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

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.

Comments

Price of commercials

[phantomfive]

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.

Re: Price of commercials

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Price of commercials

[squiggleslash]

$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.

Re:Price of commercials

[rogoshen1]

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.

Re:Price of commercials

[NotDrWho]

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.

Re:Price of commercials

[Jason Levine]

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.

lol

[Charliemopps]

Blog posts filled with random unsupported opinions = News???

mixed?

[frovingslosh]

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.

Why ads exist

[sjbe]

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?

[FictionPimp]

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.

Will Not Pay

[Scottingham]

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.

'Cut the cord' long ago, OTA FTW

[kheldan]

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

Shows only exist to bring eyeballs to the ads

[DutchUncle]

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.

$5.99 for CBS????

[MytQuinn]

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.

Re:$5.99 for CBS????

[PRMan]

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.

OTA FTW

[Corporate Gadfly]

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