4 ms·

Now this just needs to happen with other TV networks. For example, I'd love to pay AMC Networks[0], A&E Networks[1], or NBC Universal[2] a nominal monthly fee

Now this just needs to happen with other TV networks. For example, I'd love to pay AMC Networks[0], A&E Networks[1], or NBC Universal[2] a nominal monthly fee to access their catalogs on-demand. While it's true that these networks stream some of their current shows online, the players and streaming experience is usually very terrible. That's how I want to the future to be: everything is like Netflix or HBO-sans-cable. Maybe even eliminate, or at least reduce commercials. And it's not exactly a-la-carte, because most channels aren't individual networks. And most shows are perfectly suited for on-demand viewing. There are very few things I watch that are actually "broadcast" live (news and sports are pretty much it). All I'm suggesting is that we bypass the cable companies and pay the publishers directly for content. I'd pay good money to an Internet Service Provider who gives me a fast and stable connection to the publisher's servers. The flip side of all this choice is that it's no longer dead-simple for consumers. It sure is convenient to simply pay Comcast $100 a month and they take care of getting all of these networks and publishers into my home in one box with one remote control. Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon apps are fairly ubiquitous on pretty much every platform including built right into many TVs. I doubt traditional TV networks want to invest in that technology. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_Networks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_Networks [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26E_Networks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26E_Networks [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBCUniversal_Cable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBCUniversal_Cable

bkeroack 12y ago
The aggregate of all these fees (plus Netflix, Amazon, etc) will likely approach or exceed the cost of a typical cable subscription.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > The aggregate of all these fees (plus Netflix, Amazon, etc) will likely approach or exceed the cost of a typical cable subscription. The single-service cost of any one of the most popular services will likely approach or exceed the cost of a typical cable subscription while providing far less (but more focussed) content.
  - pdabbadabba 12y ago
    Unless one of those services is HBO Go. At least in my market, the cheapest cable package that includes HBO is extraordinarily expensive (often in the neighborhood of $120/mo). Of course, this makes some pretty thick assumptions about the cost of HBO Go as an over-the-top service.
- tylermac1 12y ago
  I'd gladly pay a premium for the freedom to choose where/when I watch the movies/shows on each service. Owning a cable subscription now allows me a few free on-demand shows but they have selected availability windows (usually a week or two after air).
- teej 12y ago
  And I'm okay with that. Having transparent pricing means that I am voting with my dollars for the content I care about. With a cable subscription, most of your dollars just go to Disney and not the content producers whose content you are personally consuming.
  - cylinder 12y ago
    How are Netflix, Prime, and even HBO different? You pay them for access to all of the content they decide to carry. I don't see how Netflix is "a la carte."
    - georgemcbay 12y ago
      You pay them for access to everything, but they know what you are watching -- this is quite unlike typical broadcast/cable where only some very small subset (historically "Nielsen Families") are tracked.
      - smeyer 12y ago
        This is not accurate. There are a couple of competitors to Nielsen, but more importantly, most cable providers these days track what everyone is watching. They may not do a ton with that data (depends on the company), but it's not like they don't have the data.
        georgemcbay 12y ago
        It still isn't quite the same for a number of reasons, including: 1) the broadcaster is a step removed from the cable operator (though with all the mergers in the content/delivery space, they might be part of the same parent company). If Netflix develops a new show like House of Cards, they know exactly how many people watched it for how long, etc. A cable company might track what station their customers are watching but unless they are reporting that back to the broadcaster it won't change programming in the near-term. It may make the cable company make different decisions about their lineup but such decisions are often part of many-year contracts with forced bundling (eg. Disney saying you must carry all these stations if you want ESPN) so even if they do have data I doubt it has much impact. 2) The cable company can know what channel your settop box is tuned to, but a lot of people have setups where the cable box is essentially always on (and only the TV is switched off) and there is no reasonable way for the cable operator to know if anyone is actively watching or not without resorting to very imprecise heuristics like only counting it if the channel has recently been changed. This is unlike Netflix, et al, which have less passive interfaces where you can be more reasonably sure that if the user started some content they are actually watching it and not streaming it to a TV set that is off.
- lallysingh 12y ago
  It's not even the money for me. I just don't like having a cable company. They're just awful. Also, having all the video in a choose-it-myself format avoids droning out in front of the TV for hours just watching commercials and reruns. And getting it over an IP network means a lot. Hello logging! Hello filtering per MAC around homework time!
- squeaky-clean 12y ago
  If there are no ads and I can watch what I want on demand, then it's totally worth it. It might be more expensive, but the value is greater as well.
- geebee 12y ago
  I have sonic net, and I pay (a little handwaving here) for amazon prime, netflix, and hulu plus. So monthly, that's $42 (sonic) + ($99/12) (amazon) + $9 (netflix) + $8 (huluplus) =~ $67 a month. I also have a digital antenna. I'd be locked out of espn (sonic net and no cable), except that I have an .edu domain so they allow that through for most programming. It's a mish mash but it kind of works. There's plenty of wiggle room here for HBO, and because it's more a la carte, I could easily drop a couple of things there once I have HBO. Not sure what they'd charge for standalone HBO yet, but I think it could be as much as $50 a month and I'd still come out ahead (especially if I dropped something). I got rid of comcast a while ago. As I recall, if you get the minimum level of cable service required for HBO plus specific surcharge for HBO and your internet service through them, I think it's was over $120 a year… I know I'm being vague, but that's largely because comcast doesn't really want to make it easy to figure out what things cost, though, and you can play various games (threaten to quit and get a deal that they hope you won't notice when it expires)… but they weasel right back and get you on all kinds of little things, though, so you have to pay close attention to your bill. Also, every now and then comcast will tell you to return something like a cable box, and then claim you haven't returned it, and send you a letter threatening your credit history if you don't pay for not returning it even though you have, and then ask you why you're quitting. So you have to factor in that extra cost too.
mikethompson45 12y ago
You can buy episodes for AMC's shows on amazon and iTunes the day after they air? http://www.amazon.com/Greetings-Set-Season-5/dp/B00NI1VFYI/ref=sr_1_1?s=instant-video&ie=UTF8&qid=1413399576&sr=1-1&keywords=walking+dead+season+6 http://www.amazon.com/Greetings-Set-Season-5/dp/B00NI1VFYI/r... Good way to watch the one or two shows you want from some of these networks. Although its not an all access plan to every show you can atleast watch the latest.

bkeroack 12y ago

The aggregate of all these fees (plus Netflix, Amazon, etc) will likely approach or exceed the cost of a typical cable subscription.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 12y ago
> The aggregate of all these fees (plus Netflix, Amazon, etc) will likely approach or exceed the cost of a typical cable subscription. The single-service cost of any one of the most popular services will likely approach or exceed the cost of a typical cable subscription while providing far less (but more focussed) content.
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  Unless one of those services is HBO Go. At least in my market, the cheapest cable package that includes HBO is extraordinarily expensive (often in the neighborhood of $120/mo). Of course, this makes some pretty thick assumptions about the cost of HBO Go as an over-the-top service.
tylermac1 12y ago
I'd gladly pay a premium for the freedom to choose where/when I watch the movies/shows on each service. Owning a cable subscription now allows me a few free on-demand shows but they have selected availability windows (usually a week or two after air).
teej 12y ago
And I'm okay with that. Having transparent pricing means that I am voting with my dollars for the content I care about. With a cable subscription, most of your dollars just go to Disney and not the content producers whose content you are personally consuming.
- cylinder 12y ago
  How are Netflix, Prime, and even HBO different? You pay them for access to all of the content they decide to carry. I don't see how Netflix is "a la carte."
  - georgemcbay 12y ago
    You pay them for access to everything, but they know what you are watching -- this is quite unlike typical broadcast/cable where only some very small subset (historically "Nielsen Families") are tracked.
    - smeyer 12y ago
      This is not accurate. There are a couple of competitors to Nielsen, but more importantly, most cable providers these days track what everyone is watching. They may not do a ton with that data (depends on the company), but it's not like they don't have the data.
      - georgemcbay 12y ago
        It still isn't quite the same for a number of reasons, including: 1) the broadcaster is a step removed from the cable operator (though with all the mergers in the content/delivery space, they might be part of the same parent company). If Netflix develops a new show like House of Cards, they know exactly how many people watched it for how long, etc. A cable company might track what station their customers are watching but unless they are reporting that back to the broadcaster it won't change programming in the near-term. It may make the cable company make different decisions about their lineup but such decisions are often part of many-year contracts with forced bundling (eg. Disney saying you must carry all these stations if you want ESPN) so even if they do have data I doubt it has much impact. 2) The cable company can know what channel your settop box is tuned to, but a lot of people have setups where the cable box is essentially always on (and only the TV is switched off) and there is no reasonable way for the cable operator to know if anyone is actively watching or not without resorting to very imprecise heuristics like only counting it if the channel has recently been changed. This is unlike Netflix, et al, which have less passive interfaces where you can be more reasonably sure that if the user started some content they are actually watching it and not streaming it to a TV set that is off.
lallysingh 12y ago
It's not even the money for me. I just don't like having a cable company. They're just awful. Also, having all the video in a choose-it-myself format avoids droning out in front of the TV for hours just watching commercials and reruns. And getting it over an IP network means a lot. Hello logging! Hello filtering per MAC around homework time!
squeaky-clean 12y ago
If there are no ads and I can watch what I want on demand, then it's totally worth it. It might be more expensive, but the value is greater as well.
geebee 12y ago
I have sonic net, and I pay (a little handwaving here) for amazon prime, netflix, and hulu plus. So monthly, that's $42 (sonic) + ($99/12) (amazon) + $9 (netflix) + $8 (huluplus) =~ $67 a month. I also have a digital antenna. I'd be locked out of espn (sonic net and no cable), except that I have an .edu domain so they allow that through for most programming. It's a mish mash but it kind of works. There's plenty of wiggle room here for HBO, and because it's more a la carte, I could easily drop a couple of things there once I have HBO. Not sure what they'd charge for standalone HBO yet, but I think it could be as much as $50 a month and I'd still come out ahead (especially if I dropped something). I got rid of comcast a while ago. As I recall, if you get the minimum level of cable service required for HBO plus specific surcharge for HBO and your internet service through them, I think it's was over $120 a year… I know I'm being vague, but that's largely because comcast doesn't really want to make it easy to figure out what things cost, though, and you can play various games (threaten to quit and get a deal that they hope you won't notice when it expires)… but they weasel right back and get you on all kinds of little things, though, so you have to pay close attention to your bill. Also, every now and then comcast will tell you to return something like a cable box, and then claim you haven't returned it, and send you a letter threatening your credit history if you don't pay for not returning it even though you have, and then ask you why you're quitting. So you have to factor in that extra cost too.

mikethompson45 12y ago

You can buy episodes for AMC's shows on amazon and iTunes the day after they air? http://www.amazon.com/Greetings-Set-Season-5/dp/B00NI1VFYI/ref=sr_1_1?s=instant-video&ie=UTF8&qid=1413399576&sr=1-1&keywords=walking+dead+season+6 http://www.amazon.com/Greetings-Set-Season-5/dp/B00NI1VFYI/r... Good way to watch the one or two shows you want from some of these networks. Although its not an all access plan to every show you can atleast watch the latest.