A recent article by the New York Times explains that when it come to television, most people prefer to have a traditional cable subscription even though it’s prohibitively expensive. In many areas, a subscription with just a few extra options can easily run over $100 a month.
Something the article touches upon oh-so briefly explains why we’re not seeing more traditional television content on the Internet – all said in a single sentence:
Heavyweight distributors and producers have protected their business models by ensuring that some must-see shows and live sporting events cannot legally be seen online.
This means you’re paying out the nose for cable TV simply to keep cable TV in business, and it also explains why you basically have no options to view traditional cable TV content online.
If this weren’t the case, I can think of one example that would make sports fans jump for joy – no broadcast blackouts.
I’ll explain to you how significant that would be.
The reason sports broadcast regulatory blackouts exist is for one reason – money. What it does is make sports fans be forced to watch other broadcasts for teams they don’t care about at all, and supposedly makes them buy tickets to go see more local games. Whether any of that actually happens or not is up for debate.
If a sports telecast was broadcast on the Internet however, it would be extremely difficult to enforce a blackout.
My question concerning that is this: If the big deal is all about cash, why not offer an Internet-specific pay-per-view? Sports fans are more than willing to shell out a few bucks to watch very specific games. This model could be easily set up as a pay-per-game, monthly sub, or even a complete "season pass", guaranteeing that the fan will be able to see every single game from his or her favorite team(s).
Who would operate the web site/subscription model? The stadium, of course. They sell subscriptions, include ads with the sub during the broadcast (sorry but it would have to be there), they make money, the advertisers make money, the fans get what they want.
Who loses here? Cable TV and broadcast stations – and that’s why it’s very unlikely you’ll ever see it happen unless cable and/or the stations operate the model directly, but that’s a whole other story altogether.
You have to bear in mind that for some people, the only reason they have cable is for sports. Cable TV and sports program distributors are very, very aware of this – but you’re still forced to deal with blackouts?
Can you say "rip off"?
Yes, cable TV is still the best choice for the best programming, but only because of cable, station and channel market strong-arming.
It’s a darn shame. Truly.
Image at top from the article Why Your Cable TV Signal is Crap!
Like what you read?
If so, please join over 28,000 people who receive our exclusive weekly newsletter and computer tips, and get FREE COPIES of 5 eBooks we created, as our gift to you for subscribing. Just enter your name and email below:
I agree with you…
Ultimately, it is consumer demand that drives this stuff. The demand to move more and more of this stuff to the Internet just isn’t strong enough for them to notice. It’ll take a market shift to drag them into the future. And that’ll have to come from an outside company who makes something so awesome that you have a LOT of adopters. I think you could potentially see some big shifts as a result of devices like the Apple TV and the Google TV. Both bring a usable interface to the TV, and rumors are the Apple TV will be priced under $100, which gives it broad appeal.
Devices have absolutely nothing to do with it; it’s all about the content you can get from them. Apple/Google/whatever could build the best TV media device in the world, but if you can’t catch the Red Sox game on it, it’s worthless.
Eventually cable will go out when who knows, the only thing its good for is internet.I’m a satalite customer and for the same price for cable I get a lot more channels. One thing ISPs could do if it does happen is make a protocol devoted to tv for an example mtp:// instead of http so you would have to use a seperate client from your normal web browser.I wouldn’t mind having to put up with ads to watch the Chicago Cubs or the Tennessee Titans play baseball and football better than the option I have know what for them to play locally,ESPN or for the Cubs WGN, instead I have to pay $50 a month extra
You’re not getting it. As people get those kinds of devices, the demand for media on them will increase. Then, you’ll see the change. Right now, people have cable boxes.
These companies will do whatever there is a demand for.
The cable subscriber model is protected with an iron fist and it doesn’t matter at all how much demand there is for cable content on non-cable datastream boxes, because it just isn’t gonna happen. People said the exact same thing you just did 5 years ago. They were wrong then, and they’re wrong now. If companies truly did do what there was a demand for, then YouTube, Hulu and Apple TV would be streaming major sports (as in NFL, NBA and MLB) telecasts right now. They don’t because they’re blacked out on purpose, demand be damned.
You’ll be saying, “Right now, people have cable boxes” in 2015, 2020 and well beyond that. Count on it.