# Showtime plans to follow HBO with cable-free streaming in 2015



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

*Showtime plans to follow HBO with cable-free streaming in 2015*

(engadget.com) - Let's say that your premium cable-drama tastes range more toward Homeland or Masters of Sex than they do Game of Thrones or Girls. Good news, then! If you're getting tired of paying for access to the network on top of your monthly TV bill, that could change next year according to Wall Street Journal. On today's earnings call, CBS' chief executive officer Leslie Moonves said that standalone access to Showtime's programming was coming in 2015 "fairly definitively." It's a bit on the wishy-washy side of things, but it gives the outfit a chance to cover its rear should the requisite deals we'd imagine this requires not happen in time....

Full Story Here


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

The dam has started to crack...it's only a matter of time until it bursts.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Me thinks it has 'bursted'.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The thing about dams bursting... there tends to be a flood by those waiting downstream


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

It hasn't done squat IMHO. It will NOT be cheaper than traditional cable, then it won't be the DEAL everyone expects...


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

As for pricing - the market will (and should) determine that (unless the government mucks it up). If the perceived value is not there, the consumer will not buy and the delivery service will adjust pricing or go away. I don't think the current model of $6 to $10 per channel will hold up. In five years or so it may look very different than it does today. If not, I agree that the a la carte services will not survive.

Choice is good, and market forces will dictate price, however. I saw in a report yesterday that D* had a net loss of subs for the first time in years. In my case if I cut the cord today my bill would go down, not up. I would be able to watch the same content we currently watch except for some sports. And that sports programming is what is keeping me with D* - for now.....

It's the 'a la carte' idea that has millennials and other tech savvy folks cutting their cords. The dam _will_ burst if pricing becomes competitive.

As far as the whole 'bandwidth' issue factoring in - technology is always improving. Those issues are being solved and improving all the time. Look at cell phone technology over the last five years. Look at what will be done with phones over the next two years. Even AT&T and Verizon are partnering their data 'lines'. Cell phone 'bandwidth' doesn't look at all like it did just three years ago. T-Mobile broke the mold with their pricing model.

Technology will be solving all of these delivery systems relatively soon. And I'm enjoying watching the growing pains and improvements during this exciting time. It's sort of like it was when phones and TV were first invented. Everyone said they wouldn't survive, then they said TV would kill movies and radio. Neither has happened. Choice is always a good thing.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Athlon646464 said:


> As for pricing - the market will (and should) determine that (unless the government mucks it up). If the perceived value is not there, the consumer will not buy and the delivery service will adjust pricing or go away. I don't think the current model of $6 to $10 per channel will hold up. In five years or so it may look very different than it does today. If not, I agree that the a la carte services will not survive.
> 
> Choice is good, and market forces will dictate price, however. I saw in a report yesterday that D* had a net loss of subs for the first time in years. In my case if I cut the cord today my bill would go down, not up. I would be able to watch the same content we currently watch except for some sports. And that sports programming is what is keeping me with D* - for now.....
> 
> It's the 'a la carte' idea that has millennials and other tech savvy folks cutting their cords. The dam _will_ burst if pricing becomes competitive.


So far, both Showtime and HBO have been coy about how much they will charge. And they are in difficult spot, so I understand the coyness. If they charge less for direct subs to their streaming service and offer the same movies and series, plus live sports like boxing and such, then either the price that is charged by cable/sat for those channels would have a lot of downward pressure.

If what they offer is HBO Go/Sho Anytime, which isn't 'live' in any real sense of the word, then a lower cost might be supporable because of 'we offer less for less money' thinking. Gonna be interesting to see how that pans out.

As to the other $6-$10 per channel offerings, I can see nothing that makes those prices hold up. Way too much money for not enough content. In order to support those prices they'll have to 'bundle' some other channels. Shades of 'packages'!! 

Now about those younger folks. Unfortunately for most content providers, they are not watching TV much at all in any form. You can see it in the ratings and marketshare numbers that come out. The 18-49 year olds are the prime market the advertisers want to reach and yet that is the market that is not watching.

For us that like the cable/sat delivery system, and for those companies providing those services, the problem is becoming fewer shows we want to watch, but the fixed costs to get those few we like is still there. Expect more net sub losses over the coming years, which means those of us that subscribe will be paying a bigger portion of those fixed costs.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Now about those younger folks. Unfortunately for most content providers, they are not watching TV much at all in any form. You can see it in the ratings and marketshare numbers that come out. The 18-49 year olds are the prime market the advertisers want to reach and yet that is the market that is not watching.
> 
> *Agreed - isn't that about the content itself though? The industry needs to improve the content to compete with the other forms of entertainment they are using. They are distracted by their handheld devices today.*
> 
> ...


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Trying to find content the 18-49 year olds will find compelling seems to be a real struggle for the content providers.

Here's a real prime example. The show 'selfie' started out with good actors all wrapped up in the social networking via phones, yet in spite of being very current in content and having those good actors, it failed miserably. Didn't attract the younger folks, and didn't attract us older ones either.

The CW is all about the 18-49 year olds, yet they don't find marketshare either. Certainly some of that is caused by too many of the CW stations being on low-powered SD channels, but the CW is one of the easiest to get to on the 'net and watch in HD, yet reports are that it isn't getting much traction with all those shows aimed at the younger crowd.


Sent from my 23-n010 using Tapatalk


----------



## coolman302003 (Jun 2, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> If what they offer is HBO Go/Sho Anytime, which isn't 'live' in any real sense of the word,


Well to be fair, the Showtime Anytime app does currently offer Showtime East and West live feeds via streaming on the PC/Mac, mobile devices and the streaming media devices (Roku, Xbox 360, etc). Now, whether that would be included in the direct OTT streaming product...who knows really?


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

The dam has burst, though right now we've seen just a trickle of water. I'm trying to figure out the general thrust of the cost discussion here as it applies to me.

For reasons unrelated to TV, I already have, and must have, the hardware and the Comcast high speed internet connection needed for "TV" streaming services, so "cutting the cord" would give me the $17/mo basic costs associated with Dish service and boxes. That I can use for network subscriptions and to deal with Comcast on future issues of usage.

HBO and Showtime cost me $28/mo. We'll see how much more the online-only subscriptions for both would cost.

America's Top 120 costs $54.99 for me to get almost, but not quite, everything I want plus a whole lot I don't want.

It is a rare minute that I watch TV live.

The truth of the matter is I don't want more than on-demand access to HBO and Showtime shows and I'd start with $28 available to spend on them.

The truth of the matter is I don't want more than on-demand access to broadcast and cable network shows. Based on the CBS All Access $5/mo number, the $55 I spend now would give me 11 channels I want. It would be an unusual point in time that I am recording "must see TV" from 11 channels.

I do have advantages.

I won't be subsidizing cable sports channels which if left to the market as opposed to negotiated agreements with providers would be at least as expensive as the premium channels such as HBO and Showtime.

If Disney/ABC/ESPN tries to tie ABC with ESPN, I don't need ABC or any Disney-owned service though there are two current shows I would miss if they disappeared from HULU+.

In the next decade I fully expect that the majority of viewers will continue to watch the broadcast and cable channels via cable/satellite and the home entertainment market will continue to evolve. By the end of the decade, I'll likely be dead. So for me "cutting the cord" in "a few" months is looking more and more likely.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I won't say that I'll never 'cut the cord', but it won't be real soon.

I could cut HBO/SHO when they come out with their streaming service. And depending on price and how they do the boxing I like on them, I might just do that.

I wonder if HBO is going to make it a HBO/MAX combo or some such? Same question for SHO/TMC though that's not all that much of a combo.

Starz I can take or leave, same with Epix, because Netflix could fill almost that entire bill.

Right now my streaming is to the big screen as I don't actually enjoy watching on 10" and smaller screens. And it is a combo of 'home media' via the Hopper and PlayOn server I use, and my AppleTV.

To fully cut the cord the price would have to be inline or lower than I pay now, and a single box solution to all of it. Right now there is not a single 'one box that fits all' out there. HTPC and other solutions have not done all that well primarily because of the inherent fiddlyness of using them.

So I suppose I could say that if/when cutting the cord is either cheap enough or a single box to do almost all that I can with a HWS, I'll switch. Until then, I most likely won't.


Sent from my Surface with Windows 8 Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

HBO and showtime will not be cheaper for the same content than what it costs if you get it through a cable company etc. in fact it'll be the same or more imho.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> HBO and showtime will not be cheaper for the same content than what it costs if you get it through a cable company etc. in fact it'll be the same or more imho.


If that turns out to be correct, then there is no value at all to it, at least for me.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

You are not the target though. People who don't already have cable or sat are the targets.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Exactly... they aren't looking to cannibalize their own customers... they want to add customers... so they will price it so that it doesn't make sense to cancel your pay-TV account to get it... but if you don't have pay-TV you might subscribe to the streaming service.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

While pay-TV subscribers may not be the target, for many of us who already have for other reasons the necessary equipment and internet service to cut the cord, the first thing we notice is that $15-25/mo for service and equipment. Then comes that $45-$65 to get access to no more than 35 hours of shows a week mostly on ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, PBS, and The CW, and six cable channels. The premiums such as HBO, Showtime, etc., will be competing with Netflix and Amazon, so the monthly pricing will face limits.

In my area the current competition is Comcast's Xfinity, Dish Network, and DirecTV all of which are by nature of their design hostages to the ESPN/Disney form of negotiations.

If my choice is Disney/ABC/ESPN channels/packages ranging from $20 to $40 or CBS/Showtime/Viacom (and maybe Sony) channels/packages ranging from $15 to $30 - well, I can imagine the marketing potential if the customers commitment begins with the equipment and service they already have.


----------

