# CBS all access commercial free



## IndyMichael (Jan 25, 2003)

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=526505004209830&id=232043966989270


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Good Lord!! To get commercial free you get to pay $4 more on top of the already inflated price.

Sorry, no sale.

Sent from my samus using Tapatalk


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Right now, I am watching one show on CBS. Period.

_No sale!_


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I think they're trying to count on Trekkies paying for this.


----------



## IndyMichael (Jan 25, 2003)

I don't mind paying a few bucks more for commercial free. I did the same as soon as Hulu offered it.


----------



## bobcnn (Nov 10, 2007)

I wouldn't mind the commercials on CBS All Access, or on Hulu, if it wasn't the same 3 or 4 commercials over and over.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

IndyMichael said:


> I don't mind paying a few bucks more for commercial free. I did the same as soon as Hulu offered it.


Yes, I don't think those that quickly dismiss this get the point.

First, you get your local CBS channel streaming live, but with ads. For the "cord cutter" that addresses the worry that you can't see local disaster news live.

Then you get to stream CBS shows without ads, more or less. I went to the *AdWeek story* because they do have advertisers as an audience. Indeed you do get to view without ads with the following exception:



> The release said "select on-demand shows"-less than 10 percent of the total episodes available on CBS All Access-will include 15-second promos for CBS content. Subscribers will see a maximum off 30 seconds of promos per half hour.


The fact is with this CBS announcement you can cut the cord and along with a Hulu subscription have access to shows that appear on the four broadcast networks. But the appeal is more than just cutting the cord. While the new "Star Trek" appeals to many viewers, the fact is that shows which appeal to a limited but dedicated audience can be aired only on streaming - they don't have to sacrifice lucrative prime time ads that support shows which appeal to viewers that advertisers want to attract different kinds of viewers.

An example is that in 2017 they will be airing on CBS All Access a spinoff of "The Good Wife" starring Christine Baranski as Diane Lockhart, Cush Jumbo as Lucca Quinn, and Carrie Preston as the quirky Elsbeth Tascioni, ...and... maybe an occasional appearance from Julianna Margulies as Alicia Florrick in the courtroom as opposing counsel. "The Good Wife" had a dedicated audience and this show will probably attract them.

It may be one way in the 21st Century to maintain a broadcast network while attracting "trekkies" and "wife-ies".

Sure, $9.99 for CBS - plus $11.99 for Hulu to access ABC, NBC, Fox, and some cable net content - may seem expensive. But how I look at it goes something like this:

$11.99 - Hulu
$ 9.99 - CBS All Access
$ 8.99 - Netflix
$ 4.99 - Acorn TV
$35.96 - Total

That combination will give me a lot of original and British/Australian/New Zealand/Canadian/European content not available from cable/satellite. PBS streaming is free for now. Since I have been an Amazon Prime customer for a very long time, I also have it for free, sort of. And I can subscribe to premiums such as HBO, Showtime, and Starz

This whole thing is a work in progress. Some cable channel content is still not available online without a cable/satellite subscription but the original streaming source content is not available to cable only customers. You need a decent high speed internet connection which for me does not represent an additional cost because I'd have it no matter what. And a Roku, Apple TV, or Amazon Fire TV box hardwired to the home network is preferable, though the "sticks" on wifi do work for many. Most importantly, then you don't need to have a DVR to watch content without ads.

This ad free CBS All Access option is the one piece I needed to feel comfortable that I can achieve my goal to in May 2017 to drop my Dish subscription.


----------



## MichaelP (Dec 5, 2006)

I believe the idea behind what CBS is doing is a good one. My only real complaint with the service is, of course, the damn ads. In one 45 minute episode I might see the same 3 ads 6 or 8 times. It's just tiresome. At $10 a month, I certainly won't be upgrading to the new tier. 

In my opinion what CBS ought to do, instead of raising the price to get no ads, only show ads for the most recent 2 or 3 seasons of a series. If I'm watching episodes from the 1st season of NCIS, I shouldn't have to watch ads. But if it's the most recent season, sure, I'll watch a few ads. I also really like the live stream of the local CBS affiliate.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I would not mind commercial free streaming of all seasons without a monthly fee. But I do not get to set the prices for other people's services. 

CBS will charge what the market will bear. Apparently enough people are paying $5.99 that they feel they can charge $9.99 for the less commercial option. Some bean counter is doing the math and balancing the loss of ad revenue against the additional fee.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

I know of a way most people can cut the cord and get CBS for free. It is called an antenna.

No sale. The ongoing question for Trekies is when this flops will CBS pull the plug or move the show to the CW. 

Anybody who thinks that ST will not one, be on 10000 internet sites, for free, seconds after release and forever, and two, will eventually be offered by CBS legally on normal linear TV (i.e. TBS), physical media (i.e. Red Box), and less expensive internet sites is naive.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

SamC said:


> I know of a way most people can cut the cord and get CBS for free. It is called an antenna.


I'm not sure what "most" means, but for well over half of TV homes that's true. For the rest of us, we'll have to pay. Either way, to watch it "without" commercials one will need a DVR.



SamC said:


> The ongoing question for Trekies is when this flops will CBS pull the plug or move the show to the CW.


This won't happen IMHO. They might not make a second season, but the reality for streaming is that you have to put the season on line before you can get a real measurement of its viewers. Just ask Netflix with whom CBS All Access is competing, not the Fox broadcast channel.



SamC said:


> Anybody who thinks that ST will not one, be on 10000 internet sites, for free, seconds after release and forever, and two, will eventually be offered by CBS legally on normal linear TV (i.e. TBS), physical media (i.e. Red Box), and less expensive internet sites is naive.


Sure, like the successful Netflix shows it will be pirated. And regarding where else it "eventually" might be offered is an unknown starting with the time factor. It wouldn't surprise me to see CBS air it in the Summer. Or it might become available somewhere else after I'm dead or distracted by other shows.

None of this makes CBS All Access a less interesting approach to streaming. As I said...



phrelin said:


> This whole thing is a work in progress


...and IMHO we are at least three years away from the time we should be dismissing any streaming option.

And after all, in 2017 Hulu will be offering live channel streaming with ads that will likely include not only ABC/Disney/ESPN, Fox, and NBCU channels, but also Time Warner's Turner bundle of networks. The initial price speculation is $35.

We simply don't know how it's all going to play out.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

As far as I can see with the new Star Trek series, they are trying out a new distribution model using an established series.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Mark Holtz said:


> As far as I can see with the new Star Trek series, they are trying out a new distribution model using an established series.


An established franchise ... the series has yet to be established.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I feel like when (not if) this fails... CBS will try and spin it as "nobody wants Star Trek on TV" instead of "people just didn't want to pay $5-$10 for that one show we made exclusive to our streaming network..."


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I feel like when (not if) this fails... CBS will try and spin it as "nobody wants Star Trek on TV" instead of "people just didn't want to pay $5-$10 for that one show we made exclusive to our streaming network..."


Everyone knows this is an experiment. If the show turns out to be not worthy of the "trek" fan, people will let them know and Les Moonves is not ignorant.

In fact, because Moonves is pretty good at his business, I suspect it will be a decent series. If it attracts a measurable audience, I have a feeling they will consider it a success.

IMHO they are looking for groups outside the demos the advertisers target. The real question is have they guessed demographic leanings correctly.

Cord-nevers are millennials who will check it out at some point if it gets some buzz. So I hope it is appealing to them.

But a new "Star Trek" tv series seemingly would attract fans of the 1987 to 1994 "TNG" franchise, which today is an older group. They're probably not looking for people quite as old as me favoring streaming, but we old techies will likely check it out. If we're contemplating cutting the cord this may be a smart bet on the part of CBS to get us at the beginning. We're the age group that watches their shows. The "NCIS" franchises aren't an 18-49 favorite, but they all have sizeable audiences. By being there when we experiment with cord cutting, they'll not lose us to Netflix.

When you realize the All Access first two "originals" are going to be "Star Trek" and a spinoff of "The Good Wife" one has to know they have a target audience in mind and it isn't my granddaughters.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

phrelin said:


> When you realize the All Access first two "originals" are going to be "Star Trek" and a spinoff of "The Good Wife" one has to know they have a target audience in mind and it isn't my granddaughters.


People with decent Internet connections and disposable income. In my area the fastest Internet comes from the fiber and cable companies, who happen to bundle TV with their Internet service. The second fastest would be wireless ISPs, then DSL and dialup. Some people use cellular and satellite for their Internet.

Those with the best connections pay enough for their Internet (and more if they "cut the cord" and refuse to bundle TV - so they might as well bundle) that another $10 for one programmer's shows may be too much. Those with lesser connections are paying less for their Internet but don't have the bandwidth to stream much. $10 for a couple of shows is too much.

Maybe I am too old for the demographic you believe they are targeting. I am old enough that I don't want to see the Star Trek franchise I remember ruined by a knock off. TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and the movies related to those shows are the franchise I enjoy. I gave the reboot a chance and they decided to rewrite history and blew up the planet Vulcan. And now Star Trek is in a different universe than the one I knew and loved.

So unless by some miracle the new series is set in *my* Star Trek universe it doesn't stand a chance. I might suffer through it if it were on a channel I already subscribe to, but I am not paying more for it.

(BTW: I also enjoyed what I saw of Enterprise but have not seen every episode yet. I did see the last episode and they appear to be in the right universe so I feel safe catching up.)


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

The point that Star Trek skews O L D is a good one. 

The other point is to just look at how the "franchise" is doing. 

The last series, Enterprise, was cancelled with a 2.9 rating, the 150th rated show out of around 180. And, yes, UPN was problematical, but still. Ratings are not a clear for the two "spinoff" series, but both DS9 and Voyager were only slightly better. Thus the last successful Star Trek on broadcast TV, TNG, ended in 1994. As to the movies, the original cast and the next generation, produced the typical gradual decline in ratings seen from over-sequeling that is all the vast intelectual wasteland of Hollywood can do these days and eventually ground to a halt. And then there is this (truly awful IMHO) reboot movie series, which also alredy seems over sequeled at only three movies, all bad. It certainly does not have three more left in it.

And CBS wants $10 a month for that?

No sale.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

As a cord cutter, NewsOn takes care of disaster news if it isn't already streaming from a nearby TV station.

I subscribe to the top tier broadband that the local ISP offers (100 Mbps down on my wireless connected laptop - faster for hardwired PC). There is no discount for bundling - but there is a discount on the slower tiers.

I am always awed by the amount of "TV" folks appear to watch on this forum. I am way behind in watching all the stuff I have in "Mylist" on Netflix, not to mention AcornTV. If CBS offered All Access for five dollars without the commercials, I might consider it. Anything with commercials, not a chance.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

It's the argument I keep having and I'm not sure everyone on all sides pays attention. The argument for cord-cutting is usually about saving money and watching whenever you want... but with DVRs you can already watch whenever you want... so the driving force for cord-cutting would be saving money. As each new service wants their $5-$10 piece of the pie, that cord-cutting is going to look less and less attractive.

IF you want Star Trek and have to pay $5-$10 to get it... and a few more networks have 1-2 shows you want and you have to pay the same to get those... you are FAST approaching the price that people have said they are cutting the cord to avoid paying to cable/satellite!

People seem to think this stuff will stay cheap forever... Companies seem to think people will pay whatever price they name for their content and don't factor in that people might want to watch other content too.

I'm not against cord-cutting or streaming entirely.. but I feel like people on both sides of the business are misreading the signals being sent... and are going to be majorly disappointed when the bottom falls out on the attractiveness of it to consumers.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> It's the argument I keep having and I'm not sure everyone on all sides pays attention. The argument for cord-cutting is usually about saving money and watching whenever you want... but with DVRs you can already watch whenever you want... so the driving force for cord-cutting would be saving money. As each new service wants their $5-$10 piece of the pie, that cord-cutting is going to look less and less attractive.
> 
> IF you want Star Trek and have to pay $5-$10 to get it... and a few more networks have 1-2 shows you want and you have to pay the same to get those... you are FAST approaching the price that people have said they are cutting the cord to avoid paying to cable/satellite!
> 
> ...


Well said and goes hand in hand with my argument that a la cart would be far far more expensive than people that push for it realize. Long term they'd pay more than they do now for lots of channels than for those few channels they claim they want.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> Well said and goes hand in hand with my argument that a la cart would be far far more expensive than people that push for it realize. Long term they'd pay more than they do now for lots of channels than for those few channels they claim they want.


There are big advantages to cord cutting. Not having to wait a week for the next episode (able to binge watch), not having to reach for the remote to fast forward/skip (no commercials), being able to watch on a number of different devices without a hassle, and being able to go to http://www.imdb.com to determine if a series is worth watching. Also, Netflix is very good about remembering where you left off, even when you switch devices.

Not everyone cuts the cord to save money. And maybe it's an age thing, but I have become extremely intolerant of commercials (and crap phone calls).


----------



## Eddie501 (Nov 29, 2007)

Not sure how interested I am but I am really, really liking the trend of streaming services offering a commercial free option. The constant barrage of commercials was the primary driving force that led me to cut the cord. And this is exactly what needs to happen for streaming to position itself as a premium product over traditional pay tv.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Eddie501 said:


> Not sure how interested I am but I am really, really liking the trend of streaming services offering a commercial free option. The constant barrage of commercials was the primary driving force that led me to cut the cord. And this is exactly what needs to happen for streaming to position itself as a premium product over traditional pay tv.


Exactly.

Netflix is an ad free "premium" channel, not unlike HBO, offering original and other programming along with movies. Acorn TV is an ad free "premium" channel offering Brit, Irish, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, and European programming. Hulu is an ad free "premium" channel offering original programming, plus programming from broadcast and cable ABC/Disney, NBCU, Fox, etc. channels. Amazon Prime Video is an ad free "premium" channel offering original programming, plus other programming and movies. CBS All Access is now an ad free "premium" channel offering original programming, CBS current programming, old CBS programming, and live local CBS channel streaming.

In terms of saving money on content, the one advantage right now is that you can subscribe to one of these channels, watch things you want to watch, then drop the subscription for awhile and focus on another one. So far there are no 24 month contracts. While you're paying you still support content you may never watch. But you really have control over your content costs in $10± per month options while not having to feel potentially "left out" because right now you're paying for Hulu and Netflix just dropped a show you'll want to see.

You are also paying for the delivery service separately - in many cases you'd have the high speed internet anyway. And you do have to purchase some kind of device through which you access your content, although a box from Roku, Apple, Amazon, is pretty cheap ... or if your situation calls for it, you can just watch using your existing computer, tablet, or even smart phone.

Again we simply don't know how it's all going to play out _in the long term_. Maybe All Access will be a dismal failure. But my bet would be that it will evolve into a successful alternative offering from CBS Corp.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Eddie501 said:


> Not sure how interested I am but I am really, really liking the trend of streaming services offering a commercial free option. The constant barrage of commercials was the primary driving force that led me to cut the cord. And this is exactly what needs to happen for streaming to position itself as a premium product over traditional pay tv.


Streaming providers who insert ad spots, then offer an ad-free option
at an additional charge are, to me, like the insane general who shouts
"The beatings will continue until morale improves!"


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Wilf said:
 

> There are big advantages to cord cutting. Not having to wait a week for the next episode (able to binge watch), not having to reach for the remote to fast forward/skip (no commercials), being able to watch on a number of different devices without a hassle, and being able to go to http://www.imdb.com to determine if a series is worth watching. Also, Netflix is very good about remembering where you left off, even when you switch devices.
> 
> Not everyone cuts the cord to save money. And maybe it's an age thing, but I have become extremely intolerant of commercials (and crap phone calls).


IMDb is there no matter the source.

Price is going to sky rocket as it becomes more popular.

And having no commercials is as some say just a premium service that will cost more. Netflix streaming isn't any different than HBO.

The key is that in time all the major Players will have CBS style options so everywhere you get your content will have its own price and that's what is going to skyrocket. It's why using skip (not slip) to move through commercials quickly negates the need for everything being on demand.

It's funny you'll need ten different logins if you buy separate. But have a mso and you'll have one login across any device with all the streaming options and such and see it sooner, except for shows made by your amazons and netflixes.

Streaming may seem and even offer a few real advantages (since I can skip commercials so easily I don't see that personally as a deal breaker. It's a great to have though) today but once it's mature it won't really be much different than what we have today other than you'll be paying more people and have a lot more logins to recall vs one login and even more places and hardware that will work.

Because we are getting close to the point where if you have an mso you have most access to all a companies streaming options too.

Oh and I binge watch most shows.That really doesn't matter one bit which service you have. The show is either released all episodes at once or after a year of weekly rollouts... either way same ol same ol...


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

Imdb is of no value for new shows - only after they have been around awhile. Apparently you have not heard of password managers which takes care of logins, and most devices remember your credentials in any case. Having to reach for the remote to skip ads is no substitute for not needing to do that.

As to future costs, you are speculating. Streaming is cheaper and more flexible, so one can expect that all video will be streaming eventually. In any case, at my age, I don't really care about future costs - right now it is cheaper for me. 

Currently, I am enjoying video more than I ever have, except, perhaps in the fifties, when TV was live, and there were only 5-7 minutes of commercials per hour. Even then, the commercials were entertaining.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Wilf said:


> Imdb is of no value for new shows - only after they have been around awhile. Apparently you have not heard of password managers which takes care of logins, and most devices remember your credentials in any case. Having to reach for the remote to skip ads is no substitute for not needing to do that.
> 
> As to future costs, you are speculating. Streaming is cheaper and more flexible, so one can expect that all video will be streaming eventually. In any case, at my age, I don't really care about future costs - right now it is cheaper for me.
> 
> Currently, I am enjoying video more than I ever have, except, perhaps in the fifties, when TV was live, and there were only 5-7 minutes of commercials per hour. Even then, the commercials were entertaining.


Passwords have to be Re enter every once in a while. Why do you think Apple is trying to make a single login setup? Which would help.

Again you and I disagree on the importance of having to press a button a couple times and the extra what, 5 seconds it takes me to skip 4 minutes of commercials?

And yes it might be cheaper now but it time it won't be. It's prices are already skyrocketing if you look closely. And Hollywood isn't going to take a pay cut. You are dreaming if you think they or stations will... and unless you are Going to die in the next two years.. get ready. It's going to get a LOT more expensive in a couple years. A LOT. Because everyone is getting ready to launch streaming channels like cbs... and that's when it's going to skyrocket.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> ... and unless you are Going to die in the next two years.. get ready. It's going to get a LOT more expensive in a couple years. A LOT. Because everyone is getting ready to launch streaming channels like cbs... and that's when it's going to skyrocket.


I am in my mid-eighties, so that is a real possibility :angel:. I have no interest in subscribing to anything beyond Netflix and Acorn TV - they offer more than I can keep up with.


----------



## Eddie501 (Nov 29, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Passwords have to be Re enter every once in a while. Why do you think Apple is trying to make a single login setup? Which would help.
> 
> Again you and I disagree on the importance of having to press a button a couple times and the extra what, 5 seconds it takes me to skip 4 minutes of commercials?
> 
> And yes it might be cheaper now but it time it won't be. It's prices are already skyrocketing if you look closely. And Hollywood isn't going to take a pay cut. You are dreaming if you think they or stations will... and unless you are Going to die in the next two years.. get ready. It's going to get a LOT more expensive in a couple years. A LOT. Because everyone is getting ready to launch streaming channels like cbs... and that's when it's going to skyrocket.


The beauty of streaming is choice. You don't have to subscribe to everything. The market will self correct if the price gets too high. Nobody is under contract. Whether you prefer streaming or traditional pay TV, it can be nothing but good news for the consumer that there finally is some real competition.

And passwords really are a non issue. I keep the same password across all my streaming services. So on the extremely rare occasion I have to re-enter a password,it's always the same thing.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

^ What Eddie said ^


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Eddie501 said:


> The beauty of streaming is choice. You don't have to subscribe to everything. The market will self correct if the price gets too high. Nobody is under contract. Whether you prefer streaming or traditional pay TV, it can be nothing but good news for the consumer that there finally is some real competition.


While streaming is an add on for me, I can certainly see where the choices out there could be attractive to some these days. And while some are definitely overpriced IMO, that will shake itself out over time. But the pressure that streaming services are having on cable/sat these days are what has caused at least one cable company and Dish to come out with slim packages. Of course, just like every other package and streaming service, it isn't a one size fits all solution, but all of it is a step in the right direction.

The message has to get out to the content providers that there isn't a never ending supply of those willing to pay whatever they try to charge. People are starting to talk with their checkbook and that is the only thing businesses respond to. When enough people start walking away or reducing subscription levels, a shake up will occur. We're not quite there yet, but we are getting closer.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

Live sports is the primary reason I have not cut the cord. My daughter has, though, and gets along with OTA TV plus Netflix.


----------



## IndyMichael (Jan 25, 2003)

http://cordcuttersnews.com/deal-alert-free-month-cbs-access/


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

IndyMichael said:


> http://cordcuttersnews.com/deal-alert-free-month-cbs-access/


Hmmm. A free month.


----------



## paranoia (Jun 13, 2014)

phrelin said:


> Hmmm. A free month.


They only gave me a free 7 day tryout.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

paranoia said:


> They only gave me a free 7 day tryout.


That's what I got last year when I tried it for two months to see if the local channel streaming really worked decently. (It does.)


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

For the record here I started the thread 'Star Trek: Discovery' to premier September 24...yes, really over in TV Show Talk. It is a CBS All Access original.


----------

