If Netflix 'Roma' Wins Best Picture It Will Be Curtains For The Cinema - And Non-Cord Cutters

Among the movies competing for 'Best Picture' at this year's Academy Awards tonight is an aberration entitled "Roma".  It is an aberration because:  a) It was produced by Netflix, which is not a movie company - indeed, it is a streaming service, and b) This service is subsuming the rest of the entertainment industry with its $12 b a year spending, not to mention overloading the landscape with so much fare it's creating "option paralysis"

In the latter case, we find (WSJ., 'Entertainment Overload', Exchange, p. B1, Feb. 22-23):: "Audiences have been overwhelmed by too many choices"  leading to what Einstein once called "option paralysis". (One reason Einstein opted to wear the same sport coat and trousers every day). The effect of this choice overload inevitably leads to fewer choices being made over time, given the incipient stress accompanying each decision.   

Of course, this isn't new and was originally put forward in the book, 'The Paradox of Choice', by Brian Schwartz, an emeritus professor of psychology at Swarthmore College. The basic assumption is that humans are rational agents and, when offered a set of choices - say for a product- will end up making the optimum one. But Schwartz showed this isn't the case and when humans are offered a surfeit of choice they punt! They either don't make any purchase, or they opt for the first one that comes to mind or in their field of vision.

In the entertainment sphere, including television and  film, that means fewer choices made, fewer movies viewed-  and it could also translate to the streaming screen as well.  In the WSJ piece, Schwartz observes:  "If studios end up spending millions of dollars producing too much new programming they could end up in a situation where they give people everything under the sun and they end up just watching what they watched before."

"Too many choices, America! Not good!"   to quote the late George Carlin in one of his last riffs at the  Beacon Theater in NYC.  Expanding on his premise, Dr Schwartz also noted that an influx of options makes the ultimate choice more an expression of personal identity. In other words, the excess of  choices even in the entertainment sphere, continues to balkanization into different tribes of political (and cultural) identity.

Thus, when there are only five movies to choose from at a multiplex people tend not to put too much stock into their decision.  But increase the choice load to 30 movies it becomes a question of: "Am I the kind of person who would watch this kind of movie?"

Given Netflix  produced "dozens of original films in 2018" and plans even more this year, the streaming service is a primary contributor to overchoice and option paralysis. Worse, it is responsible for many of the younger demographic going on this cord cutting binge which -frankly  - appalls those of us (like wifey and myself) who love to watch films on the big screen, either in the cinema (like 'Alita- Battle Angel' which we saw three days ago in IMAX 3D), or on our 55" TV (where we watch films we missed on the cinema screen).   

Ordinarily we wouldn't give a damn about the cord cutting, streaming cosmos, but the lemming- like abandonment is now forcing higher subscription costs on those of us who remain, as well as ever creeping attrition of viewing choices.  Recent WSJ forecasts in the 'Business &  Investing' pages are also not sanguine about the future of cable TV or Direct TV, where diminishing returns seems to be the byword.

The cord cutting phenomenon is now generating a momentum for streaming on tiny screens which is pathological as well as dumbfounding and aberrant.  This is given so much more vivid entertainment experience is accessible on large screens - especially in theaters.   This is also why - according to the  aforementioned WSJ piece:

"Some Academy members consider 'Roma' an existential threat to a movie business already struggling to get people into theaters for anything but big budget franchise pictures."   

So bottom line these Academy members are Never -Netflixers,  like wifey and myself.  Naturally then, it is logical to think if a streaming flick like Roma wins 'Best Picture'  (god forbid)  it will further accelerate cord cutting, more Netflix viewers, more streaming, which will vastly fuel even more Netflix fare - and more choice overload and option paralysis.   With ever more viewers prone to more option paralysis expect really good, standout screen choices to collapse in lieu of cheaper, easier to produce schlock.

Both cinema choices, quality, not to mention large screen, original TV movies (such as produced by HBO, Showtime) stand to suffer, as a race to the bottom ensues.

But most importantly, it would likely sever the connection between motion pictures and cinema (theater going) forever.  Henceforth, the great majority of people opting to never go out to the cinema but just remain in their personal cocoons streaming flicks on tiny screens. An "atrocity", as Janice so aptly puts it.   I wouldn't use that strong a term, but it's at least aberrational. 

Yes, Roma deserves to win an award:

 'The Best Motion Picture On A Streaming Service'. 

But emphatically not an Oscar, sorry!

------
 My own top picks:

Best Picture:  'Green Book'

Best Director: Spike Lee, 'Blackkklansman'

Best Actor: Viggo Mortensen ('Green Book')

Best Actor in Supporting Role: Mahershala Ali ('Green Book')

Best Actress:  Glenn Close ('The Wife')

Best Actress in  Supporting Role:  Rachel Weisz ('The Favorite')
----------------------

Update:  "Green Book" wins - and a petulant pseudo-critic from the LA Times whines.  That would be Justin Chang. I haven't the time (or inclination) to douse all his hucksterish codswallop but suffice it to say I disagree with him on nearly every argument he makes, especially that this film was the "worst Best Picture award in ten years"  (Since 'Crash')   Those who want can read his balderdash here:

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-oscars-green-book-worst-best-picture-winner-20190224-story.html

Perhaps the best (and most succinct) takedown of this smug turkey came from a commenter on the LA Times site,  Wendy:

"Despite all of the dressing down of this movie in this article, I was thoroughly entertained by this movie, and believe it deserved all the accolades. Mr Chang sounds bitter like he lost a bet or something!"

Winners And Losers After Net Neutrality Has Been Trashed

I've always maintained that net neutrality ought to be on the radar screen of any blogger or ordinary person that uses the net frequently. The reason is that its existence is crucial to sustaining quality of communication and also free speech.  If I was unable to get my blog up in an expeditious and timely manner, despite a particular topic (say quantum statistics) that may only be read by 10 people - believe me I wouldn't be doing this much longer. The headaches simply wouldn't be worth it. I do it now because I don't have to pay higher than normal costs to get my material published - whether educational or political opinion..

This elicits the question of why there would be those who seek to abolish net neutrality. Well, as with most arenas in our declining land, the major  Neoliberal moguls detest little guys having any say equal to their own- so hope to buy their way to faster internet speeds at the expense of the rest of us. Or to put it more bluntly, to perhaps eliminate the rest of us.

Who can forget the stirring and robust defense of net neutrality - as well as its explication - by John Oliver some months ago? The  segment can still be seen it at this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU

Oliver argued the net in its current form was not broken, while noting the FCC was
pushing for a 'two tier' system.  Killing net neutrality would allow private companies to go into the fast lane leaving everyone else in the slow line. To get your streaming movies or shows then might take twice as long as it does now, while higher paying corporate entities and ISPs  like Comcast - could either afford to go into the fast lane or (in the case of ISPs) charge more to average Joes to use it.

.To refresh memories, the Obama FCC - to preserve net neutrality - ceased treating the internet as an unregulated information service- instead reclassifying it as a "telecommunications service". Thereby the FCC could assert authority to regulate the net as a utility under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Oliver was so energized at the prospect of the new FCC chairman (Ajit Pai) overturning the Obama FCC rules that he provided viewers with a rapid link to enter comments at the FCC - supposedly seeking them for 120 days: www.gofccyourself.com. 

Last week, the unthinkable transpired and Pai represented the tiebreaking vote to enable this travesty to pass. It behooves us then to look at winners and losers and also what the 3-2 decision means for free speech.

Led by Trump  toady Ajit Pai, the FCC is now set to spend the  coming months drafting new rules that, if implemented, will slow down the net considerably for any who use DL'ing, including streaming of videos (including for Netflix and Amazon services).  Pai, like other Trump -appointed hacks (Tom Price at HHS, out to destroy Medicare, Scott Pruitt at EPA, out to destroy that agency or weaken it to the point of uselessness) is convinced the Obama era rules adopted in 2015 have "harmed the internet" by retarding investment in broad band infrastructure. 

In other words net neutrality is a no-no because it represents the continuation of "heavy handed regulation which will chill investment in a service increasingly critical to life in American society".

According to Pai, mastering the lingo of Wall Street speak (WSJ, May 20, p. A11), the small ISPs are being left out of the market because they can't compete with the big boys. Pai claimed he "heard from 19 small, government -owned, municipal broadband providers" who insisted that Title II regs stood in the way of their further investment. In effect, depriving hundreds of thousands living in those municipalities of accessing new services and the small ISPs from deepening their networks.

In Pai's mind,  the basic error of too many on the left is thinking "there is a dichotomy between the consumer and the market". No, there isn't, given consumers help to define the market - but the market so formed has to be fair: not playing favorites. After all, the bible mantra of the capitalists is that the market works best when consumer choice is maximized. But it can't be if my net speed is only 1/4 as fast as that slobby looking Wyatt Koch - son of billionaire Bill Koch, eg.

Should that rich slob, just because he's rolling in inherited money,  have more right to higher web speeds (to sell his stupid rich man shirts)  because he can pay for them? Hell no!

 According to Pai (ibid.):

"To me, markets and market -oriented policies have delivered far more value to the consumer than pre-emptive regulation ever has."

If Pai's arguments were really sound why not first do all he and the FCC can to make all net speeds much higher as opposed to "comparable to Estonia" as John Oliver joked in his piece.  The reason is that Pai and his cronies want to slow net speeds down even more for the rest of us so that private entities, that can pay a lot more, get preferential treatment in the form of much greater speed, efficiency.

What about winners and losers in the coming debacle?

After the FCC released its plan in late November, well-known telecom and media analysts Craig Moffett and Michael Nathanson wrote in a note to investors that the FCC plan dismantles “virtually all of the important tenets of net neutrality itself.”

That could result in phone and cable companies forcing people to pay more to do what they want online. The technology community, meanwhile, fears that additional online tolls could hurt startups who can’t afford to pay them — and, over the long term, diminish innovation.

Losers then will almost certainly include most millennials who consume their sports, news, entertainment via online streaming. They can expect speeds to slow to a snail's pace unless they pay more. Also affected will be those who do frequent youtube spots. With no net neutrality they will be relegated to the slow lane and take hours to upload even a five or ten minute video.   In 2007, for example, the Associated Press found Comcast was blocking or throttling some file-sharing. AT&T blocked Skype and other internet calling services on the iPhone until 2009. They also aren’t backing away from subtler forms of discrimination that favor their own services.

Of course, the deep pockets of Google, Netflix, Amazon may well be sufficient - provided their share prices remain high - to pay off ISPs to make sure consumers can access our service.

A far more likely target for loss is free speech.With this FCC ruling, corporations will have control over what content citizens can access on the internet. It could be as simple as Comcast blocking websites with negative comments on their service. Or it could be as sinister as an ISP blocking access to political content, news and writing that it opposes. Just think of it! Much of the content on this blog is highly controversial, for example the strong anti-Trump stance, and also to a degree the anti-conservative stance.

If you are a proponent of every American’s right to free speech, this should be frightening to the core. No company or corporation should be able to control what information we can consume, with a few exceptions, e.g. bomb- making manuals put out by terrorists. But no interested reader should be denied anti-Trump material such as often appears on this blog.

ISPs like Comcast have said they would never take it this far. But why do they even need the option? When Comcast is your only choice, what prevents them from extracting every penny possible from you and the online businesses that constantly inundate our lives?

This is exactly why many of us inveighed against the 1996 Telecommunications Act.  Writing in his book, The Problem of the Media, Robert McChesney had this to say (p. 51);

"The corruption in media policy making culminated in the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, arguably one of the most important pieces of U.S. legislation. The law rewrote the regulatory regime for radio, television, cable television, and satellite communication - indeed, all of electronic communication including the internet.

The operating premise of the law was that the new communications technologies - combined with increased appreciation for the genius of the market- rendered the traditional regulatory market moot.

The solution therefore was to lift regulations and ownership restrictions from commercial media and communication companies, and allow competition in the marketplace to develop, and reduce the government's role to that of protecting private property.

There was virtually no dissent whatsoever to this legislation from either party, the law sailed through both houses of congress, and was signed by a jubilant President Clinton in February, 1996. Corporate CEOs regarded it as their "Magna Carta"."

The preceding  lesson from McChesney ought to be a no-brainer for us now: not to be fooled again by the "deregulation is good for ya" banter. Fool us once, shame on them, fool us twice, shame on US.

So far, there have been hundreds of public protests against Pai’s plan and more than 1 million calls to Congress through a pro-net neutrality coalition’s site. Smaller tech websites such as Reddit, Kickstarter and Mozilla put dramatic overlays on their sites Tuesday in support of net neutrality. Twitter on Wednesday was promoting #NetNeutrality as a trending topic. Other big tech companies were more muted in their support.

Public-interest groups Free Press and Public Knowledge are already promising to go after Pai’s rules in the courts. There may also be attempts to legislate net neutrality rules, which the telecom industry supports. Sen. John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, on Tuesday called for “bipartisan legislation” on net neutrality that would “enshrine protections for consumers with the backing of law.”

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/david-morris/76842/to-save-the-internet-we-must-own-the-networks

Excerpt:

"Pai is dead wrong that this flurry of activity has been done to advance the public interest. Indeed, as one might expect from a man who once worked for telecom giant Verizon, Pai has directed an unprecedented abdication by the FCC of its responsibility to protect the public welfare. ...The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the oldest organization defending civil liberties in a digital age, warns that allowing ISPs to monitor and manipulate data makes the web more vulnerable to attacks....

Adding insult to injury, Pai’s FCC also halted enforcement of a rule demanding Internet providers “take reasonable measures to protect customer (personal information) from unauthorized use, disclosure or access."

And:

 http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jacob-sugarman/76774/is-fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-a-closeted-alt-right-sympathizer

Net Neutrality On The Chopping Block - Thanks To Another Trump Toady

Protesters outside Ajit Pai's home, for net neutrality and against his scrapping of Title II regs.

Two weeks ago, comedian John Oliver delivered a superb explanation of 'Title I' and 'Title II' regs in respect to the internet and how assorted spinners sought to confuse the public on net neutrality. Oliver argued that Title II regulations are designed to protect the net,  i.e.  barricade it against the sole use of private interests.

Those who missed the segment can watch it at this link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU

 

Oliver argued the net in its current form is not broken, while noting the FCC was pushing for a 'two tier' system.  Killing net neutrality would allow private companies to go into the fast lane leaving everyone else in the slow line. To get your streaming movies or shows then might take twice as long as it does now, while higher paying corporate entities - like Comcast - speed their ads through with ease. To refresh memories, the Obama FCC - to preserve net neutrality - ceased treating the internet as an unregulated information service- instead reclassifying it as a "telecommunications service". Thereby the FCC could assert authority to regulate the net as a utility under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.

Oliver was so energized at the prospect of the new FCC chairman (Ajit Pai) overturning the Obama FCC rules that he provided viewers with a rapid link to enter comments at the FCC - supposedly seeking them for 120 days: www.gofccyourself.com. 

This latest influx of viewer comments came quicker than 2 years ago, adding about 150,000 in a little more than a day . But it appears the FCC Trumpazoids anticipated it and created a Box.com account for bulk comment filings. The effect has been that commenters' requests have been getting blocked or tied up by an automated attack.  It seems that barely any have made it through, but we're expected to believe this change was made to "better handle traffic than last time".

Now we know why. According to a story yesterday in the WSJ Business & Finance section (p. B1) it is clear the FCC plans to "chip away at net neutrality". As reported, the FCC on Thursday "approved a plan to begin rolling back Obama era net neutrality rules".  This was accomplished by virtue of the 2 Repukes on the FCC panel overriding opposition from the lone Democrat to push this perfidy through.

Led by Trump  toady Ajit Pai, the FCC is now set to spend the  coming months drafting new rules that, if implemented, will slow down the net considerably for any who use DL'ing, including streaming of videos (including for Netflix and Amazon services).  Pai, like other Trump -appointed hacks (Tom Price at HHS, out to destroy Medicare, Scott Pruitt at EPA, out to destroy that agency or weaken it to the point of uselessness) is convinced the Obama era rules adopted in 2015 have "harmed the internet" by retarding investment in broad band infrastructure. 

In other words net neutrality is a no-no because it represents the continuation of "heavy handed regulation which will chill investment in a service increasingly critical to life in American society".

According to Pai, mastering the lingo of Wall Street speak (WSJ, today, p. A11), the small ISPs are being left out of the market because they can't compete with the big boys. Pai claimed he "heard from 19 small, government -owned, municipal broadband providers" who insisted that Title II regs stood in the way of their further investment. In effect, depriving hundreds of thousands living in those municipalities of accessing new services and the small ISPs from deepening their networks.

In Pai's mind the basic error of too many on the left is thinking "there is a dichotomy between the consumer and the market". No, there isn't. It's all in our imaginations - or our paranoid ideations- take you pick. According to Pai (ibid., today):

"To me, markets and market -oriented policies have delivered far more value to the consumer than pre-emptive regulation ever has."

It appears then that Pai like his FCC R-commissioners, is ignorant or oblivious to the lessons of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.  That also was promised to us as the be-all 'elixir' to finally get our cable TV rates down because of increased market competition. Instead, after a few years we found (n Maryland) competition diminished and less resourceful companies moved out allowing Comcast to charge whatever it wanted.  People were furious because they'd been sold the "de-regulated bait and switch".

If Pai's arguments were really sound why not first do all he and the FCC can to make all net speeds much higher as opposed to "comparable to Estonia" as Oliver joked in his piece.  The reason is that Pai and his cronies want to slow net speeds down even more for the rest of us so that private entities, that can pay a lot more, get preferential treatment in the form of much greater speed, efficiency.

Writing in his book, The Problem of the Media, Robert McChesney had this to say (p. 51);

"The corruption in media policy making culminated in the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, arguably one of the most important pieces of U.S. legislation. The law rewrote the regulatory regime for radio, television, cable television, and satellite communication - indeed, all of electronic communication including the internet.

The operating premise of the law was that the new communications technologies - combined with increased appreciation for the genius of the market- rendered the traditional regulatory market moot.

The solution therefore was to lift regulations and ownership restrictions from commercial media and communication companies, and allow competition in the marketplace to develop, and reduce the government's role to that of protecting private property.

There was virtually no dissent whatsoever to this legislation from either party, the law sailed through both houses of congress, and was signed by a jubilant President Clinton in February, 1996. Corporate CEOs regarded it as their "Magna Carta"."

The preceding  lesson from McChesney ought to be a no-brainer for us now: not to be fooled again by the "deregulation is good for ya" banter. Fool us once, shame on them, fool us twice, shame on US.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/paul-rogat-loeb/72909/how-the-christian-coalition-and-moveon-saved-internet-neutrality-and-why-we-need-to-save-it-again
 

Be A TV Cord Cutter - And Lose Your Net Connection Speed!

Increasingly in the U.S., people are becoming television cord cutters. Aware of how much time can be wasted while plopped on couches watching the tube, and how many stations of a typical cable setup are effectively useless - because they aren't watched at all  - citizens are increasingly 'cutting the cord' and doing more constructive things with their time such as reading books (or books on nooks), going for walks, or otherwise sensibly using time.

Our long time friend 'Nanette' finally got tired of all the stations she never watched on her Comcast lineup, and so decided to 'cut the cord' to one entire subset of them about 4 weeks ago. Well, who told her to do that? Within a day her Comcast-packaged net connection speed had slowed to a literal crawl and she had to wait better parts of an hour for a download, or to upload family photos, etc.  She had, unwittingly become a victim of  collateral damage from Comcast's peculiar types of service contract.

The set up is called 'bundling' and the deliberate excising of unwatched channels, or just plain cutting the tube out altogether, is called 'unbundling'.  The dirty little secret that more and more folks like Nanette are finding out is that there's a price to be paid for any unbundling.  One observer of all this, Craig Aaron, president of the consumer advocacy group Free Press, has put it this way:

"In order for you to get content you like, you're going to be pushed to pay the cable bill too."

This is already evident if one takes the time to peruse Comcast's current rate structure (and bear in mind after the Comcast-Time-Warner merger is likely approved, this practice will become even more widespread).  Thus, as of today, the cheapest internet service - and the one a cord-cutting household might select- goes for $40 a month the first year. It offers download speeds of up to 25 Mbps, which means it's fast enough to stream 2 or 3 videos simultaneously.

The perverse twist is that Comcast's cheapest TV plus internet plan goes for $50 a month the first year - or just $10 more than the cord cutter's plan. Thus, subscribers to the bundled plan get the same streaming speed as the internet only plan, as well as basic TV service that offers a handful of local channels.  In addition, Comcast throws in its service for watching TV shows on your mobile devices.  Even more enticingly, the plan includes access to HBO and its streaming service  HBO Go - which unlike Netflix and Hulu, isn't available to cord cutters. (Take heed all you 'True Detective' fans!)

Also to be noted, is that Comcast warns prices can vary according to location, so you may actually pay more than the quoted price.  The bottom line is that in the Comcast universe, cutting the cord doesn't save you money and you actually end up in an inferior position in terms of overall media access- than if you'd just kept the TV. Comcast has carefully set up the pricing to get you whether you watch shows the old-fashioned way (on the boob tube, fed with cable) or via Netflix or on your iPad.

In either case, you're likely paying hundreds of dollars a year to maintain connections via the web to the outside world, a cost that'll likely soon go up if the Comcast $45b merger is approved. (Sen. Al Franken appeared yesterday on CBS Early show vowing to try to stop it, but let's get real - the odds of that are slim and none.) 

Just more evidence on how the Neoliberal business model operates: the customer (or citizen) can never come out ahead because there will always be in place offsets to neutralize gains, so you regress to where you were or even further behind. Ask all the bosses that keep wages artificially low as the CEOs get fat off your surplus labor! Then they want you to go into debt to support a low aggregate demand economy!