I don't mean to be too contrarian here to the core message (yes, streaming captured the market with low prices and they are ending low prices), but I think people often forget how bad and expensive cable TV was back then when making such comparisons:

- obviously, it wasn't on demand. You catch a show at that timeslot running at its own pace with no ability to pause. You take it or wait for the next airing, which is probably a different episode anyway. 20 years later we get recording hardware, but it's still a similar dance of remembering or programming such devices to record.

- Subscriptions to streams are monthly. Subscription to cable tended to be yearly, with monthly payments and penalties for cancelling early.

- basic cable was just that. you got maybe 10 channels, half of which were news and maybe 1 kid's network for the young ones. you'd typically get something more like a 50-60 channel package just to get some variety. As it is now, streaming still includes 99% of its catalog under the most basic package, with the only instability being if licencing or public outrage (perceived or actual) gets shows taken off.

- Ads suck all the same, but we are still far from the nearly 33% ratio of ad to content, and ads almost never disrupt your program.

- Not that they existed, but content is much more widely available. mobile devices, game consoles, Tv's that don't have to be in a specific room that your ISP ran wire through to, and computers. They have clamped down on the number of devices, but you still have much more freedom of where you want to watch content. some services even let you view content offline (not a download, just a cached copy on your device memory).

- And of course, there is curation and library organization built-in. Tailoring your viewing to you instead of whatever channel/airing slots the network and studios pitched for.

Among various other small and large factors I can list. It always sucks having stuff get worse or taken away, but we should keep in mind that this is still a far better medium for consumers.

----

The main interesting point the author made was one of congress stepping in to regulate such behavior. But I'm not quite sure where and how they could. Cable TV was laid out in landlines and over airwaves that the governments took responsibility for. Streaming works over the internet which is not regulated as much. They can intervene with ISPs (and so far have done negative progress on that, between net neutrality and the ISP monopolies. But that's a whole other rabbit hole), but otherwise this is just companies doing business. Landlines were limited and it was nearly impossible for other airing stations to push themselves in.

With the internet it's a matter of hosting your own site. Which also is reassuring on why it'd be difficult for the medium to suddenly become Cable TV again. It's easier for a new competitor to rise and undercut existing companies. And on top of that, TV is no longer only competing with itself and radio: social media as well as video hosting sites means attention is harder to get than ever. If it becomes too expensive, people will just move to youtube or be satisfied with Tiktok/Instagram or whatnot. Still ad-ridden, but "free" for now (and I dont' really see those sites charging for subscriptions exclusively anytime soon)