I didn’t want to hijack the net neutrality thread, and while this may result in a debate, for now it is just a question. Why do I need to subscribe to DirecTV or a cable company to receive television stations?
The infrastructure is there. Let’s take, for example, the History Channel. There is no reason that I cannot stream the content through my broadband internet access. I’m not ripping off the History Channel because I would have to watch their commercials to the same extent I have to watch them on TV. They get a larger distribution, and all I have to do is hit the website (or a website which shortcuts it for me, or alternatively, an app that acts like a channel guide to link to all advertiser provided cable channels) and watch on my smart TV, smart home theater, smart blu ray, or laptop, pc, tablet or phone. Why can’t I do that?
For premium services like HBO which does not show commercials and relies on subscriptions, I could pay a monthly fee to access the content (much like Netflix). Same way with out of market sporting events. If a minor league baseball game is being shown 2,500 miles away, on a station with local commercials, maybe I am getting a free ride off of that, but I could pay a small fee for a one time viewing.
Why do I need to pay a service like DirecTV to receive all of these signals, transmit them into my home by satellite at a fee (or the local cable company who is doing the same but transmitting them into my home on parallel lines or in many cases, the same lines into my home), when I have already paid for a much easier way to receive this content?
This would also allow for a la carte programming. I don’t want to watch the shopping channel or the religious channel or FOX news (or MSNBC)? Then I leave it off the list. I’m not paying for a content provider to deliver it to my home when I don’t want it anyways.
Is there a regulation or industry contract which prevents this seemingly simple way of receiving cable television?
I have a nephew who works for a fairly big cable TV and internet provider. Several months ago their CEO told the staff that cable TV as we know it will be gone within five years – no more scheduled broadcasts on certain channels at set times, everything will be on-demand.
You can see the changes taking place; note how the cable news and talk shows are switching from pushing books to pushing websites.
The short answer is: because that’s the business model that has developed over the past 30 years, and while “cord-cutters” are a growing segment of the market, most consumers are happy enough with how things are. Here’s a recent article about “bundling” and why it happens. A few notes:
[ul][]Cable companies usually pay the producers of TV channels for the ability to broadcast them. This means that a significant portion of the channels’ incomes are from the cable companies, not just from advertising. If they distributed via the internet instead, their revenues would go down.[]TV channels are usually sold in “bundles” to the cable companies. Scan through this list, for example, to see all the channels that are owned wholly or in part by Disney. Disney can therefore say to the cable companies, “if you want ESPN, you’ve got to take the Crime & Investigation Network too”. The cable companies will then just shrug and require the consumer to take the whole bundle at an inflated price.[*]HBO is planning its own a la carte service, launching later this year. They’re probably one of the few channels that can effectively do this right now, but if they succeed, you can expect more services like it in the coming years.[/ul]My guess is that in 10–20 years you will be able to order stations a la carte over the internet as you describe, and that you probably won’t have nearly as many channels to choose from as you do now. But the broadband internet has really only been widespread for 10 years or so, and a huge industry like the television business can’t stop & turn on a dime.
It’s starting. CBS, Nickelodeon and HBO have announced plans to offer streams (at a monthly cost, of course). Dish Network announced a streaming service with about a dozen channels, including ESPN and CNN (also at a monthly cost).
In the US, the CableCo business model has been TV delivery, followed by Internet access as an ‘add on’ (same with land line service). Some are adding things like home security as well.
As TV viewing shifts to Internet streaming on demand and cell phones decrease the need for land lines the CableCo’s risk becoming just ‘dumb pipes’ that deliver stuff to your house and they hate that.
They really hate the idea of net neutrality and becoming a regulated dumb pipe. In the meantime, we continue to lag much of the industrialized world in broadband access & speed.