(01-10-2015 10:58 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Not comprehending where drugs and alcohol come into play...maybe how we raise our kids...not condeminging trying to understand.

At what age do you get your kids started on drugs and alcohol?

(01-10-2015 10:58 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Not comprehending where drugs and alcohol come into play...maybe how we raise our kids...not condeminging trying to understand.

It was simply meant as a joke about what it takes to actually tolerate six kids.

Went right over my head, and I'm not even a natural blonde. Quiverfull!

(01-12-2015 05:50 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  I honestly don't understand why anybody needs Hulu or NetFlix or HBO or even Amazon Prime. Certainly not 2 or 3 of them. And I don't have Hulu so maybe Im not quite getting it, but isn't most of Hulu the content that is free with an antenna anyway? So why not just DVR it free?

How did you people make it just 8 years ago when all you had was cable and the seriously small on-demand content from the cable box of Comcast or Time Warner? or running down to Blockbuster video for a DVD? Certainly your local Blockbuster never had more than maybe a thousand movies library on hand did they?

Obviously a large portion of America spends an awful lot of time sitting around watching TV non-stop.

All but three of the top 50 shows were on broadcast networks and could be picked up by antenna on Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC, CW, and PBS. If watching 47 of the top rated 50 programs is still not enough, Crackle offers at a minimum 250 full-length movies and offers 10 NEW movies every month. I can't image, personally, watching more than 10 movies every month. And that doesn't include all the sitcom episodes like Seinfeld. Add in PBS kids and all the other legit free stuff.

That's just me though, I'm just surprised.

If you order enough off of Amazon (as is the case with our household), the amount you save in shipping is easily worth the Amazon Prime membership. The streaming service is almost a throw-in benefit (although the content offerings have become MUCH more competitive over the past year with the old HBO library and a lot of FX and PBS shows with an increasing amount of original content). Netflix is pretty indispensable with young kids and their original shows are generally well-done. (House of Cards is a bit overrated although still entertaining, while Orange is the New Black is legitimately great.) For me, cable (or more accurately, satellite side I'm a DirecTV subscriber) is mostly about access to live sports. I probably watchore scripted content on Netflix and Amazon Prime (and my wife and kids *definitely* use those services more). Also, my kids are 5-years old, so I'm not exactly going out every night like I used to (and if it is, it's as a chauffeur to basketball practice, ballet, piano, karate, gymnastics, soccer, baseball, etc.). I'm at a point in my life where I'm either working, commuting, taking the kids to and from activities, and then have a couple of hours of downtime at home after the kids go to bed. So, yeah, I can burn through a lot of sporting events and shows during weeknights. I don't have the DINK life in the city that I had a decade ago. Granted, I often have sports on as background noise - I'm usually doing work or working out on my treadmill when the TV is on.

I'll be honest - you're way more "extreme" (not a criticism) than I thought. I totally understand how someone that doesn't watch much sports can get by on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu. You just seem to simply not watch much TV at all and/or don't care about which shows you're receiving, which is all well and good (and an even higher level of chord cutting).

Since the MVC has put the majority of the basketball games on ESPN3 it has made not want to cord cut one bit at all. Give me my Direct TV and OTAs any day over streaming. A lot of our fans complained about the ESPN3 quality of the game the other day.

(01-13-2015 07:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 05:50 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  I honestly don't understand why anybody needs Hulu or NetFlix or HBO or even Amazon Prime. Certainly not 2 or 3 of them. And I don't have Hulu so maybe Im not quite getting it, but isn't most of Hulu the content that is free with an antenna anyway? So why not just DVR it free?

How did you people make it just 8 years ago when all you had was cable and the seriously small on-demand content from the cable box of Comcast or Time Warner? or running down to Blockbuster video for a DVD? Certainly your local Blockbuster never had more than maybe a thousand movies library on hand did they?

Obviously a large portion of America spends an awful lot of time sitting around watching TV non-stop.

All but three of the top 50 shows were on broadcast networks and could be picked up by antenna on Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC, CW, and PBS. If watching 47 of the top rated 50 programs is still not enough, Crackle offers at a minimum 250 full-length movies and offers 10 NEW movies every month. I can't image, personally, watching more than 10 movies every month. And that doesn't include all the sitcom episodes like Seinfeld. Add in PBS kids and all the other legit free stuff.

That's just me though, I'm just surprised.

If you order enough off of Amazon (as is the case with our household), the amount you save in shipping is easily worth the Amazon Prime membership. The streaming service is almost a throw-in benefit (although the content offerings have become MUCH more competitive over the past year with the old HBO library and a lot of FX and PBS shows with an increasing amount of original content). Netflix is pretty indispensable with young kids and their original shows are generally well-done. (House of Cards is a bit overrated although still entertaining, while Orange is the New Black is legitimately great.) For me, cable (or more accurately, satellite side I'm a DirecTV subscriber) is mostly about access to live sports. I probably watchore scripted content on Netflix and Amazon Prime (and my wife and kids *definitely* use those services more). Also, my kids are 5-years old, so I'm not exactly going out every night like I used to (and if it is, it's as a chauffeur to basketball practice, ballet, piano, karate, gymnastics, soccer, baseball, etc.). I'm at a point in my life where I'm either working, commuting, taking the kids to and from activities, and then have a couple of hours of downtime at home after the kids go to bed. So, yeah, I can burn through a lot of sporting events and shows during weeknights. I don't have the DINK life in the city that I had a decade ago. Granted, I often have sports on as background noise - I'm usually doing work or working out on my treadmill when the TV is on.

I'll be honest - you're way more "extreme" (not a criticism) than I thought. I totally understand how someone that doesn't watch much sports can get by on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu. You just seem to simply not watch much TV at all and/or don't care about which shows you're receiving, which is all well and good (and an even higher level of chord cutting).

We ordered most our Christmas presents from Amazon so the shipping savings about paid for it. We don't watch a lot of Amazon Prime (other than slowly catching up on Justified) because we have Apple TV so I have to Airplay from my phone or iPad. But I use Amazon Prime Music quite a bit, especially some of the playlists when I'm catching up on paperwork at the office (I've got a grandfathered unlimited data account with ATT) and from time to time read Amazon Prime free books. All in all it has been a great value.

Netflix has been worthwhile though I'm dumping the DVD portion because I so rarely use it. Now that you can have multiple users it's a great deal. If my wife and I aren't home together can watch our account to keep up with same shows. We both travel a lot for work (I'm platinum IHG, she's Gold Marriott, and we cash in 3 to 5 free flights a year) so we sometimes can't watch together.

Hulu Plus cost me $15 last year. I do all my searches via Bing and signed up for Bing Rewards. If you average 30 searches a day, you earn enough points to redeem for a free month of Hulu. I come here, facebook, and everywhere else via Bing. :) Some of the "exclusives" which a just British shows are worth watching.

(01-14-2015 01:21 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 07:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 05:50 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  I honestly don't understand why anybody needs Hulu or NetFlix or HBO or even Amazon Prime. Certainly not 2 or 3 of them. And I don't have Hulu so maybe Im not quite getting it, but isn't most of Hulu the content that is free with an antenna anyway? So why not just DVR it free?

How did you people make it just 8 years ago when all you had was cable and the seriously small on-demand content from the cable box of Comcast or Time Warner? or running down to Blockbuster video for a DVD? Certainly your local Blockbuster never had more than maybe a thousand movies library on hand did they?

Obviously a large portion of America spends an awful lot of time sitting around watching TV non-stop.

All but three of the top 50 shows were on broadcast networks and could be picked up by antenna on Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC, CW, and PBS. If watching 47 of the top rated 50 programs is still not enough, Crackle offers at a minimum 250 full-length movies and offers 10 NEW movies every month. I can't image, personally, watching more than 10 movies every month. And that doesn't include all the sitcom episodes like Seinfeld. Add in PBS kids and all the other legit free stuff.

That's just me though, I'm just surprised.

If you order enough off of Amazon (as is the case with our household), the amount you save in shipping is easily worth the Amazon Prime membership. The streaming service is almost a throw-in benefit (although the content offerings have become MUCH more competitive over the past year with the old HBO library and a lot of FX and PBS shows with an increasing amount of original content). Netflix is pretty indispensable with young kids and their original shows are generally well-done. (House of Cards is a bit overrated although still entertaining, while Orange is the New Black is legitimately great.) For me, cable (or more accurately, satellite side I'm a DirecTV subscriber) is mostly about access to live sports. I probably watchore scripted content on Netflix and Amazon Prime (and my wife and kids *definitely* use those services more). Also, my kids are 5-years old, so I'm not exactly going out every night like I used to (and if it is, it's as a chauffeur to basketball practice, ballet, piano, karate, gymnastics, soccer, baseball, etc.). I'm at a point in my life where I'm either working, commuting, taking the kids to and from activities, and then have a couple of hours of downtime at home after the kids go to bed. So, yeah, I can burn through a lot of sporting events and shows during weeknights. I don't have the DINK life in the city that I had a decade ago. Granted, I often have sports on as background noise - I'm usually doing work or working out on my treadmill when the TV is on.

I'll be honest - you're way more "extreme" (not a criticism) than I thought. I totally understand how someone that doesn't watch much sports can get by on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu. You just seem to simply not watch much TV at all and/or don't care about which shows you're receiving, which is all well and good (and an even higher level of chord cutting).

We ordered most our Christmas presents from Amazon so the shipping savings about paid for it. We don't watch a lot of Amazon Prime (other than slowly catching up on Justified) because we have Apple TV so I have to Airplay from my phone or iPad. But I use Amazon Prime Music quite a bit, especially some of the playlists when I'm catching up on paperwork at the office (I've got a grandfathered unlimited data account with ATT) and from time to time read Amazon Prime free books. All in all it has been a great value.

Netflix has been worthwhile though I'm dumping the DVD portion because I so rarely use it. Now that you can have multiple users it's a great deal. If my wife and I aren't home together can watch our account to keep up with same shows. We both travel a lot for work (I'm platinum IHG, she's Gold Marriott, and we cash in 3 to 5 free flights a year) so we sometimes can't watch together.

Hulu Plus cost me $15 last year. I do all my searches via Bing and signed up for Bing Rewards. If you average 30 searches a day, you earn enough points to redeem for a free month of Hulu. I come here, facebook, and everywhere else via Bing. :) Some of the "exclusives" which a just British shows are worth watching.

Didnt know that about Bing! Thanks for the tip.

(01-12-2015 05:50 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  I honestly don't understand why anybody needs Hulu or NetFlix or HBO or even Amazon Prime. Certainly not 2 or 3 of them. And I don't have Hulu so maybe Im not quite getting it, but isn't most of Hulu the content that is free with an antenna anyway? So why not just DVR it free?

How did you people make it just 8 years ago when all you had was cable and the seriously small on-demand content from the cable box of Comcast or Time Warner? or running down to Blockbuster video for a DVD? Certainly your local Blockbuster never had more than maybe a thousand movies library on hand did they?

Obviously a large portion of America spends an awful lot of time sitting around watching TV non-stop.

All but three of the top 50 shows were on broadcast networks and could be picked up by antenna on Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC, CW, and PBS. If watching 47 of the top rated 50 programs is still not enough, Crackle offers at a minimum 250 full-length movies and offers 10 NEW movies every month. I can't image, personally, watching more than 10 movies every month. And that doesn't include all the sitcom episodes like Seinfeld. Add in PBS kids and all the other legit free stuff.

That's just me though, I'm just surprised.

To be fair, I don't think saying all but three of the top 50 shows were on free to air tv is saying much.

Considering subscription tv (cable, sat, telco) is subscribed to by about 75% of the total tv households in the US, it gives the free to air channels an additional 23 million tv homes.

If you look at the highest rated shows each year from 1950 to today, free to air tv has seen its share constantly eroded in terms of Nielsen Ratings.

The only thing keeping free to air tv on top is the 20+ million tv sets with no subscription service (cable, sat, telco).

(01-14-2015 11:34 AM)Topkat Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 05:50 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  I honestly don't understand why anybody needs Hulu or NetFlix or HBO or even Amazon Prime. Certainly not 2 or 3 of them. And I don't have Hulu so maybe Im not quite getting it, but isn't most of Hulu the content that is free with an antenna anyway? So why not just DVR it free?

How did you people make it just 8 years ago when all you had was cable and the seriously small on-demand content from the cable box of Comcast or Time Warner? or running down to Blockbuster video for a DVD? Certainly your local Blockbuster never had more than maybe a thousand movies library on hand did they?

Obviously a large portion of America spends an awful lot of time sitting around watching TV non-stop.

All but three of the top 50 shows were on broadcast networks and could be picked up by antenna on Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC, CW, and PBS. If watching 47 of the top rated 50 programs is still not enough, Crackle offers at a minimum 250 full-length movies and offers 10 NEW movies every month. I can't image, personally, watching more than 10 movies every month. And that doesn't include all the sitcom episodes like Seinfeld. Add in PBS kids and all the other legit free stuff.

That's just me though, I'm just surprised.

To be fair, I don't think saying all but three of the top 50 shows were on free to air tv is saying much.

Considering subscription tv (cable, sat, telco) is subscribed to by about 75% of the total tv households in the US, it gives the free to air channels an additional 23 million tv homes.

If you look at the highest rated shows each year from 1950 to today, free to air tv has seen its share constantly eroded in terms of Nielsen Ratings.

The only thing keeping free to air tv on top is the 20+ million tv sets with no subscription service (cable, sat, telco).

Yes, that's true. We're also a much more fragmented society in terms of what we watch - the over-the-air networks will still garner the largest audiences by sheer size, but their share of overall viewers is waaaaaaay lower than it was even compared to a decade ago. There is a very small handful of OTA network shows that I watch, but the vast majority of other scripted programs that I follow are either on cable or streaming. I generally like serialized shows much more with 13-or-so episodes per season, which are almost all cable or streaming shows. The procedural shows with one episode stories every week don't do much for me (with the exception of The Blacklist, and even that has a serial element) and those are what predominate on OTA networks (as those types of shows are better for 20-plus episodes per year and for syndication profits later on that OTA networks need). Granted, on the scale of my pop culture tastes, I'm definitely a TV and movie snob (as my tastes almost directly align with the critics, and that favors the cable shows). (On the other hand, my music tastes are very pedestrian these days, meaning that my current music awareness barely goes beyond the top 40. My 17-year old self would be embarrassed with me on that front. The irony is that I was trained in music for a long time, whereas I don't have a clue about what it takes to be a good actor.)

(01-14-2015 11:34 AM)Topkat Wrote:  To be fair, I don't think saying all but three of the top 50 shows were on free to air tv is saying much.

Considering subscription tv (cable, sat, telco) is subscribed to by about 75% of the total tv households in the US, it gives the free to air channels an additional 23 million tv homes.

If you look at the highest rated shows each year from 1950 to today, free to air tv has seen its share constantly eroded in terms of Nielsen Ratings.

The only thing keeping free to air tv on top is the 20+ million tv sets with no subscription service (cable, sat, telco).

Local TV is on the air because they draw an audience. Not just the network programming but local programming. Weather Channel's local breaks don't remotely compare to local weathercasts. No one in the arena can match them in local news and sports.

The network programming they carry isn't as likely to be award winning because it is designed to be lowest common denominator programming to reach the largest audience rather than a subscribing audience.

Locals also carry the most desired sports programming, of the potentially 16 NFL telecasts per week, 14 will be OTA and a host of others.

I was thinking that even subchanels OTA like Weather Nation and France 24 must be making money or else they would not be broadcasting .

(01-14-2015 02:05 PM)panama Wrote:  I was thinking that even subchanels OTA like Weather Nation and France 24 must be making money or else they would not be broadcasting .

There's "making money" to keep the lights on... and then there's "MAKING MONEY $$$$$$$$$$" to dominate. ESPN, for instance, is in the latter category.

The historical corollary is what we're communicating on now: the Internet. There are news websites that make money, but they don't make anywhere NEAR the money that newspapers used to. IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE. Of course, you see how newspapers are in the dumps today. Part of the problem is that newspapers gave away too much of their product for free at the dawn of the Internet, so by the time that they realized how much they were cannibalizing their own business, it was far too late. (Note that the main newspaper that's still very profitable is the Wall Street Journal, which happens to be the main paper that NEVER gave away its material for free.) LOTS of TV people saw what happened with newspapers and they're fighting tooth and nail to avoid the same fate. That's why it has been such a slow process to allow sports to stream, they fight a la carte at every turn, and even OTA networks have eliminated free streaming of shows for the most part (whereas they allowed it quite a bit several years ago).

The value of a viewer or reader on the Internet is worth only a tiny fraction of a viewer of regular TV/cable or reader of a physical newspaper/magazine. We've seen the Internet have common usage for two decades and, even with all of the entrepreneurs in this space, we STILL can't figure out how to change that equation. Even Netflix and Amazon streaming have little to no profits, while Hulu straight up loses money. Shareholders are patient with losses as long as they see very fast subscriber growth, but once that growth matures, then they'll demand to see profitability (which means that those $9.99 per month prices that we're getting now will end up being extinct).

Like I've said, we're sort of in a temporary arbitrage period where we can get a lot of content that was paid for by cable fees on lower cost non-cable streaming options. Inevitably, the situation will be that (a) new content won't be produced at the same levels and/or quality without those cable fees (which is what happened to newspapers when they lost their paid subscribers, as they have been completely gutted over the past 15 years) and/or (b) prices for streaming prices will rise once shareholders demand more profits. We might pay (i) less for less content or (ii) more for the same content as today, but under no circumstances will we be paying less for the same content as today (which is what a lot of chord-cutters seem to be hoping for).

(01-14-2015 02:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  We might pay (i) less for less content or (ii) more for the same content as today

I completely agree, except I think it will be BOTH. And it will be both precisely because of A la Carte.

A la Carte will allow those like me to (i) pay less for less:

ex. - I'm happy with only 18 channels and pay much less than I did when I had 120 channels bundled together (but only watched 20 of the 120 and didn't want the others but was forced to pay for them).

A la Carte will also force others to (ii) pay more for the same content

ex. - Big Ten fans who were used to the Big Ten Network bundled together with cable and having those who didn't want to pay for it subsidize their cost for the channel will now have to buy it A la Carte at a much higher price. Same will be for those who need CBS Sports Network or NBCSN, or FS1, or HGTV, etc.....


A la Carte de-bundling will be a net-sum zero difference in pay for content but will allow those who don't need all those channels to pay less while those who were used to subsidized bundled cable prices to pay MORE.

I'm all for it.

I think what most non-cord-cutter's hope is that somehow cord-cutters will have no escape and forced by some sort of bizarre made-up martial law to continue to subsidize content prices for non-cord-cutters to keep their prices down. This is why this thread is 200 posts long and hotly debated by those hoping to fence in the subsidizers to keep paying. Then try to convince everybody that there is no way you can actually pay less but fear that cord-cutters paying less for less will mean they will pay more for the same. Its a zero-sum game, if one person is paying less, the other person is paying more.

(01-14-2015 05:44 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 02:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  We might pay (i) less for less content or (ii) more for the same content as today

I completely agree, except I think it will be BOTH. And it will be both precisely because of A la Carte.

A la Carte will allow those like me to (i) pay less for less:

ex. - I'm happy with only 18 channels and pay much less than I did when I had 120 channels bundled together (but only watched 20 of the 120 and didn't want the others but was forced to pay for them).

A la Carte will also force others to (ii) pay more for the same content

ex. - Big Ten fans who were used to the Big Ten Network bundled together with cable and having those who didn't want to pay for it subsidize their cost for the channel will now have to buy it A la Carte at a much higher price. Same will be for those who need CBS Sports Network or NBCSN, or FS1, or HGTV, etc.....


A la Carte de-bundling will be a net-sum zero difference in pay for content but will allow those who don't need all those channels to pay less while those who were used to subsidized bundled cable prices to pay MORE.

I'm all for it.

I think what most non-cord-cutter's hope is that somehow cord-cutters will have no escape and forced by some sort of bizarre made-up martial law to continue to subsidize content prices for non-cord-cutters to keep their prices down. This is why this thread is 200 posts long and hotly debated by those hoping to fence in the subsidizers to keep paying. Then try to convince everybody that there is no way you can actually pay less but fear that cord-cutters paying less for less will mean they will pay more for the same. Its a zero-sum game, if one person is paying less, the other person is paying more.

I don't think it's martial law. It's about the market and whether prices will ultimately end up rising after this initial arbitrage period and/or whether we will truly have a la carte. Note that in the DISH streaming package that spurred this discussion, you don't just buy ESPN, Instead, you're buying a package of largely Disney and Turner channels that are bundled together (just like cable, only in a different format). For the Big Ten Network scenario that you state (a favorite example of people that don't like the Big Ten), they're a majority Fox-owned network. Their leverage is that FX, Fox News, FS1 and other Fox channels will likely be tied in with them just as Disney and Turner will bundle their offerings together. All of that looks like is the same bundle in a different format.

I don't think most chord-cutters have your particular mentality, where you seem to be cool with simply having very few TV options outright. Most people looking at cutting the chord are more in the vein of, "I want to watch AMC shows but don't want to pay for ESPN" or vice versa - they still generally want a critical mass of higher cost programs/channels (hence the popularity of Netflix and Hulu with chord cutters). I don't think that latter (and much larger) category of potential chord cutters will be helped that much in the long run (as we'll just see the same type of bundling only using streaming instead of cable or satellite).

Frank, you bring up a good point about BTN and Fox backing them and SEC/Disney.

However, I believe the PAC 12 Network has nobody behind them and thats why they only have 12 million subscribers to begin with vs 60 million for BTN.

A la carte may force them to sell a stake to Fox or ESPN.

(01-14-2015 07:10 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Frank, you bring up a good point about BTN and Fox backing them and SEC/Disney.

However, I believe the PAC 12 Network has nobody behind them and thats why they only have 12 million subscribers to begin with vs 60 million for BTN.

A la carte may force them to sell a stake to Fox or ESPN.

Yes, that was the risk of going it alone for the Pac-12. 100% ownership means 100% of the revenue and profits, but also 100% of the risk if they don't get carriage. ESPN and Fox can bolt on the SEC Network and BTN, respectively, to their other offerings. That's what I mean by saying that we likely won't get true channel-by-channel a la carte. The entities that own sports channels (basically everyone except Viacom, who owns MTV and VH1) or carry a lot of sports programming (like TNT and TBS) likely aren't going to separate them from their lower cost non-sports offerings (as the sports offerings are what make the most money).

(01-10-2015 08:24 AM)panama Wrote:  Why are people still trying to talk people out of this? If it doesnt work for you that just means it doesnt work for YOU. But this is more than going to work for a lot of us.

The

End

Words to live by/bye!!! We settled in a Utopia for the same reason...live and let live. But, I still want to know how many hours can a person can spend in front of the Boob Tube?

(01-14-2015 07:51 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 08:24 AM)panama Wrote:  Why are people still trying to talk people out of this? If it doesnt work for you that just means it doesnt work for YOU. But this is more than going to work for a lot of us.

The

End

Words to live by/bye!!! We settled in a Utopia for the same reason...live and let live. But, I still want to know how many hours can a person can spend in front of the Boob Tube?

My wife keeps one on 24/7, only turning it off on rare occasions. But it's more of a white noise generator for her, since she's rarely watching. Most of the time she's working on some art project.