Cutting The Cord -- How to leave cable companies?

cybercoma · August 28, 2014

Also, if the networks (or production companies) were smart, they would offer their pilot episodes to the public for free. Charging them thereafter for each episode. This gives you a chance to watch the show, see what it's about, and if you enjoy it then you will likely buy it. Network television is dead. Tv stations are dead. There's a way to deliver content that's profitable and even more convenient to the consumer and that's the direction they will go.

Boges · August 28, 2014

Also, if the networks (or production companies) were smart, they would offer their pilot episodes to the public for free. Charging them thereafter for each episode. This gives you a chance to watch the show, see what it's about, and if you enjoy it then you will likely buy it. Network television is dead. Tv stations are dead. There's a way to deliver content that's profitable and even more convenient to the consumer and that's the direction they will go.

So every show you watch: even the home improvement show or the sports debate show, the show about a pawn shop, the evening news, the sporting event, the late night comedy show, the awards show, you'll have to pay per episode/event?

Sounds a lot more expensive then the current subscription model.

Shows like Breaking Bad wouldn't have grown to become the success they became under this model because it initially wasn't met with a lot of attention or fanfare. In fact most didn't even know about Breaking Bad until it was on Netflix after years of being carried by a Cable TV channel.

I see Netflix as a channel like any other you subscribe to.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Boges

cybercoma · August 29, 2014

I don't watch nearly as much television now and don't miss it one bit. The shows I do watch now are ones I want to see, not noise I put on just to have something on the television.

Boges · August 29, 2014

A subscription/on demand model is the way entertainment is going.

People pay $10 now for unlimited music through Google Play.

Channels won't go it alone because cable companies offer protection with mandatory carriage.

But services like this new Rogers/Shaw operation will be the norm.

cybercoma · August 30, 2014

We'll see. A subscription model like you're talking is nothing more than the same as having channels but delivered online instead. I being able to purchase the individual shows you want to watch will eventually be the norm. In fact, it would be very easy to implement through the subscription service. So I wouldn't be surprised to see some point in the future where Rogers or Netflix ends up making deal with the production companies or networks to charge for their individual shows, above the price of the subscription. They'll call it "premium content" or some other euphemism. You'll get a base package of stuff included with your monthly fee, but you'll also be able to buy "premium content" individually.

Edited August 30, 2014 by cybercoma

Boges · August 30, 2014

We'll see. A subscription model like you're talking is nothing more than the same as having channels but delivered online instead. I being able to purchase the individual shows you want to watch will eventually be the norm. In fact, it would be very easy to implement through the subscription service. So I wouldn't be surprised to see some point in the future where Rogers or Netflix ends up making deal with the production companies or networks to charge for their individual shows, above the price of the subscription. They'll call it "premium content" or some other euphemism. You'll get a base package of stuff included with your monthly fee, but you'll also be able to buy "premium content" individually.

You can do that on iTunes. Except with HBO.

Bryan · August 30, 2014

Also, if the networks (or production companies) were smart, they would offer their pilot episodes to the public for free. Charging them thereafter for each episode.

That's what iTunes generally does for most new network shows. In some cases, the pilot episode remains free even when the show is several seasons in.

cybercoma · August 31, 2014

They do sometimes, but not often enough imo.

overthere · September 5, 2014

At one time I thought picking and choosing your channels would be the way to go.

If this happens- picking individual channels instead of the mandatory packages of channels now required on cable or satellite- the entire industry will be turned on its ear and the economic impact on the entire industry will be profound.

Boges · September 5, 2014

If this happens- picking individual channels instead of the mandatory packages of channels now required on cable or satellite- the entire industry will be turned on its ear and the economic impact on the entire industry will be profound.

Say goodbye to local and even National News on TV under that model.

overthere · September 6, 2014

Say goodbye to local and even National News on TV under that model.

More than that, much more.

I get a couple hundred channels and watch perhaps 15, none of them traditional networks. The job losses in traditional TV production and broadcast would be immense. The industry would undergo the wrenching dislocation seen in the music industry, on a bigger scale.

Not that it would be all bad.

cybercoma · September 8, 2014

Good. The industry needs it.

Bryan · September 8, 2014

Say goodbye to local and even National News on TV under that model.

On traditional TV sure. No loss. There's a whole big internet out there full of all manner of news sources.

Good. The industry needs it.

It really does. Far too many channels are able to exist only because we are required to pay for them. Any and all channels should be able to sustain themselves. Can you imagine if you walked into a store to buy a special interest magazine (Sports Illustrated, Road and Track, Playboy, whatever), and were told you were required to buy a pile of Canadian magazines like Flair and Chatelaine before you'd be ALLOWED to buy that other one? How about being required to visit 5 designated websites before your ISP would allow you to navigate to the one you want? Try picturing if grocery shopping was done under such a model!!

cybercoma · September 8, 2014

The only thing is that I agree with having CBC as a national network for exclusively Canadian art and content, paid for through tax funding and not a subscription model, available freely in multiple formats (e.g., streaming, cable, satellite, radio). If people don't want to watch, don't. However, I think it's important for our artists to have a venue for their work.

Edited September 8, 2014 by cybercoma

Boges · September 8, 2014

An a la carte model would end up costing people more. Especially if you have a family.

I don't watch HGTV or W but my wife does. My wife doesn't watch TSN, Sportsnet or the NFL Network but I do. We both watch Comedy and the Major Networks though. If you have Kids Disney XD or YTV are great and they're included in basic cable.

There are avenues for people who don't actually watch a lot of TV to get the small amount of TV they do want but the Telcoms shouldn't feel the need to cater to them.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Boges

cybercoma · September 8, 2014

An a la carte model would end up costing people more. Especially if you have a family.

Which is another reason why it will happen. If the companies can make more money off it, then they will. It's a better business strategy. Your problem is that you're thinking about TV the old way. Where you flip it on and surf through channels and watch whatever just because it's there. You would be surprised how little you're actually interested in these programs. You'll only by the stuff you really want to watch and your life will be all the better for it.

The only thing I can think of that has a reasonable chance of stopping this from happening is advertisers. There's too much money from companies in advertising to go to the model that I'm saying will be the future of television consumption. They'll either fight the transition or come up with new ways to deliver ads to people. I'll tell you one thing though, if I'm buying a season from a show, just as though I'm buying it on blu-ray or DVD, then I better not have ads in it or I won't pay for it.

People can resist the change, but it's coming. The groundwork has already been laid for it. The same thing will eventually happen for video games too. People won't be able to get disks eventually. They'll have to stream their content online, buying unlimited licenses for the content. I'm not looking forward to that, but it's inevitable at this point.

Edited September 8, 2014 by cybercoma

Boges · September 8, 2014

Which is another reason why it will happen. If the companies can make more money off it, then they will. It's a better business strategy. Your problem is that you're thinking about TV the old way. Where you flip it on and surf through channels and watch whatever just because it's there. You would be surprised how little you're actually interested in these programs. You'll only by the stuff you really want to watch and your life will be all the better for it.

The only thing I can think of that has a reasonable chance of stopping this from happening is advertisers. There's too much money from companies in advertising to go to the model that I'm saying will be the future of television consumption. They'll either fight the transition or come up with new ways to deliver ads to people. I'll tell you one thing though, if I'm buying a season from a show, just as though I'm buying it on blu-ray or DVD, then I better not have ads in it or I won't pay for it.

People can resist the change, but it's coming. The groundwork has already been laid for it. The same thing will eventually happen for video games too. People won't be able to get disks eventually. They'll have to stream their content online, buying unlimited licenses for the content. I'm not looking forward to that, but it's inevitable at this point.

Actually most people don't do that. They have a DVR and have programs they like set to record and watch as they please.

I would never sign on to a model where I would have to buy individual programs as they come out. I'd go to bit-torrenting before I do that.

cybercoma · September 10, 2014

You'll pay $150/month for cable/satellite television, but you won't buy an entire year's worth of a show for $39. Ok. Makes sense.

Edited September 10, 2014 by cybercoma

Boges · September 10, 2014

You'll pay $150/month for cable/satellite television, but you won't buy an entire year's worth of a show for $39. Ok. Makes sense.

You're kidding right?

$39 is for about 16 hours worth of programming as opposed to $150 several channels 24/7.

$150 would include the DVR, specialty channels and the internet too.

I'm a big NFL fan but I'm not dropping $30/month to watch games that are regional for about 6 or 7 hours a week on a Sunday.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Boges

Mighty AC · September 10, 2014

Streaming NFL games via the Chromecast worked very well. Unfortunately, my Giants did not. Megatron is too damn good.

Boges · September 10, 2014

Streaming NFL games via the Chromecast worked very well. Unfortunately, my Giants did not. Megatron is too damn good.

It does, but can't beat watching on normal TV in full HD. Some streams are better than others. I'm looking to use it to watch some College football on Saturday.

I can't justify getting NFL Sunday Ticket for pretty much the 1pm games every week.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Boges

cybercoma · September 11, 2014

You're kidding right?

$39 is for about 16 hours worth of programming as opposed to $150 several channels 24/7.

$150 would include the DVR, specialty channels and the internet too.

I'm a big NFL fan but I'm not dropping $30/month to watch games that are regional for about 6 or 7 hours a week on a Sunday.

You don't watch several channels 24 hours a day 7 days a week. You watch a few series that you're interested in which have a season that airs once a year. Say there's 12 shows that you absolutely must watch. That's still only about $480 for the entire year, or about 3.5 months of cable fees. Frankly, there aren't a dozen shows on television worth watching.

I hate to tell you this, but I cut the cord a long time ago and haven't missed it a bit. We spend MUCH less on television than we used to and we're legally buying the shows that we watched on TV. Oh and the best part is there's not a single commercial.

So you can sit here and wax poetic about why it's awful, but it's not. We've done it. It's fantastic.

Boges · September 11, 2014

You don't watch several channels 24 hours a day 7 days a week. You watch a few series that you're interested in which have a season that airs once a year. Say there's 12 shows that you absolutely must watch. That's still only about $480 for the entire year, or about 3.5 months of cable fees. Frankly, there aren't a dozen shows on television worth watching.

I hate to tell you this, but I cut the cord a long time ago and haven't missed it a bit. We spend MUCH less on television than we used to and we're legally buying the shows that we watched on TV. Oh and the best part is there's not a single commercial.

So you can sit here and wax poetic about why it's awful, but it's not. We've done it. It's fantastic.

Not all TV shows are serialized dramas. For example I DVR Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert whenever it's on. There are multiple weekly HBO programs I watch.

I like watching Sports analysis shows during the week. My wife watches reality shows. Not to mention actual games.

If you made TV a la carte it'd ad up fast. Unless you don't watch TV much at all. Then Cutting the Cord is fine. But to say that's how EVERYONE is going to consume TV in the future is completely presumptuous.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Boges

cybercoma · September 11, 2014

Oh but it is. The proof is in the numbers. People are moving away from traditional models because they're inefficient and more expensive. You bring up Colbert and Stewart, both of whom publish their shows online after they air. You think people won't switch over because you're used to doing things a certain way. Well, in time, you'll be doing things a different way and won't have any choice because studios will realize they can make more money this way.

Boges · September 11, 2014

Oh but it is. The proof is in the numbers. People are moving away from traditional models because they're inefficient and more expensive. You bring up Colbert and Stewart, both of whom publish their shows online after they air. You think people won't switch over because you're used to doing things a certain way. Well, in time, you'll be doing things a different way and won't have any choice because studios will realize they can make more money this way.

No, you're advocating an a la carte method. Cord Cutters like Mighty AC are clearly moving over to online subscription models. Netflix is certainly not a la carte.