The trickle of canceled cable TV subscribers last year has turned into a stream
hosted.ap.org
hosted.ap.org
Our reasoning was this: Netflix lets us have the "background noise" programs that we don't really care about for $8/mo and it has a big enough catalog that it's worth it. We can purchase everything else from iTunes and at our rate of "new show consumption", the $60/mo is better spent being put towards iTunes purchases where it's ad-free, on demand, and able to be moved to devices. For TV shows, that's about 15-20 episodes a month purchased without affecting our previous budget. In practice, we don't watch half that many new shows so we'll be saving around $30/month and building a catalog of content that we semi-own where the value increases the longer we use it. Cable/Sat services don't build on themselves like that. Plus, the AppleTV runs at 6 watts where the satellite receiver ran at 10x that, we might even see a lower electric bill.
Households that live for watching TV aren't going to be swayed that easily, but they're easily spending twice as much too.
We also tend to spend less overall time watching TV. There's something about the ease and pull of flipping cable channels that keeps you watching, whereas with Netflix, you have to actively commit to another episode/movie. That requires a certain cognitive effort and in most cases, we'll find that after one or two 30 minute (well, more like 22 minute) episodes, we're done for the evening.
When we blindly spent $60 a month and got unrestricted time access to channels, we ended up not thinking about how that money is spent entertaining us and how we valued what we watched. We weren't directly allocating money towards what we valued. The result was that the TV was always on, we'd be leaving on whatever came on next even if it was of little interest, turning on crap shows as background noise because "nothing else is on", turning it on in the bedroom and staying up later than necessary just because there was something to watch, putting off doing the dishes or housework until a commercial break, not watching it meant we were wasting the subscription cost, etc, etc. Not that I'm morally against what's on TV, I just think the passive nature of watching TV is a bad default way of life, overall it was just a toxic influence on our behavior.
By having to explicitly select and buy programming, we see where the time and money is spent and what we really value. The cost wasn't totally a primary factor; we're not hard up for the extra $30 a month saved or whatever but it's something we identified as wasteful spending for the derived entertainment value. We play a lot more background music in the house now to replace the TV noise, and I've also finished two additional books beyond my previous normal amount of reading since dropping satellite service (it was hard to focus and read in the other rooms when a TV was blaring).
Edit: just a note, we actually switched to this set of behaviors over a month ago and started down this path a few weeks before that, but finally cancelled the satellite subscription last week. It was a transition to change that many behaviors.
The weak economy is hitting Americans where they spend a lot of their free time: at the TV set.
Personally, my biggest beef with this is the series part (I don't watch reality TV or sports at all), because we're only ever seeing the most dumbed-down shit that is designed from the ground up for marketability. Only rarely does that procedure produce a great show, and when it does, it's by pure accident. As a result, we get fiction programming where Warehouse 13 is considered "edgy sci-fi TV", when it fact it is neither edgy nor scifi at all.
As to programming, I used to watch a fair amount of edutainment like NOVA but even that has been dumbed down to meaningless drivel. I can still get into a good nature show in HDTV, but mostly they are just Steve Erwin style psudo reality TV designed to maximize the number of teeth shown per minute.
PS: If you have not seen it "How It’s Made" is still fairly interesting.
I'm neither a sports fan nor a curling aficionado (or, I wasn't), but I quite enjoyed watching those games and following the Canadian women's team on their way to victory.
People are bailing on cable television (and new television in general) because the programming is utter crap. And then the companies sit on the good, if older, stuff and move it ever further up in the premium levels. I'd actually watch "Star Trek: The Next Generation", but it's been moved to price levels I won't pay for. The channel perennially re-running "West Wing" was recently bumped from my service (despite Comcast's supposed agreement to hold the status quo until 2013).
Now, "The Next Generation" is on Netflix. So, screw you, cable TV.
(Just wish I had a better choice for my Internet connectivity.)
You give them entirely too much credit, the cable tv industry is joined at the hip to news networks and inextricably to movie producers for broadcast rights.
And what do we know about the news industry and the movie industry? Both are in a state of flux because instead of chasing down a new method of distribution, they held on to increasingly irrelevant business models and now they're paying for it.
<CAVEAT EMPTOR>If Time Warner suddenly comes out with a portable VOD program, instead of locking me down to my living room - and produces one that actually compels me to keep using it, and doesn't expect me to have both home service and VOD as an extra premium, I will gladly eat my words. As it stands, I doubt that will happen, and I doubt it will happen in a cost effective way.
It's a beautiful idea, honestly. If they made a VOD service where you paid one flat fee that isn't a ridiculous cost for online video, I'd reckon the demand would easily make up the difference in costs leasing/selling boxes. </CAVEAT EMPTOR>
edit for clarity: With the news this is more talking to print news.
I agree.
But what we'll see if it happens, in my opinion will be an amalgamation of the following when it comes to cable provider VOD ala Netflix:
* Poor/spotty service (I mean look at the VOD that's currently sent through your cable box..) * It will come as a premium add on that requires you to have home cable service * It is not going to be a cheap service for the consumer, but it will probably be a cheap expense for the provider (see: SMS) * Your movie options will be greatly limited in favor of using your cable box
We'll see. These companies need to get with the picture, although that picture is probably going to cost extra just to sell you the frame and nail to hang it with.
Those who are cutting the cord probably would've done it anyway because the prices have got incredibly expensive, especially with OTA networks demanding large fees.
I could see a Netflix, Apple, MS or Google managing to break the 'HBO window' but TV shows are going to take a much longer time.
Do not have TV for like.... a lot of years.
Found discount movie theater nearby and go there over weekends sometimes with my wife (she also totally busy during week).
You know what? When you go to movie theater just a few times per month - you really enjoy the show! And nice restaurant after is a great culmination =) Treat yourself, not bloat!
One problem was that nobody ever really "knew" with any measurable degree of accuracy how many people were actually watching any given show. Nielsen ratings (and I actually received $5 and the survey in the mail 10 years ago, when I was a televisionless University student), as hyped as they are, were more or less guesstimates totally dependant upon people telling them exactly what they're watching and when. Even the demographics can get somewhat skewed -- educated people would be more likely to return the survey than non.
It makes more sense that this new emerging Internet-based distribution model would be more to the liking of those who are reliant upon an advertising-based revenue model for the simple fact that they can have more accurate numbers showing them how many viewers they have. But instead they whine and complain that they're losing money on a system that was never really optimized for their core purpose.
I'm curious, actually, about the quality of soccer streaming channels available in the U.S.? I see there's the Fox soccer channel internet subscription, but is the quality any good? HD streaming? Other U.S. options?
Are you wanting to know about MLS, or about foreign and international leagues/tournaments as well? (I don't have answers right now, but will look into the Fox subscription you mentioned and see how it is.)
But you can get a 7 day free trial, so no harm to try it out and see how you like it.
March Madness was streamed online this last go. Add CBS from above.
Get an internet provider that grants you ESPN 360 and you get most college football and half the NBA playoffs. I'm sure TNT will come around at some point for the other half. There is always a night out with friends.
The only thing holding me back now is how attached my kiddo is to the DVR. We've tried a few things and it always proves too complicated or buggy...
Over here, the most important sports channels are all Sky Sports, and a few others (there's ESPN America which clones, well you can guess, and ESPN, which shows mostly games that Sky weren't as interested in). Those channels are available on either Sky (satellite) or Virgin Media (cable). Sky until recently had an online Sky Player that you could subscribe to for online watching, and had an iPhone/iPad app, and so on - but it was hardly cheaper than a normal satellite subscription. That has now been rebranded Sky Go or something, and will relaunch in a month or two.
But I'm a big fan of American sports (I guess in order my favourite sports are Baseball/Football(soccer)/Basketball/Cricket/American Football/etc), and some of the digital offerings from America are awesome. For example MLB TV, $120/season (that's roughly what I would pay for 2 months of Sky Sports), let's me watch any game live or on-demand (no blackouts thanks to living in England), I can watch on my PC, on my TV (through Boxee), on my iPad (seperate ~$15 cost to buy that)... it's awesome.
I think on this side of the pond we're going to take a while to get there, but for American sports, I think streaming services are going to explode in popularity really fast, in the next couple of years.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/MLB_Black...
(I've never really been that fussed when out there, if the Dodgers are playing at home then I'll be at every game, and if they're away I just don't watch, there's better things to do during a short trip to LA than sit in my hotel room.)
Blackouts are basically MLB's way of saying to networks "yeah, we want to monetise this area, but we'll put blackouts in for you so you don't lose customers", right? In which case I would expect there to be a point when MLB decide they can afford to piss off traditional media and remove blackouts - though when that will happen, god knows.
I would expect to pay less YOY instead!
My in-laws subscribe to a cable service in France called "Neuf", that gives them phone, television, and Internet for something like 30 euros a month. I turned green with envy when I discovered that. THAT is a price that I think is reasonable.
The Game channel http://www.topchan.tv/show/public1/10 has game play recordings and streaming.
The VLOG channel http://www.topchan.tv/show/public1/12 has video blogs from people on Youtube.
The TED channel http://www.topchan.tv/show/public1/264 has the TED presentations.
So why are Hulu and Netflix hamstrung by content creators as a threat to revenue again?
I do miss having the ESPNs but nothing else really. We have Netflix and can get ESPN 360 on the Xbox so that's a bit of a consolation.