It seems to me that consumers are harmed when megacorporations that own/produce tv and movies then also create a monopoly for themselves in *delivering* that content to viewers. If we still had robust federal anti-trust enforcement, I wonder if there is a case to be made for breaking apart content ownership from content delivery, and requiring that content owners license their content to *any* delivery company on equivalent terms?
18
I like MSNBC but to get it Dish forces you into a bundle that has 3 Fox “news” channels. There is no way I’m giving any money to Fox. Also Dish has stopped broadcasting the local CBS channel, I haven’t seen a reduction in my Dish bill. Streaming is prohibitive for me because I have a satellite internet provider and streaming goobles up my data. My only option is Centurylink which is on a old, slow telephone line, I got kilobyte speeds from them. Since Naples, Fl has awarded a exclusive to centurylink which should be illegal I’m stuck.
Compared to the rest of the world, Americans are getting ripped off by cable providers. Another example of socialism for corporations.
17
The greatest threat to netflix is their poor programming. It is stupid and violent and caters to the lowest common denominator. We can never find anything worth watching on Netflix.
We find plenty of old movies, foreign films and newer tv shows worth watching on Youtube, Amazon Prime and many other streaming services, such as Criterion.
We cut the cable chord a while back. Nothing to see on gadzillions of channels. Why go back to that?
This piece sold me on Disney+, if they're trying to flog it to me cheaply as a bridge to their other products, joke's on them. When I emerge from my digital hermitage, it's to smell flowers and walk in the green grass, not to physically participate in such branded pageantry.
2
Streaming was supposed to be the next iteration of how people would consume their entertainment. A true marker of the 21st century. It was also supposed to be the brave new frontier for the small screen. A better, cheaper alternative to the moribund cable.
In terms of content (though TV experienced a revival that really started in the late 90s and early 2000s) this change has delivered. I'd be hard-pressed to find many movies today, which can match TV in terms of quality, variety, storytelling and characters and increasingly scale as well as production values. If one were to take "Game Of Thrones" for example and it's 73 episodes, one could argue that those more resemble 73 movies stretched out over eight glorious seasons.
Streaming services like Hulu, Amazon Prime and of course Netflix have left an indelible mark in this transformation, next to the usual suspects like HBO, Showtime, Starz, AMC and FX.
The problem lies in the way people access their content and the fact that soo many of the media mega-mergers of the past decade or so has left fewer competitors around. These days consumers have to contend with a small (and still shrinking) number of mammoth players who not only own the content we want to see but also the means of distribution and the access to said content.
Ironically, as the streaming field is crowding with seemingly everyone and their grandmother offering some kind of service, and bills increasing, cable doesn't seem soo bad or dead all of a sudden.
1
Many of these packages are redundant with similar line ups. Hence, I can easily drop one and adopt another to keep my channel line up lean and cost effective. Not only that but cutting the cord has shown me that many of the channels I use to have were simply not that worthy of my paying for them. Top that off with multiple companies offering off the air DVRs that work with the streaming devices from Roku And Amazon and in most areas you’ll have another 30 channels of free entertainment.
BitTorrent still exists. Old people fault to understand technology. News at 11.
3
I'm very close to cutting Netflix and Amazon as, over the past couple of years, both have plummeted in terms of the quality and quantity of shows worth watching. I cut the cable cord well over a decade ago and haven't turned on my TV with its little inside antenna set up in many, many months. Audiobooks enchant and the real thing always beckons (both are free through my library). That would be the best thing that could ever happen to us--going back to books.
2
I honestly don't know why I am paying for Netflix. I can never find anything worth watching on Netflix. I think so much of their programming is so full of violence; often directed at women. The things they "select" for me are usually awful. One has to dig for anything remotely good there.
I can usually find something pretty good on Amazon Prime.
The Public library is amazing and we go there often. Lots of great books, DVD's, and even games and stuff. Plus, nice people! And you can order stuff too.
15
I enjoy entertainment all the time, commercial free. It's called A BOOK!
3
I wouldn’t mind sports channels I don’t watch, or even an extra tax for a stadium, if organized sports were primarily geared towards providing good role models for children. “Bench clearing” in MLB, charging the mound, pitchers intentionally hitting batters, fights in hockey, none of this should ever occur and if it does, your career is over.
The reason is that if boys are violent in school, they are suspended, sometimes expelled. Violence towards one’s partner or spouse should lose the player their career, not a suspension, and the reason why is the message it sends to young boys and men - that its at least somewhat tolerated. Pitchers caught cheating, bats filled with cork, purposeful late hits in NFL, Deflate Gate, video showing an NFL player stomping on another player’s head with their heel. Again, the player’s career should be done. Throwing equipment violently around in the dugout,” that maybe is a suspension.
If not teaching ethics, proper conduct, good sportsmanship, fair play, being good winners and good losers, the importance of having good character by modeling this behavior for young people, what else justifies their existence? The answer: nothing.
"For decades, all TV content was “free.”"
It still is free!
I have over the air tv. I get about thirty channels.
ok I have to watch twighlight zone reruns, but what do I care.
I bought a new antenna, and I picked up a philly channel in jc. I called my cousin in philly and we watched a phillies game together.
I'll never pay for tv so long as it's over the air.
4
Simple solution, treat isp connections like a utility. What you do with your connection is your business, just like water and electricity.
i guess i'd better get my simpsons retrospective underway b/c i refuse to pay extra for a disney streaming service.
1
And the price of a library card, if any, continues to purchase the best card in the universe!
4
Never had cable or cable bills. No TV for 12 years now and not missing it. That's what freedom looks like.
1
This is the nexus where socialist Hollywood and socialist America butt heads. A cohort of Americans this should all be free - music, TV, film. But what would happen to their celebrity heroes? They don't really desire to be penniless. People want to get $15 an hour to give me incorrect change, but they pirate and steal content constantly. Now they want just the shows they want, or just the channels they want for free or close to it. This group largely overlaps with the free college, universal income, and free cheese crowd. I imagine they will soon want free cars and free iPhones. It will all kill jobs, because that's ok, money is free!
Now that The Handmaid's Tale is done with its season on Hulu, I'll cancel. Later when it comes back, I'll subscribe to it again.
As a member of Amazon, I've subscribed to Showtime to watch "The Loudest Voice" and once I'm done, I'll cancel the subscription. That should be for one month.
As to bundles, that's why the cable companies are going out of business.
Because of better alternatives.
IF that "Bundles" business is re-introduced by media monoliths, don't patronize them if they're going to blackmail you.
Read a book.
2
This might not be popular, but we subscribe to quite a few streaming services, and we feel they are a bargain. TV now provides high quality shows: The Marvelous Miss Maisel, Mozart in the Jungle, Call the Midwife, Downton Abbey, Big Little Lies, The Good Fight, Star Trek Discovery, Lost in Space, FRankie and Grace. Even detective shows like True Detective and Boshe are entertaining viewing experiences. And this from a voracious reader.
I am grateful for this excellent TV.
4
And you can afford it too. But some of us just can't. :et's go back to the radio and books!
1
Not only will consumers be forced into bundles.... streaming video is still not a reliable method of delivering content. Too many disruptions in service.. probably due to too much congestion on the internet streams from provider to consumer and some combination of preferential treatment of some stream services on some internet backbones.
Articles like this are Luddite catnip. Do I miss being tied to time-certain shows whose pacing is dictated by long commercial breaks and dumbed-down to a 7th grader’s intellect? Heck no.
I watch what I want when I want. No one could argue to me that a grand production like GoT doesn’t better bring an author’s work to realization than just the printed prose. I won’t go back.
1
You can find absolutely anything you want for free on the Internet. Who cares? Stop paying.
Get the news on the Internet.
Read books.
Decades ago the big studios owned almost all the movie theaters. Film makers who weren't part of the "system" had a hard time in the distribution channel. You wanted to watch a picture from Studio A, most of the time you could only see it at a Studio A's movie house which often didn't have films from Studio B or C.Then the government broke up the whole thing. Decades later, it seems we're heading back there again, only instead of the old movie house it is a streaming service.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, for writing this article!
You have just now conclusively proven to me that PBS is:
1. The most intelligent visual media paradigm available in the US.
2. The most cost effective, “streaming service,” in terms of entertainment value per dollar spent.
3. The most democratic of all the visual news/entertainment outlets in the US, “by a long-long-longshot.”
—
For as little as $60/year [disclaimer: this is my own estimate], I get everything I’v always wanted in TV entertainment. [Footnote: I am a college graduate.]
—
Like the other US media conglomerates, PBS relies heavily on its subscribers, to stay on the air. But unlike many commercial media outlets in the US, it “pairs,” with other, “public,” broadcasters, including the BBC and and the CBC.
—
The result?
PBS offers varied, intellectually stimulating programming of elevated cultural significance, for a reasonable price to subscribers.
Why not join up? You won’t be disappointed!
2
Good entertainment costs money. You can always play Scrabble with your family if you don't want to pay for it.
1
I use torrents and get all the rv shows and mvies i wish to watch
What these articles miss is that a lot of us don’t want access to all the tv and movies—or even most of them. Remember all those other articles about how those who watch more tv/sit die sooner... I’m happy to just have one or two services to scratch the itch occasionally.
There is very little left worth watching on regular cable TV and I resent having to subsidize sports channels. Cable TV is a terrible user experience. If a website business was equally as slow with such a poor interface and riddled with as many ads, it would never stay in business.
Here we are in 2019 and yet we still have 3 different remotes and to change a channel it takes the same amount of time as a website page to refresh; about 3 seconds. (Based on my experience with Verizon's mickey mouse set top box configuration where one set top box is a 'server'.) Cable TV is unwatchable in its native form without DVR because of so many commercials.
1
I will gladly pay to see the things I like without advertising, period. Gave up commercial TV a long time ago. Can’t believe people are still putting up with (and paying for!) this utterly mindless waste of time.
3
People do not have to purchase all of these packages. No one is forcing you to watch these programs. No one forces you to use Facebook or watch all these terrific programs with unknown screen stars.
Are there no adults who say enough is enough. We wonder why we are living pay check to pay check, paying for items we really dont need. Read a book
2
This op-ed piece is nothing but a part of Amazon's negotiations with content companies, conducted in public in the hope that public opinion will push the negotiations in Amazon's favor.
Pulling the plug on CSPAN would stop a lot of the peacocking in Warshington. Anything in the CSPAN library of historical value could be sold -- and rebated back to cable customers. Let's lower our cable bills, and keep making America great again.
It's been said already. There is a very simple solution to this for everyone. Quit watching so much TV. 90% of movies and TV shows are unwatchable anyway. Read a book, magazine, news articles. Listen to a Podcast. Go participate in your hobby. Play a board game. Sit on your porch and have drink with your spouse/family and watch the sunset. I have nothing against TV/Movies, but there is very little worth watching and trying to fill 2-3hrs a day with it means you will be watching a lot of garbage. People binge watch entire seasons of a good show in two days and are then clamoring for more to watch. It's to much. Fill your time with other much less expensive, more rewarding activities. TV is an addiction you need to overcome.
2
I cannot use my left leg (or sit in a chair) due to spine injury.
So, I cannot “take a walk, walk a dog, make a pot of soup, go to a museum “(or a movie or restaurant or other activities.
Since this happened in mid-life, I miss those activities. As the population ages, many more people will be in some form of my situation- temporarily or permanently.
I read a lot. I live in one of those small wealthy communities that somehow can’t afford anything but the most popular best-sellers.
I am grateful for streaming services that allow me to enjoy series, movies & documentaries. Many services have gotten both poorer in content and higher in price. Hardware is outrageously priced and internet service is...pathetic? A rip-off?
Would I trade in the surfeit of current online content for “traditional TV.” Not a chance. Would I want to see everything on a 13.3 screen. No. I can even keep up with ballet(albeit, limited) via YouTube or Tennis(all you sports snobs).
My quality of life would be dreadful without it.
1
I had it with the decline of DIRECTV, while watching the prices soar. I pulled the plug: no more TV. The result?
More peace and quiet; no more watching MSNBC, which will have 5 minutes of program material followed by a 5 minute commercial, followed by a 30 second tease by the host followed again by a 5 minute commercial. How dare they!!
I read more & I sleep better, with the absence of trying to force my poor brain to race to keep up with camera shot-changes every 6 seconds, and then hopping from channel to channel while simultaneously recording 2 other shows...
Peace is wonderful, and the extra money in my pocket doesn't hurt either.
2
I dropped cable and use OTA and streaming. I simply won't pay for shows I won't ever watch in order to have access to preferred content. No content is so important to myself to put up with inflated bills. The service providers use these practices because consumers are willing to pay for them while complaining about them. Ultimately I blame the consumer.
1
We dumped Comcast years ago because they were expensive and only offered minimal international channels, and even those at an extra cost.
You can watch TV from countries all over the world on Squid TV, and it is totally free.
2
The free version of YouTube and a $7.50 monthly contribution to PBS offer some really high quality fare. I'm about ready to give up Netflix as it has become hard to find the time to watch even one series on it.
2
We ended live television subscription b/c we were watching a tiny portion of the content.
There was a side benefit. Our then young kids weren't being subjected to endless advertising. Our family has really enjoyed the lack of television advertising.
Today we use a couple streaming services and if they ever begin to interrupt a show or movie with advertising, we'll quit them too.
Print advertising isn't a problem for us but the constant interruptions of television advertising is obnoxious. When we visit relatives or stay in a hotel we are acquainted with it. When I travel for work, I often never turn on the television in my hotel room at all.
So called reality television with much manufactured drama is about the worst of the breed to me.
5
@Joe Before Netflix blocked out the ability to view content from other countries, I used to watch the US stream because of the old TV shows like Andy Griffith etc. What amazed me was that the streaming time for each episode was 27 minutes for a "half hour" show. In other words, a minute interruption at the halfway point and 1 each before and after. These days on Network TV, try 21/22 minutes for a "half hour" show.
2
I'm delighted that I am not alone in thinking that the easy solution is simply not to watch TV. You can catch a few things online, or from the library if you don't mind not being up to date. Just smile and nod when people talk to you about their favorite show. It's not hard. And very inexpensive.
7
Regarding the vast mental distractive wasteland that is most (not all) of television, social media, digital gaming, etc., Neil Postman, author of “Amusing Ourselves to Death”, said:
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us. This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.”
6
I take issue with the ideas that what we need is big-budget shows and movies and that shows have gotten "better".
Budget doesn't equal quality. 'Primer', a "cult classic", had a budget of $7,000 and created the most realistic portrayal of the effects of scientific discovery on personal relationships. Having a tight budget forces show creators to make simpler choices, putting the actors front-and-center and relying on their skills to sell the story, unlike big-budget action pieces where all they need is a shot of the actor looking "dramatic" and then they layer on the special effects. Television and movies are so vapid and inane, and what we really need are important stories told well. All we get is flashing lights and melodrama.
But shows have not been getting "better". Tastes have changed. We look at old shows through a modern lens, which is great for deciding what we want to watch. However, to say that big budgets have made shows objectively better is fairly ignorant.
What entertainment needs is a lack of funds. It would force the content to be more honest, more true-to-life, more worthwhile. All these Marvel movies are soma, sapping the ability of teenagers to engage in real content.
We need more shows like the Twilight Zone and fewer shows like Real Housewives of Wherever.
3
Anyone paying attention knew this was going to happen eventually so am disappointed but not surprised.
My biggest gripe is that I need cable or a streaming service to watch free network TV via the internet/app.
In 2019, why do I even have to buy an antennae to watch live WTTW or NBC OTA? Because of some antiquated FCC law from the 1950's? They seem to be getting with the times on everything else but conveniently never address that issue....
3
The profit model seems to rely upon consumers buying the content we don't want in addition to perhaps one or two shows that we really, really want. This bundling is old-fashioned industry thinking. It's similar to people subscribing to magazines and then being too disorganized to unsubscribe. Well, I'm not subscribing to another monthly service for just one or two popular shows.
The sweet, loving arms of media piracy remain ever ready to embrace those of us who reject this usury.
1
What is 'klaxonic'?
1
I have been following the industry for a long time. Those who grew up without the internet have a very different perspective on what’s going on. Years ago, we actually enjoyed the expanding universe that cable and satellite offered. Eventually, it became normal to bash these uncompetitive monopolies that offered poor customer service. Today’s generation sees this as companies “sticking it to us”. What they don’t see is that streaming also allowed content companies to control their own distribution. We have Disney, ATT (owner of Time Warner) Hulu (owned by entertainment), Netflix, etc. It’s a new world, better in some ways, but not all.
1
Yet your public library, with hundred of thousands of books and e books and DVDs and CDs remains essentially free. I can easily order online virtually any movie or book my hear desires through my regional library catalog. They generally arrive at my local, small town library within a few days, and I hop on my bike or walk uptown to get them. What's not to like?
10
Mr. Ball is correct about the "ancillary" benefits of vertically integrated companies using a product line to sell other products the company offers. As an executive in the content creation space, there is no better time to be a fan of content you wish to watch. The emergence of technology has made content and the device you choose to consume it on instantly portable and while it may seem to be another version of the bundle where you only view a specific amount of channels, the choices that you now have at a lower price point is a benefit to all who choose view the content. The difference is, the market and new technologies will continue to make both affordable for most.
If the media corporations decide to pollute streaming the way they did cable people will just avoid paying for streaming content they way they avoided paying for cable content. Piracy was rampant in the 00s, to the extent that it was common for any friend I visited to have several hand-labeled discs with their favorite TV shows on them instead of a cable or satellite subscription. These same friends were among the earliest adopters of Netflix, Hulu, Roku, etc. Cheap, convenient options to watch content legitimately were all they really wanted. But when you start splitting up everything into more than a dozen streaming services all of which cost over $10 to subscribe to, it's no longer cheap, nor convenient.
Despite the movie and TV industry's moaning about piracy, the streaming era took off in spite of it, in spite of starting up in the wild west of online piracy. Netflix and Hulu were competing with torrents, with free content, and managed to become immensely profitable successes, due to the sheer convenience their service. People were willing to pay for something they could get for free, simply because it was easy to do so and made them feel less guilty. That's all it took to wean people off piracy.
This lesson seems lost on the the media companies. Good, convenient service at reasonable prices made people willingly pay for content they could and were getting FOR FREE. And instead of capitalizing on that goodwill from the public, they greedily exploit it. Typical.
2
I think a lot of streaming services will fail. I think there is a limit of about 5 packages most people will pay for. Plus content is expensive. My guess is that cbs and NBC will start to miss that Netflix revenue in about 24 months. Shareholders will wait a for profitability but only for so long. Disney still has to pay ESPN contract fees. Unless they can raise that package cost to 20 dollars. They are going to upset their shareholders. Amazon, apple roku own the new platforms so unless you are Google/netflix your going to have to play nice with them.
1
Plus most of the people with the “I must subscribe to everything “ mentality probably still have cable.
Although I'm forced to pay for cable as part of my condo association, I never watch it. The content is abysmal, and the frequency of ads is beyond annoying. If online viewing goes the way of cable, I'll leave Netflix and Amazon Prime and return to my former source - the public library. Movies and other content can now be streamed free of cost and ads. The content might not be the latest blockbusters, but you're only a few years from current. In addition, there is content not available in many other sources, including classic and international shows.
5
There is no requirement to purchase several streaming services at one time. You may purchase them one at a time . When you get bored with one, switch to the next one. The days when we were forced to purchase the whole bundle are over.
2
"Commercial based entertainment", as defined in America, is an oxymoron.
4
Anyone tried an antenna? AKA “rabbit ears”?
Customers have a choice here. There are CBS shows I’m interested in but I will not pay more than I already am so I can get 1-2 shows I actually want to watch there. If all these content producers start charging different subscriptions to watch their shows, they just won’t get my eyeballs or my business.
I won’t go back. If that eventually means I can’t watch anything new then so be it.
4
On the plus side, most of these services lack advertising, so that's already a lot better than cable TV. And if the new landscape becomes too onerous, there's always piracy. Netflix and Spotify showed that people will pay for content if it's reasonably priced and convenient, maybe the industry will have to learn that again.
A lot of people commenting claim that they never watch TV, they only read books. Evidently their entertainment also includes reading news pieces about what is available, at what price, on TV.
9
Cutting the cord to TV doesn't work anymore. I did it a few years ago, but my monthly charges for ISP have tripled. Why? Because I have a "choice" between Comcast and Verizon, which charge exactly the same. It's not in their interest to compete. What happened to getting more choices, like via utilities that already access our homes and businesses? We have more competitors for views, but fewer real choices. Like the rest of our economy, internet service is a monopoly or oligopoly that isn't regulated or competitive.
10
The biggest difference between the cable-only days and now is choice.
1
We can just stop buying their content. Stop paying exorbitant amounts of money a month and instead spend that money on going out or simply engaging with friends or the outdoors. Its been years since I paid for cable and every time I consider paying for cable I look at how few of their channels are of interest to me and don’t. If we don’t buy what they’re offering they’ll have to change their offerings.
3
"This may help us escape high prices and ads in the short term, but eventually the bill will come due."
For us the bill has already come due. After spending an hour at an ATT/DirectTV "help" center trying to get charges for a service we didn't order removed, we left in frustration without getting them fully expunged.
This was truly a Kafkaesque experience. The staff person helping us had to call overseas 3 times to get the charges removed and couldn't. To repeat, this was ATT's own staff person! Further, while this was going on, the phones they had displayed, had alarms that would, from time to time, go off with shrill, earsplitting sound. And the staff never seemed in a particular hurry to ever cut them off. (I can't help but wonder if this was deliberate in order to run off annoying people who wanted help with their bill.)
From looking at reviews online, our experience wasn't that unusual. Welcome to the Brave New World.
5
"Streaming Video Will Soon Look Like the Bad Old Days of TV"?
Of course it will. It was obvious this is the way things will go when people who own specific content create their own distribution platforms. There is inherent disconnect between consumers desiring simplicity and lower costs and content owners want to squeeze every drop out of their investment. Maybe need content neutral parties to focus on the distribution. Which of course brings the whole thing back full circle to bad old days!
6
Should we be surprised that relatively unfettered profit-chasing over the years, increasingly unregulated by a free-market Republican (or Democratic) leadership, leads to disregard for the consumer?
Not at all a sports fan, I've been paying for football and beach volleyball, pit bull and parolee marathon races, and Fox fencing with fiction for years -- through mounting cable fees and cryptic add-on charges. Cable/telephone/internet bundles? I question just how much communication with reality and beyond that I really need.
Having become hooked on Netflix, I will now pay whatever they charge me. I read far more hours than I watch TV. But until there is a novel version of G.L.O.W. -- with holographic visuals -- I suspect I will continue streaming my retirement savings to Netflix.
4
People keep mentioning books as an alternative, but I find that books fit right into my streaming universe. The local library participates in several online services that allow you to 'check out' so many books free, including audiobooks, including (albeit limited) video content (e.g., hoopla, libby, axis360). Many would complain those services don't have everything, or that you have to wait for more popular items (if a book is good today, it will be good two months from now). But I'm surprised how often I'll see something interesting referenced in NYT and will be able to find it and have it downloaded to my tablet within minutes, or at least have it added to the automated 'hold' list for later.
4
Klaxonic? Google doesn't even know what that word means.
2
@Wanda Thistlegruber A klaxon is a horn. I think this referring to the fact that commercials are much louder than the show itself.
11
I have stopped spending time trying to figure where to subscribe and what to download - I am reading a lot more.
7
Streaming will have to get a helluva lot worse before it can compete with the garbage that cable has become. This is especially true in areas where exactly zero competition exists. At least with streaming, I exert some kind of choice over what I receive. And, I don't have to "rent" commodity hardware every month to continue to feed cable profits.
3
As a Baby Boomer who grew up with five---count 'em, FIVE---television channels, all on a black-and-white television, and whom didn't know that the Wizard of Oz was in color until I was in my teens, it amazes me the array of options...and the staggering array of costs...of today's 'television.'
For me personally, my salvation has been YouTube. Yes, I know, I know; YouTube is known for it's mighty awful content, everything from the vainglorious hucksters to the ugliest of ugly politics. But it also has tens-of-thousands of old movies, most of them absolutely free-of-charge!
I can watch an old favorite from the 1940's, or one of those hokey made-for-tv movies from the 1960's or '70's, once a day, every day, for the rest of my life, and not even begin to make a dent in the choices.
It has been my salvation, television-wise. I highly recommend it.
11
Try growing up with two—I grew up in New Zealand. Television was a real treat then and waiting all week to see your favorite show was terrific. Now I only stream and love podcasting and audiobooks. It’s a great time to enjoy marvelous content and avoid advertising and I for one am soaking it up!
3
@RachelK . . two channels! I too had five counting public tv . . . wow!
William dallas press club 1981
1
Matthew Ball has a lot of valuable insights into the next iteration of the media business and its conglomerates. One interesting takeaway is that Netflix is in trouble because it has nothing to merchandise and therefore cannot make the big bucks. (One look at its formerly soaring stock chart and it seems Wall Street is sniffing that out quite efficiently) But, for all the hand-wringing we hear about digital tracking and putting consumers on the hook for things like Disney Cruises and rubber ducks, no one is holding a gun to our head to buy anything. If someone wants to go into hock for schlock, let them. They'll figure it out eventually. And, of course, there is always digital disobedience. Roam the internet for all sorts of things that disinterest you. Fool CEO Bob Iger into thinking you're obsessed with Tiny Tim from the 60s. If enough people do it, he'll make a Disney bio-pic and no one will go. Now, that's entertainment! And the fear that vertical behemoths won't produce the overrated, supposedly seditious likes of "I Robot" and "The Handmaid's Tale" is nonsense. Those shows were not made in a garage. Anything that appears on a screen is nothing more than entertainment. The corporations know that. You can buy a Che Guevara doll on Amazon for $17. Alas, not so a Tiny Tim doll. I know, I've been looking.
2
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Sorry Silicon Valley, you can't change the rules and dynamics of economics... you can old hype that you are and let the fools rush in.
2
I don’t see it
50 buck for internet
10 bucks for hulu
7 bucks for Netflix
0 for YouTube
Done
All these new Cable like packages ain’t gonna happen in our house- its the old model as you say
2
YouTube is a favorite for me and I gladly pay for a subscription to stop advertising interruptions which became too frequent. Also comes with music! I watch it daily for everything from news, entertainment, documentaries and how-to info.
1
Content is being stuffed down our throats. If you don't like the content/monthly bill, then stop your subscription. Get a hobby, start reading, plenty of better alternatives.
Nice try, Jeff Bezos, but you don’t make money selling us shoes. You make money selling US.
1
Apple's music business is not a money looser. Apple's business model is not a loss leader one.
I don't have cable TV but I do have a TV antenna and the Kanopy streaming service for free from my local library. The PBS app is very good too. I only pay for one streaming service, but I rarely use it and may cancel.
Try the free combo: 1) antenna; 2) Kanopy; and 3) PBS app.
1
PBS has one blurb just before the each streaming show. That's endurable. Acorn TV, a British Provider is another without ads. I'll give up my Prime membership if there are too many ads.
2
Actually there’s a good argument for PBS being the ONE place where advertising should NEVER occur. I have a rule—whoever places an advertisement on PBS will never get a single dollar from me. We need to publicly fund PBS like we used to and get private money and advertising out of it. A true donor doesn’t and shouldn’t advertise they have done so.
2
Let's face it, we are addicts. Streaming has just made it worse. We are connected to our phones 24/7, and it is the new normal that our phones connect to everything else. Talk about On demand. The kids are driving most of the changes, because they are aggressive in their consumer choices, and forcing the companies to scramble. The older generation keeps the media giants stable as the cable/dish lineup is a familiar friend. That is changing.
And then there is the "firestick", but we'll see how long that free option to everything is rendered in usable.
2
The flawed logic here is that you have to subscribe to six or seven streaming services.
You don’t.
Pick one or two and you’ll have plenty to watch. Rotate them if you want.
You can’t do that with cable. You can’t subscribe to just the Disney/ABC owned channels or just the Comcast/NBC or just the ATT/Warner owned. You will be able to with streaming services.
2
I've only owned a cable box once or twice in my life, reluctantly and with regret. I have a streaming service now but I rarely ever use it. I mostly maintain the account as a courtesy to family members who can't or won't afford their own. I watch sports via antenna or not at all. Anything else, if it isn't already free online, I'm not paying. The networkization of streaming services is therefore a non-issue for me. I'm not going to subscribe to a second streaming service for one hit TV show. I can skip it. We have these things called books. Try reading them.
2
I don't know about most others, but I find my greatest limiting factor in consuming media isn't the number of streaming platforms, but the sheer volume of programs being pushed out. I don't have time to watch half the shows I want to. I've accepted that I will miss a lot of things I might like, and avoid a lot of supplemental streaming services because of that.
5
I participate on a sports related local website for the last few years, and when a lot of users started crowing about cord cutting and about all their new found freedom and cost savings, I said it's only a matter of time before streaming is exactly the same as cable/satellite services, the only difference being that you're also stuck paying for broadband just to watch it, and predictably there was a lot of push back about how full of it I was. These companies will always find a way to get your money. It's will end up being the same service but just supplied on a new platform. I couldn't help but laugh when the local college team's conference cut a new media deal which included putting some content on ESPN+ and a few people who had been proud cord cutters lost their mind over having to Gasp! pay $4.99/mo to watch some games.
1
One thing that this article is leaving out, is that likely a lot of the content on these streaming services will not be available on other platforms, if you want to watch, lets say, Star Trek Discovery, it won't be on Amazon or Netflix (usually after the first season is done its run on the home network), so to see this content you will need to subscribe to a plethora of services, not just a few.And yes, basically you are paying for channels you don't want, the same way that I pay for the Golf Channel, the Catholic Channel *gag*, the spanish channels, that I don't watch. The reason "their" channels are on the cable package is because it is subsidized in effect by those of us who don't watch that channel, and if people could choose channels (rather than bundles), they would likely find that to offset the revenue from people who don't watch that channel, the cost per channel they would charge would be pretty expensive (typically, a channel costs the cable franchise a buck a month, spready over millions of subscribers; if 10,000 people take that channel, it will be a lot each month).
There is something else to consider here. Broadband cable for the most part is cable companies, so if people 'cord cut' and go streaming, to make up for lost revenue they will jack up internet prices. The prices are not regulated, so if you were paying 150 a month for a triple pay, you likely will pay that for internet and phone.
4
If cable companies would only offer an "a la carte" option which consumers have been wanting for years, where we could pay for only for the channels we watch, some costing more than others depending on viewership etc, they would attract many more customers, and keep cable as a viable business model. Instead they focus on short term profitability and not what is best for the consumer. Then again, no corporation in history has ever done what is best for the consumer. That is the nature of capitalism.
1
@Costanzawallet
I hate to defend cable companies, who fully earned their awful reputations. However, it’s really the channel owners that are blocking a la carte. Five or six companies own most of the major cable networks and they require cable companies to carry all of their networks.
Consumers also share in the blame. We all complain about high prices but if a cable company drops a channel over a pricing dispute, we blame the cable company and switch providers. ESPN can charge carriage fees of $8 per month and demand to be on the most popular service tier because too many subscribers would cancel service with a cable company that refused to pay that much. Frankly, most of us are guilty of this; we complain about paying for 100 channels to get the 5 we want, but drop one of our 5 and we’ll change providers. The problem is that everyone’s 5 channels are different and tend to cut across enough ownership groups (see previous paragraph) that cable companies really have little choice but to keep bloated bundles.
3
@Costanzawallet Spectrum has streaming option of
picking 10 channels, plus local and cspan for $21.
@Costanzawallet
I am not an expert in cable economics but have read that if channels were offered ala cart we would end up paying about as much as we do anyway. It was explained why, but I admittedly don't know enough to evaluate the argument.
This gets back to the numerous comments that the entertainment industry is going to get paid one way or another, and to think you can avoid it (unless you just stop watching it all) is probably not likely.
1
I am completely fed up with the price I'm paying to my cable company. I have basic cable, TiVo and high-speed internet and I am paying $198.63 every month. The programming gets worse and worse and I watch TV less and less.
My brother and sister both cancelled their cable and bought antennas. They get plenty of channels at no cost other than the initial cost of the antenna, which is very reasonable.
I love TiVo because I have been recording shows since the 1980s so I can watch them at my convenience and fast forward through the commercials. TiVo is very simple to use, but I am willing to buy a DVR and start recording the old-fashioned way again.
A lot of people love the convenience of the streaming services, but I miss the fun of going to the video store and looking through all the movies. I have tried to make my life less complicated, but everything these days is fighting me.
6
DVR or VCR?
@Carole A. Dunn you should be able to get high speed for $45 and a streaming service for $30-55 and save $100 a month from your current bill.
Technology in industrialized countries has made available options that we did not have before and therefore we need to learn and teach our kids to use them wisely. Cheap high caloric food, and now it takes so much discipline to keep a healthy weight. Entertainment at our disposal, and now we binge watch and are sleep deprived. Social media and we are now checking our phones constantly, it is making us antisocial. The internet which is a good tool if used as a means but not as an end (good source of information, but also a lot of garbage there). I tell my kids that I am sorry for them because they have these choices which are very addictive (by design), so the amount of discipline required today to live a fulfilling life is enormous. I tell them play sports, do your homework, visit friends, do your chores, and when you run out of things to do and are tired, then watch a movie, send messages, and get eight hours of sleep. One day they will listen (I hope). Corporations go after our worst primal instincts to keep us under their control and make money. And they will succeed if we let them. “Lo óptimo, la mesura.”
5
The big difference between streaming and cable is enormous and why good riddance in every respect to the cable industry. Here is the basic reason not mentioned in this opinion piece that consumers benefit with streaming; choice. Via the internet, much greater flexibility of producers of content getting it directly to you without the middleman pipes of cable. In most, if not all locations of the US who have access to cable, that cable company has a monopoly in most areas except in large cities where perhaps 2 - 5 providers are available and even then so, their programming cost to the consumer is not that competitive. With streaming there are many providers of higher quality content, buy what you want skinny bundles and avoid what you don't. The internet which is widely available via phone, cable and satellite provide a multi-platform in which you can receive a cornucopia of free or premium pay bundles that are endless. Ad based or no ads, we have much greater choice of high quality of programming and more then ever before. Cable companies are finally offering skinny programming packages to keep subscribers, just to maintain that customer from getting their internet via mobile devices from telephone companies. What we already see in abundance and much more to come is international programming including for those who wish to follow sports overseas. Competition is good and the streaming industry is going to expand exponentially and I expect much more innovation marketing.
1
@Other
I hope so, but when I look at my own very limited usage I wonder. Basic internet service = $89/month for not-very-high-speed access; 2 streaming services = $15/month; Amazon Prime = $109/year. That's not much by today's standards. But it's still a fair amount of money and beyond the reach of many people. I recall when MCI led the way to the breakup of AT&T's monopoly on telephone service. Competition was going to give us more options, make things better, cheaper, more available, more responsive to consumers. It didn't really turn out as consumers envisioned. A few decades later, competitors across the media landscape have consolidated in to a bunch of brand names owed by a few large corporations who've mastered the economies of scale. Things are more complicated for consumers, but not fundamentally different and not cheaper.
3
The only change is the distribution channel
The options offered by many - you tube tv, Hulu, PlayStation Vue, Directv Now....they are all the same bundled offerings as are cable. Just offered through streaming
Personally, I am done paying $150 a month for 8 streaming services
Try Sling TV. It's fairly priced and you get to pick channels.
Sports are an Add-On. Lots of interesting Foreign News.
1
You will find a curious thing;if you have lots of items on the cable t.v. roll, the more they pump in sports and non-English shows,and tons of garbage buy-stuff t.v, you are paying a bigger electric bill, than if you only had a few favorite channels you traveled between .Huge Comcast channel rolls are COSTING YOU MORE ELECTRIC.---SO comcast can do a cheaper "mass-t.v. list" and get tv connections cheaper.Look at this legally--you are paying for the electricity for Comcasts' extra shows(sports,junk ect.)on your roll,shows you DON'T WANT---but now YOU are paying to get the shows to EVERYBODY.--when that is legally not your responsibility. YOU ARE GETTING ROBBED. HEY, go talk to a good attorney about this. IT'S TRUE. That electricity bill really gets big,even though you yourself don't watch ALL THAT t.v.
Home grown YouTube content forever. I'm done with the rest of it.
@Melanie . . . do you watch your you tube on just a laptop or? I am 72 and simply can not really see well and really enjoy programming without large screen display . . . seriously . . . I have a 17inch hp notebook but watch tv on it? i read the newspaper and in an hour I have to get away from the small screen . . . makes me feel so old . .. thanks for this comment . . .
William dallas press club 1881
Time to dust off the old torrent machine
2
CNN is a low-rated mess, yet has 90 million subscribers due to cable bundling. That’s crony capitalism at its finest. What a great business model. Your product stinks, but you make $90MM anyway.
So I guess we need to figure out how to get around the crony capitalism known as bundling, whether on cable or Netflix or any of these new platforms.
2
There’s a reason why people don’t have time to read...
3
I've found a simple solution to all these problems. Read a book instead of watching tv. Use the library and you don't have to pay for the book and it's commercial free!
7
Watching TV is turning us into zombies---ditch it altogether and give the finger to the media companies.
2
You don’t HAVE TO pay.
Stop watching.
Take up reading.
So something else.
Find a hobby.
Jesus, life does not begin and end with Netflix and Amazon. Believe it or not there is life outside of
Streaming.
6
Long term, cable TV niche will be the large screen (55 inches and up) 4K Ultra High Definition television to watch sports. Great experience to share with friends and family. Cable is reliable and scalable, capable of sending the same game at high resolution to over 100 million US homes simultaneously without any hitches (Super Bowl). The internet will not be able to do this in our lifetime (today’s internet limit is about 5 million simultaneous viewers watching the same stream at low resolutions, and it must be planned in advance without any guarantees - just best effort). Advertisement pays the largest share of sports programming, as long as a large number of viewers (eyeballs) watch the ads. And sports leagues use the money to pay millions of dollars to players. For these reasons, no large scale sports for streaming media in the near future. Movies, news, and series fit streaming media technology better. But it still cost money to produce good content. Read the credits at the end of a movie or show. All these people need to get paid. If it was all profits, I would be making movies in my garage. I do not watch much TV (I have hobbies and things to do, gardening, playing classical guitar, work on my cars, reading, etc.). But I like a good quality picture and sound (the whole experience). I rent BlueRay DVDs from Redbox (already offering 4K DVDs) for $1.99 for recent titles, get comfortable and enjoy.
1
It's disingenuous to compare cable packages to streaming opportunities, because subscribers are free to cancel a streaming service at any time with no repercussions.
The rule in my house is only 2 streamers at a time. Want HBO for a couple months? Fine. HULU gets paused in the meantime. Exhausted everything available from HBO? Unsubscribe. Pick up HULU again, or...is there enough to binge on STARZ right now? Let's get that for a month instead. The only constant over the last 3 years in the house has been Netflix, but even that doesn't seem so untouchable with Disney+ on the horizon.
(FTR, Prime doesn't factor into all this for us. Amazon has really got it figured out, because their programming is just gravy on top of their frequently used free shipping/convenience shopping)
3
I think some of the commenters are missing the point, and taking this as a an opportunity to preach to us about the virtues of reading books, taking hikes and cooking bean soup. The article is about us all, once again, getting royally ripped off by socially irresponsible capitalism.
6
Unless you watch a lot of sports there is no reason to have cable.
1
No offense but all these posters bleating on about books, just showing you're as old as Lincoln. The future is video content, not books. That's why this is an issue. The bigger issue I think is the price of internet, something that a Democratic President will have to spend some time on (making the internet a utility and forcing prices down).
5
I pay for cable and leave the TV on all day so I feel I’m getting my money’s worth.
3
I finally realized I could filter out the worst three quarters of the TV listings, home shopping, sports, FOX News, religious programs and other garbage. What's left is hardly any better. Even pirated movies and TV shows seem like rubbish (sigh).
I have hundreds of saved movies with little interest in watching them. Lifelong bipolar I guess.
2
I tether my computer to my phone. My TV is hooked up to the computer. All streaming. We are in a golden age that the evil greedies have not yet quite figured out how to best monetize, but that era is coming to a close. Netflix, we hardly knew ye.
1
@runaway thanks for this obvious answer . . . i older and can not much enjoy the viewing area of the compter area i own rather than big tv . . . .wish i could i envy you . . .william dallas press club 1981
There is something fundamentally and obscenely wrong when your (not premium) triple-play service exceeds your average electric and gas bill combined. (We do have a rather efficient 2500sqfr home).
This happened when our cable provider jacked up our bill for being a good customer. Fortunately, we were able to swap. Many places don’t have a choice.
But still...
1
I have a better idea: don't watch.
1
It’s good to have a long memory. I remember when the idea of ‘pay-TV’ was just beginning. To counter any objection, the argument went that if each subscriber paid for their programming there would be no commercials. Then Ross Perot came along with his ‘infomercial’ and —walla— Not only does my exhorbitantly priced cable service (and I don’t even get premium channels like HBO) contain stations with 24 hr/day commercials but each program’s actual running time is shrunk drastically with its inserted commercial. I tried to order shows a la carte but was told no can do.
So streaming may go the same route? The customer has to revolt otherwise they do it because they can.
This is exactly why I'm not buying cable, YouTube TV, CBS Access, Prime, Hulu the list goes on. One I work in TV sometimes as a content creator so I can tell you I'm glad you watch it but it's all really a waste of your life.
I wouldn't pass my life away watching a screen if I were you but if you have all that free time to waste thanks for the work. I'll be at the beach with a library book with all the money I saved no caring about Game of Whatever.
5
It has already started
Last night it literally took me 23 minutes to access a show on Netflix. My Amazon Fire Stick simply wouldn't open, connect, etc. When it did, it froze. I hit Netflix and nothing happened. I had to unplug the stick and eventually reboot my entire system.
I have had this problem for months.
Streaming videos freeze, movies look blurry for a few minutes then it switches to the correct clarity.
I have Verizon FIOS Ultra High Speed - does nothing. Can you imagine if I had a standard connection!?
1
Yours is not a great example as it sounds like your Firestick is the issue. Unlike cable you can go out and buy another device that does Netflix or whatever service you want without involving them.
1
I'm forever working to curb my screen time. Reading, cooking, going for a walk or run....While I do enjoy a good film/DVD, there's lots of interesting things to do besides flopping yourself down in front of a television.
2
Netflix ix superior because it does not advertise. It is generous in its purity.
5
Not yet.
For a short time we almost had it, what technology should offer, the ability to access all content at anytime.
So much of this has to do with who owns content, and the rules of ownership shouldn't be so onerous. Artistic content should make its money either at the point of release, get the first viewing or copy of the content here, or from live performances of the content by it's creators. After first release is given a chance then the content should be open for non commercial release.
Would this change the type of content we get? Perhaps no more effects driven big budget movies? Probably, but it would also free us from a system no one likes but shareholders.
(It would be nice if life didn't simply need us to function as valves through which pour excess production).
1
Number of streaming services I subscribe to: None.
Number of cable services I subscribe to: None.
When the Comcast representative told me that CATV was only $1 more than Internet service alone, my response was how much do I have to pay you *not* to get cable?
On the rare occasions when they make a show that's good, it makes more economic sense to buy it a la carte, thus avoiding the nattering, the advertisements, and the bundled channels you don't want.
4
The only a dollar more gimmick by the cable companies is fraudulent. Well it may be one dollar more for the service, but they clip you for an assortment of fees and cable box rental fee charges as well as more taxes. It’s not even close to a dollar more.
1
So the cable bundle is over and a new one with different names and colors is reborn in its place.
Looks to me like the only answer is not watch any of it and go outside and live for real. Or just buy the series you want to watch a la carte like at Amazon Video. Doubt any of us will watch more than $40 a month in shows.
3
I’ve refuse to pay for subscribed TV, so cancelled monthly satellite choices, and will not cobble together options. Having done that, I’ve fallen down the YouTube rabbit hole.
5
Mr Ball's conclusion that media spending is only a small part of the streaming media companies' revenue is contradicted by the figures he quotes for 2018. Adding up all the consumer spending on media, it comes to $498. He quotes the combined total revenue of the 5 big tech companies that year as $800million. By my reckoning, $498/$800=62%!
2
My two teenage children watch only YouTube, and that’s true of their friends as well. The production cost to Google of those videos is zero. Odd that this article makes no mention of self-producers, who appear to be the wave of the future. The same seems to be happening in music as well (witness the phenomenal success of “Old Town Road”). The next generation isn’t going to subscribe to conglomerate media content from what I see.
9
Enough is enough. My wife insists on having comprehensive cable video content from that company which is consistently at the bottom of customer service surveys — with good reason — but I would be perfectly content with OTA television and really fast broadband (for the occasional movie) and reading (paying for, among other items, NYT online). I spend far more time reading on my devices than watching video. And of course I learn a lot more by reading than by watching. For example, I can get real-time MSNBC for free from a number of Internet radio sources — as well as our paid subscription to Sirius XM, which is mostly for driving in the car.
1
Film production is expensive. It just is. But maybe part of returning to the bad old days can be letting advertisers go back to paying for it.
I'm personally hoping HBO, Netflix and the rest will offer viewers the option of accepting commercials to offset subscription fees. Maybe that heresy but I don't see how people won't go broke subscribing to multiple TV services. Especially when everything else in our lives has also gone to a subscription model. We just need to demand that advertisers make better commercials.
the deep concept here is that entertainment is merely a pretext to stimulate consumption through advertising: "their real objective is to lock audiences into their ever-expanding ecosystem. Their TV network is the ad." the "ecosystem" makes even ad free entertainment suspect; the corporations still collect and sell your data. the TV network is the ad, and the ad research department.
3
57 channels and nothing on. Not much has changed. The newest Comcast cable offerings, guide, and power use on its box are awful. The only benefit is that I am now saving a bundle on Xfinity Mobile.
1
"In 2018, audiences worldwide spent some $300 billion on TV, $138 billion on video gaming, $41 billion on movie tickets and only $19 billion on recorded music."
This sentence says it all. People spent the least amount of money on the most fulfilling, most replayable form of entertainment and a stunning amount of money on the most boring, irrelevant form of entertainment. I watch very little television but listen to my lethal playlist every day while surfing the internet or playing cards online. I'm glad to say that this article doesn't bother me at all because I don't spend any money on television. Once you buy a music file (or CD, or vinyl) it's yours forever and there's no subscription fee. Perhaps it's just a matter of taste, but I will always prefer music to inane, empty reality shows and farfetched, contrived scripted shows. Music has existed almost as long as humanity has. So support your favorite composers, instrumentalists, singers, rappers, and producers and divert some of the money you spend on TV to music. I can make no guarantees but it's likely that you won't regret it.
8
We have rabbit ears, library cards to borrow DVDs and books, and find free stuff on the internet. Our total internet/phone/TV/entertainment cost is $61 per month. We spend more than that on books.
Seriously, time is better spent doing something else.
17
My pet peeve these days with a tv subscription is that they now place the ad at the bottom of the show i'm watching and it's very distracting and even more annoying if I have to read subtitles just as they put an ad blocking the subtitles! I've cancelled my tv at the end of this month and likely will not go back to it. I'm done!
18
I find this article interesting because many of the big shows that people love to watch are actually on sites such as Netflix and Hulu. Some of the sites even keep shows up to date. This makes regular TV look like it is appealing to a specific crowd because you might overlook the shows regular TV plays, all because you know you can watch it later, without ads, and which ever specific episode you want. In fact, that is what I do with the popular shows 'Friends' and 'The Office.' All though in the future prices may go up, people will not have to worry about ads, which is a really annoying thing when watching regular TV, which may be more worth it to some people. My family at one point stopped using a regular TV provider and only used streaming channels such as Netflix and Amazon. There were no problems with this when it came to the shows we wanted to watch. My mother was able to watch the news and her one soap opera on basic cable, the only problem we ran into was my father and brother wanting to watch different sporting events. There are ways to watch sporting events without a TV provider, but they certainly are expensive. With consumer demand and competition, those prices could eventually go down, or maybe they will just go up even more. Personally, I believe that even if we end up paying the same amount for streaming channels as we do for regular TV providers, it will be worth it. This is because there will be no ads and you can choose what you want to watch whenever.
1
Lot of those shows will not return to Netflix or Anazon once these broadcasters have their own platforms.
1
At one point I had Comcast and Netflix AT THE SAME TIME. I decided enough was enough and cut the Comcast. My mother missed watching her baseball games but started listening to them on radio instead. The kids didn't even notice that I had cancelled the cable. I have begun going to Goodwill to buy DVDs of the shows and movies we watch over and over because 1) the shows will eventually leave Netflix and 2) we miss the shows that have already left Netflix.
7
This article gives me my best excuse yet to keep my cd and dvd collection and my blue ray player.
15
I don't know if anyone has noticed but all of the major networks put their t.v. shows on their website for free...one week after airing.
The only show that I want to watch for free but can't is Star Trek: Discovery so I give CBS a few bucks each month for commercial free sci-fi.
But literally every other show that I want to see is free...if I wait a week.
3
HBO is worth an ad-free experience of $15 a month. Beyond that, all I need is a news channel and PBS. The rest flatter themselves.
I cut the cords when my bundled Cable and INternet hit about $200 a month with no change to my service from Comcast. The new charges were paying for the purchase of NBC Universal- not production of new programming. AT&Ts price gouging is making customers pay for the tremendous debt load from buying DIRECTV and later Time-Warner.
I have no intention of spending that kind of money for the minimal amount of TV I watch. I would remind everyone that we were best served when no one company could only own 5 TV stations and & AM and 7 FM stations. All this deregulation has given us a dumpster fire that is concentrated in a handful of companies. I have no doubt that Trump would never have gotten close to the Presidency had we had the type of media ownership and management prior to deregulation.
Bruce Springsteen once wrote a song called "57 channels and nothin on". Now it is 257.
73
Greed always ruins a good thing. When we cut cable a number of years ago, we had 2 streaming subscriptions that went down to one when we realized the bulk of our viewing was on one service. Our TV time also plummeted because instead of mindless channel flipping, we'd watch an episode or two of something and decide whether to watch another or go do something else. More and more, we did something else. I used to watch a ton of sports, but after a few years with no cable -- and them making it nearly impossible to watch sports without cable -- I found other ways to spend weekend afternoons and don't miss them at all. Just like cable's greed drove its customers away, streamers sure seem to be on the same path.
22
I don't watch sports and resent having to pay for it. My cable company told me that they are forced to include ESPN and other sport networks.
149
@osavus
A good reason to sue Disney. Break them up.
They make sure ESPN is in every bundle regardless of platform. That kind of market power is exactly what anti-trust laws were designed to protect consumers from.
68
@osavus
I don't watch any news, preferring to read. Yet I am forced to pay for CNN, MSNBC, FOX News. I would love to purchase just ESPN but that's not possible either.
8
@osavus. I have about twelve sports channels that I don't watch, and to add insult to injury, there is a sports surcharge.
21
The most interesting line in this article may be: “Are they the ideal sponsors of a free press?”
90 years ago, when radio was the disruptive communications technology of its time, leaders in Congress and the FCC had the foresight to require broadcasters to use the airwaves for the “public interest.” This led to half a century of brilliant broadcast journalism — from Murrow to Cronkite — that enhances our democracy.
Will we require such public interestedness again, or let broadcast journalism, like newspapers, shrivel on the vine?
221
@Peter Z We also had the Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters to give roughly equivalent time to each side of controversial issues. That died under Reagan, leaving us with the Foxes, MSNBC's, etc. that feed their faithful viewer's only one side's propaganda, directly responsible for the fractured, tribal society that we have become. America's ideals are dying because everyone is fed just what they want to hear; this newspaper is among the worst offenders only because it was once a beacon of objectivity.
Given the reality of political media bubbles and the hatred they create, it is hard to conceive of anything that will put us back together again.
10
@Peter Z --HI, i don't even watch tv news any more,i go online,look at international news from all sides,right,left,non-American, American, places in Europe we know more about than our back-yards.The Web opened the communication world.--I can see more how the weather,example is affecting everywhere,not just America. What the arctic poles are doing.--How extreme behavior and crime is affecting our European friends,because they are inundated with too many primitive immigrants they can't handle--it tells me how WE W0ULD DO ,w/huge masses of non-modern immigrants coming to our country,bringing more crime, assault on young people, and costing us trillions we don't have.--so I get better information than very limited American media.--which is very censored.
@L osservatore
So says the right wing Fox Fake News watcher!
There’s still a huge difference between the major networks and newspapers who seek out evidence, provide facts-based articles, and report the real news vs. propaganda outlets like Fox that have cast aside journalistic ethics throughout.
Now, having said that, it is also true that the so-called liberal mainstream media is corporate-dominated and does NOT challenge the political economy status quo or the power elite.
We need to democratize media; uphold journalistic standards; resurrect the Fairness Doctrine; charge not auction the EM radio-TV spectrum; and provide free time for major candidates for office to present their views.
But to claim that mainstream media are simply devoted to anti-Trump hate sermons is demonstrable nonsense. If they report lots of stories that reflect badly on Trump, it’s his own doing. He wreaks havoc wherever he goes and whatever he says. That’s the truth and those are the *facts*, even if you dob’t like them!
6
For many of us, it's not the cost of the streaming service like Netflix or Hulu, but that cable services like Comcast have a monopoly on high speed internet access to our houses, and they won't sell just high speed Internet, but only bundled with regular TV, phone etc. with which the price climbs to $150 per month. The government needs to regulate Internet access like a utility.
478
@RBSF
Does Comcast really do that in some places? I buy just internet from them for $50/month. (I'm also in the Bay Area.)
10
@RBSF
Just to get free tv channels and internet access and telephone the 150$ price is minimum, then see what it goes to when added taxes which are never mentioned in the ads, because they don't have to since the taxes, excise etc. are required..... see what you are paying.
Not everyone is digital proficient to find ways to lower costs. I guess you could purchase a smart tv but why discard one that works, Unfortunately the new generation never learned that these things were once in the public domain before the government giveaway.
14
@RBSF you make an excellent point. Internet access is (by a good bit) the most expensive part of this a la carte world we live in, and it's just the price of entry. Netflix et al can compete for what I ultimately stream, but I have just two internet providers to choose from.
22
Another reader's comment on a story a little while ago bears repeating:
Subscribe serially.
Get Service A for a month, watch what you want, cancel it; then go to Service B for a month, watch what you want, repeat as needed.
Wish I could take credit for this idea but I can't. It's a good one.
Also, I have enough DVDs I haven't unwrapped, much less watched, to last the rest of my lifetime. After that there is the library.
That's assuming I want to watch anything, of course. Because books.
290
@The View From Downriver. Yes, yes, yes!!
8
@The View From Downriver that's exactly what I've been doing. I've rotated among HBO, Hulu, Netflix, MHz, BritBox, and Acorn.
Also you can often get a free trial and binge-watch whatever show you're interested in. I did that for the new Star Trek.
28
@The View From Downriver This is what I do. I also subscribe to a premium channel like HBO or Showtime through Amazon Prime. I wait until a show I watch starts then switch to that one and cancel the other. Sometimes I wait until a show completes its run (if I'm not concerned about spoilers), then I just binge it in a month and cancel. I disagree with the article's assertion that people will want these apps bundled. That would nor be conducive to how I use them.
11
Nobody "needs" these streaming services. Read a book. Go for a walk. Make a pot of soup. Walk through a museum. Plant a garden. If we stop paying these exorbitant prices for mediocre entertainment, these media behemoths will have to change their plans.
283
@Nancy See my reply about electricity costs.
3
A Big Hurray for this comment
6
@Nancy
Could not agree more. Right now I'm reading Fall Back Down When I Die by Joe Wilkins. Utterly gripping.
And no commercials.
And no fees.
8
Haven't had a TV for over 20 years and I don't miss it one bit. Of course that leaves me way out of the mainstream but I'd rather create art, read a riveting book, practice a musical instrument, take a hike with my dog and listen and learn from nature. I can get all the news I want or a movie on my Mac. And my living room, family room and bedroom walls are not taken up by a big screen. People used to be incredulous I didn't have a TV, but I think more and more people are waking up to the reality that TV is simply a waste of precious time.
163
@TripleJRanch- successful people don't watch TV
15
@TripleJRanch when my son was in middle school, he had the TV on a lot and the grades reflected this. i got rid of all of them and told him if he wanted to watch this stuff, use your computer to hack into places that had his shows etc. he had a learning curve, but he did it. now he is an expert in IT and data scientist to boot.
21
@TripleJRanch I'm a high level achiever but I find sci-fi helps me with my science. But I watch all video programming via my mac as well. So you probably just mean broadcast TV...
However, if I had my way, the best TV for me is via my telescopes. I can sit outside and watch an image form (each of which takes me hours to make and it's like watching a snail walk) on my screen (and look up at the sky occassionally of course but nothing like the camera to capture stuff my eye can't).
Of course weather gets in the way a lot of the time.
10
Some key differences:
Right now, I don't have to pay for a bunch of sports I don't want to watch. One of the principle reasons cable TV became so expensive was because of the ludicrous price of licensing for showing pro sports. They did not make football fans or basketball fans foot that bill. They spread it around among all cable subscribers.
It's easier to drop and add streaming services than cable channels. The idea of dropping Netflix for 6 months for Disney and then vice versa completely works because I can watch their entire library whenever I want and they release entire seasons at once. I don't have to pay for 10 different channels to get only 1 episode a week on my favorite shows. I can join, watch everything I want, and then cancel until there's new content I find interesting.
There's now a separation between my cable internet provider and my video entertainment provider. Disney and Netflix aren't responsible for my data connection and vice versa. This makes it harder for Comcast and co. to push bundling on me and it means that now there are multiple giant corporations who want me to have access to relatively cheap, reliable, fast data so I can consume their content. Where before Comcast benefited from charging me for as much as it could for the crappiest cable data service it could, there are now multiple giant companies like Google, Amazon, Disney, et al that want me to be able to access their content all the time and they pressure accordingly
2
Let's all go back to making hand puppet shows. It's fun, creative, free.
And scalable.
5
Mainly I'm just fascinated that he used the word "klaxonic" with a straight face. What does it mean? Google tells me "an electric horn or a similar loud warning device", as in "the tug blew its klaxon three times". Could this be it?
Well, I guess the article is a klaxonic warning about television, and now I know a new word.
26
I agree. I think we are seeing the first modern usage of the word “klaxonic”. Is this meant to be “perverse and often baffling?”
@JS27
Could be a reference to Clara Bell
Mr. Ball may think TV is "better than ever" - I beg to differ. There are only countless spinoffs of some suit's ideas of content. There is no unique programming on any of the platforms - just cookie cutter variations of action thrillers, live action cartoon reboots, crime, horror, transgender - all zeitgeist shows that have no original writing or thought, all playing to a young audience that, guess what - doesn't watch much TV! These "business" types are hoping to line their pockets with what's sold before, not an original thought or creative brain among them. So guess what, guys! You're cutting your own throats!
7
We unplugged a couple of years ago and never looked back. I am certain that even more folks will now since there are other options.
3
We already pay for mostly what we don’t want.
That’s the magic.
2
You’re ignoring that many people are leaving tv behind. There’s the occasional show that everyone watches but a lot of kids watch streamers more than tv.
4
Read a good book. It can be borrowed from a library; purchased at a book store; or read as an ebook. Reading a book or two a month would cost either nothing, or a fraction of paid TV cost. Just a thought.
58
@Chet Walters - Oh, for pete's sake. Reading books and watching television are NOT mutually exclusive. My husband and I do both.
20
to paraphrase - here's to the new cable-alt same as the old cable
6
Matt, you're not very knowledgeable.
Websites like DailyMotion, WatchSeries and TVZion have most shows for free. With a chromecast you can watch them on your TV...
2
I cut the chord 15 years ago after I read that sport channels -- each of them -- were able to charge $1 per subscriber. I can watch most show eventually on YouTube anyway, sans ads (thanks to an ad blocker).
6
As a subscriber to several services, my problem isn't avoiding ads--Tivo takes care of that. Instead, it's finding something worthwhile to watch. Yes to news analyses with the chattering class, sports TV, documentaries. But there's a diminishing amount of worthwhile dramas, romances, etc. The rewards for subscribing are growing thinner.
9
The night sky has always been extremely beautiful to me. I love to just sit outside and just look up at the sky and soak it all in. It has so many pretty colors, looks, designs, and so much more. Lights in the sky, or lights anywhere at night can distract us from the real beauty of the night sky. When we see those lights that shine directly at the sky, it really does take some of the beauty away. I wish there could be one day a month or even a year, when all the lights outside can get turned off. Even if it was just for a minute. Just so we can see the raw beauty of the sky. The sad part is, there are many side effects of doing something like this. People might get angry streetlights are being turned off, or the fact their business sign cannot light up. Or just the fact that certain people might find a way to make this seem a lot worse than it is. I think taking a minute a month just to see the raw beauty of the night sky is a good thing. People are using metals straws now to save turtles, so why is turning off lights for a minute a big deal then?
11
@Isabella Guy : Couple of days back New York Times published a very good article regarding light pollution. Please read it if not already read it.
Streaming = freedom in diversity - they take big creative chances and it’s often exhilarating. “Black Mirror” died a quick, unheralded death on old TV, and only streaming resurrected its dark genius. TransParent and Handmaid’s Tale simply never would have been made before streaming. Derry Girls probably would never have been seen in the USA, if at all.
Old TV was great if you liked morality plays about white middle class families where bad things almost happen to beautiful people.
Streaming is anarchic heaven.
17
This is exactly we are facing in India. Quite a few people have shifted to Amazon and Netflix but substantial number of people are still sticking to idiot box. All sorts of silly serials in various Indian languages have made people glued to the TV for hours together.
Simple solution: Throw your TV away and read a book.
28
Well back to the old Pirate Bay I guess then?
9
If they make it too expensive, people, especially people under 35 will:
- not watch/not watch as much
- go back to pirating like they did in high school/college
- use a VPN to get public TV from other countries
29
Got rid of cable years ago and moved to having only 1 TV in the house for use with occasional Netflix or movie viewing.
The family spends more time with friends, reading, or outside.
Money well SAVED....
35
And how is the next generation of creatives who want to work in TV supposed to build our career?
Big splashy tentpole shows are almost always written/created/produced/directed/acted by expensive talent, and they bring in the subscribers and revenue to subsidize less expensive shows created by the upcoming generation of writers/producers/directors/actors/designers.
I'm grateful for people who are willing to pay HBO's fee to access "Game Of Thrones" because it gives me and other less-well-known creatives a chance to hone our craft(s) and develop our careers on less expensive shows across the network. Someday one of us will create the next big hit, and the cycle will continue.
7
@Tyrus
This term "creatives" is just one more empty business-world term. The truly creative would never call themselves "creatives." They are writers or artists or musicians.
"Creatives" say "how high?" when the Corporate/Media/Advertising Industrial Complex hollers "Jump!"
1
The folks who are best equipped to handle multiple channels, networks and services are the folks who have always done exactly that: Comcast, Charter and possibly DirecTV (AT&T TV). It's not just technology; it's business DNA. Previously we called them cable television providers; not we'll call them aggregators: One bill, add and subtract services as you like, a decent program guide. One place to "find all your stuff."
2
I long for the days when TV was limited to 3 networks; programming was considered wholesome until 8 or 9 pm. There was the seal or something for good practice. And the test pattern. Life was simple. Burns and Allen were truly funny and the half hour Hopalong Cassidy shows were great.
32
@old sarge Kinks main frontman Ray Davis admitted that he got most of his writing done after the television broadcasts went off. Most likely if he was born today hed never get around to writing anything and there would be no Kinks
8
@old sarge don't forget about the absence of people of color, toxic straight masculinity, and two-dimensional female characters. Truly: the good ole days!
14
Congratulations on making America the laughing stock of the world from the other end of the political spectrum. I enjoy POA’s (persons other than Americans) here in SE Asia as an expat.
1
What? I haven't watched TV since all it took to get the show you wanted was warm up the set, a twist of the rabbit ears and a whomp on the side. Bring that back.
7
One advantage of streaming companies like Hulu, Netflix and Showtime is that you can take your subscription with you, to a second house, on vacation and even to Europe. You can even downloadable current stuff to watch on the plabe. Showtime offers a yearly discount. Cable companies never did that probably because many of us would have cancelled if seeing the yearly costs in black and white.
53
@Vickie Not entirely true, regarding the ability to use these services while traveling. Without a VPN service, Netflix subscriptions in the US do not access the same programs in Canada, and vice versa. I am guessing that the same applies between the US and Europe.
8
Many - like Hulu - reject VPN. Can’t use it. Netflix allows you to use it globally - but in line with local versions. Sometimes that is an advantage, sometimes not.
8
@Gilden You are correct that you cannot access all Netflix when you are abroad but you can watch the ones Netflix filmed. We purposely saved the Orange Is The New Black type of shows for our Swedish stay and we also found some wonderful shows over there that we couldn't watch here. Downloading was great for the LONG plane ride. I recommend Rita. Hulu and prime were only good abroad when I downloaded. Still better stuff than over the air or directv garbage.
Here’s an idea:
Stop subsidizing them with your money and cancel your subscriptions.
Rent things when you want to watch them. Otherwise, read books.
The end.
42
I read three books a week and I still love my movies on the streaming services.
13
We'll likely still save money over cable. I can cancel my CBS All Access subscription until "Star Trek: Discovery" returns with new episodes. I can still watch other shows on Hulu or Netflix. But if I don't want to watch CBS on cable anymore, I really can't cancel cable because that turns off the channels I do want to watch, too.
3
I watch OTA and listen to 2 great local radio stations.
I also have a lot of CD’s in the computer.
Total Digital bills now are vastly more then electric and gas.
I fully expect the Internet will break soon. The banks will fail.
The sky WILL fall.
We are not prepared for any real emergency.
Duck & Cover!
11
And piracy will skyrocket. Greed is idiocy.
14
Sounds like a good time to unplug permanently
10
Not sure what your point is...
Once 8K 3D 120 fps content – whether via:
> VR headset
> OLED TV and polarized glasses
> A clever mirroring technique using conventional monitors that’s actually been around for quite a while
Becomes widely available, your whole storyline decomposes...
All the content already out there...
Whether drones fitted with 8K stereoscopic 120 fps cameras flying in and around the world’s great waterfalls and river basins and stadia – or simply glued to the front of buses and trams traversing the 500 largest cities – more than enough content to keep me occupied...
Even intrigued, for a lifetime...
See – and you know this better than me, though probably not as well as James Cameron – once resolution exceeds 4K (IMAX is ~11K) and frame rate exceeds ~80/secs, the immersiveness becomes eerily awesome...
3D the pièce de résistance – and had Steve lived, we’d be on a 3rd generation by now...
Just look at most any drone video on the Internet or some media channel...
They circle and waggle and dive and soar to grab visual 3D cues...
But – like showing a dog or cat a video of a moving firetruck or a raveling ball of yarn, respectively...
Eventually they get it – an abstraction, and a poor substitute for the real 3D thing...
Watching 2001 in 1968 – and Wonder Wheel 50 years later...
They seek to cleverly immerse with the tools then at hand...
For me, circle Europa or Coney Island on a crowded day...
I’ll pay to watch 3D...
All else – commentary...
@W in the Middle: I'd rather watch old black-and-white movies and TV shows any day, whether on cable, DVD, streaming, YouTube or the hundreds of VHS tapes I've used over the decades to record them. I'm not looking for "immersion." I just want 2-D, Academy ratio, standard def. Nothing better.
3
I suppose we’re meant to think this comment represents some sort of visionary future, but it seems to confuse reporting the news with telling a story. As if all art is just trying to represent the world in the most perfectly detailed manner possible. But realism in painting gave way to abstract Impressionism. In film, Cinerama started with travelogues, until audiences became bored and they realized they needed to use the technology to tell stories.
Let me know when you grow bored of your 8K 3D shadow play, and then we can discuss the difference between information and understanding.
(And Sidebar: Will someone please explain for me the connection/progression from Kubrick’s “2001” to Woody Allen’s “Wonder Wheel”? Apart from, you know, they’re both movies, doomed to be usurped by generic 3D drone footage.)
4
And this is why I do not bother with cable, Amazon, Apple, Roku, Hulu, or anything else. Television and most programs are a waste of time and money. I don't need to watch baseball, football, or any other sport any longer. I used to watch tennis but with the amount of idiotic statements the commentators made I had to stop. Now it's no longer on regular t.v. so there's no problem.
I've watched cable when I've been away on business trips. Not one of those channels was any better than standard television. I fail to see why anyone needs cable tv or any other method but a decent antenna. In fact, given how abysmal most programs are, people are better off reading books, playing board games, or getting some exercise and interacting with other human beings.
38
@hen3ry
I fail to see why anyone needs to read books especially given the drivel that they print nowadays. In fact, I think people are better off churning butter, splitting wood, or milking the cows and getting some work done.
6
@hen3ry
Agreed, but when I take my nightly walks, all I see is dark houses with huge glowing screens--block after block, after block...
1
Happy to pay the same as cable to get what I want without commercials or all the pablum drech. To watch what I want when I want & no recording, FF or watching “on refuse” works for me.
3
It's so impossible to keep up with the zeitgeist that I've settled for being happy with the services I already have, because 60% of my TV viewing is live sports, anyway.
4
Here’s what I would love— and I think there’s a business model that is profitable:
I have a single app, into which I integrate multiple content providers (not channels). Those content providers are given via the app, my history, my preference for content, etc. They compete to offer the best content to me, by initially offering the initial couple of TV series episodes for free. Once I’m “hooked” I pay a nominal fee per episode, and after paying for a couple, I get the season for free. Applies to TV series, newscasts, and even sports (e.g., my favorite team). It’s extreme personalization.
In this way, I have the ability to explore and discover the world of content for free. The content providers compete for producing great content. Long term subscribers of a series essentially subsidize the newcomers. The pricing can be dynamic— late subscribers pay a higher price.
The app provider charges a nominal fee to have the providers content in front of me (like a supermarket shelf) and manage the payment from me to the content that I subscribe to.
Can I patent this?
1
Not after publicly disclosing it here..;)
3
What AT&T is doing with its streaming service sums up this trend: it’s morphed from a cheap streaming option to now being the replacement DirecTV’s satellite-based operation, but with fewer channels for the same amount of money. I’m lucky I got in early and have a “grandfathered” plan for when I’m Stateside. But now that their streaming plans cost new users the exact same as DirecTV, “cutting the cord” as a money-saving option is on its way out.
4
If you are lucky enough to have a library in your area that offers Kanopy you have a great FREE option. The only downside is you are limited to a certain amount of movies, TV shows, etc. per month.
13
@Nata
Kanopy has a great selection of classic films, foreign films, independent films & quality documentaries.
Unfortunately for New Yorkers, the NYPL cancelled Kanopy, as it became too costly.
I wish there was another way I could get Kanopy. It’s way better than Netflix.
1
The claim that the cost of content—specifically dubiously claimed “high quality” content—drives the increasing cost of streaming media is utter nonsense. It’s greed and American business monopolies. The offerings have not improved dramatically—one or two fabulous series a year are still we get. And just look at the bland, copycat programming that Netflix has turned into. We once again are at the mercy of “500 channels” and nothing to watch. That’s not worth the price of yesteryear’s Comcast et al.
14
Americans need to get used to subtitles. There’s a wealth of quality programming elsewhere. And some terrible stuff too, of course.
The direction Netflix is taking is troubling. On one hand, they are growing more global, by setting up studios outside of the U.S. and preferring worldwide distribution rights; on the other hand, some of the content is getting bland.
1
"As media monoliths bundle their offerings, consumers will once again have to pay for a bunch of shows they don’t want."
Or not.
82
@ws
Exactly.
CBSN is a free ad-supported News channel that can be watched on any smart TV, computer or smartphone. France24 is an English language international news channel- also free. Bloomberg streams much of its business news live for free on YouTube and on Twitter/Periscope. $100 a year will get you the Criterion Channel full of high-quality film. $5 a month will get you a PBS Passport to stream all of PBS. $15 a month will get you all of HBO- ad-free.
Tell the rest to go pound sand.
1
It’s easy: don’t purchase streams from those companies. My family doesn’t pay for more than hulu and netflix. If we can’t see shows without paying for other services, good riddance. It’s amazing how easy it is to inconvenience regular folks into buying all these alternatives. Tv is entertainment but it’s not that entertaining. If you need six different servers to watch all of your shows, maybe you should put the screen down and get a life.
147
@Daniel yup, we pay about $25/month for HBO and Netflix, which is reasonable for us. If there's something else out there we really, really want to watch, we'll rent it.
Or if we really, really, really want to we'll cancel one sub for a month to try another one. Although we've actually never done that yet because ultimately, there's just other stuff to do!
8
@Daniel
Same here, though I recently dropped Hulu in favor of Amazon Prime because of Doctor Who.
All hail Doctor Who! :-)
In my opinion, it simply shouldn't be allowed to sell shows/movies exclusively to one streaming provider (or maybe it should be allowed only for short period of time), otherwise that defeats the market competition.
2
@Sergey. I'm not sure on what constitutional basis such a rule could be instituted? Movies are private property, after all. Should authors be forced to sell their work to at least two publishers?
2
OK but now all these services are options. You aren't stuck with 300 channels you'll never watch when you cut the cord. We have HBO Hulu and Showtime but they are all month to month and we go in and out depending on the programming. Even with Amazon and Netflix we still save at least $50 per month over "cable". Buy an antenna for 25 bucks and you'll have the local stations too.
9
@Robert
Us too. It's really not so hard, but newspapers have to write about something. If services stop going month to month, I am done with them, except for Amazon for the shipping. Now if Americans could quit overpaying for internet access.....
21
We need serious regulation of all the mega corporations. We also need to downsize the amount of media any one group or person can control. It’s not just about newspapers, radio and broadcast. It’s about streaming and social media too.
63
@KKnorp
I’m afraid that ship sailed with the Reagan era.
1
@Pundette Exactly. Never gonna get that genie back in the bottle now.
Perhaps we should turn off our televisions and digital devices and go outside and talk to our neighbors.
149
@Lostin24
or stay inside and talk to our spouse and kids...
16
@Lostin24 Or go to the theatre and see a play or a musical
14
@Lostin24 - can't do - too many helicopters
2
You can always get a book at the public library.
105
I second that, I download books to my Kindle from my local library monthly.
19
@Patrick
Sadly the Big 5 publishers are making it harder for public libraries to provide those ebooks by embargoing content and jacking up prices sky high. Enjoy them while you can!
19
Especially Macmillan. As of Nov. 1, they will only let libraries buy one copy of an ebook for the first 8 weeks after publication. So when the ebook holds list on the next Nora Roberts release goes through the roof, please direct your ire at Macmillan and not at your public library staff, who would buy more copies if they could.
23
At least we have the Criterion Channel. The movies on this service would never appear on the mainstream tv channels or apps. With that said it is adding up. I have Hulu, Netflix, Amazon and Criterion. Hulu is only 6 bucks a month and the movies are commercial free. Amazon I get good shipping deals with the prime service. My only expensive option is Netflix and Criterion.
12
@Anthony
The Criterion Collection used to be on Hulu back in the day.
4
@Anthony
Criterion Channel is outstanding!
5
Yes I remember. That was the reason I subscribed. Criterion adds more from other distributors.
1
Where are the hills?
We need to run for them!
24
@East/West The Hills can be streamed on a variety of services, I believe.
4
@East/West
This comment belongs in 99% of the stories we read here! (btw, I can see the hills from here, as you probably can too...)
1
this is absolutely correct. each owner of content keeping it for their own streaming service will balkenize the streaming world. in order to stream the shows a person wants to see will require subscribing to a dozen streaming services and paying for them.
2
Not really. Specialisation can work to the consumer’s advantage. Netflix and Amazon are good for the more popular stuff. Criterion is great if you like excellent classic films and always used to watch the extra content on the DVDs. Mubi is good if you like art films. Watch BritBox and Acorn for British TV, MHzChoice for European crime and mystery. If you only like sports, you just need the sports channel. Bloomberg is great for financial news. And if you come from somewhere else, or understand languages other than English, there are even more choices. Unlike with bundled services, you get to pick which ones you pay for.
1
@Brenda Delaney. That's great, for now. But, as the article points out, the risk is that these individual channels will get swept up into bundles. What happens when Disney buys Bloomberg and you now need to subscribe to ESPN to get your business news?
One the last comments says it all. Television has never been better or a better value. Having said that, how about reading a book once in a while?
20
@Mark Stone
You have the answer that I have always had for television. I dropped all the channels and went to the library. Don't even have to go there if the book I would like is available as an ebook. I now read one to four books a week. Great stories, great characters, often times humorous, other times informative.
Of course I must keep my internet connect and that is not cheap. But I am spared the nonsense on TV.
16
@Mark Stone. I read a book a week. Plus watch a lot of great television. They aren’t mutually exclusive. Right now, there’s a lot of television that excels in ultra long form story telling in a way most books don’t.
12
@AJ - Agreed! And I also watch shows about science, history, travel, and the performing arts. Are the science and history in depth? No, but I can learn a lot more about what is currently being discovered and learned about in various fields than I could by having to plow through books that are designed for providing in depth knowledge rather than a general overview. Frequently, if my interest is really piqued, I search out more information online or at the library. I've seen some great programs. I actually feel rather sorry for all those snobs who write off television because they prefer to show off how superior they are by confining themselves to books. As Auntie Mame said: Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death!
1
These isn’t gonna be costly to us young folks. We already all share subscriptions. Kill your cable bill.
11
@Alex Marple It's been documented in other media coverage that they are already working on cracking down on subscription sharing....
6
@GW We shall see how well that works.
@CC It will work very well when they limit your account to once device in one location at all times.
Don’t sign up.
43
It already does. We use YouTube TV. A few months ago they added about 6 or 8 channels that we will never watch and bumped the monthly fee 25%. Frankly, of the 30-odd channels we get we only watch maybe 3-4. It’s still cheaper than cable was but isn’t the a la cart system the hype promised.
3
Tech and hardware companies should not be allowed to tie programming to their services. This is the extension of a monopoly. Imagine how impossible it is to compete against Apple if you have to sell a phone as well as any services they bundle with the phone. Competition will only be limited to 1 or 2 competitors. Even a company like Samsung would need an entertainment arm to compete.
27
@albert
Antitrust companies donate heavily to politicians, especially Republicans.
8