|
|
Post by PaulKay on Oct 16, 2014 12:18:02 GMT -5
Both HBO and CBS have announced that they will offer subscriptions for their content via internet streaming. HBO of course doesn't have advertising, but CBS plans to include ads with most of their content. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't dream of paying a subscription if I'd still be subjected to advertising.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 16, 2014 12:37:16 GMT -5
Why subscribe there are plenty with out subscribing.
Remember way back when cable first started the promise was no advertising.
All of the free streaming sites cut the advertising out. Subscription entertainment is failing <see cable> I think that things will have to go back to embedded ads more like TV of the 50s. Remember the Lone Ranger pushing Wonder Bread "build healthy bodies 12 ways" or the Kraft Mystery Hour.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 16, 2014 12:44:16 GMT -5
This was inevitable, content providers freeing themselves from the delivery prison of cable. Would I subscribe? Hell, yes for only the channels that matter to me. I'd get rid of Comcast in a heartbeat. All of our TV now comes through Netflix. I'd love to have Fox News and a couple sports channels (they'd have to change the stupid blackout rules that prevent me from watching my hometown teams) and I'd be set. For a quarter of the cost of 800 cable channels I could care less about.
This development has to be keeping the cable companies up at night. Well, that and figuring out new and improved methods of torturing subscribers.
|
|
|
|
Post by dickt on Oct 16, 2014 13:00:25 GMT -5
HBO subscribers have been able to stream HBO content for years with HBO Go on mobile devices.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 16, 2014 13:03:13 GMT -5
HBO subscribers have been able to stream HBO content for years with HBO Go on mobile devices. But do you first have to be an HBO subscriber through your cable company? A lot of channels let you watch on all kinds of devices but the first thing they'll ask you when you sign up is who your cable provider is. |
|
|
|
Post by dickt on Oct 16, 2014 13:04:07 GMT -5
Remember way back when cable first started the promise was no advertising. Way back when cable first started in rural areas all you got were better signals for up to a whopping 12 broadcast channels with all of the glorious commercials. That's what I had in Charlottesville in 1969-72. Two ABC's from Richmond and Harrisonburg, one NBC, one CBS, one independent (channel 20 out of DC), and one public broadcasting channel, with one useless local cable channel. |
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 16, 2014 13:22:52 GMT -5
I know as cheap as I am I wouldn't have signed up for the $6.95 pr mo except for the promise of no ads and free installation.
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulKay on Oct 16, 2014 13:36:10 GMT -5
For me, I record virtually everything I watch on DVR and jump past 100% of the commercials. I know that all video you see on just about any internet news site has an Ad that runs and except for YouTube, you can'd jump past it. Streaming channels like CBS most assuredly will force you watch the commercials whether you want to or not. So for me, it is a step backward AND I'd have to pay for the privilege. So no way Jose.
Streaming HBO on the other hand I would do if it cost less than what they charge on cable every month. $6.99 for HBO would be better than $12.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 16, 2014 14:10:51 GMT -5
Like Dick, I remember early cable as a way of delivering broadcast TV to fringe-and-beyond areas--it was CATV, community antenna television. Premium services like HBO were added later, then "superstations" like TBS and WGN. When we signed up decades ago, it was mostly to get decent reception of the Twin Cities PBS station so we could record the BBC Shakespeare plays on the VCR we bought expressly for that purpose. Other time-shifting (and fast-forwarding through commercials) was a bonus. Now Tivo watches for us and we don't have to arrange our schedules to suit those of the networks and we rarely see more than the first few seconds of a commercial.
Getting streaming video would require a considerable upgrade of our internet service--something I'm not interested in right now, since the fastest infrastructure is owned by the local cable monopoly. We just pay the cable bill and get so much content that I had to add a gigabyte of storage to accomodate stuff like 14 hours of The Roosevelts along with our usual diet of murder and mayhem and documentaries about pyramids and supernovas and digging up Richard III. (It also helps that we are three blocks from a university library that acquires pretty much everything that Cezarija requests.)
|
|
|
|
Post by dickt on Oct 16, 2014 14:32:05 GMT -5
Russ,
Even our lowly DSL 1 megabit connection does a decent job of streaming Netflix. Not the highest definition picture, mind you, but perfectly watchable. But I must say that we don't watch much for our $8.99 a month. The interface is really crappy for searching/selecting shows and it's hard to find anything to watch other than say Brit TV series or other things that aren't on our Directv channels. My daughter--50 miles away--uses the same account and watches a lot of Netflix so I guess someone is getting our money's worth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Oct 16, 2014 14:37:46 GMT -5
We subscribe t Netfix. My wife uses it a lot an I use it a couple of times a year.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 16, 2014 14:48:08 GMT -5
What I need is more TV in my life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Oct 16, 2014 14:57:53 GMT -5
Currently 34% of all internet traffic right now is Netflix. I'm curious as to what happens when all the major cable channels start streaming their video instead of just a few. Eventually we will max out the bandwidth of the Internet. Pretty hard to argue net neutrality when 100% of the net is clogged up with video streaming (and porn) and nothing is left over for stuff like medical data monitoring or financial transactions or guitar forums. Seems a shame to dump a method of data transmission that can transmit gazillions of chunks of data simultaneously (as well as Internet) and then turn all that bandwidth off and just try to send it all through that one little fraction that is doing the internet currently.
|
|
|
|
Post by dickt on Oct 16, 2014 14:59:56 GMT -5
Currently 34% of all internet traffic right now is Netflix. I'm curious as to what happens when all the major cable channels start streaming their video instead of just a few. Eventually we will max out the bandwidth of the Internet. Pretty hard to argue net neutrality when 100% of the net is clogged up with video streaming (and porn) and nothing is left over for stuff like medical data monitoring or financial transactions or guitar forums. Seems a shame to dump a method of data transmission that can transmit gazillions of chunks of data simultaneously (as well as Internet) and then turn all that bandwidth off and just try to send it all through that one little fraction that is doing the internet currently. 34 percent is Netflix and 44 percent is cute cat videos. |
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 16, 2014 16:00:14 GMT -5
I guess I already do because I have Amazon Prime and that's one benefit. Unfortunately they have a limited number of "Free" movies and shows.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Oct 16, 2014 16:26:16 GMT -5
I guess I already do because I have Amazon Prime and that's one benefit. Unfortunately they have a limited number of "Free" movies and shows. I'd be happy getting rid of cable and doing all my viewing on Amazon Prime. I'd miss the Bears games, but I could live with that. But Jadene won't even consider it. She wants fresh TV. And getting in the way of her NCIS which is not available on Prime is life threatening. There are a ton of free movies on Prime, but not much that I'd actually want to watch or haven't already seen. The TV series have a lot to offer though. I've found probably better than a dozen shows that I really liked and then had to watch (or am still watching) all the way through. That can take a while for shows that have run for years. For people like me who don't watch a whole lot of TV, the Prime series offers a lot of shows that are brand new - to me. One of these days I have to start back in on The West Wing. The show is only about 20 years old. Practically brand new. |
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 16, 2014 16:33:28 GMT -5
Part of the reason that Netflix and other streaming-video services eat up such a large fraction of our internet bandwidth is that the telecom and cable companies have not bothered to invest in rolling out last-mile optical broadband. (I believe most of the backbone is already optical.) And when, say, a municipality decides to make such things part of the public infrastructure the cablecos go ballistic and try to smother it, sometimes at the state level, where it's easier to buy politicians in bulk.
From what I've (not very systematically) read, we are far from the most advanced industrial nation in this tech area--Romania, for example, has about twice the average access speed. (The city-states of Hong Kong and Singapore have nearly three times, but those are real outliers.) Our cheap-ass DSL runs around 1.3 mbs, and I wouldn't want to watch anything at that speed--might as well just use YouTube. Charter Cable might take shameless pricing advantage of their monopoly position in our market, but their technical quality is generally passable, and I've gotten spoiled by even mid-level HD video.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 16, 2014 18:23:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Oct 16, 2014 21:34:35 GMT -5
Cable companies are a result of bad regulation. When the telco I worked for asked people what they wanted in TV, (they have rolled out an ADSL TV service, very successfully,) what people wanted was to pick what they wanted. However, the regulators in the US and Canada believe we should all be forced to have various channels that no one wants, in order to "better service the public." That no one wants either the Women's network, or the Aboriginal channel, is unimportant. That may be politically incorrect, but it's the truth.
The CRTC, the Canuckistan regulator, tried to force Netflix to hand over their subscriber lists, to figure out how to get them into the regulated fold. Netflix said up yours.
Regulatory bodies never put themselves out of business, even if they should be. But this is one that's going to go down.
As far as Sports go, every single major league offers monthly packages for games. And there is Netflix, and a host of other folks. They don't need the big providers anymore.
But Tramp's point is a good one - at what point do all those folks who are making money delivering that content, have to pay for what they consume? They get a free ride now. When the Telcos lose the ability to make money elsewhere, you know where they'll go looking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lonnie on Oct 17, 2014 8:56:10 GMT -5
I subscribe to Netflix and I love it. Streaming and the one DVD package. The only time I watch broadcast TV is for football games. And once in a blue moon CNN if I'm feeling particularly masochistic.
|
|
