Folks do tend to view from their own perspective. There are plenty of folks who only want their three C-Span channels and are upset about paying for network police procedurals they never watch. Like sci-fans get annoyed about paying for too many sportsball channels etc.. Thing is everyone is subsidizing everyone else's viewership. That might seem like crap, and streaming is a way better alternative. However, I think its important to look at it historically. Cable companies had to build the infrastructure to deliver the programming. So, the cost also covers that, which streamers don't have to worry about (outside user fees and taxes). We all (those who paid for cable over the years) really paved the way for this future. As cable cutters continue, it will only get more expensive and inconvenient to stream. Folks gotta get paid yo.
It wouldn't have bothered me if it wasn't so expensive. Cable bills continued to increase over time, but what were they adding? More sports channels. More reality TV channels. More 24 hour news channels. What did I watch? Sitcoms, cartoons, sci-fi. Did they add more of that? No, instead Sci-Fi channel rebranded itself as "SyFy" and added tons of reality TV, four episodes of
Crossing Over with John Edward in a row on Prime Time on Thursdays, and so on. Did I have the option of going with a different cable provider to get more of the content that I wanted? Also, no, cable providers have
de facto monopolies. I was paying $218 a month for their cheapest package -- $100 for the "high-speed" internet, and $118 mostly for garbage I didn't want.
When my wife introduced me to streaming services, Netflix and Hulu Plus for $8 a month, and Amazon Prime for $100 a year, I cut the cord with glee. If I could have mailed a turd in a burning paper bag to my cable provider's headquarters with my last package check, I would have paid through the nose for the privilege.
