On 3 January 2014 04:28, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:35 AM, David Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 3 January 2014 00:53, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> This change will only affect people who a) do not have cable b) do not >>> have OTA access c) do have internet and internet devices and d) can not >>> afford or do not want to pay two bucks to watch a show immediately. I >>> suspect we have just defined a rather small segment of the market >>> >> >> Your A and B are way too narrow for the people who are being impacted by >> this change. A should also include people who get their cable through >> communal setups like apartment buildings and dorms and thus don't have >> individual logins with their cable provider. B should also include people >> who don't have a DVR/VCR and can't guarantee that they will be in front of >> a TV tuned to ABC for an uninterrupted 30-60 minutes at a specific time and >> day of the week because they live with other people who might be watching a >> different channel, work in shiftwork or service-industry jobs with variable >> hours, are caring for small children, or for whatever other reason. Add >> those two and you're talking about a pretty large fraction of the under-35 >> set that I know plus or minus the willingness to wait a week. We see cable >> as too expensive to be worth it unless there's some programming on there >> that we really must have access to, particularly when so much is available >> via streaming and we're paying substantial amounts of money for high-speed >> internet and smartphone data service. I think that most of the people who >> only stream will be willing to be wait a week, but those that won't are >> going to see this as a middle finger to them, and I'm not sure that they're >> entirely wrong in that assessment. >> > > I am not going to accept your proposed broadening of my categories. The > change will not prevent the people you identify from accessing ABC > programming. They can still watch it on their apartment or dorm cable, when > the show is broadcast, or 7 days later online for free. I was trying to > identify the rather small percentage of people who will now not be able > watch an ABC program the day it is broadcast +7. > > You said "affects," not "completely stops from watching." Nor do any of your conditions preclude the people who you did say watching it after 7 days either.
My broader point is that the TV industry appears to be trying to alienate an entire generation in the name of short-term profit. As Kevin says, they're trying to force us back to Mayberry, but I don't think that this is something that you can reverse because we have grown up being accustomed to everything on-demand and free or cheap. (Though I concede that cheap is relative. $2/episode of a show seems like too much for me, but I know that it won't be for others.) For those of us for whom it isn't cheap enough and who have just a little bit of know-how, it won't be that hard for us to find alternate ways of watching that will end up not contributing a cent to ABC's coffers. -- David J. Lynch [email protected] -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
