Cable vs Streaming Costs

First time commenting so excuse me if I say something wrong, I believe there should be something similar to cable for these streaming platforms like a company that pays the companies to stream their content on their service for a smaller price for the consumers that way we won't be forced to pay for some many services all at once, the cable concept is starting to make sense.

I remember dropping cable cos of the costs and now we all have 2-5 streaming services we pay for...?

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 f

Cable is being unbundled in favor of on-demand. The traditional broadcast/channel model is annoying now that many homes have high enough bandwidth to stream what they want when they want it. Netflix is getting business from people who think cable is overpriced but they're also getting a lot of business from people who are sick of never finding anything on TV and sitting through commercials when they do.I'd probably pay Netflix $100/mo if they could deliver everything I wou

can you explain how paying for hundreds of channels I don't want is a win for me?

The idea you'd be able to see everything you want for $9/month when the going rate was $100/month is and remains an utter fantasy. There is no way, shape, or form where the industry is going to suddenly operate on 90% less income.Ironically, when you ask for one big hub, you're asking for a traditional cable subscription: Comcast will give you most of the channels out there (often, throwing HBO in for free), and due to the APIs the major ISPs and channels are on board with

Content isn't fungible. Netflix, Prime, and Hulu put together may have more content than you could ever watch (arguably, even just one of them alone does), but if it doesn't have the show or movie you want, you're boned.I've had Netflix, Prime, and HBO for years. A couple months ago my gf and I really wanted to watch The Handmaid's Tale, which is only available on Hulu. Hulu charges $12/mo for their no-ad plan (hell if I'm going to pay for a service and s

What we have today is far from a la carte. Yesterday: if you want shows 1, 2, and 3, you have to purchase cable bundles A, B, and C, even if you don’t watch 99% of the content in those bundles, since the shows were spread across those bundles. Today: if you want shows 1, 2, and 3, you have to subscribe to streaming service A, B, and C. There is almost no difference, except now you’re paying three separate companies instead of one for 99% of content you don’t watch.

Free is always going to be more attractive and excuses made by folks who don't want to pay for services.Netflix/Prime/HBO/etc all work perfectly fine, just sign up once, login, and that's it.Folks are just using this yet again as an excuse to not want to pay more than $10/month for every tv show and movie ever made, but that's not sustainable. It was obvious from the start that folks who wanted to cut the cord and buy content piecemeal would just have ess

IMO, the real problem is that they're all services - cable, Hulu, Netflix, it doesn't matter. The dream was being able to pay for only what you watch, but that's not really an option in many cases. You're still being forced to pay for content you don't want to watch.This bundling of extra content was tolerable at the Netflix price point - when you were paying < 10% of cable - but it's back to being intolerable now that it's comperable to cable prices once