(11-09-2018 01:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Yeah I mean the cable replacement services are a good thing for the marketplace but it's still pay X receive Y off a preset menu.

Totally unbundle channels ... and each channel subscription is exactly the same thing, pay X, receive Y off a preset menu. I buy HBO from Google Play when I go home to the US in the summer, and I pay for access to all of HBO, even if I am only watching Westworld, GoT, a couple of episodes of Ballers and a couple of episodes of the Wire I've already seen before.

The only alternative to SOME bundling is Pay Per View, which almost always ends up costing more than a bundle that includes a fair share of stuff you want to watch.

(11-09-2018 12:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2018 05:46 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  And yes, whenever someone who says "cord cutting" knows what they are talking about, it means taking control and responsibility of the transmission system away from the media provider.

I think you're wrong to put your cards on an abstract/technical definition of 'cord cutting' when what is relevant on a discussion group like this one is precisely (!!!) what it means on this discussion board as evidenced by its usage here.

And on this board, that meaning is highly ideological - it usually means "I am not forced to pay for the ESPN family of channels by a Cable Company in cahoots with Disney to Shove them Down My Throat while they Ignore or Disparage my Under-Appreciated Alma Mater's On the Rise Football Program".

The technical definition is just one or two steps down the path of finding out HOW "the cable company" can "ram" a pick driven by a wedge of X% dropping their cable subscription if channel Y is not on basic cable. "Cut the cable" and have more competition between bundles from more media providers, and there will be bundles offered that cater to smaller wedges of the market.

But the notion of "totally unbundled" is not the utopia that it is sometimes made out to be. Totally unbundled = PPV = costs too damn much.

(11-12-2018 04:01 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  But the notion of "totally unbundled" is not the utopia that it is sometimes made out to be. Totally unbundled = PPV = costs too damn much.

Well, not necessarily, it depends on what you want.

E.g., if ESPN, CNN, Bravo, and TLC were each $5 a month in a totally a la carte situation, but you could also get ESPN + CNN + Bravo + TLC in a bundle for $10 a month, yes, getting all four a la carte would be a lot more expensive than the bundle.

But, if the only channel I wanted was ESPN, then I would prefer the a la carte option of paying $5 a month for it and nothing else.

(11-12-2018 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-12-2018 04:01 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  But the notion of "totally unbundled" is not the utopia that it is sometimes made out to be. Totally unbundled = PPV = costs too damn much.

Well, not necessarily, it depends on what you want.

E.g., if ESPN, CNN, Bravo, and TLC were each $5 a month in a totally a la carte situation, but you could also get ESPN + CNN + Bravo + TLC in a bundle for $10 a month, yes, getting all four a la carte would be a lot more expensive than the bundle.

But, if the only channel I wanted was ESPN, then I would prefer the a la carte option of paying $5 a month for it and nothing else.

The discussion acts as if there is this one thing that is "bundled" and this other thing that is "unbundled", and they are totally different kinds of things.

Bu if it moves to a channel at a time, the "that's not REAL cord cutting" cry can be raised for that as well ... "we are being forced by ESPN to buy ALL of the games on ESPN when we buy the ESPN Mothership Only Package!!!"

Each of those channels is still a bundle, it's just a smaller bundle than "All of Disney properties plus all of Discovery properties plus all of Turner Broadcasting properties". Totally unbundled would be, "today I am watching this HGTV house flippers show, and this rerun of this sitcom and this MAC basketball game, here is your payment for each of those shows, Discovery & Turner & Disney".

If the market power of the media aggregators drops, then there should be a wider variety of bundles available of a wider variety of sizes ... which would make me happy ... but there will still be a role for media aggregators to play, because there are actual economies of scope in delivering the content, and so for a lot of media, there is some bundle that can be delivered more cheaply than the same content on a pure PPV basis.

(11-12-2018 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-12-2018 04:01 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  But the notion of "totally unbundled" is not the utopia that it is sometimes made out to be. Totally unbundled = PPV = costs too damn much.

Well, not necessarily, it depends on what you want.

E.g., if ESPN, CNN, Bravo, and TLC were each $5 a month in a totally a la carte situation, but you could also get ESPN + CNN + Bravo + TLC in a bundle for $10 a month, yes, getting all four a la carte would be a lot more expensive than the bundle.

But, if the only channel I wanted was ESPN, then I would prefer the a la carte option of paying $5 a month for it and nothing else.

Considering providers pay $7+ for ESPN now, a la carte ESPN would likely be at the HBO price point of $15 if not $20