Hacker News Reader

Comment by byuu | Hacker News Reader

> Yep, if you have a cable or satellite subscription, whether you watch ESPN or not, you're paying ESPN over $80 a year.

And that right there is one of the main reasons why I don't have a cable or satellite subscription anymore. Very tired of subsidizing channels I never watched. Most especially ESPN. That and the trend of, "oh you want AMC? Well you'd better buy the super premium $140 a month 200+ channel package! You can't get it with just the $80 a month 120 channel package." And, of course, the ads. My money or advertisements: pick one.

View on HN

The amount of ads on television is mind boggling. If I want to watch a 30 minute show, I don't want it to be an hour long event filled with ads for prescription medication when I already pay money to watch the show.

Why don't you get a DVR? I just start watching it a bit later and skip the ads.

Here in Denmark most of the companies have finally unbundled their channels, so you don't have to buy a bundle.

When my ISP did it, I called them up and canceled the TV portion entirely: who wants to sit there and watch a particular show at a particular time?

I'm considering getting an HDMI capture card, and buying the super-premium package with at least 2 "rooms" (I live alone). Then, connect the capture card to MythTV (or whatever the app is called these days) to rip the shows to a NAS. Put the NAS on a VPN with 3 or more of my friends. Then share the subscription cost. That $140/mo package is now $35/mo, which is actually worth paying for (if you have all the movie channels, etc). Plus if you spend that much on TV they often bundle your internet right in.

Doesn't HDCP close that loophole? HDMI capture cards are for things like recording the HDMI output of your DSLR for livestreaming (or a really high quality webcam, I guess).

Of course, the HDCP master key is leaked, but I'm not sure you can reliably buy something that reliably includes one (random batches of "HDMI repeaters" on Amazon seem to strip HDCP, but it's hit-or-miss because it's like totally omg super illegal; better to get the criminality out of your system with murder or arson.)

I haven't tried it yet, but supposedly there are HDMI splitters that "accidentally" remove HDCP.

http://www.tweaking4all.com/home-theatre/remove-hdcp-hdmi-si...

the main thing keeping me from doing this is that there are just too many moving parts for it to be a stable replacement for a cable box.

It's still copyright infringement so you might as well just torrent the shows.

The product is still being paid for, so I dont agree that its infringing. I'm just "bundling" my subscription with 2 or 3 of my friends. You know, like they "bundle" different tiers of programming.

Torrenting can't really handle sports. This solution might allow me to "rebroadcast" a live game straight out of my apartment.

If you only want to pay for what you like you can pretty much already do that on Apple TV or Amazon Video.

A channel is just a curated selection of content no different than a bundle is a curated selection of channels. Just because you like one program on a channel doesn't mean you like any of its others.

Bundles are often great deals for consumers. The TV bundle is the result of decades of scale, iteration, and the free market.

TV has a lot of weaknesses, but I don't think its bundle economics are one of them.

The most successful alternatives to TV are also bundles, and the bundling is a critical part of their success. Imagine instead of paying $10/month for Netflix, you had to pay for each show a la carte (like iTunes). That would be worse for consumers - and creators.

Curious about bundles being an example of the free market at work. How are consumers able to vote with their dollars what channels bundles do and do not include?

Well, the answer really is in your question: consumers do vote with their dollars.

Except sport and other tv rights are an oligopolistic market (not a free competitive market): this allows cable companies to select bundles not in a way to minimize the cost to the consumer (which would result in you finding the perfect bundle for what you want to watch at the cheapest price), instead they can create bundles to maximize profit for themselves (which results in you having to pay for several bundles in order to get all the content you want).

There is nothing free market about Cable TV. Free markets needs Substitute goods aka BMW vs Audi not ESPN vs Syfy or other matchups where a and b have different consumers.

Remember copyright creates monopolies and monopolies are not free markets.

Pretty much no market in existence is completely "free," but this is a pretty limited view of things.

Is there nothing free about the market for software because only Adobe can sell Photoshop? Presumably then there are also no free markets for, well, any type of cultural product. In a sense that's true and Disney is the only game in town for Rogue One, but I'm not sure it's a terribly useful analytical framework.

"Monopolies are not free markets" is also an interesting claim on its own.

Ehh, the idea that Monopolies are not free markets, is a fairly well understood separation.

"A free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

The idea is Monopolies can extract "Monopoly Rent/Economic Rent" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent at a higher price than normal because competitors don't enter the market and lower prices.

> Is there nothing free about the market for software because only Adobe can sell Photoshop? Presumably then there are also no free markets for, well, any type of cultural product. In a sense that's true and Disney is the only game in town for Rogue One, but I'm not sure it's a terribly useful analytical framework.

Rather than a binary it's probably best to think about the extent to which one thing is a substitute for another. Photoshop is a tool, and there's no fundamental reason a competitor couldn't make a program that does the same things; to that extent, there's a free market in image editors. To the extent that there are things that you can't substitute (e.g. plugins that use a photoshop-specific API), there isn't a free market there - it's not black and white, rather there's an extent to which the market approximates a free one. Is Star Trek a substitute for Firefly? To a certain extent yes, but probably less than the Photoshop alternatives.

> "Monopolies are not free markets" is also an interesting claim on its own.

Huh? That's completely standard, established economics. ("Free market" is an economic term of art that doesn't always mean what it sounds like).

I really don't see how paying $7/month for a channel I don't watch is a "great deal". The argument is that they would rip you off a lot more with alacarte I guess?

Bundles are fine to me. The big thing is that TV contracts just don't fundamentally work for apartment dwellers.

I can't name a single TV provider in my area that doesn't make you sign a contract for several years. So if you need to move apartments you're now paying that hefty cable cancellation fee. It's even worse if they make you sign a 2 year contract since I've yet to find an apartment in Seattle that will even let you sign a 2 year lease.

I just checked Comcast for my ZIP code (98122) and all of their double play TV+Internet pricing is on one-year contracts ("$69.99/mo for the first 12 months with 1-year agreement"). Also, Wave Broadband (both the cable company "Wave" and the fiber optic company "WaveG") has no contracts and is in parts of Seattle. CenturyLink also does one- and two-year contracts, in my experience. I have a two-year contract for their 1Gbps fiber service because I wanted the price lock and I'm never canceling.

The free market? We must live in different markets. Here it's a Yes/No choice, there's only one provider. The bundle economics, designed optimally, reduce consumer choices and drive people to salivate at the possibility of paying for streaming exactly what they want (which is more efficient, if we're obsessed with market jargon).

We're starting to feel the pain a bit with the online unbundled alternatives, sure.

Right now, I have Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime (mostly for the shipping but it also has some shows I like), Crunchyroll. And I'm still missing things I want, which would require: Funimation, HBO Now, CBS. At that point, I'd be close to my old cable bill again, and still wouldn't have new content from AMC or Showtime. Would also love to have TV Japan, but if you think ESPN gouges you ... that requires satellite TV, the more expensive dish/receiver, and costs $25 a month for just that one channel!

I would welcome an ala carte system for shows, but only if they were reasonably priced. Definitely not paying $1 for a completely predictable episode of Modern Family or a "why is this still on the air?" Simpsons episode. But Real Time? Sure. Game of Thrones? I'd happily pay double. I may just start waiting until seasons end, sign up, binge watch a whole season in a month, and cancel.

I don't even think music has become reasonably priced yet. Sure it's $1 a song, but you're still paying $15 if you want the album. Even though they no longer have to make a CD, ship it to stores, and give a large markup to the retailer. And the MP3 is way lower quality than the lossless CD. Yet they still want the same price.

are you trolling ?

> That would be worse for consumers - and creators.

that would be sad if "creators" had to try harder to make better content that made me want to pay for it, you know, like Game of Thrones did.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com