Streaming is about to get very expensive

[ncted]

I really don't understand why people would drop their subscription once Netflix loses The Office or Friends. By the time that happens, they'll have ample time to watch all seasons, if they haven't already. And if they love the show so much they watch it over and over again, they may as well buy it either on disc or digitally. I'm sure it would pay for itself in less than a year if that's all they care about on Netflix. Heck, they could probably get it on DVD from their local library system.

Agreed, but I stopped trying to figure out what motivates people a long time ago after decades of failure to do so.

 

[Bruce]

I really don't understand why people would drop their subscription once Netflix loses The Office or Friends.

I agree, i have Netflix for new shows, and it is really the only service to get a lot of programming in 4K, i do not have it for shows that ended 6 and 15 years ago.


Sent from my iPad using SatelliteGuys

 

[harshness]

I figure that I have enough drama in my life that I don't need to be chasing after all of the dramas that seemingly have replaced other content on HBO, Netflix and broadcast television.

TV producers need to go back to the early days and see if they can't make something out of variety shows like Ed Sullivan and Carol Burnett and music programs like Lawrence Welk and Hee Haw. Entertainment doesn't need to be raw or hard-hitting as we get enough of that in the daily news. "Reality TV" isn't and that's a crime against humanity.

The one thing I may be missing on HBO is Bohemian Rhapsody and I can get that on PPV for a lot less than a month of the service.

 

[harshness]

I agree, i have Netflix for new shows, and it is really the only service to get a lot of programming in 4K, i do not have it for shows that ended 6 and 15 years ago.

Other than the Netflix originals, most of what Netflix carries is reruns and I submit that it doesn't really matter if you waited six months or sixteen years to watch something. M*A*S*H is as good today as it was back in the 1980s (though a nice HD transfer would be appreciated).

 

[Bobby]

I figure that I have enough drama in my life that I don't need to be chasing after all of the dramas that seemingly have replaced other content on HBO, Netflix and broadcast television.

TV producers need to go back to the early days and see if they can't make something out of variety shows like Ed Sullivan and Carol Burnett and music programs like Lawrence Welk and Hee Haw. Entertainment doesn't need to be raw or hard-hitting as we get enough of that in the daily news. "Reality TV" isn't and that's a crime against humanity.

The one thing I may be missing on HBO is Bohemian Rhapsody and I can get that on PPV for a lot less than a month of the service.

I bought Bohemian Rhapsody from Amazon in 4K/Atmos for $25. The audio Video was worth that to have forever IMHO...

 

[comfortably_numb]

The one thing I may be missing on HBO is Bohemian Rhapsody and I can get that on PPV for a lot less than a month of the service.

"The Dirt" was a much better rockumentary than Bohemian Rhapsody, IMO

 

[Zookster]

Though a great acting performance by Rami Malek, I thought Bohemian Rhapsody took too many liberties with the actual history and timeline. I know they have to do that for dramatic purposes and to get everything into a two-plus-hour runtime. But some of the changes were unnecessary and a disservice to the memory of Freddy Mercury. I would expect such a loose bio-pic movie like this when the subject has been deceased for more than 50 years, but not when even a casual fan like myself who lived through the era would notice so many obvious and significant discrepancies.

 

[harshness]

Maybe I'm not missing it (I'm also reasonably well informed on the biography of Farrokh) but it makes my point that HBO, like many of AT&T's other recent acquisitions isn't anywhere near the value that they thought they were getting (and continues to loudly proclaim it to be).

 

[Zookster]

DIRECTV NOW Loses Another 168,000 Subscribers, With New Bundles & Price Hike Continuing to Impact Service

It seems AT&T’s second quarter didn’t go any better than its first. In their second quarter, AT&T is reporting that they lost 778,000 premium TV subscribers subscribers and a whopping 168,000 DIRECTV NOW subscribers, following two consecutive quarters which saw 350,000 drop in paid subscribers. With the continuing losses, DIRECTV NOW has 1.34 million subscribers total, down from their peak of 1.85 million last September.​

 

[comfortably_numb]

DIRECTV NOW Loses Another 168,000 Subscribers, With New Bundles & Price Hike Continuing to Impact Service

It seems AT&T’s second quarter didn’t go any better than its first. In their second quarter, AT&T is reporting that they lost 778,000 premium TV subscribers subscribers and a whopping 168,000 DIRECTV NOW subscribers, following two consecutive quarters which saw 350,000 drop in paid subscribers. With the continuing losses, DIRECTV NOW has 1.34 million subscribers total, down from their peak of 1.85 million last September.​

They'd better "course correct" themselves before they "wreck themselves"

 

[Nebugeater]

How did a thread go from the cost of streaming to a discussion about progressive bifocals.

 

[comfortably_numb]

How did a thread go from the cost of streaming to a discussion about progressive bifocals.

That's the magic of Satelliteguys

 

[ewindowman]

I have progressive bifocals. But back to the topic. I was watching a financial news show last week and it was starting to show that it is actually going to be cheaper to stick with a cable package then all of the streaming services.


Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[Zookster]

I was watching a financial news show last week and it was starting to show that it is actually going to be cheaper to stick with a cable package then all of the streaming services.


Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!

The cable lobby has been very active in placing these stories, which are often based on unrealistic figures (very low end) for the "average cost" of a cable TV package. They also tend to assume that people aren't already paying for Netflix, Prime, HBO, etc. on top of their current traditional TV provider package; that people will all of a sudden have to start paying for internet, or at least significantly upgrade their current service level to accommodate hefty streaming; and/or that they'll subscribe to 10+ different streaming services simultaneously year round as a replacement for cable.

That's not to say that "cord cutting" is for everyone. If you only need a very basic channel package, no locals or RSNs (now charged separately by many cable cos.), and one receiver with no DVR then you might be just as well off with what you have.

 

[ncted]

As more and more content we watch becomes OnDemand, and really good shows move from Network/Cable to Streaming (The Expanse, The Orville, etc.), the less it makes sense to pay for traditional, linear delivery methods. As that becomes where the revenue growth is happening, the price hikes will follow.

 

[Ronnie-]

The cable lobby has been very active in placing these stories, which are often based on unrealistic figures (very low end) for the "average cost" of a cable TV package. They also tend to assume that people aren't already paying for Netflix, Prime, HBO, etc. on top of their current traditional TV provider package; that people will all of a sudden have to start paying for internet, or at least significantly upgrade their current service level to accommodate hefty streaming; and/or that they'll subscribe to 10+ different streaming services simultaneously year round as a replacement for cable.

That's not to say that "cord cutting" is for everyone. If you only need a very basic channel package, no locals or RSNs (now charged separately by many cable cos.), and one receiver with no DVR then you might be just as well off with what you have.

Many here make that argument as well.

If you go streaming only then you have to get internet , which may go up depending on your bundle, but most already have.

By the time you add all of these services together , your paying more than cable. That could be true if you don’t already sub to any streaming services already, but many already do.

And the big one to me is the argument using the base cable package price, which most of us know isn’t the real price many pay. It is the fees that kill the cable and sat option for me.

Obviously everyone’s needs are different, what works for me may not work for you, but in my own experience, streaming is a vastly cheaper option than the traditional pay tv model, and it would have to skyrocket over many years with sat prices staying stagnant (which they obviously won’t) before price equality is reached for my usage.

 

[harshness]

As more and more content we watch becomes OnDemand, and really good shows move from Network/Cable to Streaming (The Expanse, The Orville, etc.), the less it makes sense to pay for traditional, linear delivery methods.

I don't see it that way at all.

Unicasting makes little sense for anyone involved and the OTT distribution model is largely built around unicast (however subdivided it may be).

Paying $7-18 for each "network family" is typically not going to be less expensive and isn't likely to lead to a unified UI even if you subscribe through an aggregator such as Amazon, Roku or Apple.

 

[navychop]

My concern is folks like Disney making their product available ONLY thru them. Not available on Dish, Sling, YTTV etc. A few providers doing that, and prices will go up. And I’ll go back to the library more.


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys App. For now.

 

[harshness]

My concern is folks like Disney making their product available ONLY thru them.

This is pretty much assured -- particularly with Disney.

We just heard about The Orville moving to Hulu and I can remember getting Netflix to keep up with Longmire. These services are getting too expensive to jump for one or two shows.

What's really going to hurt is trying to generate interest in keeping up with a show if everyone is waiting for a show's season to be over before they subscribe and binge the season. Who, if anyone, will be left to discuss a "current" show at the water cooler? I suppose it will limit cancellations if the programmers can't figure out how popular a show ultimately is until the after the season is over.

 

[Juan]

You can drop and add streaming services at will...as close to alacart we will ever get....cable its all or nothing

Many here make that argument as well.

If you go streaming only then you have to get internet , which may go up depending on your bundle, but most already have.

By the time you add all of these services together , your paying more than cable. That could be true if you don’t already sub to any streaming services already, but many already do.

And the big one to me is the argument using the base cable package price, which most of us know isn’t the real price many pay. It is the fees that kill the cable and sat option for me.

Obviously everyone’s needs are different, what works for me may not work for you, but in my own experience, streaming is a vastly cheaper option than the traditional pay tv model, and it would have to skyrocket over many years with sat prices staying stagnant (which they obviously won’t) before price equality is reached for my usage.

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!