Except we didn't. Instead of 500 channels we don't want, we have 10 services with 50 channels. We've managed to actually find the worst of both worlds, which in of itself is an impressive accomplishment.

We wanted a cheaper cable bill when they were 100-150/mo usd, and as you said we got them in the form of all the media cartel services for $10-20/mo each + 50-150/mo internet data. It's still the same problem.

Cable is nothing but a streaming service itself, a cable box is nothing more than a cable modem getting online the same way your data modem does, and streams video the same way as streaming services do, but it's 1000 channels of random crap full of commercials instead of just one media brand in streaming.

Cable tv sucks. It still exists and still sucks. I don’t think anyone was begging for the fragmented options we have now.

Ideally people want to buy what they want to consume/use. Instead they make us pay fees for a bundle of garbage product rather than sell us the actual product we want. Everything as pay per view would be great. Maybe even include dynamic pricing.

In 2008 it was about $60 for ~118 channels ( my source is https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/technology/24cable.html which isn't very good arguably).

So lets round and say $0.50 a channel.

If netflix et al only cost $0.50, i'd have no problem subscribing to 10 services.

Really, the whole cable a la carte thing was really a response to false advertising. Cable liked to advertise each channel as being equal - as if you were spending $0.50 per channel when really you were spending $50 on the good channels, and the other junk was free.

I realize this is ancient history, but prior to cable people got Big Ugly Dishes aka C Band dishes and at the time you could subscribe ala carte. When cable came along they practically doubled prices when they also bundled channels ostensibly for convenience but also allegedly due to bundling/license agreements with content providers. The grumbling about unbundling then was due to the price hikes.

people begged for 1 streaming service

that had ALL The content

instead we got ~25 different streaming services that varies from country to country, and end up costing more than cable tv, if you want them all.

I dont know why consumers have such a hard-on to blame other consumers. Are you, brandonmenc a cable CEO? Are you make $$$ from gouging subscribers? I highly doubt it. So why the affinity?

Certainly you can see that the cable channels were overcharging, we had 100s of channels like the 'golf channel' with useless programming that were part of 'bundles' you couldn't unbundle and frankly, there were multiple lawsuits of cable companies overcharging incorrectly, not letting people out of contracts etc.

Consumers wanted more choice and control. For the briefest second they got it, but at that very moment when Hulu was independent and Netflix was streaming and GoogleTV was just starting to make a run for it.

At that moment, before Google even thought of chromecast and ABC couldn't give a shit about buying Hulu and telecom executives couldn't not understand dual screen viewing (where you're on your phone and watching TV at the same time) there were massive consulting and strategy meetings about not only recapturing the 'wallet' of spend, but increasing it. Discussing how to bring the spend of a household on cable (say 45-100/mo) to a higher number, to a per person segmentation rather than household.

Even if we did 'beg' for it. I dont think we begged to sift through titles and memberships in a way thats worse than blockbuster some nights.

Source: Was responsible for defining the second screen experience, merchandising shows in real time, etc.