So, HBO has decided that it will offer a standalone streaming service. Currently, those who wish to stream HBO legally must purchase a cable package, then subscribe to HBO, then sign into the service and watch it on a compatible device (laptop, XBox, etc.). This changes that: Out goes the requirement to get a cable package. All one needs is a broadband internet connection—the same broadband Internet connection one uses to stream Netflix and Amazon and Hulu Plus and the rest. This is why "cord cutters" (that is, those who have jettisoned cable or satellite service already) and would-be cord cutters are rejoicing.
Time will tell if this opens up the floodgates and causes the rest of the cable networks to offer similar deals or prompts cable companies to offer unbundling (i.e., allowing consumers to pick and choose which cable channels they would like to pay for, a la carte). I imagine HBO's direct competitors, such as Showtime, will offer similar services. What about FX and AMC? Could they do the same soon? Given that live sports are virtually the only thing cord cutters say they miss—and one of the major reasons would-be cord cutters don't get rid of cable altogether—I can't imagine that Comcast and the rest would allow ESPN or the Turner networks to do what HBO has just done. Live sports programming is just too valuable.*
But I think it's pretty fair to say that at some point in the not-terribly-distant future, we'll see a raft of think pieces and dissertations and the like about how this was the beginning of the end for "cable TV," as we know it. It might take a decade, it might take two, but our current age of bundled TV programming is, I'm guessing, coming to an end. I remain unsure if this is a good or a bad thing.**
So HBO's announcement will change everything. But it will also change nothing. What I mean is, I'm willing to wager virtually all the people who currently steal HBO—all the people who illegally download programs and kite their folks' HBO GO account passwords—will continue to steal HBO by the exact same method as before. We've been told time and again by modern day oracles such as The Oatmeal that blaming the victim when it came to HBO was kosher because it charges too much money for programming. "I don't want to have to buy a cable subscription or wait for this program to be released on DVD, therefore I am justified in stealing it for $0 right this instant," the refrain went.
Oh, I'm sure they'll find another reason to justify their theft. Perhaps HBO's price point will still be too high ("$20 per month? When I can just get it for free? LOL NO THX CORPORATE GREED HEADS"). It could be something else, some other imagined grievance/excuse. It doesn't really matter. The convenience argument was always a dodge. People feel they deserve content for free. So they're going to take it no matter how convenient HBO makes it for them to pay for said content. Welcome to the future. Enjoy it before it becomes a barren, content-light wasteland.
*How valuable? TNT and ESPN recently paid $2.7 billion a year for the rights to broadcast NBA games. How much money is that? As Deadspin puts it, TNT and ESPN are paying roughly $5.04 per viewer per game for those rights. Compare that to the roughly $1.84 per viewer per game NFL rights cost. The NFL's next broadcast deal is going to be mindbogglingly huge, assuming concussions don't kill the league before then. (lol jk)
**I tend to believe that the golden age of cable was aided by the fact that smaller networks such as FX and AMC were first subsidized by being bundled with more successful networks and then forced to compete for eyeballs by offering brilliant, innovative programming such as The Shield and Mad Men. But I could be wrong.