Columnist Mocks The Case Against Cord-Cutting As 'Too Many Choices' (techhive.com) 314
An anonymous reader quote TechHive:
The cord-cutting naysayers are trotting out a new argument in favor of cable, and it's even more absurd than the old ones: Having too many high-quality, standalone streaming services, they say, is actually bad for consumers, who are apparently helpless at using technology or making sound purchase decisions... The New York Post's Johnny Oleksinski concluded that all those sneering hipsters who've had the nerve to ditch cable are about to get their comeuppance -- in the form of additional services to choose from... By now, anyone who's actually cut the cable cord should be screaming out in unison: No one's making you subscribe to all these services! You can pick the ones you care about most, rotate between services, or occupy your screen time with a growing number of other digital distractions...
I will concede that if you want to use multiple streaming services, trying to sift through them all can be confusing. But even this concern is blown entirely out of proportion by naysaying pundits, who seem to ignore solutions that already exist. Roku, Amazon Fire TV, and Apple TV all offer universal search across services like Netflix and Hulu, while features like Roku Feed and the Apple TV TV app demonstrate how system-wide browsing is getting easier. Besides, using a handful of apps to get what you want isn't that burdensome -- especially for the growing audience of people who've been raised on smartphones... consumers are smarter than they're getting credit for. That's why cable subscriptions continue to plunge, even as these bogus stories keep popping up like clockwork.
I will concede that if you want to use multiple streaming services, trying to sift through them all can be confusing. But even this concern is blown entirely out of proportion by naysaying pundits, who seem to ignore solutions that already exist. Roku, Amazon Fire TV, and Apple TV all offer universal search across services like Netflix and Hulu, while features like Roku Feed and the Apple TV TV app demonstrate how system-wide browsing is getting easier. Besides, using a handful of apps to get what you want isn't that burdensome -- especially for the growing audience of people who've been raised on smartphones... consumers are smarter than they're getting credit for. That's why cable subscriptions continue to plunge, even as these bogus stories keep popping up like clockwork.
2017 (Score:3, Insightful)
It's 2017 and those are 90's arguments.
Re:2017 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just wondering who asked this guy anyway?
Seems like an opinion in search of an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that the definition of what is written by a columnist?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The cable company (or companies) who paid him to write the column?
Re:2017 (Score:5, Insightful)
you might not save a lot of money by cord cutting and buying into several streaming services.
And this right here is why I'm staying with piracy. The cable companies force me to buy bundles of crap channels just so I can get the three or four I actually watch. And now streaming services want me to subscribe to all or nothing, and I need to subscribe to three competing services to get those three or four channels I watch. And if I want to watch a sports game, I basically need to buy another Ferrari for one of the players....
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
The key issue people have had with the subscription service we call "cable TV" is their (former) monopoly status. But some of the issues is a feature of subscription services in general, which need to price their services according to usage by some sort of "average" viewer utilization, with low users subsidizing heavy users. There is no getting around this.
Buy Internet, get TV at almost no extra charge (Score:4, Insightful)
The key issue people have had with the subscription service we call "cable TV" is their (former) monopoly status.
"Former"? In many areas, the incumbent cable ISP retains a monopoly on home Internet access with a data transfer quota exceeding 100 GB/mo. This lets the cable ISP dump [wikipedia.org] TV service on its Internet subscribers by pricing a bundle [wikipedia.org] of Internet access and basic TV the same as Internet alone, leaving the subscriber to pay only the local network affiliate retransmission consent royalty and the regional sports royalty. The competing ISPs would charge several times more for the same cap, as they're limited by their satellite or cellular last mile.
Re:2017 (Score:5, Insightful)
The columnist misses the point. No one is complaining that $99.99/month for 700 channels they want isn't a good deal, people are complaining that they are paying $99.99/month for the 3 or 4 channels they want, and they get 696 channels thrown in that they don't want. The problem for most people is not the value of the channels (although that certainly is it's own debate), the problem is you have to buy all this stuff you don't want just to get the little you do want.
How would you feel if you only had one place you could go to for ice cream, and even though you only want one scoop of vanilla and one scoop of chocolate, you are forced to buy one scoop of ever flavor and pay $50? That business model wouldn't work, even if it were a monopoly, because people realize they don't need ice cream *that* badly. And people are starting to realize they don't need TV *that* badly, either, especially since their need for video content is being more and more fulfilled by the internet.
Internet service bundled too (Score:2)
Where I live, internet service is pretty pricy unless bundled with cable.
Yes, your total bill is less if you leave out cable, but the "get you coming and get you going" to pay a large monthly fee whatever you choose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What kills me further is that we're still dealing with 1990s tech when it comes to interfacing with cable tv boxes. I get a remote with arrow keys and a bunch of buttons that do random things. 700 channels....how, exactly, do I find the one I want? The fastest solution I've found is to pull up TV Guide on my laptop, enter my cable provider, and then scroll through the giant list. It's faster than what my cable provider gives me. And can I hide everything I don't get? Nope. Because somehow, clicking through
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:2017 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I found cable TV to be unbearable to watch, what with the ridiculous amount of advertising.
I can't even stand to watch cable TV shows *on Netflix without ads* anymore. The ads are insufferable but without the ads you realize just how terrible the shows are on top of that.
"Jim and Karah are looking at houses. They want a $10k. house on the beach..."
Fade to
"... When we left Jim and Karah they were looking at a house on the beach for $10k..."
Fade to
"Hi my name is Karah, and my name is Jim and we're really wanting a $10k house on the beach."
#()@)! GET ON WITH IT ALREADY! The ads are so insufferable
Re: (Score:2)
Nickel and dimed? easier to keep Cable? I have been in Texas for 19 years. I got DirecTV when I moved here and I had the top package. Every premium channel they offered, once the deal wore off I was paying about $100 and there was no DVR back then. Then they let you BUY a DirecTivo, you owned it, no rental and they charged $5 a month for the privilege of using that thing you own. Then came the yearly increases. Package wasn't changing, hardware wasn't changing but soon I was paying over $150 for the exact s
Re:2017 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem is the big content companies are starting to pull their shows from existing streaming services and plan to start their own.
Sorry, but by the time you subscribe to multiple streaming services just to get all the varied content you want, you're better off with cable and the big bite vs. being nibbled to death by all the little ones combined....
My wife complained about our cable bill and wanted other options after hearing some of her co-workers talk about cord-cutting and streaming. So I h
Re: (Score:3)
The biggest problem is the big content companies are starting to pull their shows from existing streaming services and plan to start their own.
Sorry, but by the time you subscribe to multiple streaming services just to get all the varied content you want, you're better off with cable and the big bite vs. being nibbled to death by all the little ones combined....
Agreed that is a big problem; but I don't think it'll be a long lasting problem unless they're willing to accept that only a small fraction of people will pay for their service in that style. Most are going to stick with just Netflix, Amazon Video, and Hulu - in some mix. I think HBO's competitor made it only b/c they linked in CableTV subscriptions for free - but I doubt Disney will have a long term success with it without doing the same - and those really aren't competitors to Netflix/Amazon/Hulu b/c they
Re: (Score:2)
> One guy makes a point that you might not save a lot of money by cord cutting and buying into several streaming services.
A bogus argument on both sides.
Multiple streaming services are still cheaper.
You don't have to replicate your old cable bundle.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To be fair here, it is going to be problematic when everyone wants to have their own paid streaming service. Instead of being able to watch everything on a few services, like Netflix or Amazon Prime, it is looking like everyone wants their own specific streaming site, sometimes paid with ads, and is pulling their content to put it on their own service. The issue is not that 'people are confused' so much as people are annoyed, and that everyone wants their own piece of the pie to the point where the ideal
Re: (Score:3)
It's 2017 and those are 90's arguments.
No they're not. The disney situation is an eye-opener. Suppose you're already paying for netflix; now all the disney content goes away, so you have to not only pay another monthly fee to another company, but you also have to deal with a whole other platform. Are disney going to have good mobile apps, plus a web viewer, plus apps for smart TVs, plus console apps? Unlikely.
Then BBC will do the same, and AMC, and CBS, and pretty soon you've got 6 or 7 streaming services with narrow offerings, shaky infrastruct
Re: (Score:3)
Then the market will decide the winners and losers. The losers will be the next Blockbuster. Hopefully something new will come along and be the next Netflix. Hulu can burn in hell with the paid ads. I have been voting with my wallet since 2010 and have taken $110 a month out of the bottom line of Cox.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Then the market will decide the winners and losers.
No it won't. The market liked Netflix, where you could get a wide range of content at a good price. The content owners didn't like it, so they killed that model. The market wanted that model, but the market is easily manipulable and often has to choose between multiple poorer offerings.
Re: (Score:2)
> Are disney going to have good mobile apps, plus a web viewer, plus apps for smart TVs, plus console apps? Unlikely.
Netflix manages it. So does HBO.
So it is clearly a solvable/solved problem. There may even be tools that the streaming services can buy to make life simpler for them (like the game industry).
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the pricing is reasonable it should net more revenue for content producers than any other model.
New York Post "writers" (Score:5, Interesting)
And how much did the cable and satellite companies pay Johnny Oleksinski to write that article?
Fragmentation (Score:5, Insightful)
You would have thought they learned their lesson.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is really if the "other" streaming services can hit a critical mass. Traditionally, Disney relied on the network effect to market to kids; they could jeapordize that by not being able to access even 10-15% of the demographic. If that number is 50%, they could be in trouble with their strategy.
If Disney is at risk, it is worse for other competitors. Sports could work (and still save money), but it comes down to the price point. Who wants to pay for a service that you still have to watch ads?!
Re:Fragmentation (Score:4, Insightful)
Everything produced before 2003 would now be public domain under the original copyright law in America. These new proposed streaming services like Disney's would have no teeth under 14 year copyrights.
As far as I can tell the teeth Disney currently has is based on Star Wars and Marvel properties, yet a lot of that should already be public domain. For Star Wars, only episode 3, episode 7, and that silly tweener movie would still be copyrighted. For Marvel several of the X-Man movies, Spiderman, and other assorted would already be public domain.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
A franchise agreement is hardly a monopoly.
When they only issue 1 at a time, its a fucking monopoly you fucking statist cable company apologist fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fragmentation (Score:5, Funny)
I am NOT going to buy one for HBO, or Disney, or any other service. I have stopped going to the theatre because its too expensive and too many of the "must see greatest film of this year" are just over hyped crap.
I have zero interest in being force fed adverts.
So basically I have been pushed towards reading books, and taking up a hobby. Looking buy a small lathe and learn how to use it to make model steam engines etc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And from there I will get a friend around to make sure when I first use the thing in anger I will not harm myself, break a window or scare the dog.
Possibly looking at a Seig C2 for a start and see how I go from there.
Re: (Score:2)
The fragmentation of services like HBO and the new Disney service will lead to a case against cord cutting
It will also lead to a case of simply not bothering.
I may be atypical (though hardly alone) in that I just don't have a need for TV. I do use Netflix, but if the value of that continues to be reduced, I will have no hesitation to just drop it and not be bothered. Maybe I'll keep their old-fashioned DVD service, and watch 4 or 5 movies per month.
There are plenty of worthwhile and interesting things to do besides watch TV.
Or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Aka, don't subscribe to video content services, option 3.
We don't have any paid content services, and frankly there are so many channels over the air right now that we don't need paid content services.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can rent or buy the DVD. Is there a rule you must watch it as it airs?
Well, yes, if you want to partake in out-of-viewing cultural discussion (which is a large part of the joy of watching) then yes you need to experience it at the same time as others.
Re: (Score:2)
You may not need it but a lot of people want to watch Game of Thrones...
A lot of people have no life, and fantasize about murderous rampages with dragons.
A lot of people are so worried about the value of their own life they seek to increase it by putting down others' choices.
Re: (Score:2)
Outside is so overrated. [grin]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Screencutting? (Score:2)
If everyone did that, who would post replies on Slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
... you could, you know, just go outside and have a life away from screens.
Ah yes, I wondered how long it would be before some "I don't even *own* a TV!" elite would pitch in their condescending offtopic judgement...
Re: (Score:2)
Against != For (Score:2)
Shouldn't the title read "Columnist Mocks The Case For Cord-Cutting ..."
I have to agree with the naysayers for now (Score:2)
If I watched more than this, I think it would probably be simpler and cheaper to just get cable or satellite.
I suspect and hope that one day the shakeout that's happening now will be resolved, and real a la carte se
what if you cut the cable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Too many choices? If you say so. I think people can handle having choices. I personally choose not to participate.
Re: (Score:2)
I stopped watching cable around 2002. But since 2005 I have had cable only because it was cheaper to bundle the internet with some basic TV package; than just the internet. It also stops the annoying quarterly calls from the cable company about how they can make my life so much better with a more expensive package.
I don't think people have really "watched" TV for a long time. Its just some moving picture in the background at parties and dinners. No one schedules their lives around shows anymore. Around
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too many choices? If you say so. I think people can handle having choices. I personally choose not to participate.
And many would argue that experiencing art is one of the joys and points of being human. Whereas walking your dog is.... walking. With a dog.
It's fine that you don't feel you want to watch TV - go nuts. But not everything on TV is some valueless exercise, sometimes it's awesome art. Sometimes it's history. Sometimes it's that thing that you use to talk to and connected with other people.
content as a monopoly (Score:5, Interesting)
Cord cutting reveals the content distribution chain as a series of monopolies. By copyright law, the producer of content owns a monopoly. But through subsequent licensing deals, additional monopolies are created. Like the last mile pipe, content distribution networks, and DNS, streaming infrastructure is a shared service that provide benefit to everyone on the net yet when commercially owned creates monopolies or walled gardens.
I remember interview with some Hollywood type in which they expressed a strong hatred for streaming services because the brand was no longer the studio or the production house but it was the program itself. The same effect is happening with streaming services. I don't think of "Man in the high Castle" as part of the Amazon brand. Its brand is "Man in the high Castle".
I think it's past time for a RAND policy for all content and a method of making sure everyone gets paid
Re: (Score:2)
It is, though. (Score:5, Insightful)
my problem... (Score:2)
My ideal situation would be: single streaming device, pay for movies on a per-movie basis, pay for TV shows on a per-season basis or per-episode basis (discount for purchasing whole season), pa
Different folks - different truths (Score:4, Interesting)
This isn't an argument that can have a single truth that covers everyone. There are some people who are experiencing the difficulties described and many who aren't. People are different with different levels of capability and tolerance. If there is no way that you will give up live access to CNN, you can't cut your cable. I cut my cable more than a decade ago and still miss certain aspects.
In my case, I will not pay more than about $20 per month for the family beyond my internet costs for all media purchases combined. I'd likely maintain that limit even if I had limitless income because it serves the purpose of limiting my viewing time too.
That generally means I'll pay for two services and no more. Right now, I'm just paying for Netflix and a music service. There is no chance that Disney or any other service will ever get my business unless they can fully supplant Netflix for the same price. If the price point is significantly compromised, I'll go back to watching only what is free.
It would obly be better (Score:2)
If you could also cut the cord on Cable Internet. Maybe that would get some attention from the cable companies...
There don't seem to be any choices other than surfing at the library or on your phone or connected tablet.
Cord cutting? Meet the new boss, same as the old (Score:5, Informative)
Streaming used to be seen as an alternative to cable, but let's face it: It's turning out to be the same. Yes, yes, you can now choose when to watch your show instead of having to wait for it to appear on X-day Y-time, but face it, the difference is nonexistent. Now, instead of watching it when it's aired you watch it when it is available for streaming, and if you want to watch it later, you basically save yourself the VCR programming, because that's basically what watching it later than release essentially is.
Well, maybe (soon) without the ability to skip ads.
No ads you say? There were no ads in cable either in the beginning. Give it time.
The rest is already the same as cable was. Again you get different streaming providers that offer different content, which isn't so different from the different cable packages. Again you get to pay for provider (package) A, even though you are only interested in 10% of its programming. You'd want to watch show B, but show B is only available from provider (package) C, so you either have to shell out another X bucks to get that provider (package) even though all you really want from it is that one show and you couldn't care less for the rest of what comes bundled with it.
Face it: Streaming is the new cable. You just let someone else rip you off.
Re: Cord cutting? Meet the new boss, same as the o (Score:2)
Not really? Cable was first a co-op that put up a mast and pushed OTA into homes that were in a valley. Commercials were included.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an old fart. I distinctly remember that there were some "premium" channels that had no ads since you paid for them. Then slowly they started to have "promos" for their upcoming programming, soon after you endured "promos" for various shows they showed on other channels, and eventually when they noticed that people did actually swallow this, it was only a small step to normal ads. But only after shows and films and not interrupting them. At first, at least. Then it was just one ad block cutting a film in
Re: (Score:2)
Streaming is good for people who want just to have one or two high quality channels, like say Netflix and Amazon. But if you have a household with kids, and everyone has his favorite show, soon you realize you want to have a full service cable subscription, because it has all the movie channels, all the cartoon channels, all the sports channels, and all the news channels.
Re: (Score:3)
Nah. Netflix's "Kids mode" is plenty nice.
One possibly real downside (Score:2)
TiVo (Score:2)
>"Roku, Amazon Fire TV, and Apple TV all offer universal search across services like Netflix and Hulu[...]"
You left out TiVo, which was not only first, but still one of the most powerful. Couple it with either cable or OTA antenna and go to town.
He forgot the #1 unsaid argument.... (Score:2)
....he can't share a cable stream like he can a Netflix or Hulu password. THAT'S why the cost argument falls on my cutters' deaf ears; they're already saving. If one pays the going rate, the argument isn't as nearly as compelling as the whiny author makes it out to be.
Making it a competition is just stupid (Score:2)
It's not a competition. Cable will fit better certain types of TV watchers, cord cutting will fit others better. And it's a plenty different selection of stuff.
But the whole idea is that cord cutting is an option now, and I hope more and more people start adapting to it and stop giving money to these oligopolies.
And I do get where the guy who wrote the original article is coming from. Disney is taking their content out of Netflix, a bunch of other production studios, branches and whatnot are creating their
How is streaming services bundling in crap ... (Score:2)
... different from cable-companies doing effectively the very same thing?
Too many channels? Use Netflix DVD (Score:4, Insightful)
My own cure for the problem of that interesting show being on the streaming service I don't have is to wait for the end of the season, which means only about 10 episodes these days anyhow, and then view it on Netflix DVD.
The streaming market is now in that phase after a new tech becomes popular when there are large numbers of brands on the market. It was this way with cars in the 1920s. After the forthcoming big wave of consolidation, it won't be so much of a problem.
Again (Score:2)
I guess his point is: 5 bucks for a VPN and you can get all of them for free.
Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Easy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Buy a season pass from Apple or Amazon.
Problem solved. You still paid less money.
People just can't appreciate how much money is spent on cable relative to the cost of content. Most people just aren't numerate enough to fully grok the numbers involved.
Cable is expensive. Content is cheap.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about your library, but it takes an insane amount of time to check anything useful out from mine, and if they have a popular show the wait for it is months.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say your library just isn't that great. I'm not the OP, but my library runs through the entire city, with multiple branches and will generally have copies of anything that I want to borrow available in at least one of the many branches. I can then request that copy and have it at my branch within 2 days of the request being made, assuming that it's not already available in my local branch when I request it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Having different standards doesn't mean having none.
I'm fine with sex but not so happy about violence and religion.
But most of all, I'm fine with people having a choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
All the new stuff is full of swear words and sex, bleh, not in my living room.
How do you know?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a TV. I still happen to like both Scrapheap Challenge and Mythbusters, and there are some other shows that can be interesting or amusing, such as How It's Made or Glee (do wish they'd stop putting so much awful drama in). Interests vary, naturally.
Re: (Score:2)
OK Grandpa. Make sure you're in bed before 8 and take your medicine too.
Come on, I stay up until 10 once in a while.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse than that. Back when I "cut the cord" they were popping up commercials at the bottom of the screen while you were trying to watch a show. And they wanted me to pay $12,000 a decade or more for that? That was the final straw for me.
Re: (Score:3)
$12,000 pays for a lot of DVDs, BDs, and Amazon season passes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And you'd be wrong.... although I wouldn't argue that you might be right as a generalization, speaking from personal experience, after my wife and I cut our cable subscription, we still watched all of the shows that we would otherwise watch on television entirely legally, by just streaming them from the network's website. The only caveat to this was that you couldn't
Re: (Score:3)
It's quite different here in Australia, cable/pay tv is not the norm here, most people have stuck with free-to-air tv. Streaming services, as a result are gaining in popularity, because they're a lot cheaper.
With that said, free to air audiences have dropped significantly, peak audiences are about half what they were from a decade ago (excluding sport). I really watch very little TV, and go months at a time without switching it on. I tend to find more interesting things published on youtube. While I'm not i
Re:Cord-cutting (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever it is that you 'want' to watch on cable, there's another option online that will entertain you just as much.
Re:Cord-cutting (Score:5, Insightful)
When I first used Netflix streaming, I held the plan for about a year. Since then I subscribe for ~2 months per year because I've already exhausted their core catalog. They have some content I am not getting elsewhere, but I dont need a 24/7/365 plan to consume it.
Amazons non-prime model is pay as you go, while their prime model is tied to more than just streaming video. Disney can do the first and that would be great, but they cant do the second at all. They are going for the Netflix model and that just isnt going to land 24/7/365 business.
Re: (Score:2)
Also there is a huge logical fallacy in the articles argument, which is that you will subscribe full-time to these services instead of switching every few months.
That's a really good point.
Re: (Score:2)
Once you kick the habit, it's definitely an option. And a damn fine one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:helpless at making sound purchase decisions (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The cord cutting black market (pirating) is the best experience of them all which is evidence that government is at the core of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The question is - Why does someone read the New York Post? Spending time talking about an article on the New York Post is a waste of time.
Just to aggravate the hell out of twerps like you is one good reason.
Nice to have a single house on flat land (Score:2)
Nice but not very common. If you are in an apartment, you can't install your own rooftop antena. If you are on/near the hills, forget about consistent reception. And finding the right place to live makes cable costs a rounding error.
Re: (Score:2)