TheCable

The search for cheaper and more affordable TV has been on for some time even though cheaper and more affordable could mean different things to different people but let’s not quibble over semantics. However, the one thing we can all agree on is that most TV viewers (TV, in this case, covers multiple streaming platforms) want to have ample choice, a plethora of viewing options. And without breaking the bank, of course. I think we can safely agree on that.

Anyhow, the path to achieving that desired affordable TV varies from city to city, country to country. In Nigeria for instance, the big conversation that’s ongoing has been about whether viewers should have a pay-as-you-watch option for cable TV. DSTV, the major provider of cable TV services in Nigeria is constantly catching flak and accused of fleecing Nigerian viewers. This is a battle the company is well-equipped and has to keep on fighting. Of course, as a paying subscriber, I’m all for affordability so I have nothing against getting cheaper TV. Why wouldn’t anyone want to pay less?

Some viewers have devised various methods for circumventing perceived obstacles through some legal and not-so-legal means. I’ve seen quite a few people boasting about how they’ve done away with DSTV and all that. It’s the same way those who can afford it are consistently looking for ways to become independent of government-managed utility companies like PHCN which is responsible for electricity. I am convinced that in spite of the hype, many don’t really stop to count the cost.

Once upon a time, someone convinced me to get a Roku device that promised hundred TV channels, if not more. Not a bad idea if you don’t factor in the cost of internet data or the fact that copyright laws and provisions won’t allow you to watch more than half of those much-touted channels. But let’s leave the Nigerian cable TV calculations for another day.

Suffice it to say that it isn’t only in Nigeria that viewers are concerned about cost and looking for cheaper TV options. Elsewhere around the world, especially in North America, advertisers are constantly trying to tempt people with promises of cheaper TV options. Their pitch is usually that you don’t need cable TV or that they are offering something that’s better than cable TV for far less, etc, etc. You do get the drift. I think I may have been sold on this, the idea that cable TV is this very expensive thing and that it’s better to break away from the shackles of those capitalistic cable TV people. I know I’m beginning to sound like some confused Nigerian civil servants trying to please the boss, the ‘oga’å at the top. You know those civil servants that attempted and still attempting to sell Nigeria’s inexplicable border closure. But I digress.

Nonetheless, I have since found out that the idea of affordability or cheapness may be a one of perception. The numbers do not always add up to be less expensive. In the last couple of years, I have the need to get some kind of TV service when I’m outside Nigeria, nothing elaborate like subscribing to cable TV. In any case, the nature of my trips often meant making do with whatever was available wherever I was staying. It also helped that school has pretty much occupied most of my time. All of which made sense before COVID-19. Now thanks to COVID-19 and the many restrictions especially in 2020, TV and other streaming platforms have had come to the rescue.

In the initial weeks, Netflix as I’ve mentioned in this column was literally a lifesaver. However, as the pandemic dragged on, it became obvious that I needed ‘regular’ TV, so I got a Roku TV. No way was I going to waste money on expensive cable TV. Roku TV comes pre-loaded with apps. Things went well for a while thanks to Youtube, Prime Video and some free-to-air channels. Not sure I’d have got Prime Video if it didn’t come with my Amazon prime membership. Speaking of which my experience on Prime Video is the principal reason for today’s rant-mentation (rant + lamentation). I’d wanted to watch the most current season of ‘Line of Duty,’ a British TV series on Prime Video. In the past year, I had seen all its five seasons on Netflix.

Alas, I couldn’t access this series on Prime except by getting an additional monthly subscription to Britbox of about $5. Prime Video alone has other channels like Stack TV, Starz, HayU, Acorn TV, Sundance Now, Super Channel, PBS Masterpiece, BBC Earth, and a few others. In all, there are more than ten Prime Video channels, and if you were to add up an average of $7 per month subscription per channel, it could turn out to be even more expensive. Meanwhile, cable TV processes vary: some basic packages are as low as $20 while $60 is about the average price for receiving popular and well-known channels.

Ultimately, people will vote for their own choices. It all depends on what a viewer is interested in. Not everyone needs hundreds of channels they can hardly watch. Then again, it’s equally frustrating that no one among these platforms can contain everything one needs. If you like variety like me, there’s always going to be that channel or show that’s on its own somewhere. If cost is not an issue, you can subscribe to as many channels and platforms as you like. But if cost is one’s aim, subscribing to these other streaming apps/platforms as a way of cutting costs doesn’t look like it’s going to be cheaper than having a premium cable TV subscription. By the time you add Netflix, Hulu, and some I have never heard of, the price can only go up.

So, do you want to have access to hundreds of channels or do you want the freedom to choose what you’re going to watch? Can freedom come at a cheaper price?  Even if no, one said having freedom comes cheap. This is the beginning of a conversation I hope will be ongoing. The idea is for us to stop and do the calculation and make choice depending on your needs and interests