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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.