Oh Look, More Cord Cutters: Time Warner Cable Loses 155,000 TV Subscribers
from the that-river-in-egypt-keeps-growing dept
Back in August, we wrote about a NY Times article insisting that the cable companies had beaten the internet and the idea that people would "cut the cord" and get their TV from the internet was something of a myth. The centerpiece of the story was a single anecdote of a guy who tried to just watch TV on the internet, but went back to cable. Because, you know, a single anecdote must represent a trend. We noted the irony that the day after that article came out, reports broke that cable TV had suffered its first ever decline in subscribers.And since then, the evidence of cord cutting has only grown. We noted recently that Comcast had lost 275,000 video subscribers, which they tried to explain away by blaming "the economy." Of course, the economy was a lot worse last year. And, now, Time Warner Cable has released the news that it's lost 155,000 TV subscribers. But cord cutting isn't real, right?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cable, cord cutting, tv
Companies: time warner cable
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Anecdotes
I am surprised we can figure out what these companies are trying to claim. You know, given that their heads are buried in the sand!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't have cable, but that killed the last reason that I might have picked it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Eats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good Eats
Sometimes, lower resolution is actually better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I will check out the Clicker site though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Go Beast Master !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"This is the age of consumer electronics and personal 'choice of lifestyle'" they cry, "where's my gadget that does what I want not what someone else tells me it should? Where can I buy that gadget?"
NOT as 'the other side' often has it "I want stuff for free!" for this group of people, but instead "I know what it's worth to me and have a [perceived] notion of what the exact thing I want costs to acheive- and no I don't want those extra things YOU think I should have".
This is where I somewhat dissagree with the "infinite goods" argument often made here - I think you can directly make a profit out of an "infinite good" and sell it to people. I do agree you can't sell it for much whether you try and artificially force the price or not.
I think the first company to work out a business model to use all these technologies and use concepts like micro-payments (also mentioned here a number of times I've noticed) successfully will make a fortune. Probably a bigger fortune than trying to charge people for non-agile or personal "packages" they don't use 3/4 of for prices the increasingly value-savvy users know are inflated. And as an added bonus I think it would do far more to reduce "piracy" than increaingly draconian laws and ever more ridiculous DRM that doesn't work and "Bundling" of junk to try and increase percieved value.
/rant
*what an appaling word... am I allowed to make them up like that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is a psychological aspect to price points, which is why you see TV ads for items in $5 increments (minus $.01), with $19.99 the most common. Granted, they make up for it with "shipping and handling" - but that isn't what makes the sale. The smallest increment of the pattern is $.99.
Granted, there are exceptions to this rule of thumb, but these price points have shown to sell the best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Rob, if that is truly the case, I would like to recommend the Roku box for you. I gave up TV subscription for the first time in 29 years 2 years ago, and never looked back; the exact specific example (Mad Men in HD) is available through the Roku box @ $2.99 per episode ($1.99 for SD), and each episode is available the night after it airs.
Picture is crystal clear, sounds is excellent, and buffering the episode takes less than 1 min to get started.
I have yet to find a program from any major provider (besides HBO) that is not offered through the Roku-Amazon-on-Demand program. It's really cool, and now that you know about it you can make good on the fact that you would rather pay for content than pirate it! Hope you enjoy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you pay $80 per month, that's $20 per week. If you watch 10 shows per week (that would be high in my family), you are paying $2 each for them. It's about the going rate, and a la carte does cost a bit more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My post pointed out the fact that it is indeed available in the format that he wants. While I've been running around on the tubes here for a decade and a half, I've done my fair share of entitlement arguments (Fuck the record labels, I already paid for this album in vinyl/cassette/CD, no reason I should pay a fourth time! etc)
I still believe those people to be myopic bullies as they try to litigate business models, but I also have grown up a bit and recognize that your own attitude "lolz yuo are teh n00b for paying for content zomgwtfbbq!!11!1" is also inherently "wrong" in not actually paying for something that you enjoy consuming when you have the ability to do so.
Paying for an 18Mbps connection has nothing to do with paying the asking price for a TV episode. One of these things is not like the other. You also paint yourself with a rather unpleasant brush when you espouse an irrelevant 'point' in a discussion that you weren't a part of (again, the OP mentioned that he would indeed pay for content if he could do so. He can.)
I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why? Other than it being illegal, why is it wrong? Or is that the only reason (your use of the word "inherent" sounds to me like legality is not what you have in mind)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess I meant that it is "wrong" not to pay the price that is being asked for a good/service/content when you have the ability to do so. Going back to the OP, he indicates that he WANTS to pay, and clearly the AMC folks WANT to be paid...doesn't that garner a sense of "wrongness" with you if, given those parameters, someone decides that they are exempt from paying and takes what they want with no compensation? I dunno...seems like a lot of food for a lot of thought, and that there really aren't going to be any easy answers for any of us.
As for the dick hole who didn't get the Billy Madison reference, grow up, go outside, and learn to be an adult. Religion IS ridiculous and stupid in my opinion as well, but could you REALLY think of nothing better to do with your time than to be pedantic on a message without contributing anything relevant or helpful to the discussion? Go help your mom do the dishes or something instead next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, nobody is saying that.
the money to pay the actors & directors comes from somewhere, right?
Yes! However, it doesn't have to come from selling copies of digital files. And probably shouldn't, because that business has a limited future.
I guess I meant that it is "wrong" not to pay the price that is being asked for a good/service/content when you have the ability to do so.
OK. Why? Just poking you to examine your opinion, not trying to convince you you're wrong.
doesn't that garner a sense of "wrongness" with you if, given those parameters, someone decides that they are exempt from paying and takes what they want with no compensation?
If he's not depriving anyone of anything? Not really. I don't do it myself, but I don't feel someone is doing something wrong if they download something they wouldn't have bought anyway.
seems like a lot of food for a lot of thought, and that there really aren't going to be any easy answers for any of us.
The controversy will continue for a time. My understanding is that people under about 20 see absolutely no problem with downloading everything they consume without paying. If that's true, the future is already written, and it's just a matter of who wants to read it and get ready for it, and who wants to ignore it (or scream about it).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The missing bit is "value". In theory in a capitalist market on average the customers are supposed to set what they are willing to pay for an item or service, based on how they "value" it - the old theory "the customer is always right". What media and/or cable companies do is use artificial monopolies to try and force the price higher but as technology makes it easier and easier to see the falseness of the scarcity they are less willing to pay the monopoly pricing.
That's not to say I think media should necessarily be free, but the price should be based somewhere near reality rather than "this is what we've always been able to charge". And no I don't think there's any "obligation", moral or otherwise to pay for something ephemeral. To play devil's advocate for a moment, you could turn it around and suggest that media companies are "wrong" not to give content away for free - copies don't cost anything and it's "for the public good", right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To the guy who said that the future may already be written by the 20-somethings, that's a spot-on perspective...but I also think that people's points of view change as they get older as well.
You're also exactly right (in my opinion) that the content providers are panicking and hoping to use ridiculous/draconian/archaic/borderline-illegal methods to prop up their failing business models, and I wish those companies long and painful deaths as the rest of the world moves forward towards the future.
Finally, I also agree that just because "we always have" priced things that way, it's no guarantee that it "should" or will continue to be priced that way. However, the market for Hollywood productions has *already* been established - and while the occasional independent movie can provide far more entertainment value for my dollar (think smaller Jason Reitman-style productions compared to Michael Bay), I don't personally see a way for a show like Mad Men (the original example and one that I love) to make ANY money if they gave away every episode and never charged anyone anything for the viewing of the show...you know? I mean, I guess they could sell MM branded apparel like a band, but I really don't see them able to sustain a high-quality show like that if they gave away everything. Do you? I'm not trying to be inflammatory - it's an honest question...and I'm sure there IS an answer, I've just not heard one I put much faith in as yet.
Here's another dichotomy I struggle with...as criminal as I think media companies attempts to legislate their business models to relevance are, it seems to me that the signal-to-noise ratio of "excellent" content vs. "garbage amateur production crapola" is massively high now...so high that unless a "maven" points me to something clever or entertaining on youtube, I'm not about to spend countless minutes/hours slogging through the tripe to find the filet. As much as I want to argue against it, there seems to be some value in concept of a 'gatekeeper' that filters out the shit.
Oh, and as long as we are all dreaming, I'd like a pony...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think I'd hold out for more than 25 quid if I were you..... at least a monkey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I really don't see them able to sustain a high-quality show like that if they gave away everything. Do you?
No idea! However, I do think over time people will make high quality entertainment, and get paid for it. Maybe not the same people who are doing it now. Probably nobody will make the huge quantities of money the top earners make now, but they'll make enough. Many people will try and fail, because they don't figure out how to give the audience something they're willing to pay for. But I think others will succeed, and all we need to do is keep the current incumbents from getting in their way.
It may sound pie in the sky, but two things I'm basing this on: 1. lots of people want to make the content (TV, movies, music, everything) and many of them are good at it, and 2. millions, if not billions, of people want good content, and a big percentage of those have at least some money they can spend. Put those two things together, and it's just inevitable (IMO) someone will figure out how to make the content and get the money.
Here's another dichotomy I struggle with...as criminal as I think media companies attempts to legislate their business models to relevance are, it seems to me that the signal-to-noise ratio of "excellent" content vs. "garbage amateur production crapola" is massively high now...there seems to be some value in concept of a 'gatekeeper' that filters out the shit.
Yes, but that should be your own personally-tuned filter based on what you like, not a corporate overlord gatekeeper deciding what everyone gets to see based on what he thinks will get him the most yachts. Clearly we're not there yet.
Oh, and as long as we are all dreaming, I'd like a pony...
I want a really fast car, but to each his own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do not need any points, I will just fill up on 1s and 0s, that's all they are.
I just love it when religion crops up into the matter, like it really means something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Networks need to come to the realization that nobody care about their shitty network or their meaningless time slots. They want specific shows whenever they feel like watching them. Regions, times, networks, etc... all that is meaningless these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I WOULD pay for the service if I could do the same thing legitimately though, just to be clear; I already send donations to a few torrent sites for their service...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now I have a 32' paperweight while my laptop is used for school and entertainment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just cut the cord last night
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just cut the cord last night
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Denial and rationalization ... gotta love them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Next comes anger. You don't have cable, you must be a pirate. You don't have a TV, oh you must be a pirate. You want to cut off your service, expect a call from our lawyers.
Then comes bargaining. I'll pay you $10,000 to add a cable requirement to ACTA.
I don't know what comes after stage three, none of the old media outlets have reached it yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You have a situation in which no LEGAL product will actually give you want you want. Torrents? Yup - everything you want would be available - mostly in HD.
Of course, you will still need to get an internet connection (I recommend the AT&T dsl right now - $20 per month if available in your area). This is till the biggest problem in the US - if you have more than one option for high-speed internet, you still only have two. I lived for a decade in an area that only had Comcast - I couldn't even get a basic DSL. What were my available options for competition? Yup - dial up or a capped $150 per month wireless account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where is the Subscription Money Going?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This option, coupled with Tivo, is cost effective and uncomplicated. Add in Internet streaming and downloads for premium content and movies and you have a complete package for a very reasonable price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if they lose tv customers, they still win...
No matter what we do, they win. They can even use these numbers to their advantage when they jack up the prices: "In light of losing 155,000 paying customers, we're going to have to charge more for our service so that you don't have to lose channels you were already getting..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even if they lose tv customers, they still win...
I've tried to cut back on my channels from Time Warner, but if I reduce down to a standard tier, I'm paying more per month because I'm out of a bundled package. It's a lose-lose situation, as I'm not about to totally cut the cord.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even if they lose tv customers, they still win...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The thing is I cut the cord a decade ago and recently stopped watching shows, I will respect those cable producers wishes and not pirate their shows is not a big deal anyways.
That way I'm clearly saying f. you to them.
And that was a good thing, I don't miss anything, I don't now what is hot on TV anymore, but I still find good entertainment.
The road for freedom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCPEBM5ol0Q
The lesson of the video is that if you want freedom you need to work for it, it is time to start making our own entertainment and give it the respect it deserves even if it is crappier at the moment.
More and more I find myself attracted to the DIY lifestyle.
I was watching the PBS-NOVA Absolute Zero on YouTube and about 30 minutes in it tells the history of the ice market and how it got destroyed by the refrigerator, well I think those companies will be destroyed by technology also and the last nail will be when internet company producers start to pop out left and right then nobody will want to watch what those old companies are producing anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting read ... esp the comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I had a cord to cut
So not only do you have people cutting the cord, you have people like me who order internet only.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I had a cord to cut
Yaaaay !!! no longer living in the basement ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cant cut the cable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cant cut the cable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: cant cut the cable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: cant cut the cable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cant cut the cable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wanted to watch "The Walking Dead" the other night when it started, but it was only available on Cable T.V. (which I don't have) or I could pay $3 per episode on Itunes. No way. They finally put it on Hulu, and then stated that they wouldn't stream any more episodes there after the first one. Do these execs really think that they're making the right decisions? Do they really think that people are going to sign up for Cable just to watch this? Put it online and add commercials, I'll watch it. Charge 99 Cents to buy it and I'll buy it...create a subscription service for the networks and they'll make money from us. But no, greed abounds as usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can easily get it off torrent sites, "cyberlockers" etc.
Just search for;
"The.Walking.Dead.S01E01.Days.Gone.Bye.HDTV.XviD-FQM"
"The.Walking.Dead.S01E02.Guts.HDTV. XviD-FQM"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TimeWarner Cord-Cutters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TimeWarner Cord-Cutters
That's exactly the knife the content companies are holding at the throats of the cable companies. At least in the markets where customers have more than a single option.
Just wait until the next round of contract renewals. This time it was Cablevision. Maybe next it will be yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TimeWarner Cord-Cutters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dog Food?
TWC deserves all the shit that comes their way, they participate in that MPAA threat letter nonsense, how's the shit tasting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These companies have time and time again shown that they want to screw the customers over anything and would prefer small caps, heavy penalties, and major price increases
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sorry cable, your almost obsolete, and if it wasn't for other, less internet savvy people in my house, there would be no cable, only the the internets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wouldn't mind paying for HBO, etc. but out of ~200 channels of basic/extended cable I pay for as a pre-requisite to those channels, I watch exactly 2 channels. Discovery Science and Comedy Central. I get all my news online. There is nothing they have to say that I want to hear on FOX, NBC, CBS, etc...
So I called and asked them when they are going to allow me to pay for the Sci and comedy channels along with the movie channels and drop the rest of the failed garbage they push on me... Answer: "We will probably never allow that. People would only have a few channels if we did allow it." My response: "Haha... if that's all they watch and all that they find value in paying for, maybe that says something important about the majority of that channels you carry."
So yeah, when they figure out how to let us pay for what we want and drop the fail that we hate and don't want to support... they can call me back and I might bite if I haven't already downloaded everything I could possibly ever want to watch and negated the need for them entirely.
I could buy a 1TB HDD/month and spend the other $100 on a dedicated fiber line and still be about $30 ahead of what I pay for cable TV/data right now from TWC. Oh wait. I guess I should just do that. Dinosaurs are meant to go extinct...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh come on glen beck is amusing in a weird everything he says creeps me out sort of way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You Know...
All of the cable companies' ads talk about how its perfect reception, even during the rain! Yes I'll admit that when I had DirectTV it was a little glitchy during a rainstorm.
What they dont tell you, is that all of their main feeds are satellite fed, as all TV companies are.
Without fail, at 1 in 3 climaxes in movies, the signal will glitch, and skip forward 10 seconds. Just long enogh to miss Optimus Prime tear off the face of that Deceptacon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You Know...
I've been in a room with a satellite TV and a cable TV during a bad thunderstorm, and only one of them had a picture, a perfect picture, whereas the other just had some box about trying to reacquire the satellite signal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Entertainment media is simply going to die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about all the non-connectors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its not the Economy 'stupid'
'It's NOT the economy STUPID'
which they tried to explain away by blaming "the economy." Of course, the economy was a lot worse last year.
Alot worse was it, and the ONLY reason why they cut their cables is because there is something better. Not because YOU KNOW, they might want to keep their house, or maybe buy some food.
Or even save a bit of money incase they become on of the about 10% unemployed you have at present. !!!
Maybe they might consider health insurance a little more important in this age, that cable TV !!!.
But No according to Mike, that has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT..
BTW, I guess you are 'sort of right' in Oct 2009 unemployment was just on 10% and now it is only 9.7% and not improving.
But no it was not the economy, no it was all those people deciding that they wanted to spend their money on another service.
Not that they wanted to keep some money just incase things kept GETTING WORSE, as it is in your country at the present time.
To make the claim that it has nothing to do with the economic conditions in the USA, then that only shows me and others that you are VERY VERY out of touch with reality.
Perhaps you should stop drinking your own cool aid, and you know, read a newpaper, and watch a news program once a year or so..
You do yourself ZERO credit, not considering the economic conditions of your country when making such outlandish claims.
Or are you in some kind of denial that there is a major crisis occuring in America, and that alot of people are suffering.
And you're trying to cash in on that and gain some brownie points by attacking cable !!!.. Wake up Mike, or grow up..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its not the Economy 'stupid'
Your comments belie the fact that you have no knowledge of how humans work. Even during roman times the poor would go the the Colosseum for bread and circus because they were starving and wanted food AND entertainment.
Here are some facts for you:
Certain areas of the country, Texas and Massachusetts are actually creating jobs right now.
I know math isn't easy for many people to get, but .3% of millions of people is a lot of people and jobs. Even during the great depression 3 out of 4 people were employed.
This was a global economic crisis except for area where there wasn't an entrenched system already. China and South America which ignore IP or use open source options actually grew in their economies.
I'd read a newspaper, but I can't seem to find one except for my local one. Maybe it's behind a paywall?
I'm a Time Warner customer and cutting the cord is becoming increasingly popular through Netflix. We watch exactly 2 shows on TV and the network is changing one of the channels my wife watches to a channel she won't watch. That leaves exactly one show we watch....for $40 a month. It's a work out program, does that seem equitable to you?
Also you missed the point entirely of what Mike was saying. He was saying that because the global meltdown has forced people to make cuts they have evaluated the worth they are getting from their services and found that they are able to get what they want for less money with less hassle on a service they already have. How does this ignore a financial belt tightening?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Its not the Economy 'stupid'
I will keep plugging the anti-darryl script until someone tells me they like it or tells me to shut up. :-)
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1_DWYEIhgMK54_sBDMj5UnuW0bHmdADnCY3099_9ffFg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Its not the Economy 'stupid'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Its not the Economy 'stupid'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I cut the cord
I had satellite TV since about 1997: DirecTV 1997-2001; DishNetwork 2003-2010. For a long time, I found interesting things to watch. However! Over the last several years I have found less and less to watch while the price kept going up. I had considered unsubscribing for over a year, but had not taken any action on it.
In September My DVR harddisk bit the dust, thus disabling my ability to receive the satellite signal. I called Dish to ask about repair/replacement. They quoted me a price that, after shipping, would be close to $100. That sealed the deal for me. I unsubscribed.
There was a short war with the "retentions" department, but in the end I said: "Turn it off!"
What I have found since is that Netflix (physical media. I run Linux and there's no Netflix software for Linux) and just not watching anything resembling "TV" programming at all has given me some time back to pursue other interests. I'm happy I cut 'em off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cable TV in the Philippines
The only American TV I get is via the Asian versions of HBO, Cinemax, etc. and a local provider called "Solar" which seems to be 3 or 4 weeks in showing current specific popular TV series.
I find getting TV shows to be a lot easier via torrents - even if the same shows appear through other avenues because things like recurring brownouts prevent me from being able to see them using traditional methods.
If it wasn't for the wife, the cable never would have been installed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
C ya Cable - Wouldn't want to be ya!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]