[kevstev]

Technology has advanced, but the product has changed little. I don't want to pay a monthly subscription and pay for all of the content on 300 channels, 280+ I will never ever watch. Despite paying $200 a month, I still don't even have the option to watch Spaceballs (substitute any particular movie here) on demand any time I want even if I am willing to pay for that privilege.

We have the technology to make the content of those 300+ channels available to me in a piecemeal a la carte fashion, but cable companies say if I want to watch ESPN I have to pay for 100 other channels. If I only want to watch Game of Thrones, I have to pay a bit under $20 a month to get a whole bunch of other stuff from HBO I will never watch.

I want to pay for only what I watch, but the cable and streaming services want me to pay for whats available to me. That is the big disconnect IMHO. There is no technical reason we can't have one service (like netflix) that has the world's digital content on it, and I can search and pick what I want to watch on it and pay for it and have the content owners get a cut of it. Netflix was kinda close for awhile, but then due to their licensing deals started pushing and pulling titles at random, and then different studios are now trying to put up Chinese walls to ensure that they have exclusive rights to content. I feel everyone loses here, and I myself can't imagine ever paying for a separate service just to watch star wars or Disney movies. There seems to be a real network effect here of just making everything available.