• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Steep cable price hikes could soon make cord-cutting a reality

myDeaconmyhand said:
Cable companies are simply the delivery man, delivering content to home televisions.
Click to expand...

Unless you're Comcast.

myDeaconmyhand said:
Media production companies and content providing cable companies are separate businesses that just happen rely on each other.
Click to expand...

They're essentially a two-headed monster. They're that reliant on one another. You can't look at them in a vacuum.
 
bigdoublezero said:
Unless you're Comcast.



They're essentially a two-headed monster. They're that reliant on one another. You can't look at them in a vacuum.
Click to expand...

Cable television companies are dependent upon content providers, otherwise their business would not exist. Televised media however, existed before cable television, and will use whichever delivery method brings them the highest profitability.

The point is, I don't have to know how technology is going to advance to still be absolutely sure that it's going to advance. From my life experience and knowledge of the past, I sincerely doubt that information and communication based technology is going to become more expensive and less available in the future.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
I sincerely doubt that information and communication based technology is going to become more expensive and less available in the future.
Click to expand...

Is this a joke? All communication-based technology becomes more expensive as it's widely adopted. You tout the free market but then seem to forget that media and communication run on making money.

The "cutting the cord" phenomenon is basically a gap movement. "Hey, why pay for content when I can stream it for less money." Eventually that breaks down because the content is expensive to produce, and the telecoms have costs for infrastructure. What's the difference between cable companies pulling tv shows off of satellite feeds and pumping them to your home via a cord versus you taking that same content from the Internet and bouncing it to a television? There is no difference. It's the same content, and it's generally the same infrastructure putting it there. So the money will always be there. You're just skirting the system while you can, which is great, but it's not like some seismic shift in the way we consume content. It's just shuffling the deck a bit. It's the same cards.
 
bigdoublezero said:
Is this a joke? All communication-based technology becomes more expensive as it's widely adopted. You tout the free market but then seem to forget that media and communication run on making money.

The "cutting the cord" phenomenon is basically a gap movement. "Hey, why pay for content when I can stream it for less money." Eventually that breaks down because the content is expensive to produce, and the telecoms have costs for infrastructure. What's the difference between cable companies pulling tv shows off of satellite feeds and pumping them to your home via a cord versus you taking that same content from the Internet and bouncing it to a television? There is no difference. It's the same content, and it's generally the same infrastructure putting it there. So the money will always be there. You're just skirting the system while you can, which is great, but it's not like some seismic shift in the way we consume content. It's just shuffling the deck a bit. It's the same cards.
Click to expand...

Surely you don't need me to explain the difference in infrastructure between cable television and internet service? Content providers not only develop and produce their content, but they also manage the hub and outflow of their content, via the internet. An ISPs only role in that scenario is to provide internet access. You're trying to equate a shopping mall to the highway that provides access to shopping centers
 
Last edited:
I feel like we're living in two different realities. You are using telecom infrastructure to pull media corporation content from your phone to your television. And you think that "cable is dying." It's all the same shit. You're just skirting the system for a bit until the big companies can scale it out and make you pay for it like the rest of America pays for it.

The end result is never the same or better content for less money. Content doesn't work that way. It's too expensive. Either the quality takes a major cut (you're seeing this in the film industry right now), or you pay for it one way or another.
 
bigdoublezero said:
I feel like we're living in two different realities. You are using telecom infrastructure to pull media corporation content from your phone to your television. And you think that "cable is dying." It's all the same shit. You're just skirting the system for a bit until the big companies can scale it out and make you pay for it like the rest of America pays for it.

The end result is never the same or better content for less money. Content doesn't work that way. It's too expensive. Either the quality takes a major cut (you're seeing this in the film industry right now), or you pay for it one way or another.
Click to expand...

telecom =/= cable television

cable television, as a specific method of content delivery, is dying.

You bringing up the expense of the media content just falls in line with my original comparison to the music industry. The movie industry is quickly moving in the same direction. These companies don't just get to decide how much profits they want to make and "poof" make those profits.
 
The infrastructure for cable television by and large = the infrastructure for high-speed internet.

The content doesn't exist without cable revenues. It just doesn't.

People want quality content. Note that you said that you made cutting the cord work because you can watch ESPN, Hulu, Amazon, etc. You're not watching Boing Boing. Or random YouTube series.

It's really not complicated.
 
bigdoublezero said:
The infrastructure for cable television by and large = the infrastructure for high-speed internet.

The content doesn't exist without cable revenues. It just doesn't.

People want quality content. Note that you said that you made cutting the cord work because you can watch ESPN, Hulu, Amazon, etc. You're not watching Boing Boing. Or random YouTube series.

It's really not complicated.
Click to expand...

Well Jesus, why didn't you just say that Mike & Molly, Rules of Engagement or NCSIS: Blunt Trauma Pittsburgh might get canceled if we all didn't agree to pay 150 a month for wired internet access? I may have agreed with you then, but that's not the point. Just because something is one way now doesn't mean it's going to always be like that.
 
The big worry the media content creators have is pricing differential between their popular stuff and their second tier junk. MTV has 6 channels (not other Viacom channels, but actual MTV branded channels). Nobody here can probably name beyond 2 or 3, but most of you are paying for them. The content that will go first is those bottom feeder channels content companies force down our throats for the extra dime a month. And yes, this is also really a subsidy to cover the most desirable channels, but why not price things at where people value them and then everyone would be happy to go al a carte?
 
It's almost as if the cable giants are
images

Too-big-to-Fail.jpg

too-big-to-fail1.jpg
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Well Jesus, why didn't you just say that Mike & Molly, Rules of Engagement or NCSIS: Blunt Trauma Pittsburgh might get canceled if we all didn't agree to pay 150 a month for wired internet access? I may have agreed with you then, but that's not the point. Just because something is one way now doesn't mean it's going to always be like that.
Click to expand...

It's much, much, much more likely to be like that for the foreseeable future. I'm sorry that reality doesn't work with your budget. I've laid out how wired and wireless infrastructure is completely invested in the way things are now. How they're limited to change. How there are no viable alternatives to that infrastructure now and in the near future. How content works. How consumer demand for content works. And how all of those elements are related. You can't just wish it away by saying, "Yeah, but the milk man disappeared." I'm sure the content arena will look different six decades from now. For now, the media and telecom companies are pivoting, and they're not going to flush billions of dollars down the drain a la publishers and music producers 10 years ago.

JonasDeac said:
The big worry the media content creators have is pricing differential between their popular stuff and their second tier junk. MTV has 6 channels (not other Viacom channels, but actual MTV branded channels). Nobody here can probably name beyond 2 or 3, but most of you are paying for them. The content that will go first is those bottom feeder channels content companies force down our throats for the extra dime a month. And yes, this is also really a subsidy to cover the most desirable channels, but why not price things at where people value them and then everyone would be happy to go al a carte?
Click to expand...

Because if you go a la carte, it's not just MTV 5 that goes under. The majority of networks go under. Even relatively important/popular cable channels need the bundling to survive. All the 24-hour sports coverage we love to hate could buckle. It's one of those "common sense" ideas that's much, much messier in reality.
 
I didn't say that cable companies would choose to lose a shit load of money as their aging business model crumbles, but it's going to happen. Your quote about the music industry "flush(ing) billions of dollars down the drain" is pretty telling, in that you believe these media conglomerates have a choice in the matter. They don't. Time moves on. Their revenue stream will become more narrow, their business model more inflexible, they'll raise prices beyond market acceptability, and competitive innovation will go into hyperspeed.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much every buffet I go to, the a la carte menu for the same items is more expensive.

I've never been to a buffet and see somebody complain about paying for the food they didn't eat. We know the deal. Not sure why people don't apply the same common sense to cable TV.

I hate that bigdoublezero is right about this. He is. Until a legit internet alternative emerges, cable companies have us by the balls one way or another even if we cut the cord.
 
I don't get this general feeling that they have us by the balls, pretty much everyone spends like than $100/mo on their TV
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
I didn't say that cable companies would choose to lose a shit load of money as their aging business model crumbles, but it's going to happen. You're quote about the music industry "flush(ing) billions of dollars down the drain" is pretty telling, in that you believe these media conglomerates have a choice in the matter. They don't.
Click to expand...

The difference between the music and video is that video is much more expensive to produce and that consumers are much, much more discerning about quality. They're not equivalent. The only parallel in this discussion is that they were completely broadsided by the information age and didn't adapt. Video content has had 15+ years to prepare and are actively adapting, and winning.

That "aging business model" gives you access to basically every sport in the world, with live broadcasts and hundreds of hours of unique daily programming. Without that "aging business model" it all goes away. ESPN doesn't just produce all this shit as a public service. The days of, "Oh neat, I can stream this on my phone and save money" are numbered. Too bad.
 
bigdoublezero said:
The difference between the music and video is that video is much more expensive to produce and that consumers are much, much more discerning about quality. They're not equivalent. The only parallel in this discussion is that they were completely broadsided by the information age and didn't adapt. Video content has had 15+ years to prepare and are actively adapting, and winning.

access to basically every sport in the world, with live broadcasts and hundreds of hours of unique daily programming. Without that "aging business model" it all goes away. ESPN doesn't just produce all this shit as a public service.
Click to expand...

A huge chunk of that content has no market demand, it only exists in the vacuum of cable television where there is no competition. Why do you believe that technical innovation will allow that bloat to remain in existence? Your entire point in all this is grounded in the lack of competition, but you're only supporting evidence as to why that lack of competition will continue is government lobbyists.
 
you talk about bundling so fondly that i'd almost believe your were a cable executive or something. The whole movement to cut the cord is in recognition that the cost of cable has become unruly due to that bloat of unwanted programming and channels. People increasingly don't want all of that content, and your belief that they're stuck with it in perpetuity is foolish IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top