $119\month for Internet, TV and Showtime\Starz from Verizon, if I were to drop my TV it would still be $109\month for just the Internet. This is how they abuse their monopoly.

They charge you X amount for one service and give you the other basically free, with exception of the movie channels.

I would drop Verizon TV in a second and get Comcast for TV, but then I would end up paying well over $180\month.

Re:Well what does the pay industry expect? (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 10 months ago | (#45704519)

Even though I pay $119\month for Internet, TV and Showtime\Starz from Verizon, if I were to drop my TV it would still be $109\month for just the Internet. This is how they abuse their monopoly.

With Comcast, (a basic tier of) Internet + basic cable (i.e., broadcast channels) is $40/month. Internet by itself? $5 more!

If that's not a desperate attempt to inflate subscriber numbers, I don't know what is.

New business models will emerge .... (2)

King_TJ (85913) | about 10 months ago | (#45703923)

I can't remember who it was now, but I just read an article about a black stand-up comedian who is making millions off of a business he created where he produces low-budget TV shows. The key to his success? He realized there are many time slots out there on TV stations that need to be filled with content, but especially for the early morning (1AM to 5AM) -- the low number of viewers means they can't justify paying the prices usually demanded for the right to air existing programming. (That's why you see so many ridiculous 30 minute to 1 hour long infomercials in those time slots.)

So what he does is he cranks out material on an accelerated time-table (shooting a whole episode of a comedy show in a day, where it would normally be done over the span of several days to a week), and using non-union labor. Half of the actors/actresses are friends of his from the stand-up comedy scene and others are "fresh out of college" people who want to catch a break in the business. Then he gives the shows away FREE to the TV stations to air, with the stipulation that they split ad revenue earned while it's airing with his company, 50/50.

His latest tactic is creating multiple Court TV type shows, except none of it is real. (He said he was able to buy a complete courtroom set for only a $1 when a real courtroom wanted to remodel and get rid of all of the old furniture and decor.) He saves a bunch of money on production since there are no real litigants who need to be flown in, put up in a hotel while filming is taking place, etc. And the real win for him? These types of shows draw in a lucrative advertising crowd of people offering legal services!

Sure, this guy might just be creating a bunch of garbage quality television ... but I think he's on to something. It speaks to the "big picture" changes, where studios need to come down to earth on the costs of producing programming. Today's actors are where yesterday's rock stars were before the music industry was turned on its head by digital distribution. People, now, are starting to say, "Hey.... I like the entertainment you make, but enough's enough! I'm not going to keep giving you this much of my paycheck for the right to enjoy it! Make me a better deal....."

Re:New business models will emerge .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45704657)

You're basically describing the TV equivalent of sites like BleacherReport and Buzzfeed: crank out 50 articles a day at a couple dollars each, following common patterns that attract people killing time on social networks like "Number Nouns That Will Make You Verb" and "How Well Do You Know Noun?", plaster ads on them and... profit!

There's simultaneously movements in both industries to displace the crap with quality premium content, which in turn attracts either direct payment or a higher caliber of advertiser. See HBO, Netflix in the TV space, and AOL/Saymedia in the Internet space.

Not clear to me who the winner is yet, but regardless of the quality of the content it seems like broadcast TV has its days numbered.

Can we use a phrase other than "cord cutting?" (4, Informative)

es330td (964170) | about 10 months ago | (#45704001)

I don't know where everyone else lives, but I have yet to find a free wireless or wired streaming video capable Internet connection anywhere in the place I live. I use Netflix and Hulu but I still pay a communication utility for Internet access, so while I am not paying that same provider for cable content, it still is not free. All I have done is separate the data access utility from the content provider. Cord cutting is really a misnomer, few (if any) are truly cutting the cord, they just choose to consume content as Internet data rather than TV signal.

Re:Can we use a phrase other than "cord cutting?" (1)

Jay Vickery (2908369) | about 10 months ago | (#45704303)

I don't know where everyone else lives, but I have yet to find a free wireless or wired streaming video capable Internet connection anywhere in the place I live. I use Netflix and Hulu but I still pay a communication utility for Internet access, so while I am not paying that same provider for cable content, it still is not free. All I have done is separate the data access utility from the content provider. Cord cutting is really a misnomer, few (if any) are truly cutting the cord, they just choose to consume content as Internet data rather than TV signal.

I think the term still applies. I bet most people are like me and already pay for internet and additionally pay for cable/satellite so they are cutting one of those cords. Just because you cut one cord doesn't mean you are cutting all cords.

We need more channel choice and free OTA on system (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 10 months ago | (#45704103)

We need more channel choice.

also OTA channels need to stop the Retransmission or at least make on cable and sat to say I will use my own OTA hook up to get the channels so don't change me for them.

ESPN and disney need to be in there own pack

local RSN's need to be on there own and full choice of buying outer ring ones as well.

the other channels are not that bad for price and stuff like HBO needs to be on it's own as well.

Loving not having cable. (1)

berj (754323) | about 10 months ago | (#45704319)

I don't remember the last time I actually had cable service. Maybe 10 years ago. Back then I rented a lot of DVDs and went out to movies. I'm quite happy these days to watch what's available on netflix and iTunes. I love not having to put up with commercials and for the most part I can watch what I want when I want and even where I want. I haven't done the math but given the number of shows I watch in a year I can't see my investment in iTunes content and my netflix membership adding up to anything close to a year of cable bills. Even if it did the convenience factor is more than enough to make up for it.

Cable isn't losing that much, really (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45704359)

Last time I checked the largest ISPs in this country were cable companies. Even if you drop cable TV entirely in many regions there is no faster connection available than a cable modem, hence they are still making money off of you.

It's not a cord-cutting phenomenon. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45704407)

It's not a cord-cutting phenomenon at all.

People are sick of cable company's bullshit. We don't want a land line - we don't want to have to add that to our bundle in order to get services we want.

People also watch what they want to watch - they want al a carte programming so they go to a source that provides that service. Cable companies are going to continue to lose out until they get with the times.

netflix enables binge viewing (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 10 months ago | (#45704419)

I'm not a huge user of Netflix. I mostly have it as a sop to wife and daughter so I don't have to pay for cable. What I've noticed in passing is that the Netflix GUI is set up to encourage binge viewing, much like certain video games are crafted so that the most natural thing to do upon completing a level is to start the next level. When watching a series, the next episode is cued up and takes only a single press to play. It's much more work to find something else to watch. Although this almost certainly isn't the root cause of binge viewing, I suspect it's a factor.

Another factor is that series with a story arc work better when you can see several episodes end to end, instead of waiting a a week as your memory of details fade, to watch the next. I think writers can write tighter stories with subtler details if they can assume you don't have a week to forget after 43 minutes.

As to how this will affect the industry, I'm not sure. I find it interesting that much TV is still written for the "tv tray generation", the progressively older group that watches whatever is on, in the order and on the days chosen by the network. I don't think that's a viable business model anymore.

How does this affect content creation? Maybe the industry will have to get used to creating shows for less money.

Commercial Free! (1)

Notabadguy (961343) | about 10 months ago | (#45704459)

My wife and I haven't had a connected television for almost a decade, but we are the definition of binge viewers.

Our phases have gone something like this:

2000-2002: Stopped watching cable T.V, computer games for entertainment, news via the newspaper and library. DVD movies for viewing entertainment.
2002-2004: Still gaming, now catching news on internet websites. Movies still via DVD; starting to acquire show DVD seasons (Southpark Season 1, etc)
2004-2006: Still gaming, shift to Netflix due to cost of DVD collection and size.
2007-2009: Dropping netflix due to limited selection, Telecos implementing data caps, monthly cost not necessarily utilized well.
2009-2011: YAAAAAARRRRR. ZOMGFREEMOVIESANDGAMESWITHNOADSPIRATEDAY!
2011-Present: Still gaming, Amazon Prime apparently has every movie and T.V show ever made. Mostly free. If we like something, we'll buy more of it.

Now, here's the takeaway:

For more than a decade, we've been searching for some reasonable method of consuming media that was convenient, convenient, convenient, and not prohibitively expensive. None of our attempted solutions (or current solution) have involved Comcast, TimeWarner, any other cable company, or an interest in advertising outside of looking up Superbowl commercial on Youtube.

What consumers want isn't some secret. There's no conspiracy. The worst that could happen to our existing telecos is the least that they deserve. I'll stop there before I rant.

Cable is disrupting itself (2)

ZipK (1051658) | about 10 months ago | (#45704541)

Comcast and its brethren are disrupting themselves with high prices, packaged offerings cluttered with unwanted channels, and the truly awful customer service.

They Just Want Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45704661)

If they stopped fighting it, and embraced Netlifx, et al., as a legitimate way to distribute their shows, they could make incredible amounts of money. They aren't interested in art or money, they just want to keep control, rather than let people decide what they actually want to watch.

Bandwidth caps (1)

dirtaddshp (1188189) | about 10 months ago | (#45704749)

And Comcast (Owned by NBC)'s answer to all of this.. put in bandwidth caps and charge if you go over.

Our household (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about 10 months ago | (#45704767)

Next month the contract with the cable company expires. We're discussing because work has offered to pay for a business class internet connection into our house as I work from home most days. Between Netflix and Hulu Plus we're seriously considering cutting the cord. We rarely watch anything live anyway and usually do watch the DVRed episodes within a week.

Pay for TV that is filled with ads..... (1)

Kevoco (64263) | about 10 months ago | (#45704783)

People are (finally) wising up.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?