The Official "I dont have dish or cable" anymore thread - Page 50

Yes. After all, that era also gave us the quiz show scandals, "Queen For A Day", "Hello Larry", and many other memorably awful shows. And for reality TV, let's not forget "Real People".

The good news is that when people look back on today's TV, they'll remember the shows like "Lost", and not "Honey Boo Boo".

Same ole same ole - because TV is more expensive now and has more ads, let's pick and choose a variety of crappy reality shows and extrapolate that to say that all of it is bad compared to the past.

NetworkTV hit the nail on the head, and anyone googling top rated shows from any period in the history of TV will find a lot of crap in the top 20. The question is, as always, whether the true quality shows are worth it to you, and some cable networks are putting out some great shows now. That you have to pay for, either with a sub or later with Netflix or DVDs. If you don't want to pay for quality that's fine, but don't then try to say all TV is crap compared to the past.

It is a little different now though. In the "old days" TV was free. You weren't paying for TV at all, so you were not supporting the crap television that existed back then (and I have no doubt it did), by simply not watching them. It irks me to no end that in order to watch the few programs on TV that I like, and my (12-0!) college basketball team, just a little bit of my cash goes to show such as Here Comes Homey Boo-boo, Couples Therapy, and anything to do with the Kardashians. Although I do enjoy watching Joel McHale make fun of them.

The thing is, though, you can still do that. In fact, there are more free channels than ever. Plus, you can watch many of the shows on various pay channels for free online.

Regarding sports, I keep hearing about how most people don't want to pay for sports and sports channels they don't watch - unless it's an event they want to watch, then they want it free on the OTA channels, reducing the viewing options for those who only watch OTA.

People don't want to pay for TV, but they also don't want the shows that are the most popular and make the most money on the free broadcasts.

The fact is, there's a lot of chaff among the wheat both OTA and on cable. The advantage of cable is that you have far more options to find something that appeals to you.

It's easy to cherry pick examples of bad TV, but I've never found a shortage of quality shows out there - and I don't watch reality shows or sporting events and rarely watch syndicated re-runs of shows (generally, it's only shows from decades ago I never saw intheir original run).

If you can't find a large selection of good shows on cable, you should cut the cord since you're wasting your money. It's like having a gym membership you never use.

The bottom line is: I want to pay for the programming that I enjoy, and not pay for the programming I don't. There was only a little bit of TV that I missed when I "cut the cord" (and couldn't get on Netflix, in reality I was still paying for TV that way), but I really missed that tiny bit that I can't get elsewhere, and it enticed me to go back to pay TV. I guess I'm the opposite of many here, live sports are pretty much the only reason I went back to cable/DBS. But even then I only care about 2% of all sports programming that I get on Dish.

It would be as if there was just a couple of machines at the gym that I really liked, and the only way to use them would be to continue paying $80/month for my gym membership.

TV is still free as long as you can get broadcast reception. Everyone else is at the mercy of thugs who run the cable and satellite companies. At some point the gangster approach became the new business model.

Except most gyms are like that. You pay a membership to be let in the door, whether you spend the day on one piece of equipment or use several types. You don't pay to only use the bikes or the stair climber. You're probably paying for weights you'll never lift.

Plus, there are often extra fees for pool usage, classes are extra, personal trainers are extra....

For that matter, a good gym will cost more than a cheap one. A gym with enough equipment to avoid lots of waiting will be more expensive.

You can pay less, but you might not get the latest equipment or most options for training.
OTA has always been that way. Either you get reception or you don't.

... or I could go ahead and pay for those couple of machines to use at home (cheaper, lighter, at home versions). Which I did years ago, and have saved thousands over paying for a gym membership that I only used twice a week. There is an analog there with buying or renting the TV shows you care about on disc, or with streaming. However, there is no other way to watch the couple of sports teams I care about than to subscribe to a pay TV service with hundreds of channels that I never ever watch.

I go to the gym and watch MNF on the treadmill. Problem solved!

Likewise, there may be a piece of equipment that you might like to use now and then that is either outside your price range or too big to put in your home. So, you either go without it or you pony up for all that other stuff you don't want.

Either it's worth it or it's not. Apparently, you've decided those sporting events are worth paying for stuff you don't want.

However, since sports programming is the bulk of most people's cable bills, the stuff you don't want is like you hate that the gym membership includes dispenser water and towels when you normally bring your own. I'd be willing to be if you listed your idea of the top ten worst shows by title, they'd likely be on among the cheapest channels.

I can see both sides, but the bottom line is we are dealing with monopolies and we either pay what they demand or do without. I miss the competition that used to be available.

What do you mean "competition that used to be available"?

There are more viewing choices than ever before, including more OTA channels than ever. There are multiple streaming services - some free. Compared to even the 80's, we have the option of two satellite companies and telco services as competition for cable. Plus, all those services offer many more movie channels, On Demand content and PPV content. With DVRs and "TV Anywhere" types of services, you don't have to watch a show when the network wants you to anymore.

Further, even if you take away Monday Night Football, there are more sporting events on OTA TV on a regular basis than there were just a few decades ago, when sports were banished to Saturday and Sunday afternoons.

What did you have before that you don't have now? When I was a kid, we had 4 channels if you include PBS before cable came to town and there was no home video market and no internet.
Edited by NetworkTV - 12/20/12 at 10:47pm

LOL, probably multiple problems solved!

Cable/Satelite TV is setup like our current government. They more or less have a monopoly allowed by our government. You pay into the system and the average viewer gets very little out of it, but a lot of the money you pay goes to support programs that you may not want to support or get any benefit out of.

The only real difference is that I can choose not to pay into the cable system. I have to pay taxes.

I agree with you for the reality of wired broadband service today, but not for TV. In my area I have four providers to pick from and can play any of them off of the other to get a good deal on TV (and lucky for me, internet). Other areas may only have two sat providers but that's not a monopoly, it's a duopoly.

Cable is by law NOT a monopoly in any market - any provider can come in, lay infrastructure and compete. That's what Verizon did with FIOS and AT&T did with U-Verse, essentially. You can of course argue that high barriers of entry (major cost) create a defacto cable monopoly, but that's a market restriction and has nothing to do with government.

I should have said oligopoly and not monopoly. Competition is still pretty much lacking in an oligopoly.
It was more a blanket statement about competition in general and not specific to television, just my view of the entire business world we live in today and as far as I can see is increasingly headed this way in most all businesses. I pay a lot for television, I would certainly like to pay a lot less, but certain things I don't want to do without would prevent me from pulling the cord.

If you want to be technical about it I understand the SF Bay Area (and probably elsewhere) had subscription pay broadcast channels back in he 1970s or maybe 80s. You needed a box to decode the signal though radio buffs quickly figured out how to get around it.

Good for you and your area, but in mine there is only one choice. Also, you are incorrect, that anyone can lay the infrastructure and provide the service. You have to get approval to do so from...I will give you three guesses!

Also, I would still say that you are paying for a lot that you have no use for.

My main point is that it would be very interesting to me if it was a truly open market where you could pick and choose what channels and programming got your money. If we ever get out of the dark ages in our broadband speeds to the point that streaming multiple high def. sources is a reality, I think this open market concept could become a reality.

Sadly, I am skeptical that the big corporations would ever want to see this market evolution, though if modeled correctly they could actually make more money than they do now.

The problem is, there's little motivation to change things.

The content creaters have found they can make far more money collecting pennies from everyone instead of dollars from the few.

Collecting a small amount from every subscriber on the tier is how AMC, USA and other cable networks are able to afford the recent influx of original programming. It wouldn't exist in an ala carte world where only the 3-5 million actual viewers pay for it.

HBO can afford to go this route because they can collect HBO money to pay for it. If you suddenly had to pay $10 a month to AMC, would you do it? Even at half that amount, they'd likely lose half the viewers they currently have when people decide those shows aren't worth the price, no matter how good they are. Then they'd likely go away since they couldn't produce a show on DVD and Netflix rental money. Netflix can afford a show or two because they can use far more of those subscriber fees toward them (and likely see that content as a lose leader to attract more subs). The rest of the content is getting litle bits of the rest of the pie, which is nowhere near as much.

You can say all you want about not wanting to support Pawn Stars and Honey Boo Boo, but those viewers are helping to pay for shows you like to watch.

When you visit the zoo, you pay for all the animals, even the ones that are napping, hidng or fling feces at you.

It would be great if the ratings system had an option to tell them shows you absolutely won't watch instead of just telling them what you do (and allowed everyone to always have a vote if they wanted to). Perhaps if the networks concentrated less on the viewers they have an more on the ones they turn away, they might develope better shows.

You said it well NetworkTV. I don't watch Boo Boo, Cardassians (spelling intentional), Teen Moms or any of that, but what I do watch and pay for helps others. And for those of you who do use streaming you can thank us as well for subsidizing your programming.

And you are incorrect that local governments can block new providers. That's federal law and you can choose to ignore it, but it's there. Of course they can set conditions on how it's done (such as who to serve etc.) but they can't block it. How do you think AT&T and Verizon were able to do what they did?

I've said this before and will say it again - if the streaming future means I can't skip commercials I want no part of it. That's why I don't see DVR tech going away anytime soon. That plus the fact that streamed content is subject to come and go at the whim of the provider. I agree that streaming has certain benefits (pick and choose plus convenience, mainly) but there are significant drawbacks compared to what we have now, and as mentioned a la carte will not reduce the overall bill anyway.

I agree that the big content providers want to maintain the status quo, they don't have the vision to adopt new business models because they generally don't have to with the limited choices we have today. This will change eventually but it's a long haul - as we can see with the broadband cap proposals being floated the MSOs in particular will do everything they can to prevent internet TV competition, and the content providers like things the way they are (see: HBO, ESPN etc. not allowing an internet-only sub).

Now that's a reality show that I would watch! Throw in The Dukats and you've got a 2 hour winning ratings block.

 

Re: cable monopolies....The urban legend I've heard throughout the years is that the cable barons basically carved out their territories and deliberately choose not cross over into the other guys service areas. Except for the bigger cities.where there were enough customers to go around. It is incredulous that only a single cable operator would come along in a given city (back when cable systems were first starting out). And if another did, they'd decide not to operate in the city's heaviest populated areas.

 

Yes I know that wiring a rural area is more expensive, and newly built communities in those places increased the customer base for a startup cable co to thrive, but it's always been hard for me to dismiss that legend.

The problem for them is that the current model is probably unsustainable.

Why?

Because the current system has no market-based price controls. How differently would ESPN approach negotiations for, say, Monday Night Football if they had to account for the price of their service to the end viewer? How would that viewer respond to the announcement that as a result of the latest rights agreement, ESPN would be going up $3/month? Would a significant number of viewers refuse to pay, cancelling their subscription to ESPN, and thereby enforcing downward pressure on what ESPN could pay for event rights? The problem is that we don't know, because the viewer never sees exactly what (or who) is driving the increase in his monthly bill.

And the same is true to varying degrees for pretty much every major basic cable network. All of them push for carriage fee increases that are well above general inflation, and under the current system they have every incentive to continue doing so. At least until substantial numbers of viewers decide that they've had enough, and the whole system starts collapsing. Only catch is that no one knows at waht point that might occur.

As for the question of whether cable systems are monopolies...does it really matter? Where I live, there are four available providers -- Time Warner, Verizon FIOS, DirecTV, and DISH. But they're all locked in by what are essentially the same basic contracts with the handful of corporations that control virtually every high rated cable network. The result is that the service that they provide is only minimally differentiated -- and competition tends to be around add ons (how many free DVRs they'll install if you sign a two year contract) rather than over the actual nature of the service provided (ie, significantly different packages of channels available from each provider).

For those who dislike the status quo, the solution isn't adding additional cable systems (unlikely to occur, because overbuilding is expensive) but rather in tackling the nature of the contracts between the cable networks and the cable/satellite companies. This is the way that the government broke up the concentration in Hollywood in the fifties -- by forcing the studios to divest their theater chains, and then by restricting the practices allowed in the contracts between the studios' distributors and the now independent theater chains.

Now, the flip side of this is that viewers who want more choice had better be willing to pay for it, one way or another. In the old c-band satellite days, I was able to buy individual channels and keep my monthly bill very low. But the flip side of it is that I did pay up front by buying my own equipment. And so to would it be in the future -- if DirecTV will sell me the five channels I want for $10/month, I can't expect a free dish, receiver, and multiple DVRS...and had better be prepared to fork out the cash upfront for those things. I don't have a problem with doing that, but I suspect that many folks would be in for a nasty surprise.

Remember, though. DirecTV's distribution sysem (the sats) are paid for by subscribers. C-band was a distribution system from providers to cable head-ends. Yeah, you bought your receiving equipment, but the cost of maintaining the distribution system wasn't paid by you. Indirectly, it was paid by regular cable subscribers. THAT's what helped you get channels for a few bucks each. But, yeah, even if DSS providers wanted to sell you the channels you want, the price would also include new infrastructure surcharges and considerably hiked prices. Nasty surprise, indeed. Your five channels will still set you back 40 bucks a month.

Same ole same ole because it is true. It is what it is. Its not just talking about a few bad shows. All you have to do is look at the guide to see all the crap.

I got to see my favorite teams play a lot this year OTA in my area. Alabama was on 8 times and the Dallas Cowboys are on 11 times thanks to NBC flexing the Redskins game to Sunday Night. No pay TV needed here, just my antenna.

For the BCS National Championship game I'm going to watch it at a friend's house.

Hope you're at least bringing the beer. 

We don't drink alcohol. But I have let them borrow DVDs from my collection.

The Collapse can't keep from happening too much longer. Over three million people have "Cut the Cord" in the last three years, and I'm certain more will follow, especially with this next round of price increases. You cannot keep raising prices, lowering the quality and losing customers and continue to sustain a profit. I have a feeling the whole system is about to implode, and don't say I didn't warn you!

AMC had Eldorado with John Wayne on Tuesday night and they had it on for 3 hours. I checked the DVD at Amazon.com and the movie was only 2 hours. Which means AMC put over an hour of commercials in it not counting the time for parts they cut out. They are showing The Green Mile and they are spreading it out over for 4 hours when the movie is only 3 hours long. Then they are showing it back to back. Saturday they are showing the first 3 Rambo movies all day long twice. All of these movies can be bought on DVD for $5 each and AMC has been running these same movies in the ground for years. AMC is a joke. This is one of the reasons I don't have pay TV.