Last time I felt like griping about the cost of cable TV, I pointed out that the alternatives were not likely to save me a great deal of money, and besides there’s always the chance that I might want to watch something on the spur of the moment, moments being unusually spur-rich these days.
And there’s this angle which should be obvious, but probably isn’t:
The thing about these “cut the cord” (cancel cable) articles is they all act like they are righteously retaliating against greedy providers. With the obvious exception of illegal downloading, who exactly do they think is giving them the means to do so? One way or another, they’re going to get their money. Or we’re going to stop getting content.
You can hardly blame the owner of a cash cow for looking askance at someone who threatens to pound it into Swiss steak.
What’s more, the urge to get television over the Net may lead to discouraging-sounding scenarios like this one:
[Television] is moving off the air and over the top of cable and telephony. Still, the Internet is sold as a service already by cablecos and telcos that hate the thought of remaining a “dumb pipe.”
If things go the way [Michael] Crossey expects, the Net’s carriers will likely expand Net service offerings in ways that fracture the Net into pieces, each with hard-wired dependencies on the carrier. The result will be the biggest body-snatch in the history of business. Standing where the Net used to be won’t be Telco 2.0, but TV 2.0, with lots of marketing gravy.
And being in a disfavored demographic, as I am, means any gravy I get will be cold and congealed and generally disgusting.