Cable is Dying During (What Should be) its Golden Age

This is a topic that has always seemed to be strange to me. Television has always had good shows made by great visionaries - or at least it has in my lifetime. It was said to have started with The Sopranos, or even The Wire, but where it really did begin can't be pinpointed for me. It's easy to go to a show, the first one that blows your mind from start to finish and say, this is where it all started, this is where TV "began," but who's to say the true start of this golden age wasn't a show from a decade before.

Friends was my first TV love. I never really understood Seinfeld, and to this day cannot sit through an episode of it, though others would likely claim it to be the superior show. Both existed at around the same time, Seinfeld starting in '89 and Friends five years later in '94. To me, the golden age began in '89 with the first episode of Seinfeld. I give it this credit because I can't fault its accomplishments, hell, I could even make a strong argument for the series finale of M*A*S*H in '83. Sure, I wasn't alive, or fully cognizant at any of these times, but having seen them all, and - somewhat - understanding the impact of them I feel as though they're viable starting points.

The Sopranos, on the other hand, was one of the first truly mind blowing shows. Prior to it, most television was formulaic, following a set structure of ebbs and flows. Shows, even today follow the ebb and flow pattern, of a slow build with a slow fall, or a fast build with a fast fall. But suddenly a more sporadic structure comes about giving shows a more, chaotic nature. This change, seemingly, is what brought on the "modern golden age."  The only problem is that now that it's in full flux, cable is dying.

More and more people are dropping their cable or satellite subscriptions, personally, I still have Dish, but that may change very soon. The popularity of Netflix and Hulu has sparked a change in the Television world. Netflix's original programming with its every episode at once formula allows for binge watching, devouring every episode one after another until you're all caught up. It's what people did (and still do if you're me) with DVD's but now you can jump from one show, straight onto another.

One of my first experiences binge watching was with the aforementioned Friends, it's how I got the whole narrative in its intended order having jumped into the series initially somewhere around season five. I used to do this sort of thing with all my shows, I still tend to do it from time to time, a straight binge watch all the way through, from start to finish. I can't see myself doing that any more with all that I currently watch though. But the initial binge watch of Friends engrossed me in the story, I was trapped in it, watching every episode waiting to see where the story went next. It wasn't hard to figure out, and even then it wouldn't have been hard either, but to a twelve year old kid, watching his first series finale after falling in love with the show, it was soul crushing. The weekly waits on episodes hurt, a lot less than the monthly waits for seasons or even mid-seasons. There would be a week, sometimes two or more, without an episode. Having to wait sucked. Binge watching changes that.

 It's all starting to make sense now, isn't it?

Television has become something that we can watch at out own pace now. Shows are still releasing their content weekly, but more and more people, watch it later, after its initial release. Whether it be from work and having to wait, or because they don't have cable and they need to wait for its next day online release.

Streaming services have taken over, they're cheaper than cable, and often offer better programming to boot. Hell, even some of the stuff I watch on YouTube is better than some of the shows that air on TV. We live in a golden age of television, that somehow still manages to throw terrible programming in our face. People, like myself, pay their respective cable companies for the shows they watch, but the money they pay, also contributes to the crappy programming that nobody cares about, terrible shows get funded because of the good shows we watch. People, like me, are starting to catch on.

A Netflix and Hulu + subscription will run you about 20 dollars total a month. That gives you access to everything Netflix has in their library, as well as all Hulu has to offer, which is basically next day viewing on almost every show out there. My cable bill is, roughly, 120 dollars a month including HBO and Showtime.

Subscribing to their respective streaming services would run roughly 30 dollars a month. Meaning, for just about 50 dollars every month, I could get everything my cable offers, and then some. I'm also subscribed to YouTube Red, mainly to contribute to those that I feel deserve some extra cash flow so that they can continue to produce their content as they wish to produce it. This here, however, leads me to my current predicament.

Ratings. Nielsen ratings. Fuck, Nielsen ratings. The system is outdated and does not account for the way people watch television. Even people who have cable record most of the shows they watch. But all the Nielsen ratings will tell you is, how many people watched it live. There's no how many recorded it to watch later, nor is there a how many enjoyed it. Though people coming back for episode two, three and four would give you an idea on enjoyment levels. Getting rid of cable cuts off the Nielsen ratings on good, quality, shows.

Look at Hannibal. One of the best shows to have ever graced television. Its ratings were low, and if not for outside funding, would not have been renewed for its third, let alone its second season. Now, it's dead in water, with a slim chance of somewhere other than NBC picking it up for a fourth year somewhere down the line. Some of the actors are already attached to other projects, and the leads have officially been released from their "potential season four" contracts, meaning if it does eventually get renewed the cast would have to re-sign on, or their parts will be, unfortunately, re-casted. This is all because people who watched the show, didn't watch it live.

I'm not blaming anyone for when, or how, they choose to watch shows. I too am to blame for Hannibal's poor Nielsen scores, the only episode I remember having watched live was the season three finale, simply because I had the day off and was able to. Every other episode got recorded and thus, wouldn't gain a live viewer. While "DVR ratings" are a thing, they are certainly not a thing that networks care about for one main reason, commercials and one's ability to fast forward through them. Ads pay for stuff, they help fund the shows that get on TV. Networks want you to watch the Ads live to make a better profit from the Ad companies. If the ad companies don't see gains they aren't likely to help promote the networks, and networks, as well as ad companies believe that watching the ads will lead to new consumers. The logic is sound. If something interests you, you will look into it. The same goes for shows, only we look into them, in repeat viewings or through recordings which the network doesn't care about.

However, making sure that my ratings at least somewhat contribute to good programming is not worth the 120 dollar a month price tag, when I can get everything I want or need for around fifty to sixty dollars or month. It's even better that the subscription prices that I am paying, eliminate ads, I pay for the convenience of not having commercials, something that cable can't offer. 30 minute shows, now take 20, hour long shows become 40 minutes, premium cable channels excluded of course.

Effectively I can cut my cable bill in half, by not having cable, while also losing the ads everyone skips over anyway. I'll still have to wait, for financial situations to come together to make the transition all the better. Such as a new and sexy 4k TV, a sound bar that doesn't cut out every two hours, and a Roku 4 (with the possibility of a new Entertainment System as well).  All else fails however, and I can make some sacrifices in the plan to make the transaction much, much cheaper. All in the name of saving money in the long run of things.