Cable Channels

Over the past 20 years or so, one of the most significant public outcries has been a demand for a la carte TV programming when ordering cable services.  Sometimes, people have to be careful of what they wish for because they just might get it.

We are in the golden age of television right now.  The amount of choice we have for watching television programs is astounding because there are so many content providers vying for viewership.  The concept of television has evolved into a streaming model which has not only made the quantity of quality programming possible, but it has also made the concept of a la carte programming possible.

If you're willing to pay for it. 

Unfortunately, greed, the need for consistent profits, is probably what will kill this golden age of television.

The business model of content providers has traditionally been to demand that their channels be packaged with other channels.  While this business model provided a great deal for cable subscribers, most of those cable subscribers were disgruntled because they were paying for channels that they did not want.  In 2016, cable and satellite providers were paying an average of $6 to $8 per month for ESPN, a single channel.  ESPN 2 was an additional $3 to $4 a month.  Those two channels cost the average cable subscriber between $9 and $12 a month!  When my family first subscribed to cable in the 1980s, our entire cable bill wasn't even that much!

So let's use ESPN as an example.  It's been a few years since I have seen any quantifiable data as to how much people actually watch ESPN.  The data I have from 2008 says that approximately 20% of cable subscribers watched ESPN while only 8% claimed that they would cancel their cable subscriptions if ESPN was dropped from the lineup.  That means that 92% of cable subscribers are subsidizing what 8% of cable subscribers would otherwise purchase. 

Since we are gradually moving over to an a la carte business model thanks to the advent of streaming data over the internet, ESPN is going to have to find a way to recoup the revenue that they will lose by not requiring most cable subscribers to include ESPN in their basic lineup whether they want it or not.  If we use the above data to extrapolate that only 8 out of every 100 subscribers will subscribe to an ESPN a la carte product, that means that in order to raise the same revenue, ESPN would have to charge between $72 and $96 a month for their services in order to capture the same revenue as they did in their hey day.

Of course this is an unsustainable model.  No one is going to pay that, so one of two things will have to happen.  Either ESPN will have to cut programming to bring their costs down, or ESPN will cease to exist.

I sense this is the pending disaster that is awaiting the established TV industry.  New players like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime are poised to take advantage of this model.  However, the way I like at it, one who is subscribing to Netflix for $10 a month is paying $10 a month for a single channel.  CBS is the newest player on the scene, and their decision to charge subscribers $5.99 a month for the privilege of watching the new Star Trek Discovery series has been extremely controversial.  However, consumers must realize two things.  1)  This is exactly what they have been asking for and 2) CBS is doing this in order to survive.  I promise:  The other networks are going to follow suit.  It is their only choice.

I envision a future where consumers will subscribe to 8-10 channels over the internet, and their total monthly bill will be just as much (if not more) than what they used to pay for video service.  Of course, in another 10-15 years, it is highly likely that content providers will start working with each other to bundle their services again, and we will have come full circle ending up exactly where we started.

North Korea

Short and sweet.

I'm typically a pacifist.  War is an absolute last resort.

North Korea just launched a missile over Japan.  That is an act of war.  They fired the first shot.  But Americans are so sick of war because of the useless excursions in Iraq and Afghanistan that they simply aren't ready for another engagement.  Once again, I have to thank the Bush Administration for destabilizing the world.

Immigration

Barack Obama was the toughest president on illegal immigration since we started to track it.  Under the Obama Administration, illegal immigration in the United States decreased by 90%, and the United States began to record a net loss in the number of undocumented workers present in the country.

There are such things as facts, and there are such things as opinions.  Opinions are frequently wrong.  Facts are never wrong.

The first sentence of the above paragraph is an opinion.  The second sentence is a fact that I use to back up the opinion.  Before we can have a discussion about illegal immigration in this country, everyone involved in that negotiation needs to understand that the second sentence is a fact.  Anyone who does not understand that second sentence is not competent enough to negotiate.

The reason I bring this up is because the Obama Administration did something amazing in regards to illegal immigration.  I think it's fair to say that President Obama was conscious about his legacy, and I think it's also fair to say that going on a witch hunt for undocumented workers who many times have no recollection whatsoever of their home countries because they were moved here at such a young age is something that would not have reflected well on his legacy.  Never mind the fact that it was the right thing to do.

Obama was the toughest president on illegal immigration, but he managed to accomplish that while leaving behind a legacy of being compassionate and caring about the subject.  Why?  Because he considered Dreamers to be untouchable while ensuring that the number of future Dreamers would be as small as possible.

Let me put it bluntly.  I am concerned that people I might now and/or care about are going to get deported because of the stupid jackass in the White House who thinks it's fun to play president.

I am concerned that 8 years of advances in the topic of illegal immigration, a problem that was sufficiently solved by the Obama Administration, will be rolled back.

I've tried to be pragmatic about the Trump Administration.  The problem is, I have a hard time believing that repealing DACA is even on the table.  It makes me wonder if perhaps repealing the 15th and 19th Amendments might be next on the Trumpnado's wish list.

Joe Arpaio

Only one thing truly surprises me about President Donald Trump's pardon of former Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio.  I'm surprised that people are surprised.  This was all part of the deal last November when Trump got elected.  Arpaio was staunchly in Trump's corner because Arpaio knew he was in deep shit.

Last weekend, when the Trump rally in downtown Phoenix was still a few days away, I was telling people that the only reason for Trump's visit was to make a big show out of his pardon for Joe Arpaio.  He just needed Arpaio to kneel before him and kiss his ring first.

I truly believe that this pardon was actually a good thing for the progressive left because it means that Arpaio's conviction still stands.  The precedence that the court set in convicting him will stand until an appeal to a higher court has a chance to hear it.  Additionally, it means that Arpaio remains a criminal, which makes it extremely unlikely he will ever be elected to public office again.

Joe Arpaio is a criminal.  Anyone with an objective understanding of the law understands that, and the courts have confirmed it for us.  The pardon means he will remain a criminal, and I'm okay with that.  I just wish the people on the left would stop acting so surprised because that surprise leads to a loss of credibility.  How could anyone have not seen this coming?