[aderack]

Frankly, I think this is the way that all cable should work; a provider should just offer a list of shows that you can subscribe to, instead of breaking it down into channels and schedules. Maybe certain companies could offer certain bundles of shows -- "publish" them, as it were, to the providers. Channels as-such only really make sense for over-air broadcasting. It's a clumsy format, all around. Outdated.

Anyway, these guys sound interesting. If I had cable, and the cable company with a monopoly in this area didn't suck, I would be all over this. It looks like it's just going to get better, too.

The tone of the "about" page is interesting. It seems pretty clearly aimed at addressing how much the Sci-Fi Channel blows. See the wrestling remark, for instance.

Some really inspired choices for programming, too. Quatermass? Day of the Triffids? Good golly, who thought of this?

[BalbanesBeoulve]

Torrents provide almost the same thing with a little less convenience. But with some kind of PC> TV hook up, you're in business.

[aderack]

Yeah, I know. I don't really watch any TV that doesn't come off DVD or bittorrent. The whole model of TV programming has changed, and the old infrastructure no longer fits.

Subscription channels like HBO, that offer original content, are kind of a halfway thing. How many people subscribe to those things just for shows like The Sopranos?

What a cable provider should really do is just allow you to connect for free, then subscribe to shows on a low pay basis. Maybe they could offer one episode of a show (usually the first one) for free, so you can see if you like it. If so, pay for the rest. Or for the more dedicated subscriber, you could pay a certain flat charge every month, that would go toward a certain number of subscriptions.

I mean, how many shows does the average person really watch? Don't most people who watch TV at all just have a couple of shows that they care about catching on a regular basis? There's probably a study on this. I don't see what audience pattern the current zillion-channel system is supposed to serve. It's wasteful; so much airtime that has to be filled somehow, when the resources that go into doing so could better be funneled into making a smaller number of more interesting shows, that people might actually want to pay money to watch.

[aderack]

[dessgeega]

[aderack]

This isn't all that different from the way that TV is produced, actually. There's just this dumb delivery system between the production and the end audience.

I'm going to talk about network affiliates here; this seems to some extent applicable to cable channels, if not wholly.

If you're running something like a CW affiliate, what you get is a certain number of hours of "official" programming that you're required to air at certain proscribed times. You get Supernatural, Smallville, whatever the hell else you associate with CW. After that, it's up to you, as a network, to fill the empty space around the official package. You might do it with syndicated shows, local programming, infomercials. It is, literally, a programming void. Each network only officially consists of so-many hours a week, most of that slotted in prime time blocks.

Would it not be much more efficient for a production company to just offer those hours directly to the end consumer and get rid of the packaging? Obviously that defeats the purpose of broadcast networks; they'll probably never go away, as there is a purpose for live-feed programming. Yet when you mosey over to cable, you get pretty much the same model. And... why? What's the purpose of all this unused or poorly-used airspace? Why run a whole channel, when you can just provide content?

[Broco]

[aderack]

Yeah. Check out the "channel" linked in the first post. The sci-fi thing. I'm pretty inspired by the attitude shown on the website. It's what kicked the thoughts back into place that this is kind of maybe the way of the future.

To note: the subscription interface need not be any substantially more complicated than a DVD menu or a TV setup menu. Then once the shows are assigned to channels, you don't have to look at it again unless you feel like bringing it up to browse.

And for the people who just want to watch TV without thinking about it, again there are always the networks -- which account for an overwhelming amount of TV traffic anyway.

Point about the technology only being viable pretty recently. Though it pretty much is, now!

Tivo isn't really a decent alternative, though -- mostly because it's an added expense on top of the expense of the cable service, which is kind of... horrible, unless you've the money and interest for it. The advantage of the plan I suggested is that you pretty much just pay for what you watch. Which also, incidentally, means that no one has to worry about advertisers. Though I'm sure they'll find some way to shove it in. I'm imagining something similar to web advertising.

[BalbanesBeoulve]

There's no added expense for DVRs. Which is why Tivo really isn't doing well financially. There is 0 reason to ever pay Tivo a dime when you can get what they do completely free, at least with dish network. You can get them free with any dish or cable connection now, and there's no added monthly fee.

I use ours a lot. I record the daily show and the colbert report every day, and have all the shows I like set to record new episodes.

[CubaLibre]

You are going to have a MASSIVE advertising lobby against this. You've already brought this up, but I think you underestimate the effect it would have on the industry. If people pay for subscriptions there's no reason for advertising. Advertisers aren't going to sit back and let this business model happen and then try to wheedle their ads into the system; they're going to fight it no holds barred from before the beginning.

Remember also that the infrastructure to support this kind of thing isn't only new, it's not widespread. I only get broadcast TV myself. I would be sad if I just couldn't any more, because a slight majority of savvy urbanites have digital cable and prefer to get their shows a la carte instead.
_________________
Let's Play, starring me.

[Ashura]

Usually how it's set up, is like, say with HBO or Showtime. You will subscribe to their channels, and get all the regular channels, AS WELL AS their on demand channel which features pretty much everything they show, especially the original shows.

In fact, my buddy and I watched Dexter this way, since he has Showtime and they had all of the episodes up there.

Further going on your idea, they should probably allow anyone to access the on-demand HBO station, but if you don't pay for the 'premium' package, you should be able to go through the list and pay, you know, a couple bucks, like ITunes fees, for an episode to be able to watch it.

The main problem with Bittorrent is the lack of ability to get a hard scale of viewing numbers, and, also, the fact that there's no commercials involved. The Nielson system is so dated, where you could have a show which is ungodly popular but only has a shitty ratings because everyone downloaded the avi. That doesn't serve to keep it on the air. This is one of the reasons I like on demand, because they can tell, concievably, without Nielson, how many times it's been downloaded and watched.

Also, ha ha ha:

[EmX]

Broadband-connected DVR set top boxes would probably be a nice addition to an on-demand only package.