This sounds wonderful, but I think it's unrealistic to expect this model to go mainstream. The pricing logic here completely ignores the costs involved. It's like saying that some people are sick of paying $20k for their cars and predicting that Apple is going to design a better car (tangent: wouldn't that be nice?) and sell it for just $1k. Sounds great, but it's just not possible.

Contrary to popular belief, not all of that $150 you give to Comcast each month (ouch) goes to buying yachts for Comcast's CEO. Some of it goes to building and maintaining a network. Some of it even goes to pay for the production of those movies and television shows you're watching. The costs of producing entertainment and running large-scale networks is probably not going to drop by 90% any time soon.

The more likely scenario is this:

Comcast: May I help you?

Me: Yes, I'd like to cancel my $150/month TV+internet package and just get an internet-only package because I can get all the content I want over the internet now much more affordably.

Comcast: OK, no problem. Our internet-only packages run $145/month.

I still think this is a huge improvement, mind you. Having everything on demand is much better than worrying about TV networks' schedules. And those who watch less can now pay less (i.e. those who watch more can pay more...). I just don't see everyone's bill going from $1,500 a year to $100 a year, like the article suggests.