Andrew wrote:Gotta think that this isn't legal though and will be shut down soon?

JonsTintedTails wrote:How do you see a list of all available channels?

What revenue model is supporting the continuation of programming we actually want?

Other people's money?

markvmc wrote:I guess there are two options. First, not enough people cut their cable service, so that the broadcasters' bottom line is not significantly affected. (I still pay for cable, for example, and that's in part because I can't stand to watch a basketball game in real time with all the breaks/ads).

Or, second, enough people cut their cable, so that the broadcasters have to make their service more attractive to paying customers, either by cutting price or by adding extras to attract buyers. Think of the music industry for ana analogical situation. Profits are down for the basic product (music) since the heyday of CDs, but enough people still pay for subscription services to make it profitable for the likes of Pandora, Spotify, etc... And some bands give you extras, such as box sets, or deluxe editions to get people to pay for albums that are freely available elsewhere.

People will find a way to make money from live sports regardless of how it's pumped into our homes.

I have no issues with "enough the people cut their cable" part.

The problem is the people who cut their cable, but still acquire the programming in non-authorized ways anyway, thereby in fact more than likely raising the rates for those who do pay.

Almost EVERY consumer product you buy, from a gallon of milk to a pair of jeans costs MORE because retailers bake in the cost theft has their button line into their retail prices.

I'm continually dumbfounded by the casual attitude towards and justification of theft of a consumer product just because you don't have to tuck it under your clothes and leave the store to acquire it.

markvmc wrote:But as fewer people buy the service (demand falls), standard economics dictates that the price will fall, or the company will fail. That's exactly what we've seen recently in the music industry, news business and book publishing. Why think sports broadcasting is different? Indeed, we're already seeing this with the adventure of sling TV and other such legal services, which offer streaming cable packages for $20-$45 a month.

Again, I have no problem with people no longer purchasing the service.

The problem is when people are acquire the services anyway through unauthorized means.

Knickoftime wrote:

markvmc wrote:But as fewer people buy the service (demand falls), standard economics dictates that the price will fall, or the company will fail. That's exactly what we've seen recently in the music industry, news business and book publishing. Why think sports broadcasting is different? Indeed, we're already seeing this with the adventure of sling TV and other such legal services, which offer streaming cable packages for $20-$45 a month.

Again, I have no problem with people no longer purchasing the service.

The problem is when people are acquire the services anyway through unauthorized means.

Yeah, got that. Responding to your point about how such people inflate the price for those who pay. The opposite is actually closer to the truth.