Just call in and threaten to cancel NFL Ticket. DirecTV can be chiseled down when it comes to that. Though I do have about the most expensive package they offer so I always have the downgrade threat in my back pocket.

Last year DirectTV made the NFL Sunday Ticket package available online for people who can't get DirectTV (you have check a box saying you can't get direct tv at your location). It was expensive as they basically charge the same rate they charge their subscribers ($300 or 400).

They had an excellent iPhone and iPad app and the expectation is they will also have an Apple TV app for this coming season. I purchased it last year, and watched mostly via my iPad hooked up to my TV, and it was really, really nice.

NetFlix, Hulu, etc. don't have enough streaming content of current shows for me to ditch cable yet. I would like to though.

Which shows? Check something like Amazon. I pay for the current shows I want (Mythbusters and Castle, although I could record Castle off my antenna in Windows Media Center if I wanted to deal with commercials and having to automatically catch time shifting), but in other cases I'm catching up on old shows while waiting for the new ones to hit Netflix.

Mythbusters is on Netflix now, no?

Old Mythbusters has been on Netflix streaming for quite some time, but basically just some old DVD collections which aren't complete. We've watched those and keep them in the queue, but are buying new seasons to watch them in full HD. You know, what the cable company doesn't want me doing, getting my TV a la carte ;)

(I know, it's more complicated than that, but hey if I can pay $1.89 / episode for 24 episodes during the year for it, and another $.89 / episode for 24 episodes of Castle, each commercial-free, as the only two TV shows I think are worth paying separately for that aren't available on streaming, that's cheaper than playing the traditional pay TV game the cable and satellite companies want me to pay).

Got it. I would note that the TV episodes seem to be coming a lot quicker of late. I've seen a lot of new episodes added where they were really slow to add them before.

I watch too many shows to get them individually from somewhere like Amazon, but my TiVo works great for recording OTA HD content. Yes, I have to fast forward through commercials, but the bang for my buck is excellent and I can deal with that annoyance. If I really cared I would use the easter egg to skip 30s at a time.

Much as I dislike cable companies, pretty much everyone in the process wants you paying for it the way it is now, since that's what helps fund the entire process.

The number of people willing to pay piecemeal isn't sufficient to fund very much programming, but everytime someone does, it devalues the programs to existing networks ... which in turn reduces the amount of money available to fund the production of programming (and the salaries of everyone involved and so on down the line).

Don't get me wrong, whatever floats your boat since it's legal, but it isn't a proposition that anyone currently working in the business really wants to see succeed (beyond the level of supplemental income) since it ultimately has less value to everyone on the production side than the current model.

Interesting: Sony pulled it's movies off Starz Play on Netflix, because it had reached subscriber goals that were expected to run through the end of 2014.

Let's see if they come to a fair price to return them, or if once again a movie company votes to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs because the eggs aren't platinum ionstead.

Analysts: Removal of Sony movies bad for Netflix - BusinessWeek

I'd like to see Netflix start renting the discs for Sony movies immediately again instead of waiting a month as a tit-for-tat, then.

I understand. The reality is that we've just given up on watching very much, simply because it got too expensive. The model you described has cable and statellite bills on a steady climb upward, and both sides are killing the golden goose. I agree completely that the content providers are just as much at fault here as the content distributors.

We have a couple of shows worth paying for individually and supporting. We then pay $8/month to watch what we want on Netflix. If it's on there, great I'll give it a shot, and if it isn't then I'll be watching something that is. Or I'll buy the Blu-Ray and watch it that way whenever I want. Or I'll watch some of it OTA the old fashioned way (like most NFL).

It's up to the individual how much they want to pay for the content. But as the price goes up, there will be more and more people for whom the threshold is crossed and they decide it's just not worth what they're paying for what they get, and they'll stop paying. This is the key trend here; growth in cable and satellite customers is reaching a standstill despite overall growth in the country continuing to rise. Yet the content providers have just been through their first round of trying to gouge money out, forcing the content distributors into ever-increasing prices for consumers, forcing more and more people out of the market entirely.

Yes it's still a minority, but it's turned into enough to cancel out the normal growth curve in new customers. Especially among the tech-savvy generation that's growing up happy to watch on their 4.3" PHONE screen for crying out loud. And I think that shows that the content providers and content distributors better start thinking hard about their current economic model. Right now their reaction is bandwidth caps to try and kill the streaming market, and that's backfiring. They need to come up with something better, because they are starting (starting, not already have, starting is the key word here) to strangle off the market with their current scheme.

I didn't realize Netflix had a choice. What agreement benefit do they currently get by waiting a month?

Kind of almost mirrors the music industry. You keep trying to apply 1960s financial models to a 21st century consumer base, you're going to lose a lot of money.

They can think about it all they want, but when that same tech-savvy generation also shows a strong tendency to want, quite literally, something for nothing, all the thought in the world isn't going to change that.

If there reaches a critical mass where enough viewers are willing to watch old shows/reruns/movies as their primary viewing or 6th rate amateur YouTube videos become the standard or whatever, then that's what will be available.

Unless you see a titantic restructuring of the costs associated with production (like Jon Hamm's $250k/ep deal signed today) then either the current financial model has to largely survive (since there's no indication that any of the online options come close to generating that sort of revenue or will anytime soon) or there's going to a fundamental change in the type of programming being produced (which we've already seen significantly with trends on broadcast).

The only thing I'll disagree with here a bit is that there is a lot of crap that no one wants to watch that gets subsidized by the charges for the stuff people do want to watch. This is the old "500 channels and nothing on" debate. It would cost a lot less to produce a lot less and get back to core shows that are far more interesting.

Or the fringe shows will "go viral", a scheme that is making money in both music and video games. It's not quite true that the young generation wants "something for nothing", what they want is "something for cheap". There are companies right now doing well selling games for 99 cents, or books for 2.99 or less. The closest in movies / TV shows is ad-supported Youtube content, but there are successes there as well.

Also note the success of DVD and Blu-Ray sales. People will pay for the shows they want, even if not through the current traditional model. Heck straight-to-video movies have been profitable for quite some time (and some have even been good!).

What this generation hates is paying for something they don't want, or not getting what they thought they were paying for. The former is a big problem with the current pay TV model, the latter not so much, usually related to paying to watch ads (like the Hulu+ model).

So yes, I expect a shrinking of content available, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. But I do expect quality programming to remain viable and profitable, just not necessarily through the cable, satellite, and maybe even broadcast networks.

Isn't one of the reason the broadcast networks want to charge the cable companies more is because the ad-supported model is no longer working, that the revenue isn't keeping up? It's another sign of the crack here.

I'd argue strongly that the pirating/d'load/filesharing generation strongly prefers "free" to any price, but that's a different argument for a different day.

Still, when it comes to the internet, the particularly strong resistance to paying for anything that's been free has been well documented. And individual shows have been just that: "free".

None of the other examples: music, movies, video games - have ever been free (radio is the closest example but that's distinct from owning records/tapes/CDs)

In each of the examples you mention, the primary change has been the medium, not the core issue of whether something is free or paid.

My point here is fairly specific. If we were discussing whether cable "TV" might someday transition to cable "digital access from multiple devices" (which is already underway to varying degrees) then this could be a different discussion.


That's where we differ. I've seen nothing to suggest that there's more than a few hours of programming a week, max, supportable on this model. The demographic that we seem to be focusing on in our exchange is one that watches virtually no "quality programming", it's (whether we're talking 18-24 or 18-34) dominated by reality shows & a few narrow appeal comedies.


In no small part due to the cheapass snot-nosed brats we're talking about here ;)

Fair enough.

Does anyone foresee a day when a TV show won't be run first on TV? It'll be made and then sold off to companies like Netflix, Hulu, etc or just sold on a per episode/season basis on 3rd party devices?

I also don't think the problem is cheapass brats, I think it's just competition. Not just on TV, but in life. Computers, video games, and other technology has changed how we spend our lives. We don't have to sit in front of a TV and settle for a mediocre show.

It's the democratization of being able to make content that is a factor too. You don't have to spend 100s of thousands (or millions) of dollars anymore to create content now. A few thousand dollars or just a few hundred if you split the costs and you're more than halfway there in creating something. Cameras are cheap, editing systems are cheap, etc...

Now making good content, that's a whole different ball game.

Netflix is already doing that with a yet to premiere series called House of Cards that is directed by David Fincher and starring Kevin Spacey. I believe they beat out HBO for the show.

From what I understand, agreeing not to rent new movies for a month is supposed to give them deeper access to the various studios' back catalogs for online streaming.

But if Sony's pulling access to the streaming catalog, what's the incentive to wait a month?

and with Blockbuster dying, what benefit does it give the studios anymore anyways?

Those shows will only be taken by the major networks (broadcast + notable cable) in the final dying days of TV.

Hell, there still seems to be a good bit of negative stigma about taking shows from co-owned cable to broadcast as second run (ala USA to NBC), imagine if it were third party & from a perceived lesser medium to boot. OMG, the cleaning crews would stay busy wiping the exploding heads off the walls.

I never really understood the rush anyways but I realize among my friends and family I am in the minority. For example Hangover II will come out on DVD at some point this fall/winter. I have no idea when so what difference does it make to wait another 28 days and get it from netflix or for a $1 from redbox instead of spending $4 to get it right away? I guess there are enough people that need it right away. (Along the same lines of going to a movie on opening night I guess but it least then it's the same price)

I really wonder how long Netflix is gonna survive at current price points. The Sony deal is going to result in them spending 6 times as much for that content. Cable Internet providers are probably drooling and waiting for a favorable net neutrality ruling so that they can bend Netflix over a barrel.

Point being if I woke up in 3 years and a monthly limited streaming plan was 30 bucks, I wouldn't be surprised. And you've gotta be high if you spend that much a month to stream episodes of GI Joe.

J.D. Power and Associates Reports: Television Service “Cord-Cutting” Has Only a Minor Impact on Residential Television Subscriptions - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers

J.D. Power and Associates Reports:
Television Service “Cord-Cutting” Has Only a Minor Impact on Residential Television Subscriptions

WESTLAKE VILLAGE, Calif.: 29 June 2011 — Amid debates regarding how U.S. consumers will view video content in the near future, just 3 percent of pay-to-view customers report having “cut the cord” and canceling their television service in favor of other viewing options, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2011 U.S. Residential Pay-to-View StudySM released today.

The inaugural study provides unique insights concerning attitudes, viewing preferences, behavior patterns, awareness and experiences of pay-to-view customers among the major home television and video service providers across the United States.

While a minority of customers overall have canceled their cable television service, rates of cord-cutting vary significantly by generation. Six percent of Generation Y customers (ages 17-34) say they no longer subscribe to a residential television service, compared with only 2 percent of Baby Boomers (ages 47-65). One percent of customers ages 66 to 86 report cancelling cable service, while 4 percent of Generation X customers (ages 35-46) say the same. ...

I was under the impression that overall subscribership was flat, so is the issue here the number of people never signing up for TV service in the first place (and thus never having a cord to cut), or am I wrong on the growth of subscribers?

Also, wasn't cord cutting pretty much zero not too long ago?

If it's flat it sure isn't reflecting upon the numbers I've been reading, or the stock price of TWC...

Can't imagine it was actually too close to zero for any major stretch, financial drops have been around for almost as long as cable.

Here's a probably explanation for that, from back in April.
High-speed data drives Time Warner Cable growth in Q1, but 66,000 basic video subs depart - FierceCable

In a nutshell 66k video customers lost but 177k high-speed data customers added. TWC CEO described data as rapidly becoming the new anchor product for the company.

Articles like the following are what I had been basing that off of:

Subscriber growth suddenly stops for cable TV industry

The following indicates the trend may have been reversing earlier in the year, although it was DirecTV, AT&T U-Verse, and Verizon FIOS that were the beneficiaries:

Analysts See Pay TV Industry on Track for Q4 Return to Subscriber Growth - The Hollywood Reporter

Looks like last year they did lose subscribers, but have started to gain again this year.

I knew I had a post like this in a thread like this...

So people may be unaware, but Time Warner customers no longer have access to MSG network. I chose my words carefully there, because TWC alleges that MSG pulled the plug, and MSG alleges TWC pulled the plug. What's been funny are all the TV ads...especially the pro-MSG ones, since they state "TW does not care about its customers, switch your provider!" But when Cablevision (MSG parent) was in similar network disputes last year, it was "We're standing firm against the networks, thinking about our customers!"

Whatever. Point is I can't watch Rangers games anymore, or entertain the thought of watching Knicks games, which is probably one of the 3 reasons I have a TV in the first place. This is one of those things where I'm sure it will get worked out in a few weeks but I'm legitimately pissed about how much money I'm wasting on cable with such little return. I've cut out what I can in terms of the premium channels but I'm still paying over $100/month to watch live sports, some random FX or network shows, and so my fiance can watch Chopped.

So my question is...are us sports enthusiasts any closer to winning this battle against the cable companies?

Hell no. It's only going to get worse. As fewer and fewer people really care about attending games and all the expense/trouble that comes with it, and as technology advances to make the in-home experience even more enjoyable, eventually we'll start having to pay for all live sporting events, I believe. I hope that day is far off, but I don't think it is. Right now, we're indirectly paying for channels and directly paying for access to all televised games, but eventually I think live sports will go the PPV way. Which will suck.

I already pay to watch live sports - $160 a year to watch the Avs

I'm talking about any and all live sports - what we currently get as part of a channel subscription on ESPN or Fox Sports and what we get on broadcast TV. I pay for the MLB package. I don't pay to see 3 NFL games on Sunday afternoons. Yet.

What will be interesting is if the sports leagues offer more streaming options. MLB is ahead of the curve here, not sure where the NBA and the NHL stand, and you can get NFL Sunday Ticket for streaming if trees block your view of the DirecTV satellites. The problem area will be college sports, as ESPN has those locked up tight. I missed the Rose Bowl because it's no longer on ABC, for example.

If you look at cable and entertainment prices, you can see more and more that sports is what commands the dollars. Scripted tv can get money from you in a variety of ways: Hulu, on demand, iTunes, DVDs, etc. But live tv where you have to watch the commercials demands the big bucks. And as we limit the avenues where we can get them more and more, we're going to see higher and higher prices as they monopolize that advertising market

SI

What does the MLB offer?

The NHL offers full streaming options. You can buy the NHL on-line package and get access to every game over the internet, except those that are being broadcast nationally (i.e., NBC Sports, NBC, or NHL network). You can even watch 4 games at once and can stream games over your PS3.

The NHL has been very good in terms of using the internet to grant more access to the sport.

I was under the impression that the online NHL package would block local games too?

well, the NFL just signed a bunch of deals taking them to the early '20s so you wont be having to do that with football games soon. and I think as long as networks are willing to pony up $7 billion a year to air football games, I'm not too worried. Maybe for some of the other sports though. Doesn't Canada have some PPV for NHL games?

Unless something has changed in the past year, you're right. The local games would be blocked, so you still wouldn't be able to watch the Rangers.

I actually feel bad for you, so I'm not going to make any jokes about the Rangers here.

You're a good man Pumpy.

Are you opposed to streaming Rangers games 'unethically'? Because it is pretty easy to find any sporting event on the internet within about 2 clicks (although feed quality is often not great). I'm not sure if it's cool to post my main source here, though.

Thanks, I know what's out there and have used it when I've been traveling for work and I'm just sitting in my hotel room killing time. While I'm a big NYR fan, I'm not the type that will sit in front of my laptop and watch it when I have other stuff going on at home. If I was sending a close-enough-to-HD signal from the feed provided by the NHL on my laptop to my beautiful LED screen, I would be much more interested.

In my experience. MLB offers a pixelated feed best viewed on a 2"x2" window on your PC. Hopefully they will improve their streaming bandwidth a bit this season, as they were deluged in feedback from people using all manner of wifi enabled devices to view MLB on their 52" HD tvs.

I think its a similar thing to the pressures for pricing which drive anything - what does cable offer that Netflix doesn't .... cable companies need to either cut subscription costs of ensure they have USP's influential enough to hold them above Netflix.

For me its soccer - I pay an additional $30/month to get my fix on top of the cable subscription .... recently I picked up an online subscription for post-match Brighton highlights if I could get the rest of English soccer in another medium then I'd cancel cable instantly (presuming I could also get Teen Moms for my wife somehow which is about the only other thing watched on it tbh ;) ).

I'd also suggest that US cable companies look heavily at the UK companies such as Virgin and simply take on Netflix directly.

In England you can watch your 'cable' provider through any medium - got a smart phone, watch your cable through that, got a TV use that etc.

Secondly is the 'on demand' aspect of Netflix - Virgin in the UK allows you to simply watch any recently broadcast show (within a month or so of it showing I think, possibly more haven't been back recently) by surfing back in time or searching .... this gives them shows before other mediums and equally as flexibly as on those other mediums, which is compelling to purchasers imho.

What is their motivation to make this markedly better? To allow people to pay for a TV viewing experience for a fraction of the normal TV viewing cost?

Yes, this is true. Local games will be blacked out.

I guess one, quite complicated, solution would be to buy a Slingbox and have someone outside the New York market who has the NHL Center Ice Package hook it up.

I did that for a buddy of mine in Brussels. He's a big Oilers fan and bought a Slingbox. It's been hooked up to my TV upstairs for years now. I probably use it more than he does for nights like last night when I need to keep track of three or more events.

With DTV's sports packages, when you have it on the mix channel - the channel that shows 8 games at once - the local game is not blacked out. You can watch it, but it's obviously on a real small screen. If you want to tune to it, the package channel is blocked and you have to tune to the regional network to see it. But I can watch the local game on the mix channel without it being blacked out. I don't know why they allow that.