3 ms·

This is EXACTLY what cable companies predicted would happen when we went a la carte. They were using their monopoly power to drive down the overall price of pac

This is EXACTLY what cable companies predicted would happen when we went a la carte. They were using their monopoly power to drive down the overall price of packaged TV and by de-bundling, we end up paying more overall. For once they were correct and I apologize for questioning it 15 years ago. That said, I am ok with SOME advertisements to keep the web running. There are two big problems with this: 1. Market investors expect their stock to continue to rise, forever. When it doesn't, they push for more revenue, but instead of adding new products or functionality, they push for ad revenue instead. 2. Ad revenue as a model for revenue generation means that we need more ads, as opposed to building better products. This means that the entire web is inundated with advertisements that overwhelm the overall experience and will continue to get worse and worse over time. This is a product of investment and lack of reinvestment in new products/function and instead more immediate revenue gains as opposed to slow-and-steady rise in value. Investors want to cash in NOW and not over time and thus we have entered a time where 3 ads precede every video alongside in-video sponsorships and more traditional 15-30 second ads within each. It's absurd.

alistairSH 3y ago
we end up paying more overall A basic Fios TV package is $75/month today. Most streaming services are around $20-$30/month and allow month-to-month plans. You can fairly easily rotate among 4-5 services, using 2-3 at a time, to keep costs lower than with traditional cable. This works pretty well if you have non-specific TV interests. Where they really get you is with sports - that market is super fragmented and getting most of NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB can cost a fortune.
- garciasn 3y ago
  FIOS is only available in limited areas of 9 states. It's not exactly widely available and should not be used as evidence to the contrary of this. If we're using anecdotal evidence, the only Internet I have available to me at my summer home is $110/month 25/2 DSL, without TV. That said, you are spot on, because we are no longer tied into long contracts you can absolutely swap in and out. The problem is that they carry primarily self-created content which, IMO, is far less attractive than what the main networks were able to push out previously which further degrades the usefulness of the a la carte model.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    Cox Cable is $56/month. Pick whatever TV provider you want, they're all in the $50-$100 range for a basic package in most parts of the US.
doctorpangloss 3y ago
> They were using their monopoly power to drive down the overall price of packaged TV and by de-bundling, we end up paying more overall. This is complicated. Piracy sold Comcast broadband Internet connections for many. Napster long predates Comcast's acquisition of NBCUniversal, when it became a content maker. So even in the last two decades, looking at one company, it played some, or all, sides of the producer ecosystem, in complex ways, sometimes 200% changing (sticking a minus sign in front of) how it benefits from consumer trends. If you want to analyze any specific thing about cable TV pricing, you're going to need to write a whole dissertation about it. Meanwhile "whatever the consumer is willing to bear" will get you most of the way there.
rconti 3y ago
A significant number of the streaming services people complain about paying for offer services that cable companies never did. Plus, I can choose which streaming services I want, and how long I want to pay for them. And everything is on-demand. And there are no ads (except on YTTV).
JohnFen 3y ago
> That said, I am ok with SOME advertisements to keep the web running. Personally, I have no problem with ad-funded stuff. The problem that I have is with the spying that comes along with online ads. I can see no way that could ever be acceptable.
SoftTalker 3y ago
If you're paying more you're probably getting more. Old cable TV had about 5 channels that I ever watched and 50 that I did not care about. A sports network + Netflix is not more than cable. If you subscribe to much more than that, you're probably getting more than a bundled cable deal used to provide.

alistairSH 3y ago

we end up paying more overall A basic Fios TV package is $75/month today. Most streaming services are around $20-$30/month and allow month-to-month plans. You can fairly easily rotate among 4-5 services, using 2-3 at a time, to keep costs lower than with traditional cable. This works pretty well if you have non-specific TV interests. Where they really get you is with sports - that market is super fragmented and getting most of NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB can cost a fortune.

garciasn 3y ago
FIOS is only available in limited areas of 9 states. It's not exactly widely available and should not be used as evidence to the contrary of this. If we're using anecdotal evidence, the only Internet I have available to me at my summer home is $110/month 25/2 DSL, without TV. That said, you are spot on, because we are no longer tied into long contracts you can absolutely swap in and out. The problem is that they carry primarily self-created content which, IMO, is far less attractive than what the main networks were able to push out previously which further degrades the usefulness of the a la carte model.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Cox Cable is $56/month. Pick whatever TV provider you want, they're all in the $50-$100 range for a basic package in most parts of the US.

doctorpangloss 3y ago

> They were using their monopoly power to drive down the overall price of packaged TV and by de-bundling, we end up paying more overall. This is complicated. Piracy sold Comcast broadband Internet connections for many. Napster long predates Comcast's acquisition of NBCUniversal, when it became a content maker. So even in the last two decades, looking at one company, it played some, or all, sides of the producer ecosystem, in complex ways, sometimes 200% changing (sticking a minus sign in front of) how it benefits from consumer trends. If you want to analyze any specific thing about cable TV pricing, you're going to need to write a whole dissertation about it. Meanwhile "whatever the consumer is willing to bear" will get you most of the way there.

rconti 3y ago

A significant number of the streaming services people complain about paying for offer services that cable companies never did. Plus, I can choose which streaming services I want, and how long I want to pay for them. And everything is on-demand. And there are no ads (except on YTTV).

JohnFen 3y ago

> That said, I am ok with SOME advertisements to keep the web running. Personally, I have no problem with ad-funded stuff. The problem that I have is with the spying that comes along with online ads. I can see no way that could ever be acceptable.

SoftTalker 3y ago

If you're paying more you're probably getting more. Old cable TV had about 5 channels that I ever watched and 50 that I did not care about. A sports network + Netflix is not more than cable. If you subscribe to much more than that, you're probably getting more than a bundled cable deal used to provide.