News & Notes XLIII: Cam Ward is a Cute lil 10 Year Old

[bleedgreen]

This is disgusting that every goddamned year I have to literally go through a Byzantine process to determine how in the hell I can watch the Hurricanes play on the television, when no other sports fans have to deal with this. This is late stage empire collapse territory

Avs fans haven’t had games on cable in years. Seriously like three or four. Through their cup run….no standard cable. Direct tv or fubo is the only way to get Altitude, the network that broadcasts the games. They supposedly settled the lawsuit that was the cause of it this spring but they are still at an impasse on how to make the games more available. Talking about creating a streaming package possibly.

 

[Negan4Coach]

Avs fans haven’t had games on cable in years. Seriously like three or four. Through their cup run….no standard cable. Direct tv or fubo is the only way to get Altitude, the network that broadcasts the games. They supposedly settled the lawsuit that was the cause of it this spring but they are still at an impasse on how to make the games more available. Talking about creating a streaming package possibly.

Really? That's crazy. I thought the whole streaming thing would make TV better but it has done nothing except unleash total chaos.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Really? That's crazy. I thought the whole streaming thing would make TV better but it has done nothing except unleash total chaos.

I always expected it to be chaos, at least for a number of years. Cable providers began getting raked over the coals (I don't feel sorry for them though) by content providers. A network would have a popular show, and would up the cost to the cable companies and force cable companies to take their entire suite of channels just so they didn't lose that 1 show. We're seeing it now where ABC/Disney/ESPN and Spectrum couldn't come to an agreement a year or so ago so for a while, those channels went dark. Now we see them having a standoff with DirectTV.

Then these companies start streaming their own content and now, you have people paying for some combination of Disney+, Espn+, Hulu; Hulu+TV, Netflix, Peacock, Paramount, Discovery, Apple TV, Fubo, Prime, Max, SlingTV which ends up costing more than what Cable did to begin with.

Eventually something's gotta give. Spectrum doesn't want to be in the TV business with the model they have today. They are trying to move to Xumo where they can aggregate ad supported streaming apps as a lower price offering and where they don't have to have nearly the infrastructure and cost.

Going to be interesting to see how this all plays out over the next 5-10 years.

 

[Chrispy]

I always expected it to be chaos, at least for a number of years. Cable providers began getting raked over the coals (I don't feel sorry for them though) by content providers. A network would have a popular show, and would up the cost to the cable companies and force cable companies to take their entire suite of channels just so they didn't lose that 1 show. We're seeing it now where ABC/Disney/ESPN and Spectrum couldn't come to an agreement a year or so ago so for a while, those channels went dark. Now we see them having a standoff with DirectTV.

Then these companies start streaming their own content and now, you have people paying for some combination of Disney+, Espn+, Hulu; Hulu+TV, Netflix, Peacock, Paramount, Discovery, Apple TV, Fubo, Prime, Max, SlingTV which ends up costing more than what Cable did to begin with.

Eventually something's gotta give. Spectrum doesn't want to be in the TV business with the model they have today. They are trying to move to Xumo where they can aggregate ad supported streaming apps as a lower price offering and where they don't have to have nearly the infrastructure and cost.

Going to be interesting to see how this all plays out over the next 5-10 years.

The interim is the problem for Spectrum. They take away channels, offer me a service (Disney+) that I already have as a bundle with a better price, and didn’t pass any savings on to the consumer. So I’m paying more and getting less content than I had before.

Now it appears they are offering Paramount+ as part of their CBS deal. Again, I already have it via another deal, so it wouldn’t help me.

I agree it appears Spectrum is trying to exit the television business and stay in the internet provider business. I think they’ve even admitted as much.

 

[bleedgreen]

@Negan4Coach Comcast is the devil in Colorado. It’s a monopoly. Altitude is owned by the owner of the Avs who decided to go toe to toe against Comcast. It took over three years of a lawsuit and blank tv’s for anyone to blink.

The Nuggets are also on Altitude.

Side note I paid for a couple of months of Max to watch all the amazing shows from HBO….only to find out they no longer show Westworld (and I assume others) as part of a deal they were in. I guess you can find them on Tubi but I don’t know if that’s on demand? Imagine a world where you pay HBO their 15 bucks and you can’t watch HBO shows.

First world problems of course.

 

[cptjeff]

I always expected it to be chaos, at least for a number of years. Cable providers began getting raked over the coals (I don't feel sorry for them though) by content providers. A network would have a popular show, and would up the cost to the cable companies and force cable companies to take their entire suite of channels just so they didn't lose that 1 show. We're seeing it now where ABC/Disney/ESPN and Spectrum couldn't come to an agreement a year or so ago so for a while, those channels went dark. Now we see them having a standoff with DirectTV.

Then these companies start streaming their own content and now, you have people paying for some combination of Disney+, Espn+, Hulu; Hulu+TV, Netflix, Peacock, Paramount, Discovery, Apple TV, Fubo, Prime, Max, SlingTV which ends up costing more than what Cable did to begin with.

Eventually something's gotta give. Spectrum doesn't want to be in the TV business with the model they have today. They are trying to move to Xumo where they can aggregate ad supported streaming apps as a lower price offering and where they don't have to have nearly the infrastructure and cost.

Going to be interesting to see how this all plays out over the next 5-10 years.

Ultimately, the industry is undergoing a correction. People want to spend less on entertainment. Actors, studios, sports leagues, distributors and everyone else in the content machine want more and more money. Nobody's willing to take a paycut, but people are spending less money, so the competition is getting vicious just to hold their current revenues. And with more and more people dropping out of cable and spending less money, prices are going up, creating a death spiral. Then everybody's trying to create their own streaming platforms, nobody is paying for most of them, and they're losing money.

Ultimately, streaming did do one very big thing- it broke up a lot of monopolies and gave consumers choice. Those options aren't great, but it put into gear mechanisms for consumers to reduce their spending. When the system stabilizes, everyone is going to be making less money- but they haven't accepted that yet.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

The interim is the problem for Spectrum. They take away channels, offer me a service (Disney+) that I already have as a bundle with a better price, and didn’t pass any savings on to the consumer. So I’m paying more and getting less content than I had before.

That's because they (Spectrum) aren't really getting any savings even if they take away a few channels. Disney forces these companies to take their whole suite and keeps increasing prices. "You want ESPN? fine, take all of this other stuff and pay me for it too." Disney has a problem too though, they can't completely abandon cable TV, particularly ESPN, YET. I suspect they know that streaming will eventually lead to less revenue than what they get today until it gets sorted out.

A friend of mine worked in this field (Not for Spectrum). He said The Walking Dead was one of the shows where AMC came in, raised the price substantially, forced providers to take other channels with it (that nobody wanted), and then when the show was no longer on, the price doesn't get lowered.

You are right that the interim is a problem for Spectrum. Caught between a rock and hard place with people growing up where they no longer watch traditional TV (My kids are in their mid-late 20s and have never watched traditional cable TV and never will. The content providers have a problem too as I mentioned above.

Now it appears they are offering Paramount+ as part of their CBS deal. Again, I already have it via another deal, so it wouldn’t help me.

I agree it appears Spectrum is trying to exit the television business and stay in the internet provider business. I think they’ve even admitted as much.

They have.

I'm lucky right now. I pay about $50/month for Spectrum internet and TV Select (in total, not $50 each) as the neighborhood I moved into had a bulk deal in place from day one. I cut the cord at my last house for the last 3 years I lived there but will gladly fork over $50 / month.

 

[chaz4hockey]

I always expected it to be chaos, at least for a number of years. Cable providers began getting raked over the coals (I don't feel sorry for them though) by content providers. A network would have a popular show, and would up the cost to the cable companies and force cable companies to take their entire suite of channels just so they didn't lose that 1 show. We're seeing it now where ABC/Disney/ESPN and Spectrum couldn't come to an agreement a year or so ago so for a while, those channels went dark. Now we see them having a standoff with DirectTV.

Then these companies start streaming their own content and now, you have people paying for some combination of Disney+, Espn+, Hulu; Hulu+TV, Netflix, Peacock, Paramount, Discovery, Apple TV, Fubo, Prime, Max, SlingTV which ends up costing more than what Cable did to begin with.

Eventually something's gotta give. Spectrum doesn't want to be in the TV business with the model they have today. They are trying to move to Xumo where they can aggregate ad supported streaming apps as a lower price offering and where they don't have to have nearly the infrastructure and cost.

Going to be interesting to see how this all plays out over the next 5-10 years.

Concentration in the industry via Content providers are driving this madness (Government over the years has allowed this to the negative impact for consumers and to the narrowing of various views on politics, etc.).

 

[Derailed75]

Really? That's crazy. I thought the whole streaming thing would make TV better but it has done nothing except unleash total chaos.

It should have but the networks interfered to keep the status quo

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

It should have but the networks interfered to keep the status quo

It was about money. Everybody wanted the biggest piece of the pie, not wanting to admit that instead of 4 slices, the same pie now has 100 slices.

 

[DaveG]

It should have but the networks interfered to keep the status quo

It was about money. Everybody wanted the biggest piece of the pie, not wanting to admit that instead of 4 slices, the same pie now has 100 slices.

Accurate. I was a huge believer in a la carte as the future of broadcasting but the content providers were never going to be onboard with that, especially as they continued to consolidate. ABC/Disney for example would rather force everyone that wants ESPN or Disney to buy their other networks as a package as well even knowing they'll cut their subscriber numbers significantly because they know they still bring in more overall because of the people that will still buy it as a package. I won't say where we're at now is the end game, but it's probably only going to get worse, not better.

 

[Derailed75]

It was about money. Everybody wanted the biggest piece of the pie, not wanting to admit that instead of 4 slices, the same pie now has 100 slices.

Entertainment is the only industry specifically TV that forces you to buy tins of unwanted shit (outside of the auto industry). If individual sales works for every other industry i just don't see how a team can not make more money selling their broadcast individually! The real money providers (commercials) use an outdated format to figure out how many eyes are on their adds

 

[Derailed75]

Can you imagine walking into the grocery store and having to pick from full carts at what ever price they decide its worth? Just eat what the hell ever they decided to put in it? Thats how TV works, seems a little insane to me.

 

[WreckingCrew]

Can you imagine walking into the grocery store and having to pick from full carts at what ever price they decide its worth? Just eat what the hell ever they decided to put in it? Thats how TV works, seems a little insane to me.

"I'm sorry, you wanted Peanut Butter? You'll also have to buy some Tofu and Seltzer Water to get it!"

 

[hblueridgegal]

Goodness..poor kid..no pressure

 

[AhosDatsyukian]

Can you imagine walking into the grocery store and having to pick from full carts at what ever price they decide its worth? Just eat what the hell ever they decided to put in it? Thats how TV works, seems a little insane to me.

It's not really this simple, hence why streaming hasn't solved (and won't solve) the issue.

 

[Nikishin Go Boom]

Goodness..poor kid..no pressure

that canes prospect account is prone to overexaggerating over exaggerations

 

[Derailed75]

It's not really this simple, hence why streaming hasn't solved (and won't solve) the issue.

There is no reason thats its not that simple other than there's money already in hands switching back and forth that too many people continue to want to get their piece of.

 

[WreckingCrew]

There is no reason thats its not that simple other than there's money already in hands switching back and forth that too many people continue to want to get their piece of.

Hence their are more and more streaming options each offering less and less with each passing year...everyone wants to make money off their programs but also dealing with existing contracts. So you have to grab 4-5 streaming options to get the stuff you used to have access to with cable

 

[tarheelhockey]

Then these companies start streaming their own content and now, you have people paying for some combination of Disney+, Espn+, Hulu; Hulu+TV, Netflix, Peacock, Paramount, Discovery, Apple TV, Fubo, Prime, Max, SlingTV which ends up costing more than what Cable did to begin with.

I’ve seen a lot of people say this, but I don’t understand how the cost could be higher than cable unless someone is dramatically over-subscribing.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I’ve seen a lot of people say this, but I don’t understand how the cost could be higher than cable unless someone is dramatically over-subscribing.

Not really apples to apples though. One difference is that these streaming services are now creating their own content which causes buyers to get that service just for the unique content. That wasn't the case with Cable 5-10 years ago.

Secondly, if it is 1 person in a household is watching, then sure, you can cut back some, but if it's a family, good luck. My wife would not give up HGTV, Discovery, Hallmark and I couldn't care less about any of those. I like ESPN/ESPN+ and she couldn't care less about that. A few years ago, my kids absolutely wanted Disney+

Netflix Standard Cost: $15.49
Hulu/Disney/ESPN+: $15 (with ads)
AMC+ $9 (for Walking Dead))
Discovery+: $5
Paramount: $8
Peacock: $8

Now if you want to watch Ted Lasso, add another $11. And if you aren't in an area where you get a lot of channels over the air and you want Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Weather channel, etc... you'll need to go with something like SlingTV, which is another $40 (which negates some of the ones above).

Hulu + TV and Youtube TV cost the same amount as Spectrum TV (although you can get a bundle deal with Spectrum).

I don't agree that you need to "Oversubscribe" to cost as much as cable for everyone. For some people, sure. For others it really depends on the number of people in a family and what's important to them.

 

[chaz4hockey]

Not really apples to apples though. One difference is that these streaming services are now creating their own content which causes buyers to get that service just for the unique content. That wasn't the case with Cable 5-10 years ago.

Secondly, if it is 1 person in a household is watching, then sure, you can cut back some, but if it's a family, good luck. My wife would not give up HGTV, Discovery, Hallmark and I couldn't care less about any of those. I like ESPN/ESPN+ and she couldn't care less about that. A few years ago, my kids absolutely wanted Disney+

Netflix Standard Cost: $15.49
Hulu/Disney/ESPN+: $15 (with ads)
AMC+ $9 (for Walking Dead))
Discovery+: $5
Paramount: $8
Peacock: $8

Now if you want to watch Ted Lasso, add another $11. And if you aren't in an area where you get a lot of channels over the air and you want Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Weather channel, etc... you'll need to go with something like SlingTV, which is another $40 (which negates some of the ones above).

Hulu + TV and Youtube TV cost the same amount as Spectrum TV (although you can get a bundle deal with Spectrum).

I don't agree that you need to "Oversubscribe" to cost as much as cable for everyone. For some people, sure. For others it really depends on the number of people in a family and what's important to them.

Amazon prime = $15 per month with adds; 18 without
Apple + (there are some great shows on this streamer) = $9 per month
Acorn = $8 per month
Britbox = $9 per month.

It all adds up.

Of course the optimal pathway is to subscribe, binge on the shows you want to see and then cancel. Then, start another one, watch what you want and then cancel again. Rinse and repeat.

Naturally, streamers are betting that you won’t do that but clearly that’s the best pathway, starting and then stopping quickly.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

I’ve been completely without cable for about 3 years now. The only streaming service I pay for is Dropout ($5/month), which between that and random YouTube videos keeps me plenty entertained. My parents are doing the whole “pay for multiple services, cancel when done binging” thing and it works for them, but paying that much for something they use mostly as background noise seems crazy to me.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Not really apples to apples though. One difference is that these streaming services are now creating their own content which causes buyers to get that service just for the unique content. That wasn't the case with Cable 5-10 years ago.

Secondly, if it is 1 person in a household is watching, then sure, you can cut back some, but if it's a family, good luck. My wife would not give up HGTV, Discovery, Hallmark and I couldn't care less about any of those. I like ESPN/ESPN+ and she couldn't care less about that. A few years ago, my kids absolutely wanted Disney+

Netflix Standard Cost: $15.49
Hulu/Disney/ESPN+: $15 (with ads)
AMC+ $9 (for Walking Dead))
Discovery+: $5
Paramount: $8
Peacock: $8

Now if you want to watch Ted Lasso, add another $11. And if you aren't in an area where you get a lot of channels over the air and you want Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Weather channel, etc... you'll need to go with something like SlingTV, which is another $40 (which negates some of the ones above).

Hulu + TV and Youtube TV cost the same amount as Spectrum TV (although you can get a bundle deal with Spectrum).

I don't agree that you need to "Oversubscribe" to cost as much as cable for everyone. For some people, sure. For others it really depends on the number of people in a family and what's important to them.

Part of it is that maybe we’ve forgotten how ridiculously awful the price model of cable got right before streaming took off.

Back in 2008, the average cost of basic cable was $50 (source) and by 2015 that ballooned to $69 (source).

In 2024 dollars, that’s $73 increasing to $101 over the course of seven years. For basic cable.

Services like Sling, Hulu+, YouTubeTV are pretty much the same thing as basic cable. They cost $40-$76 for a base plan.

So take your (let’s call it on average) $60 for the equivalent of basic cable, which is already 40% cheaper than what you were spending before. Add on “premium channels” — Netflix, Max, Paramount, etc as listed above. If you buy the entire list, you’re in for another $60 a month.

So that’s $120 for basic + premiums. What did the equivalent cost before? Obviously a complicated question because of how tiers were designed, but this reddit thread has it around $200 for a typical multi-tier plan without actual premiums like HBO.

So as far as I can see, virtually everyone is saving about 40% off the equivalent of cable.

And there are exacerbating factors as well:

- Cable companies typically charged for equipment, which also meant charging for replacement of old equipment, and this could run into the hundreds of dollars for a household.

- Cable companies would physically damage your house for installation. I want to cry when I see original hardwood flooring with cable holes drilled through the boards.

- As we all remember, cable prices were a shell game that required you to call and threaten to disconnect in order to get better prices. This was an insane customer service model, but as monopolies they got away with it for decades. A lot of people were out there spending $300+ a month because they wanted a single top-tier channel and weren’t the sort of person to haggle on the phone.

- In order to get a decent price, cable companies required you to bundle services to get products you didn’t want at all. How many of us bought a landline phone just to cut our TV bill, or bought a tier with 8 Hallmark channels in order to be eligible for the next tier which included sports?

- To that point, cable companies deliberately loaded their tiers with junk channels that nobody watched. The equivalent of those channels now cost nothing, they’re free on services like OrbiTV. Want to watch Gunsmoke reruns 24/7 until your eyes pop out? It’s free!

- Streaming services are often given away for free as a benefit of other products. I get HBO/Max for free* with my phone plan. I get Amazon Video for free* with my Amazon Prime account. Whereas I used to pay over $100 a year just for HBO alone.

- Most importantly, you can turn streaming services on and off at will. If all you want is to binge the latest season of Ted Lasso, it’ll cost you $11 for the month. If you wanted the same thing on the old cable model, you were locked into a year contract for thousands of dollars with a termination penalty.

* yes I get how this technically works


I hear you on the results being dependent on the household and their specific dynamic, that’s true. But I can’t see how anyone could be spending as much on equivalent products as they were before, and certainly not if we’re factoring for inflation.

 

[HisIceness]

I get the reference to why Canes Prospects used that song but whenever I hear it, this immediately comes to mind