The Disruption of Cable Television Has Arrived | Hacker News Reader

The Disruption of Cable Television Has Arrived

buysidenotes.com

70 pointsstonlyb75 comments

People have been writing stuff like this for like 20 years now, ever since the internet became viable for a future of streaming video.

But cable TV has continued on strong. If anything I feel like, despite cable-cutters, the vast majority of people out there still regularly consume cable TV in one form or another. Perhaps what's changed is that the "golden age of TV content" right now feels more like the movie industry, in that big cable networks release big TV series and market them heavily almost as if you were going to the theater to watch a blockbuster movie.

The online streaming services actually seem diluted now, while cable networks have very strong brands; I don't really have netflix but my wife and I have ondemand and a dvr through time warner and 3 different devices to watch amazon through. The fobs you can get from google and amazon and whomever else will continue to dilute that access to streaming (which is good for competition and for DIYers at some point, I suppose)

But really the battle is about whether cable TV will continue to be an always-on service, and in that regard I think it will. Just flip on your TV, which you may have in several rooms in your house, or at your favorite sports bars, or in the office lobby, or wherever. It can be background, it can be a social experience for live sporting events (probably the most compelling reason for keeping cable), etc.

The other component is that video games are now more compelling to play/watch, and in fact a lot of youtube and twitch channels are now regularly consumed by viewers.

I would argue that the "disruption" already happened a long time ago but the cable networks and service providers have adjusted and assimilated to various degrees, such that we now have tons of avenues for stuff to watch.

Maybe this just takes some perspective to see because I feel like people keep predicting cable TV will just die or something, and that seems like such a naive way of looking at the world.

The disruption of cable TV wont happen, at least in the US, until major sports leagues start allowing their content to be viewed online without blackout restrictions. The MLB and NHL are probably the most forward thinking here, but the NFL will never give up on this. They get paid billions every year from just TV deals alone.[1][2] A new network in LA just paid $7BN to be the exclusive provider of Dodgers games. [3]

And this is so obvious when you look at cable packages that put certain sport networks in upper tiers, or charge a premium to get something more specialized like SEC Network.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/nfl-completes-...

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/sports/football/espn-exten...

[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/28/dodgers-tv-deal-tim...

I would agree. Plus a lot of organizations are tying your ability to watch something on your phone / tablet to your login with your cable company. I couldn't watch March Madness without logging in through xfinity. Additionally, the SEC network won't let you watch unless you are already a subscriber to Dish.

I'd expect that most of the crowd here knows how to circumvent blackouts, but the issue is you still don't get access to the major network channels. No MLB Network, NFL Network, etc. These stations may not matter to some, but a lot of people probably enjoy having a station dedicated to their favorite sport. Additionally if you're a motorsport fan, as I am of F1, you have no choice but to get cable.

A guy in my lab loves F1 and he claims to get same-day HD torrents of races/qualifiers/etc. Every time I look over at his desk, I am impressed by how non-bootlegged they look.

Live sports is the only reason why I still have cable.

From what I've observed, the older, less technologically inclined generations struggle with quickly adapting to new technologies and appreciate the tried and true method of picking up the remote and clicking on a traditional cable/dish set top box and knowing it will "just work".

Hell, I have to constantly reteach my parents which buttons do what on a remote control, let alone navigating submenus. I think that when the millennial generation takes over, a larger majority of the population will understand technology better simply because they grew up understanding certain tech/UX paradigms that the older generations never needed to.

Frequently getting a TV + Internet bundle is cheaper than getting just a single Internet service, at least for "limited time" that could run into 2 years.

I purchase a phone/cable/internet bundle from my provider and the price has held steady for the six years I've had it. In fact, the only increases have been when we've added services, like more HD channels, on-demand, etc.

Of course, the fact that they have a virtual monopoly on the cable TV business in my town probably has a lot to do with their pricing stability. The only competition they have is a satellite provider, and calling them "competition" is being a bit generous.

It will happen at some point. Just because an idea is a long time coming, doesn't mean it's wrong. People talked about mobile devices for a long time, then one day it happened. Same with speech and handwriting recognition.

The other bit is most people hate their cable company. (Me too!) Anything to get around that monopoly...

I cut the cable 5 years ago and I have never looked back. I can utilize many sources and avenues for what I want to watch, but I am technically inclined. The advent of Popcorn for the general masses is going to push the cable cutter approach even further.

Really, if someone would just find an easy, reasonably priced way to give sports and local news to everyone on a Roku/ATV/FireTV/etc. I think it would push the demise of cable tv into hyperdrive.

All I want is high budget professionally executed video entertainment in my home for free. Is that so hard?

I expect that Comcast will try and get their $100/home if you are interested in TV or not. The price will just shift and you will pay more for internet. Saving money by dropping the TV portion is a fallacy and at best temporary.

I don't pay for cable TV, but I am fully aware that I only get with that because I have an account I can borrow to watch subscriber-only content.

I am part of the group of people who would go back to the cable companies if they would budge on their channel packages. I would pay per channel if I could just customize my listing.

I bring this up because you are totally right, but at the same time if the cable companies will evolve to what consumers want, they may not have to take this route.

If not, we can hope they dont charge too much more, they are already making the US look stupid on the world stage of internet access prices.

"Unbundling" is completely stupid. Be careful what you ask for because you are going to wind up paying the same amount for your 20 channels as you do now for your 200. That's just simple business and economics. The marginal cost to deliver you a channel is zero.

Imagine there is a channel - BlubTV - that NOONE would subscribe to if it were unbundled. Yet the cost of producing it is not zero. Unbundling eliminates the tax we pay to support useless TV that people only watch out of pure desperation.

It's the opposite. A channel with limited appeal would likely need to pay the cable provider to get included. This is all very basic economics and human behavior.

Cable companies don't decide on the channel packages they offer. They're sold to the cable companies by the media conglomerates that own the stations in bundles. No ABC without ESPN, etc. It's not their product to unbundle, in other words.

Why a la carte cable won’t save you as much as you think: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/30/w...

We were an internet only house. Then we looked at prices and we could upgrade our internet 70/35 and add cable TV for an extra $20 a month. I think it ended up being cheaper to add cable than to just upgrade the internet. Once we added DVRs and whatnot it ended up being more expensive but to us it just didn't make sense to keep the cord cut. Especially for me because I like sports.

The cheap digital antennas can work pretty well (depends a lot on your location but worth a try; HD, too).

I was surprised that I got quite a few new channels after the digital transition. Most of them are not that good, but it is interesting how the lineup expanded.

When I read on reddit that a recently single dad moved from cable to Netflix - and the kids greatly prefer it (think about it, no ads etc) - that's when it hit me that it will be All Over for cable. At the very least, it's going to lose the next generation, if not this one!

Netflix is probably better for kids than adults. For one, they don't have to worry about people spoiling their favorite show in the 1-2 years between airing and arriving on Netflix. For another, kids generally don't mind if the selection is limited because they're OK with watching the same thing over again.

The real problem, at least for me, is sports. I only have cable for hockey, football and baseball. Ala carte would be the holy grail.

I've used both Netflix and Cable pretty extensively. If I was given the choice between cable and Netflix (for the same price), I'd choose Netflix. I don't want to deal with scheduling shows, commercials, etc, and I'm willing to wait for the newest shows to be available to watch (worst case, I can buy a season of a show I have to have now).

Cable is going the way of dial-up. People are going to keep using it for a long time, but as people migrate to online streaming eventually you'll have a majority of the population who haven't even considered that it was a possibility. ("You mean when I get my own apartment I can get "channels" on TV through Comcast? Is it like a channel on Youtube?")

I feel like a lot of social movement is because of this. Old people (myself included!) hold on to old ways of doing things and we die off to be replaced by the young who embrace new technology, social customs and ideals.

I really love my Roku box and my Amazon Prime membership.

But it will never replace Cable TV. It might compete with it, and there are people called 'cord cutters' that dump Cable TV, U-Verse, Satellite TV etc to watch videos on the Internet.

Heck Youtube is now offering channels for a monthly fee.

I think we should call it Internet TV, because we are watching TV shows and movies over the Internet instead of Cable or Satellite.

The WWE just did this with their WWE Network for $9.99/month that has all of their old shows and pay per view events. That NXT show moved to WWE Network, and they made more WWE Shows for the WWE Network. I predict other media companies will make their own Internet TV Networks this way.

I think there is money to be made in Internet TV with Roku, Amazon Fire TV, Google TV, Apple TV, and video game consoles can play Internet TV shows too. Plus any smart phone or tablet has Internet TV apps now as well. But it is not the end of Cable TV, just cutting into their business.

Wow, they didn't even mention the WWE Network, which is the closest thing we have to a proper cable network disruption as I've seen. However, let's not forget the cable/telco oligopolies still own the last mile and they won't go down without a fight.

When I moved out on my own in 2010, I didn't get any kind of TV service. I didn't need it, had rather my money go to other things, and traditionally it only functioned as background noise since I was usually on the computer or game console. I heard about netflix at some point and signed up so I could watch a few movies (through the mail). I became aware they had this streaming thing (such a foreign concept at the time to stream full length seasons of shows).. and well, Netflix was good enough for me. I've now added on Basic Cable not really for the TV, but for weather and news

Have you heard of this service called The Internet? It has fantastic weather information and news as well :)

Really...there are hundreds of apps for those as well. I'd think weather and news would be the last thing you'd look to basic cable for. As a cord cutter for several years now, the only rationale I can find for continuing the Comcast train is sports. Movies are passe on live cable (want some movie with those commercials?) High-demand TV series are another, but many of them show up via on-demand services not long after broadcast (w/o commercials) -- or can be had by "other" means.

The cable + sports networks have people in a headlock, though. Want to sign up for Big 10 football? You must have Comcast. A lot of other sports networks are similar. The minute sports goes to an a la carte or subscription model that doesn't require a cable package, I think it will signal the death knell for big cable.

Yes, sports is exactly what is keeping customers.

Right now, the comcast packages look like this:

1. Internet only ~$50/month

2. Internet + really basic cable ~$50/month (for me it was actually less to have both, they made me get a cable box to get $10 less, it makes no sense except for the fact that they want to up sell me later.

3. Internet plus sports ~$100/month (plus you get lots of other garbage)

4. Internet plus HBO ~$100/month (plus you get lots of other garbage)

5. Internet plus HBO plus sports ~$110/month

6. Internet plus everything including a phone $180/month

Sports and/or HBO are about half the revenue which is exactly why the cable companies want to make them bundled.

The only way out I can think of to get out of this bundling is to legislate no exclusivity for content, or at least live content. That would be major blow to the revenue streams of college teams & the NFL.

Or even an antennae.

It still blows me away that Time Warner, Comcast, and others have failed to take advantage of their existing relationships with networks to rollout their own Netflix style of service. Nowadays, most of the content is already digitized, so building a VOD style of offering would only be a matter of setting up the infrastructure/team to manage it.

Surely these massive companies have the resources?

I don't subscribe to cable primarily because it's too expensive and also because I'm never around to watch what I want to when it's on.

> It still blows me away that Time Warner, Comcast, and others have failed to take advantage of their existing relationships with networks to rollout their own Netflix style of service.

They have -- its the video-on-demand service that is part of their cable offerings. (And also available over the internet to their cable subscribers.)

> so building a VOD style of offering would only be a matter of setting up the infrastructure/team to manage it.

Cable services have had VOD offerings longer than Netflix has had streaming.

> They have -- its the video-on-demand service that is part of their cable offerings. (And also available over the internet to their cable subscribers.)

I should clarify, I mean purely internet/device based. Without an existing cable subscription/set top box setup.

Much like the music industry ~15 years ago, their model is still very profitable. As mentioned in the linked article, their disruptive competition (Netflix et al) has much less revenue per hour of content consumed.

To explore alternative business models would potentially cut into their revenue and threaten relationships with content creators (who they would no longer be able to pay as well). I imagine that this inertia towards change will allow disruptive competition to eat away at their customer base for a few more years, until their attrition is so high that restructuring and providing a-la-carte/on demand service is not just a good, pro-active move to secure their future, but instead an important step to stay in business at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_Everywhere is their answer. Cable is to big of a cash cow to give up.

Comcast has this. I can go to the Comcast website or app and watch most of the stuff I can get on Netflix.

But you have to have an existing cable subscription, right? Meaning, I can't just go to comcast.com and signup for an account and start watching?

They do, sort of. It's called "TV Everywhere", and it's as if when cars first came out there were a program called "Buggies Everywhere" that let you buy a car, but only if you also bought and maintained a horse and buggy.

Don't underestimate the power of bundling. Even if content becomes decoupled from the cable companies, bundling is still a powerful way for content companies to get a small amount of revenue for content they know you don't care much about.

The way it works is this: consider customer A, who isn't subscribed to any TV service. Customer B is subscribed to HBO only. Which customer is likely to pay more for a subscription to a different channel, say AMC? The content provider wants to charge less to the customer who already has HBO, since they know that customer gets less marginal value for an additional channel and is willing to pay less. The best way to figure out which customers already have HBO is to bundle the services.

This is also why dreams of splitting the 100-channel packages into separate deals for a dollar a channel are so misguided. If you're trying to buy a single channel, the content provider knows you really want that channel, so they'll charge you $40 for it. If you already have 99 channels and you're buying channel 100, they know you don't want it at all and might charge an amortized $0.05.

Exactly right, and I don't understand how people don't notice this already. Cable packages are deliberate. The crossover between channels is low, but those why watch TNT (for example) help pay for TBS, which they may not watch, and vice versa. Not to mention that the cable provider is subsidizing subscriptions back to the content provider, so while you may only pay $3 to ESPN (which you don't watch, of course), Comcast is also paying for the right to carry it.

Hmm maybe. But in my area, you NEED to have a cable subscription to have internet connectivity. There are no broadband only packages that I am aware of.

I am not sure I buy the disruption by piracy argument, and I hope it is false. If correct, it means we will start to lose the high quality entertainment I enjoy.

I believe the implication was that by reducing the barriers to entry for piracy, the "old" market will feel much higher pressure to reconsider their market and delivery models.

The market shift will probably go Large Network Channel(now) > Multi Indie Production Shops(near future) > Large Distribution Houses supporting Indie Shops(future).

If that makes since at all. I see the directors and creators having a much higher controlling interest in Movies and Series in the future, but who knows.

I don't follow. What is the Napster version of this? As far as I can tell, Music is still supported by the large players, and revenue-through-distrobution-wise, its indies who seem to have suffered the most.

> If correct, it means we will start to lose the high quality entertainment I enjoy.

That didn't happen in the music industry. It was disrupted by piracy, but music today is no worse than it was 10 or 15 years ago.

> That didn't happen in the music industry. It was disrupted by piracy, but music today is no worse than it was 10 or 15 years ago.

I'm pretty sure I disagree with that. And this isn't just a "music in my day was better than the garbage kids these days listen to..."

Look at the complaints about SXSW this year. Why is Lady Gaga ... someone who is nominally HUGE in pop music .. even bothering with something so small? Why did Metallica play such tiny-ass venue and associate with Comicon (hint: think they've sold out something like Qualcomm Stadium recently?)? Look at the ticket figures for Beyonce vs Madonna even after her prime? Why are Taylor Swift and Selena so important (answer: teenage girls and their mothers spend money on music while nobody else does)? Why are opera and symphony houses closing their doors? Take a look at the Experience Hexndrix Tour: http://www.experiencehendrixtour.com/artists.php

Where's the next Johnny Lang or Kenny Wayne Shepherd?

I would argue that the diversity of the music industry died fairly horribly.

Now, I don't think the disruption was purely piracy. The big problem is that males (and now an increasing number of females) buy video games instead of music.

How much can you get for music today? Even if you managed to extract $100 per year out of every American, that's only a $30 billion industry. That's what ... 2 or 3 blockbuster video games of revenue? Now cut that by an order of magnitude and remove the amounts that famous bands like the Rolling Stones take (quite a bit), and you've got an industry of absolutely peanuts.

That industry is in a shambles, I don't think anyone should be hoping that other entertainment industries undergo the same transformation.

The idea of Apple TV as a set top box with Tivo like features for the over the air HD I can pull in from NBC, CBS, etc. is really exciting. I clicked on his link for the story about that and it is a WSJ story about Apple partnering with . . . Comcast.

Even if I drop TV, I still have to get my internet from Comcast or AT&T (at least in Nashville). Seems like I can't get there anytime soon.

Get ready for "exclusive contents" from every single provider or hardware manifacture. Soon you will need a Roku, Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, Google Chromecast, Hulu, Netflix, Xbox Live, Amazon Prime and many more to access media.

There should be law to avoid this. I shouldn't have to buy Netflix to buy House of Cards.

It's funny that this is what people claim the want (unbundling)! Basically, if unbundling ever really happens, you're going to be paying the same amount of money for 20 channels as you currently do for 200.

A law is not the answer.

For me it's about not paying for ads and being able to watch an episode on my schedule. I'd rather pay the same for the 20 shows I actually watch and see them without commercial interruption after I've put the kids to bed, than pay for 200 I don't care to watch while being sprayed by advertisements hoping that a show doesn't air while the family is eating dinner or tucking the kids into bed.

You don't have to buy Netflix to get House of Cards. Previous seasons are available on DVD, iTunes, et cetera.

It seems silly that you would want new legislation in this instance. Do you feel similarly about exclusive games on Xbox/playstation? What about apps that are only available for iOS?

Not sure I agree with a legal approach, but I understand the frustration. I have an AppleTV, a Roku, and a PS3 (in addition to a cable box). I'm running out of HDMI ports.

I don't mind subscribing to services, but I'm not buying any more devices until this market matures some.

When HBO and live sports are online there is no need for broadband provided content.

We just need the pipes and they should be required to have multiple companies in an area. The squeeze will be on GB/per month and they will add capacity very slowly to keep users bumping up against the limits.

That's a big when. HBO, ESPN, and live sports are deeply tied with existing cable companies because it's a huge source of revenue for both parties. But I agree. Live sports are the only thing that keep making me want to purchase cable.

Ahhh I want to cut the cord so badly. I'm so close except for sports. In fact, my family actually prefers "replacements" such as Hulu, iTunes, Amazon Video, and Google Play to watching or dvr'ing live TV. But, we haven't found a good option for sports.

I think it has also but for a different reason.

I've been with Fios for a number of years. I just received an offer from them to lock in my current rate with a $10 monthly discount if I agree to a two year contract. That smells like fear to me.

I have never subscribed to cable TV. TV programming quality sucked in the past. The rise of higher quality shows has coincided with easy availability online, illegal or legal.

Live sports were probably the best reason to keep a cable TV subscription over the past few years, but even that is being replaced by live streaming (see NCAA basketball tournament).

You'd be crazy to bet on anything less than a fully on-demand future. Always-on channels will just be a menu option in the monolithic on-demand service.

That's probably obvious to just about everybody, but here's an important question: when does that fully on-demand future come? You'd be crazy to put your bets in on-demand if it's still 50 years out. That's where most of the disagreement stems from, and as a result that's the real opportunity for money to be made.

It's actually the most accurate piece on what's going on inside the TV industry I've seen from a non-insider...

Popcorn Time? really? I'm skeptical -- how many users do you think it's seeing?

Three letters why this won't happen until a deal is cut. N-F-L

I think the disruption of cable TV is that many people don't care about any kind of TV anymore.

Apple TV is interesting because you can watch your movies and home videos on a big screen with the family. It's not "TV" for me as I watch neither series, nor live TV on it.

Before Internet, people had no other place to get current info except radio and TV. Now there is. Ergo, those who still watch TV or look for TV alternatives to disrupt TV, are mostly people who haven't truly moved on.

But the world is moving on. Especially the population below 50 years old. At least how I see it.

I remember as a kid it was time to chill out or go play in my room when 6pm came around because it was time for the evening News. Now you can get the News all day, everyday, even as it is happening so you are entirely right about that point of change.

I'm not so sure I agree with that standpoint. Sure, there is a population that doesn't watch any TV; but for a while, it was "Breaking Bad" this, and "Game of Thrones" that. People still like to watch their series, they just like to watch it on their time, be it anime (Crunchy Roll), recent TV (Hulu), movies (Amazon, Netflix, etc), recent televised news and pseudo-news (various news and private websites).

TV as an injestible X amount of time where you're fed pre-recorded or live content isn't going anywhere any time soon. In fact, many services exist to provide even live TV in brand new forms. Twitch.TV and LiveStream come to mind. For modern pre-recorded things, there's YouTube, Vimeo, Vine Videos to some degree, and so on.

TV as defined as radio with pictures (prerecorded, 24-hour, jockeyed video experiences) may be steadily shrinking right now; but TV as a video-based communications platform is far from gone.

Funny enough, I wouldn't be surprised if, if the TV as we know it fades away, new internet tools are brought up which create video playlists that follow your preferences, and play and suggest videos all around that concept so you can watch it in the background, like some TV viewers do. See YouTube playlists and a few other services for examples of this already.

And yet how many people do you know that have plans for this Sunday to watch the Game of Thrones season premier? How many people do you know that watch and talk about live sports games? There are a lot of people that still care about TV. I think it will continue to change as Netflix etc. change consumer's expectations, but I don't expect TV to just die out any time soon.

I quit reading after seeing the glowing comments about stealing stuff that others have to work for.

Who is downvoting this? Is there no agreement in the HN audience that stealing video or music is as morally wrong as going to the liquor store and holding it up?

I understand your point and agree with you to some extent, but robbing a liquor store is absolutely worse than stealing content online. For several reasons.

What's your opinion on going down to the liquor store, waving a magic wand that turns one bottle of tequila into a dozen, then stuffing the extra bottles into your bag and legging it?

"Software piracy" is a dumb phrase, but it's necessary because software piracy and theft are not the same thing. When you steal something, the person you stole from doesn't have it anymore.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com