9 ms·

Please, keep paying $80 a month for cable so I can enjoy cheap TV

85 points by waderoush 13y ago

mynd 13y ago
I spend more on drinks in one week. And besides there's just something nostalgic about live television you can't (currently) replicate on the web. I can instantly watch programming on topics I would otherwise not seek out myself.
mmuro 13y ago
Okay, fine. I will pay more up front to watch TV as it happens. But, you can't complain that HBO Go isn't available without a cable subscription anymore.
jamesaguilar 13y ago
I'm not sure what the takeaway of this is. Yes, people have to pay more for certain kinds of content, because cable+satellite has a monopoly on it. It seems in poor taste to gloat about that fact, though.
kcbanner 13y ago
Well, that was hard to read
TrunkleBob 13y ago
It's really no different than any other early adopter premiums. They pay $80-$100 every month to watch "Breaking Bad" now; I pay $8/month and I'll get to watch it in a year or so when it hits Netflix. Just like the people driving hybrids and electrics are bringing the cost down to where the rest of the population can afford it. The only real difference is that in this case the early adopter is the normal case and the late adopters are the outliers.
- jacobbudin 13y ago
  +1. You'll pay more to watch a movie in a theater than you will months later when it's available on DVD. You'll pay more to watch the same movie on DVD than you will months later when it's available on Netflix Watch Instantly. This is how successful media business models work: milk the most money from those who most desire the product.
  - k-mcgrady 13y ago
    >> "You'll pay more to watch a movie in a theater than you will months later when it's available on DVD." This isn't the case where I live. A new release DVD costs approx. £10. I can get a cinema ticket for as little as £3.50.
    - jacobbudin 13y ago
      > This isn't the case where I live. A new release DVD costs approx. £10. I can get a cinema ticket for as little as £3.50. I'm referring to renting the DVD. Or even buying the DVD, and watching it together as a family or group (£10 DVD vs. 4*£3.50 movie tickets). But yes, there are some caveats.
      - k-mcgrady 13y ago
        Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't consider the cost of tickets for multiple people or renting the movie.
    - scpotter 13y ago
      You're correct for purchasing, but I assumed this was DVD rental. Also there's often Pay-per-view rental between theater and dvd availability.
- SourPatch 13y ago
  You can watch many shows for $1.99 on Amazon right after they air.
  - whichdan 13y ago
    I do this for three or four shows, and it's great being able to go back and re-watch entire seasons on a whim. I don't use Amazon Prime Video much since I usually go to Netflix first, but I rarely feel like I'm overpaying or missing out.
- oftenwrong 13y ago
  If you wait for shows to become public domain, you can watch them for free!* *although you'll be dead long before you can watch breaking bad
siegecraft 13y ago
I think I understand that the author was trying to rile people up to try and change their minds, but all I really got from it was because he doesn't care about live sports, or watching TV shows as soon as they air, he doesn't have to pay as much for TV. So brave.
pbreit 13y ago
I pay $60/month to Comcast for TV and Internet and hardly feel like I'm getting ripped off or subsidizing anyone. I pay $9/month to Hulu and Netflix and hardly ever watch them.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  I pay $70/month in the Chicago suburbs to Comcast for only internet access (12 down/4 up), and I definitely feel like I'm getting ripped off.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - numo16 13y ago
    That's awful...I pay $85/month to Comcast in Flint for 50 up/10 down and I wish Google would move their ass with Google Fiber
  - pc86 13y ago
    $100/mo for 50/25 FiOS here. We've currently got too many ancillary services in my opinion - Netflix DVD and streaming, Hulu+ and Amazon Prime streaming
pkulak 13y ago
I have a hard time believing that I'm being subsidized for my lack of a cable bill. Could AMC really be getting more from me with transmission fees and ads than the $3.99 I pay (gladly, btw) for _each_ episode of Mad Med or Breaking Bad? If everyone cut their cable, that would be a lot of new $3-$4 purchases. The last episode of Breaking Bad had 6 million live viewers. Assume that everyone cuts their cable, and only half buy the finale for the average price of $3.5. Also assume that prior to this no one is buying it at all. Yank the standard Apple-style 30% and that's still almost 15 million dollars. That's real money right there.
- mikeryan 13y ago
  The Average american family spends 34 hours a week [1] watching TV, break that in half for shits and giggles and you're now at 17 hours per week or roughly 68 hours a month. At your $3.5 per hour of TV rate the average household is now paying $238 bucks a month ala-carte. Want to charge less per episode? Breaking Bad's last season cost $3.5M per episode to produce just to break even on production costs they'd need to charge just over a buck per episode (3M paid) and you'd still be charging that household $68 bucks a month. That still real money right there. [1] http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/americans-spend-34-hours-week-watching-tv-nielsen-numbers-article-1.1162285 http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/americans... [2] http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/mipcom-katzenberg-offered-to-pay-75-million-for-three-extra-breaking-bad-episodes-1200708639/ http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/mipcom-katzenberg-offered-to...
  - georgemcbay 13y ago
    Unlike OP, Breaking Bad for me (on Amazon Instant) is $1.99 or $2.99 depending upon if I want SD or HD, and the SD streams are actually quite good quality-wise, certainly good enough for the masses who like to stretch letterboxed content so their screen isn't "wasted". But that aside, The 34 hours a week includes a lot of advertisement watching too, so I'm sure there are hybrid models that could be explored where you get a good discount on streaming for choosing to watch some ads inserted into the middle of the show, say $1.99 for the SD show without commercials or heavy discount (maybe even free) if you choose the ads, and then the higher end $2.99 for people who really insist on "HD". Also, I'm sure not all of that 34 hours per week the average person watches is Breaking Bad quality, presumably a lot of it is filler that would be valued far less by the watcher and thus have to be priced far less, which is one of the real benefits of ala carte. When I was a cable subscriber I felt like I was subsidizing a lot of really shitty networks churning out really shitty programs. I'm perfectly happy to pay the same amount per month (or even a bit more!) but with all my money going to programs of a high enough quality that I choose to pay to watch them specifically.
jrockway 13y ago
I'm glad those $80/month people are subsidizing my House of Cards viewing.
Dirlewanger 13y ago
Aereo can't grow fast enough. I am willing to sacrifice a small child to get their services.
- whichdan 13y ago
  What's the appeal of Aereo? It only has a handful of channels.
  - Dirlewanger 13y ago
    Actual TV on your desktop/phone. No messing with buying a tuner or any crap like that. Only thing that would suck is bandwidth caps...but you might as well get a more expensive plan if you do away with TV.
  - Yhippa 13y ago
    As a cordcutter on the fringe of my metro area I don't get many channels OTA. This would be a huge boon for me.
seanalltogether 13y ago
The only legal way to stream Game of Thrones or Homeland without a cable subscription is to pay $40 per season on iTunes or amazon. So who's subsidizing who?
- beggi 13y ago
  Would you rather pay $80 to watch Game of Thrones and Homeland, or $80 a month for a year ($960 total) to watch those episodes plus old rerun movies and syndicate shows? I suppose it's a matter of preference but I choose the former :)
- chollida1 13y ago
  > The only legal way to stream Game of Thrones or Homeland without a cable subscription is to pay $40 per season on iTunes or amazon. So who's subsidizing who? Umm, My wife and I watched Homeland on Netflix. That's streaming and we don't have a cable subscription. What point are you making exactly?
  - gvb 13y ago
    That means you are paying $8/month, or $96/year, for Netflix.
    - moistgorilla 13y ago
      as opposed to 80 dollars a month for cable. What point are you trying to make?
  - seanalltogether 13y ago
    What do you mean? Homeland is only available as dvd/blu-ray on netflix? Showtime and HBO lock down all their streaming. http://dvd.netflix.com/Search?v1=homeland&ac_abs_posn=-1&fcld=true&ac_rel_posn=-1&ac_category_type=none http://dvd.netflix.com/Search?v1=homeland&ac_abs_posn=-1&fcl...
    - dcope 13y ago
ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
I don't understand how/why cable hasn't gone the NetZero route. Give me a cable box that I can't skip commercials on for free and maybe I'll consider using it for entertainment purposes. They can make far, far more money charging for advertising than by squeezing the end user. Source: Google's stock today.
- arsenic32 13y ago
  Yes. Because throwing advertisements on something always results in a Google level of profit. Source: Facebook's stock today. Edit: Also the cable companies only own a small number of the channels they broadcast therefore the ad revenue from those may be zero.
  - ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
    Then perhaps its time to disrupt the cable market...exactly like we've been seeing over the past 24 months. I felt this way the second I saw XBox Live. Imagine how much more content you would be willing to consume from there if everything wasn't a la carte. You have a captive audience where you can charge advertisers a premium for getting in front of those eyes. Instead the customers are asked to pay a monthly fee just to access online content and you either pay per download or for a secondary service.
tericho 13y ago
Live sports, end of argument.
- siegecraft 13y ago
  But but but, concussions! Surely that one word instantly changes your opinion on sports and fills you with regret and shame and makes you no longer want to watch live sports.
- _JamesA_ 13y ago
  Yes, end of argument. It's exactly why I don't miss paying for cable or watch much live TV. I have absolutely zero interest in any sports whatsoever. Even trying to watch the news you have to put up with ridiculous sports related stories weaved throughout. Thank god for PBS.
- mmoche 13y ago
  The real problem isn't even live sports, it's live sports blackouts. If my NHL Gamecenter account (or similar service from other leagues) allowed me to watch local games, I wouldn't need cable. I'm sure the leagues are incentivized to maintain local blackouts as a way to capture enormous deals with various sports networks, and also to drive gate revenue, but cutting out the league middleman does afford them the ability to do some nifty things, like directly charge consumers of their content.
- kin 13y ago
  Yeah, there's really no alternative, especially for football. For NBA I can get League Pass but anything that's locally aired is blocked so I'm forced to find some TV that airs it, at a local bar or what have you.
ctdonath 13y ago
The fact that only a fraction of you have started using the streaming services that give me access to so much great video content. Netflix, by far the most successful Internet-based TV service, finished 2012 with only 27 million streaming subscribers in the U.S., compared to 99 million pay-TV subscribers across the leading cable and satellite TV providers. Wait, Netflix has a quarter the viewers of all cable/sat TV viewers? Not inclined to call that "only a fraction", more like the hemorrhaging is well under way. Try taking all streaming video customers into account, I'd guess it's closer to half. This "subsidizing" won't go on for long. My kids are growing with absolutely no notion of what "TV" (the ad-driven kind) is; those who do are used to a plethora of on-demand alternatives. 15 years from now, "channels" will be on-demand streaming sources unlike the schedule-driven content we have now. The one thing I think is still missing: the streaming equivalent of TV's "here we are now, entertain us" - the pick a source and just watch a curated series of shows (not just same series episodes back-to-back).
- muaddirac 13y ago
  Pandora for tv? It sounds like a solid idea.
- thenomad 13y ago
  Netflix will do this, but only one film at a time, I think.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    Think "play suggested movies, back-to-back, without stopping, all of them."
    - GFischer 13y ago
      A discovery function (previews of other shows? a program dedicated to previewing available programming?) would be desirable as well. Something equivalent to channel-zapping, or a tv listing. Netflix might be beginning to suffer from the "Paradox of Choice" - I don't want to spend my already-depleted willpower choosing among all the available programming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More_Is_Less http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More...
error54 13y ago
I always said that I'd gladly pay for cable when they let me pick and choose what channels I get. I refuse to pay $50+ when all I really want is maybe 5-8 channels out of the 120 they offer.
joshuahedlund 13y ago
I wonder how similar these economics are to the folks paying $120 a month for cell phones so others can enjoy cheap coverage via MVNO's.
- bsimpson 13y ago
  When you amortize out the cost of a smartphone subsidy, it's basically a wash. You can either spend $1600 over 2 years on AT&T and get your phone for < $300, or spend $1000 over 2 years on StraightTalk and pay full retail ($750 on an iPhone 5s). The cost savings start to add up if you hold on to your phone for longer than 2 years, but if you're the kind of person who buys a cutting edge phone every 18 months, prepaid is only an advantage if you care about being able to switch carriers on the drop of a hat.
loso 13y ago
The author doesn't like live sports so the people who do like sports are suckers according to the article. Well I will take on that mantle because I cut the cord for five years while living in NYC and the sports situation is abysmal when you do that. Trying to find streams over the internet on Sunday is a horrible ordeal and during the NBA season is 10x worse. I watch about 5 broadcast shows throughout the year. One is gone now since Breaking Bad is off the air. The only other thing I use my TV for is CNBC/Bloomberg and sports. Cutting the cord is just a horrible situation when that is the case.
- mikeash 13y ago
  I don't see him saying that people who like sports are suckers. Rather, they're just screwed, since they don't have the alternatives for the things they like that the author has for the things he likes. This situation is great for him, since the sports watchers help pay for the stuff he likes, but not good for them.
  - loso 13y ago
    I know the tone was sarcastic to make a point but that is how the article came off. Especially the paragraph talking about the NFL concussions.
- error54 13y ago
  I stream all of my sports every weekend. I love football and soccer however, I refuse to get cable and then pay a premium just to get ESPNU and the NFL network. Email me and I can give you a list of sites that broadcast every game; the quality isn't HD but it is very watchable.
  - loso 13y ago
    Maybe its me getting older but the hassle just became not worth it. Finding sites that would be good for a couple of weeks then fall off in quality later on down the line was the norm. And my favorite, watching a big Boxing or UFC event with a clear stream until the main event comes on and everyone else decides to jump on and kill the server. I did it for five years and now that I have cable again I don't think I'm going back.
jarrett 13y ago
If only we could all get in on this deal! Many of us are economically savvy enough to take advantage like the author does, but we can't. Why? Because our only available ISP is a cable company. And no, I'm not in a rural, remote, or otherwise hard-to-serve area. For many years I've lived in affluent, dense, urban neighborhoods in some of America's most important cities. Yet I've never had any ISP available other than the cable company. Those of you who are familiar with the ISP industry: By your estimate, when will most Americans have at least two options for Internet service?
- eric_the_read 13y ago
  Why does that matter? My ISP is a cable company, too, but I don't subscribe to their TV service.
  - jarrett 13y ago
    Because of how cable companies often price their internet-only package. I think it's about $10/month less than internet + TV, in my case. So I strongly suspect I'm helping subsidize things that aren't related to my internet usage.
    - tsotha 13y ago
      Where I live if you get the basic TV package with your internet it's cheaper than internet alone. The reason is some of the channels (like HSN, for instance) pay your cable company to be broadcast.
buckbova 13y ago
I pay well over this for AT&T U-verse. I also have netflix and attempted to use Hulu for a while. I couldn't find enough content I wanted to watch. It was too difficult to switch back and forth between content. Now I have hundreds of channels. There are 3D movies available to stream from U-verse. I will get the UFC fight tomorrow on PPV through AT&T which by itself will be $60 for 3 hours of viewing. "In short, my cushy life as a TV free rider is only feasible because there lots of people like you who aren’t switching to Internet-only video. So please, keep on subsidizing my high-quality, low-cost couch surfing experience by paying your big cable bills for as long as you can." Your viewing experience is not as good as mine. It's cute you think so.
- goostavos 13y ago
  >it's cute you think so. Oy.. So much smug over choice of entertainment packages. If you're into 3d movies and sports, cable sounds like a good fit for you. Others, like myself, aren't into sports (unless ESPN were to start broadcasting eSports), and I have no desire for 3d movies nor 100s of channels. For me, Netflix, twitch, and amazon gives me a better experience than cable. It's almost as if, and this may be crazy, something being a "good experience" is subjective.
  - buckbova 13y ago
    Based on the title of the article I deemed it appropriate. "Please, Keep Paying $80 a Month for Cable So I Can Enjoy Cheap TV" The author is picking up my scraps and he's welcome to them.
humanrebar 13y ago
It doesn't bother me if everyone subsidizes my entertainment or not. For people like me, entertainment is fungible. I can enjoy myself watching football, playing a game from Steam, reading Mr. Money Moustache, streaming something from Netflix, or renting from RedBox. The game has changed. There is literally more high-quality entertainment than I have time to consume. Of course there is going to be downward pressure on prices. If any of those things cost too much to be worth it (like non-local-market NFL games and non-event films in theaters), I'm going somewhere else with my money. If the economics don't make sense for Hulu to entertain me for cheap (the number of commercials are pushing it already), no skin off my nose. There are probably some books I haven't gotten around to reading anyway. So, for me, the supply of entertainment is high, my supply of attention and my budget for entertainment are both rapidly shrinking. So for me, and I suspect more people every year, paying a large monthly fee for cable (or even streaming services) is absurd.
- JimboOmega 13y ago
  A lot of entertainment for a lot of people ISN'T fungible. The reason being social. If I wait a year or two for a show to appear on Netflix, my friends aren't talking about it, people aren't speculating about it... the buzz is gone. It's falling out of the zeitgeist. It's true that if my only goal is to sit in front of a screen and amuse myself for a couple hours, it's very fungible. A $8/month netflix account + a $50/mo (or less) internet connection lets me do that. But I want to be in tune with the culture. I want to be able to talk to my friends/family about that crazy play in the game on Sunday. I want to be able to read all the [spoiler alert] postings when they are current. I want to be able to play whatever game online with my friends while they are still interested in it.
  - atwebb 13y ago
    I'm not sure if it's just my group of people or not but, since most of us are "cord cutters", we tend to discuss things that recently came available or had new seasons on Netflix/Hulu so it's new at that point in time to us. There's a few we miss out on (Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones) but the rest we're perfectly fine waiting for.
maskedinvader 13y ago
surprised he mentioned Game of Thrones, since the DVD releases much later and HBO doesn't let you stream anything unless you have a valid HBO cable subscription. Also Netflix doesnt have all the shows, neither do any of the other stream only services he mentioned. My point is, either way you will not great deal, cut the cord or not !
njharman 13y ago
> I canceled my Hulu Plus subscription after two weeks because they were asking me to pay $8 a month and watch a bunch of ads Hulu is a complete fucking piece of crap cause of this.
- Yhippa 13y ago
  I wonder what the cost of Hulu is if they were to eliminate ads? If I hazard a wild guess I could see it being around $16 to $20 which I don't know if people would pay for that.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
asperous 13y ago
I just want to throw in here that with a small amount of effort, you can antenna yourself free television in full high definition. Content: (I live in a 54,000 population town: 20 channels or so, nbc, fox, abc, etc.), major shows on major networks, live sports on certain days; Drawback: no Breaking Bad or other specialty channel shows. Quality: Unbeatable all channels 1080i - No static, you either get the channel or you don't. Functionality: I use Windows Media Center which works like a dvr. Cost: $40 tv tuner on ebay, $20 antenna from Radio Shack. No contracts or subscriptions.
- elliottcarlson 13y ago
  I tried this, and living in a half-basement even with an antenna right by the window provided me with 1 channel in Spanish. So while this would be great if I didn't live in the middle of no-where with horrible OTA coverage, it doesn't help in every situation.
- Yhippa 13y ago
  Tried the same thing and I might get 5 out of 20 channels in my area. Solution: move into the middle of the city. Not happening for me. I can't wait until Aereo comes to my city.
- asperous 13y ago
  I should mention that if you are thinking about this, check your coverage first: http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29 http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29 Note that the best place to get signals is high up, on top stories or roofs. Sorry basement dwellers.
therandomguy 13y ago
Hey, you are welcome. I'm glad you appreciate it especially since I pay $80 and don't even watch TV.
pravda 13y ago
We're actually all 'suckers'. The broadcast networks earn $billions from their use of the public airwaves and pay us nothing in return. "We don't give away trees to newspaper publishers. Why should we give away more airwaves to broadcasters? The airwaves are a natural resource. They do not belong to the broadcasters, phone companies or any other industry. They belong to the American people." from http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/27/opinion/giving-away-the-airwaves.html http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/27/opinion/giving-away-the-ai...
- YokoZar 13y ago
  Since that article was published significant amounts of spectrum were taken back from the TV industry and auctioned off to the highest bidder (cell phone companies, mostly): that's why everyone needed to switch from analog rabbit ears to digital TV reception.
  - pravda 13y ago
    Yes, and the broadcast companies don't pay a cent of rent. Why are the public airwaves given free to private corporations? Why shouldn't, for example, CBS be charged a modest $1,000,000,000/year for their use of the public airwaves?
- tsotha 13y ago
  Phone companies paid a hell of a lot of money for spectrum. Verizon alone paid $17bn. Anyway, television broadcasters are becoming irrelevant.
mmagin 13y ago
I am not convinced that that much of that $80/month actually goes to the production of these TV shows he watches. If it did, I think cable would have less ads, and I would also think that I wouldn't be paying $65/month to Comcast for cable modem service (no TV service).
yekim 13y ago
TV? What's that? I haven't watched TV in years now; neither have my wife and kids. We're much too frugal for cable. If there's a show we want to watch, we stream it off of Hulu or from the network's site if Hulu doesn't have it. Before this article, I'd never heard of Aereo. Their solution sounds pretty sweet. I signed up for being notified once they're in my area. I'd love to ditch the big frickin' antenna in my garage attic since it does absolutely jack squat in terms of picking up digital TV signals these days. We're bound by neighborhood covenant laws from having an antenna outside, so having Aereo would be great. The only thing I'm "meh" about Aereo is $8 / month. I'd be willing to pay $5 or less. $8 / month is too steep for me given our media consumption habits.
- pravda 13y ago
  >We're bound by neighborhood covenant laws from having an antenna outside, so having Aereo would be great. Are you in the USA? Laws* that interfere with antenna use are not enforceable. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule * "applies to state or local laws or regulations, including zoning, land-use or building regulations, private covenants, homeowners' association rules, condominium or cooperative association restrictions, lease restrictions, or similar restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has an ownership or leasehold interest in the property"
smsm42 13y ago
Stopping using cable/satellite TV is on my TODO list for years. However, I happen to like watching a bunch of TV shows (my active show list on next-episode.net is 25 names, 10 of which are running or will be in close future - so I watch about 1 episode per day and 2 on the weekends usually). I also never watch live TV - I get my news from better sources. As far as I can see, right now there's only one viable alternative for me to cable/satellite subscription - the Pirate Bay. As I am not fond of it for both legal reasons and reasons of convenience (it can be automated, but the time I'd spend doing it would be considerable and I want to spend it on other things). I'd be happy to have a service that given me access (immediate or ~week delay, I don't watch most of the shows same day) to the 10 shows I watch and I'd be completely willing to pay them the same ~$50/month I pay to my TV company (and they don't need to supply me with expensive equipment for free!). Netflix choice is abysmal, and so are Hulu Plus and others. Buying those individually on something like iTunes would cost me about 5x-10x and probably lock me up in a horrible world of incompatible format and DRM hassles. So, my choice is either say "screw the law" and go all-in for Pirate Bay, or pay the cable/satellite. I hope somebody will give me another choice, because, frankly, every cable/satellite company I was with sucked in its own unique way. But I just don't see any (legal ones) right now.
zacinbusiness 13y ago
LMFAO I use digital/HD cable, Netflix, iTunes, and HBO Go along with using TOR to watch shows that I normally can't see here in the U.S. Why? Is it because I'm a sucker? No. It's because I got a good job and I can afford the things that I like and that make myself and my wife happy. Not everyone wants to watch live TV, some people are happy to watch their shows afterwards, which makes sense. Personally, I hate the hassle of using illegal streaming sites and I refuse to use torrents just because I dislike gambling on the quality. I pay $80 a month for decently fast internet (30 down and 5 or so up), all the broadcast and premium tv I can watch, and the ability to watch tons of HBO content on-demand via my phone or iPad wherever I am. Then I pay for Netflix streaming and that adds that much more value, so let's call it $90 a month. That's absolutely nothing. But, if you want to pay less then that's a fine choice as well, and I can respect that. It doesn't make me a sucker any more than it does you. Now, go bag my groceries.

85 points by waderoush 13y ago

mynd 13y ago

I spend more on drinks in one week. And besides there's just something nostalgic about live television you can't (currently) replicate on the web. I can instantly watch programming on topics I would otherwise not seek out myself.

mmuro 13y ago

Okay, fine. I will pay more up front to watch TV as it happens. But, you can't complain that HBO Go isn't available without a cable subscription anymore.

jamesaguilar 13y ago

I'm not sure what the takeaway of this is. Yes, people have to pay more for certain kinds of content, because cable+satellite has a monopoly on it. It seems in poor taste to gloat about that fact, though.

kcbanner 13y ago

Well, that was hard to read

TrunkleBob 13y ago

It's really no different than any other early adopter premiums. They pay $80-$100 every month to watch "Breaking Bad" now; I pay $8/month and I'll get to watch it in a year or so when it hits Netflix. Just like the people driving hybrids and electrics are bringing the cost down to where the rest of the population can afford it. The only real difference is that in this case the early adopter is the normal case and the late adopters are the outliers.

jacobbudin 13y ago
+1. You'll pay more to watch a movie in a theater than you will months later when it's available on DVD. You'll pay more to watch the same movie on DVD than you will months later when it's available on Netflix Watch Instantly. This is how successful media business models work: milk the most money from those who most desire the product.
- k-mcgrady 13y ago
  >> "You'll pay more to watch a movie in a theater than you will months later when it's available on DVD." This isn't the case where I live. A new release DVD costs approx. £10. I can get a cinema ticket for as little as £3.50.
  - jacobbudin 13y ago
    > This isn't the case where I live. A new release DVD costs approx. £10. I can get a cinema ticket for as little as £3.50. I'm referring to renting the DVD. Or even buying the DVD, and watching it together as a family or group (£10 DVD vs. 4*£3.50 movie tickets). But yes, there are some caveats.
    - k-mcgrady 13y ago
      Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't consider the cost of tickets for multiple people or renting the movie.
  - scpotter 13y ago
    You're correct for purchasing, but I assumed this was DVD rental. Also there's often Pay-per-view rental between theater and dvd availability.
SourPatch 13y ago
You can watch many shows for $1.99 on Amazon right after they air.
- whichdan 13y ago
  I do this for three or four shows, and it's great being able to go back and re-watch entire seasons on a whim. I don't use Amazon Prime Video much since I usually go to Netflix first, but I rarely feel like I'm overpaying or missing out.
oftenwrong 13y ago
If you wait for shows to become public domain, you can watch them for free!* *although you'll be dead long before you can watch breaking bad

siegecraft 13y ago

I think I understand that the author was trying to rile people up to try and change their minds, but all I really got from it was because he doesn't care about live sports, or watching TV shows as soon as they air, he doesn't have to pay as much for TV. So brave.

pbreit 13y ago

I pay $60/month to Comcast for TV and Internet and hardly feel like I'm getting ripped off or subsidizing anyone. I pay $9/month to Hulu and Netflix and hardly ever watch them.

toomuchtodo 13y ago
I pay $70/month in the Chicago suburbs to Comcast for only internet access (12 down/4 up), and I definitely feel like I'm getting ripped off.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- numo16 13y ago
  That's awful...I pay $85/month to Comcast in Flint for 50 up/10 down and I wish Google would move their ass with Google Fiber
- pc86 13y ago
  $100/mo for 50/25 FiOS here. We've currently got too many ancillary services in my opinion - Netflix DVD and streaming, Hulu+ and Amazon Prime streaming

pkulak 13y ago

I have a hard time believing that I'm being subsidized for my lack of a cable bill. Could AMC really be getting more from me with transmission fees and ads than the $3.99 I pay (gladly, btw) for _each_ episode of Mad Med or Breaking Bad? If everyone cut their cable, that would be a lot of new $3-$4 purchases. The last episode of Breaking Bad had 6 million live viewers. Assume that everyone cuts their cable, and only half buy the finale for the average price of $3.5. Also assume that prior to this no one is buying it at all. Yank the standard Apple-style 30% and that's still almost 15 million dollars. That's real money right there.

mikeryan 13y ago
The Average american family spends 34 hours a week [1] watching TV, break that in half for shits and giggles and you're now at 17 hours per week or roughly 68 hours a month. At your $3.5 per hour of TV rate the average household is now paying $238 bucks a month ala-carte. Want to charge less per episode? Breaking Bad's last season cost $3.5M per episode to produce just to break even on production costs they'd need to charge just over a buck per episode (3M paid) and you'd still be charging that household $68 bucks a month. That still real money right there. [1] http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/americans-spend-34-hours-week-watching-tv-nielsen-numbers-article-1.1162285 http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/americans... [2] http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/mipcom-katzenberg-offered-to-pay-75-million-for-three-extra-breaking-bad-episodes-1200708639/ http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/mipcom-katzenberg-offered-to...
- georgemcbay 13y ago
  Unlike OP, Breaking Bad for me (on Amazon Instant) is $1.99 or $2.99 depending upon if I want SD or HD, and the SD streams are actually quite good quality-wise, certainly good enough for the masses who like to stretch letterboxed content so their screen isn't "wasted". But that aside, The 34 hours a week includes a lot of advertisement watching too, so I'm sure there are hybrid models that could be explored where you get a good discount on streaming for choosing to watch some ads inserted into the middle of the show, say $1.99 for the SD show without commercials or heavy discount (maybe even free) if you choose the ads, and then the higher end $2.99 for people who really insist on "HD". Also, I'm sure not all of that 34 hours per week the average person watches is Breaking Bad quality, presumably a lot of it is filler that would be valued far less by the watcher and thus have to be priced far less, which is one of the real benefits of ala carte. When I was a cable subscriber I felt like I was subsidizing a lot of really shitty networks churning out really shitty programs. I'm perfectly happy to pay the same amount per month (or even a bit more!) but with all my money going to programs of a high enough quality that I choose to pay to watch them specifically.

jrockway 13y ago

I'm glad those $80/month people are subsidizing my House of Cards viewing.

Dirlewanger 13y ago

Aereo can't grow fast enough. I am willing to sacrifice a small child to get their services.

whichdan 13y ago
What's the appeal of Aereo? It only has a handful of channels.
- Dirlewanger 13y ago
  Actual TV on your desktop/phone. No messing with buying a tuner or any crap like that. Only thing that would suck is bandwidth caps...but you might as well get a more expensive plan if you do away with TV.
- Yhippa 13y ago
  As a cordcutter on the fringe of my metro area I don't get many channels OTA. This would be a huge boon for me.

seanalltogether 13y ago

The only legal way to stream Game of Thrones or Homeland without a cable subscription is to pay $40 per season on iTunes or amazon. So who's subsidizing who?

beggi 13y ago
Would you rather pay $80 to watch Game of Thrones and Homeland, or $80 a month for a year ($960 total) to watch those episodes plus old rerun movies and syndicate shows? I suppose it's a matter of preference but I choose the former :)
chollida1 13y ago
> The only legal way to stream Game of Thrones or Homeland without a cable subscription is to pay $40 per season on iTunes or amazon. So who's subsidizing who? Umm, My wife and I watched Homeland on Netflix. That's streaming and we don't have a cable subscription. What point are you making exactly?
- gvb 13y ago
  That means you are paying $8/month, or $96/year, for Netflix.
  - moistgorilla 13y ago
    as opposed to 80 dollars a month for cable. What point are you trying to make?
- seanalltogether 13y ago
  What do you mean? Homeland is only available as dvd/blu-ray on netflix? Showtime and HBO lock down all their streaming. http://dvd.netflix.com/Search?v1=homeland&ac_abs_posn=-1&fcld=true&ac_rel_posn=-1&ac_category_type=none http://dvd.netflix.com/Search?v1=homeland&ac_abs_posn=-1&fcl...
  - dcope 13y ago

ChikkaChiChi 13y ago

I don't understand how/why cable hasn't gone the NetZero route. Give me a cable box that I can't skip commercials on for free and maybe I'll consider using it for entertainment purposes. They can make far, far more money charging for advertising than by squeezing the end user. Source: Google's stock today.

arsenic32 13y ago
Yes. Because throwing advertisements on something always results in a Google level of profit. Source: Facebook's stock today. Edit: Also the cable companies only own a small number of the channels they broadcast therefore the ad revenue from those may be zero.
- ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
  Then perhaps its time to disrupt the cable market...exactly like we've been seeing over the past 24 months. I felt this way the second I saw XBox Live. Imagine how much more content you would be willing to consume from there if everything wasn't a la carte. You have a captive audience where you can charge advertisers a premium for getting in front of those eyes. Instead the customers are asked to pay a monthly fee just to access online content and you either pay per download or for a secondary service.

tericho 13y ago

Live sports, end of argument.

siegecraft 13y ago
But but but, concussions! Surely that one word instantly changes your opinion on sports and fills you with regret and shame and makes you no longer want to watch live sports.
_JamesA_ 13y ago
Yes, end of argument. It's exactly why I don't miss paying for cable or watch much live TV. I have absolutely zero interest in any sports whatsoever. Even trying to watch the news you have to put up with ridiculous sports related stories weaved throughout. Thank god for PBS.
mmoche 13y ago
The real problem isn't even live sports, it's live sports blackouts. If my NHL Gamecenter account (or similar service from other leagues) allowed me to watch local games, I wouldn't need cable. I'm sure the leagues are incentivized to maintain local blackouts as a way to capture enormous deals with various sports networks, and also to drive gate revenue, but cutting out the league middleman does afford them the ability to do some nifty things, like directly charge consumers of their content.
kin 13y ago
Yeah, there's really no alternative, especially for football. For NBA I can get League Pass but anything that's locally aired is blocked so I'm forced to find some TV that airs it, at a local bar or what have you.

ctdonath 13y ago

The fact that only a fraction of you have started using the streaming services that give me access to so much great video content. Netflix, by far the most successful Internet-based TV service, finished 2012 with only 27 million streaming subscribers in the U.S., compared to 99 million pay-TV subscribers across the leading cable and satellite TV providers. Wait, Netflix has a quarter the viewers of all cable/sat TV viewers? Not inclined to call that "only a fraction", more like the hemorrhaging is well under way. Try taking all streaming video customers into account, I'd guess it's closer to half. This "subsidizing" won't go on for long. My kids are growing with absolutely no notion of what "TV" (the ad-driven kind) is; those who do are used to a plethora of on-demand alternatives. 15 years from now, "channels" will be on-demand streaming sources unlike the schedule-driven content we have now. The one thing I think is still missing: the streaming equivalent of TV's "here we are now, entertain us" - the pick a source and just watch a curated series of shows (not just same series episodes back-to-back).

muaddirac 13y ago
Pandora for tv? It sounds like a solid idea.
thenomad 13y ago
Netflix will do this, but only one film at a time, I think.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  Think "play suggested movies, back-to-back, without stopping, all of them."
  - GFischer 13y ago
    A discovery function (previews of other shows? a program dedicated to previewing available programming?) would be desirable as well. Something equivalent to channel-zapping, or a tv listing. Netflix might be beginning to suffer from the "Paradox of Choice" - I don't want to spend my already-depleted willpower choosing among all the available programming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More_Is_Less http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More...

error54 13y ago

I always said that I'd gladly pay for cable when they let me pick and choose what channels I get. I refuse to pay $50+ when all I really want is maybe 5-8 channels out of the 120 they offer.

joshuahedlund 13y ago

I wonder how similar these economics are to the folks paying $120 a month for cell phones so others can enjoy cheap coverage via MVNO's.

bsimpson 13y ago
When you amortize out the cost of a smartphone subsidy, it's basically a wash. You can either spend $1600 over 2 years on AT&T and get your phone for < $300, or spend $1000 over 2 years on StraightTalk and pay full retail ($750 on an iPhone 5s). The cost savings start to add up if you hold on to your phone for longer than 2 years, but if you're the kind of person who buys a cutting edge phone every 18 months, prepaid is only an advantage if you care about being able to switch carriers on the drop of a hat.

loso 13y ago

The author doesn't like live sports so the people who do like sports are suckers according to the article. Well I will take on that mantle because I cut the cord for five years while living in NYC and the sports situation is abysmal when you do that. Trying to find streams over the internet on Sunday is a horrible ordeal and during the NBA season is 10x worse. I watch about 5 broadcast shows throughout the year. One is gone now since Breaking Bad is off the air. The only other thing I use my TV for is CNBC/Bloomberg and sports. Cutting the cord is just a horrible situation when that is the case.

mikeash 13y ago
I don't see him saying that people who like sports are suckers. Rather, they're just screwed, since they don't have the alternatives for the things they like that the author has for the things he likes. This situation is great for him, since the sports watchers help pay for the stuff he likes, but not good for them.
- loso 13y ago
  I know the tone was sarcastic to make a point but that is how the article came off. Especially the paragraph talking about the NFL concussions.
error54 13y ago
I stream all of my sports every weekend. I love football and soccer however, I refuse to get cable and then pay a premium just to get ESPNU and the NFL network. Email me and I can give you a list of sites that broadcast every game; the quality isn't HD but it is very watchable.
- loso 13y ago
  Maybe its me getting older but the hassle just became not worth it. Finding sites that would be good for a couple of weeks then fall off in quality later on down the line was the norm. And my favorite, watching a big Boxing or UFC event with a clear stream until the main event comes on and everyone else decides to jump on and kill the server. I did it for five years and now that I have cable again I don't think I'm going back.

jarrett 13y ago

If only we could all get in on this deal! Many of us are economically savvy enough to take advantage like the author does, but we can't. Why? Because our only available ISP is a cable company. And no, I'm not in a rural, remote, or otherwise hard-to-serve area. For many years I've lived in affluent, dense, urban neighborhoods in some of America's most important cities. Yet I've never had any ISP available other than the cable company. Those of you who are familiar with the ISP industry: By your estimate, when will most Americans have at least two options for Internet service?

eric_the_read 13y ago
Why does that matter? My ISP is a cable company, too, but I don't subscribe to their TV service.
- jarrett 13y ago
  Because of how cable companies often price their internet-only package. I think it's about $10/month less than internet + TV, in my case. So I strongly suspect I'm helping subsidize things that aren't related to my internet usage.
  - tsotha 13y ago
    Where I live if you get the basic TV package with your internet it's cheaper than internet alone. The reason is some of the channels (like HSN, for instance) pay your cable company to be broadcast.

buckbova 13y ago

I pay well over this for AT&T U-verse. I also have netflix and attempted to use Hulu for a while. I couldn't find enough content I wanted to watch. It was too difficult to switch back and forth between content. Now I have hundreds of channels. There are 3D movies available to stream from U-verse. I will get the UFC fight tomorrow on PPV through AT&T which by itself will be $60 for 3 hours of viewing. "In short, my cushy life as a TV free rider is only feasible because there lots of people like you who aren’t switching to Internet-only video. So please, keep on subsidizing my high-quality, low-cost couch surfing experience by paying your big cable bills for as long as you can." Your viewing experience is not as good as mine. It's cute you think so.

goostavos 13y ago
>it's cute you think so. Oy.. So much smug over choice of entertainment packages. If you're into 3d movies and sports, cable sounds like a good fit for you. Others, like myself, aren't into sports (unless ESPN were to start broadcasting eSports), and I have no desire for 3d movies nor 100s of channels. For me, Netflix, twitch, and amazon gives me a better experience than cable. It's almost as if, and this may be crazy, something being a "good experience" is subjective.
- buckbova 13y ago
  Based on the title of the article I deemed it appropriate. "Please, Keep Paying $80 a Month for Cable So I Can Enjoy Cheap TV" The author is picking up my scraps and he's welcome to them.

humanrebar 13y ago

It doesn't bother me if everyone subsidizes my entertainment or not. For people like me, entertainment is fungible. I can enjoy myself watching football, playing a game from Steam, reading Mr. Money Moustache, streaming something from Netflix, or renting from RedBox. The game has changed. There is literally more high-quality entertainment than I have time to consume. Of course there is going to be downward pressure on prices. If any of those things cost too much to be worth it (like non-local-market NFL games and non-event films in theaters), I'm going somewhere else with my money. If the economics don't make sense for Hulu to entertain me for cheap (the number of commercials are pushing it already), no skin off my nose. There are probably some books I haven't gotten around to reading anyway. So, for me, the supply of entertainment is high, my supply of attention and my budget for entertainment are both rapidly shrinking. So for me, and I suspect more people every year, paying a large monthly fee for cable (or even streaming services) is absurd.

JimboOmega 13y ago
A lot of entertainment for a lot of people ISN'T fungible. The reason being social. If I wait a year or two for a show to appear on Netflix, my friends aren't talking about it, people aren't speculating about it... the buzz is gone. It's falling out of the zeitgeist. It's true that if my only goal is to sit in front of a screen and amuse myself for a couple hours, it's very fungible. A $8/month netflix account + a $50/mo (or less) internet connection lets me do that. But I want to be in tune with the culture. I want to be able to talk to my friends/family about that crazy play in the game on Sunday. I want to be able to read all the [spoiler alert] postings when they are current. I want to be able to play whatever game online with my friends while they are still interested in it.
- atwebb 13y ago
  I'm not sure if it's just my group of people or not but, since most of us are "cord cutters", we tend to discuss things that recently came available or had new seasons on Netflix/Hulu so it's new at that point in time to us. There's a few we miss out on (Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones) but the rest we're perfectly fine waiting for.

maskedinvader 13y ago

surprised he mentioned Game of Thrones, since the DVD releases much later and HBO doesn't let you stream anything unless you have a valid HBO cable subscription. Also Netflix doesnt have all the shows, neither do any of the other stream only services he mentioned. My point is, either way you will not great deal, cut the cord or not !

njharman 13y ago

> I canceled my Hulu Plus subscription after two weeks because they were asking me to pay $8 a month and watch a bunch of ads Hulu is a complete fucking piece of crap cause of this.

Yhippa 13y ago
I wonder what the cost of Hulu is if they were to eliminate ads? If I hazard a wild guess I could see it being around $16 to $20 which I don't know if people would pay for that.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

asperous 13y ago

I just want to throw in here that with a small amount of effort, you can antenna yourself free television in full high definition. Content: (I live in a 54,000 population town: 20 channels or so, nbc, fox, abc, etc.), major shows on major networks, live sports on certain days; Drawback: no Breaking Bad or other specialty channel shows. Quality: Unbeatable all channels 1080i - No static, you either get the channel or you don't. Functionality: I use Windows Media Center which works like a dvr. Cost: $40 tv tuner on ebay, $20 antenna from Radio Shack. No contracts or subscriptions.

elliottcarlson 13y ago
I tried this, and living in a half-basement even with an antenna right by the window provided me with 1 channel in Spanish. So while this would be great if I didn't live in the middle of no-where with horrible OTA coverage, it doesn't help in every situation.
Yhippa 13y ago
Tried the same thing and I might get 5 out of 20 channels in my area. Solution: move into the middle of the city. Not happening for me. I can't wait until Aereo comes to my city.
asperous 13y ago
I should mention that if you are thinking about this, check your coverage first: http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29 http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29 Note that the best place to get signals is high up, on top stories or roofs. Sorry basement dwellers.

therandomguy 13y ago

Hey, you are welcome. I'm glad you appreciate it especially since I pay $80 and don't even watch TV.

pravda 13y ago

We're actually all 'suckers'. The broadcast networks earn $billions from their use of the public airwaves and pay us nothing in return. "We don't give away trees to newspaper publishers. Why should we give away more airwaves to broadcasters? The airwaves are a natural resource. They do not belong to the broadcasters, phone companies or any other industry. They belong to the American people." from http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/27/opinion/giving-away-the-airwaves.html http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/27/opinion/giving-away-the-ai...

YokoZar 13y ago
Since that article was published significant amounts of spectrum were taken back from the TV industry and auctioned off to the highest bidder (cell phone companies, mostly): that's why everyone needed to switch from analog rabbit ears to digital TV reception.
- pravda 13y ago
  Yes, and the broadcast companies don't pay a cent of rent. Why are the public airwaves given free to private corporations? Why shouldn't, for example, CBS be charged a modest $1,000,000,000/year for their use of the public airwaves?
tsotha 13y ago
Phone companies paid a hell of a lot of money for spectrum. Verizon alone paid $17bn. Anyway, television broadcasters are becoming irrelevant.

mmagin 13y ago

I am not convinced that that much of that $80/month actually goes to the production of these TV shows he watches. If it did, I think cable would have less ads, and I would also think that I wouldn't be paying $65/month to Comcast for cable modem service (no TV service).

yekim 13y ago

TV? What's that? I haven't watched TV in years now; neither have my wife and kids. We're much too frugal for cable. If there's a show we want to watch, we stream it off of Hulu or from the network's site if Hulu doesn't have it. Before this article, I'd never heard of Aereo. Their solution sounds pretty sweet. I signed up for being notified once they're in my area. I'd love to ditch the big frickin' antenna in my garage attic since it does absolutely jack squat in terms of picking up digital TV signals these days. We're bound by neighborhood covenant laws from having an antenna outside, so having Aereo would be great. The only thing I'm "meh" about Aereo is $8 / month. I'd be willing to pay $5 or less. $8 / month is too steep for me given our media consumption habits.

pravda 13y ago
>We're bound by neighborhood covenant laws from having an antenna outside, so having Aereo would be great. Are you in the USA? Laws* that interfere with antenna use are not enforceable. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule * "applies to state or local laws or regulations, including zoning, land-use or building regulations, private covenants, homeowners' association rules, condominium or cooperative association restrictions, lease restrictions, or similar restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has an ownership or leasehold interest in the property"

smsm42 13y ago

Stopping using cable/satellite TV is on my TODO list for years. However, I happen to like watching a bunch of TV shows (my active show list on next-episode.net is 25 names, 10 of which are running or will be in close future - so I watch about 1 episode per day and 2 on the weekends usually). I also never watch live TV - I get my news from better sources. As far as I can see, right now there's only one viable alternative for me to cable/satellite subscription - the Pirate Bay. As I am not fond of it for both legal reasons and reasons of convenience (it can be automated, but the time I'd spend doing it would be considerable and I want to spend it on other things). I'd be happy to have a service that given me access (immediate or ~week delay, I don't watch most of the shows same day) to the 10 shows I watch and I'd be completely willing to pay them the same ~$50/month I pay to my TV company (and they don't need to supply me with expensive equipment for free!). Netflix choice is abysmal, and so are Hulu Plus and others. Buying those individually on something like iTunes would cost me about 5x-10x and probably lock me up in a horrible world of incompatible format and DRM hassles. So, my choice is either say "screw the law" and go all-in for Pirate Bay, or pay the cable/satellite. I hope somebody will give me another choice, because, frankly, every cable/satellite company I was with sucked in its own unique way. But I just don't see any (legal ones) right now.

zacinbusiness 13y ago

LMFAO I use digital/HD cable, Netflix, iTunes, and HBO Go along with using TOR to watch shows that I normally can't see here in the U.S. Why? Is it because I'm a sucker? No. It's because I got a good job and I can afford the things that I like and that make myself and my wife happy. Not everyone wants to watch live TV, some people are happy to watch their shows afterwards, which makes sense. Personally, I hate the hassle of using illegal streaming sites and I refuse to use torrents just because I dislike gambling on the quality. I pay $80 a month for decently fast internet (30 down and 5 or so up), all the broadcast and premium tv I can watch, and the ability to watch tons of HBO content on-demand via my phone or iPad wherever I am. Then I pay for Netflix streaming and that adds that much more value, so let's call it $90 a month. That's absolutely nothing. But, if you want to pay less then that's a fine choice as well, and I can respect that. It doesn't make me a sucker any more than it does you. Now, go bag my groceries.