Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Please. I hate cable. Way too expensive for what it is and less and less worthwhile to watch. More and more people are doing the Hulu/Netflix combo or just doing away with cable. I've long thought the content providers raising costs have gotten to the point of ridiculousness where it's effecting cable, which has gotten ridiculously expensive. Content providers raising costs, cable raising costs and people are leaving cable. One of the reasons why Netflix apparently got creamed is because they raised prices. Again, you hear about content companies raising costs constantly and I absolutely think that era may be over soon because the end providers are finding people seeking alternatives.
Occasionally, I turn on "Grand Theft Auto 5" online and go in my character's apartment and watch the TV and watch what other players are doing via the TV (there are fake shows, as well as a channel for security cameras outside your building, as well a separate channel for every other player in the online lobby) and it's more entertaining - action, drama, comedy, stupidity - you never know what you'll see. Plus, you can do things that will mess with other players if the "show" gets boring. Watching a video game character watch other people on virtual TV is more entertaining than a good portion of what's on actual cable.
As for cable, I think that - eventually - reality forces the a la carte solution that people have always wanted. I mean, I watch cable and it's a variation of the Springsteen song - in my case, it's something like "120 Channels and Nothin' On." I think I'm interested in maybe 40-60% less of what's on basic cable than I was 5-6 years ago.
I would love to be able to subscribe to tv over the internet so I can watch the sports I want and a couple of shows that aren't so important. Radio managed to make it possible to listen to US stations anywhere and some tv, such as NFL.com, has done it as well. I'm sure there were and are hurdles to overcome, but considering what's been achieved already it doesn't seem like it should be that difficult. I suspect this is another case of protectionism globally and I'm not sure that's going away anytime soon.
Good morning all. With respect to video generally, we older folks who remember the early days of black and white TV find it extremely ironic that there was better programming available then, even though the picture quality was poor. Now the technical side has produced video of startling quality, and the programming totally sucks.
Most of the Giants/St. Louis playoff games were not available via over-the air broadcast here in SF. So much for the great American pastime. You want American pastime, buy a cable package, or forget it. We don't/won't do cable. Listened to the games n the radio. Thanks, Murdoch.
When I was growing up in Chicago we had five TV stations, #2(CBS), #5 (NBC, #7(ABC), #9(WGN) & #11 (PBS) with generally something interesting to watch. All that was needed was a roof antenna or rabbit ears at a modest cost. Now, we have 300 stations, with seldom something of interest to watch, at a very high cost, go figure Regards, Ted
Yep, we had five stations too. Plenty to watch until the mid-70s when programming started to go down the crapper. Now there is hardly anything worth watching.
I'll fire up the Apple TV here and watch Gunsmoke, Bonanza, The Virginian and more of the good shows that used to be on. I'm partial to westerns in case you wondered.
Although my channel #'s are different you nailed it Ted. My kids would argue that Sons of Anarchy are worth whatever they pay to watch it but I don't know a thing about it. Hard to get decent, reliable, speedy anything out here in igloo land but I got a feeling I ain't missing a thing. Gotta go, puppies are calling.
Just another monopoly to fall due to technology. Look what's happened to the telephone industry? how about recording and music? look at the professions that have disappeared - secretaries? travel agents?
Some of this is simple progress but in other occasions like the cable industry - it's outright liberating. teehehe
Do you realize that you pay $5 a month for ESPN whether you watch it or not?
More importantly, how do we play this and make a buck?
Just another monopoly to fall due to technology. Look what's happened to the telephone industry?
peace,
rono
I'm probably in the minority, but I take a different view of the telephone industry. Ma Bell was granted a monopoly and a regulated income stream in exchange for providing universal service, for making its research generally available, and generally serving in the public interest. (Somewhat like TV stations used to be required to broadcast public service content, provide equal access, etc.)
To a certain extent, technology did drive the 1984 consent decree (splitting AT&T), but perhaps not in the way people think. It wasn't so much that AT&T had to let people buy their own phones and "break" the monopoly, but that AT&T wanted to get into technology markets that were unregulated.
It had cellphone technology ready to go for a few years before it spun off the Baby Bells, but as a regulated entity it wasn't allowed to deploy it. Perhaps more important, AT&T had delusions about competing with Digital Equipment (DEC). You can see how far that went. (Old joke: how could AT&T become #2 in the computer market? By acquiring IBM (#1).)
The conventional wisdom was that the "new" AT&T would succeed with computers, while the "old" AT&T (Baby Bells) were dinosaurs.
Today, we're right back to Ma Bell, just east coast (Verizon) and west coast (AT&T) versions. Don't let the name fool you - the current edition of AT&T is really SBC - a Baby Bell; the original AT&T is the one that went the way of the dinosaur. But the monopoly reemerged.
While I think there are probably some reasonable economics behind being able to get rid of cable, the biggest problem I see is that its mostly the cable companies that own the infrastructure that brings the internet to your home. So if content providers decided to go straight to the public over the internet, the cable companies would either raise their price significantly for the internet service they provide or they could potentially block access to their infrastructure if the content providers don't pay them some sort of transmission fee. I'm sure I don't have all the details right in my head, but it suggests to me that cable companies aren't going away anytime soon.
>but it suggests to me that cable companies aren't going away anytime soon.
Sad and True, they've divied up the space anyway. Many parts of the U.S. the only option you have for high speed internet is the "One" cable company serving your region. And as long as they have the monopoly, the speed, and cost is going to trail the rest of the world (more and more, as years go by). There is no incentive for cable companies to improve speed or lower costs.
JohnChisum mentioned in another thread that a fairly popular new show was being cancelled. The problem wasn't the number of viewers, but that the audience was too old.
Jerry Seinfeld mentioned not that long ago that a main reason "Seinfeld" wasn't cancelled early on was because of how desirable the demographics of the viewers were.
TV is great these days! Better than ever. Know how much hi-def football I will watch this weekend? As much as I want. Or maybe some golf on the golf channel (an entire channel dedicated to golf) or cycling on BEIN or UNIVSP. Cycling is a great watch, strategy, endurance, rural scenery. Every weekend there’s a good interview or presentation on Book TV or Frontline. I’ve got several on my DVR right now waiting for me. And let’s not forget Colbert – I read on MFO that he is just like Bill O’Reilly, only funnier. Yes, cable is expensive but so is chicken without bones, skin or lips. If I need to economize, I will drive slower and eat chicken necks before I give up my TV. (Well I might go vegan before I eat a chicken neck.) I’m watching Erin Ade on Boom Bust right now, some nights she alone is worth the price of admission. As for those sweet days of yesteryear, 40 years ago when we had 5 channels I watched the Love Boat on Friday night, or maybe Bonanza. Now my choices are infinite! I might catch Later with Jools or Manh(a)ttan or Il Lombardia. Or I might ignore my TV while my DVR tirelessly captures what I might want to view but may delete because the best TV is yet to come.
>Yes, cable is expensive but so is chicken without bones,
Actually chicken is fairly inexpensive and chicken with bones is as good or better than chicken without bones (chicken mcnuggets).
I watch TV a few hours per month, still doesn't change the fact, that cable companies are a monopoly, and the US trails the world in both internet speed and cost per capita.
The only thing broken more than cable company monopolies is our health care system.
they made some things better as far as uninsured. unfortunately they couldn't revamp the entire system, too many other corporate interests, and too little understanding about other health-care systems, myths, and anecdotal stories masking systems that actually do work for the majority of the population of a few other countries.
I gave up on tv when basic cable stopped carrying the weather channel. Haven't owned one in a decade. My Amazon prime subscription and the fiancée's Netflix get us all the shows we want to watch that aren't on HBO, at a lower monthly cost even factoring in Internet rates. For HBO we have friends.
Just another monopoly to fall due to technology. Look what's happened to the telephone industry?
peace,
rono
I'm probably in the minority, but I take a different view of the telephone industry. Ma Bell was granted a monopoly and a regulated income stream in exchange for providing universal service, for making its research generally available, and generally serving in the public interest. (Somewhat like TV stations used to be required to broadcast public service content, provide equal access, etc.)
To a certain extent, technology did drive the 1984 consent decree (splitting AT&T), but perhaps not in the way people think. It wasn't so much that AT&T had to let people buy their own phones and "break" the monopoly, but that AT&T wanted to get into technology markets that were unregulated.
It had cellphone technology ready to go for a few years before it spun off the Baby Bells, but as a regulated entity it wasn't allowed to deploy it. Perhaps more important, AT&T had delusions about competing with Digital Equipment (DEC). You can see how far that went. (Old joke: how could AT&T become #2 in the computer market? By acquiring IBM (#1).)
The conventional wisdom was that the "new" AT&T would succeed with computers, while the "old" AT&T (Baby Bells) were dinosaurs.
Today, we're right back to Ma Bell, just east coast (Verizon) and west coast (AT&T) versions. Don't let the name fool you - the current edition of AT&T is really SBC - a Baby Bell; the original AT&T is the one that went the way of the dinosaur. But the monopoly reemerged.
Hi Ted,
Sure hope you're doing well. You're correct about Ma Bell. Hell, wifey worked for Michigan Bell, then SBC and retired in '99. T never really went away and indeed, they're back bigger than ever. In my statement, wasn't actually going back that far or to that extent. I was talking more about the emancipation that has gone on with the smart phones of today.
Oh, and we own T, FTR, plus being Up in Michigan, CMS and DTE. Utes that we deal with and which pay very nice dividends (5.5, 6.6, 3.5, 3.6). Sort of eases the monthly pain, as it were.
Comments
Occasionally, I turn on "Grand Theft Auto 5" online and go in my character's apartment and watch the TV and watch what other players are doing via the TV (there are fake shows, as well as a channel for security cameras outside your building, as well a separate channel for every other player in the online lobby) and it's more entertaining - action, drama, comedy, stupidity - you never know what you'll see. Plus, you can do things that will mess with other players if the "show" gets boring. Watching a video game character watch other people on virtual TV is more entertaining than a good portion of what's on actual cable.
As for cable, I think that - eventually - reality forces the a la carte solution that people have always wanted. I mean, I watch cable and it's a variation of the Springsteen song - in my case, it's something like "120 Channels and Nothin' On." I think I'm interested in maybe 40-60% less of what's on basic cable than I was 5-6 years ago.
Most of the Giants/St. Louis playoff games were not available via over-the air broadcast here in SF. So much for the great American pastime. You want American pastime, buy a cable package, or forget it. We don't/won't do cable. Listened to the games n the radio. Thanks, Murdoch.
Regards,
Ted
I'll fire up the Apple TV here and watch Gunsmoke, Bonanza, The Virginian and more of the good shows that used to be on. I'm partial to westerns in case you wondered.
Just another monopoly to fall due to technology. Look what's happened to the telephone industry? how about recording and music? look at the professions that have disappeared - secretaries? travel agents?
Some of this is simple progress but in other occasions like the cable industry - it's outright liberating.
Do you realize that you pay $5 a month for ESPN whether you watch it or not?
More importantly, how do we play this and make a buck?
peace,
rono
To a certain extent, technology did drive the 1984 consent decree (splitting AT&T), but perhaps not in the way people think. It wasn't so much that AT&T had to let people buy their own phones and "break" the monopoly, but that AT&T wanted to get into technology markets that were unregulated.
It had cellphone technology ready to go for a few years before it spun off the Baby Bells, but as a regulated entity it wasn't allowed to deploy it. Perhaps more important, AT&T had delusions about competing with Digital Equipment (DEC). You can see how far that went. (Old joke: how could AT&T become #2 in the computer market? By acquiring IBM (#1).)
The conventional wisdom was that the "new" AT&T would succeed with computers, while the "old" AT&T (Baby Bells) were dinosaurs.
Today, we're right back to Ma Bell, just east coast (Verizon) and west coast (AT&T) versions. Don't let the name fool you - the current edition of AT&T is really SBC - a Baby Bell; the original AT&T is the one that went the way of the dinosaur. But the monopoly reemerged.
Regards,
Ted
Sad and True, they've divied up the space anyway. Many parts of the U.S. the only option you have for high speed internet is the "One" cable company serving your region. And as long as they have the monopoly, the speed, and cost is going to trail the rest of the world (more and more, as years go by). There is no incentive for cable companies to improve speed or lower costs.
Yes, cable is expensive but so is chicken without bones, skin or lips. If I need to economize, I will drive slower and eat chicken necks before I give up my TV. (Well I might go vegan before I eat a chicken neck.) I’m watching Erin Ade on Boom Bust right now, some nights she alone is worth the price of admission.
As for those sweet days of yesteryear, 40 years ago when we had 5 channels I watched the Love Boat on Friday night, or maybe Bonanza. Now my choices are infinite! I might catch Later with Jools or Manh(a)ttan or Il Lombardia. Or I might ignore my TV while my DVR tirelessly captures what I might want to view but may delete because the best TV is yet to come.
>Yes, cable is expensive but so is chicken without bones,
Actually chicken is fairly inexpensive and chicken with bones is as good or better than chicken without bones (chicken mcnuggets).
I watch TV a few hours per month, still doesn't change the fact, that cable companies are a monopoly, and the US trails the world in both internet speed and cost per capita.
The only thing broken more than cable company monopolies is our health care system.
I gave up on tv when basic cable stopped carrying the weather channel. Haven't owned one in a decade. My Amazon prime subscription and the fiancée's Netflix get us all the shows we want to watch that aren't on HBO, at a lower monthly cost even factoring in Internet rates. For HBO we have friends.
Sure hope you're doing well. You're correct about Ma Bell. Hell, wifey worked for Michigan Bell, then SBC and retired in '99. T never really went away and indeed, they're back bigger than ever. In my statement, wasn't actually going back that far or to that extent. I was talking more about the emancipation that has gone on with the smart phones of today.
Oh, and we own T, FTR, plus being Up in Michigan, CMS and DTE. Utes that we deal with and which pay very nice dividends (5.5, 6.6, 3.5, 3.6). Sort of eases the monthly pain, as it were.
take care,
peace,
rono
rono