Is Cable on the Downswing?

Two years ago, I abandoned my cable television.  As cliché as it sounds, losing traditional television changed my life in many respects.  It began with Netflix Instant, the once younger sister to Netflix DVD.  Netflix began as a company wherein you could pay a monthly membership and have unlimited numbers of DVDs mailed directly to you.  The downside, of course, is having to decide several days in advance what movie you would be in the mood to watch once it eventually arrived.  Two years ago, Netflix introduced Instant, a service which allows a paying member, in addition to mailed DVDs, to select from a list of movies and television shows to watch instantly through the Internet, similar to cable’s “video on demand” services.  Once I realized I could watch an unlimited number of, albeit a limited selection of, movies, I was hooked.  Trading my $60 per month cable bill for a $8 per month bill more than made up for losing CNN, Food TV, and other regularly scheduled programming.

My serial-drama addiction was finally satisfied a few months ago when I added Hulu Plus, a service that allows viewing new episodes of current television shows, normally within 24 hours of their original broadcast.  This added a mere $8 more to my entertainment budget.  The downside of these services, however, is they require a fast and stable Internet connection.  Since a fast and stable Internet connection is already a staple in my house, this was not an issue for me.  I now only watch shows I want to watch – shows that I have specifically set apart time to enjoy.  I no longer have wasted weekend afternoons scrolling through the channels complaining of “there’s nothing on TV.”  I doubt I actually spend less time in front of my television, but at least now I feel that that time is being used “efficiently.”  And I am not alone in my entertainment transformation.

It is undisputed in both hard research and anecdotal evidence that traditional cable television has taken a hit in recent years with the rise of Internet video and membership services such as Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Video.  Moreover, cable television companies are consistently ranked highest in customer dissatisfaction, sharing the top spots with airlines.  The question that remains, however, is whether this is an adjustment period, wherein cable will leave its conservative, my-way-or-the-highway stance and morph into a more user-friendly service offering perhaps a la carte service, or whether this truly marks the end of cable television service as we know it.  With increasing Internet speeds, more variety in online video and continued decreases in upstart costs for these online services, it is unlikely that cable television consumers will continue to choose limited “packages” offered by traditional cable and satellite companies, while paying significantly more for televisions channels never used.  Most people only have a few channels they ever watch, leaving dozens or even hundred of channels in a cable package wasted.  Online services change that; consumers can compare and contrast the varied selections and choose which service best suits them.

In the end, the market will ultimately prevail.  For the past six decades, cable companies have dominated the market due to astronomical start up costs for competitors and little other technological alternatives.  As technology costs decrease, so will the options flourish.  It is a welcome change and I can only hope the shift toward user preference will continue.

Misdirected Outrage

I get it.  Casey Anthony is a horrible human being.  She deserves to be skewed with large spoons ('cause it'll hurt more) and her head should reside on the spire of the courthouse, as a warning to other would-be 2-year-old killers... and sluts in general.  That being said, the jury thought otherwise.

Juries are not always right.  With surprising frequency, they're wrong in one or more ways.  O.J. got off.  McDonalds was fined $2.9 million for spilled coffee. And now we can add Casey Anthony to the list.  She's probably guilty, but I guess we'll never know.  I honestly don't want anything bad to happen to her, but also I don't want her to be allowed to forget or ever catch another break in her life.

That said, where's the outrage for other similar situations?  Take for example a man arrested for rape and murder.  Despite his pleas of innocence, he's convicted and sentenced to death.  He appeals.  He appeals again.  He asks the governor for help.  He continues to appeal and tell anyone who will listen he's innocent.  His imminent death is approaching.  Some snot-faced, perky law student finally gives the case a look-see and, lo and behold, the DNA evidence sets him free.  He was being truthful all along.

Where's the outrage for putting a man in a 10'x10' cell for 17 years?  He might get a few hundred thousand dollars as pay for his time in prison, but I guarantee he'd give it all back and more for even a few months of his life back.  Some innocents on death row aren't so lucky - some have been exonerated after they're past this world.

I don't mean to downplay the life and unfortunate death of Caylee Anthony.  No child should ever have to suffer that and have her life extinguished before truly living.  She could have cured cancer and hangovers.  My point is that if even half the outrage over Casey Anthony is directed at the Innocence Project, we could ensure innocent men and women suffer no more.