It's a conflated term. There is the one you're working with, which is specifically about the technological method of distribution, and then there is the other meaning, which is used for content creation and licensing (and awards).
It is the second meaning which the author seems to imply and that I'm using here.
For example, the Emmy's (and the Hollywood Reporter, for example) consider NBC, ABC, HBO, Netflix, and Amazon to all be networks on equal footing.
It's not just about the technological method of distribution, it's about the structure of the entity, how it's regulated, etc. It's a pretty standard term and while it can have other meanings and the meaning can shift (as the strict original meaning becomes more, uh, meaningless), it seems weird to complain about that usage being somehow 'all over the place'. It means something most newspaper readers understand.
> For example, the Emmy’s (and the Hollywood Reporter, for example) consider NBC, ABC, HBO, Netflix, and Amazon to all be networks on equal footing.
The trade papers may use ‘network’ interchangeably in Ye Grand Tradition of old school Deadline slang for TV, but nobody in the industry would ever confuse networks (read: ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX) with cable/premium/streaming channels.
As the cable TV bundle starts to peter out, all of these entities are just effectively studios, i.e. entities with money that fund TV shows/movies with various exclusive distribution rights for some periods.
One of the questions becomes what does the new bundle look like? (or the a la carte package.) Because there are pretty clearly a limited number of monthly subscriptions that most consumers are willing to pay for especially if they're in the >$10 range.
Don't they license pretty much everything to Sky? NowTV costs about the same as Netflix, UX/UI is rubbish but you should get all their current HBO content.
