8 ms·

I want a separation between the streaming platform companies and the content making companies, so that the streaming companies can compete on making a better pl

by thayne 11mo ago

I want a separation between the streaming platform companies and the content making companies, so that the streaming companies can compete on making a better platform/service and the content companies compete on making better content. I don't want one company that owns everything, I want several companies that are able to license whatever content they want. And ideally the customer can choose between a subscription that includes everything, and paying for content a la carte, or maybe subscriptions that focus on specific kinds of content (scifi/fantasy, stuff for kids, old movies, international, sports, etc.) regardless of what company made it.

jajuuka 11mo ago
This would be ideal. The cable model was inherently flawed; it was just a series of local monopolies that poisoned it. Give consumers a choice. But considering everyone operates like Disney anymore and is highly protective of its IP I doubt this world will ever exist without direct government intervention.
- autoexec 11mo ago
  Honestly the biggest problem was/is copyright law. Make everything older than 10-14 years public domain and streaming services would have endless amounts of content always available. Independently operated streaming sites would be all over the internet.
  - roguecoder 11mo ago
    That would also solve the problem of AI training data. Build a data set, wait 14 years, and it's guaranteed to be legal.
throwaway7783 11mo ago
This should really be the end goal. We are worse off than cable right now with all these streaming services and worse , overlapping content.
- oatmealcookie 11mo ago
  [dead]
- mulderc 11mo ago
  Strong disagree on being worse off than cable. I now almost never see ads, that is a huge benefit in my book.
  - MattRix 11mo ago
    it is nice that if you pay enough you can avoid ads, but they are definitely coming to all the lower price tiers… and the premium tiers will of course get more expensive over time
    - SpaceNoodled 11mo ago
      At some point, the market will no longer be able to bear premium price hikes, and they'll just shove in ads instead - exactly as happened with cable.
      - lukeschlather 11mo ago
        HBO never had a tier with ads when it was on cable, it was simply expensive.
        autoexec 11mo ago
        Lots of things didn't have ads on the past (basic cable TV for example). Today the model has changed to being expensive and still collect data/push ads. This isn't a cable vs streaming thing, it's a then vs now thing.
        TeMPOraL 11mo ago
        True. People forget television itself is barely 100 years old. Business models don't grow on trees, they need to be invented and they evolve along with the technology. Advertising was with us for centuries, but it took until last few decades for it to evolve into a social cancer it is today.
cactus2093 11mo ago
This is how it worked a decade+ ago, when there was still alpha to be had on providing better streaming service. It was great and we got things like the Netflix Prize and all sorts of content ranking improvements, better CDN platforms, lower latency and less buffering, more content upgraded to HD and 4K. Plus some annoying but clearly effective practices like auto-play of trailers and unrelated shows. Now these are all solved problems, so there is no benefit in trying to compete on making a better platform / service. The only thing left is competing on content. > I want several companies that are able to license whatever content they want. And ideally the customer can choose between a subscription that includes everything, and paying for content a la carte, or maybe subscriptions that focus on specific kinds of content This seems like splitting hairs, it's almost exactly what we do have. You can still buy and rent individual shows & movies from Apple and Amazon and other providers. Or you can subscribe to services. The only difference is there is no one big "subscription that includes everything", you need 10 different $15 subscriptions to get everything. Again, kind of splitting hairs though. The one big subscription would probably be the same price as everything combined anyway.
- _DeadFred_ 11mo ago
  Ah yes, today where they optimized out the recommendation algo to the point I haven't found something recommended to be watch worthy in years. The only thing worse than the video streaming recommendations is what's become of Amazon/Audible's book recommendations (though Spotify is trying hard to enshitify their algos to catch up). Sad that we can't have nice things, but capitalism must be fed and I guess good, targeted recommendation algorithms are anti-capital.
- ghaff 11mo ago
  Exactly. Nothing is really preventing a $200/month aggregator beyond paying a bunch of lawyers and people not wanting to pay that. I know I'll live with some service fragmentation in exchange for not paying for a bunch of stuff I'll maybe watch once in a blue moon. And I'll probably buy some discs for things I really want to see.
  - TeMPOraL 11mo ago
cyanydeez 11mo ago
I want more than two parties competing to run the democracy, also. The things you want arn't going to happen under the current operating procedures of the United States of America. I hope that's clear.
malvim 11mo ago
This is how cable worked, no? And how streaming has been working. And it MIGHT be getting things cheaper, maybe? I guess? But watching specific stuff you want is hell. The cognitive load of searching a bunch of services, or finding a site that tells you where to watch, then it’s not in that same service in your country, you might have to pay extra, or sign up for another streaming service or… Holy cow, it’s a terrible experience. I’m not saying I have a better idea, or that it couldn’t be worse. But it’s terrible.
- commandlinefan 11mo ago
  I agree with you that modern streaming service are a hassle, BUT - I'm old enough to remember Blockbuster, too. It used to be that if you wanted to watch a movie, you drove to the video store, found a copy, paid $2 to rent it for 24 hours, tried to remember to rewind it and got it back to the store before it was late. Streaming services are _definitely_ more convenient. Right now, you can pretty much rent any movie you want through Amazon Prime with not late fee or rewind penalty, but you have to pay a couple of (extra!) dollars to do it. This is, undebatably, a massive improvement over the way it used to be in every way, but it still bothers me even though I can't put my finger on exactly why.
  - ghaff 11mo ago
    An analyst friend of mine wrote that Napster was more about convenience than price (free). I disagreed with him at the time but, with the rise of various streaming services, I've come to view myself as at least partially wrong. Maybe not the broke 20 year old per another comment. (Who doesn't have a lot of money anyway.) But a lot of people are happy and able to pay for a subscription that doesn't involve screwing around with a lot of dodgy stuff.
    - TeMPOraL 11mo ago
      I thought this conclusion about Napster was and is widely considered as true and most important lesson of that time. Success of YouTube, Spotify, Netflix and Steam and the near-demise of piracy are usually attributed to that.
acjohnson55 11mo ago
We could deliver to consumers over some sort of "cable". But what would we call it?
phantasmish 11mo ago
> I want a separation between the streaming platform companies and the content making companies, so that the streaming companies can compete on making a better platform/service and the content companies compete on making better content. Exactly the correct solution. We did something similar with movie theaters and film studios for decades, up until a couple years ago. Same sort of problem, same solution should work.
- johannes1234321 11mo ago
  Not only movie theaters, but also movie rental and selling of VHS tapes/DVDs etc. One could go to the favorite department store and get movies from all studios right next to each other, sorted by genre or title or similar.
  - phantasmish 11mo ago
    Like vertical integration isn't always bad 100% of the time, but this particular case of marrying distribution and production seems to serve minimal beneficial purpose and inevitably the main outcome is high levels of rents-collection and squeezing the people doing the actual creative work. There's pretty much nothing but up-side to forcing the two roles to remain separate. It's probably got something to do with copyright. Like the way it interacts with markets makes this sort of arrangement net-harmful pretty much any time you see it.
    - johannes1234321 11mo ago
      > It's probably got something to do with copyright. Like the way it interacts with markets makes this sort of arrangement net-harmful pretty much any time you see it. I would say it is monopoly. If you are a luxury brand you may sell your pen in a brand store only and limit access and will have some business. But other companies will produce comparable pens and then your only moat is the brand identity but in all objective criteria the other pens are equal. With intellectual work you got the monopoly. If I want the Taylor Swift song I don't want Lady Gaga, even though both may be good. If I want a Batman movie, I don't want Iron Man. These products aren't comparable in the same way. And another vendor (studio) can't produce an equal product in the same way as with the pen example.
yibg 11mo ago
You can today no? You can buy or rent a single movie / tv series from apple tv, amazon etc. problem is most people don't want to buy each thing they want to watch.
- Draiken 11mo ago
  You mean the "license while they feel like it" kind of purchase? If I could pay for individual TV shows and actually own them I'd definitely prefer that over the disaster we have today. Buying a blue-ray and ripping it is not very practical and it's by design.
- coder543 11mo ago
  Netflix (notoriously) does not license most of their content this way. You can't rent/buy Stranger Things on Apple TV, no matter how much you're willing to pay. If Netflix acquires Warner Bros, I expect this restriction to extend to that content too over time.
- thayne 11mo ago
  Sometimes you can. But there are also shows where the only (legal) way to watch it is on a particular streaming platform where it is "exclusive".
schnable 11mo ago
This is how it was with cable, and it was actually better for the content providers. They made shows and got fat checks from the cable companies every year. Then they all copied Netflix, because the stockmarket was rewarding it, and had to start dealing with billing, customer retention, technology platforms, advertising platforms. And they all lost a ton of money a doing it.
- thayne 11mo ago
  Not quite the same. Cable had regional monopolies due to the high barrier of entry and economies of scale (building cable infrastructure). There is still some economy of scale for streaming platforms, but if you get rid of exclusive content and the difficulty of making license deals (especially for a small player), then it is a lot easier for a new startup to compete in the area then it ever was to compete with a cable company.
nonethewiser 11mo ago
I want all the movies for free without pirating
- sokoloff 11mo ago
  How do movies get made under that system?
  - bouncycastle 11mo ago
    Look at books: You can go to your local public library and borrow any book for free, yet new books are still made under that system.
    - sokoloff 11mo ago
      Fair point! In many libraries, you can go to the library and check out DVDs as well. That could be a way to make videos available for free but inconvenient enough that people would pay for a more convenient way, just as they do with books.
    - lp0_on_fire 11mo ago
      The _vast_ majority of book sales are to private individuals, not libraries.
    - rewgs 11mo ago
      The cost of creating a book is essentially $0 when compared to movies.
assimpleaspossi 11mo ago
I agree that separation of concerns might bring better content but I can't afford buying multiple services in hopes of catching what I want. (Actually, I can afford it but I'm ... frugal.)
danielmarkbruce 11mo ago
Let the market figure it out. There has never been an easier time to make content and there has never been an easier time to distribute content.
stubish 11mo ago
I'm more for requiring licensing to anyone and everyone for the same price, including yourself. No more exclusives. Streaming platforms compete on cost, features and availability of niche content. Even further, choosing to not license content to anyone creates an implicit license for everyone. No more lost content. But I don't think any countries are looking at legislation like this, with entertainment way down on everyone's agenda.
baby 11mo ago
You can have one middle man platform to stream everything but competition to get good movies to that platform, it's a shame that we have so many platforms now
beloch 11mo ago
This feels very much like "United Stats vs Paramount Pictures: The Sequel"[1]. Vertical integration was the key problem back then. Major studios owned major cinema chains. They made it hard for independent cinemas to show the films people wanted, and they made it very hard for independent filmmakers to get their films shown anywhere. It was highly anti-competitive. I wouldn't expect the U.S. government to step in this time around though. It's very clear that competition and benefiting consumers are no longer priorities. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....
smsm42 11mo ago
I wish that'd happen, but instead what we have is that everybody is making terrible new content, and getting any of the old content is a nightmare too because there are 28 or so subscriptions needed, which are constantly increasing prices (yeah, they are supposed to be competing, but somehow...) and constantly shuffling their lists, so you can just lose access to a series in the middle of a rewatch. I hope eventually it will organize into something resembling normalcy, but it's not happening so far... There's of course other solution (ahoy, matey!) but I'd rather just pay reasonable sum for a subscription. I know Netflix buying everything is not a solution either, but so far it's only getting worse.
TuringNYC 11mo ago
>>> I want a separation between the streaming platform companies and the content making companies, so that the streaming companies can compete on making a better platform/service and the content companies compete on making better content. >>> I don't want one company that owns everything, I want several companies that are able to license whatever content they want. And ideally the customer can choose between a subscription that includes everything, and paying for content a la carte, or maybe subscriptions that focus on specific kinds of content (scifi/fantasy, stuff for kids, old movies, international, sports, etc.) regardless of what company made it. This sounds fine in theory, but how would it work if the content were continuously changing? For example, the final straw that made my cut the cord of cable-tv was getting locked into a 3yr plan for cable TV only to get the Disney channel for the kids -- only to learn that Verizon/Disney had a fight and I lost the channel. https://deadline.com/2018/12/disney-warns-verizon-fios-customers-about-potential-blackout-1202525927/ https://deadline.com/2018/12/disney-warns-verizon-fios-custo... Now, i'm still locked into the 3yr plan with Verizon but dont have the content I wanted. I know people complain about paying $10 or $15 for a streaming service, but imagine paying $100 for cable TV and being locked into a 3yr contract. I'd much, much rather have a la carte services I can pick and choose and cancel as desired. However, if you're talking about the Amazon Prime TV model, then I'd totally agree with you. I think that is the ideal model -- Prime is a nominal cost (for now) and you can add/remove channels as you wish.
RangerScience 11mo ago
Mostly agree, but I’d advocate for a carve-out for DropoutTV; maybe; exempt if (1) only hosting your own content and (2) that content can be licensed by other services?
KronisLV 11mo ago
I'm still upset with how quickly shows get cancelled nowadays, like the axed Altered Carbon and The Expanse and the endings of neither felt satisfying and the final seasons - rushed. Whatever set of circumstances leads to that, it would be nice not to have that. Somehow it feels like a huge org owning both the content creation as well as distribution leads to that.

by thayne 11mo ago

jajuuka 11mo ago

This would be ideal. The cable model was inherently flawed; it was just a series of local monopolies that poisoned it. Give consumers a choice. But considering everyone operates like Disney anymore and is highly protective of its IP I doubt this world will ever exist without direct government intervention.

autoexec 11mo ago
Honestly the biggest problem was/is copyright law. Make everything older than 10-14 years public domain and streaming services would have endless amounts of content always available. Independently operated streaming sites would be all over the internet.
- roguecoder 11mo ago
  That would also solve the problem of AI training data. Build a data set, wait 14 years, and it's guaranteed to be legal.

throwaway7783 11mo ago

This should really be the end goal. We are worse off than cable right now with all these streaming services and worse , overlapping content.

oatmealcookie 11mo ago
[dead]
mulderc 11mo ago
Strong disagree on being worse off than cable. I now almost never see ads, that is a huge benefit in my book.
- MattRix 11mo ago
  it is nice that if you pay enough you can avoid ads, but they are definitely coming to all the lower price tiers… and the premium tiers will of course get more expensive over time
  - SpaceNoodled 11mo ago
    At some point, the market will no longer be able to bear premium price hikes, and they'll just shove in ads instead - exactly as happened with cable.
    - lukeschlather 11mo ago
      HBO never had a tier with ads when it was on cable, it was simply expensive.
      - autoexec 11mo ago
        Lots of things didn't have ads on the past (basic cable TV for example). Today the model has changed to being expensive and still collect data/push ads. This isn't a cable vs streaming thing, it's a then vs now thing.
        TeMPOraL 11mo ago
        True. People forget television itself is barely 100 years old. Business models don't grow on trees, they need to be invented and they evolve along with the technology. Advertising was with us for centuries, but it took until last few decades for it to evolve into a social cancer it is today.

cactus2093 11mo ago

This is how it worked a decade+ ago, when there was still alpha to be had on providing better streaming service. It was great and we got things like the Netflix Prize and all sorts of content ranking improvements, better CDN platforms, lower latency and less buffering, more content upgraded to HD and 4K. Plus some annoying but clearly effective practices like auto-play of trailers and unrelated shows. Now these are all solved problems, so there is no benefit in trying to compete on making a better platform / service. The only thing left is competing on content. > I want several companies that are able to license whatever content they want. And ideally the customer can choose between a subscription that includes everything, and paying for content a la carte, or maybe subscriptions that focus on specific kinds of content This seems like splitting hairs, it's almost exactly what we do have. You can still buy and rent individual shows & movies from Apple and Amazon and other providers. Or you can subscribe to services. The only difference is there is no one big "subscription that includes everything", you need 10 different $15 subscriptions to get everything. Again, kind of splitting hairs though. The one big subscription would probably be the same price as everything combined anyway.

_DeadFred_ 11mo ago
Ah yes, today where they optimized out the recommendation algo to the point I haven't found something recommended to be watch worthy in years. The only thing worse than the video streaming recommendations is what's become of Amazon/Audible's book recommendations (though Spotify is trying hard to enshitify their algos to catch up). Sad that we can't have nice things, but capitalism must be fed and I guess good, targeted recommendation algorithms are anti-capital.
ghaff 11mo ago
Exactly. Nothing is really preventing a $200/month aggregator beyond paying a bunch of lawyers and people not wanting to pay that. I know I'll live with some service fragmentation in exchange for not paying for a bunch of stuff I'll maybe watch once in a blue moon. And I'll probably buy some discs for things I really want to see.
- TeMPOraL 11mo ago

cyanydeez 11mo ago

I want more than two parties competing to run the democracy, also. The things you want arn't going to happen under the current operating procedures of the United States of America. I hope that's clear.

malvim 11mo ago

This is how cable worked, no? And how streaming has been working. And it MIGHT be getting things cheaper, maybe? I guess? But watching specific stuff you want is hell. The cognitive load of searching a bunch of services, or finding a site that tells you where to watch, then it’s not in that same service in your country, you might have to pay extra, or sign up for another streaming service or… Holy cow, it’s a terrible experience. I’m not saying I have a better idea, or that it couldn’t be worse. But it’s terrible.

commandlinefan 11mo ago
I agree with you that modern streaming service are a hassle, BUT - I'm old enough to remember Blockbuster, too. It used to be that if you wanted to watch a movie, you drove to the video store, found a copy, paid $2 to rent it for 24 hours, tried to remember to rewind it and got it back to the store before it was late. Streaming services are _definitely_ more convenient. Right now, you can pretty much rent any movie you want through Amazon Prime with not late fee or rewind penalty, but you have to pay a couple of (extra!) dollars to do it. This is, undebatably, a massive improvement over the way it used to be in every way, but it still bothers me even though I can't put my finger on exactly why.
- ghaff 11mo ago
  An analyst friend of mine wrote that Napster was more about convenience than price (free). I disagreed with him at the time but, with the rise of various streaming services, I've come to view myself as at least partially wrong. Maybe not the broke 20 year old per another comment. (Who doesn't have a lot of money anyway.) But a lot of people are happy and able to pay for a subscription that doesn't involve screwing around with a lot of dodgy stuff.
  - TeMPOraL 11mo ago
    I thought this conclusion about Napster was and is widely considered as true and most important lesson of that time. Success of YouTube, Spotify, Netflix and Steam and the near-demise of piracy are usually attributed to that.

acjohnson55 11mo ago

We could deliver to consumers over some sort of "cable". But what would we call it?

phantasmish 11mo ago

> I want a separation between the streaming platform companies and the content making companies, so that the streaming companies can compete on making a better platform/service and the content companies compete on making better content. Exactly the correct solution. We did something similar with movie theaters and film studios for decades, up until a couple years ago. Same sort of problem, same solution should work.

johannes1234321 11mo ago
Not only movie theaters, but also movie rental and selling of VHS tapes/DVDs etc. One could go to the favorite department store and get movies from all studios right next to each other, sorted by genre or title or similar.
- phantasmish 11mo ago
  Like vertical integration isn't always bad 100% of the time, but this particular case of marrying distribution and production seems to serve minimal beneficial purpose and inevitably the main outcome is high levels of rents-collection and squeezing the people doing the actual creative work. There's pretty much nothing but up-side to forcing the two roles to remain separate. It's probably got something to do with copyright. Like the way it interacts with markets makes this sort of arrangement net-harmful pretty much any time you see it.
  - johannes1234321 11mo ago
    > It's probably got something to do with copyright. Like the way it interacts with markets makes this sort of arrangement net-harmful pretty much any time you see it. I would say it is monopoly. If you are a luxury brand you may sell your pen in a brand store only and limit access and will have some business. But other companies will produce comparable pens and then your only moat is the brand identity but in all objective criteria the other pens are equal. With intellectual work you got the monopoly. If I want the Taylor Swift song I don't want Lady Gaga, even though both may be good. If I want a Batman movie, I don't want Iron Man. These products aren't comparable in the same way. And another vendor (studio) can't produce an equal product in the same way as with the pen example.

yibg 11mo ago

You can today no? You can buy or rent a single movie / tv series from apple tv, amazon etc. problem is most people don't want to buy each thing they want to watch.

Draiken 11mo ago
You mean the "license while they feel like it" kind of purchase? If I could pay for individual TV shows and actually own them I'd definitely prefer that over the disaster we have today. Buying a blue-ray and ripping it is not very practical and it's by design.
coder543 11mo ago
Netflix (notoriously) does not license most of their content this way. You can't rent/buy Stranger Things on Apple TV, no matter how much you're willing to pay. If Netflix acquires Warner Bros, I expect this restriction to extend to that content too over time.
thayne 11mo ago
Sometimes you can. But there are also shows where the only (legal) way to watch it is on a particular streaming platform where it is "exclusive".

schnable 11mo ago

This is how it was with cable, and it was actually better for the content providers. They made shows and got fat checks from the cable companies every year. Then they all copied Netflix, because the stockmarket was rewarding it, and had to start dealing with billing, customer retention, technology platforms, advertising platforms. And they all lost a ton of money a doing it.

thayne 11mo ago
Not quite the same. Cable had regional monopolies due to the high barrier of entry and economies of scale (building cable infrastructure). There is still some economy of scale for streaming platforms, but if you get rid of exclusive content and the difficulty of making license deals (especially for a small player), then it is a lot easier for a new startup to compete in the area then it ever was to compete with a cable company.

nonethewiser 11mo ago

I want all the movies for free without pirating

sokoloff 11mo ago
How do movies get made under that system?
- bouncycastle 11mo ago
  Look at books: You can go to your local public library and borrow any book for free, yet new books are still made under that system.
  - sokoloff 11mo ago
    Fair point! In many libraries, you can go to the library and check out DVDs as well. That could be a way to make videos available for free but inconvenient enough that people would pay for a more convenient way, just as they do with books.
  - lp0_on_fire 11mo ago
    The _vast_ majority of book sales are to private individuals, not libraries.
  - rewgs 11mo ago
    The cost of creating a book is essentially $0 when compared to movies.

assimpleaspossi 11mo ago

I agree that separation of concerns might bring better content but I can't afford buying multiple services in hopes of catching what I want. (Actually, I can afford it but I'm ... frugal.)

danielmarkbruce 11mo ago

Let the market figure it out. There has never been an easier time to make content and there has never been an easier time to distribute content.

stubish 11mo ago

I'm more for requiring licensing to anyone and everyone for the same price, including yourself. No more exclusives. Streaming platforms compete on cost, features and availability of niche content. Even further, choosing to not license content to anyone creates an implicit license for everyone. No more lost content. But I don't think any countries are looking at legislation like this, with entertainment way down on everyone's agenda.

baby 11mo ago

You can have one middle man platform to stream everything but competition to get good movies to that platform, it's a shame that we have so many platforms now

beloch 11mo ago

This feels very much like "United Stats vs Paramount Pictures: The Sequel"[1]. Vertical integration was the key problem back then. Major studios owned major cinema chains. They made it hard for independent cinemas to show the films people wanted, and they made it very hard for independent filmmakers to get their films shown anywhere. It was highly anti-competitive. I wouldn't expect the U.S. government to step in this time around though. It's very clear that competition and benefiting consumers are no longer priorities. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....

smsm42 11mo ago

I wish that'd happen, but instead what we have is that everybody is making terrible new content, and getting any of the old content is a nightmare too because there are 28 or so subscriptions needed, which are constantly increasing prices (yeah, they are supposed to be competing, but somehow...) and constantly shuffling their lists, so you can just lose access to a series in the middle of a rewatch. I hope eventually it will organize into something resembling normalcy, but it's not happening so far... There's of course other solution (ahoy, matey!) but I'd rather just pay reasonable sum for a subscription. I know Netflix buying everything is not a solution either, but so far it's only getting worse.

TuringNYC 11mo ago

>>> I want a separation between the streaming platform companies and the content making companies, so that the streaming companies can compete on making a better platform/service and the content companies compete on making better content. >>> I don't want one company that owns everything, I want several companies that are able to license whatever content they want. And ideally the customer can choose between a subscription that includes everything, and paying for content a la carte, or maybe subscriptions that focus on specific kinds of content (scifi/fantasy, stuff for kids, old movies, international, sports, etc.) regardless of what company made it. This sounds fine in theory, but how would it work if the content were continuously changing? For example, the final straw that made my cut the cord of cable-tv was getting locked into a 3yr plan for cable TV only to get the Disney channel for the kids -- only to learn that Verizon/Disney had a fight and I lost the channel. https://deadline.com/2018/12/disney-warns-verizon-fios-customers-about-potential-blackout-1202525927/ https://deadline.com/2018/12/disney-warns-verizon-fios-custo... Now, i'm still locked into the 3yr plan with Verizon but dont have the content I wanted. I know people complain about paying $10 or $15 for a streaming service, but imagine paying $100 for cable TV and being locked into a 3yr contract. I'd much, much rather have a la carte services I can pick and choose and cancel as desired. However, if you're talking about the Amazon Prime TV model, then I'd totally agree with you. I think that is the ideal model -- Prime is a nominal cost (for now) and you can add/remove channels as you wish.

RangerScience 11mo ago

Mostly agree, but I’d advocate for a carve-out for DropoutTV; maybe; exempt if (1) only hosting your own content and (2) that content can be licensed by other services?

KronisLV 11mo ago

I'm still upset with how quickly shows get cancelled nowadays, like the axed Altered Carbon and The Expanse and the endings of neither felt satisfying and the final seasons - rushed. Whatever set of circumstances leads to that, it would be nice not to have that. Somehow it feels like a huge org owning both the content creation as well as distribution leads to that.