Cord-Cutters Rejoice: CBS Joins Web Stream

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
It’s beginning to look like HBO opened the flood gates to subscription streaming. CBS announced on Thursday that the network would begin to offer live programming and a treasure trove of past and present shows on demand with no TV subscription required.

CBS and HBO are not the only two new web-only offerings. Sony is preparing an Internet product expected to include programming from Viacom, the parent of networks like Comedy Central, MTV and Nickelodeon. DirecTV also said that it would start an online video service. A similar service from Showtime, the premium cable network owned by CBS, is likely in the “not too distant future.”
Click to expand...
 
$5.99 a month for something they still show just as many commercials on as TV and with most of the content on it available elsewhere? Pass.
 
It isn't even all their new (or old) content.

This is just a way to grab headlines, and offer a mediocre lineup of shows.

This isn't worth $1/month.
 
I don't think CBS will be a player. No sports, their stream will still have commercials, and it won't be anything like Netflix as they claim.

Why pay for it when I can watch it over the air free, and if I miss something, oh well - I didn't need to see it or can watch it when it comes out on Netflix.
 
I don't think CBS will be a player. No sports, their stream will still have commercials, and it won't be anything like Netflix as they claim.
Click to expand...

This. I read over the service offering. If they expect people to pay that price, then they better not have commercials, and provide some better content than just their own. Without commercials, this service should be priced at $3 or $4 maximum. They really just don't bring anything to the table that's not already there.
 
I'm afraid this is the start of every channel offering their own streaming option, with commercials, for $5-6 a month. We already have shitty Hulu plus for that, I'll be damned if I'm gonna pay CBS/NBC/ABC/everyotherstation a fee every month to stream their crap. What worries me more though, is that they'll start pulling their content from Netflix and Amazon prime, so people will pay for their own streaming service.
 
Dwango said:
$5.99 a month for something they still show just as many commercials on as TV and with most of the content on it available elsewhere? Pass.
Click to expand...

I quit television because of advertisements...
 
B2BigAl said:
I'm afraid this is the start of every channel offering their own streaming option, with commercials, for $5-6 a month. We already have shitty Hulu plus for that, I'll be damned if I'm gonna pay CBS/NBC/ABC/everyotherstation a fee every month to stream their crap. What worries me more though, is that they'll start pulling their content from Netflix and Amazon prime, so people will pay for their own streaming service.
Click to expand...

Even if they do, they aren't receiving the bigger message.

Why did the cord cutters leave their service? Price. If every network is 5-6 bucks, it would not take long to reach the price point where cord cutters have said the hell with it. Add in commercials, why bother? With 200 channels at dish, at 75 bucks, the channel break down price was approximately 37.5 cents per channel. People are smart enough to know ala carte at those prices for just as crappy selection and no sports. Well, I don't think the corporations will win with that model.

If they choose to not put their content on Netflix and other services, that is a revenue stream they do not have. If the price is not worth it, then no one will bother anyways.

Simply people will see the shows however they choose in the end.

I have an antenna and the ability to record the shows I want. Not going to pay for a service from a network at those prices. Not unless they remove the OTA signal and I am forced into other things.
 
Is it true the NFL is the only thing sitting, financially, between CBS and the same auction block as the rest of last century's content producers (Warner, NBC etc)?
 
JeffDC said:
Is it true the NFL is the only thing sitting, financially, between CBS and the same auction block as the rest of last century's content producers (Warner, NBC etc)?
Click to expand...
What do you mean? CBS doesn't have exclusivity with the NFL. The NFL is on three broadcast networks, ESPN while DirectTV has Sunday Ticket.
 
SLee said:
What do you mean? CBS doesn't have exclusivity with the NFL. The NFL is on three broadcast networks, ESPN while DirectTV has Sunday Ticket.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about exclusivity? I'm asking a financial question.
 
This al la carte wish that cable cutters long for is only going to increase prices..
It all sounds good in theory..
 
Do I really need to explain this? NBC are now owned by Comcast and they're looking to buy Time-Warner. Etc. The world has been converted into eight billion content producers of equal power, nothing remains for the former extortionists, excuse me I mean exclusive providers of said content but extinction. The only people who watch commercials these days are the final 30% of any population who are too stupid to ever seek out non-commercial and less stressful/irritating/and even costly alternatives. They sit in the dark room and suffer instead of turning the light on.
 
BTW I'd feel a whole lot better about these rants if the Giants weren't in the WS.
 
JeffDC said:
Do I really need to explain this? NBC are now owned by Comcast and they're looking to buy Time-Warner. Etc. The world has been converted into eight billion content producers of equal power, nothing remains for the former extortionists, excuse me I mean exclusive providers of said content but extinction. The only people who watch commercials these days are the final 30% of any population who are too stupid to ever seek out non-commercial and less stressful/irritating/and even costly alternatives. They sit in the dark room and suffer instead of turning the light on.
Click to expand...
TV is a healthy market, with more channels and content being produced from higher subscription and advertising dollars. A lot of people still watch TV live and sit through commercials and they're not all that stressed about.

And that's in the USA, with the most fractured TV viewing market in the world. For most of the world, major networks still command huge viewership fractions of the total audience.

As for 8 billion content producers of equal power, if the list of the top Youtube earners are accurate, I look forward to our future of nothing but video game commentaries on TV.
 
JeffDC said:
BTW I'd feel a whole lot better about these rants if the Giants weren't in the WS.
Click to expand...
Does that mean the Giants are tempting you to watch them live and even sit through the commercials? Like other live sports in general.
 
jlbenedict said:
This al la carte wish that cable cutters long for is only going to increase prices..
It all sounds good in theory..
Click to expand...

Except CBS isn't a cable channel, if you have an antenna on the roof, it's free. In fact many might argue it's free with cable or satellite because those local channels come for free with their package.
 
SLee said:
TV is a healthy market
Click to expand...
Not from subscriber numbers. See thread title. As mentioned you will also need to explain the current industry-wide fire sale of content producers.

SLee said:
As for 8 billion content producers of equal power, if the list of the top Youtube earners are accurate, I look forward to our future of nothing but video game commentaries on TV.
Click to expand...
Along with 19 Geico commercials.

It really is brainwashing you know.
 
Now I wonder if they will display Football online, without an active cable subscription, unlike ESPN.
 
JeffDC said:
Not from subscriber numbers. See thread title. As mentioned you will also need to explain the current industry-wide fire sale of content producers.
Click to expand...
Pay TV subscribers have been pretty stable at around 95 million households. Cable TV is losing customers, but it's losing to satellite and telecoms.

And content producers are not being sold at fire sale price, they are actually being bought at high premium because of the demand for content (and the need to get bigger and more vertically integrated).
 
SLee said:
And content producers are not being sold at fire sale price, they are actually being bought at high premium because of the demand for content (and the need to get bigger and more vertically integrated).
Click to expand...
The fact they're being sold at all is not evidence of a healthy industry. They're dinosaurs awaiting final extinction.
 
JeffDC said:
The fact they're being sold at all is not evidence of a healthy industry. They're dinosaurs awaiting final extinction.
Click to expand...
Is Mojang being bought by Microsoft a sign that game developers are dinosaurs?

If content providers weren't valuable, they wouldn't be bought, they would be spun-off. And companies like Time-Warner, Fox, Disney, CBS, etc all at much higher market capitalization then they were 5 years ago.
 
Gavv said:
I don't think CBS will be a player. No sports, their stream will still have commercials, and it won't be anything like Netflix as they claim.

Why pay for it when I can watch it over the air free, and if I miss something, oh well - I didn't need to see it or can watch it when it comes out on Netflix.
Click to expand...

Uh, So March Madness isn't a big thing at all you say???
 
For me, cord cutting (or not ever having TV service to begin with) meant not even bothering to watch stuff at all. Personally, I don't care who streams what because I was able to like get that need to watch stuff out of my system completely. There are so many better things to do than just be an audience to something and paying to stream junk instead of paying a cable provider to give it to me seems just as small minded and silly either way. American made video entertainment is like the stuff that the lowest classes of scumbags are infatuated with.
 
Sony is preparing an Internet product expected to include programming from Viacom, the parent of networks like Comedy Central, MTV and Nickelodeon
Click to expand...
I thought Sony was invested into Crackle you know that really old video service that no one uses because of shit poor market visibility.

Advertisements on the live stream will be the same as those on the traditional CBS broadcast. For the on-demand programming, the typical 12 to 16 minutes of ads an hour will be reduced 25 percent. CBS Classics will stream without ads.
Click to expand...
So what counts as CBS Classics? 12-16mins is slightly below the norm for broadcast ad time on an hour. But cord cutters don't want any ads because netflix doesn't run ads.

Anyways how many more of these do we need till it becomes just as bloated and expensive as a cable bill so basically bought cable on demand.
 
SLee said:
TV is a healthy market, with more channels and content being produced from higher subscription and advertising dollars. A lot of people still watch TV live and sit through commercials and they're not all that stressed about.
Click to expand...
This is probably what TV executives tell themselves to make it easier to sleep at night. Ask anyone under 20 how much TV they watch.

And that's in the USA, with the most fractured TV viewing market in the world. For most of the world, major networks still command huge viewership fractions of the total audience
Click to expand...
In the rest of the world TV is heavily state controlled as well as films as well as the content in both. This dampens growth. Also most of those countries don't have the size to field multiple stations.

As for 8 billion content producers of equal power, if the list of the top Youtube earners are accurate, I look forward to our future of nothing but video game commentaries on TV.
Click to expand...
People watch other people play sports and are quite religious about it.
 
terrybogard21 said:
Uh, So March Madness isn't a big thing at all you say???
Click to expand...

To me no it isn't

Not for the price, and especially since it will be available OTA.

Some may have to have it and they may feel they have to stream for it, at least during that time frame if there isn't a time commitment attached to the price.

But for me it isn't a big deal at all.

If you're willing to pay that price on top of everything else you probably want, then you would be better getting the lowest tier cable/sat deal to begin with.
 
I miss Aereo. Local channels are good for news & sports. My wife likes a lot of shows on local channels. It's not enough to justify the cost of cable.
Aereo was a decent price point. It worked ok.
I have a roof antenna, but I live a ways out and do not get the best reception. Otherwise, I'd be happy with it and something like Windows Media Center.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top