Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday November 10 2015, @12:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the cord-cutters-unite! dept.

The cable box, a crucial part of home theaters for decades, might be on the way out. Casual TV watchers say it's easier to find something to watch through online services such as Netflix and Hulu than it is to flip through hundreds of channels in hopes of finding something interesting. Other viewers complain that the boxes are poorly programmed and difficult to use. Even Congress doesn't particularly like the cable box: Senators Ed Markey (D-MA) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) recently decried the high cost most customers pay to rent one from their provider.

Cable companies are of two minds about this trend. Some, such as Comcast, are trying to find ways to make cable boxes better. Instead of ugly units with clumsy remote controls, they're scrambling to produce sleeker boxes loaded with software that makes it easier to get straight to TV shows and movies.

Are the cable companies missing the forest for the trees?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @02:00AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @02:00AM (#261031)

    The internet will replace us all.

    Seriously, though, the cable model is well overdue to die and be replaced by a pay-per-view model or a subscription-per-show model. The Internet makes such more practical and more natural.

    The forced bundling is seriously annoying. Why should I have to pay for 99 other shows just to watch ONE? Anti-competitive bundling is largely what got IBM and Microsoft in hot water per anti-trust laws. It's time the same laws are applied to cable companies. It sucked when IBM and Microsoft did it, and it sucks now when cable co's do it.

    Perhaps the legal system is ignoring the problem because it's screwing consumers instead of business (unlike IBM & MS). Consumers don't have the bribing power of corporations to enact change.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday November 10 2015, @02:57AM

    by nitehawk214 (1304) on Tuesday November 10 2015, @02:57AM (#261040)

    Agreed, especially when reality TV has replaced the entirety of the Discovery and History channels. Does anyone ever remember what TLC stood for? They sure as hell don't. Syfy? What a joke, even that is mostly reality TV.

    I am done paying for these shitty reality TV channels so that I can get hockey games and BBCA. It is increasingly apparent that they don't actually want my money, as I would pay a decent amount to get just the few channels I watch. NHL gamecenter makes it nearly impossible to get your local games.

    --
    "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:28AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:28AM (#261049)

    There already is a subscription-per-show model. VUDU, Amazon Instant Video, and Apple iTunes (among others) all have season passes for the vast majority of new television shows. You pay so much per season, and the next day after each episode airs on "live television," it's uploaded to the cloud for your perusal on your Amazon Fire TV, PlayStation 4, Roku, or what have you. I currently do this with Arrow, The Flash, and Supergirl. It works well, but it can be a bit on the costly side.

  • (Score: 1) by tnt118 on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:55AM

    by tnt118 (3925) on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:55AM (#261063)

    Seriously, though, the cable model is well overdue to die and be replaced by a pay-per-view model or a subscription-per-show model. The Internet makes such more practical and more natural.
    The forced bundling is seriously annoying. Why should I have to pay for 99 other shows just to watch ONE? Anti-competitive bundling is largely what got IBM and Microsoft in hot water per anti-trust laws. It's time the same laws are applied to cable companies. It sucked when IBM and Microsoft did it, and it sucks now when cable co's do it.

    Yes, but I feel pricing still has a long ways to go yet. There's economy of scale where a bundle of channels is cheaper per channel, but we're being stretched too thin by so many services and absurdly high prices on older shows. I've heard the "you made your bed now lie in it" argument, but what we have now still isn't friendly to the folks who want to pay a fair price for the content they enjoy and want to support. Netflix as a service is very fairly priced (but lets be honest, it's a bundle of content and not a la cart). Hulu still has a decent number of ads unless you pay extra. Would I consider paying for something like CBS All Access? Maybe, but I can't afford to subscribe to everything and a LOT of stuff isn't going to make the cut.

    Where I really start to have a problem though is the pricing on Google Play, iTunes and Amazon for single episodes. When single seasons are $20-$40, my budget can only handle 3 (?!?) shows before it makes more sense just to have cable. That's straight up bonkers. I have trouble imagining people pay that much but I guess someone must or it wouldn't be happening. The full run of "Lost" -- which started airing ELEVEN YEARS AGO -- costs $150 ($175 on iTunes). Insanity. This isn't a model that discourages pirates (I'm happy to say I pay for all my music now) and I doubt is tenable in the long run.

    --
    I think I like it here.
    • (Score: 1) by tnt118 on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:58AM

      by tnt118 (3925) on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:58AM (#261065)

      I had also wanted to add the official NHL streaming package now has the option to pay for only 1 team instead of the entire league. So you get 1/15th of the games for... 80% of the price. They may think that pricing is fair but I sure don't.

      --
      I think I like it here.