They are probably correct that my bill may be near or at the same total it is today.
However - I'm still thrilled to do this. I would far rather pay the same bill I do today and give it to some regional internet provider + the streaming services I enjoy than to give ALL my gd money to Comcast.
Simply put, I'd rather pay the people whose content I enjoy, than paying Comcast one more cent for horrific customer service and equipment.
^ This. It's fashionable to focus on the near monopolies (and then never actually DO anything about improving regulation), but the most notable advantage is paying to get more of what you want and will actually use than 900 channels constantly streaming hours of nonsense one fraction of which you will ever watch. There's value in that, as well as the usability and interactivity of internet based business models.
Think about how it's completely changed music distribution... the album is almost irrelevant. There was a time I'd have to buy an entire album to get the one song I wanted, or shell out between $1.49 for a cassette single and $3.49 for a CD single.... tack on going to the store, physically looking for it, possibly not finding it, etc.
How we consume content has changed so radically ... in my generation and before it, technologies usually lasted 2-3 generations. I remember reel to reel, vinyl, 8 track, cassette and CD. There are people alive today who have no idea what Musicland or Tower Records was. A generation from now there'll be people who will be disgusted at the idea of paying ANY amount of money to get 900 channels you don't want to get the 2 channels you do....
----------
Learn to what? Lose money?
HBO spends a ton on making quality shows and they have to make a profit. When will whiny, entitled torrenters learn not to steal?
While I agree with you in principle, the shrewdness of Apple over the entertainment conglomerates was that they monetized convenience above all things...
P2P services are a giant pain in the ass to use compared to the usability of a service like iTunes. Apple's approach wasn't to help the record labels sue the hell out of every potential customer but to treat "free" as competition and then figure out how do design an experience compelling enough that they could still get 99 cents a pop out of hundreds of millions of people.
The battle now is going to be between show runners, broadcast networks and premium internet channels like HBONOW, because the vast majority of produced content doesn't have the broadest appeal that it would make sense to partner with networks who, like NBC, are increasingly taking creative control in house.
HBO's subscription model is what enables them to stick with shows that might get cancelled due to sluggish ratings on the networks... they know their budget for the year, they know their subscriber base for the year, it's not tied to how well a show does week to week. They can commit HUGE budgets but they also really thrive on good writing because for smaller, more diverse interest groups, it works and it pays off with a greater return per viewer than the Wal-Mart approach of the networks who throw to the wall as much crap as possible to see what sticks.
If cable channels do not renegotiate their contracts to allow internet channels a-la carte, then the content producers they depend on will shop their pilots to the ones who do and have a much better shot at getting picked up because the internet is the world's biggest a-la carte paradigm where everyone goes to find exactly what they want.
