wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
11 years ago

Last month, Cablevision sued Viacom in New York's Federal court for forcing the cable company to buy and distribute unpopular channels like Palladia along with popular channels like Comedy Central. I suspect this article alone may increase the number of people who have even heard of Palladia, a high-definition MTV spin-off, by a significant margin (you're welcome, Palladia). Verizon is also trying to negotiate unbundled contracts with media companies for its fiber optic service. Consumers should cheer the cable companies' coming around on unbundling, as it will lower prices and speed the move towards more innovative forms of content delivery.

The cable companies themselves have long been fans of bundled packages despite the efforts of government regulators and consumer advocates, but now media companies are the last holdouts. Cable companies are beginning to face up to the reality that the old business model won't work forever. Time Warner and DirecTV have said they support Cablevision's suit.

On average, most TV viewers stick to five to 10 channels, but may receive nearly a thousand, a far cry from 1992 when Bruce Springsteen sung "57 Channels (And Nothin' On)".

In the past decade, cable bills have tripled to over $70 on average, so it's no wonder that since 2007, the number of households that get their TV solely from the internet have more than doubled, standing at five million today.

In the last quarter of 2012 alone, Netflix added five million customers. Netflix now has more than five million more subscribers than the nation's largest cable network, Comcast.

As high-speed internet access penetrates more of the country, and streaming services gain more content, those numbers will surely rise further. Young people in particular are fans of watching TV online.

Media companies like Viacom argue that bundling allows them to take risks on content, and that niche content will die out if it's not protected in bundles. This argument doesn't hold up to much scrutiny, however.

TV has seen a renaissance of high-quality, innovative programming since the dawn of the "novelistic" show, and there's no reason that unbundling will halt that progress. Most of the channels protected by bundling are unpopular for a reason: they are not sources of quality or innovation.

Furthermore, the media companies are too attached to protecting their old model to realize the advantages of the new one. In 2007, Viacom sued YouTube for $1 billion over copyright infringement. Google, which now owns YouTube, won the case in 2010, though Viacom is appealing. A group of New York media companies sued Aereo, which takes broadcast TV from the airwaves for free and converts it to an online stream, but they lost too. In the interview Aereo's CEO suggested that consumers will eventually pay one or two dollars per month for the TV they really want.

The media companies should herald the coming of unbundling as a good thing. For one, consumers are more likely to pay a reasonable price for shows they like than skip paying at all to pirate shows.

Perhaps more importantly, unbundled content is more aligned with the new paradigm of internet streaming of individual shows. The internet has lead to an explosion of niche content creation, so despite Viacom's cries about protecting niche content, unbundling will probably be great for those with eccentric tastes.

The media companies only need look to their rival Netflix to see a better model and perhaps a business partner. Netflix has recently gotten into the original content game after upending traditional content delivery methods. Their model of releasing all the episodes in a season at once reflects how young people like to watch TV. This greatly expands the possibilities for more novelistic, high quality shows. This is where the future of TV lies, and unbundling increases the market for individual shows like this.

Watching online allows for greater social interaction around niche content, too. It's hard to find a friend at the office to geek out with about the latest episode of "Kite-making: Nebraska," but online it's easy!

In the end, big media conglomerates may still try to interpet these changes as their death knell, but they would be foolish to do so. I see no reason why Netflix's professional original content model cannot coexist with YouTube's amateur channels. The industry may have to downsize, but it's hard to argue that it's not bloated. (Sorry, Palladia).

The future of media necessarily lies in innovation, and the longer media companies hold out against their partners in cable, the more ground they cede to internet start-ups.




There has to be reform in the cable/satellite industry. It is ridiculous that they force us to pay for stations we have no intention of using. There have been times when I have considered cancelling the whole package and just watching movies on netflix or on dvds. I know both of my kids only watch tv shows online. If they don't do something the whole industry will be gone.

The line I thought was funniest was :"niche content will die out if it's not protected in bundles. " Sorry if no one watches a network or a program then why keep it? Do we need to keep industries that died out long ago? Horse shoes were a staple in the 1800's and are now a niche market. Do we need to have auto dealerships bundle horseshoes with every car sold (new and used)?
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
11 years ago
I never understood some of the TV packages, even when working for DISH Network. They just didn't make sense. I've rid myself of pay for tv for long time now (save when I was in CO for NFL ticket) and use Netflix only as well as OTA. Life is good.
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
11 years ago

I never understood some of the TV packages, even when working for DISH Network. They just didn't make sense. I've rid myself of pay for tv for long time now (save when I was in CO for NFL ticket) and use Netflix only as well as OTA. Life is good.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



if not for the little woman I would have a much smaller package. but it makes her happy so what do I care.
UserPostedImage
Porforis
11 years ago

if not for the little woman I would have a much smaller package. but it makes her happy so what do I care.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



It's not the size of the package, it's the quality of the programming.
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
11 years ago

It's not the size of the package, it's the quality of the programming.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 



In order to get the various programs she likes we need a couple of different packages. She did give up one package that had a channel she liked. I think it was Clu or something like that.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (1h) : Bears are sending RB Khalil Herbert to the Bengals, per sources.
Zero2Cool (1h) : ZaDarius Smith continues his "north" tour.
Zero2Cool (2h) : Let the Chiefs trade a 5th for him
Zero2Cool (2h) : Nearing 30, large contract, nope.
Martha Careful (14h) : any interest in Marshon Lattimore?
Zero2Cool (17h) : What does NFL do if they're over cap?
Mucky Tundra (17h) : They've been able to constantly push it out through extensions, void years etc but they're in the hole by 72 million next year I believe
hardrocker950 (18h) : Seems the Saints are always in cap hell
Mucky Tundra (18h) : Saints HC job is not an envious one; gonna be in cap hell for 3 years
Mucky Tundra (18h) : Dennis Allen has now been fired twice mid-season with Derek Carr as his starting QB
Zero2Cool (19h) : Kuhn let go
beast (21h) : I wonder if the Packers would have any interest in Z. Smith, probably not
Zero2Cool (21h) : Shefter says Browns and Lions will figure out how to get a deal done for Za'Darius Smith..
Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : Packers are more likely to have 1,000 yard rusher than 4,000 yard passer
Zero2Cool (3-Nov) : It's raining hard.
Zero2Cool (3-Nov) : Packers inactives vs. Lions: CB Jaire Alexander S Evan Williams C Josh Myers Non-injury inactives: WR Malik Heath OL Travis Glover DE Bren
packerfanoutwest (3-Nov) : Malik Willis: My focus is helping the Packers win, not proving I can start elsewhere. But he could
Zero2Cool (1-Nov) : I had Texans, but the loss of another WR flipped me
wpr (1-Nov) : I thought about taking the Jets but they've been a disaster. Losing to the Pats last week
Zero2Cool (1-Nov) : Surprised more didn't pick Jets in Pick'em.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
36m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

2h / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Derek

5h / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

2-Nov / Around The NFL / wpr

1-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

1-Nov / Around The NFL / beast

31-Oct / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.