Future of Cable TV

Quote: TheCesspit

The issue, I think, for net neutrality is less about charging for the high occupancy lanes, but reducing access to Joe Blows website about pickled herring.

I think whatever the issue is it is a "hidden" issue neither side is talking about. I am conflicted about it but look at who is pushing which side and it you can make some guesses.

The internet as we know it today, ie the commercialized internet, is now a bit over 20 years old. It may be time that changes need to happen. "Net Neutrality" as I see it would be like saying any plane that wants to land at JFK at any time for the same low fee. When there were few flights it would be possible, but when there are limited slots it is not. And the fact that JFK/Idelwild was built with "tax dollars" does not change the fact that slots are limited.

It's even different from that. A lot of the pipes were built by commercial groups. Yet there is no fee to me for you to read this content. If hosted my own server and posted up a video of pickling herring, and you watched it, those packets would go over cable that neither my ISP or yours are paying for.

It's like you landing someone elses plane at JFK, on your way to Heathrow and no-one pays for the JFK landing fee, just take off at the start and the landing in Heathrow. And it doesn't matter if your plane is full of precious life saving medical vaccines or a single crate of English Breakfast tea.

On the flip side, the cost of landing is minute. Really, really tiny. Bandwidth is cheap. But the airports want to make some money from the traffic they handle. ESPECIALLY the hub airports having to push on data. I imagine they do extract some payment for the ends being plumbed into other parties services, but it still may be very remote.

At least that's how I see it. I don't think it's much to do with tax dollars building the system (though I'm not sure how much of the physical infrastructure is currently government owned) even if tax dollars helped start the original ARPAnet.

Personally, I'm happy to pay the fee I have for access right now at the expense of no-one deciding how important my traffic is. We'll see.

Quote: Fleastiff

I think Cable TV may be in a similar situation. It will always depend on the BANDWIDTH involved and people will always want MORE.

And ultimately, that may keep radio frequency television with us for the next 30 years. It's not just getting the BANDWIDTH for the current usage levels, it is try to keep up with ever escalating demands. If not just for more content, it will be for more and more resolution and frame rates.


Frankly, what could be more profitable than showing The Big Bang Theory to up to 22 million people at once and selling commercials at $700,000 per minute. Then when you are done you can sell DVD's and syndication runs on TV. Seinfeld has now brought in over $2 billion in syndication.

And ultimately, breaking up shows in 2-3 minute chunks and showing them to people with a commercial attached may be the source of revenue that brings in money for the longest period of time. Youtube now generates as much revenue as ABC.



But the cost is very high. To put 161 sitcoms on the air on the big three networks, and have a maximum of 32 survive is a pretty expensive way to run business.

I surely agree that it is a very high failure rate. Are producers so desperate that they will take garbage and "give it a try" or is what constitutes "a hit" really so nebulous that each of those 161 entries has the same degree of merit to them.

Rights vary. Some of the actors on Gilligans Island had no residual rights, some became loaded when that nonsense kept getting played over and over again. No one wants to lose the rights to have a Utube server showing back episodes of some show on demand. Its like this reality TV of Real People or Real Housewives... each episode is cheap to produce and you just keep airing them over and over again. Real People Season One is still making money for someone somewhere and the PBS The Louds is probably on Utube somewhere. Digitize it and slap ads on it. Someone will watch it and somewhere an advertizer will pay for it.

Take that "Twenty something German girl flying to Panama, buying an old boat and fixing it up" there are, it seems, two sponsors already. The "20 something in a bikini" market probably guarantees that they are in the black by episode one. The serious sailors market is then pure gravy.

Perhaps those 161 producers should re-think their options.

Quote: Fleastiff

I surely agree that it is a very high failure rate. Are producers so desperate that they will take garbage and "give it a try" or is what constitutes "a hit" really so nebulous that each of those 161 entries has the same degree of merit to them.

Presumably, the shows that make it on the air have already beaten several other candidates, and all of them are believed to have a reasonable chance at success. So it makes you wonder about NBC cancelling 19 sitcoms in a row. Do they have to justify their high executive salaries, or are they just delusional about the next show?

Seinfeld has a net worth estimated at $800 million. Bill Cosby is $450 Million.

On last night's Episodes (SHOWTIME sitcom), his father googles Matt LeBlanc's estimated net worth ($60 million). Matt calls his accountant and asks how much he is worth. He acts all surprised and says "How did google know that?".

Tina Fey is worth $45 million and Amy Poehler is and worth $18 Million.Joel McHale is $6 Million. These shows don't even have high viewership.

Robin Williams $50 Million.

Kaley Cuoco has an estimated net worth of $20 million (which should skyrocket in the next three years).

So it must be worth it, to keep on trying to produce a hit sitcom.

Quote: Pacomartin

Presumably, the shows that make it on the air have already beaten several other candidates, and all of them are believed to have a reasonable chance at success. So it makes you wonder about NBC cancelling 19 sitcoms in a row. Do they have to justify their high executive salaries, or are they just delusional about the next show?

I think they expect a certain number of them to fail, but put them on because the budget for "good" sitcoms has been spent. "Gilligan's Island" was expected to be a flop but was put on the schedule because they needed something to stick in quick. Some, such as "Joannie Loves Chachi" are made on the cheap and networks probably figure they are an easy way to make a few bucks for a season or two.

If I ran a network I would set up an "indie showdown." Select some indie producers and give them say $50,000 to produce a show. Then you show one at 8 and one at 8:30. Then people vote for a few days to a week. The winner moves on. Next week repeat 8/8:30 with two new shows. Third week, again two new shows but the first two winners have episode 2 at 9/9:30. Keep moving the winner on, in the end the winner gets a new show the next season. Maybe pick some losers as well.

Format could be adjusted, but has to be cheaper than what they are doing now.

Quote: AZDuffman

I think they expect a certain number of them to fail, but put them on because the budget for "good" sitcoms has been spent.

Quote: By Meredith Blake

NBC betting big on 'The Michael J. Fox Show' May 13, 2013
At NBC's Upfront presentation Monday at Radio City Hall in New York City, the beleaguered peacock network was betting big on Michael J. Fox. In a sign of its importance to the network, "The Michael J. Fox Show" was the first new series to be showcased during Monday's 90-minute presentation and was introduced by NBC Entertainment Chairman Robert Greenblatt.

In August 2012, NBC gave a straight-to-series order for the series. Yet by the 14th episodes viewership had dipped below 2 million, and they didn't even air the last 7 episodes.

July 5, 1989, on NBC as The Seinfeld Chronicles. The pilot episode met with poor reviews, and as a result, NBC passed on the show. However, NBC executive Rick Ludwin believed the series had potential. He therefore gave Seinfeld a budget to create four more episodes.

So they bankrolled 5 episodes! After the 9th season they offered Jerry over $100 million to make a 10th season. Now the show has brought in $3 billion in syndication.



So, to bolster your point, network executives clearly are useless. They should let shows compete.

Quote: Pacomartin

July 5, 1989, on NBC as The Seinfeld Chronicles. The pilot episode met with poor reviews, and as a result, NBC passed on the show. However, NBC executive Rick Ludwin believed the series had potential. He therefore gave Seinfeld a budget to create four more episodes.

"Seinfeld" is a perfect example of Network Execs not being able to figure things out. "The Chinese Restaurant" is legendary for giving execs heart attacks when they saw the premise. "Seinfeld" was also the first show that was serialized but not serialized, no episode existed in a vacuum from the rest. You can bet the execs said, "but what if someone didn't see that episode? Won't they miss the joke??"

For a creative field, there is so little creativity it is amazing. How many "Law and Order" and "CSI" spin-offs were made? How many ways can you make a cop show? How many ways can you get a bunch of 20-somethings living in a trendy part of a metro area?

This is why I said get the indies. The universe that networks pick writers from seems very small, totally new ideas are needed.

Quote: AZDuffman

"Seinfeld" is a perfect example of Network Execs not being able to figure things out.

How about the average looking (but often funny) guy and the beautiful wife. How often has that been done? I think that TV executives watch too much porn.


I like the husband and wife team played by Stephen Mangan and Tamsin Greig whose happy marriage is almost shattered by the rich, and charming Matt LeBlanc.



I suppose if Talent shows can make Susan Boyle a multimillionaire, they might be a decent way to create popular sitcoms.

Quote: Pacomartin

How about the average looking (but often funny) guy and the beautiful wife. How often has that been done? I think that TV executives watch too much porn.

Or maybe just take the best offer from the casting couch?