The Problem With Cable Is Television 334
Saul Hansell writes in the NY Times about how various services offered by cable companies affect their spending and their revenue. As it turns out, a lot of the cost increases and investment needs are coming from television and video services rather than internet connectivity. The scramble for high-def and rising licensing fees for programming seem to be the biggest headaches for Comcast and Time Warner right now. Quoting:
"By all accounts, Web video is not currently having any effect on the businesses of the cable companies. Market share is moving among cable, satellite and telephone companies, but the overall number of people subscribing to some sort of pay TV service is rising. (The government's switch to digital over-the-air broadcasts is providing a small stimulus to cable companies.) However, if you remember, it took several years before music labels started to feel any pain from downloads. As the sour economy and the Web start putting more pressure on the cable companies, they may be forced to consider breaking up the big bundles of channels they now insist that consumers buy and instead offer individual channels or smaller groups of channels on an à la carte basis."
If they broke up the channels a la carte (Score:5, Interesting)
What I want:
HBO
History Channel
MSNBC
CNN
CBC
BBC
Comedy Central
Showtime
Science Channel
PBS
Animal Planet (for my daughter)
Cartoon Network (for my daughter)
VH1 (for the wife)
That's it. I don't watch and don't care for the rest of it, because it's mindless brain drool, and a lot of what is on the stations I listed is also mindless brain drool, just less of it than elsewhere (like Oxygen, MTV, SPIKE, ABC/CBS/NBC, etc.). That's 13 channels I would watch, and watch at least once a week. I would pay a dollar a month for each. That would give them $13 a month they're not getting now. I would not pay more than $1 month, because frankly, TV is a big time suck and mind poison. but that's what I would do, and I am certain there are many people who agree with me.
I don't want the Food Channel. I don't want ESPN. I don't want "Desperate Housewives" or "American Idol". It's crap. I don't want it in my house.
But I am willing to pay for the good stuff, if I can be certain I will get GOOD STUFF.
RS
Re:Not the programming (Score:5, Interesting)
The tactic employed is to bundle "high quality" channels with "low quality" channels to ensure that if you want to buy the thing you are interesting you also have to buy a lot of crap that you don't are about. Selling individual channels, or smaller bundles, would mean you could probably ensure that what channels you get are those you actually want to watch; but it would also mean that a lot of marginal shows and channels would go out of business.
Of course personally I believe that this is pretty much inevitable and that shows and programming enjoyed by a smaller minority will have to find other ways to reach their targeted audience (like say the Internet). And it probably wont stop there either. In fact I would go so far as to say that over the next two decades the traditional way (in so far as something as new as cable can be said to have a tradition) of watching TV will change in many different ways. Using myself as an example I don't watch TV. Not because there aren't shows I would be interested in, but because I simply can not tailor my day around a programming schedule (nor am I inclined to buy a cable package and a Tivo like device). For me the only option when it comes to watching shows is getting them online (and I am sad to say the options for doing that legal is severely limited in my Country); so for the most part I just have to do without until reality catches up with technology and gives me options suited to my lifestyle.
DTV and cable (Score:4, Interesting)
television channels are so last century (Score:5, Interesting)
If the telecoms want to make real money out of IPTV they need to stop subscribing to rights to channels and instead buy up their own material and repackage it for their own subscribers, else all they are doing is relaying terrestrial TV to an audience that can already get on
If may come as a surprise to the telecoms that IPTV is a bandwidth hog, but not the rest of us. What they need to do is provide a high definition broadcast grid for live video, the rest to be provided in a peering arraignment to the local ISP switching center. The consumer then selects from a list of older tv progs and movies and they are delivered overnight to a DVR [pvrweb.com] or set-top-box.
You pay for what you watch when you watch. Latest movie, ok top dollar, old movie, $1:00 a time. You also pay for online game subscriptions, video telephone, research and reference like the Wolfram|Alpha [wolframalpha.com] project.
Of course even 'passive viewing' is old century for the current wired generation, they're more into making and being in their own personal movie [youtube.com]
See also:
Regular columnist Bill Thompson wants it all. And he wants it now. [bbc.co.uk]
Cable TV vs Internet (Score:2, Interesting)
To quote: (and you better know by who)
"We make use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons..."
I am sorry, but why should we pay a premium for what is already publicly available?
-cb
Re:DTV and cable (Score:3, Interesting)
My upgrade to over-the-air DTV has spoiled me. I watch it on a standard analog CRT, which is nothing special, but then when I go over to my brother's house I can't help noticing how "blurry" his cable television looks. DTV costs me nothing whereas he's paying $60/month for a blurred image.
The one drawback of over-the-air is the finicky reception, which means sometimes you want to watch channel 6, but it isn't there. Oh well.
Re:Smaller Bundles (Score:4, Interesting)
The current business model cannot/won't hold up (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Smaller Bundles (Score:4, Interesting)
Not the issue - not at all (Score:4, Interesting)
Welcome, once again, to another episode of cable operators complaining about internet delivery and content bundles. All together now - (sorry, I'm very snarky today) - cry me a river.
The real issue is that all of the current non-OTA TV delivery systems have bitten off much more than they can chew.
So far as I know, NO ONE in the USA is offering HD content as advertised:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Lite [wikipedia.org]
http://www.highdefforum.com/directv-forum/29158-hd-lite-directv-picture-quality.html [highdefforum.com]
http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-network-forum/51978-facts-about-hd-lite-e.html [satelliteguys.us]
http://forums.joeuser.com/309174 [joeuser.com]
http://www.tvnewsday.com/articles/2009/04/22/daily.4/ [tvnewsday.com]
(I recognize that some of the above links seem to target satellite TV, but if you read through two things become apparent: users are equally slamming cable, and neither satellite nor cable has their arms around a solution.)
Like it or not, the #1 driver for a cable subscription is TV - and they already cannot deliver on that.
I'm not a big sports fan (but so what if I am or not?), but I can reliably report this: during a hockey and a basketball game, I DVR'd OTA and my so-called high-def service of same channels. Hockey results: OTA clear, puck actually disappeared with paid service. Round-ball results: OTA clear, paid service unable to distinguish if foot over line or ref was blind during slo-mo playback.
And here's some technical anecdotes:
1. Your channel package choice or size of bundle won't impact anything, it's backbone limited.
2. When I upgraded to "HD" satellite, my house's RG-58 didn't cut it due to bandwidth limits on the RG-58. The '58 was ok for the short wall-to-TV pigtails, not otherwise.
3. They can fiber this and cable that and MPEG-4 the other, but no one is supporting the infrastructure to get the job done.
And a real big issue - once you've made the grade to premium cable or premium satellite, and you've replaced your TV - name your reasons, they're all valid: a) I want a new one, b) new TV standards and my set is getting old anyway, c) time to branch out and support my computer and Hulu, HTPC, et al, in the living room - you'll replace that TV with an HDTV and you'll go with the HD package from your for-pay provider (cable or satellite). The HDTV is an investment-grade purchase, just like your PC (any flavor), and the HD programming is too small an incremental price increase to pass up.
Here's the invective we can now look forward to: if you're complaining about your TV quality, you'll be told the bandwidth suckers using torrents are to blame. If you're complaining about your internet service, you'll be told that the primary service is directed at TV quality. Either way, do not expect that the future holds a world where you're really going to get what you think you're paying for.
Mark my words.
(PS - No apologies to those not interested in HDTV, or TV - you're not the big market to these companies, and that's all I'm ragging on - I'm not dis'ing anyone's lifestyle or entertainment choices. HTH.)
Re:Not the programming (Score:2, Interesting)
I think you are right, people do have different preferences for cable programming.
Myself, for example, only watch Discovery, History, Sci-fi, and Comedy Central. My SO likes to watch the other reality tv channels. So what ends up happening is we pay verizon $130/month for premium programming, even though she only watches 20 of the 800 channels. In order to get those 20 though, we have to buy a whole block of channels we don't need.
Re:Not the programming (Score:3, Interesting)
> Food Network, Golf Channel
IMO these sorts of niche channels will be the first to go under an internet video regime.
They only have a couple hours a day of original programming, the rest of the time is endless reruns and infomercials. It should be very easy to package together advertising-supported cooking or golf shows on the internet in a much higher quality format than cable.
The only technical advantage Cable has here is the convenience of dialing up channel 123 and watching some golf. As soon as web video portals appear for these niche interests, that advantage disappears.
Bingo -- TV is for playing Wii and DVDs (Score:3, Interesting)
I haven't watched TV in ages, not since living in an apartment building that had basic cable service for everyone as an amenity. And even then I seldom found the time to watch aside from when the San Jose Sharks were playing (hockey for those scratching their heads). Now, the "TV" as in "the display device" is hooked up to the Wii and the DVD player, but "TV" as in "programming some big media company beams to my tuner" is unknown in this house. Why bother? I have plenty else to keep me entertained.
Cheers,
Re:Give me my $4 back then! (Score:2, Interesting)
They don't generate squat. The parent company of ESPN for instance, requires that the cable/satellite/Verizon people advertise, sell, and bundle ESPN channels in order to get any of their other channels for use on their systems.
It's almost as if they are afraid that ESPN would fall flat otherwise....
Re:Not the programming (Score:3, Interesting)
I dunno. I would like to suggest a "radical" idea.
Channels like "Food" and "Golf" should take cable out of
the equation. Since they already air commercials, they
should put themselves on the satellites unecrypted so
that anyone who wants to can tune in.
They could even allow cable services to rebroadcast the
signal so long as it's unmodified.
Unless it's HBO, the only thing I should be paying my
cable company for is the cost of repeating signal.
There should be none of this nonsense where cable
providers are forced to pay for the priveledge of
re-transmitting someone else's commercials.
Re:Not the programming (Score:5, Interesting)
Cable set to the side. Forcing me to pay taxes and then using those taxes to benefit someone else is theft. Theft from me and my family. You think taxes are good, then defend taxes, don't dispute that they are theft though. If I stuck a gun in your face and demanded 20% of your money it would be armed robbery. When the government does it, it is called taxation. And I personally could not care any less than I do now, (zero), if Billy-Joe Bob gets anew heart or not. He could die before I walked across the road and pissed on him if that was all he needed. I also don't care if your mewling brats get an education or if your parents have to eat roadkill. Taking my money to benefit you and yours is fucking wrong,immoral and exactly what the founders of the USA were dead set against.
Then pack the fuck up and leave. Nobody is stopping you.
The United Arab Emirates have a 0% tax rate; perhaps you should consider immigrating there.
Re:Not the programming (Score:2, Interesting)
The Libertarian assholes don't get it and never will get it.
Its the same "Fuck everybody else so I can line my own pocket", asshole mentality that created the need for the progressive movement at the end of the 19th Century.
If they had it their way, the only rights we would end up having were ones we could afford to buy and enforce as an individuals.
Re:Not the programming (Score:3, Interesting)
These are all examples of loss of control over taxation due to political corruption, and have nothing whatsoever to do with "socialism". A corrupt government in any political system will fuck the governed society up. So the problem is not with taxes it is with keeping governments accountable to their citizens, which is a whole different ball of wax.
Only in a jungle full of, and run by, jackals such as you. The hallmark of civilization, and the point of societies, is that they offer support to their members in time of need. You are what is called a "sociopath" and by the looks of things you would be much happier in a cabin somewhere in the woods with no contact with anyone. If the government cannot find you, you will get to pay no taxes and no one would expect a shred of humanity out of you, since you would be living as a vicious animal, which is apparently already your personality. Just do not come out of there. Rabid animals tend to get shot.
Yes, the typical howl of a self-absorbed, narcissistic idiot who thinks all (or even a majority) of people can control their lives. Yet another "self-made" man who "made" his own language, was fed his own milk as an infant, who created or paid for thousands of years of development of all of the stuff he uses daily etc and so on. I usually do not wish bad things to happen even to idiots like you, but in your case I will make an exception: may a bus blow a tire, swerve and hit you, crippling you and may you discover that your insurance and savings cover less then 10% of the cost of your treatment.
I have been running my own company probably longer then you have been alive. Which explains why I do remember things which are complete news to you. You would do much better to stuff all that Zhynovievna's drivel you've been reading in the garbage and read some history books for a change.
Re:Smaller Bundles (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally I would be happy to pay Discovery money to be able to download or stream various programs they provide through the internet.
Save your money, get almost everything you want right here - http://www.getmiro.com/ [getmiro.com] - now available for more than just Mac.
I swear by it - I'm watching the Hubblecast HD right now (episode 27, in fact).
Re:Not the programming (Score:5, Interesting)
Quite right. It is no coincidence that most of them have fantasies of societal collapse followed by a "Mad Max"-type future where "real men" and their shotguns get to rule the day.
They never seem to get it that a "working" example of a "libertarian society" is ... Somalia. No functional central government to rain on the "real men's" parade there at all. Everyone there is free to conduct "free enterprise" any way they see fit. Curiously however, libertarian immigration to the Paradise in Mogadishu remains rather low.... perhaps not enough pamphlets at the weekly meetings at the temple of the Goddess Alyssa Zhinovievena?
Re:Not the programming (Score:3, Interesting)
That is because US constitution is a general outline of government. No constitution of any country is capable of dealing with the actual details of governance. The AIG (rightly or wrongly) was given money because elected representatives attempted to rescue a nation-wide economy (nation-wide welfare being part of their explicit mandate) by doing so. One can argue the wisdom of the thing, but one cannot argue that they did not have the constitutional backing. Otherwise the federal government is pointless, and you might as well go 50 separate ways (at which point you will be whining about your state government not being "legitimate" ... etc and so on, ad nausea).
Then you would have to come up with a whole new document that is phrased far more cleverly, and which could predict future. However smart the Founding Fathers were, the constitution is only a rough guideline and the devil is in the details of its interpretation. Which of course you do quite differently then many other people.
Re:Not the programming (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not the programming (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, strictly from the point of view of economics, completely empathy free, Bob's new heart is actually more economically sound investment then otherwise. Because paying for the procedure furthers medical training and the progress of medicine and maintains social stability, while on the other hand someone (since he his family would bankrupt itself trying to, unsuccessfully, save him through quacks and snake-oil remedies, them being the only thing they could afford) would have to pay for .... Bob's funeral, deal with his now destitute family begging on the streets etc. And since now his kids are beggars with no chance for education and a sizable resentment toward society - for they now know that they will be thrown in the garbage at the slightest provocation and thus have no social obligations any more, their "social contract" having just been demonstrated null-and-void - there is also a whole other, rather expensive socially and monetarily, host of "problems" on the way. This time involving gunfights. For which I would not blame them in the slightest. And I am not merely hypothesizing here. This is history and it is exactly how all of these "socialist" ideas developed: they were learnt the "hard way".
But then there is of course that thing called "humanity" and the pesky little issue of what is the whole point of forming a society.
Not at all. The "broken window" fallacy is because the alternative is status-quo, the windows stay unbroken. In case of Bob's heart the alternatives are more socially expensive (on average) and Bob gets to die.
Bullshit. You would not. A vast majority of "libertarians" are concerned only with their own ass and satisfying of their own astronomical greed, and would (quoting one of you on this very thread) "cross the street to piss" on Bob as he dies. The choice, historically proven, is between social unrest, vast hordes of destitute and dying in filth surrounding palaces of "capitalist" Robber Barons who occasionally take rides in their Rolls Royce limos, tossing coins out of the window and calling it "charity", and a stable society where there are no armed revolts of indentured "servants" lurking around every corner. And again, this is history not some hypothesis.
Which again is nonsense. For every "Jeff" there are a hu
Re:Not the programming (Score:3, Interesting)
Because he did not. He lives in California, long ways from Canadian medical care of his old country, and is rich enough to pay all expenses out of his pocket. And like many celebrities, he gets to be "Canadian" only for the purpose of lunatic rants against us. Otherwise he is just another denizen of Hollywood. His cancer was diagnosed and treated where he lives: the USA. Canadian medical system had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Needless to say, the "9 months" is also a complete fabrication. Quote Green: "The weird part is how quickly all of this has happened. In three months, I found out I had cancer, I got rid of the cancer, and now, I'm recovering from cancer". He was diagnosed at and the procedure was performed at the USC.
Again more bullshit. He lives in the USA, and is probably ineligible for the Canadian medical care which requires at least 6 months continuous residence in one province (which is probably where the "9 months" nonsense comes from).
Yes, that is why the support for the single-payer system is on the ticket of all Canadian political parties, including the Conservatives, because they know in no uncertain terms that their votes would go down to single digits if they dropped it....
You can rant an rave, but the global statistics show the truth quite clearly. USA is behind Slovenia in infant mortality for example ...
That has been working out so great that over 60% Americans now want single-payer...
Only if there is an actual marketplace possible in this area. It is so with computers and other gizmos, it is not with medical insurance. That is what has been demonstrated over and over by practical experience. That is so because the insurance companies can successfully obfuscate the particulars of their "offers" and the results are not detectable to their victims until it is far too late. And there is no apparent way to solve this problem. That is why in many places insurance companies (not just medical kind) have the same standing as loan sharks, i.e. societal parasites. Meaningful competition is not possible if there is no way to make individual transactions adhere to the "free market" principles. Which is also incidentally why medial care is not part of the marketplace.