I agree with the premise of this piece. I don't have cable or satellite.
I stream what I watch. I would gladly pay for ESPN and nature/discovery type
channels for my kids. Those channels alone are not worth the price of a cable
subscription, so I ditched the cable. If they want my money they need to
offer a product I want.
Andy is right. Canada hasn't schooled us. They are just regulating a
zombie business. It's dead but just doesn't know it yet. Cable is
the Blockbuster of the 2010s. RIP.
So don't get cable. We have been TV free all 5 years of our marriage and
haven't missed a dang thing. I think the only thing keeping cable alive is
Drop cable and watch local tv over the air. Most tv's get a better picture
over the air. Satellite and cable compress the signal. You can watch most tv
shows after they air on the Internet. Streaming services like Netflix give a lot
of bang for the buck for $8, Amazon, Hulu, and now Redbox all offer streaming
services. This is the future.
I think there should be a different business model for television in any case.
Content providers should not be hostage to companies that operate distribution
infrastructure. Network connections should be free to everyone who can be
connected practically and economically. Infrastructure costs should be borne by
content providers, whose goal would be to sell content to consumers. Any number
of content programmers could sell individual or groups of channels to any
consumer over the same network. If your car dealer wanted to give you a
years' sports tv package for test driving a car, that would work. Some
programming could even be free, covered by ad revenues for the provider.