<i>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.</i><p>Wait, Netflix has a quarter the viewers of <i>all</i> cable/sat TV viewers? Not inclined to call that "only a fraction", more like the hemorrhaging is well under way. Try taking <i>all</i> streaming video customers into account, I'd guess it's closer to half.<p>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.<p>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).
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.<p>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.
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.<p>The only real difference is that in this case the early adopter is the normal case and the late adopters are the outliers.
It doesn't bother me if everyone subsidizes my entertainment or not.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
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.
I pay well over this for AT&T U-verse.<p>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.<p>Now I have hundreds of channels. There are 3D movies available to stream from U-verse.<p>I will get the UFC fight tomorrow on PPV through AT&T which by itself will be $60 for 3 hours of viewing.<p>"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."<p>Your viewing experience is not as good as mine. It's cute you think so.
> 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<p>Hulu is a complete fucking piece of crap cause of this.
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?
I just want to throw in here that with a small amount of effort, you can antenna yourself free television in full high definition.<p>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 <i>Breaking Bad</i> or other specialty channel shows.<p>Quality: Unbeatable all channels 1080i - No static, you either get the channel or you don't.<p>Functionality: I use Windows Media Center which works like a dvr.<p>Cost: $40 tv tuner on ebay, $20 antenna from Radio Shack. No contracts or subscriptions.
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.<p>Source: Google's stock today.
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.<p>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.
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 <i>only</i> available ISP is a cable company.<p>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.<p>Those of you who are familiar with the ISP industry: By your estimate, when will most Americans have <i>at least two</i> options for Internet service?
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.
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.
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.
LMFAO<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>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.
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.
We're actually all 'suckers'. The broadcast networks earn $billions from their use of the public airwaves and pay us nothing in return.<p>"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."<p>from
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/27/opinion/giving-away-the-airwaves.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/27/opinion/giving-away-the-ai...</a>
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.
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).
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.
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 !