# CBS launches its own TV subscription platform for $6 a month



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

> Less than a day after HBO finally promised to let users cut out the middle man, CBS has decided to do the same. The company is launching CBS All Access, which charges $6 a month to stream new episodes of its shows the day after broadcast. You'll be able to stream 15 of its prime-time shows in this way, including big hits like _NCIS_ and _The Big Bang Theory_ as well as 6,500 episodes of classic TV from the CBS back catalog as a sweetener. That'll enable you to binge down on classic shows like, uhm, _MacGyver_ and _I Love Lucy_ whenever and wherever you want. The platform will also enable you to watch the live streams from the _Big Brother_ house when that show returns next year, which seems like an _adequate _apology after CBS helped kill off Aereo.


Full story here


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

In owned and operated markets only, limited selection, next day availability. 

A la carte was supposed to make things cheaper, right? This is ESPN money for McGyver and I Love Lucy. 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

dualsub2006 said:


> A la carte was supposed to make things cheaper, right?


My thinking as well. But I don't think this is aimed at "cord cutters" as they can get most of this programing OTA. I have hard time believing this will work.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

peds48 said:


> My thinking as well. But I don't think this is aimed at "cord cutters" as they can get most of this programing OTA. I have hard time believing this will work.


But most cord cutters don't have DVR's, so that's part of the reason why I think this is aimed at cord cutters/cord Nevers.

Someone paying for TV isn't likely to pay for this in addition because they can get it all on their box, which is likely to be a DVR.

I don't think this works either, unless their goal is to say "see, nobody really wants a la carte".

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

dualsub2006 said:


> I don't think this works either, unless their goal is to say "see, nobody really wants a la carte".
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


That is an excellent point!


----------



## blackhawkzone (Nov 30, 2007)

if this works, i would expect the other networks to pull their shows off hulu and do the exact same thing. (or raise the hulu price to match)


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

blackhawkzone said:


> if this works, i would expect the other networks to pull their shows off hulu and do the exact same thing. (or raise the hulu price to match)


I dont see working. Who wants to pay $6 a month for some of CBS's programming? I sure as heck dont but I dont hardly watch any of the CBS shows and I am not a cord cutter. To me, if this does work, its just another play for the locals to say they need more money from companies like DirtecTV.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Live storming available in this selected markets. 



> cord-cutters in select markets will be able to stream live TV to their devices in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Dallas, San Francisco, Boston, Detroit, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Sacramento, Pittsburgh and Baltimore, with more markets coming in the future.


More here


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

It appears that in CBS OO markets you'll be able to live stream the local channel minus NFL games. 

In affiliate markets, there may be some streaming availability? I don't know for sure. 

The Last article I read said that your local affiliate can sign up to be included in the app. 

The only way locals can use this as a means to extract more money from MSO's is if they offer authentication for pay TV subscribers. 

Why would any provider be willing to pay more to a local CBS affiliate so that the affiliate can take part in this CBS over-the-top app?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

*CBS launches its own TV-streaming service for $6 a month*

(engadget.com) - Less than a day after HBO finally promised to let users cut out the middleman, CBS has decided to do the same. The company is launching CBS All Access, which charges $6 a month to stream new episodes of its shows the day after broadcast. You'll be able to stream 15 of its prime-time shows in this way, including big hits like NCIS and The Big Bang Theory as well as 6,500 episodes of classic TV from the CBS back catalog as a sweetener. That'll enable you to binge down on classic shows like, uhm, MacGyver and I Love Lucy whenever and wherever you want....

Full Story Here


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

dualsub2006 said:


> In owned and operated markets only, limited selection, next day availability.
> 
> A la carte was supposed to make things cheaper, right? This is ESPN money for McGyver and I Love Lucy.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


A la carte will not make anything cheaper. All a la carte currently available costs more than buying in bundles. Why expect this to be different.

One cost will increase. The overhead of doing business. CBS will be doing it's own marketing, selling, maintenance, etc. that alone will drive costs and prices up.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> A la carte will not make anything cheaper.


I was being sarcastic.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

dualsub2006 said:


> I was being sarcastic.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Covering all the bases, then? 

Wonder what contracts with the DBS companies and cable co's are that allow this, or prevent others from doing the same.


----------



## Starchild (Sep 4, 2007)

This would be nice if added to Roku or Fire tv.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Includes commercials. Love what "cord cutting" is doing. Leading us to higher cost streaming that requires internet access (cost) and forces us to watch commercials.

Be careful what you ask for.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Yeah a la cart is so looking cheaper isn't it?


----------



## Joe Tylman (Dec 13, 2012)

Laxguy said:


> Covering all the bases, then?
> 
> Wonder what contracts with the DBS companies and cable co's are that allow this, or prevent others from doing the same.


They really don't have to do anything. I know the arguments on both sides of the fence but if we stick to purely legal means it's already proving that getting all of the content that you want to watch, those "10-15" channels, is in most circumstances not going to be a large savings, and unless it's for someone single or tech savvy enough to deal with distribution issues through the home, it may not be convenient enough. There will be a market for this but for mainstream homes it's not going to be there for awhile.

Also the content providers have set a price for their product. Now if the price of a deal gets too close to the price they charge directly the companies can now just choose not to carry it at all.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Just to avoid confusion...

I merged two threads together because one was started in another forum (DIRECTV Proigramming) before the news thread was posted.

Thanks!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

This is starting earlier than I thought... I kind of thought streaming would stay cheaper longer to lure customers away from other pay-TV... but not at all surprised to see the trend beginning to go where I always thought it would.

It's not going to stay cheaper forever... unless perhaps you literally only want one or two streaming channels and you ignore the cost of your required high-speed internet to use it.


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

Starchild said:


> This would be nice if added to Roku or Fire tv.


Would you pay for it if it was? I think they would offer it eventually, but I wouldn't buy it.


----------



## charlesh (Feb 17, 2007)

I think this is the first step to keep Satellite and Cable companies in place on negotiations. They are working to get affiliates in this app as well. Now when DirecTV or someone says local CBS we are not paying your higher retransmission fees, the local CBS can tell the consumer to go to the app and watch live and on demand. Then the money is all their's and the cable companies get nothing.

The sticking point will be NFL games.


----------



## Starchild (Sep 4, 2007)

joed32 said:


> Would you pay for it if it was? I think they would offer it eventually, but I wouldn't buy it.


I actually might. Just to avoid times when my satellite is out due to weather or news break ins (which occur frequently in Boston DMA) which lead to a loss of a show. The same reason I pay for Hulu plus. For backup for other networks.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

I get CBS free OTA why would I want to pay 6 dollars for it.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

PCampbell said:


> I get CBS free OTA why would I want to pay 6 dollars for it.


For those that don't have DVRs and want it on demand.

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

If the 5 majority channels that I watch were available for $6/month each a la carte I could drop D* at ~$100/month, and with Netflix still be ahead. High-speed internet is a sunk cost as I need it for my job. Yeah, I can get CBS OTA, but would have to add a TiVo or similar with guide subscription for on-demand viewing.

This is how a la carte could be cheaper for me.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

How many tvs do you have? And Don't forget the cost of a TiVo or something. You still need a way to get the channel and its info. And really only 5 channels? Usually it's 10 to 15 so yeah for you it would save you some.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Channel Master has a OTA DVR with no monthly cost as it uses the OTA guide. http://www.crutchfield.com/p_659CM7500/Channel-Master-CM-7500TB1-DVR.html?tp=31&awkw=76403815105&awat=pla&awnw=g&awcr=49161120265&awdv=c

CBS 6
NBC 6
ABC 6
PBS 6
CW 6
30 dollars for 5 channels if they all do this. To me OTA with this DVR is the only way to save a good chunck of what I pay now.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

This kind of argument makes no sense at all to me though in the realm of cutting the cord. If all you are after is over the air then it's a mute point about cord cutting. 

You have to want and need cable channels too. (And cable won't be cheaper than over the air stations. )Otherwise I'd say you don't need cable now and you could go that route today for free.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I'm fascinated by the negativity here. It likely will be after I'm dead, but the HBO and CBS announcements are watershed events in television history that will lead a revolution.

I have been saying in posts in DBSTalk since 2008 things like



> "The 1958 broadcast TV station model is dying a slow death because it's all wrong for the future."


and in 2010 like



> Take a look at the list of network-owned stations and you'll find that it is predominantly in large metropolitan areas. The reality as they unwind those [[network-affiliate] agreements is that with national feeds they'd be losing access to less than 15% of households in smaller DMA's. And they could continue to service OTA through their own stations in large DMA's even as they expand their web presence.
> 
> It's a 1958 technology and economic model that is being subsidized by viewers because of federal law. There is no logical reason in 2010 to do it this way.


It now appears that CBS is attempting to speed that up. Two technology elements, one old and one fairly new, are going to compete. Ironically, the old one - the DVR - permitted bypassing the advertisers while the new one - streaming on the internet - keeps advertising in the mix, albeit in the case of CBS with 25% less ad time for prior seasons of current shows and no ads for "CBS Classics."

There's a very simple trade-off being offered if one needs or want to have high speed internet at home - the $80 to $120 per month cable/satellite subscription can be dumped. Once more "channels" make similar options available, the fact is you will be able to control your dollars if you want.

It may take at two decades for everything to be set, but at some point it is going to be obvious that there will be some combination of subscriptions that include existing services like Netflix, Amazon and HULU+ combined with what we now know as "channels" or "networks" that will satisfy every need. I'm sure will see offers for CBS/Showtime/The Movie Channel in a package because CBS owns them. Maybe the local O&O will continue to be made available, but the rural broadcast affiliates can be dumped without affecting network show viewing.

The thing to understand about this future is that if I were to set a budget of $35 a month (in today's dollars) for channels plus $20 a month for binge watching shows and select movies on Amazon or Netflix, I'm sure I could be perfectly happy. What I have to get beyond is my dependence on a TV schedule and seasons. Keep in mind that I have an internet connected TV set plus computers, tablets and phones that can "project' through the TV set. I won't need to pay for additional hardware.

I suspect that at some point the NFL and other sports organizations will discover the "get every dollar" advantage of their own streaming subscriptions.

There's a lot to be ironed out but I suspect the Disney/ABC group of channels will be looking hard at this experiment. And, hey, Comcast owns NBCU and is aching to free up the bandwidth used by cable. The CW already is dependent upon streaming. That only leaves Fox. At the present time Fox prefers to collect a tax on every cable/satellite subscriber to devising attractive programming, but that will change.

Again it will take a couple of decades, but the 1958 TV network affiliate model will be dead IMHO. Of course, so will I (be dead) so I'll never see it.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

I am very happy to hear the CBS news.
I have not been able to get reliable clear video and sound from my local CBS affiliate (WPEC) through Directv for over 5 years.
I have complained and begged them to allow me a waiver for another affiliate.
I will gladly pay the $6 if someone can teach me how to set it up to record the programs.

Maybe Directv will offer the streaming CBS for $6 extra.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

And when this "future" happens... people will be paying more for less channels than they have now... and they will be complaining about how streaming costs too much and is "the devil" and they will wish they still had cable or satellite as a cheaper option.

There's just no way to slice this where you will save money unless you literally only want to watch a couple of channels... and if you watch that little TV, you probably could go completely without it frankly. For anyone else, the options will be fewer and each one will cost more and you'll wish for the days when you thought you were being overcharged by your pay-TV provider.


----------



## gully_foyle (Jan 18, 2007)

dualsub2006 said:


> A la carte was supposed to make things cheaper, right?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You are too funny.

I'd like ala carte PACKAGES, where you can select small blocks of channels (EPSNx or not ESPNx, or NEWS or not NEWS). THis allows some economies of scale while retaining choices.


----------



## gully_foyle (Jan 18, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> And when this "future" happens... people will be paying more for less channels than they have now... and they will be complaining about how streaming costs too much and is "the devil" and they will wish they still had cable or satellite as a cheaper option.


Or, there can be both systems, just like today where there is OTA and pay.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

gully_foyle said:


> Or, there can be both systems, just like today where there is OTA and pay.


Correct... but that's not what many people say they want. Many people post regularly about how "streaming is the future" and that they can't wait for pay-TV to go away. I hope those people don't get what they want.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

I suspect most folks only watch a handful of channels. At $6 per channel, 10 channels would still be well below most satellite/cable bills. I wouldn't include the broadband bill, because this is something folks would subscribe to anyway. And there will be competition between the networks for folks that may only want to subscribe to a couple of networks. This also fills a big want - to view a network channel on a mobile device without a hassle.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Yes, but how many will have to pay for more usage to their providers for streaming so many shows? And at what point do you say, ok, for another 10 or 20 I can get 10 times the channels just in case, and all my sports.. That's assuming it really does only cost 60 for your ten channels that you want and that you can actually get them all...


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Correct... but that's not what many people say they want. Many people post regularly about how "streaming is the future" and that they can't wait for pay-TV to go away. I hope those people don't get what they want.


Stewart, the Cleveland Fed forecasts annual inflation to run at 1.9% for the next decade. How long do you think PayTv will be able to continue to increase rates by 9%+ before the system implodes?

There will be winners and losers when the PayTv business finally does.

Losers? Sports broadcasters and teams. The end of the sports tax will not be favorable to the ESPNs of the world. Exhibit 1 is the Dodgers TV contract.

Winners? The NonSports fan, who will no longer have to subsidize those who can't live without live sports.

Stewart, you believe that the industry will continue to post as much revenue as it has in the past.

I imagine that no recording industry exec in 2000 would have predicted that 14 years later, more people would listen to more music than ever before, yet the industry itself would take in 55% less in sales than that year.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

What makes you think $6 each will be the norm? That's just what CBS is charging for current seasons and only the back library for content distributed by CBS, it doesn't include the NFL or shows syndicated by third parties. When you get into channels that do have the digital rights to the sports they air, along with movies and other 3rd party programming it will probably be a lot more.



Gloria_Chavez said:


> Losers? Sports broadcasters and teams. The end of the sports tax will not be favorable to the ESPNs of the world. Exhibit 1 is the Dodgers TV contract.


ESPN and SportsNet LA are not even on the same level. SportsNet LA is a channel that only has the local rights to ONE team half of the year, ESPN has the national rights to multiple professional and college sports year round with some of the highest rated content on cable. They also have long term contracts that are renewed on a staggered basis giving them a safety net preventing them from going dark on multiple providers at the same time. After DirecTV renews their contract later this year, ESPN won't have to worry about another major contract renewal until after 2020, and who the heck knows where the economy, cable landscape and the leagues themselves will be by then? Comcast will be the next major one up for renewal around 2021, if they merge with even more providers they'll probably be under more scrutiny if they attempt to play hardball with competing programmers. After that it's Cablevision, Cox and Charter, who knows if they'll still be standalone companies by then? After that you got Dish along with a bunch of smaller co-ops, along with the merged AT&T/DirecTV which can be up anytime from 2023 to 2025 depending on who's contract they keep after everything is merged.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Stewart, the Cleveland Fed forecasts annual inflation to run at 1.9% for the next decade. How long do you think PayTv will be able to continue to increase rates by 9%+ before the system implodes?
> 
> There will be winners and losers when the PayTv business finally does.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what inflation has to do with anything.

Inflation really only applies to "staples" and indicates how prices rise and fall over time without other market influences. New technology doesn't abide by any inflation rules and it purely supply/demand driven. Look no further than Christmas season when some things plummet in price to get a quick buck before the end of the year while other "hot" items temporarily skyrocket as supply can't meet the demand for holiday gift-giving.

Pay-TV is a luxury, not a necessity... inflation really doesn't apply to luxuries in the same way it does to necessities. The value of silver and gold, for example, have no relation to inflation do they?

The price of Pay-tv is purely about how much most customers are willing to pay AND what the producers of the content want to collect. Inflation might have a small impact, but it isn't the major one in the Pay-TV price schedule.

Besides all that... your crusade against sports isn't the whole ball of wax either. I'm paying far more for non-sports channels than I am for sports channels in my bill... and you are too! And we can't choose to drop any of those channels either!

And if we could pick and choose, the prices would go up or the channels would go away.

Lastly, I never said things would stay the same... but they surely won't change in a way that means we go from $75 per month pay-tv to $10 per month streaming long-term.

$10 per month streaming is possible because of the $75 per month pay-tv contracts... take those away, and the other stuff will go up to match the lost revenue OR the content will go away.

And frankly, I like the cable/satellite delivery mechanism far more than I like the streaming mechanism... it is more efficient for the kind of content most of us watch... and streaming is a nice fallback supplementary option for missed programming OR watching things months or years later. Streaming hopefully will not become the primary source of most content.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> How many tvs do you have? And Don't forget the cost of a TiVo or something. You still need a way to get the channel and its info. And really only 5 channels? Usually it's 10 to 15 so yeah for you it would save you some.


2 TVs currently with D* DVRs attached. Those plus 2 other TVs with Rokus (4 total). 5 channels may have been underestimating - but it is no more than 10. The big issue is NFL (Bears), MLB (Twins), and Big 10 (Purdue football, basketball). If it weren't for those sports we would be satisfied with OTA, Netflix, and Amazon.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

I too am surprised at the negativity here. I live in a retirement community and many of the posts remind me of my neighbors - old fogies - very uncomfortable with change. (no offence intended - I am 83).

TV stations have resisted making current media available on mobile devices for way too long, With those in their 20's not subscribing to cable/satelite, TV has to change.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Resisted for too long? Most of CBS's and other network's current seasons are available on Hulu Plus. And watching live TV on the go wasn't an issue until the digital transition in 2009, prior to that you could watch any OTA station via a pocket TV. You still can in some cases, however the standard ATSC chose doesn't work while in motion, which is being addressed with the ATSC M/H system some channels are using.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Wilf said:


> I too am surprised at the negativity here. I live in a retirement community and many of the posts remind me of my neighbors - old fogies - very uncomfortable with change. (no offence intended - I am 83).
> 
> TV stations have resisted making current media available on mobile devices for way too long, With those in their 20's not subscribing to cable/satelite, TV has to change.


What resistance and negativity are you talking about?

The people who are surprised that it isn't as cheap as they wanted it to be? Those people shouldn't have been surprised since many of us have been saying for years that a la carte and streaming wouldn't be the cheap alternative to pay-TV that they thought it would be.

Or people who prefer the pay-TV model over streaming because of bandwidth issues and price of high-speed broadband (where available)? I like my pay-tv much better than streaming. I use streaming only when I miss a show, didn't DVR it, and I don't have another airing to watch and it's something I really want to watch.

Streaming just doesn't compare to pay-TV in my mind right now for the choices of content and price-per hour of content available. And as the price inevitably goes up on streaming options in the future, I'll like that even less.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Streaming just doesn't compare to pay-TV in my mind right now for the choices of content and price-per hour of content available.


It is not what you are comfortable with. The younger generation watch what they want, when they want, and on any device which they want - which usually means a laptop, iPad, or smart phone. There are always work-arounds and they know how to use them, whether they are legal or not. This is similar to the music industry, where the younger folk no longer wanted to buy a CD album that had only one desirable track. Now pop CD albums are gone, but the music industry still exists, but in a changed form.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Tubaman-Z said:


> 2 TVs currently with D* DVRs attached. Those plus 2 other TVs with Rokus (4 total). 5 channels may have been underestimating - but it is no more than 10. The big issue is NFL (Bears), MLB (Twins), and Big 10 (Purdue football, basketball). If it weren't for those sports we would be satisfied with OTA, Netflix, and Amazon.


Yeah I'm with you on the sports for sure.

But the point is charging $6 for something that is already free is ridiculous. The $6 is maybe valuable if you want to watch old shows. Or if you can't get reception.

But that's a massive increase over zero and still a massive increase over what they charge mso.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Wilf said:


> It is not what you are comfortable with. The younger generation watch what they want, when they want, and on any device which they want - which usually means a laptop, iPad, or smart phone.


That is indeed true of a lot of the 20 and 30 somethings. But only those with access to real broadband. And when they grow up- or if  - many will want real TV in real HD---- or 4K!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Wilf said:


> It is not what you are comfortable with. The younger generation watch what they want, when they want, and on any device which they want - which usually means a laptop, iPad, or smart phone. There are always work-arounds and they know how to use them, whether they are legal or not. This is similar to the music industry, where the younger folk no longer wanted to buy a CD album that had only one desirable track. Now pop CD albums are gone, but the music industry still exists, but in a changed form.


They only have that access because of the pay-tv revenue, though... Take away the pay-tv revenue and those streaming options would need to cost nearly as much to make up for that money... and then what?

And who wants to sit in their home and watch on a smartphone or tablet when you can have a large screen TV? The "kids" want their mobile video... but you can't tell me they don't also want the big screen at home. Eventually these kids get their own homes and want a home video/audio system and then they want the big-screen stuff.

Forget the illegal stuff, we aren't going to talk about that here. But the legitimate cheaper options are only there because of the other revenue streams. That's the whole argument here. People seem to want streaming to replace the pay-TV model... and I'm saying IF that ever happens, we will be right back where we are now with a more expensive pay-tv that is delivered via internet instead of cable/satellite.

When I was a kid, I had a portable TV... and I didn't pay for pay-tv... my parents did... then I grew up and paid for my own pay-tv... I still watch some mobile TV (streaming now) but it isn't my preferred source.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> That is indeed true of a lot of the 20 and 30 somethings. But only those with access to real broadband. And when they grow up- or if  - many will want real TV in real HD---- or 4K!


Laxguy, many of these 20somethings are becoming 30somethings with kids. And they have an HD for OTA. And they stream Mad Men (bought on Amazon) to their HDTV.

But they don't pay for PayTv.

Some will argue that the product will deteriorate if fewer people pay for TV.

Well, the music industry has 55% fewer dollars than in 2001.

Is the quality of music worse today than in 2001?


----------



## Rickt1962 (Jul 17, 2012)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Laxguy, many of these 20somethings are becoming 30somethings with kids. And they have an HD for OTA. And they stream Mad Men (bought on Amazon) to their HDTV.
> 
> But they don't pay for PayTv.
> 
> ...


Yep ! I get HD OTA using C-band all the Networks and any shows I cant I just stream using XBMC


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Laxguy, many of these 20somethings are becoming 30somethings with kids. And they have an HD for OTA. And they stream Mad Men (bought on Amazon) to their HDTV.
> 
> But they don't pay for PayTv.
> 
> ...


Dunno, but it's much worse than the 60's and 70's! 

If the new families care naught for sports, for news, to be current on good series (The Mad Men and Breaking Bad phenoms), and specials, then some/many won't get linear TV.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Laxguy, many of these 20somethings are becoming 30somethings with kids. And they have an HD for OTA. And they stream Mad Men (bought on Amazon) to their HDTV.
> 
> But they don't pay for PayTv.
> 
> ...


Yes music has gone way down in a lot of ways and I can't think of one way it's gotten better other than its easier access.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Arguably in some corners music is worse than it used to be... but ignoring that... we have reports of bands doing more live tours because they have to do so in order to get revenue that they used to get in album sales years ago... so they have an alternative source of revenue that they are exploring now more than they did 15+ years ago.

That's the streaming vs pay-TV argument... people seem to think streaming isn't pay-TV somehow... it is! It is cheaper now because they want your business AND because they are getting 2nd hand stuff after it has already been sold to other networks first... notable exceptions for things like the handful of Netflix original shows.

But as the paths cross... and enough people go to cheaper streaming vs more expensive pay-TV... then expect your streaming costs to go up. To ignore that is to ignore how business works! Streaming and internet (ISP) costs are already going up... this is the reality.

IF people stopped buying cars and only bought bicycles... the cost of bicycles would go up at some point and GM would start making bicycles to compete in that market!

Exxon would start selling solar panels and windmills if that tipping point happened...

And so forth.

There is no free ride, and I'm amazed anyone ever thinks there will be.

Amazon undercuts retailers... retailers go out of business... customers say "yay Amazon!"... then enough retailers close and Amazon stops lowering their prices as much... raises minimum prices for free shipping... and now is exploring opening retail stores in some test markets! Eventually you will be right back where you were with stores you think are charging you too much.

Competition is good for everyone... so why people want cable/satellite to go under amazes me... Cable/satellite and Streaming as a supplemental option can level the prices out for both services... you shouldn't be wishing for streaming to replace the other. You will not like what happens if it does.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

I know people want to compare this to the music industry but that ananolgy doesn't really work. Here's why, back in the day and for many decades the way the music industry made most of it's money was by selling people a physical product such as a record, a tape, or a CD. When that model went away it seriously shook up the whole industry and we're now in a place where music is very cheap but live concerts are many times more expensive than they ever were. As for television their primary source of income is not a physical product they sell in a store, sure they make some off of DVD/Blue Ray sales but that's just a supplemental source of income. Where they make their money is delivering content to homes (or wherever that customer is at the time) via content providers such as cable, satellite and more and more these days companies like Netflix over the internet. It doesn't really matter to the content providers how people get their product whether it's over the airwaves, through cable, satellite or internet, just that they get paid. So as they get less revenue from the older more "traditional" sources they'll look to get more from the newer ones. As more and more companies start offering their own streaming services it's becoming more and more evident that it's never really going to be "cheap television for all" or that it's going to be any cheaper than the model we have now if you're comparing like for like content. Sure a lot of people can stream their content now and more an more will, but it's never going to "set you free".


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Good sense, and:

You also mean: TINSTAAFL! I believe....


----------

