My challenges with the streaming services

[ZLoth]

Here is how I feel about the whole streaming business, the writers strike, and the upcoming actors strike...

Let me flash back to when I was growing up in the 1970s and early 1980s. Back then, a typical household had only one television, and there was the three commercial stations (NBC, CBS, ABC), a single independent station, and two religious/Spanish language stations. One of those religious/Spanish stations became the second English-only independent in 1981, while a third English-independent station went on the air in 1986. That usually meant that the "family" (read my father) decided what shows to watch, and because VCRs were extremely expensive in the 1970s to early 1980s (we didn't get one until 1984), you scheduled your life around your favorite shows, and if you missed it, you caught it in a rerun hopefully several months later. Weekday afternoons and Saturday mornings were highly coveted by this young person. Our media choices dramatically increased as VCRs became affordable and a trip to the video store was commonplace for a evening's entertainment. When DVDs came out in the late 1990s, especially with the must-own movie The Matrix, movie ownership became commonplace, especially with the reduced production costs (only a few centers for a DVD/Bluray verses a dollar or so for video cassettes). More niche formats such as foreign-language and Japanese titles became more commonplace where you could have both the dubbed and subtitled version of the title on the same disc.

The pioneer in video streaming, as we all know, was Netflix. Originally a DVD "rent by mail" company, Reed Hastings began video streaming service in 2007. As Internet connectivity improved, the business took off, and soon Netflix was licensing movies and TV series from the studios to stream. As we all know, success breeds imitation, so the media companies decided to develop their own streaming services using some of their own notable properties and pulling back some of the licenses from Netflix. What we have now is an glut of media to watch, but alas, not enough time to view them. I'm already busy enough working full time and being an adult caregiver that my time is at a premium. How many streaming services can one realistically subscribe to? Mine is as follows:

• Amazon Prime video - Part of my Amazon Prime subscription
• Criterion Channel - Only service I'm paying regular price for since it has niche and older films.
• Max (formerly HBO Max) - Through my Internet provider
• Disney+ - Through my wireless provider
• Hulu - Through my wireless provider
• ESPN+ - Through my wireless provider
• History Vault - My 82yo mother subscribes to this just to watch Ice Road Truckers

I've barely watched any of the content on those services. I keep encouraging my mom to take advantage of those services, but nooo... she'll rather watch Golden Girls and Ice Road Truckers. If push comes to shove and you are facing financial struggles, there there are the free OTT services which has advertiser channels (thus, if you aren't purchasing the product, you ARE the product) such as:

• Pluto TV
• Tubi TV
• Crackle
• Filmrise
• RetroCrush - Classic Anime
• Xumo
• Roku - Available if you purchase a Roku device or television
• Plex - Streaming channels available if you purchase a license
• LG Channels - Available if you purchase a LG Product

There is more content than time available, and it feels like you need a service like JustWatch or ReelGood just to figure out which streaming service is streaming.

Then, of course, there is the elephant in the room in that the streaming services are now facing pressure to turn a profit from investors. It is well known that Warner Bros-Discovery is financially struggling and is slashing projects and series like there is a fire sale. Disney isn't in such dire straights, but still have removed several films and series to reduce licensing costs. With both the Writer's and SAG-AFTRA hitting Hollywood, I feel that the studios will use this opportunity to cut costs even further.

[SP Cook]

The entertainment industry history is filled with things that were entertaining.  And unprofitable.  It seems, IMHO, that the markets are coming to realize that non-linear general streaming is just not something that can make a profit.  This is compounded by the fact that, unlike most every other consumer product in history, streaming has almost no equipment costs or rollout costs at all.  No one is waiting on streaming to come to their town.  If you want it, you have it.  Unlike waiting on the store to get more DirecTV boxes, or them to build a Blockbuster in your town, or your city to get a fourth TV station, or so on.  If you want streaming, you have it.  And the number of people willing to pay for any one streaming service, save only Netflix, is LESS than what it costs to make its content. 

IMHO,

- This isn't changing.  Big Media made a big mistake in jumping head long into streaming, especially in making network shows available to people who would not pay for cable, etc.  In the "bundle" model, everyone paid a little and there was lots of content.  In the streaming model, less money.  Eventually less content. 

- FAST (free ad supported TV), which is things like Pluto, Stirr, Xumo, Plex, etc.  is WORTHLESS.  It is reruns of mediocre shows from 40 years ago.  It is a modern version of 1970s UHF stations.  It is garbage.  Everyone who wanted to see episode 6 of season 3 of Hogan's Heroes has already seen it.

- Niche streaming, things like ESPN+ (sports not popular enough to be on real ESPN) Willow (Indian cricket) Brit Box (BBC and ITV shows) etc, is another story.  This is where streaming will work.

- I get tired of people misusing the term "cord cutter".  A true cord cutter does not pay AT ALL for TV.  They get TV from what you can get via antenna (which, depending on where you live, can be a lot, although most of it is rerun channels) YouTube, Rumble and FAST.  If you pay for non-linear streaming and not "cable" then you are a cord switcher.  You still pay.  If you switch from cable to something like DirecTV Stream, Amazon Channels, Sling, YouTubeTV, you aren't anything.  You pay for linear TV, just like always.

- I also get tired of the predictions about linear TV's supposed coming death.  As stated, EVERYONE who does not want linear TV had dumped it already.  That leaves about 60% of the populace still paying for linear TV, via cable, via DirecTV or DISH, or via internet such as YouTubeTV or DirecTV Stream.  Still MEGA profitable (unlike non-linear streaming).  It will be around for decades to come.

[ZLoth]

FAST (free ad supported TV), which is things like Pluto, Stirr, Xumo, Plex, etc.  is WORTHLESS.  It is reruns of mediocre shows from 40 years ago.  It is a modern version of 1970s UHF stations.  It is garbage.  Everyone who wanted to see episode 6 of season 3 of Hogan's Heroes has already seen it.

Forty years ago makes it 1983. So, what shows are airing that are newer than 1983... just doing a casual check of Tubi, Pluto, and Xumo...

• Anger Management
• BayWatch
• Blue Bloods
• CSI, CSI: Miami, CSI: New York
• Cosmos (Neil deGrasse Tyson)
• Degrassi: The Next Generation
• Fear the Walking Dead
• MST3K (except seasons 11 and 12)
• McLeod's Daughters
• Midsomer Murders
• Moesha
• Nikita
• Republic of Doyle
• Scorpion (2014-2018)
• Sister, Sister
• Tosh.0

So, how many seasons (combined) did the CSI Franchise air? How about Blue Bloods? I would hardly call those show "mediocre shows from 40 years ago" or "garbage". I didn't even add in shows that were oriented towards kids, Japanese anime shows, or reality television. And, yes, there are some "classics" shows. I would agree that there is plenty of "not quite top-tier programming", but you get what you pay for which happens to be nothing.

I also get tired of the predictions about linear TV's supposed coming death.  As stated, EVERYONE who does not want linear TV had dumped it already.  That leaves about 60% of the populace still paying for linear TV, via cable, via DirecTV or DISH, or via internet such as YouTubeTV or DirecTV Stream.  Still MEGA profitable (unlike non-linear streaming).  It will be around for decades to come.

The problem I have with the multichannel providers who provide linear television is that the platform got very expensive, and the cost-benefit ratio is out of balance. Outside of the premium/niche channels, the most expensive channels on a per-subscriber basis is the sports channels, namely ESPN and the Regional Sports Networks (RSN). Unless you are subscribed to the very cheapest tier, you were paying for the channels whether you watched it or not. Dish Network dropped all of the Regional Sports Networks about a year or so ago. Sinclair signed a contract which made some of the RSNs optional. I should note that almost all of the regular cable channels charge a per-subscriber fee, although not as much as the sports channels, plus you are still watching the advertising. Lets not forget the retransmission fees for the carriage of the local broadcast stations.

Also, some of the very small cable providers have thrown up their hands, dropped all of their television programming, and told their subscribers to go with a streaming service.

[doorknob60]

I don't love the streaming situation these days, and have gone all in on Blu-Rays for watching movies. The A/V quality is better too, the video is higher bitrate and the audio is uncompressed. Some TV shows I'll watch on disc too, but usually only if I can buy the whole series in one set (eg. I bought The Office complete series on Blu-Ray for something like $50). Buying every individual season is a hard pill to swallow. It's nice to just pop in the disc instead of checking half a dozen different streaming services trying to find where it's available (and often times it's not).

Here's what my streaming situation is right now:

Netflix: I only keep this because my wife's grandmother uses our Netflix, and I don't want to take that away. We do use it but not constantly. If Netflix tries enforcing the password sharing policy on us, I'll cancel ours (and only sign up one month at a time when we specifically want to watch something there), and have her set up her own account.

Disney+/Hulu/ESPN+: I do have the bundle because I currently get it at a discount with my Amex (it comes out to $8 for me for the whole bundle). Once that promo runs out, I'll just subscribe to it one month at a time if there's something I want to watch.

(HBO) Max: I use my parents' cable login to access this. I'd consider paying myself if I had to, at least while Last Week Tonight is on the air (not currently due to writers' strike).

Prime Video: I subscribe to Prime for the free shipping. I don't use Prime Video much, but it's there if I want it.

Paramount+, Peacock, and others I haven't bothered with, and don't have any immediate plans to.

I do watch sports (CFB and NBA mostly), and used to use Dish for that, but this year I'm going to try using Channels DVR with my parents' Spectrum login  for channels like ESPN, FS1, and Pac-12 Network, and my OTA antenna for the locals. I should still be able to catch every game I want to. If something goes wrong, I'll sign up for Youtube TV or Sling. For NBA I'll use League Pass since the team I follow is out of market (in addition to the above for ESPN/TNT games).

I do subscribe to Youtube Premium and Twitch Turbo for ad free viewing, as I do watch those services every day and I don't like the ads. I also subscribe to Nebula which a lot of educational Youtubers are a part of (and it's very cheap, my grandfathered plan is $20/yr).

[Bruce]

The only streaming service I subscribe to is MLS Season Pass, which I get for free from my carrier. Otherwise, I can find other means of watching soccer or random sports that don't cost me a dime (but may take more time or technical know-how).

I do use a few of my local and regional library's streaming services, such as Hoopla and Kanopy.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

The only service I pay for is Paramount+, almost strictly for the Star Trek content.

[ZLoth]

I don't love the streaming situation these days, and have gone all in on Blu-Rays for watching movies. The A/V quality is better too, the video is higher bitrate and the audio is uncompressed.

YES! Another physical media lover! My entire library which consists mostly of BluRays plus a handful of DVDs and 4Ks. While my entire collection has been "ripped" and placed on my Plex media server for personal streaming use, I still prefer to collect the physical disc rather than have a title that goes poof-it's gone. It's bad enough that a major chunk of early film history is gone forever partially because of the silver nitrate film, partially because the format was considered "disposable". Hopefully, I will be able to fulfil a 20+ year dream of finally having my own home theater in a few years.

[vdeane]

Not really a fan of how everything is balkanized right now.  If you're a fan of specific shows and want to keep access to them rather than just browsing for whatever, it's gotten quite expensive (especially for those of us who remember when Netflix was half the price for a lot more library stuff and had the DVD service, along with Hulu being free).  This is what I have/have had/anticipate having:
-Netflix: I subscribed several years back when it was still a good value and stuck around mostly because of inertia.  Also because of Wednesday (and Inside Job, before it was cancelled, and the Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, before that was cancelled, and Black Mirror, when I still cared enough to watch when those episodes came out; I'll get to the new season eventually, I swear, but it's not a priority right now).  It also still gets library movies rotate through for couple-month-long stints, so there's that.
-Amazon Prime: subscribed even earlier because I got a half off deal while I was in college; dropped a couple years after I got Netflix when Doctor Who moved to HBO Max, especially as I don't really use the free two day shipping all that much (and the rare time I do order something other than mp3s from Amazon, it tends to arrive that fast anyways).
-Hulu: avoided for many years because I was angry that they forced everyone to pay Hulu Plus prices for Hulu free content, with an even more expensive tier for what used to be Hulu Plus (ie, no ads).  Eventually subscribed because The Orville moved there and it proved useful for also watching Motherland: Fort Salem and rewatching Firefly.  Also useful as movies rotate through, as with Netflix, but not as often.  Now mainly used for watching ABC's This Week on Sundays that I'm traveling and therefore can't watch it live.  Also currently using it to stream The Prank Panel so I don't have to move my usual phone call with my parents.
-Disney+: don't currently have, will get later this year due to Doctor Who.  Library content looks like it will help sustain that.  Will probably bundle with Hulu since that looks cheaper and easier than separate subscriptions even though I don't care about ESPN.  It's not like I expect Hulu to stick around much longer, anyways.  They're already merged outside the US.
-Max: Subscribed as the addition of the Warner Media library plus shows like Doctor Who made if finally make sense to get HBO so I could watch Last Week Tonight properly.  Not quite sure if that panned out as well as I hoped, but I did really enjoy The Last of Us.
-Paramount+: Probably my main streaming service, thanks to Star Trek.  The library content is also good (I feel like my Saturday movies draw from here a disproportionate amount of the time), and the CBS stream has also saved my rear when my TV antenna decided to have shitty reception of my local station (which happened often at my old apartment once the cell companies started rolling out 5G and even more once the station switched from low VHF to "high" UHF (as high as UHF can be these days, anyways)) or when I want to watch the local news at my parents without going downstairs (I'm more of an ABC person usually but News8 is good and Sinclair can go to hell).  I'm now also stuck with Showtime due to Paramount forcibly bundling that with the ad-free plan (I wouldn't care, except they raised the price when they did, so I'm basically paying for something I don't care about beyond finally getting to see Everything Everywhere All at Once).

One thing that's interesting is that the current arrangement is arguably illegal.  United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. made it illegal for studios to own theaters and for studios to hold exclusivity rights to which theaters would get their content.  The applicability to the streaming wars is obvious.  Given that it's also unprofitable (as most people share passwords and/or rotate subscriptions rather than pay for everything all at once), I can only assume that this house of cards is held up by sheer stubbornness alone.

[Rothman]

My wife keeps Netflix around, but we've started turning subscriptions on and off just for specific shows we want to watch.

Sitting in front of a TV sifting through streaming services is just about as enjoyable as flipping through channels with a remote was in the old days.  Forget it.  I've got a whole Internet to play on.

[skluth]

I only have a few. I get Max and TCM from my cable bundle (yes, I still get cable though I'm not sure for how much longer). I pay for PBS Passport because the app's free content only streams recently aired content. I get the Curiosity Stream/Nebula bundle because it's dirt cheap and has great content. I got it for CS but I watch far more Nebula these days. Nebula is a bunch of YouTubers who do mostly documentary and news content along with some education stuff; that it's cheap and that they're making decent money shows just how bad YouTube's payment model is for creators. I also do get YouTube because it has some interesting stuff but steer clear of all the extremist and conspiracy garbage. Technically I have access to a friend's Disney and Amazon content but I rarely watch either and it's usually for something I already own like the MCU movies. I did enjoy the Peter Jackson Get Back doc though.

[Ted$8roadFan]

I have a Netflix subscription that remains the best for my purposes. I find it near impossible to keep up with all of the streaming options out there.

[1995hoo]

We dropped DirecTV for YouTube TV several years ago because it's substantially cheaper and we lost very few channels about which we actually cared. We use the price savings to subscribe to Netflix (I seldom watch it, but my wife watches a lot) and Acorn TV (ditto, my wife likes British programming), and Apple TV Plus (not just for Ted Lasso; we like some of their other original programming, especially For All Mankind, and I also subscribe to their MLS package so I can watch DC United, which I would do regardless of our TV provider because Apple is the sole carrier for most MLS games under the new TV deal). My wife gets PBS Passport access because she donates to two local PBS stations, but she'd have that access regardless of our TV provider.

The one major hassle for me–maybe less so this year with how bad the team is–is that Washington Nationals games are not available via any of the "cable replacement" streaming services (YouTube TV, Sling, etc.) because the station that airs them (MASN) is primarily controlled by the Baltimore franchise and their owner has been locked in litigation with the Nationals and MLB for over a decade regarding the amounts owed to the Nationals. He knows that if the channel can be streamed, viewer data will show the Nats are owed even more than the cable and satellite TV evidence shows. So he refuses to allow the channel to be carried on any streaming service. The workaround is to subscribe to MLB.tv's single-team package, but that then requires using a VPN or location spoofing to get around their annoying blackout rules. VPNs don't always work reliably because MLB is constantly trying to block them. DNS spoofing is far more effective, especially if you do it at the router level so as not to have to futz around with every device you might use, but it then causes problems with other streaming services that require a particular location (my wife was unable to watch her Acorn TV unless I changed the router settings back and forth every single day, and then we had a problem with NHL games airing on ESPN+ because the setting we needed for MLB conflicted with the setting we needed for ESPN+, and some days MLB.tv just plain wouldn't work at all). Ultimately I dropped MLB.tv because it was such a hassle. I hate feeling like I'm giving in to that troll of an owner in Baltimore, but it's not worth spending money on something I can't really watch. Unfortunately, MLB's antitrust exemption allows them to engage in this sort of crap. Watching DC United pretty much replaced watching baseball given this situation.

[hbelkins]

Until my home Internet situation gets better, streaming isn't an option for me.

[triplemultiplex]

I had Hulu for many years until last fall when they sent me an email basically telling me my smart TV is too old and it won't be compatible any more.  That pissed me off so much I cancelled the damn thing.  The whole point of having a "smart" TV is you don't need some bullcrap ancillary device to watch stuff. 

Now I just watch over the air TV and pirate whatever else I want to see.

[kkt]

Put me down as another physical media lover.  No streaming services, and I buy bluray or DVDs of series and movies that look good.
Plus the public and college libraries have pretty good collections of discs too.  Yes, I don't get to be the First on my Block to watch a new show, but I'm less likely to watch a dud that way.

[mgk920]

As I have also mentioned many times in here, I have not turned on a TV receiver in my residence since at least 2007, there is nothing on that I find to be compellingly interesting to watch.  If it is sports, either I'll use the broadcast radio or a nearby sports bar (lots more fun that way anyways) or if it is a news something, I'll catch it on demand on line later.  I'm quite happy with that.

Mike

[ZLoth]

I had Hulu for many years until last fall when they sent me an email basically telling me my smart TV is too old and it won't be compatible any more.  That pissed me off so much I cancelled the damn thing.  The whole point of having a "smart" TV is you don't need some bullcrap ancillary device to watch stuff.

What year, make, and model of your television?

[J N Winkler]

I deal with the streaming services by simply not subscribing to any of them.  I'm currently in the valley of a 10- to 20-year cycle in terms of TV watching, and haven't really seen anything after the first few episodes of Outlander season 4 (the show is now on season 6 and I think it has been renewed for a 7th).

I do value the DVD collection at our local public library.  Unfortunately, a growing trend is simply not to press shows onto physical media, restricting availability to streaming only.

[fhmiii]

I don't love the streaming situation these days, and have gone all in on Blu-Rays for watching movies. The A/V quality is better too, the video is higher bitrate and the audio is uncompressed.

YES! Another physical media lover! My entire library which consists mostly of BluRays plus a handful of DVDs and 4Ks. While my entire collection has been "ripped" and placed on my Plex media server for personal streaming use, I still prefer to collect the physical disc rather than have a title that goes poof-it's gone. It's bad enough that a major chunk of early film history is gone forever partially because of the silver nitrate film, partially because the format was considered "disposable". Hopefully, I will be able to fulfil a 20+ year dream of finally having my own home theater in a few years.

I am also a Plex Ripper.  I have hundreds of DVDs that I've held onto and dozens of BluRays.  I buy most of them on the discount rack at Walmart or wherever, as "movie collections" (e.g. I got all 10 Prime Universe Star Trek films for $30 on DVD, the Divergent Series for $11 on BluRay, all 6 Rocky films for $17), and from the thrift store (John Wick in 4K for $2? Why, yes, thank you!).  I'm still in the process of uploading everything, but I already have hundreds of movies loaded and room for hundreds more, though I am limiting myself to only buying BluRays these days.

My plan is also to have an in-home theater someday, because I want my son to see these movies the way I saw them (or never got to see them, as the case may be).  I probably saw most of the older ones on linear TV, with half the movie already over by the time I tuned in.

Meanwhile, my wife insists we keep several streaming services, including:

• Brit Box
• Netflix (discounted through wireless provider)
• Hulu
• Paramount+ (discounted through wireless provider)
• Starz (discounted through wireless provider)
• Amazon Prime Video (comes with Prime subscription, so NBD)
• HBO Max
• Disney+ (thankfully through my sister-in-law)
• Apple TV+ (which I get a year for free with every iPhone or iPad I buy, so whatever)
• Amazon Prime Music (not TV but I still can't believe we're paying for her old APM account when she could switch to my Prime account for free!!!)

And then there's what I insist upon:

• We had Spectrum while she worked for them for live TV, but otherwise I have a Tablo device for OTA and get Sling for ESPN during football season
• I have MLB.TV for baseball (also through my wireless provider), but have to set up a VPN for Royals games, which is stupid and annoying

I could easily give up half of these services -- especially the ones that don't come at a discount -- and never notice, but my wife insists we keep them all.

[fhmiii]

I had Hulu for many years until last fall when they sent me an email basically telling me my smart TV is too old and it won't be compatible any more.  That pissed me off so much I cancelled the damn thing.  The whole point of having a "smart" TV is you don't need some bullcrap ancillary device to watch stuff. 

Now I just watch over the air TV and pirate whatever else I want to see.

Interesting.  I refuse to buy "Smart" TVs because a) they're usually terrible and b) they're selling my data, including listening to what I'm saying in my living room.  So I use a Roku (also selling my data, but always the ones without audio command capabilities).  I'd rather spend more money on a "dumb" TV (yes, regular TVs are more expensive than smart TVs -- see again about selling your data) that will work reliably for 10-15 years and replace the Roku dongle for $30 every 3 years or so, than have to replace a $250 smart TV every couple of years when the TV-OS craps-out.

I also watch OTA, but I don't pirate anything.

[ZLoth]

I had Hulu for many years until last fall when they sent me an email basically telling me my smart TV is too old and it won't be compatible any more.  That pissed me off so much I cancelled the damn thing.  The whole point of having a "smart" TV is you don't need some bullcrap ancillary device to watch stuff.

Interesting.  I refuse to buy "Smart" TVs because a) they're usually terrible and b) they're selling my data, including listening to what I'm saying in my living room.  So I use a Roku (also selling my data, but always the ones without audio command capabilities).  I'd rather spend more money on a "dumb" TV (yes, regular TVs are more expensive than smart TVs -- see again about selling your data) that will work reliably for 10-15 years and replace the Roku dongle for $30 every 3 years or so, than have to replace a $250 smart TV every couple of years when the TV-OS craps-out.

Of the smart television options available, the one I prefer is Roku, especially when I'm trying to "keep things simple" for his 82yo mother. Unfortunately, the televisions that has Roku (or Google TV) built in are also the cheapest as well. I don't need a "good" television if it's primarily used as "background noise" while I'm working away in my home office or being used as a 4K 55" monitor showing the radar or thunderstorms as a storm flows through DFW. As for the data, all they'll see from my household is a lot of Golden Girls. And, the anonymized data from whatever streaming app you are using is valuable, such as time of day, how many episodes you watched, how many series did you want to completion, did you even make it through the first episode, and so on.

[jp the roadgeek]

I only subscribe to one a la carte: Fubo.  I started out with PlayStation Vue, but I hated the interface, the loud ads they subbed in, and the fact that everything was exact ip address located (the regional sports network availability was wonky based on where you were).  I switched to YouTube TV and really enjoyed it, but then they pulled a deal breaker and dropped NESN.  So now I'm on Fubo which has it.  The latter 2 go more by your home market (YTTV) and by home ZIP detected (Fubo,  Fortunately, the ZIP detected was based on my ISP's hub location in the area and not where I am, so I quietly get NBC Sports Boston and Celtics games, where if I put my real ZIP code I wouldn't).  The only other two services I have are Prime (with Amazon subscription) and Paramount + (with Walmart +).  Also have an antenna for local stations because they're almost a full minute ahead of streaming, plus my old ISP had data caps (current one doesn't).  Have Roku sticks for 3 of my TV's, one with Roku built in, and an LG Smart TV that I still keep a Roku box attached to.

[HighwayStar]

al la carte

I was telling people years ago (the ones that were jumping up and down yelling how great it was that streaming and "competition" were going to come along and make TV cheaper) that streaming would be a minor disruption which would create a few years of good deals, but that in the long run TV would get more expensive.
This was an example used back when I took Econ 101, Intermediate Microeconomics. At that time people had been pushing the government to mandate a la carte cable TV as an option. When you sat down and did the economic analysis though you realized that al la carte cable would just be a vast increase in the ability of firms to price discriminate and that consumer surplus was going to be less under such a scheme. And that is exactly what streaming is in effect.
Interestingly, when I tried telling people this, they acted like I shot Santa Claus, their approach was to bury their heads in the sand or call me names or do whatever else it took to make themselves feel better. But of course as time progressed what I predicted has become increasingly true and will continue to do so.


Quality v Quantity

Another unfortunate consequence of the advent of streaming has been the splintering of the market into small special interest markets where most shows are not of any interest to anyone and production budgets have to be shared across all of them. The result is an enormous amount of extremely low grade content filling up the streaming services. Companies recycling existing intellectual property over and over again. The type of quality television we used to see on the big 3/4 networks until the 90's no longer exists because no single audience exists to support such quality productions.

Cord-cutting

I don't think Cord Cutting has to refer to not paying anything at all for TV, the origins of the term were clearly people going away from Cable/Satellite but not necessarily to paying $0 for TV.
That said, the primary tool of cord cutters in years past was streaming, and as predicted that temporary deal disappeared. Broadcast TV and Free Streaming TV are mostly garbage but the supply of good re-runs from yesteryear is worth something (I like seeing Hogan's Heroes, I didn't see it in the original run).

The Strike

I really could care less about the strike, its Hollywood fighting Hollywood and I'm not watching the new garbage whenever they do go back to work so I don't care.

Plex

I've gone the Plex route over the last several years. Between broadcast TV DVR and buying up DVDs cheap I have a large collection of quality media that I won't loose access to if the streaming service does, or if they decide the show is politically incorrect because of something an actor in it said 30 years after they made the show. I've effectively seceded from the system at this point and won't be going back.

[vdeane]

I think it's safe to say that a la carte hasn't been what people were envisioning.  The way people were talking, I think we were envisioning something along the lines of taking the existing cable bill, dividing it per channel, and then paying only for the specific individual channels we wanted.  Instead things got bundled and the prices went up.  For the cable bill, instead of paying just for Cartoon Network, you instead have to buy a "kids" bundle that has it along with a bunch of other channels.  And for streaming, the idea is that you get a studio's full library, except you inevitably don't even though they make you pay the same as you would have paid for Netflix back when Netflix had everything (plus a DVD plan), and still serve you ads.

It's weird.  The transition of music to the internet went great for people, but the transition of movies/TV went horribly.  I think that's because music went forced and the industry was forced to conform to the whims of the internet, whereas Hollywood got to learn from what happened to the movie industry and was instead able to force the internet to conform to the whims of the production companies.

[HighwayStar]

I think it's safe to say that a la carte hasn't been what people were envisioning.  The way people were talking, I think we were envisioning something along the lines of taking the existing cable bill, dividing it per channel, and then paying only for the specific individual channels we wanted.  Instead things got bundled and the prices went up.  For the cable bill, instead of paying just for Cartoon Network, you instead have to buy a "kids" bundle that has it along with a bunch of other channels.  And for streaming, the idea is that you get a studio's full library, except you inevitably don't even though they make you pay the same as you would have paid for Netflix back when Netflix had everything (plus a DVD plan), and still serve you ads.

It's weird.  The transition of music to the internet went great for people, but the transition of movies/TV went horribly.  I think that's because music went forced and the industry was forced to conform to the whims of the internet, whereas Hollywood got to learn from what happened to the movie industry and was instead able to force the internet to conform to the whims of the production companies.

I skimmed over the economics in my prior note, so let me add to that here and clear it up.
The fact that things have been "bundled" to some degree makes basically no difference, and what difference it makes is in the favor of the consumer. Even if it was paying for individual cable channels the result is the same.

So what is the disconnect?

Well...most people somehow envision that if cable is say $50 a month and has 50 channels, than you should be able to get any one of them for $1 (or something to that effect).
The problem with that is that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay. Let me repeat that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay.
Prices are not set by costs, costs only set a minimum price constraint. Firms optimize profits by pricing based on the demand curve. In a perfect market without price discrimination this is the market clearing price where q_supply =  q_demand.
However, that leaves consumer surplus on the table, since only the consumer with the lowest reservation price (equal to market clearing price) is actually receiving no surplus. Someone with a reservation price twice the market clearing price is getting a lot of surplus.
Thus firms would like to capture that surplus (ie the area below the demand curve and above the market price), which is where price discrimination comes in. In perfect price discrimination, firms can charge each consumer their reservation price for a good or service.
So if someone was paying $50 for cable because their reservation price was $60, but all their utility came from say Cartoon Network, than their reservation price for Cartoon Network is $60. Guess what the cable company charges them under perfect price discrimination? Yep, $60. So they are getting a single channel, and paying more.
Now of course streaming is not perfect price discrimination, but it is much better than cable and thus one can see why streaming, or the a la carte model in general, reduces consumer surplus (at least for consumers who were previously buying the product, things get weird if we consider those who were not previously buying and its possible for total consumer surplus to be higher, though in the case of pay TV this is basically not the case).

And a word on the music industry

I would not necessarily agree that the Internet was great for music. We end up seeing much the same problem in the long run. Music is increasingly pushing towards streaming only content which is supported by adds or subscriptions. That is just another format for radio and paid satellite radio. Streaming music is actually lower quality than the CDs we were buying a few years back, which gave us lifetime access to the entire album for a reasonable price. I agree that to a degree music was different, in that it went through a longer period of technological disruption where file sharing threatened the entire business model, which was less of an issue for movies and TV due to the data size of video versus audio.  But in the long run I can't say that the internet was good for music either.