cable die

There's an interesting article in the current edition of the New York magazine by James Cramer. In "Unplugged", Cramer analyzes how the rapid progress of technology is threatening cable companies and will definitely put them on the train to Obsoleteville sooner rather than later. This is very true with the advent of alternative technologies like portable media players and VOIP.

I never had cable TV (or at least never paid for it, even in the Philippines). Over here, it costs you an arm and a leg to get cable or satellite, and most households (those with families anyway) can't afford to live without it. I only get the public channels, opting instead to dole out the hard-earned green for cable internet. Why spend for 200 TV channels when I am at work most of the day and when its only humanly possible to watch only a few shows (in few select channels) in a week? You'd think I'd be interested to watch the other foreign language channels for even more than a few seconds? If I were a couch potato and work as a TV critic, then fine. But as it is, I'd rather surf endlessly with lots of speed to spare, for $60 a month.

Cramer points out the arrogance of the cable companies in holding on to their monopoly over the tube, when all other services like telephone and software have lowered prices and allowed more competition. This is reality, as cable companies force you to pay for stuff you may not even want. The concept of cable a la carte, where the consumer can just pick whatever channels they want, for either a preset package price, or individually reasonable ones, is so alien to them. Greedy bastards.

Which has been their undoing. Alongside the challenge of satellite TV in rural areas (commonly referred by industry insiders as BUDs or 'big ugly dishes'), cable companies have found themselves in competition with phone companies, who reluctantly woke up and smelled the VOIP coffee. The latter provides broadband internet and video on-demand over existing phone lines, a great alternative to those who are smart to look at other choices. Plus, the TV networks have adopted an 'if-you-can't-beat-em-join-em' attitude and embraced downloading - for nominal prices, you can download TV episodes to your iPod, and pretty soon, any media player (although I still don't like watching on a small screen - people are not ants). In effect, with more and more people spending time online anyway than watching TV (watch only when you want), cable monopolies are quickly losing their customers, and not really enticing new ones, because the consumers have, I hope, gotten smarter.

Change and competition, in this arena, is always good. We are not beholden to a CD anymore. We can record TV shows and programs and watch them when we please. We are not beholden to a few talking heads, or limited sources of information. Choices are now a necessity, not a luxury. Why should some suit dictate what we can watch and the price to watch what we want? (well, to a degree it'll still be a suit dictating that rock-bottom fee)

There are still times when I would like nothing better than click on the remote, channel-surf and settle on watching a documentary through a lazy day. There are still shows that are meant to be watched (in an old-fashioned sense) on a TV screen. I can only dream of the National Geographic, History or Discovery Channels. Or even ESPN. Maybe someday ... if the powers-that-be allow me to afford it.