A Mixed Review For CBS's "All Access" Online Video Streaming

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Mixed Review For CBS's "All Access" Online Video Streaming

Posted by timothy on Thursday October 30, 2014 @06:18AM from the hey-this-cord-appears-quite-intact dept.

lpress writes I tested CBS All Access video streaming. It has technical problems, which will be resolved, but I will still pass because they show commercials in addition to a $5.99 per month fee. Eventually, we will all cut the cord and have a choice of viewing modes — on-demand versus scheduled and with and without commercials — but don't expect your monthly bill to drop as long as our ISPs are monopolies or oligopolies.

85 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Price of commercials by phantomfive · 2014-10-30 06:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

Eventually, we will all cut the cord and have a choice of viewing modes — on-demand versus scheduled and with and without commercials
Don't expect many people will be willing to pay for skipping the commercials, once they see how much extra it is. You can be certain that skipping commercials will cost you more than $20 extra, are you willing to pay even that?

Why do you think every website, from Facebook to Twitter to the crappy newspaper down the street, is trying to get a way to show video ads? It's because they make a lot of money off those things.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
1. Re:Price of commercials by OzPeter · 2014-10-30 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  Don't expect many people will be willing to pay for skipping the commercials, once they see how much extra it is. You can be certain that skipping commercials will cost you more than $20 extra, are you willing to pay even that?
  Yet look at how much people are prepared to pay just for the convenience of having an always connected, portable computer in their pocket
  
  --
  I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
2. Re: Price of commercials by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 06:30 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  In the 70s, when cable TV first started rolling out, one of the big selling points was "no ads." Obviously, the temptation to make more money won out, because after all... People will pay whatever you charge if they have no alternatives. We can rest assured the same will happen again.
3. Re:Price of commercials by MetalliQaZ · 2014-10-30 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  I don't completely agree with this. Yes, it will cost a fortune to skip commercials, but that is because the commercials are still tied to the legacy business model. They exist to make money for broadcast television, and have been a solid revenue stream for cable television for decades. If people can switch their content delivery medium and skip commercials, the demand for the commercials from the customer side (the customers are the advertisers) will plummet, and the legacy model will collapse. Once the legacy model has faded away, I doubt there would be any real requirement to make ad skipping outrageously expensive. I expect it would be more like a Netflix+Hulu model. You pay for delivery, then access to ad-less back catalogs would cost a bit of money, and access to "live" episodes would be either a nominal fee or commercial supported.
  
  --
  "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
4. Re:Price of commercials by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  skipping commercials will cost you more than $20 extra, are you willing to pay even that?
  That's weird. Netflix cost me less than $20 and I there aren't even commercials to skip.
5. Re:Price of commercials by MightyYar · 2014-10-30 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  My kids are happy watching amateur-made crappy videos on YouTube. They can always find something on Netflix. At $6/month for less available content (and commercials???) I don't think they have much hope with the younger generation.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
6. Re:Price of commercials by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  My kids "found some things" on Netflix. It is one of the reasons we haven't had streaming in a while.
7. Re:Price of commercials by justthinkit · 2014-10-30 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think they have much hope with the younger generation.
  So true. Our teenagers are now completely uninterested in anything on TV, recorded or otherwise. Their transition to YouTube is complete.
  
  --
  I come here for the love
8. Re:Price of commercials by internerdj · 2014-10-30 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry. Once all the networks have viable streaming avenues on their own, then they will renegotiate their contracts in time to price in your commercial free access.
9. Re:Price of commercials by MightyYar · 2014-10-30 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  I don't doubt that they will get into trouble later - for now they are young enough that they are constantly supervised. Looking forward to puberty! LOL.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
10. Re:Price of commercials by torkus · 2014-10-30 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  They all have viable streaming avenues...unfortunately they don't often belong to the networks :)
  It's amusing how underground, pirate, and other groups have done (with little to no funding) what the companies have been unable (or unwilling) to effectively do despite having the ability to easily throw $millions at the problem. Bad CBS, no cookie.
  
  --
  You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
11. Re:Price of commercials by squiggleslash · 2014-10-30 06:51 · Score: 2
  
  $20 per channel? Seems improbable, as HBO (and other ad free subscription networks) charges much less than that for a bundle of channels featuring original content. And while I hesitate to mention the BBC, given differences in salaries and other overheads US vs UK TV production, that provides, what, four TV channels (or is it five now? I've been out of the UK for a while), a similar number of radio channels, all with wide regional variations, and a symphony orchestra, for approximately $250 a year.
  Even if you meant "For their entire cable service", nobody watches all the cable channels, and nobody would buy a service intended to replace all the cable channels they currently watch. In addition, your cable bill is already significantly infrastructure heavy. We're talking here about you paying for the infrastructure seperately. Cable TV bill replaced by Internet bill, plus channel subscription bill. You may, over all, pay nearly $20 extra per month with this arrangement, but you're getting far more anyway.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
12. Re:Price of commercials by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 06:51 · Score: 0
  
  They were 2 and 4. They just found the controller while we were out of the room.
13. Re:Price of commercials by theshowmecanuck · 2014-10-30 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you think every website, from Facebook to Twitter to the crappy newspaper down the street, is trying to get a way to show video ads? It's because they make a lot of money off those things.
  That is because most people don't pay to visit a web site. Other than their ISP fees.
  
  --
  -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
14. Re:Price of commercials by Sowelu · 2014-10-30 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Congratulations! They are now old enough for you to password protect your services.
15. Re:Price of commercials by jedidiah · 2014-10-30 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  > You can be certain that skipping commercials will cost you more than $20 extra
  I can already get ad free reruns for only $8.
  With an antenna, I can get them for FREE.
  Why should anyone expect it to cost as much as what you're claiming?
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
16. Re:Price of commercials by theshowmecanuck · 2014-10-30 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  Save the children, live in a cave, give them a bible.
  
  --
  -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
17. Re: Price of commercials by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  I can rent or outright buy the dvds for seasons at a time for usually 15-30 bucks, less if I look at used dvds. All commercial free except for maybe 'hey here is another show you may like' at the front of the sometimes unskippable commercial. Instead of boring political drivel, or car I will not buy, or food I do not want to eat. For what I dont like I re-sell.
  I too remember the promise of 'adfree' in cable. Then I remember 'only between shows'. Then I remember the promise of 'only quality ads'. That lasted about 2 seconds.
  Basically everyone is starting to realize they do not need to pay for 8 different sports channels for 30+ bucks a month for the 4 stations they really do watch for those 2-6 shows they really watch.
  The one thing that really made cable take off was 'cable ready tv'. They then decided to put the genie back in the bottle for short term profits of 'the dvr'.
  Let me put this in perspective of what my parents paid for cable in 1980 (I found one of the receipts in a drawer)
  http://www.in2013dollars.com/1980-dollars-in-2014?amount=8
  Compare that to a bill today and we had 36 stations to pick from.
  Or what I paid just a few years ago.
  http://www.in2013dollars.com/1998-dollars-in-2014?amount=22
  I had 80 stations to pick from.
  The cost ratio is way out of wack and they do not realize it.
18. Re:Price of commercials by fustakrakich · 2014-10-30 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  Commercials are okay. It's like an automatic pause button so you can go pee and make a sandwich.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
19. Re:Price of commercials by MightyYar · 2014-10-30 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  You are lucky - we had to explain the birds and the bees without visual aids.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
20. Re:Price of commercials by rogoshen1 · 2014-10-30 07:10 · Score: 2
  
  I'm totally okay with the move to a netflix like model.
  Commercials? nope.
  High quality original content? yep.
  flat rate? yep.
  Seriously, you can keep your 9 minutes of commercials per 30 minutes of uninspired idiotic TV.
  Without sounding overly cynical, take something like 'Big Bang Theory'. You realize you're getting strung along like a marionette right? Commercial, dumbed down humor (with laugh track), blonde, commercial.. repeat.
21. Re:Price of commercials by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 07:14 · Score: 0
  
  Once the legacy model fades away, television will be all be like public access - guys in their basements doing sock puppet shows. A TV show costs about $1M to produce. If you were paying for that directly, expect to pay what HBO charges, unless the channel is purely old content, like the old movies channels (AMC, TCM, etc.).
22. Re:Price of commercials by NotDrWho · 2014-10-30 07:19 · Score: 2
  
  I never even finished my 2-week free trial of Hulu Plus because they wanted to charge a monthly fee and STILL force me to watch a show with just as many commercials as it had when it aired. I have no problem with a service that has commercials. I have no problem with a service that charges a monthly fee. But I do have a problem with a service that wants to do BOTH. I will be damned if I'm going to pay for the privilege of being forced to watch a bunch of commercials. Even my cableco's DVR let's me fast-forward through that crap.
  Frankly, I think Hulu was a service that was meant to fail be design. It was the television networks trying to make it look like they were doing something to answer companies like Netflix, while making the most half-assed effort they possibly could.
  
  --
  SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
23. Re:Price of commercials by Jason+Levine · 2014-10-30 07:24 · Score: 2
  
  My oldest son's latest YouTube love? Watching people play video games on YouTube. He loves video games, but we can't afford every game/gaming system out there. So he can see how a game progresses as someone plays each level. Even if we do get the game, the YouTube videos act as a purchasing filter for us. He can see if the game is something he'd want to play or not before having to spend the $50+ on it.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
24. Re:Price of commercials by porges · 2014-10-30 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  The networks have to comply with copyright law and the contracts they've signed with TV studios, so that makes it harder for them because they're obliged to control access to their streams and/or compensate the studios.
25. Re: Price of commercials by CronoCloud · 2014-10-30 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  when cable TV first started rolling out, one of the big selling points was "no ads."
  You're mistaking the sales pitch for premium channels with the sales pitch for cable as a whole. You're thinking of early marketing for HBO/SHO/MAX/TMC
  Cable in general was marketed as "more channels, clear picture"
  Antenna might get you 5 or 6 useable channels, here that was:
  WCIA 3, CBS Champaign (some slight snow)
  WILL 12, PBS Urbana
  WICD 15, NBC Champaign (too snowy most of the time, sometimes couldn't receive at all.)
  WAND 17, ABC Decatur, (snowy)
  WHOI 19, ABC Peoria
  WICS 20, NBC Springfield (snowy)
  WEEK 25, NBC Peoria
  WMBD 31, CBS Peoria
  WYZZ 43, FOX Bloomington (but not till the mid 80's)
  WTVP 47, PBS Peoria
  If one was VERY lucky and conditions were right and it was early morning, one might be able to pick up WGN 9 or WFLD 32 out of Chicago, for an hour or so.
  But if you lived in town and had cable, you would get at minimum in order from 2 - 13:
  WFLD 32
  WCIA 3
  Channel 4 was the cable companies camera panning across info boards channel
  WMAQ 5
  WEEK 25
  WLS 7
  WHOI 19
  WGN 9 (REAL WGN, mind you, not that WGN America crap we have now.)
  WMBD 31
  WTTW 11
  WILL 12
  WBBM 2 (though sometimes WTVP 47 replaced it in that slot)
  Once better tech became available and QAM tuners in TV's and cable boxes became more common, that added even MORE channels
  When we first got 80's cable, we didn't have a cable-ready set, so we got one of those Archer Radio shack converters that takes cable 14 -83 and converts it to UHF.
26. Re: Price of commercials by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 11:34 · Score: 0
  
  I know very few people who need to get up and pee every 10-15 minutes
27. Re: Price of commercials by fustakrakich · 2014-10-30 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  You live long enough, and you'll know lots more. Maybe not all of them will get up first...
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
28. Re: Price of commercials by mattack2 · 2014-10-30 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  In the 70s, when cable TV first started rolling out, one of the big selling points was "no ads."
  Not true, since cable TV started out as literally a shared antenna with cables to each house.. So it was "just" getting OTA, which obviously still had/has commercials in it.
  Plus, even if that WERE true, just use a VCR or nowadays a DVR. (Though there are RARE times I will use On Demand for a show with 'forced' commercials.. Though several commercial-cable channels end up having their shows On Demand WITHOUT commercials, so it's even better than DVRing it for those shows.)
29. Re:Price of commercials by mattack2 · 2014-10-30 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize Amazon bought twitch, a video game video site, for $970 million in cash, right?
  I'd never heard of it before the news came out.
30. Re:Price of commercials by Krishnoid · 2014-10-30 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  I'd never heard of it before the news came out.
  I'm embarrassed to admit that you're ahead of me on this count -- I hadn't heard that Amazon was running a profit in the first place.
31. Re:Price of commercials by nitehawk214 · 2014-10-30 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  But that has to be bullshit. There is no way the amount of commercials that I view (skip over with Tivo) are worth $20 across all channels, let alone a single network.
  CBS just thinks they are going to get to double-dip on pricing, and people will and for it. #1 network my ass. How many versions of the exact same CSI and NCIS can people put up with?
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
32. Re:Price of commercials by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 17:03 · Score: 0
  
  That's not comparable. All shows on Netflix are at least a season behind. If you want the current season with no commercials, it's going to be expensive. There is value to keeping current.
33. Re:Price of commercials by phantomfive · 2014-10-30 17:15 · Score: 1
  
  There is no way the amount of commercials that I view (skip over with Tivo) are worth $20 across all channels, let alone a single network.
  Do Nielsen ratings take into account commercials skipped with Tivo?
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
34. Re:Price of commercials by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 19:54 · Score: 0
  
  I already stated this a few years ago, because of the media attention "internet TV" got it was a matter of time before it would no longer be "free" (fee wise), and it will end up costing you just as much as having basic cable/satellite.
  Your being double if not triple charged by ISP's to access online content such as Netflix, not only are you say paying 80$ per month for basic internet your also now paying Concast to access Netflix, then your paying Netflix to access their content. Now you have all the defunct moronic broadcasting companies jumping into the mix.
  Why in the f** would you even bother? Depending on where you live and the charges from ISP's and content providers when you add it all together it is costing you far more to watch a handful of idiotic shows via the internet. If your that concerned with ads just record the damn show using your cable/satellite recorder and fast forward through them. The person that wrote the article/submission needs to stop pretending they are clever!
35. Re:Price of commercials by nitehawk214 · 2014-10-31 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  I am not even sure Nielsen ratings count Tivo time shifted programs at all. The old ratings and advertising systems seem to be breaking down.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
36. Re:Price of commercials by Rakarra · 2014-11-01 20:34 · Score: 1
  
  That's weird. Netflix cost me less than $20 and I there aren't even commercials to skip.
  Hey, what a shock, Netflix's streaming options are shit because all the content companies decided that Netflix charges way too little. It's not even pay-per-view, the minimum standard for content company consumer gouging.
lol by Charliemopps · 2014-10-30 06:29 · Score: 2

Blog posts filled with random unsupported opinions = News???
1. Re:lol by Sowelu · 2014-10-30 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  I dunno, a big network buy-in to a new distribution model is definitely news in these parts, and "they still show commercials" is an informative summary telling you all that you really need to know.
2. Re:lol by tepples · 2014-10-30 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps the "news" is that more influential columnists have become aware of the practical problems in MPAA members' business models. (CBS shares a corporate parent with Paramount Pictures.)
3. Re:lol by nitehawk214 · 2014-10-30 17:22 · Score: 1
  
  And "picture and streaming quality was shitty no matter what device I used" seemed pretty useful to me.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
mixed? by frovingslosh · 2014-10-30 06:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

OK, it has technical problems, it cost 6 bucks a month for CBS, it still includes commercials, and it is run by and finances a corrupt entertainment industry. In what way is this a mixed review? I don't see anything good about this at all.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
6$/month for Television with commercials? by GoodNewsJimDotCom · 2014-10-30 06:33 · Score: 0

What they put on television isn't worth watching even without commercials. The only way you're getting me watching CBS is if they pay me. And they could if they worked their business model out to share half the advertising revenue with the watcher. Sure it'd be very tricky in technical details to make sure someone is watching and not just spawning a bunch of processes, but advertising where you share revenue with your viewers could be done. Some fringe video game sites are doing stuff like this already.

--
God spoke to me
1. Re:6$/month for Television with commercials? by GoodNewsJimDotCom · 2014-10-30 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  I was just speaking for myself. Obviously people watch CBS. They need to determine if they make more revenue on 6$/month or free to watch + commercials. I tend to think it would be the latter.
  
  --
  God spoke to me
2. Re:6$/month for Television with commercials? by IMightB · 2014-10-30 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  I think your wrong, because it's 6/month + commercials vs free + commercials
Re:Straw Man by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 06:44 · Score: 0

ISPs have nothing to do with it you liberal pig dog. If not for ISPs you would have a toilet bowl of a sat dish sticking off of your house like some E-T cancer. You should call up your ISP as soon as you reply here and let your ISP know how much you appreciate what your ISP has done for you.
Obvious troll... everyone knows that ISPs have done nothing but jack up prices, throttle throughput and block content. :-)
Why ads exist by sjbe · 2014-10-30 06:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes, it will cost a fortune to skip commercials, but that is because the commercials are still tied to the legacy business model. They exist to make money for broadcast television, and have been a solid revenue stream for cable television for decades.
Advertisements make money for both the broadcaster AND for the company doing the advertizing. Ads exist because there is a market for companies that are trying to sell to customers. Broadcast TV is merely the medium and the broadcasters happen to have a platform for reaching customers. This is no different than newspapers or Google. The business model of having a platform to get ads in front of potential customers is alive and well. The only difference is WHICH platform works today. Google and Facebook are on the rise, TV is holding steady and newspapers/magazines are having a tough go of it. But they all have basically the same business model - it's just that certain platforms work better than others and thus are more profitable.
Free OTA w/ commercials or Pay w/ commercials? by FictionPimp · 2014-10-30 06:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

WTF??
I can record your shit OTA for free. If I'm giving you money I'm not watching commercials. Sorry this is DOA to me.
1. Re:Free OTA w/ commercials or Pay w/ commercials? by jedidiah · 2014-10-30 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. I am not watching their commercials period. I would pay extra for an alternate ad-free option before I would bother with this nonsense.
  Although CBS comes in fine OTA where I live...
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Pay and still get ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 06:50 · Score: 0

"they show commercials in addition to a $5.99 per month fee"
Not worth the money.
Will Not Pay by Scottingham · 2014-10-30 06:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

I have a simple rule; I will not pay a subscription for a service that also makes me watch ads. Not going to happen. Hulu-plus can fuck itself, as can this CBS trash.
1. Re:Will Not Pay by amyckono · 2014-10-30 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be okay with it if we were allowed to pay in ads. I'd love to send them some clips of Preparation H or Summer's Eve's commercials.
2. Re:Will Not Pay by 1gig · 2014-10-30 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  100% Agree with this you want me to pay for it then no ads!! This is the only reason I refuse to subscribe to Hulu-plus no way in hell I'm paying them just so I can watch ads. And this is the reason NetFlix and Amazon Prime have my money No ADS!! As long as HBO goes Ad free then I may subscribe to them as well then I'm done that should be all I need or want.
'Cut the cord' long ago, OTA FTW by kheldan · 2014-10-30 07:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'll stick with an antenna and TiVo and skip the ads, TYVM.

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
1. Re:'Cut the cord' long ago, OTA FTW by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-11-02 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  Current TiVos are CableCARD devices. They've started leaving out the antenna in ports.
Shows only exist to bring eyeballs to the ads by DutchUncle · 2014-10-30 07:12 · Score: 2

The television industry isn't about ads being inserted into shows; it's about shows being put on to draw people to the ads. Since there are other ways to watch shows, especially if one is willing to wait, sports has become the only "must-watch-live" item, which is why the networks are willing to pay so much for the rights to broadcast sports.

That goes for Facebook and Youtube and all of the other services, too. They just stumbled on cheaper ways to produce their "shows", namely provide the infrastructure for viewers to entertain each other.
CBS is wrong, that won't work. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 07:16 · Score: 0

I'd charge them to be forced to watch the commercials at a rate of 5,000 dollars per second, my time is priceless to me, and they can't afford it.
$5.99 for CBS???? by MytQuinn · 2014-10-30 07:19 · Score: 2

Sure, I'll give CBS $5.99, NBC $5.99, TBS $5.99, ect, ect, ect. Just that fact that every network thinks they need their own on demand distribution channel is enough to make me avoid any of them all together. If they would all back Netflix or Hulu or NextBigThingStreamer with past and current content I'd have no problem paying $40+ a month even with limited commercials. Other than thinking they need to increase their margin quarter after quarter while paying Ashton Kutcher $1 million an episode for 2 and half men....really, $100,000 would be reasonably excessive, $1 million is ludicrously, stupidly, %$&%$ing excessive. There's no reason they they can't a have a good business without being greedy bitches. I know it's America but the golden age of Hollywood is over. They need to realize there's millions of people on Youtube willing to entertain for far less and they need to learn to compete.
1. Re:$5.99 for CBS???? by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-10-30 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  You can get all three of the channels you mentioned bundled together with about 200 other channels delivered by satellite for about $40 a month... paying channel by channel just gets too many credit card fees on the way there.
2. Re:$5.99 for CBS???? by PRMan · 2014-10-30 07:45 · Score: 2
  
  But we don't watch anything on NBC or TBS, so I wouldn't pay for those. My $40 just went to $18. And besides, let's be real. Everybody but CBS is on Hulu Plus for $8 a month and probably isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
3. Re:$5.99 for CBS???? by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-11-02 12:32 · Score: 1
  
  All of Hulu = $8, CBS alone equals $5.99... CNBC/CNBC World is similarly priced.
mixed? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 07:23 · Score: 0

It costs a minimum of $35/month for me to get basic cable with 20 stations (including multiple CSPANs and Telemundo/Univision, QVC, the cable company's own channel, and other crap), $6/month is a reasonable a la carte pricing. The bigger issue is channel loyalty. Granted, older content may be interesting as a replacement for NetFlix/Amazon Prime library access, but for new stuff I would much rather access to the show for the season than to the entire channel.
Perfectly Fine with Hulu Plus by ranton · 2014-10-30 07:35 · Score: 1

I have a simple rule; I will not pay a subscription for a service that also makes me watch ads. Not going to happen. Hulu-plus can fuck itself, as can this CBS trash.
I am perfectly fine with Hulu Plus, because what I am paying for there is a DVR not an advertisement free experience. After cutting the cord Hulu Plus is the easiest way to watch my shows whenever I want. Now CBS can go fuck itself because it just wants more money than what Hulu will give them. $8 per month for a DVR is fine, but $5-6 per month per channel is ridiculous. That is why I only watch Big Bang Theory and don't even try out new CBS shows anymore (the fact they make me wait an extra week makes me even more upset than the $5).

--
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
1. Re:Perfectly Fine with Hulu Plus by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-31 04:02 · Score: 0
  
  Then that's the shittiest DVR you'll pay for.
  Any DVR lets you at least fast forward through a commercial.
  Hulu Plus just lets you watch the same ads over and over and over.
I won't take your ad-based service for free by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 07:39 · Score: 0

Wife was given a "free" month of Hulu Plus from a friend who doesn't those McDonald's Monopoly peal-offs. Entered the code, searched for a show, got to the second commercial and said, "no can do," and shut it off. I cannot and will not go back. My time is worth more than "free."
Standalone HBO Go by tepples · 2014-10-30 09:13 · Score: 1

If you were paying for [original streaming television series] directly, expect to pay what HBO charges
Hence HBO's recent announcement of plans to expand HBO Go into a standalone over-the-top service, because people have shown themselves willing "to pay what HBO charges", just not what the local multichannel pay television provider charges.
1. Re:Standalone HBO Go by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 17:10 · Score: 0
  
  The only thing wrong with that is that Denise Milani's tits really are that big. No photoshop. (not to say that they are real, of course)
Copyright takedowns of Let's Play videos by tepples · 2014-10-30 09:16 · Score: 1

My oldest son's latest YouTube love? Watching people play video games on YouTube. He loves video games, but we can't afford every game/gaming system out there. So he can see how a game progresses as someone plays each level.
And now you know why some video game publishers have decided to take down or at least claim ad revenue on Let's Play videos on copyright grounds. You have admitted the existence of a demographic for which a complete playthrough video substitutes for buying the game itself.
1. Re:Copyright takedowns of Let's Play videos by Jason+Levine · 2014-10-30 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  In some ways, it is a substitute. However, many times these are games we aren't going to buy since we can't afford to buy every game out there. In other cases, for example Mario Kart 8 videos, they got my son psyched up to try the tracks himself. Even the ones we can't afford to buy psych my son up and he will pester us about buying the game for weeks. These play through videos can be powerful commercials for the games.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
2. Re:Copyright takedowns of Let's Play videos by tepples · 2014-10-30 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  In some ways, it is a substitute. However, many times these are games we aren't going to buy since we can't afford to buy every game out there. [...] These play through videos can be powerful commercials for the games.
  People who just flat-out pirate a game, movie, or album have made exactly this same excuse on Slashdot.
3. Re:Copyright takedowns of Let's Play videos by Rakarra · 2014-11-01 20:42 · Score: 1
  
  I'll put on my "soul-killing media company" hat here, because you're trying to argue logically with them, while they'll come at this from a different perspective.
  
  In some ways, it is a substitute. However, many times these are games we aren't going to buy since we can't afford to buy every game out there.
  Then you and your son can do without. It's either no experience, or you fork over the cash for the game. There is no legal middle ground there. You don't get to keep the cash and get a degraded game experience. Not being able to afford the media isn't an excuse, if you don't want to, or can't buy it, then you go without completely.
  That would be the game argument at least. The "it's a way to sell the game" is certainly debatable, it seems to be semi-valid for commercial software, but on the other hand Slashdot is also full of folks who pirated their music because they didn't want to pay for it, but would rather use that money for food/computer games/other media, then made a bunch of other excuses for why they were justified. Jury is still out on how right either side is on that.
Bundle pricing by tepples · 2014-10-30 09:20 · Score: 1

It costs a minimum of $35/month for me to get basic cable with 20 stations
Is that alone, or on top of what you already pay the cable company for high-speed Internet access?
TiVo costs money by tepples · 2014-10-30 09:26 · Score: 1

I can record your shit OTA for free.
That depends on how much you want to pay TiVo per month for DVR service.
1. Re:TiVo costs money by reboot246 · 2014-10-30 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  TiVo is not the only way to record television shows. You can do it free of any charges, IF you know how.
2. Re:TiVo costs money by tepples · 2014-10-30 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  You mean recording OTA with MythTV? You still have to buy a device to dedicate to recording and subscribe to listings.
3. Re:TiVo costs money by FictionPimp · 2014-10-31 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Or hell a VCR and a timer!
4. Re:TiVo costs money by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-31 09:56 · Score: 0
  
  There exist OTA DVRs that aren't TiVo. Mine was a $250 one-time purchase cost. No subscription.
5. Re:TiVo costs money by tepples · 2014-10-31 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  But do well-known companies still make VCRs with a digital OTA tuner and affordable blank tapes? I thought new VCRs sold nowadays were either A. limited to line-in recording, which means you have to sit there and change the channel between one timer program and the next, or B. not actually VCRs but VCPs (video cassette players
OTA FTW by Corporate+Gadfly · 2014-10-30 10:28 · Score: 2

OTA plus HTPC-based DVR plus comskip = F U CBS

--
Corporate Gadfly
Jonathan Archer: the most beaten up Enterprise captain in Star Trek history
How about by JasonGoatcher · 2014-10-30 15:58 · Score: 1

a Youtube model where I can store my preferences locally? I wouldn't even necessarily need an account, then. There'd be commercials sprinkled in, but otherwise I'd have access to everything made by the networks ever. And then, if I don't like the commercials, I can whip out my card and pay to get just the shows.
Just Buy DVDs of all your shows by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-31 06:24 · Score: 0

Just cut the cords all together. Just buy DVDs of all your favorite shows and watch them non-stop without commercials. Once they are paid for you never have to pay again. If you watch streaming TV online, then install adblocker plus and block all the ads. I will never watch another commercial as long as I live. Not seeing ads does not effect what I am influenced to buy as I buy what I need and want without need of ads. Just one walk through Walmart gives you advertising without seeing it interrupting your entertainment. Stop paying those greedy cable giants now....
"It might say anonymous coward but its really just anonymous because if I was a coward I would not have posted anything"....
Security problems too by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-31 07:12 · Score: 0

Not only do you still get commercials but check out the access it gets running on Android. You have to ageee to it reporting your wifi AP information and information for EVERY device connected to the AP. I also looks at contact information and a bunch of other shit. Spyware YEP! there's an app for that.
Why does it need to read my contact list?
Why does it need to scan every device on my network?
OTA FTW by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-31 11:57 · Score: 0

The FCC is currently negotiating with Broadcasters to release their airwaves in trade for $$$$. The FCC would then auction off the spectrum. IF successful, all Over The Air transmission will stop, and you will be paying for either Internet and/or Cable for TV. I just don't see how this could work as it would affect National Security not having a free, easily accessible, public communication system for emergency situation. Also, while populated areas have many Internet choices, rural areas usually have one, if any, choice for cable or Internet. But the big issue is why would a Broadcaster be willing to give up airwaves space for pennies on the dollar.
Ads and Pay TV by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-01 01:19 · Score: 0

I remember when cable was introduced it advertised "no commercials". Well, then it had ads then more ads and more ads. See when you are monopoly you get monopoly profits!