Slashdot Mirror


CBS, NBC to Offer TV Shows for 99 Cents

According to an AP report. "CBS and NBC have announced deals to offer replays of prime-time programs for 99 cents per episode, shifting television toward a sales model that gained popularity with downloaded music." But the shows will only be available over Comcast on Demand, not for download.

16 of 303 comments (clear)

  1. For the cost of fifty shows by The_Rippa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For the cost of fifty shows you can just get a Tivo.

    1. Re:For the cost of fifty shows by BushCheney08 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And for the cost of another 300 shows you can have it activated.

      Note: I love my TiVo and think it's worth every penny.

      --
      Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
    2. Re:For the cost of fifty shows by rho · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Or $20/mo for Netflix. You're behind on the "hip" TV shows by a season or two, but in return you don't have to fiddle with stuff. Can you operate a mailbox? Can you operate your DVD player? You're golden.

      I tried downloading stuff from torrents, and you know what? It's annoying. It takes time, only 50% of the time can you make a hard-copy that you can play on your good TV without jumping through ridiculous hoops, and it requires keeping up with the latest and greatest P2P clients. None of these are attractive to anybody with more important things to do. People such as those who are gainfully employed and have high disposable income.

      "On demand" purchasing of TV shows is only worthwhile when you can purchase "on demand" ANY show, not just CBS or NBC. Short of that, I'll just watch the TV shows that are worth collecting as an entire season on DVDs from Netflix, as well as pretty much any movie I want.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
  2. Internet TV is next by b0r1s · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First comes mainstream TV on the net.
    Then comes internet only TV.

    On-demand, lower broadcast costs, and the replacement of 'public access' with equal opportunity online broadcasts all push internet video over it's ancient predecesor.

    It's only a matter of time until the TV joins the newspaper in it's slow walk to the grave.

    --
    Mooniacs for iOS and Android
    1. Re:Internet TV is next by cfulmer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Aahh... But you forget a few things:

      (1) Streaming TV at broadcast quality requires a lot more bandwidth than most "broadband" ISP customers current get to their homes.
      (2) The backend link at most "broadband" ISPs has nowhere near enough capacity to stream a TV station per-customer. A lot of people have TVs on just as background -- this doesn't really happen with your computer. As a result, the models that "broadband" ISPs use to oversell their services go out the window.
      (3) The two main providers of broadband Internet service in the US are cable companies and phone companies. Both of these guys are going for the so-called "triple-play" of TV, video and Internet. THey have a vested interest in doing what they can to keep TV off the Internet. This will probably just come from not providing enough bandwidth.

      [#2 can be fixed, at least partially, through the judicious use of multicasting. But, that probably implies infrastructure in the ISP. They are going to expect to be compensated for this.]

      I use the word "broadband" in quotes, because it's a relative word. In the US, compared to dialup, it's broadband. Compared to what folks on other continents get, it's narrow.

  3. Now watch what they do in DC by bherman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm willing to bet they will push DC to enact laws that may recording TV illegal. Kiss your Tivo goodbye. This is just them being able to tell everyone, look people can get the TV show after it plays for a fair price, they shouldn't be able to record it on their own.

    --
    Error: Sig not found.
  4. Re:iPOD comparison by Dav3K · · Score: 3, Insightful

    you can watch your ipod show over and over. The Comcast deal is $0.99 per play.

  5. Why should I pay for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Channels like HBO and Showtime offer all of their programming free to subscribers on Comcast In Demand.

    What makes time-shifting Survivor worth 99 cents when I can time-shift The Sopranos for free?

  6. Run it till the tires fall off... by gsfprez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    or until DirecTV cancels MPEG-2 service, but i tell you what, i'm going to run my hacked DirecTiVo until the wheels fall off - screw everyone else and their lameastic ideas.

    My Hacked DirecTiVo works 1 step simple to get any show i want with my iPod (now, with Video), doesn't cost me per play, works great with my Mac, and doesn't have any DRM.

    These things are going to be insanely valuable in years to come because of their incredible feature set, lack of DRM, and compatibility with so many other devices.

    meanwhile, newer systems are going to be less and less useful and less interesting to me. HDTV doesn't make my skirt fly up compared to a well written show or good coverage of a hockey game... neither of which requires higher resolution.

    --
    guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
  7. 99 cents WITH commercials by mmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is proof that the Networks still don't understand this whole "internet" thing at all.

    1. While downloading for iPod is mentioned in the article, NBC and CBS are referring to OnDemand (same ol' crap that cable companies have been pushing for years) with their set top boxes.

    2. The article says that 99 cents is the cost, but it includes commercials. So you're paying $1 to watch a free show WITH commercials.

    3. NBC still believes there "aren't enough protections" to put their content on the internet.

    These guys don't realize that their shows are mediocre at best and placing any higher threshold on watching them will actually DECREASE viewers, not increase it. I'm not going to pay extra to watch a show with commercials (which you probably can't skip).

    Apple's solution for $1.99 adds the benefit of watching it where you want and without commercials. It's great for the occasional missed episode that I can catch up with while traveling.

    I've never used OnDemand TV (whether Cable or Satellite) and this won't be any different.

    1. Re:99 cents WITH commercials by mmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, it wouldn't make sense for the company to offer a tv program for free without commercials. I would just miss all of my favorite shows on purpose to watch the free commercial-free version.

      It would if you WERE PAYING FOR THEM. The point of ratings is to get viewers so they can charge folks for commercials. Now they want to make money on both ends. I believe this will only work for the most popular of shows and with limited success.

      The people that watch their programs on time, when they are aired, won't be affected. But the people who miss their programs get the added benefit of watching them some other time, for a fee.

      I'm sorry -- I don't subscribe to the antiquated belief that Networks should dictate WHEN I watch a show. I have a Tivo that let's ME control what I watch and when I watch it.

      Fanatics no longer have to cancel all of their evening plans just to catch their favorite show's episode.

      If folks are THAT tied to meet the Networks' Programming Schedule, they need some serious help (or a Tivo).

      Network scheduling and "Primetime" are all artifacts of the early TV days when folks would sit around their tubes in a big family event (and it usually wasn't EVERY DAY). TV Networks still follow this model some 50+ years later, despite the fact that folks have busy lives and there is a lot more content on. In my opinion, this is their biggest mistake.

      Like RIAA and the MPAA, TV Networks are still running today's business using a business model from 50 years ago. Times have changed. They will either adapt their business model, or it will die. Many old business models do not work today, those of the three organizations mentioned above are among the models that are on their way out.

  8. Let me get this straight by xnot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I pay for cable, which technically pays for all the shows that are broadcast during the month when I have access. And then if I miss a show, they want me to pay again to see it? Like people are actually going to pay twice to see a show, rather then buying a PVR or hacking up a free one themselves?

    Honestly, I have no idea how the cable industry can explain how this business model will work now that PVRs are becoming popular.

    It doesn't even make sense. People know they don't own the shows they watch, unlike they do with the music they download. If the cable industry wants to copy the music industry, then they would have to let people pay for shows al la carte, and give them access to that same episode as many times as they want. But then the industry wouldn't be able to charge for those huge DVD episode packs, nor if people recorded movies would people ever need to buy DVDs in general. That's not going to happen.

    But then again, the point may be to simply capitalize on the millions of people out there who forget to do things. HUGE amounts of money are made from people who forget to cancel subscriptions, who return rented movies late, or who don't know anything about how simple it is to same money by using a free program on their computers. I guess if they really think this is going to work, then there must be a LOT of people who don't own PVRs and who forget to watch shows, that they would be willing to pay 99c to be able to see.

  9. TiVO Anyone by queenb**ch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why pay to watch it once when you can just TiVO it and be done? Maybe this is what the broadcast flag thing is all about. All TV will become pay-per-view.

    DUH!

    2 cents,

    Queen B

    --
    HDGary secures my bank :/
    1. Re:TiVO Anyone by IdleTime · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I honestly don't know many if any shows that I would want to watch over and over and over again.

      I have a DVR with my cable subscription and I basically use it to record shows that I watch at a more convienient time and then delete the show. If you need to watch the same show over and over again, you are like my daughter when she was 4, couldn't wrestle certain VHS tapes away from her.

      Again, why do you need to save a show and watch it 100 times over? That sounds more like a mental issue than a practical one.

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
  10. You need to have one already. by pavon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am getting excited about the shift towards internet viewing, and would actually prefer cheap rental over buying for video, and as a consumer don't really care about rented material being highly DRM'ed (purchased is anothering).

    But this particular service isn't all that exciting. You need to have DirectTV's or Comcast's DVR already in order to use the service. That means that I could have been recording these shows and watching them whenever I wanted.

    The price wouldn't be too bad on it's own. I figure that reasonable internet rental prices prices are $0.50 for a 20 minute show, $1.00 for a 40 minute show, and $2.00 for a movie. But this is on top of the $50-70 dollars that you are already paying for cable or satelite. I have already payed to watch these shows, I am not going to pay again.

  11. Re:Coming About by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh how wrong you are.

    They're turning alright... Just in the other direction. This is the first step towards requiring payment for timeshifting. Want to record that show to your DVR or VCR? You have to pay. This is the beginning of the networks trying to get people back in their seats watching only one show in any particular prime time slot so their current ratings and advertisment rate paridigm will continue to work. You're *not* the customer, you're the product, and your eyes are being sold to the advertizers.