Sure, so that's two channels at what, 20-30 bucks a month. What do you think ESPN could charge? Or AMC?

 

I mean, yes, if you're a person that literally needs 4 channels and that's it, it would probably make financial sense. But anything beyond that and you're basically paying the same amount you pay now for 300 channels.

Sure, so that's two channels at what, 20-30 bucks a month. What do you think ESPN could charge? Or AMC?

 

I mean, yes, if you're a person that literally needs 4 channels and that's it, it would probably make financial sense. But anything beyond that and you're basically paying the same amount you pay now for 300 channels.

 

Doubtful they'd cost anywhere near that much. But the market would set the price. If HBO wanted 40$ a month for a single channel, they'd probably have a hard time getting it to a mass number of people.

BTW, I think this is insane. I'm sure I'll get flack on a sports message board for thinking that.

Eh

 

Living Room

Basement bar/party room

kitchen

home gym room for treadmill

Case in point, Netflix didn't exist a few years ago, now it's bigger than a lot of the networks.

 

If by a few years ago you mean 15, then ok.

Doubtful they'd cost anywhere near that much. But the market would set the price. If HBO wanted 40$ a month for a single channel, they'd probably have a hard time getting it to a mass number of people.

 

Here's a good write-up of why al-la-carte won't happen anytime soon:

 

http://gizmodo.com/5972517/the-future-of-t...not-be-worth-it

If by a few years ago you mean 15, then ok.

Yeah, I signed up for Netflix back when it first came out...which, I think was like 1997 or something...

Yeah, I signed up for Netflix back when it first came out...which, I think was like 1997 or something...

Get your VHS tapes in the mail? I hope they were still offering betamax....

 

Get your VHS tapes in the mail? I hope they were still offering betamax....

 

They were DVDs. I remember handing out the subscription free trials when I worked at Media Play, which was in 1999.

They were DVDs. I remember handing out the subscription free trials when I worked at Media Play, which was in 1999.

I guess that makes sense, now that I think about it. My family first got a DVD player in 2001, and we weren't exactly early adopters.

 

Hopefully in a decade I'll be able to say I got my first blu ray player in 2013. They're only like $60 now, from what I've seen.

If by a few years ago you mean 15, then ok.

 

That IS what I mean, yes, however, I mean it in context. While they incorporated in 1997, they were NOT doing what they were doing in 1997 what they're doing now. Point is, a company CAN rise up very quickly and do exactly what Netflix did.

 

Apple was also around since the 70's, but that doesn't mean they were selling iPhones since the 70's, either, now does it?

 

Of course you knew that. But I sometimes wonder if you actually do.

Get your VHS tapes in the mail? I hope they were still offering betamax....

 

 

Point is they weren't a streaming internet service with their OWN television shows. They are now.

Point is they weren't a streaming internet service with their OWN television shows. They are now.

I'm still interested to see how Netflix actually works out as a content provider. Too early to tell.

 

It seems inevitable that it will all just be delivered over the internet at some point the future. Maybe when fiber networks are more common?!

Here's a good write-up of why al-la-carte won't happen anytime soon:

 

http://gizmodo.com/5972517/the-future-of-t...not-be-worth-it

 

It's getting to the point where it may not be necessary to have cable or other television service at all.

 

You can get Netflix, Hulu Plus, MLB.TV, and Amazon Prime for a combined cost of LESS than it costs for BASIC cable with no movie channels.

 

The few things missing are things like access to HBO shows, etc...but it's coming...it's just a matter of time before there are other services out there that allow you to replace "cable" by combining a few of them together. We are closer to that now than ever before.

I'm still interested to see how Netflix actually works out as a content provider. Too early to tell.

 

It seems inevitable that it will all just be delivered over the internet at some point the future. Maybe when fiber networks are more common?!

 

A lot of it is already delivered that way, and that demand/ability will only increase as time goes on to a wider audience.

 

As for how well Netflix will be able to work as a content provider, I agree, the jury is still out, because it costs a LOT of money, but it shows that it IS possible for a new guy to enter the market and make it happen with or without the permission of cable operators.

I haven't had cable in over two years. Major impact is for sports, but if I wasn't a fan of any sport outside of the NFL, I wouldn't miss a single thing.

It's getting to the point where it may not be necessary to have cable or other television service at all.

 

You can get Netflix, Hulu Plus, MLB.TV, and Amazon Prime for a combined cost of LESS than it costs for BASIC cable with no movie channels.

 

The few things missing are things like access to HBO shows, etc...but it's coming...it's just a matter of time before there are other services out there that allow you to replace "cable" by combining a few of them together. We are closer to that now than ever before.

 

You're just moving the provider around but the customer is still paying the same. When large companies own a variety of networks, they will always be bundled together to make the maximum amount of profit. Demand really doesn't factor in here. And you're still missing the fact that a company like DirecTV or Comcast has a gigantic subscriber base, so it makes more financial sense for the networks to stay with those providers.

 

Netflix, Hulu and Amazon will just become another Comcast or DirecTV, or an HBO depending on if they want to create their own content.

You're just moving the provider around but the customer is still paying the same. When large companies own a variety of networks, they will always be bundled together to make the maximum amount of profit. Demand really doesn't factor in here. And you're still missing the fact that a company like DirecTV or Comcast has a gigantic subscriber base, so it makes more financial sense for the networks to stay with those providers.

 

Netflix, Hulu and Amazon will just become another Comcast or DirecTV, or an HBO depending on if they want to create their own content.

 

You aren't really paying the same at all, that's the point.

 

Netflix + Hulu + Amazon Prime + MLB.TV costs a COMBINED less than Basic Cable. I'm not claiming their serving the same content, but taking those 4 services and having all the functionality of them can, for some people, serve everything they need to the point where they don't need Comcast or DTV, etc. And they WILL save money.

Edited April 2, 201312 yr by Y2HH

You're just moving the provider around but the customer is still paying the same. When large companies own a variety of networks, they will always be bundled together to make the maximum amount of profit. Demand really doesn't factor in here. And you're still missing the fact that a company like DirecTV or Comcast has a gigantic subscriber base, so it makes more financial sense for the networks to stay with those providers.

 

Netflix, Hulu and Amazon will just become another Comcast or DirecTV, or an HBO depending on if they want to create their own content.

Subscriber counts for DTV and Comcast (and probably the other telecoms) are trending down, not up, though.

You aren't really paying the same at all, that's the point.

 

Netflix + Hulu + Amazon Prime + MLB.TV costs a COMBINED less than Basic Cable. I'm not claiming their serving the same content, but taking those 4 services and having all the functionality of them can, for some people, serve everything they need to the point where they don't need Comcast or DTV, etc. And they WILL save money.

 

Netflix + Hulu + OTA (free) is $16 a month IIRC and covers almost everything I want to watch. I can buy Breaking Bad or a couple of other shows on a season pass or per-episode basis and still come out way ahead. If not for MLB's dumb blackout rules, you could throw another $8.33 a month on there.

Netflix + Hulu + OTA (free) is $16 a month IIRC and covers almost everything I want to watch. I can buy Breaking Bad or a couple of other shows on a season pass or per-episode basis and still come out way ahead. If not for MLB's dumb blackout rules, you could throw another $8.33 a month on there.

 

I'd be doing exactly this if my wife wouldn't destroy me for it.

 

I don't watch much TV, I'm more of a browser. I'll look around the movie channels to see if there is something I want to watch, which is usually already half over by the time I turn it on. She records a ton of shows and watches them, though.

 

I'd really love to not be spending 70-100$ a month on TV.

I'd be doing exactly this if my wife wouldn't destroy me for it.

 

I don't watch much TV, I'm more of a browser. I'll look around the movie channels to see if there is something I want to watch, which is usually already half over by the time I turn it on. She records a ton of shows and watches them, though.

 

I'd really love to not be spending 70-100$ a month on TV.

I find that if I am not watching tv, I am usually wanting to go out...and if I am going out a lot, I am spending s***loads more than $4-5 that the tv programming is costing me a day.

 

I get that it seems like money that could be better spent, but if you consider it part of your overall entertainment budget, in-home tv is one of the smaller culprits in my monthly budget.

I find that if I am not watching tv, I am usually wanting to go out...and if I am going out a lot, I am spending s***loads more than $4-5 that the tv programming is costing me a day.

 

I get that it seems like money that could be better spent, but if you consider it part of your overall entertainment budget, in-home tv is one of the smaller culprits in my monthly budget.

 

In the grand scheme of things, it's not all that expensive, you're right about that.

 

But I think it, just like cellular providers (namely the big two), there could be more competition than there is. The pricing schemes are eerily similar regardless of provider, and that bothers me. Competition should drive prices down, but when it comes to TV/Internet (specifically those two things), it actually drives it up.

Well every time I'm in a hotel for work, our decision to not get cable is reaffirmed. I guess I just don't see much worth watching that I can't get for free or significantly cheaper elsewhere.

To elaborate, I find it very VERY coincidental that AT&T and Verizon charge almost the exact same monthly fees ... for everything.

 

As do Comcast, DirecTV, Dish, etc. Outside of their special "on contract" pricing deals, everything is priced almost identically.

To elaborate, I find it very VERY coincidental that AT&T and Verizon charge almost the exact same monthly fees ... for everything.

 

As do Comcast, DirecTV, Dish, etc. Outside of their special "on contract" pricing deals, everything is priced almost identically.

If the largest fraction of their cost is the fees paid to the networks, isn't that exactly what you'd expect?