AARoads Forum

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 (https://markholtz.info/primevideo) - Part of my Amazon Prime subscription
• Criterion Channel (https://markholtz.info/criterionchannel) - Only service I'm paying regular price for since it has niche and older films.
• Max (formerly HBO Max) (https://markholtz.info/max) - Through my Internet provider
• Disney+ (https://markholtz.info/disneyplus) - Through my wireless provider
• Hulu (https://markholtz.info/hulu) - Through my wireless provider
• ESPN+ (https://markholtz.info/espnplus) - Through my wireless provider
• History Vault (https://markholtz.info/historyvault) - 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 (https://markholtz.info/plutotv)
• Tubi TV (https://markholtz.info/tubitv)
• Crackle (https://markholtz.info/crackle)
• Filmrise (https://markholtz.info/filmrise)
• RetroCrush (https://markholtz.info/retrocrush) - Classic Anime
• Xumo (https://markholtz.info/xumo)
• Roku (https://markholtz.info/roku) - Available if you purchase a Roku device or television
• Plex (https://markholtz.info/plex) - Streaming channels available if you purchase a license
• LG Channels (https://markholtz.info/lgchannels) - Available if you purchase a LG Product

There is more content than time available, and it feels like you need a service like JustWatch (https://markholtz.info/justwatch) or ReelGood (https://markholtz.info/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.

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.

Quote from: SP Cook on July 12, 2023, 12:07:03 PMFAST (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) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorpion_(TV_series))
• 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.

Quote from: SP Cook on July 12, 2023, 12:07:03 PMI 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.

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).

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.

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

Quote from: doorknob60 on July 12, 2023, 03:22:43 PMI 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! :popcorn: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 14, 2023, 10:13:28 AMI 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?

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.

Quote from: ZLoth on July 12, 2023, 04:16:45 PM

Quote from: doorknob60 on July 12, 2023, 03:22:43 PMI 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! :popcorn: 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.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 14, 2023, 10:13:28 AM
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.

Quote from: fhmiii on July 14, 2023, 02:27:18 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 14, 2023, 10:13:28 AM
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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: vdeane on July 16, 2023, 09:03:50 PM
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.

Quote from: ZLoth on July 14, 2023, 01:22:02 PM
What year, make, and model of your television?

A Samsung something-something; must be 7 years old now? I don't know model names; to me it's just brand + size = TV.

Quote from: fhmiii on July 14, 2023, 02:27:18 PM
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.

Not all "smart" TV's have a listening/voice-activated thing going on. "Smart" just means you can hook it up to the internet to stream stuff.  No additional hardware needed.
But yeah, obviously they're noting what we're watching.  That's valuable intel.
With Hulu canceled, I disconnected the TV from the internet.

My folks have a Roku and the remote is the most poorly designed piece of shit ever engineered.  It's like someone looked at an iPod and was like, "THAT, but worse!"  Not enough buttons.  And the buttons the remote does have are NOT intuitive.  This isn't hard, people, we figured it all out generations ago.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 17, 2023, 05:09:36 PM

Quote from: ZLoth on July 14, 2023, 01:22:02 PM
What year, make, and model of your television?

A Samsung something-something; must be 7 years old now? I don't know model names; to me it's just brand + size = TV.

Quote from: fhmiii on July 14, 2023, 02:27:18 PM
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.

Not all "smart" TV's have a listening/voice-activated thing going on. "Smart" just means you can hook it up to the internet to stream stuff.  No additional hardware needed.
But yeah, obviously they're noting what we're watching.  That's valuable intel.
With Hulu canceled, I disconnected the TV from the internet.

My folks have a Roku and the remote is the most poorly designed piece of shit ever engineered.  It's like someone looked at an iPod and was like, "THAT, but worse!"  Not enough buttons.  And the buttons the remote does have are NOT intuitive.  This isn't hard, people, we figured it all out generations ago.

Dumb TVs are actually very affordable, the used market is swimming with them. And you can setup your own devices for providing Plex,  YouTube, and other internet content to avoid the privacy issues.
I have used Cromeboxes, old Dell Optipli, a Raspberry Pi 4, an old Thinkpad Laptop, etc. for my devices and its a great way to recycle, tinker, and secede from the system.

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 17, 2023, 02:30:07 AMWell...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).

:-D

Several years ago, I was a participant of a DBS board (DBS=Dish Network and DirecTV), and was, in the mid-2000s, a moderator of that same board. The fact is that per-channel subscriber fee is NOT $1 per channel, but varies wildly. While the per-channel fee may vary from provider to provider and is considered confidential information, it is well known that the most expensive channels outside of the premiums is ESPN (at $7.64 per subscriber in 2020 per https://variety.com/vip/pay-tv-true-cost-free-1234810682/) and the Regional $ports Networks. Next most expensive is TNT at $2.20 per subscriber, and only a few others are between $1-$2 per subscriber including retransmission consents for local statins. Most are, in fact, under a $1 per subscriber. But, during carriage negotiations, it is negotiated what channels get carried and at which tier. The customer ends up paying for channels they are not interested in.

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 16, 2023, 01:59:49 PM
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.

From what I can see, the studios are not in a hurry to resolve this strike. And, all I can see ahead is MAD conclusion.... mutually assured destruction.

Quote from: ZLoth on July 17, 2023, 06:15:57 PM
Several years ago, I was a participant of a DBS board (DBS=Dish Network and DirecTV), and was, in the mid-2000s, a moderator of that same board. The fact is that per-channel subscriber fee is NOT $1 per channel, but varies wildly. While the per-channel fee may vary from provider to provider and is considered confidential information, it is well known that the most expensive channels outside of the premiums is ESPN (at $7.64 per subscriber in 2020 per https://variety.com/vip/pay-tv-true-cost-free-1234810682/) and the Regional $ports Networks. Next most expensive is TNT at $2.20 per subscriber, and only a few others are between $1-$2 per subscriber including retransmission consents for local statins. Most are, in fact, under a $1 per subscriber. But, during carriage negotiations, it is negotiated what channels get carried and at which tier. The customer ends up paying for channels they are not interested in.

Oh I'm well aware that the cable company cost is not the same for each channel. But again, that is irrelevant. Prices are set by what a buyer will pay

Customers are not paying for channels they are not interested in. They are paying for the channels they are interested in and the others are just there. Here is a basic sketch of the proof

If I have a reservation price of $60 for ESPN, and a reservation price of $0 for all other channels, and I pay $50 for cable each month, I am paying $50 for ESPN, because that is my reservation price. I'm not paying for the others, I'm paying for ESPN. If they offered ESPN for a price of $50 alone, I would still buy it because my reservation price is $60. Notice nothing changes here if we remove the other channels, thus I'm not paying for them.

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 17, 2023, 02:30:07 AM
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.

I am not aware of streaming-only artists or the exclusivity crap like we see with movies/TV.  Where are you seeing that?  The only song I wanted to download on MP3 (which is DRM free, by the way) recently that Amazon wouldn't let me was Evidemment, presumably due to some international copyright issue.  For the rare song that does that (or for remixes and the like), there's YouTube, an my browser has an adblocker built in, so I've never dealt with their ads.  I'm not paying for any subscription services at all.

I don't really care about albums, however, with two exceptions - the Trans-Siberian Orchestra and Marie-Mai.

I had Peacock for about a month because WWE discontinued the WWE Network in the US and made it a part of Peacock. I watched all of the old WCCW programs I wanted to, then I let the subscription lapse. It seems that the old WWE Network had a lot more material on it than the WWE section of Peacock does. Since the WWE owns so many tape libraries plus their own tape library, I think they should put (virtually) everything in the vaults on there. There are some things that obviously couldn't be added like Mohammed Hassan's "terrorist attack" on the Undertaker and the death of Owen Hart, but 99% of their library should be available. I'd subscribe to Peacock permanently if they added all of the old WWF programming plus WCW, AWA, WCCW, UWF and the rest of the tape libraries.

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 17, 2023, 02:30:07 AM
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.

So since I'm only willing to pay $0.00 for it, they'll give it to me for free?

Quote from: SP Cook on July 12, 2023, 12:07:03 PM
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. 

But a lot of Americans are still waiting for broadband internet to come to their homes. My family lives in a rural area, and the only kind of internet that is available out there except for dial up is satellite internet, and it's slow and unreliable. It's fast enough in good conditions that they can stream as long as they're not downloading a bunch of other stuff, but sometimes it goes out when it rains. They live in a valley, and cell phone service is extremely poor. You can get a signal with AT&T and Verizon if you put the phone in a certain place and prop it up a certain way, but it is only useful as a hot spot. T-Mobile and Sprint don't work out there at all. Some of us forget that not everybody has access to fast, reliable internet, and may not for years.

Quote from: SP Cook on July 12, 2023, 12:07:03 PM
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 average age of cable subscribers is increasing, and they're going to start dying off in a few years. Baby boomers tend to be afraid and mistrusting of modern technology, so they avoid it whenever they can. You don't have to click a mouse 20 times to watch what you want to, you just push a button and it comes up. Cable TV boxes are far simpler to use than streaming services. and a lot of the non-technically savvy stick with it because it's what they know. Members of generation X are generally much more comfortable with using computers because we were the first generation to grow up with them in our homes, and using them has always felt natural and familiar with us. Millennials and whatever they're calling the kids these days also grew up around technology, so it is natural to them. I don't think cable TV is going to go away anytime soon, but I think it will continue to decline. It does have the advantage of being in real time and you don't have to deal with buffering, which is terribly annoying, and it's more reliable.

Quote from: ZLoth on July 12, 2023, 04:16:45 PM
YES! Another physical media lover! :popcorn: 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.

Not to mention the reuse of expensive video tape and the lack of kinescope recordings for many shows from the 1950s.

Quote from: bugo on July 17, 2023, 10:51:32 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on July 12, 2023, 12:07:03 PM
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 average age of cable subscribers is increasing, and they're going to start dying off in a few years. Baby boomers tend to be afraid and mistrusting of modern technology, so they avoid it whenever they can. You don't have to click a mouse 20 times to watch what you want to, you just push a button and it comes up. Cable TV boxes are far simpler to use than streaming services. and a lot of the non-technically savvy stick with it because it's what they know. Members of generation X are generally much more comfortable with using computers because we were the first generation to grow up with them in our homes, and using them has always felt natural and familiar with us. Millennials and whatever they're calling the kids these days also grew up around technology, so it is natural to them. I don't think cable TV is going to go away anytime soon, but I think it will continue to decline. It does have the advantage of being in real time and you don't have to deal with buffering, which is terribly annoying, and it's more reliable.

Millennials are in their 40s...

What's interesting is the very youngest generations, Gen Z and Gen Alpha, are not good at figuring technology out when things go awry.  The older generations had to deal with less reliable technology and having to really dig into programming in order to get computers to do what they wanted, whereas the kids nowadays are the "sticky tablet" generation: Point and tap.  They aren't used to messing around with registries and drivers.

Quote from: vdeane on July 17, 2023, 09:16:24 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 17, 2023, 02:30:07 AM
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.

I am not aware of streaming-only artists or the exclusivity crap like we see with movies/TV.  Where are you seeing that?  The only song I wanted to download on MP3 (which is DRM free, by the way) recently that Amazon wouldn't let me was Evidemment, presumably due to some international copyright issue.  For the rare song that does that (or for remixes and the like), there's YouTube, an my browser has an adblocker built in, so I've never dealt with their ads.  I'm not paying for any subscription services at all.

I don't really care about albums, however, with two exceptions - the Trans-Siberian Orchestra and Marie-Mai.

Its not that they have out and out eliminated it yet, but compared to the days when everything was on CD there are far fewer people getting DRM free downloads or physical media these days. The trend is very clearly headed towards forcing people onto streaming.

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 17, 2023, 10:14:04 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 17, 2023, 02:30:07 AM
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.

So since I'm only willing to pay $0.00 for it, they'll give it to me for free?

No, if your reservation price is $0, then you do not consume, and hence you are not a buyer.
The point of saying that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay is to make clear that costs do not determine price except to set a floor under it. It does not say everyone pays what they want, it says that the market clearing price will rise to what a buyer will pay (though for this to be a long term equilibrium that must be in excess of the total cost to supply). That buyer can be any buyer, and includes people that outbid you.

Quote from: bugo on July 17, 2023, 10:35:40 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on July 12, 2023, 12:07:03 PM
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. 

But a lot of Americans are still waiting for broadband internet to come to their homes. My family lives in a rural area, and the only kind of internet that is available out there except for dial up is satellite internet, and it's slow and unreliable. It's fast enough in good conditions that they can stream as long as they're not downloading a bunch of other stuff, but sometimes it goes out when it rains. They live in a valley, and cell phone service is extremely poor. You can get a signal with AT&T and Verizon if you put the phone in a certain place and prop it up a certain way, but it is only useful as a hot spot. T-Mobile and Sprint don't work out there at all. Some of us forget that not everybody has access to fast, reliable internet, and may not for years.

Actually few Americans are waiting for that. This is a recent headline from the ITIF

The majority of Americans can access speeds above the FCC's baseline; in 2019, 92 percent of the U.S. population had access to fixed broadband at 100/10. In 2020, 25 percent had access to highly superfluous gigabit speeds, on par with South Korea.

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 18, 2023, 12:45:56 AM
Actually few Americans are waiting for that. This is a recent headline from the ITIF
The majority of Americans can access speeds above the FCC's baseline; in 2019, 92 percent of the U.S. population had access to fixed broadband at 100/10. In 2020, 25 percent had access to highly superfluous gigabit speeds, on par with South Korea.

That's 8% that don't have access. A significant number, especially when you take into consideration that some of these places have no plans to extend broadband to rural areas. Satellite sucks, and most work at home jobs will not allow you to work if that's all you have.

For those (like me) who are torn between cable and streaming:

https://www.broadbandsearch.net/blog/should-you-cut-cord-stick-with-cable

I don't watch TV or movies, but my music collection is almost entirely CD, either given to me handed down (since you don't need them anymore if you've already downloaded them digitally) or bought for used CD prices (typically $5 or less, most commonly $2). I have about 9 1/2 days of music. One disadvantage, however, is that it takes up 28 GB, and for those doing DVDs it would be a lot more because it's video rather than audio. I still prefer CDs over buying digitally, and I don't stream at all. (Of note is that I haven't lost any data since I got my first computer on Christmas 2010, even transferring between computers three times.)

I have 225 GB of music on my hard drive.

Quote from: bugo on July 18, 2023, 03:32:26 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 18, 2023, 12:45:56 AM
Actually few Americans are waiting for that. This is a recent headline from the ITIF
The majority of Americans can access speeds above the FCC's baseline; in 2019, 92 percent of the U.S. population had access to fixed broadband at 100/10. In 2020, 25 percent had access to highly superfluous gigabit speeds, on par with South Korea.

That's 8% that don't have access. A significant number, especially when you take into consideration that some of these places have no plans to extend broadband to rural areas. Satellite sucks, and most work at home jobs will not allow you to work if that's all you have.

Then move out of the boondocks and into civilization, if it means that much to you.

"I want to live in the country where I can get away from it all...Wait, I didn't mean that..."

One thing I've heard some people complain about with regard to streaming services is that it takes longer to start things up when you want to watch TV. Instead of turning it on and then going to the channel you want, you have to turn on the TV, open the appropriate app, wait for it to load, tune to the appropriate network or program, etc. I can understand why some people find that annoying when all you want to do is, say, turn on the 11:00 news while you're getting ready for bed.

The complaint I don't understand is from people who complain that the "cable replacement" services don't necessarily have channel numbers (YouTube TV doesn't, for example). There's a practical reason for that–those services are trying to be platform-agnostic so that they'll work regardless of your device and its remote control, and some of the most popular streaming devices (Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV Stick or Cube, Roku boxes) have remote controls that don't have numbers for typing in channel numbers. Channel numbers are arbitrary anyway for the most part–different cable/satellite/fiber optic providers assign different numbers to the same TV station. If you change from cable to satellite, for example, you'll probably get all new channel numbers anyway (I remember when I had cable TV, our regional sports network, the one now known as NBC Sports Washington, was Channel 86, then when I switched to DirecTV it was Channel 642), so what difference does it make just to drop all the channel numbers? YouTube TV, at a minimum, lets you rearrange the program guide to put the stations you watch the most at the top of the guide for easier access so as to reduce the amount of scrolling you do.

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 18, 2023, 08:08:22 AMOne thing I've heard some people complain about with regard to streaming services is that it takes longer to start things up when you want to watch TV. Instead of turning it on and then going to the channel you want, you have to turn on the TV, open the appropriate app, wait for it to load, tune to the appropriate network or program, etc. I can understand why some people find that annoying when all you want to do is, say, turn on the 11:00 news while you're getting ready for bed.

I do miss having the ability to channel-surf.  Before I cut the cord altogether, I had a cable package that just included the local OTA channels, but being able to flip through those few channels was enough.  Sometimes I just want to watch something for a few minutes and I don't want to have to think about what I want to watch, or figure out where I need to go to stream it, etc.

And I hoped I'd get a similar experience from Pluto, but, alas.

Here's my situation:
- Good, high-speed internet
- Marginal at best OTA TV reception (I'm in-between two medium-size TV markets and just outside two large TV markets)
- It's only me (no wife or kids to entertain)
- A lot of time to watch/listen in background while working, driving, or relaxing

For TV, I subscribe to YouTube TV. Compared to the cable TV packages available, it's a good deal and works well. But the price has more than doubled ($35 -> $75) since I started using it, and the vast majority of the changes they've made don't benefit me much. I'm contemplating dumping it for a cheaper service that gets me ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX, or just losing OTA TV altogether, but I haven't pulled the trigger yet. Again, OTA is not an option for me. ATSC 3.0 (when it gets to my area) may solve my OTA reception problem.

I have a paid ad-free YouTube subscription that I use the hell out of. Easily the best $10/month I spend on entertainment.

I have a paid subscription to Motor Trend On-Demand. I have certain shows there I watch religiously. For $7/mo it's worth it to me.

I have Amazon Prime; that doesn't get used that heavily for TV or other entertainment. Also, frankly, not sure it's worth it for the other Prime perks. Considering dropping.

I have Tidal Hi-Fi Plus, which for $20/month gets me access to CD and better quality music streaming. I do this in lieu of buying physical media because of the breadth of its back catalog and constant access to new music (though I'll still buy CDs from select artists). It works well and I have no complaints. Definitely a better deal than Spotify or a SiriusXM subcription.

I listen to a lot of podcasts, and have a couple of paid podcast subscriptions interspersed with mostly free podcasts and a small yearly fee for the podcatcher software (Pocket Casts Plus).

Quote from: abefroman329 on July 18, 2023, 10:26:10 AM

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 18, 2023, 08:08:22 AMOne thing I've heard some people complain about with regard to streaming services is that it takes longer to start things up when you want to watch TV. Instead of turning it on and then going to the channel you want, you have to turn on the TV, open the appropriate app, wait for it to load, tune to the appropriate network or program, etc. I can understand why some people find that annoying when all you want to do is, say, turn on the 11:00 news while you're getting ready for bed.

I do miss having the ability to channel-surf.  Before I cut the cord altogether, I had a cable package that just included the local OTA channels, but being able to flip through those few channels was enough.  Sometimes I just want to watch something for a few minutes and I don't want to have to think about what I want to watch, or figure out where I need to go to stream it, etc.

And I hoped I'd get a similar experience from Pluto, but, alas.

If you miss channel surfing, TikTok is for you.  Same thing.

Quote from: Rothman on July 18, 2023, 02:49:10 PM

Quote from: abefroman329 on July 18, 2023, 10:26:10 AM

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 18, 2023, 08:08:22 AMOne thing I've heard some people complain about with regard to streaming services is that it takes longer to start things up when you want to watch TV. Instead of turning it on and then going to the channel you want, you have to turn on the TV, open the appropriate app, wait for it to load, tune to the appropriate network or program, etc. I can understand why some people find that annoying when all you want to do is, say, turn on the 11:00 news while you're getting ready for bed.

I do miss having the ability to channel-surf.  Before I cut the cord altogether, I had a cable package that just included the local OTA channels, but being able to flip through those few channels was enough.  Sometimes I just want to watch something for a few minutes and I don't want to have to think about what I want to watch, or figure out where I need to go to stream it, etc.

And I hoped I'd get a similar experience from Pluto, but, alas.

If you miss channel surfing, TikTok is for you.  Same thing.

TikTok is most certainly not for me.

Streaming services definitely have gotten ridiculous over the years. I've never cared a huge amount for network TV. In terms of video-streaming services, I'm subscribed to only two: YouTube Premium and F1 TV. My YouTube Premium money is incredibly well worth it, considering how much I watch. F1 TV is great because I love watching F1 and it makes it easy-peasy. It will be a sad day if a future TV contract rids us Americans of this service.

As for music, I subscribe to Apple Music, which works well. But I'd like to get more into actually buying CDs, and other physical media in general. I'm not a big fan of the "you'll own nothing and be happy" model taking over. Music is probably the easiest service to subscribe to, since it's nice to just pop up a 3 minute song and have it immediately. But if I really wanted to do that for a gimmick or joke, I'd just use YouTube which I already have ad-free on. I've already been a big proponent of buying physical video games, but video games are much more difficult to deal with due to frequent updates.

Quote from: JoePCool14 on July 18, 2023, 04:02:39 PMI've already been a big proponent of buying physical video games, but video games are much more difficult to deal with due to frequent updates.

Also, you can buy a secondhand physical copy of the game at a discount, but you'll buy an electronic version for whatever they feel like charging you.

The media industry (cable, streaming, and everything else) is in chaos, to no one's surprise.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/17/media-industry-turmoil-strikes-streaming-losses-ad-slump.html

If, as the article implies, the combination of declining but profitable traditional TV and cable; the thriving but money-losing streaming services; the continued decline of moviegoing; sinking ad revenue; and not one, but two major strikes; will lead to consolidation and IMO more sensible streaming options. I might even consider supplementing my Netflix subscription.

Quote from: vdeane on July 16, 2023, 09:03:50 PM
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.

I think a la carte was what people wanted when it was cable channels.  In 2005, I'd have been angry if my cable package didn't come with Discovery Channel and History Channel.  These days I couldn't care less about either one of those (as they've gone mostly to "reality" TV shows), but I'd want Science Channel.  But while Discovery and History usually come with "basic" cable, Science Channel requires an add-on, as you describe.  A la carte was supposed to give us the option to ignore the 60-channel Basic Cable package and just buy the ten or fifteen channels we actually regularly watch.

The hope with streaming was that everything would be pushed out through aggregator streaming services like Hulu, Netflix, and Prime Video.  At the start, that was what happened, but then things changed.  Now instead, every production house now has its own streaming service that they're charging $7.99 to $15.99 per month, and once again you're mostly paying for content you're not interested in and having to buy multiple packages to get everything you want.  See above where my wife insists we have almost a dozen streaming services.  That now costs almost as much as the cable package with internet used to cost, but now I'm paying for internet service on top of that.

Quote from: abefroman329 on July 18, 2023, 03:03:33 PM

Quote from: Rothman on July 18, 2023, 02:49:10 PM

Quote from: abefroman329 on July 18, 2023, 10:26:10 AM

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 18, 2023, 08:08:22 AMOne thing I've heard some people complain about with regard to streaming services is that it takes longer to start things up when you want to watch TV. Instead of turning it on and then going to the channel you want, you have to turn on the TV, open the appropriate app, wait for it to load, tune to the appropriate network or program, etc. I can understand why some people find that annoying when all you want to do is, say, turn on the 11:00 news while you're getting ready for bed.

I do miss having the ability to channel-surf.  Before I cut the cord altogether, I had a cable package that just included the local OTA channels, but being able to flip through those few channels was enough.  Sometimes I just want to watch something for a few minutes and I don't want to have to think about what I want to watch, or figure out where I need to go to stream it, etc.

And I hoped I'd get a similar experience from Pluto, but, alas.

If you miss channel surfing, TikTok is for you.  Same thing.

TikTok is most certainly not for me.

Sure it is.  Just swipe through the creators like they're channels.  It's very similar.

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 17, 2023, 02:30:07 AM

Quote from: vdeane on July 16, 2023, 09:03:50 PM
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.

. . .

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.

Not quite.  No one's "reservation price" for Cartoon Network is $60 (well, okay, maybe some billionaire out there, but c'mon).  If their cable package is $50, and Cartoon Network drives that decision purchase, the actual reservation price for CN is probably something like $10 or $15.  The remaining $35 to $40 is paid because of the supply surplus, which is part of the reason bundles are so effective: the customer feels like they're getting more, so they're willing to pay more, even if it's not entirely valuable to them.  They figure every once in a while they're turn on the Weather Channel or something.  Few people turn down the free toaster, even if it's cheap junk and that's not why they went to the car dealership, anyway.  This is the internal disconnect between perceived utility and actual utility.  If the cable company attempted to charge the customer $60 just for Cartoon Network, the customer would most likely balk at the idea.

Look at MLB.TV.  The difference in cost between a single team package and the full package is minimal.  Last I checked, it was something like $20 over the course of a season.  For some people that's enough, and there are many people getting single-team packages, but most people just buy the full MLB.TV subscription even if they're only watching one team.

Add to that, all economic decisions are made on the margin.  If the choice is between a $50 cable package that includes Cartoon Network and a bunch of channels you don't care about, and not having the Cartoon Network option at all, then many people will opt for the package because they perceive, at that moment, that having cable TV is more important than saving the money they're spending for the "excess" channels.

I'd have been willing to go with an a la carte cable package back in the day, if it included ESPN, Science Channel, my local TV channels...  and that's really about all I wanted.  Maybe I'd have gotten History, FX, and/or TNT, but I'm not sure I would have.  If that cost me $30 ($8 for ESPN, $2 for Sci, $5 for local broadcast, and $15 as a "service access fee") instead of $95 for for the third-tier package that includes 8 channels I might watch one day and 285 channels I would never watch, all just so I could get Science Channel, I'd have jumped at it.  That was never an option, so I never upgraded and for many years I just didn't have cable (my neighbors and friends and local sports bars all had ESPN, so I just went to them to watch college football).

Sling comes closest to this by offering add-on packages, but it's still not quite what I really want.  $5 per month for 29 sports channels I might rarely watch kinda' sucks when all I want to add is SEC Network, for which I'd gladly pay $3 per month a la carte.  The $2 extra that I'm paying?  I might check out a Big Ten or PAC12 game I might not otherwise have watched.

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 18, 2023, 12:41:51 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 17, 2023, 10:14:04 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 17, 2023, 02:30:07 AM
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.

So since I'm only willing to pay $0.00 for it, they'll give it to me for free?

No, if your reservation price is $0, then you do not consume, and hence you are not a buyer.
The point of saying that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay is to make clear that costs do not determine price except to set a floor under it. It does not say everyone pays what they want, it says that the market clearing price will rise to what a buyer will pay (though for this to be a long term equilibrium that must be in excess of the total cost to supply). That buyer can be any buyer, and includes people that outbid you.

Eh, thinking a little, I'd pay five cents for it.

So they'll give it to me for five cents is what you're saying? If not, then the prices are not set by what a buyer will pay.

Quote from: Rothman on July 18, 2023, 06:46:45 AM

Quote from: bugo on July 18, 2023, 03:32:26 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 18, 2023, 12:45:56 AM
Actually few Americans are waiting for that. This is a recent headline from the ITIF
The majority of Americans can access speeds above the FCC's baseline; in 2019, 92 percent of the U.S. population had access to fixed broadband at 100/10. In 2020, 25 percent had access to highly superfluous gigabit speeds, on par with South Korea.

That's 8% that don't have access. A significant number, especially when you take into consideration that some of these places have no plans to extend broadband to rural areas. Satellite sucks, and most work at home jobs will not allow you to work if that's all you have.

Then move out of the boondocks and into civilization, if it means that much to you.

"I want to live in the country where I can get away from it all...Wait, I didn't mean that..."

Agreed. That 8% is some pretty out of the way places. During covid, I worked on internet that may or may not have been considered as "broadband" but it was fast enough for work from home.

This reminds me of when I used to frequent a cordcutting forum. The obsession with internet there was absurd. People claiming that every house needed gigabit speed because "work from home" or "education", it was such utter BS. YouTube specifies 5 Mbps per second for HD video, only 1.1 Mbps for SD (which is more comparable to what most video conferencing looks like). The vast majority of households would be fine for education and work from home with 30 Mbps.

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 18, 2023, 07:08:38 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 18, 2023, 12:41:51 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 17, 2023, 10:14:04 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 17, 2023, 02:30:07 AM
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.

So since I'm only willing to pay $0.00 for it, they'll give it to me for free?

No, if your reservation price is $0, then you do not consume, and hence you are not a buyer.
The point of saying that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay is to make clear that costs do not determine price except to set a floor under it. It does not say everyone pays what they want, it says that the market clearing price will rise to what a buyer will pay (though for this to be a long term equilibrium that must be in excess of the total cost to supply). That buyer can be any buyer, and includes people that outbid you.

Eh, thinking a little, I'd pay five cents for it.

So they'll give it to me for five cents is what you're saying? If not, then the prices are not set by what a buyer will pay.

Ironically, I figured you would say basically that, and typed out half of the pre-emptive response, but then thought I would deal with it tomorrow, so here we are.
Again, see the above where I say

"It does not say everyone pays what they want, it says that the market clearing price will rise to what a buyer will pay (though for this to be a long term equilibrium that must be in excess of the total cost to supply). That buyer can be any buyer, and includes people that outbid you."

You only pay 5 cents if no one is willing to pay more, and that will only be sustainable if the total cost of providing to you is less than 5 cents. If someone is willing to pay more, then prices are set by that person.

Keep in mind this is for a single sale, when we talk quantities then price is set buy what buyers as a whole are willing to pay, ie. a demand curve.

Quote from: fhmiii on July 18, 2023, 06:07:47 PM
Not quite.  No one's "reservation price" for Cartoon Network is $60 (well, okay, maybe some billionaire out there, but c'mon).

Not sure how you know that, but it really makes no difference to the economics, it just makes the example easier to understand.

Quote from: fhmiii on July 18, 2023, 06:07:47 PM
If their cable package is $50, and Cartoon Network drives that decision purchase, the actual reservation price for CN is probably something like $10 or $15.  The remaining $35 to $40 is paid because of the supply surplus, which is part of the reason bundles are so effective: the customer feels like they're getting more, so they're willing to pay more, even if it's not entirely valuable to them.  They figure every once in a while they're turn on the Weather Channel or something.  Few people turn down the free toaster, even if it's cheap junk and that's not why they went to the car dealership, anyway.  This is the internal disconnect between perceived utility and actual utility.  If the cable company attempted to charge the customer $60 just for Cartoon Network, the customer would most likely balk at the idea.

Nope, this is just economics gibberish.

If their reservation price does not exceed the price of cable they do not consume, period. Your premise is that you somehow know better what their reservation price and utility is than they do. This is just semantics. No matter how you dice it, they have a reservation price for cable of $60. Now if $20 of that is actually CN and the other $40 is the rest of the package then so be it. But basically the argument that they are being duped by the bundle and their real reservation price is not $60 is nonsense. You may not think they get enough utility for the rest for that to work, but they make that decision, not you. If the mental peace of knowing they have 59 other channels to watch in case CN fails them is worth $40 to them then so be it, its not something I can question because I don't have their preferences. (Mind you, I would agree with you that the other channels are not worth that in my utility function, which is why I never had cable until It came with the internet)

Quote from: fhmiii on July 18, 2023, 06:07:47 PM
Look at MLB.TV.  The difference in cost between a single team package and the full package is minimal.  Last I checked, it was something like $20 over the course of a season.  For some people that's enough, and there are many people getting single-team packages, but most people just buy the full MLB.TV subscription even if they're only watching one team.

That example actually proves my point so lets examine it a bit.

Suppose we have 20 teams, and 200 consumers. It costs $20 for the full package, $19 for a single team.
If each team has 9 fans, who have a reservation price of $30 to see their team, and a reservation price of $2 to see other teams, they buy the full package, because their surplus is $12 versus $11 when they buy the single team package.
Assume the other 20 people are super fans who have a reservation price of $30 to see their team, and a reservation price of $0 to see other teams, they buy the single team package.
As you can see, that fits the results you describe while still showing that no one has more than a token reservation price for the other channels.

So as you said The difference in cost between a single team package and the full package is minimal. Which is exactly my point. A la carte is not meaningfully cheaper because people are already paying for what they value, and the rest is just along with the ride.

Quote from: fhmiii on July 18, 2023, 06:07:47 PM
Add to that, all economic decisions are made on the margin.  If the choice is between a $50 cable package that includes Cartoon Network and a bunch of channels you don't care about, and not having the Cartoon Network option at all, then many people will opt for the package because they perceive, at that moment, that having cable TV is more important than saving the money they're spending for the "excess" channels.

Okay...so when the choice is between the package with CN, and no CN at all, many people will opt for the package because they like cable TV? Not sure that there is any marginal component of that statement. Also, if all of those people had $60 reservation prices for CN then they would all buy the package, not because they cared at all about cable, but because they care about CN.

Quote from: fhmiii on July 18, 2023, 06:07:47 PM
I'd have been willing to go with an a la carte cable package back in the day, if it included ESPN, Science Channel, my local TV channels...  and that's really about all I wanted.  Maybe I'd have gotten History, FX, and/or TNT, but I'm not sure I would have.  If that cost me $30 ($8 for ESPN, $2 for Sci, $5 for local broadcast, and $15 as a "service access fee") instead of $95 for for the third-tier package that includes 8 channels I might watch one day and 285 channels I would never watch, all just so I could get Science Channel, I'd have jumped at it.  That was never an option, so I never upgraded and for many years I just didn't have cable (my neighbors and friends and local sports bars all had ESPN, so I just went to them to watch college football).

So if you could get something for your reservation price you would buy it in other words, which is exactly my point. Now in your case, your reservation price was very low, probabally lower than market clearing prices, so no such a la carte package would have been offered. The only way the cable company would let you have ESPN for $30 would probabally have been if they accomplished first degree price discrimination via some mind reading technology built into your set. But barring that if they came along to offer a la carte the package you describe would almost certainly have been more than $30.

I'm not paying for streaming services besides spotify. My family pays for a bunch (including spotify) but if I want to watch something Pittsburgh's MLB team exists.

Regarding internet access: there's a donut hole effect forming in Washington. Urban areas generally have good connections due to competition, while rural areas have subsidies and public broadband services that are building out ever-larger fiber networks. I passed by dozens of signs in rural Washington this past weekend advertising rural fiber.

Meanwhile in the suburbs, we're stuck with monopolies and slow rollouts of higher speeds. And no subsidies to help.

My graduate economics professor would burn this thread if he could... :D

I just can't stream. Hughesnet 'sort of' works, but it glitches out, and about half the month I'm in 'throttled' mode. Every time it rains more than a sprinkle, the internet either goes completely away, or slows down to the point of unusability. In the evenings, it's possible to have 30+ second (not ms, SECONDS) ping times.

I've ripped every DVD I've ever owned, rented, or borrowed, and shoved it all onto the Plex server. Plex 'can' stream, whatever content it offers, but what made it work for me, is that if you have locallly-stored content, no internet required to use it, and it works on every TV in the house.

Quote from: Bruce on July 18, 2023, 09:23:48 PM
Regarding internet access: there's a donut hole effect forming in Washington. Urban areas generally have good connections due to competition, while rural areas have subsidies and public broadband services that are building out ever-larger fiber networks. I passed by dozens of signs in rural Washington this past weekend advertising rural fiber.

Meanwhile in the suburbs, we're stuck with monopolies and slow rollouts of higher speeds. And no subsidies to help.

Interesting.  Upstate NY is largely the opposite: suburbs have fiber, urban areas are stuck with monopolies, and rural areas are stuck with satellite.

Quote from: vdeane on July 19, 2023, 01:03:37 PM

Quote from: Bruce on July 18, 2023, 09:23:48 PM
Regarding internet access: there's a donut hole effect forming in Washington. Urban areas generally have good connections due to competition, while rural areas have subsidies and public broadband services that are building out ever-larger fiber networks. I passed by dozens of signs in rural Washington this past weekend advertising rural fiber.

Meanwhile in the suburbs, we're stuck with monopolies and slow rollouts of higher speeds. And no subsidies to help.

Interesting.  Upstate NY is largely the opposite: suburbs have fiber, urban areas are stuck with monopolies, and rural areas are stuck with satellite.

There has to be some economy of scale or something I don't get with all this.

Where I sit, about 20 miles out of Fort Collins, all you can get is satellite. But if one goes 20 miles or so further up the canyon, i.e. further out of town, one can get DSL via the phone company, and there's even some places with cell signal.

Cell signal at my house, is because a neighbor has some thing that <oversimplify>inhales internet, emits 4g</oversimplfiy>. I know it's via either Hughes or Viasat, because it has that usual laggy feel to it.

And, this is why I double and triple checked the Internet availability of the home I was purchasing when I moved back at the beginning of 2019. Especially when, for several years, all that I had available is 15Mbps down/3 Mbps up Internet.

Quote from: Rothman on July 18, 2023, 10:59:59 PM
My graduate economics professor would burn this thread if he could... :D

Only portions of it. Some of this is literally verbatim out of my favorite Economics professor's mouth. :-D

Quote from: Bruce on July 18, 2023, 09:23:48 PM
Regarding internet access: there's a donut hole effect forming in Washington. Urban areas generally have good connections due to competition, while rural areas have subsidies and public broadband services that are building out ever-larger fiber networks. I passed by dozens of signs in rural Washington this past weekend advertising rural fiber.

Meanwhile in the suburbs, we're stuck with monopolies and slow rollouts of higher speeds. And no subsidies to help.

Subsidizing it in rural areas is just another example of bad policy, its value is not inverse to population density, quite the opposite.

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 20, 2023, 01:08:28 AM

Quote from: Rothman on July 18, 2023, 10:59:59 PM
My graduate economics professor would burn this thread if he could... :D

Only portions of it. Some of this is literally verbatim out of my favorite Economics professor's mouth. :-D

Well, yes, "some."  The discussion was like watching what would have happened if Prometheus gave fire to a pyromaniac first.

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 20, 2023, 01:09:25 AM

Quote from: Bruce on July 18, 2023, 09:23:48 PM
Regarding internet access: there's a donut hole effect forming in Washington. Urban areas generally have good connections due to competition, while rural areas have subsidies and public broadband services that are building out ever-larger fiber networks. I passed by dozens of signs in rural Washington this past weekend advertising rural fiber.

Meanwhile in the suburbs, we're stuck with monopolies and slow rollouts of higher speeds. And no subsidies to help.

Subsidizing it in rural areas is just another example of bad policy, its value is not inverse to population density, quite the opposite.

It's a good thing this attitude didn't exist around, say, the 1930s-50s. Large parts of rural America would not have been able to obtain electricity without the Rural Electrification Act due to then-horrible Return on Investment.  And frankly, it's a good thing that rural telecom cooperatives aren't listening to what a "bad policy" it is to invest in fiber: https://sdncommunications.com/services/broadband-internet

There's not a free market in streaming services.  Any given area has only one cable provider, so the customer's choices are just take it or leave it.  No competition on price or service, and the prices and services available reflect that monopoly position.

Quote from: kkt on July 20, 2023, 12:43:37 PM
There's not a free market in streaming services.  Any given area has only one cable provider, so the customer's choices are just take it or leave it.  No competition on price or service, and the prices and services available reflect that monopoly position.

This thread is about streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, etc., not ISPs (internet service providers).  Although there really isn't a free market for those either, given how many things are "original" or exclusive to one service.

Quote from: kkt on July 20, 2023, 12:43:37 PM
There's not a free market in streaming services.  Any given area has only one cable provider, so the customer's choices are just take it or leave it.  No competition on price or service, and the prices and services available reflect that monopoly position.

Setting aside vdeane's valid point that you misunderstood the discussion, your comment isn't necessarily correct. Around here, the cable provider is Cox, but a lot of people opt for Verizon FIOS (fiber optic) instead; both of them offer TV and Internet service (we have FIOS for Internet and phone but not TV).

Quote from: brad2971 on July 20, 2023, 07:32:59 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 20, 2023, 01:09:25 AM

Quote from: Bruce on July 18, 2023, 09:23:48 PM
Regarding internet access: there's a donut hole effect forming in Washington. Urban areas generally have good connections due to competition, while rural areas have subsidies and public broadband services that are building out ever-larger fiber networks. I passed by dozens of signs in rural Washington this past weekend advertising rural fiber.

Meanwhile in the suburbs, we're stuck with monopolies and slow rollouts of higher speeds. And no subsidies to help.

Subsidizing it in rural areas is just another example of bad policy, its value is not inverse to population density, quite the opposite.

It's a good thing this attitude didn't exist around, say, the 1930s-50s. Large parts of rural America would not have been able to obtain electricity without the Rural Electrification Act due to then-horrible Return on Investment.  And frankly, it's a good thing that rural telecom cooperatives aren't listening to what a "bad policy" it is to invest in fiber: https://sdncommunications.com/services/broadband-internet (https://sdncommunications.com/services/broadband-internet)

Much of this "donut hole" problem comes down to not having enough investors pushing infrastructure investment, be it public or private.

Private investors want big returns fast for as little investment as possible. The current state of the stock market and its push for quarterly profits drives this mentality. Without heavy taxation driving a need for investors to park their money in investment in fiber infrastructure (among other places), there's little incentive for Big Phone and Big Cable to push themselves out of the areas they get the most profit. There's also not a pool of money begging new operations to go build out fiber infrastructure. Doesn't matter if there's a market if they can't get the cash upfront to build it out.

To some degree, Big Phone and Big Cable will push back against 3rd parties moving into desirable areas that weren't quite desirable enough to build out themselves. They convinced the Tennessee legislature, for example, to block the city of Chattanooga from expanding their fiber footprint despite people wanting it and the city willing to provide it, to protect their market. But by and large, Big Phone and Big Cable hasn't made improvements themselves. So those folks are screwed.

Ironically, the very rural areas are in a better position because the government is footing a big chunk of the investment bill. My parents directly benefited from this investment. They live in a rural area and are served by a electric co-op formed by the Rural Electrification Act in the 1930s. That same co-op got government funding to build out a fiber network along the footprint of their electric services on the same telephone poles, and thus got to join the 21st century. Good thing, because AT&T hadn't maintained their POTS infrastructure (let alone run fiber) and it was falling apart, to the extent that my parents got substantial refunds on their landline phone service for being out so much. Once the fiber was lit, they got phone and internet for 1/2 the price they were paying before, and had the rock-solid reliability of fiber internet service to boot.

So basically, the reason our internet sucks is threefold:
- Not enough investment in infrastructure
- Not enough taxation of the rich to drive investment in infrastructure
- Big Phone and Big Cable are too powerful and block competition whenever possible.

I mean, it's so bad that Elon Musk (someone who's investment acumen could use some help) can actually profit off of launching thousands of satellites to deliver internet, because our wired infrastructure is that bad, and desire for high-speed internet that strong, that people will pay out the nose to get it!

'Murica! F*** yeah!!

Quote from: JREwing78 on July 20, 2023, 01:39:09 PM

Private investors want big returns fast for as little investment as possible. The current state of the stock market and its push for quarterly profits drives this mentality. Without heavy taxation driving a need for investors to park their money in investment in fiber infrastructure (among other places), there's little incentive for Big Phone and Big Cable to push themselves out of the areas they get the most profit. There's also not a pool of money begging new operations to go build out fiber infrastructure. Doesn't matter if there's a market if they can't get the cash upfront to build it out.

More economic nonsense.
By definition a return is standardized for time, so its not "fast" or "slow" its just return.
The fact that profits are quarterly is not a barrier to this investment. If a company can make NPV positive projects happen on an ongoing basis than they will show good results quarter after quarter.
Heavy taxation if anything is likely to make investors not invest at all, you don't incentivize people to invest by taxing them.

In the short term, companies will improve the densest areas first yes, but the problem there is once you have converted to whatever speed in that center then you need additional NPV positive projects. These are found in the more marginal areas. This type of supply/production curve and behavior is extremely well known and there is nothing wrong with it. The optimal areas for expansion are prioritized first, followed by others in order of descending marginal returns.

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 18, 2023, 08:00:04 PM

Quote from: fhmiii on July 18, 2023, 06:07:47 PM
Not quite.  No one's "reservation price" for Cartoon Network is $60 (well, okay, maybe some billionaire out there, but c'mon).

Not sure how you know that, but it really makes no difference to the economics, it just makes the example easier to understand.

Quote from: fhmiii on July 18, 2023, 06:07:47 PM
If their cable package is $50, and Cartoon Network drives that decision purchase, the actual reservation price for CN is probably something like $10 or $15.  The remaining $35 to $40 is paid because of the supply surplus, which is part of the reason bundles are so effective: the customer feels like they're getting more, so they're willing to pay more, even if it's not entirely valuable to them.  They figure every once in a while they're turn on the Weather Channel or something.  Few people turn down the free toaster, even if it's cheap junk and that's not why they went to the car dealership, anyway.  This is the internal disconnect between perceived utility and actual utility.  If the cable company attempted to charge the customer $60 just for Cartoon Network, the customer would most likely balk at the idea.

Nope, this is just economics gibberish.

If their reservation price does not exceed the price of cable they do not consume, period. Your premise is that you somehow know better what their reservation price and utility is than they do. This is just semantics. No matter how you dice it, they have a reservation price for cable of $60. Now if $20 of that is actually CN and the other $40 is the rest of the package then so be it. But basically the argument that they are being duped by the bundle and their real reservation price is not $60 is nonsense. You may not think they get enough utility for the rest for that to work, but they make that decision, not you. If the mental peace of knowing they have 59 other channels to watch in case CN fails them is worth $40 to them then so be it, its not something I can question because I don't have their preferences. (Mind you, I would agree with you that the other channels are not worth that in my utility function, which is why I never had cable until It came with the internet)

Quote from: fhmiii on July 18, 2023, 06:07:47 PM
Look at MLB.TV.  The difference in cost between a single team package and the full package is minimal.  Last I checked, it was something like $20 over the course of a season.  For some people that's enough, and there are many people getting single-team packages, but most people just buy the full MLB.TV subscription even if they're only watching one team.

That example actually proves my point so lets examine it a bit.

Suppose we have 20 teams, and 200 consumers. It costs $20 for the full package, $19 for a single team.
If each team has 9 fans, who have a reservation price of $30 to see their team, and a reservation price of $2 to see other teams, they buy the full package, because their surplus is $12 versus $11 when they buy the single team package.
Assume the other 20 people are super fans who have a reservation price of $30 to see their team, and a reservation price of $0 to see other teams, they buy the single team package.
As you can see, that fits the results you describe while still showing that no one has more than a token reservation price for the other channels.

So as you said The difference in cost between a single team package and the full package is minimal. Which is exactly my point. A la carte is not meaningfully cheaper because people are already paying for what they value, and the rest is just along with the ride.

Quote from: fhmiii on July 18, 2023, 06:07:47 PM
Add to that, all economic decisions are made on the margin.  If the choice is between a $50 cable package that includes Cartoon Network and a bunch of channels you don't care about, and not having the Cartoon Network option at all, then many people will opt for the package because they perceive, at that moment, that having cable TV is more important than saving the money they're spending for the "excess" channels.

Okay...so when the choice is between the package with CN, and no CN at all, many people will opt for the package because they like cable TV? Not sure that there is any marginal component of that statement. Also, if all of those people had $60 reservation prices for CN then they would all buy the package, not because they cared at all about cable, but because they care about CN.

Quote from: fhmiii on July 18, 2023, 06:07:47 PM
I'd have been willing to go with an a la carte cable package back in the day, if it included ESPN, Science Channel, my local TV channels...  and that's really about all I wanted.  Maybe I'd have gotten History, FX, and/or TNT, but I'm not sure I would have.  If that cost me $30 ($8 for ESPN, $2 for Sci, $5 for local broadcast, and $15 as a "service access fee") instead of $95 for for the third-tier package that includes 8 channels I might watch one day and 285 channels I would never watch, all just so I could get Science Channel, I'd have jumped at it.  That was never an option, so I never upgraded and for many years I just didn't have cable (my neighbors and friends and local sports bars all had ESPN, so I just went to them to watch college football).

So if you could get something for your reservation price you would buy it in other words, which is exactly my point. Now in your case, your reservation price was very low, probabally lower than market clearing prices, so no such a la carte package would have been offered. The only way the cable company would let you have ESPN for $30 would probabally have been if they accomplished first degree price discrimination via some mind reading technology built into your set. But barring that if they came along to offer a la carte the package you describe would almost certainly have been more than $30.

I'm not entirely disagreeing with your original thesis.  I just think your analogy of CN being worth $60 to someone was terribly unrealistic, except in the most unique cases; and I'm pointing out that perceived value from bundling can create a situation where people are willing to spend more for things that don't actually give them utility, when they might chose not to bundle if given the option and if they take the time to make a rational decision; they would realize that the "surplus" (bundled channels) isn't that valuable to them.  Different people are differently capable of making those rational choices, of course!  Some would quickly choose a la carte if they had the option, but many would continue buying the bundle.  Based on my experience, I think if a la carte cable service had been implemented (or legally enforced), a relatively small percentage of people would have opted for it, but it would have had a significant financial impact for those who did.

Also, I got a lot more than the a la carte package I described from Sling for $25, just without Science Channel.

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 18, 2023, 07:36:46 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 18, 2023, 07:08:38 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 18, 2023, 12:41:51 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 17, 2023, 10:14:04 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 17, 2023, 02:30:07 AM
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.

So since I'm only willing to pay $0.00 for it, they'll give it to me for free?

No, if your reservation price is $0, then you do not consume, and hence you are not a buyer.
The point of saying that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay is to make clear that costs do not determine price except to set a floor under it. It does not say everyone pays what they want, it says that the market clearing price will rise to what a buyer will pay (though for this to be a long term equilibrium that must be in excess of the total cost to supply). That buyer can be any buyer, and includes people that outbid you.

Eh, thinking a little, I'd pay five cents for it.

So they'll give it to me for five cents is what you're saying? If not, then the prices are not set by what a buyer will pay.

Ironically, I figured you would say basically that, and typed out half of the pre-emptive response, but then thought I would deal with it tomorrow, so here we are.
Again, see the above where I say

"It does not say everyone pays what they want, it says that the market clearing price will rise to what a buyer will pay (though for this to be a long term equilibrium that must be in excess of the total cost to supply). That buyer can be any buyer, and includes people that outbid you."

You only pay 5 cents if no one is willing to pay more, and that will only be sustainable if the total cost of providing to you is less than 5 cents. If someone is willing to pay more, then prices are set by that person.

Keep in mind this is for a single sale, when we talk quantities then price is set buy what buyers as a whole are willing to pay, ie. a demand curve.

Nope, this is just economics gibberish.

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 21, 2023, 07:10:05 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 18, 2023, 07:36:46 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 18, 2023, 07:08:38 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 18, 2023, 12:41:51 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 17, 2023, 10:14:04 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 17, 2023, 02:30:07 AM
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.

So since I'm only willing to pay $0.00 for it, they'll give it to me for free?

No, if your reservation price is $0, then you do not consume, and hence you are not a buyer.
The point of saying that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay is to make clear that costs do not determine price except to set a floor under it. It does not say everyone pays what they want, it says that the market clearing price will rise to what a buyer will pay (though for this to be a long term equilibrium that must be in excess of the total cost to supply). That buyer can be any buyer, and includes people that outbid you.

Eh, thinking a little, I'd pay five cents for it.

So they'll give it to me for five cents is what you're saying? If not, then the prices are not set by what a buyer will pay.

Ironically, I figured you would say basically that, and typed out half of the pre-emptive response, but then thought I would deal with it tomorrow, so here we are.
Again, see the above where I say

"It does not say everyone pays what they want, it says that the market clearing price will rise to what a buyer will pay (though for this to be a long term equilibrium that must be in excess of the total cost to supply). That buyer can be any buyer, and includes people that outbid you."

You only pay 5 cents if no one is willing to pay more, and that will only be sustainable if the total cost of providing to you is less than 5 cents. If someone is willing to pay more, then prices are set by that person.

Keep in mind this is for a single sale, when we talk quantities then price is set buy what buyers as a whole are willing to pay, ie. a demand curve.

Nope, this is just economics gibberish.

Put it this way:  Salaries are set at what people want to earn.  You apply for a job and say you want to earn $5 million dollar a year.  Employer says, this is a job frying fries.  We will not hire you at that rate.

Salaries are not set at what random people will want.  Economics set the salary.  If a business tries to employ people at $8 an hour and get no or not qualified employees, they'll raise the salary to meet the quality and quantity of employees they need.  But they won't overpay; they'll rather deal with fewer employees or technology to compensate.

Quote from: Rothman on July 18, 2023, 06:46:45 AM
Then move out of the boondocks and into civilization, if it means that much to you.

This is supposed to be a modern country, you shouldn't have to choose between the two.

There you go again with that "just move" bullshit. Conservatives love to use that one, thinking that everybody has throwaway money like they do so they can just up and move on a whim. The real world doesn't work that way.

Quote from: bugo on July 21, 2023, 08:51:19 PM

Quote from: Rothman on July 18, 2023, 06:46:45 AM
Then move out of the boondocks and into civilization, if it means that much to you.

This is supposed to be a modern country, you shouldn't have to choose between the two.

There you go again with that "just move" bullshit. Conservatives love to use that one, thinking that everybody has throwaway money like they do so they can just up and move on a whim. The real world doesn't work that way.

Progressives don't have throwaway money?

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2023, 07:31:55 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 21, 2023, 07:10:05 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 18, 2023, 07:36:46 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 18, 2023, 07:08:38 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 18, 2023, 12:41:51 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 17, 2023, 10:14:04 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 17, 2023, 02:30:07 AM
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.

So since I'm only willing to pay $0.00 for it, they'll give it to me for free?

No, if your reservation price is $0, then you do not consume, and hence you are not a buyer.
The point of saying that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay is to make clear that costs do not determine price except to set a floor under it. It does not say everyone pays what they want, it says that the market clearing price will rise to what a buyer will pay (though for this to be a long term equilibrium that must be in excess of the total cost to supply). That buyer can be any buyer, and includes people that outbid you.

Eh, thinking a little, I'd pay five cents for it.

So they'll give it to me for five cents is what you're saying? If not, then the prices are not set by what a buyer will pay.

Ironically, I figured you would say basically that, and typed out half of the pre-emptive response, but then thought I would deal with it tomorrow, so here we are.
Again, see the above where I say

"It does not say everyone pays what they want, it says that the market clearing price will rise to what a buyer will pay (though for this to be a long term equilibrium that must be in excess of the total cost to supply). That buyer can be any buyer, and includes people that outbid you."

You only pay 5 cents if no one is willing to pay more, and that will only be sustainable if the total cost of providing to you is less than 5 cents. If someone is willing to pay more, then prices are set by that person.

Keep in mind this is for a single sale, when we talk quantities then price is set buy what buyers as a whole are willing to pay, ie. a demand curve.

Nope, this is just economics gibberish.

Put it this way:  Salaries are set at what people want to earn.  You apply for a job and say you want to earn $5 million dollar a year.  Employer says, this is a job frying fries.  We will not hire you at that rate.

Salaries are not set at what random people will want.  Economics set the salary.  If a business tries to employ people at $8 an hour and get no or not qualified employees, they'll raise the salary to meet the quality and quantity of employees they need.  But they won't overpay; they'll rather deal with fewer employees or technology to compensate.

No, when businesses can't hire at the salaries they desire, they start telling Boomers it's because no one wants to work so the Boomers support even more cuts to public services and the like to force people to work for pennies.

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 17, 2023, 02:30:07 AM
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.

Have you ever heard of disc rot?

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2023, 07:31:55 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 21, 2023, 07:10:05 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 18, 2023, 07:36:46 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 18, 2023, 07:08:38 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 18, 2023, 12:41:51 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 17, 2023, 10:14:04 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 17, 2023, 02:30:07 AM
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.

So since I'm only willing to pay $0.00 for it, they'll give it to me for free?

No, if your reservation price is $0, then you do not consume, and hence you are not a buyer.
The point of saying that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay is to make clear that costs do not determine price except to set a floor under it. It does not say everyone pays what they want, it says that the market clearing price will rise to what a buyer will pay (though for this to be a long term equilibrium that must be in excess of the total cost to supply). That buyer can be any buyer, and includes people that outbid you.

Eh, thinking a little, I'd pay five cents for it.

So they'll give it to me for five cents is what you're saying? If not, then the prices are not set by what a buyer will pay.

Ironically, I figured you would say basically that, and typed out half of the pre-emptive response, but then thought I would deal with it tomorrow, so here we are.
Again, see the above where I say

"It does not say everyone pays what they want, it says that the market clearing price will rise to what a buyer will pay (though for this to be a long term equilibrium that must be in excess of the total cost to supply). That buyer can be any buyer, and includes people that outbid you."

You only pay 5 cents if no one is willing to pay more, and that will only be sustainable if the total cost of providing to you is less than 5 cents. If someone is willing to pay more, then prices are set by that person.

Keep in mind this is for a single sale, when we talk quantities then price is set buy what buyers as a whole are willing to pay, ie. a demand curve.

Nope, this is just economics gibberish.

Put it this way:  Salaries are set at what people want to earn.  You apply for a job and say you want to earn $5 million dollar a year.  Employer says, this is a job frying fries.  We will not hire you at that rate.

Salaries are not set at what random people will want.  Economics set the salary. 

There's no such thing as the economy.

Quote from: bugo on July 21, 2023, 11:05:28 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 17, 2023, 02:30:07 AM
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.

Have you ever heard of disc rot?

I've put many CDs from 1986 to the 1990s on my computer over the last 2-3 years. They were all fine.

Quote from: 1 on July 22, 2023, 07:09:09 AM

Quote from: bugo on July 21, 2023, 11:05:28 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 17, 2023, 02:30:07 AM
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.

Have you ever heard of disc rot?

I've put many CDs from 1986 to the 1990s on my computer over the last 2-3 years. They were all fine.

That's just luck.  I've had CDs get scratched up somehow within the case over the decades.

Quote from: Rothman on July 22, 2023, 10:09:38 AM

Quote from: 1 on July 22, 2023, 07:09:09 AM

Quote from: bugo on July 21, 2023, 11:05:28 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 17, 2023, 02:30:07 AM
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.

Have you ever heard of disc rot?

I've put many CDs from 1986 to the 1990s on my computer over the last 2-3 years. They were all fine.

That's just luck.  I've had CDs get scratched up somehow within the case over the decades.

That's not luck, I have 2000+ CDs, some confirmed back to 1984 (that I bought used), and only about 5 have had issues getting it to upload into iTunes, and even then it was a problem with the first track. They're pretty damn durable.

Quote from: bugo on July 21, 2023, 11:05:28 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on July 17, 2023, 02:30:07 AM
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.

Have you ever heard of disc rot?

Yes I have. But not only is it relatively rare (I have encountered maybe 1 CD in my life that had it out of hundreds), it is also a problem that was solved long ago with the advent of FLAC ripping.

From Cord Cutters News:

A Growing Of Cord Cutters Are Cutting Costs By Canceling Streaming Services - Are You?

QuoteThe SVOD market is saturated and a growing number of subscribers are considering cutting back on subscriptions. Aluma Connected Media Insights show that 35% of customers think they spend too much on streaming services overall and would benefit from decreasing the number of subscriptions they hold.

The number of households who agree they spend too much for streaming has been steadily rising looking back to 2019 when only 12% of customers surveyed said they had more than necessary. In 2020, this number went up to 17%, then jumped to 24% in 2021 and 25% the following year.

FULL ARTICLE HERE (https://markholtz.info/2rs)

Quote from: ZLoth on July 23, 2023, 03:16:09 PM
From Cord Cutters News:

A Growing Of Cord Cutters Are Cutting Costs By Canceling Streaming Services - Are You?

QuoteThe SVOD market is saturated and a growing number of subscribers are considering cutting back on subscriptions. Aluma Connected Media Insights show that 35% of customers think they spend too much on streaming services overall and would benefit from decreasing the number of subscriptions they hold.

The number of households who agree they spend too much for streaming has been steadily rising looking back to 2019 when only 12% of customers surveyed said they had more than necessary. In 2020, this number went up to 17%, then jumped to 24% in 2021 and 25% the following year.

FULL ARTICLE HERE (https://markholtz.info/2rs)

Huh, its almost like the exact thing I told cord cutters about has happened. Except when I tried to tell them they acted like I had just shot Santa Claus

Quote from: ZLoth on July 23, 2023, 03:16:09 PM
From Cord Cutters News:

A Growing Of Cord Cutters Are Cutting Costs By Canceling Streaming Services - Are You?

QuoteThe SVOD market is saturated and a growing number of subscribers are considering cutting back on subscriptions. Aluma Connected Media Insights show that 35% of customers think they spend too much on streaming services overall and would benefit from decreasing the number of subscriptions they hold.

The number of households who agree they spend too much for streaming has been steadily rising looking back to 2019 when only 12% of customers surveyed said they had more than necessary. In 2020, this number went up to 17%, then jumped to 24% in 2021 and 25% the following year.

FULL ARTICLE HERE (https://markholtz.info/2rs)

Even with that, when it comes to "total TV time," streaming video is now #1, passing cable this time last year. This was before Amazon Prime gave us NFL Thursday Night Football, and certainly before YouTubeTV gives us NFL Sunday Ticket.

This happened despite Netflix stagnating in number of subscriptions and having issues with people sharing passwords. You can thank this state of affairs in TV programming on something called the FAST app (Free, Ad-Supported Television. You know, like back in the old days!). For example, Paramount Global, in addition to Paramount+, has a FAST app called PlutoTV. That app has 20 million more subscribers than Paramount+ does. Another FAST app is Tubi, which is owned by FOX corporation, and has 64 million subscribers.

Quote from: brad2971 on August 04, 2023, 10:08:56 PM

Quote from: ZLoth on July 23, 2023, 03:16:09 PM
From Cord Cutters News:

A Growing Of Cord Cutters Are Cutting Costs By Canceling Streaming Services - Are You?

QuoteThe SVOD market is saturated and a growing number of subscribers are considering cutting back on subscriptions. Aluma Connected Media Insights show that 35% of customers think they spend too much on streaming services overall and would benefit from decreasing the number of subscriptions they hold.

The number of households who agree they spend too much for streaming has been steadily rising looking back to 2019 when only 12% of customers surveyed said they had more than necessary. In 2020, this number went up to 17%, then jumped to 24% in 2021 and 25% the following year.

FULL ARTICLE HERE (https://markholtz.info/2rs)

Even with that, when it comes to "total TV time," streaming video is now #1, passing cable this time last year. This was before Amazon Prime gave us NFL Thursday Night Football, and certainly before YouTubeTV gives us NFL Sunday Ticket.

This happened despite Netflix stagnating in number of subscriptions and having issues with people sharing passwords. You can thank this state of affairs in TV programming on something called the FAST app (Free, Ad-Supported Television. You know, like back in the old days!). For example, Paramount Global, in addition to Paramount+, has a FAST app called PlutoTV. That app has 20 million more subscribers than Paramount+ does. Another FAST app is Tubi, which is owned by FOX corporation, and has 64 million subscribers.

FAST apps are badly overrated. They are the same content which has always been available on broadcast TV, but with all the downsides of internet delivery and the fracturing of the market due to streaming.

Quote from: HighwayStar on August 05, 2023, 01:28:02 AM

Quote from: brad2971 on August 04, 2023, 10:08:56 PM

Quote from: ZLoth on July 23, 2023, 03:16:09 PM
From Cord Cutters News:

A Growing Of Cord Cutters Are Cutting Costs By Canceling Streaming Services - Are You?

QuoteThe SVOD market is saturated and a growing number of subscribers are considering cutting back on subscriptions. Aluma Connected Media Insights show that 35% of customers think they spend too much on streaming services overall and would benefit from decreasing the number of subscriptions they hold.

The number of households who agree they spend too much for streaming has been steadily rising looking back to 2019 when only 12% of customers surveyed said they had more than necessary. In 2020, this number went up to 17%, then jumped to 24% in 2021 and 25% the following year.

FULL ARTICLE HERE (https://markholtz.info/2rs)

Even with that, when it comes to "total TV time," streaming video is now #1, passing cable this time last year. This was before Amazon Prime gave us NFL Thursday Night Football, and certainly before YouTubeTV gives us NFL Sunday Ticket.

This happened despite Netflix stagnating in number of subscriptions and having issues with people sharing passwords. You can thank this state of affairs in TV programming on something called the FAST app (Free, Ad-Supported Television. You know, like back in the old days!). For example, Paramount Global, in addition to Paramount+, has a FAST app called PlutoTV. That app has 20 million more subscribers than Paramount+ does. Another FAST app is Tubi, which is owned by FOX corporation, and has 64 million subscribers.

FAST apps are badly overrated. They are the same content which has always been available on broadcast TV, but with all the downsides of internet delivery and the fracturing of the market due to streaming.

To a lot of people, when it comes to non-pay TV viewing, the "downsides of internet delivery and the fracturing of the market due to streaming" are still considerably better than fooling around with an indoor (or outdoor) Over-The-Air antenna. The only thing FAST apps don't give us as of yet are the occasional sports, and I could easily see CBS/Paramount Global put a Big10 game or two on college football Saturdays on PlutoTV. CBS has part of the Big10 contract, and since the Big10 is now up to 18 teams, that's that much more sports content to put on PlutoTV in addition to Paramount+.

There will never be live major sports on FAST.  They are paying millions and want you to pay them back.  They are not going to give it to you for free.

Quote from: brad2971 on August 05, 2023, 08:52:15 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on August 05, 2023, 01:28:02 AM

Quote from: brad2971 on August 04, 2023, 10:08:56 PM

Quote from: ZLoth on July 23, 2023, 03:16:09 PM
From Cord Cutters News:

A Growing Of Cord Cutters Are Cutting Costs By Canceling Streaming Services - Are You?

QuoteThe SVOD market is saturated and a growing number of subscribers are considering cutting back on subscriptions. Aluma Connected Media Insights show that 35% of customers think they spend too much on streaming services overall and would benefit from decreasing the number of subscriptions they hold.

The number of households who agree they spend too much for streaming has been steadily rising looking back to 2019 when only 12% of customers surveyed said they had more than necessary. In 2020, this number went up to 17%, then jumped to 24% in 2021 and 25% the following year.

FULL ARTICLE HERE (https://markholtz.info/2rs)

Even with that, when it comes to "total TV time," streaming video is now #1, passing cable this time last year. This was before Amazon Prime gave us NFL Thursday Night Football, and certainly before YouTubeTV gives us NFL Sunday Ticket.

This happened despite Netflix stagnating in number of subscriptions and having issues with people sharing passwords. You can thank this state of affairs in TV programming on something called the FAST app (Free, Ad-Supported Television. You know, like back in the old days!). For example, Paramount Global, in addition to Paramount+, has a FAST app called PlutoTV. That app has 20 million more subscribers than Paramount+ does. Another FAST app is Tubi, which is owned by FOX corporation, and has 64 million subscribers.

FAST apps are badly overrated. They are the same content which has always been available on broadcast TV, but with all the downsides of internet delivery and the fracturing of the market due to streaming.

To a lot of people, when it comes to non-pay TV viewing, the "downsides of internet delivery and the fracturing of the market due to streaming" are still considerably better than fooling around with an indoor (or outdoor) Over-The-Air antenna. The only thing FAST apps don't give us as of yet are the occasional sports, and I could easily see CBS/Paramount Global put a Big10 game or two on college football Saturdays on PlutoTV. CBS has part of the Big10 contract, and since the Big10 is now up to 18 teams, that's that much more sports content to put on PlutoTV in addition to Paramount+.

There is no "fooling around", you install what is required and appropriate for your location then watch TV. No internet BS, any TV made after 2006 will work, you can DVR/Record whatever you please. FAST TV is the crap version of broadcast.

Quote from: brad2971 on August 05, 2023, 08:52:15 AM
To a lot of people, when it comes to non-pay TV viewing, the "downsides of internet delivery and the fracturing of the market due to streaming" are still considerably better than fooling around with an indoor (or outdoor) Over-The-Air antenna. The only thing FAST apps don't give us as of yet are the occasional sports, and I could easily see CBS/Paramount Global put a Big10 game or two on college football Saturdays on PlutoTV. CBS has part of the Big10 contract, and since the Big10 is now up to 18 teams, that's that much more sports content to put on PlutoTV in addition to Paramount+.

What about the local news and broadcast prime time programming?  I don't believe the OTA networks are free to stream anywhere.  At least not legally.

Who needs TV or the entertainment industry in general?  Youtube videos of police bodycam encounters with criminals are far more entertaining.

WGA and SAG-AFTRA couldn't have picked a better time to call a major strike!!!  (hehehe) Their reaction to advancements in technology is the same thing that spelled the end of the Big Bands and the rise of country music in the late 1940s and early 1950s, when coin-op jukeboxes and high-fidelity records and players were introduced.

Mike

This is correct.  The Hollywood unions live in a fantasy world where the basic rules of economics do not apply. 

Not that long ago, this was not that different from any other industry.  In a linear system, if there is no new movie to show next week, the theatre is closed; if there is no new show to broadcast, then the TV station has to make do with filler programming.  Not that different from an auto strike or a steel strike or so on.

In a non-linear system, it will take YEARS for them to run out of material, and the only profitable streaming service (Netflix) sources much of its material outside of the Hollywood union's jurisdiction anyway.   

So, these unions make linear TV look bad (this fall will feature game shows, faux reality shows, news commentary, reruns and sports), and the movies look bad; while the streaming services can just sit back and wait, unaffected and perhaps even enhanced by this strike.  The truth the unions don't understand is that TV and movies are mega profitable, so profitable they can pay insane 1%er wages to even minor stars and even to writers.  Meanwhile, streaming, it is clear, simply is not a thing that can make money.  And if they don't make money, the employees don't make money.

I also cannot find the thread where this comment is truly germane, but I do note that the top three titles in this week's Billboard Hot 100 Singles chart are all country songs, with number 1 being Jason Aldean's 'Try That In A Small Town'.  Interesting.

Mike

Quote from: SP Cook on August 05, 2023, 11:21:54 AM
There will never be live major sports on FAST.  They are paying millions and want you to pay them back.  They are not going to give it to you for free.

I'll revisit this comment when the Colorado Buffaloes play the West Virginia Mountaineers in Big12 conference play in a few years, and FOX Sports will put that game on Tubi. Last I checked, the current TV contracts for the major conferences do not have any prohibitions on putting additional game inventory on a FAST app. And if they did, we'll be seeing the Big 10, Big 12, even the SEC, unraveling in another decade.

Quote from: vdeane on August 05, 2023, 04:08:36 PM

Quote from: brad2971 on August 05, 2023, 08:52:15 AM
To a lot of people, when it comes to non-pay TV viewing, the "downsides of internet delivery and the fracturing of the market due to streaming" are still considerably better than fooling around with an indoor (or outdoor) Over-The-Air antenna. The only thing FAST apps don't give us as of yet are the occasional sports, and I could easily see CBS/Paramount Global put a Big10 game or two on college football Saturdays on PlutoTV. CBS has part of the Big10 contract, and since the Big10 is now up to 18 teams, that's that much more sports content to put on PlutoTV in addition to Paramount+.

What about the local news and broadcast prime time programming?  I don't believe the OTA networks are free to stream anywhere.  At least not legally.

Sling Freestream currently has access to ABC, CBS, even the English version of Al Jazeera when it comes to news viewing. Now, when it comes to LOCAL news, the various TV station affiliate owners have their own news apps, though it's not live.

Quote from: SP Cook on August 06, 2023, 01:12:59 PM
This is correct.  The Hollywood unions live in a fantasy world where the basic rules of economics do not apply. 

Not that long ago, this was not that different from any other industry.  In a linear system, if there is no new movie to show next week, the theatre is closed; if there is no new show to broadcast, then the TV station has to make do with filler programming.  Not that different from an auto strike or a steel strike or so on.

In a non-linear system, it will take YEARS for them to run out of material, and the only profitable streaming service (Netflix) sources much of its material outside of the Hollywood union's jurisdiction anyway.   

So, these unions make linear TV look bad (this fall will feature game shows, faux reality shows, news commentary, reruns and sports), and the movies look bad; while the streaming services can just sit back and wait, unaffected and perhaps even enhanced by this strike.  The truth the unions don't understand is that TV and movies are mega profitable, so profitable they can pay insane 1%er wages to even minor stars and even to writers.  Meanwhile, streaming, it is clear, simply is not a thing that can make money.  And if they don't make money, the employees don't make money.

Meanwhile, the companies exist in an economic fantasy world where they can plow fully into streaming despite the fact that it doesn't make money and where they can pay writers and most actors (those who aren't big-name stars) peanuts (to the point where many are simply leaving the business because they can't make a living any more) and somehow make a profit.

Quote from: brad2971 on August 06, 2023, 02:59:25 PM

Quote from: vdeane on August 05, 2023, 04:08:36 PM

Quote from: brad2971 on August 05, 2023, 08:52:15 AM
To a lot of people, when it comes to non-pay TV viewing, the "downsides of internet delivery and the fracturing of the market due to streaming" are still considerably better than fooling around with an indoor (or outdoor) Over-The-Air antenna. The only thing FAST apps don't give us as of yet are the occasional sports, and I could easily see CBS/Paramount Global put a Big10 game or two on college football Saturdays on PlutoTV. CBS has part of the Big10 contract, and since the Big10 is now up to 18 teams, that's that much more sports content to put on PlutoTV in addition to Paramount+.

What about the local news and broadcast prime time programming?  I don't believe the OTA networks are free to stream anywhere.  At least not legally.

Sling Freestream currently has access to ABC, CBS, even the English version of Al Jazeera when it comes to news viewing. Now, when it comes to LOCAL news, the various TV station affiliate owners have their own news apps, though it's not live.

I don't think that's the same as what's available on the OTA networks, though.  ABC News Live doesn't carry programs like ABC World News Tonight or This Week.  Nor does it have the prime time programming.  If you want to watch any of that, you need to go to Hulu and wait a few hours, even for the news programs (to the point where I question why anyone would stream World News Tonight, since it doesn't drop until close to midnight around here).

Quote from: SP Cook on August 06, 2023, 01:12:59 PM
The Hollywood unions live in a fantasy world where the basic rules of economics do not apply. 

The basic rules of economics don't even apply to the actual world we live in.

The economy would do well to remember it is a fictional construct that was created by people, and it can be destroyed by people if it stops serving their needs.

Quote from: SP Cook on August 05, 2023, 11:21:54 AM
There will never be live major sports on FAST.  They are paying millions and want you to pay them back.  They are not going to give it to you for free.

CBS has one for soccer (CBS Sports Golazo) that has aired live matches, including tactical cams for matches on CBSN.

Quote from: SP Cook on August 06, 2023, 01:12:59 PMThis is correct.  The Hollywood unions live in a fantasy world where the basic rules of economics do not apply.

From this perspective, the entertainment industry (movies, television, books, music, live performances, etc) needs me more as a consumer willing to spend their time and disposable income. Right now, my time is spent keeping my job, taking care of my mother, and maintaining my home and vehicles. This leaves precious little time to sit down for 30 minutes and watch a sitcom, never mind a 90 minute to three hour movie.

Quote from: mgk920 on August 06, 2023, 02:11:14 PM
I also cannot find the thread where this comment is truly germane, but I do note that the top three titles in this week's Billboard Hot 100 Singles chart are all country songs, with number 1 being Jason Aldean's 'Try That In A Small Town'.  Interesting.

Mike

The song is awful, but clearly people aren't realizing that all their whining about it is only exposing it to more people and making it bigger. At this point it's the biggest country song of the year.

Any idiot can write a hit country song.  Just something about America, drinking whiskey; throw in a few 'yee-haws' and a twangy guitar solo and the wannabe hicks will eat it up.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 07, 2023, 11:34:33 AM
Any idiot can write a hit country song.  Just something about America, drinking whiskey; throw in a few 'yee-haws' and a twangy guitar solo and the wannabe hicks will eat it up.

Don't forget ample references to the dog, pickup truck and pretty lady.

:nod:

Mike

^^ with the pretty lady leaving him.

"My Wife Left Me for a Brahma Bull"

Quote from: thspfc on August 07, 2023, 09:12:25 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on August 06, 2023, 02:11:14 PM
I also cannot find the thread where this comment is truly germane, but I do note that the top three titles in this week's Billboard Hot 100 Singles chart are all country songs, with number 1 being Jason Aldean's 'Try That In A Small Town'.  Interesting.

Mike

The song is awful, but clearly people aren't realizing that all their whining about it is only exposing it to more people and making it bigger. At this point it's the biggest country song of the year.

Besides, the song isn't even accurate at all. "Carjack an old lady at a red light"? I live in a small town of under 1000 people, and there is no red light. Only a red flashing beacon at the 3-way stop. So Aldean would have to change the lyrics (which he didn't even write) to "Carjack an old lady at the 3-way". And then we all know the jokes that would bring on! So yeah, try THAT in a small town!

Quote from: tchafe1978 on August 08, 2023, 09:39:45 AM

Quote from: thspfc on August 07, 2023, 09:12:25 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on August 06, 2023, 02:11:14 PM
I also cannot find the thread where this comment is truly germane, but I do note that the top three titles in this week's Billboard Hot 100 Singles chart are all country songs, with number 1 being Jason Aldean's 'Try That In A Small Town'.  Interesting.

Mike

The song is awful, but clearly people aren't realizing that all their whining about it is only exposing it to more people and making it bigger. At this point it's the biggest country song of the year.

Besides, the song isn't even accurate at all. "Carjack an old lady at a red light"? I live in a small town of under 1000 people, and there is no red light. Only a red flashing beacon at the 3-way stop. So Aldean would have to change the lyrics (which he didn't even write) to "Carjack an old lady at the 3-way". And then we all know the jokes that would bring on! So yeah, try THAT in a small town!

My issue with it is that it advocates for premeditated murder in response to crimes that are not murder. A eye for an eye is one thing, but an eye for a fingernail is another.

The people who defend the song say it's about self defense, but if you listen to it that's clearly not how it's written.

The cult heard the call and responded in force.

Quote from: thspfc on August 08, 2023, 09:53:05 AM
My issue with it is that it advocates for premeditated murder in response to crimes that are not murder.

{insert eyeroll emoji here...}

Quote from: hbelkins on August 08, 2023, 02:51:52 PM

Quote from: thspfc on August 08, 2023, 09:53:05 AM
My issue with it is that it advocates for premeditated murder in response to crimes that are not murder.

{insert eyeroll emoji here...}

Why?

Quote from: thspfc on August 07, 2023, 09:12:25 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on August 06, 2023, 02:11:14 PM
I also cannot find the thread where this comment is truly germane, but I do note that the top three titles in this week's Billboard Hot 100 Singles chart are all country songs, with number 1 being Jason Aldean's 'Try That In A Small Town'.  Interesting.

Mike

The song is awful, but clearly people aren't realizing that all their whining about it is only exposing it to more people and making it bigger. At this point it's the biggest country song of the year.

It's kind of a Streisand effect in that regard. It was the same thing that happened to Chick-fil-A when controversy over their politics went viral and it brought them more business than they'd ever had.

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 08, 2023, 03:34:09 PM

Quote from: thspfc on August 07, 2023, 09:12:25 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on August 06, 2023, 02:11:14 PM
I also cannot find the thread where this comment is truly germane, but I do note that the top three titles in this week's Billboard Hot 100 Singles chart are all country songs, with number 1 being Jason Aldean's 'Try That In A Small Town'.  Interesting.

Mike

The song is awful, but clearly people aren't realizing that all their whining about it is only exposing it to more people and making it bigger. At this point it's the biggest country song of the year.

It's kind of a Streisand effect in that regard. It was the same thing that happened to Chick-fil-A when controversy over their politics went viral and it brought them more business than they'd ever had.

I just like the people that would comment on their social media that they stand with Jason Aldean. These people often didn't even like country music, and by now have probably even forgotten what the song was and if you try playing it for them they would probably give you shit for playing country music

I tried a lot of things in a small town (purchase a hamburger, not have sand in the municipal water supply, be taught anything useful, play chess, have cable internet, etc.) and failed at most of them because the town was too shit to support the things I was trying to do.

Small towns are shit.

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 08, 2023, 07:38:48 PMI tried a lot of things in a small town (purchase a hamburger, not have sand in the municipal water supply, be taught anything useful, play chess, have cable internet, etc.) and failed at most of them because the town was too shit to support the things I was trying to do.

Small towns are shit.

It depends on what you define as a small town and where its located compared to larger population centers and how far away from a major interstate or US highway. I agree with your assertion... especially with some of the micro-towns.

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 08, 2023, 07:38:48 PM
I tried a lot of things in a small town (purchase a hamburger, not have sand in the municipal water supply, be taught anything useful, play chess, have cable internet, etc.) and failed at most of them because the town was too shit to support the things I was trying to do.

Small towns are shit.

This town has like 300 full-time residents, maybe 500 during the summer. Mostly a bunch of old hippies, or descendants thereof (like me), so we just sorta all get along.

Quote from: thspfc on August 08, 2023, 03:33:12 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on August 08, 2023, 02:51:52 PM

Quote from: thspfc on August 08, 2023, 09:53:05 AM
My issue with it is that it advocates for premeditated murder in response to crimes that are not murder.

{insert eyeroll emoji here...}

Why?

Advocating murder? Seriously?

Quote from: hbelkins on August 09, 2023, 03:52:22 PM

Quote from: thspfc on August 08, 2023, 03:33:12 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on August 08, 2023, 02:51:52 PM

Quote from: thspfc on August 08, 2023, 09:53:05 AM
My issue with it is that it advocates for premeditated murder in response to crimes that are not murder.

{insert eyeroll emoji here...}

Why?

Advocating murder? Seriously?

Quote from: Jason Aldean
Cuss out a cop, spit in his face
Stomp on the flag and light it up
Yeah, ya think you're tough
...
Got a gun that my granddad gave me
...
Try that in a small town
See how far ya make it down the road
Around here, we take care of our own
You cross that line, it won't take long

Yeah, I think that could be argued.

Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 09, 2023, 04:00:14 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on August 09, 2023, 03:52:22 PM

Quote from: thspfc on August 08, 2023, 03:33:12 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on August 08, 2023, 02:51:52 PM

Quote from: thspfc on August 08, 2023, 09:53:05 AM
My issue with it is that it advocates for premeditated murder in response to crimes that are not murder.

{insert eyeroll emoji here...}

Why?

Advocating murder? Seriously?

Quote from: Jason Aldean
Cuss out a cop, spit in his face
Stomp on the flag and light it up
Yeah, ya think you're tough
...
Got a gun that my granddad gave me
...
Try that in a small town
See how far ya make it down the road
Around here, we take care of our own
You cross that line, it won't take long

Yeah, I think that could be argued.

🎯

At the very least, this song promotes violence. It furthers harmful stereotypes of cities and those who live in them, and paints a picture that they are literally on fire, consumed by chaos and ruled by lawless anarchy. That is simply not true in most places. Folks from small towns who have never lived or spent much time in cities actually believe this way, and this song encourages their beliefs that are based on ignorance and outright lies. There are valid arguments that this song isn't racist and that it doesn't promote murder, but there is no question that it is divisive, violent and full of falsehoods.

The truncated lyrics which Jayhawkco posted take the line about guns out of context. If you read the entire verse, it is about gun control, not murder. I'm not defending it because I think it's a piece of shit song both musically and lyrically, but he left out several lines that put the gun phrase into context. You could take pretty much any song and leave words out that would completely change the meaning of the lyrics. There is plenty to criticize about the song, so there's no need to put words in the songwriters' mouths that aren't there or to leave them out, changing the meaning of the song.

I grew up in a small town, and they didn't "take care of our own". They treated anybody who was different in any way like shit, and a lot of them don't like helping others out in any way. "Good Christians" who got theirs, so fuck everyone else. The poors are only poor because they aren't righteous enough. Scott was right, small towns suck. But the town he grew up in is close to a city. The town I grew up in was secluded. It's an hour and a half from both Hot Springs and Fort Smith, and the roads are curvy, hilly, choked with trucks and dangerous. When I was a kid, we didn't have peer to peer software, torrents, Spotify or Pandora. If we wanted to hear music, we had to either buy the CD or cassette or listen to the radio. There are mountains in every direction, so radio reception was poor, and they didn't play much music that I liked anyway. I had to drive to either of those towns (or Little Rock) to buy music. Mena didn't have a record store, so it was difficult as a music-crazy teenager to hear new music. There is a Walmart there, but back in the early 1990s, Walmart sold bowdlerized "clean" versions of CDs and cassettes, so I didn't like buying them there. They never carried that much music to begin with, and I had no interest in 90% of it.

Aldean didn't even write the song. It was written by Kelley Lovelace, Neil Thrasher, Tully Kennedy, and Kurt Allison, four rent-a-song Nashville songwriters. For some reason, a lot of country singers don't write their own songs. They're not talented enough. Writing songs is easy.

Quote from: bugo on August 09, 2023, 04:34:59 PM
The truncated lyrics which Jayhawkco posted take the line about guns out of context. If you read the entire verse, it is about gun control, not murder. I'm not defending it because I think it's a piece of shit song both musically and lyrically, but he left out several lines that put the gun phrase into context. You could take pretty much any song and leave words out that would completely change the meaning of the lyrics. There is plenty to criticize about the song, so there's no need to put words in the songwriters' mouths that aren't there or to leave them out, changing the meaning of the song.

Admittedly, you're right, re: me taking it somewhat out of context. I apologize for that.

That said, the introduction of the topic guns to the lyrics don't have anything to do with the rest of the verses. So, it's almost like he brought up 2nd Amendment stuff just so he got to verbally lift up his shirt showing a gun in his waistband, so to speak.

Quote from: Rothman on July 21, 2023, 09:18:55 PM
Progressives don't have throwaway money?

You'll have to ask a progressive.