# Hulu TV service



## huskerpower95 (Jan 12, 2016)

Possible new player in Cable tv alternative. Could be good news if Hulu app is used.

Hulu is planning an internet television service for cord cutters with a platform that allows you to stream live broadcast and cable channels, according to the Wall Street Journal. Walt Disney Co. and 21st Century Fox are expected to license their channels for the platform. Meanwhile, NBCUniversal is in talks with the streamer, according to a new Variety report.

With Fox Broadcasting Company, NBCUniversal Television Group, and Disney-ABC Television Group co-owning Hulu, it makes sense that their channels would be a part of Hulus planned service. So far, Disneys ABC, ESPN, and the Disney Channel, along with Fox News, FX, and Foxs local and national sports channels are said to be part of the bundle. If NBCUniversals contributions could include NBC, Bravo, E!, MSNBC, CNBC, Oxygen, Syfy, and USA.

Related: Thousands of Movies & TV Shows on Amazon Prime. Try Prime Free!

Hulu currently hosts on-demand shows licensed by its network owners as well as original content. The new service would place it in competition with pay-TV providers as well as any companies throwing their hat in the same digital ring. Insiders say that the streaming company plans to launch the new online subscription service in early 2017. Hulu is in talks with other programmers, but it isnt aiming to put out hundreds of cable channels.

Instead, the service is looking to leverage its platform to take advantage of the shift away from pricey cable and satellite services for a slimmer channel bundle. The company is targeting its 10 million-plus subscribers, though you dont need to be a customer to sign up for the new service.

Hulu will join the ranks of such services as Dishs Sling TV and Sonys PlayStation Vue, both of which offer bundles of live channels online without a cable or satellite subscription. Vue bundles start at $30 per month, while Sling TV comes in at $20 for its basic package. Other contenders in the digital TV battle include Amazon, AT&T, and Apple.

Related: The Peacock aint dead yet: 8 awesome broadcast network shows worth binging

Cable TV companies have fought back by offering lower-priced streaming options, such as Comcasts Stream, which costs $15 per month and offers streaming of limited content.

So how much will Hulus service cost? About $40 per month, according to Todd Juenger, media analyst for Sanford C. Bernstein. This was confirmed by an executive close to Hulu.

A cloud-based video recorder should come with the service, along with the ability to watch past episodes of shows on demand, similar to what is offered by cable and TV services. Hulu is also planning on using targeted advertising within the service.

Updated on 05-02-2016 by Stephanie Topacio Long: Added reports that NBCUniversal


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

The problem child would be CBS as they have their own app. Providing content to Hulu would likely require that they be happy with what they get from Hulu.

Bottom line, especially for me with only subscribing to locals, if TiVo went away totally sometime soon (I doubt that would happen), or if I wanted to choose to cut the small cord I have, I could likely make it all work with the combo of Hulu and the CBS app.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I think the purpose of these services is for cord cutters to gain access to cable channels they can't currently get without cable, not broadcast channels they can get by putting up an antenna. 

SlingTV offers no locals at all and PSVue only offers them in a few big markets. Getting redistribution contracts for locals in every market would be a nearly impossible task, and wildly expensive.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Nice for Hulu and Tivo if they use the current apps, esp for Tivos used as OTA's.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> I think the purpose of these services is for cord cutters to gain access to cable channels they can't currently get without cable, not broadcast channels they can get by putting up an antenna.....


While I agree with you in principle, if I HAD to put up an antenna, I am worried my general location would make it a little tough to get all the networks....


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I understand that not everyone can get reception via an antenna, but having a nationwide service with rebroadcasting agreements with every local affiliate is virtually impossible. I think PSVue only has markets where the local affiliates are owned by corporate. Dealing with thousands of local broadcasters just isn't a viable solution.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> I understand that not everyone can get reception via an antenna, but having a nationwide service with rebroadcasting agreements with every local affiliate is virtually impossible. I think PSVue only has markets where the local affiliates are owned by corporate. Dealing with thousands of local broadcasters just isn't a viable solution.


It is already happening though. PS Vue doesn't provide live FOX programming in all markets but their app does provide VOD for Fox shows for those outside markets. Sling has an agreement with Fox for the regional sports networks throughout the entire country. So clearly, it is moving in a direction where getting agreements with the affiliates is going to happen. Plus, almost all affiliates are no longer solely owned. So an agreement with only a few corporations can provide coverage for a majority of the US.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Add Hulu's $40 to the cost of internet only service and, in some areas, you'll be close to the cost of a double (or triple) play option. Now add the cost of the CBS app, assuming you watch CBS and can't get OTA reception.

I don't think this package gets regional sports networks. An issue if you follow your local MLB, NBA, NHL team. Again add the cost of a standalone local sports package, if and when available, and you'll lose your savings.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

rainwater said:


> It is already happening though. PS Vue doesn't provide live FOX programming in all markets but their app does provide VOD for Fox shows for those outside markets. Sling has an agreement with Fox for the regional sports networks throughout the entire country. So clearly, it is moving in a direction where getting agreements with the affiliates is going to happen. Plus, almost all affiliates are no longer solely owned. So an agreement with only a few corporations can provide coverage for a majority of the US.


Those are all deals with the national corporations. VOD and Fox Sports are both corporate, and the areas where they currently offer broadcast channels are areas where corporate owns the affiliate. There are thousands of individually owned affiliates across the country and any rebroadcasting deal would need to be made with each one individually. It's not completely impossible, I mean Dish and DirecTV have deals with most of them for rebroadcast. But from what I remember it took them nearly a decade to work all those deals out and they're constantly having fights with the local affiliates over fees.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lew said:


> Add Hulu's $40 to the cost of internet only service and, in some areas, you'll be close to the cost of a double (or triple) play option.


Really? I just paid my cable bill a few minutes ago and it was $180. Less then $60 of that is for internet. I think they charge an extra $10/mo for "internet only" service, which means I'm essentially paying $110/mo for TV. My Sister has the phone service and her bill is about $210/mo. So she's paying an extra $30/mo for the phone as part of a "triple play" option.

Maybe in areas with competition from FIOS they have better deals, but in areas like mine where the cable company is a functional monopoly there are no deals.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

I have FiOS. Cablevision and DTV compete.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lew said:


> I have FiOS. Cablevision and DTV compete.


You're lucky. We do have Uverse internet now, so I do have an alternative to Charter for internet if I need it. However AT&T has caps and Charter doesn't, so that's a deterrent to switching. Also Charter is the only option for a TiVo user right now.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

I have tivo with LS (kind of obvious). I pay $10 /month to rent 2 cable cards. My numbers would be off if I was comparing the cost to rent equipment (or buy new tivo) vs using something l like Roku or chrome cast for Hulu


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> Those are all deals with the national corporations. VOD and Fox Sports are both corporate, and the areas where they currently offer broadcast channels are areas where corporate owns the affiliate. There are thousands of individually owned affiliates across the country and any rebroadcasting deal would need to be made with each one individually. It's not completely impossible, I mean Dish and DirecTV have deals with most of them for rebroadcast. But from what I remember it took them nearly a decade to work all those deals out and they're constantly having fights with the local affiliates over fees.


The last I checked there were a little over 200 Fox affiliates. Between the big corporations like Sinclair, Tribune, and Raycom, more than half are owned by just a few companies. Very few Fox affiliates are independently owned anymore.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

What about ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS and CW? Plus Univision for the Spanish audience.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> What about ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS and CW? Plus Univision for the Spanish audience.


I didn't say it would be easy but it is already happening. ABC is working on adding their affiliates to Watch ABC. Fox is working with Vue. I suspect in the next few years those issues with affiliates will be worked out. Especially considering how those affiliates are going to need these carriage fees as more people drop cable.


----------



## davefred99 (Oct 31, 2004)

I do not see this as a good thing at all. First $40 is too much money for the limited programing that I see mentioned. ALL I see is another Big bundle package that delivers only half of what cord cutters want. I would rather pay $39 for PS Vue with locals over this half baked package. Truthfully what I really want is a pick 10 any 10 my choice pack Plus locals for about $25 a month. I would still pay for Netflix or one of the other Movie services but with no long term contracts. But I do not see this happening either because they want to keep things the way they are and get loser to $100 per month from all of us.


----------



## bonscott87 (Oct 3, 2000)

Very interested to see where it goes. Already pay $20 for SlingTV and $12 for Hulu so for 8 bucks more if I get more of what I want then Sling it'll be worth it. I could care less about streaming locals, but get me ESPN for MNF, Fox Sports for hockey and a few basics like Food, History and HGTV, it's all I need.

More importantly it's more competition for OTT service. This time next year we have have 4 major players if not more between Sling, Vue, Hulu and the AT&T DirecTV thing.


----------



## achalupa (Oct 27, 2008)

bonscott87 said:


> This time next year we have have 4 major players if not more between Sling, Vue, Hulu and the AT&T DirecTV thing.


And YouTube just announced they intend to offer a service next year.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

No one will ever be totally satisfied. I live with six other people and if we all are streaming HD, that's a problem. There are also kids around so our choice of package will be difficult. For the time being, cable TV and high speed Internet from Cox is the only thing I can imagine that would work for us. A quality antenna feeding to 8 tv's??? That won't be easy. I'm sure when cord cutting is rampant, our cable prices will drop to retain customers. Maybe Internet prices as well. If I lived alone I could se an ota/hulu/netflix MIGHT be an option


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

bonscott87 said:


> Very interested to see where it goes. Already pay $20 for SlingTV and $12 for Hulu so for 8 bucks more if I get more of what I want then Sling it'll be worth it. I could care less about streaming locals, but get me ESPN for MNF, Fox Sports for hockey and a few basics like Food, History and HGTV, it's all I need.
> 
> More importantly it's more competition for OTT service. This time next year we have have 4 major players if not more between Sling, Vue, Hulu and the AT&T DirecTV thing.


Have you taken a look at PS Vue? Except for a few markets where they carry the local networks, their base package costs only $30 and has 55+ cable channels with cloud DVR, PLUS it has on-demand content from ABC, NBC and Fox, much like Hulu. And they say they'll soon have on-demand content from CBS. So for $2 more than you're paying now, it may be worth trading Sling TV + Hulu for PS Vue. They have a 7-day free trial...


----------



## huskerpower95 (Jan 12, 2016)

Lots of choices for streaming skinny bundles...
Sling
https://www.sling.com
Playstation Vue
https://www.playstation.com/en-us/network/vue
HULU 
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hulu-confirms-plans-for-cable-like-online-tv-service-1462373001
YouTube Unplugged
http://www.slashgear.com/youtube-unplugged-live-tv-service-tipped-for-2017-04438867/
Amazon : ???????
DirectTV -ATT
http://www.inferse.com/40137/att-directv-fall-2016/
VIDGO
http://www.vidgo.com/


----------



## schatham (Mar 17, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> Really? I just paid my cable bill a few minutes ago and it was $180. Less then $60 of that is for internet. I think they charge an extra $10/mo for "internet only" service, which means I'm essentially paying $110/mo for TV. My Sister has the phone service and her bill is about $210/mo. So she's paying an extra $30/mo for the phone as part of a "triple play" option.
> 
> Maybe in areas with competition from FIOS they have better deals, but in areas like mine where the cable company is a functional monopoly there are no deals.


I pay $5 more for TV which includes about 50 channels and showtime. Internet alone would be $76. The same internet with 50 channels and Showtime is $81. This is Comcast regular price without any discount that goes away. No way can I get a better deal with streaming. This is called internet pro plus double play package.

Only catch here is no sports channels. The only sports I watch is football and all my teams games are on broadcast tv. Even when they are Sunday or Monday night a local station also broadcasts it.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

huskerpower95 said:


> Lots of choices for streaming skinny bundles...
> Sling
> https://www.sling.com
> Playstation Vue
> ...


Hopefully all these services will provide enough competition to the local cable monopoly that they lower prices. More likely they'll react by raising prices on the internet part and lowering the TV part so it just balances out to the same price for everyone.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I'm surprised Apple isn't trying to get in on this. A few years ago, everyone expected that Apple would be the ones to crack the "TV delivered over the internet" problem, but now several other companies are getting into the business and no movement from Apple. Surprising.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

schatham said:


> I pay $5 more for TV which includes about 50 channels and showtime. Internet alone would be $76. The same internet with 50 channels and Showtime is $81. This is Comcast regular price without any discount that goes away. No way can I get a better deal with streaming. This is called internet pro plus double play package.
> 
> Only catch here is no sports channels. The only sports I watch is football and all my teams games are on broadcast tv. Even when they are Sunday or Monday night a local station also broadcasts it.


Wow. $76 for internet alone? I wonder if you couldn't call in and ask to speak to their promotions dept. and see if you couldn't get a better deal. I'm paying $30 a month for Comcast standalone internet (25 Mbps, typically clocks in about 31, plenty fast enough for two 1080p streams at once). But it's not a deal solely for new customers. My parents in another state were getting a deal to pay $45 a month for the same internet package. Once that deal expired and the price went up, I called in and asked around until I was able to get them on the same $30 deal that I have. And Comcast is the only broadband provider where they live, so they have no competition really.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm surprised Apple isn't trying to get in on this. A few years ago, everyone expected that Apple would be the ones to crack the "TV delivered over the internet" problem, but now several other companies are getting into the business and no movement from Apple. Surprising.


I think they're still probably working on it but trying to figure out how they're going to differentiate their service from all the other skinny streaming services out there. Apple has begun experimenting with producing their own original content, so I expect that will be part of whatever they eventually roll out. And of course their service will get preferred treatment on their own hardware (Apple TV, iPhone, iPad). The content providers are cutting deals with other companies first because they don't want Apple to own them the way they did the music labels with iTunes and the iPod. Once the general pricing structure and feature set of these new services has been established, they'll let Apple offer essentially the same thing. I expect it will be even less successful than their Apple Music subscription streaming service has been.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

I think the problem with these skinny bundles is they aren't going where tv is headed. They are just shoe horning today's linear tv model onto the internets. 

Albiet in smaller bite sizes..

But the real future is on-demand. Not a mandate to fill up 24 hours with programming because otherwise the screen is blank on your channel. 

IN my eyes that's a bygone business model. 

The future model is one where the channel is a on-demand service. The content is posted to the service. You don't look up the time a show starts or have to remember to record it. You just look up a show you want to watch or browse for shows to watch. All at your convenience. That's the flexibility the internets allows.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Yes, all these big companies (including ones that already have on demand services) are working on linear programming over the internet. They must all be nuts. They have to listen to a poster on tivocommunity that all their market research is wrong.


----------



## bonscott87 (Oct 3, 2000)

NashGuy said:


> Have you taken a look at PS Vue? Except for a few markets where they carry the local networks, their base package costs only $30 and has 55+ cable channels with cloud DVR, PLUS it has on-demand content from ABC, NBC and Fox, much like Hulu. And they say they'll soon have on-demand content from CBS. So for $2 more than you're paying now, it may be worth trading Sling TV + Hulu for PS Vue. They have a 7-day free trial...


Oh, I'm *very* interested in the Vue package. But no Roku app makes it a non-starter for me. Not going to buy a Fire TV just for it and certainly not buying a Playstation game console for it. Once they finally get on Roku I'm all over it for a trial.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> I think the problem with these skinny bundles is they aren't going where tv is headed. They are just shoe horning today's linear tv model onto the internets.
> 
> Albiet in smaller bite sizes..
> 
> ...


We all know you want a VoD only world.

The fact that all these services include linear broadcast and one of the VoD only services (Hulu) is adding linear broadcasts tells you the people making the decisions on how to offer video don't see the market agreeing with your assertion on where TV is headed. That may change in time but apparently right now both the market and the content providers like linear broadcasts just fine.

Like I have said in other threads I am sure we all could outline what we think an acceptable VoD only service for video delivery would look like. However I still believe no one is now or is likely to provide a service most of us would find acceptable to replace linear broadcasts anytime soon.


----------



## KSOC Kid (Nov 19, 2015)

bonscott87 said:


> Oh, I'm *very* interested in the Vue package. But no Roku app makes it a non-starter for me. Not going to buy a Fire TV just for it and certainly not buying a Playstation game console for it. Once they finally get on Roku I'm all over it for a trial.


I feel the same way, but I purchased a Fire Stick for $39 and subscribed. For the $34 fee I get online access to all the channels I care about. I get to watch my Florida teams either off the stick or on my Mac on Fox Sports Go. I can log into a bunch of others as well on my Roku & Apple TV. So for me, I'm watching apps on other devices signed in with the Playstation Vue. And I like the flexibilty of moving the stick around to different TV's. In the kitchen, the den, bedroom. Pretty easy because the stick is USB powered.


----------



## huskerpower95 (Jan 12, 2016)

trip1eX said:


> I think the problem with these skinny bundles is they aren't going where tv is headed. They are just shoe horning today's linear tv model onto the internets.
> 
> Albiet in smaller bite sizes..
> 
> ...


That is great idea but it is not realistic for demand for live content of sports.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

What we all have to remember is that most of the networks are still primarily ad supported and their original content exists primarily as a vehicle to sell more ads. People are more conditioned to accept ads during a live/linear broadcast and are less accepting of them while watching VoD/recording. So for as long as it's a viable option, the networks will continue to offer a live/linear stream so they can sell more ads.

And we should be happy about that, because as long as linear channels exist, the networks can get funding from corporations willing to pay for the brain dead masses watching commercials, while the rest of us can benefit from the high production values while watching via alternate means that have no ads. Once that revenue stream goes away, the TV industry as we know it will have to change drastically.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Linear, especially over OTA is efficient. That is cost effective. VOD is not cost effective if it's done on a large scale. Someone has to pay those higher costs. When the ads go away, costs go up and or shows go away. Enjoy your DVR in your house and your linear programming. You may remember it as the good old days, sooner then you think..


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> What we all have to remember is that most of the networks are still primarily ad supported and their original content exists primarily as a vehicle to sell more ads. People are more conditioned to accept ads during a live/linear broadcast and are less accepting of them while watching VoD/recording. So for as long as it's a viable option, the networks will continue to offer a live/linear stream so they can sell more ads.
> 
> And we should be happy about that, because as long as linear channels exist, the networks can get funding from corporations willing to pay for the brain dead masses watching commercials, while the rest of us can benefit from the high production values while watching via alternate means that have no ads. Once that revenue stream goes away, the TV industry as we know it will have to change drastically.





tenthplanet said:


> Linear, especially over OTA is efficient. That is cost effective. VOD is not cost effective if it's done on a large scale. Someone has to pay those higher costs. When the ads go away, costs go up and or shows go away. Enjoy your DVR in your house and your linear programming. You may remember it as the good old days, sooner then you think..


I agree with both of the above and have zero desire for a VoD only world. I like VoD service as a supplement/add on just fine, but again have no desire to have linear broadcasts & my DVR replaced by VoD only.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> I agree with both of the above and have zero desire for a VoD only world. I like VoD service as a supplement/add on just fine, but again have no desire to have linear broadcasts & my DVR replaced by VoD only.


Amen.

I use a lot of streaming. I would say I stream every day. But little of it is original programming. Most of it is movies or sports I cannot get any other way (the latter I used to get from DirecTV mostly but now that I no longer can get that, I use MLB.tv and Watch ESPN for programming I don't get in HD anymore.)

Even with the amount of streaming I do (which actually puts me way ahead of the curve for streaming), the vast majority I watch is linear and I prefer that whenever I can use it.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> I agree with both of the above and have zero desire for a VoD only world. I like VoD service as a supplement/add on just fine, but again have no desire to have linear broadcasts & my DVR replaced by VoD only.


 Perfectly put


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm surprised Apple isn't trying to get in on this. A few years ago, everyone expected that Apple would be the ones to crack the "TV delivered over the internet" problem, but now several other companies are getting into the business and no movement from Apple. Surprising.


There was a very credible rumor (i.e. from a trusted journalist) about a year ago that said their streaming service would be unveiled at WWDC 2015. 2 weeks later he (or some other journalist) said Apple back-tracked and would not demo it at WWDC. It's been pretty much radio silence since. Les Moonves at CBS has repeatedly said Apple is trying to start a TV service, but his most recent comments said talks were stalled.

The techie in me (and the fact that I own AAPL) hopes this is because the service they want to offer is unique with what it lets you do. The pessimist in me says they will eventually announce something that is very similar to every other OTT cable package.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

trip1eX said:


> But the real future is on-demand. Not a mandate to fill up 24 hours with programming because otherwise the screen is blank on your channel.


All of the current services like Vue and Sling offer on-demand. But there is still a huge demand for live tv. Any new service will have to include both to survive. On-demand for almost any tv show is available on pretty much every single streaming device if you want to pay per show.


----------



## cybergrimes (Jun 15, 2015)

Hulu's service is now live for Chromecast, Apple TV (4th gen), Android, iOS, and Xbox One with future support announced for Fire TV, Roku, Samsung Smart TV devices and Mac/PC. Nothing about TiVo but nobody here should be too surprised.

Hulu's live TV service is now available for $40 per month - Liliputing

Hulu with Live TV - More than just Live TV


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

I would say that of the current OTT cable replacement services Hulu & YouTube have the best shot at ending up on TiVo. Not enough data to say how likely either is.


----------



## BillyClyde (Mar 3, 2017)

Is it a separate Hulu Live TV app, or integrated into the old one? Has anyone checked theirs on their TiVo?

PS - Nevermind. I see it's separate on my iPhone.


----------



## cybergrimes (Jun 15, 2015)

BillyClyde said:


> Is it a separate Hulu Live TV app, or integrated into the old one? Has anyone checked theirs on their TiVo?
> 
> PS - Nevermind. I see it's separate on my iPhone.


It fully replaced the existing app on my Xbox One.

Edit: To be clearer-- the app was updated with the new UI. Old school streaming service lives in the same app regardless of if you subscribe to the live TV service. As far as I can tell none of the live TV service options show up in the app because I'm not subscribed to it.


----------



## NYHeel (Oct 7, 2003)

DVR service that allows you to fast forward through commercials costs an extra $15. So for $55 a month you're missing key channels for a sports fan (a large group of cable subscribers) like certain RSNs (SNY and MSG in the NYC market; they only have YES as the RSN) and the pro sports networks (MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL networks). Though their lineup does seem more comprehensive than their competitors and it's nice that you get access to all the regular Hulu content.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> I would say that of the current OTT cable replacement services Hulu & YouTube have the best shot at ending up on TiVo. Not enough data to say how likely either is.


I'd say Hulu has the best shot among those OTT "streaming cable" services of ending up on TiVo, since there's already a Hulu app on TiVo. Hulu is replacing their existing app on various platforms with a redesigned app for all users, featuring a new UI as well as support for the new "Hulu with Live TV" add-on service. Whether or not the new version app will come to all platforms that currently have a Hulu app is unknown. As of today (first day), the only TV-connected platforms to get the new app are Apple TV 4, Xbox One and Chromecast. Fire TV, Roku and Samsung smart TVs and Blu-ray players are listed as "coming soon". Hopefully it eventually comes to my new LG TV too, although it's not listed (nor are TiVo, PS4 or Android TV). Given that Hulu has only ever once updated their app for TiVo since introducing a few years back, and given that most TiVo users already have cable TV, I wouldn't wager any money that their new app with live TV will ever come to TiVo. But it certainly might.

As for YouTube TV, that is delivered by a separate app from regular YouTube. And given that Google debuted the service exclusively for mobile devices and Chromecast (in keeping with the young demographic that are already heavy YouTube users), with support for some additional TV platforms to eventually come, I doubt it'll ever come to TiVo.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

cybergrimes said:


> It fully replaced the existing app on my Xbox One.
> 
> Edit: To be clearer-- the app was updated with the new UI. Old school streaming service lives in the same app regardless of if you subscribe to the live TV service. As far as I can tell none of the live TV service options show up in the app because I'm not subscribed to it.


Do you like the new app's UI better? I'm specifically wondering about the following: when you click a button on your Xbox controller/remote to skip back 10 seconds while watching a video in Hulu, does the show now immediately resume playing from that point? In the older version app (which most of us are still using), after press the skip back button, have you to press the play button to resume playing, which I find a bit annoying. I'm hoping the redesigned app allows for a single press, the same way that the TiVo remote's "instant replay" button works.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Interesting angle that they give you a DVR and 50 hours of cloud storage for the base price. But if you want to record multiple things at once or be able to FF through your recordings, you've got to upgrade to "Enhanced DVR."


----------



## cybergrimes (Jun 15, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> Do you like the new app's UI better? I'm specifically wondering about the following: when you click a button on your Xbox controller/remote to skip back 10 seconds while watching a video in Hulu, does the show now immediately resume playing from that point?


It's still day one but if I had to give you a vote on the new UI then I say it's not an improvement but change is hard, in a couple days it might flow just as well or better. There's all the same functions as the previous app but it's almost as if they flipped the axis-- we've got a "Home" tab (with nested tabs inside it) that starts on "Lineup" which is all the suggested titles normally found at first launch. These titles now scroll vertically across the screen instead of horizontally. They don't seem to scroll automatically though like they did previously. Next tab inside Home is "Keep Watching" which is exactly as before just pick up the next episode on recently watched titles. Again vertical is the new navigation here (and everywhere). The tabs continue on "TV", "Movies", "Kids, "New TV on Hulu", etc. The second main level tab is "My Stuff" which is where you see your favorites in tabs labeled "TV Shows", "Movies", "Networks" and "Expiring". This page is odd because it's back to grid view which obviously is the best way to display many titles at once. After you select a TV show there's 3 tabs of navigation starting with "Details" which gives you the episode your currently on & the most recently aired episode as options in addition to the show synopsis. The second tab is "Episodes" which then gives vertical scrolling list of seasons on the left side with list of episodes for each season on the right. Final tab is just "Related" shows, which I've used in the past when I came to the bottom of a show page and noticed something. I don't know if I'll find myself purposely navigating to this third tab looking for new shows to watch. The presentation of seasons/episodes does feel more natural the way it is now. The final main level tabs are "Browse", "Search" and a tab for your profile with various settings for the app. It's my understanding there's another main level tab for live TV if you're subscribed to the service.

As for your question re: 10 second back/forward-- it still pauses and waits for you to resume the playback.

Sorry for the long response on the UI, maybe better off watching a video on YouTube


----------



## cybergrimes (Jun 15, 2015)

Here's a quick picture from my phone-- notice how when scrolling through the "Keep Watching" section the currently highlighted show basically consumes the screen. You can only see the name of the one show next in the list.


----------



## mobilelawyer (Jan 3, 2006)

I just signed up for the seven day trial of the new Hulu TV service. I am currently using Playstation Vue. I agree with the poster who said that the Hulu TV app may have the best chance showing up on TiVo. It would be a nice fit, and allow the user to have access to local broadcast channels and streaming cable replacement services through one device, and with all navigation being accomplished with a remote only. 

The price, just under $40 for their standard tier of channels, AND the regular Hulu services with limited ads, is not bad. I was paying $8 a month for the limited ad service, so the net increase for the cable replacement channels is really about $32.00. 

Of course, there is no standard programming grid like Playstation Vue has, and I consider that a detriment. That convenience alone make cancelling cable service difficult. But I'll be watching and evaluating with an open mind. Competition is good.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

cybergrimes said:


> As for your question re: 10 second back/forward-- it still pauses and waits for you to resume the playback.


Well, crap. But thanks for the info and the review of the UI! I did download the Android version of the new app on my Nexus 9 tablet and played around with it just a bit. Oddly, there you have on-screen 10 sec. back and forward touch icons and tapping either jumps and then auto-resumes play. Why aren't they making that sort of functionality the same across all devices?! Weird.

I have no plans to upgrade to Hulu's live TV service. (If I wanted cable, I'd probably just go with Comcast or AT&T and bundle it with internet.) So I'm not really concerned with the somewhat odd, IMO, UI decisions that they're using to incorporate live and recorded content in with their existing VOD. The new Home screen is pretty but I imagine that I'd typically go one main tab to the right upon launch, straight to the "My Stuff" page (formerly "Watchlist") where I can quickly scroll through thumbnails of the series and movies I've added and/or begun watching. The Home screen is more for when I'm not sure what I'm in the mood for and I want Hulu to suggest something.


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

mattyro7878 said:


> A quality antenna feeding to 8 tv's??? That won't be easy.


My antenna feeds to my Roamio which feeds 4 TiVo minis for a total of 5 TVs. Had to run some network cable but it wasn't that difficult. Antenna brings in 50 channels.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TiVo uses the same basic API as the Samsung Smart TVs so if it comes to those then it'll likely come to TiVo as well.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

This blog post has some technical details about Hulu's new live streaming platform. Looks like it's all done in MPEG-4 h.264. Right now, streams are 30 fps but they will double that to 60 fps later this month, which should make fast-moving content like sports look better. No word on whether all channels are being delivered at 720p, at 1080p, or a mix of the two. (Cable and satellite systems typically deliver HD channels in their native resolution, either 720p or 1080i, although streaming devices generally cannot handle interlaced signals, so no streaming service offers 1080i, only 720p and 1080p for HD content.)

The maximum bitrate Hulu is using for their HD live channel streams is either 5.5 or 6.5 Mbps, per the link above (which seems to say both, so not sure which is accurate). Given that real-time live encoding is less efficient than optimized pre-encoding (which is what's used for VOD content from Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, etc.), I wonder how good live HD channels look on Hulu. A bitrate of 5.5 Mbps is probably pretty good for live 720p60 but I don't know about live 1080p60. Anyone know what bitrates Comcast and Verizon FiOS are using for their MPEG-4 h.264 channels these days?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> TiVo uses the same basic API as the Samsung Smart TVs so if it comes to those then it'll likely come to TiVo as well.
> 
> So is the DVR included with the normal Hulu subscription? Or is it an extra fee?


Yeah, although there are lots of apps available for Samsung smart TVs that aren't on TiVo. But, it's at least a positive sign that the new Hulu app will eventually arrive.

As for Hulu's cloud DVR, you get 50 hours included for no extra charge, with no auto-delete expiration dates (like PS Vue and YouTube TV have) BUT you can't FF through ads. For an extra $15 per month (about what cable/sat and TiVo charge for monthly DVR service), you get full-fledged DVR, with the ability to FF through ads and 200 hours of storage.


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

All I see on my Apple TV 4 is the regular Hulu app. When I select it I only have the option to log in or start my free trial and the free trail gives just the options for the standard $7.99 Hulu or $12.99 Hulu without commercials but not the live streaming service. Need to sign up online?

UPDATE: I signed up online from my computer and then was able to access it via the normal Hulu app on my Apple TV 4


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

TeamPace said:


> All I see on my Apple TV 4 is the regular Hulu app. When I select it I only have the option to log in or start my free trial and the free trail gives just the options for the standard $7.99 Hulu or $12.99 Hulu without commercials but not the live streaming service. Need to sign up online?


Perhaps - otherwise Apple would probably take their 30% cut of the ongoing subscription cost.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

As a follow-up to my post above, it looks like the bitrates that Hulu is using for live TV put them at or near the range used by DirecTV. FWIW, I saw on another forum where someone examined last night's ep of Fargo on FX, having recorded it on both Verizon FiOS and Hulu live. He said the HD PQ was noticeably sharper on Hulu.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

So, if I understand correctly, the $39.99 plan includes regular Hulu plus these live cable channels. (But not the no-commercials option)

I'm already subscribing to Vue at $35 and regular Hulu at $8. While it would be cheaper to do Hulu, it's missing 2 channels that I watch something on, AMC and BBC. I wish one service would have all the channels I want...


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> TiVo uses the same basic API as the Samsung Smart TVs so if it comes to those then it'll likely come to TiVo as well.


Hmmm... this is going to compel me to do a comparison between the apps available on our Samsung Smart TV to what's available on our TiVos.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

hefe said:


> So, if I understand correctly, the $39.99 plan includes regular Hulu plus these live cable channels. (But not the no-commercials option)
> 
> I'm already subscribing to Vue at $35 and regular Hulu at $8. While it would be cheaper to do Hulu, it's missing 2 channels that I watch something on, AMC and BBC. I wish one service would have all the channels I want...


I think it's just a matter of time. All these services are new and it probably takes a while for the lawyers to do all the deals with the content providers. They start offering the service when they have enough to make it marketable, but they're still working on deals with more. And as other competing services come online and have deals with other channels, it will become almost a necessity for these services to have a pretty complete list of the "standard" channels if they want to compete.

And of course, by that point, those services will not be any cheaper than a cable bundle and yet the service will be worse because we won't be able to FF through commercials without paying an additional fee.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

krkaufman said:


> Hmmm... this is going to compel me to do a comparison between the apps available on our Samsung Smart TV to what's available on our TiVos.


Oh, there's a ton more apps available for Samsung smart TVs than for TiVo.

Appstore Browse | Samsung TV & Blu-ray Apps

A lot of them are crap, but some noteworthy ones include HBO Now, Showtime, Showtime Anytime, Starz, Starz Play, Encore Play, Google Play Movies & TV, NBC, Fox Now, FX Now, Fox News, BBC News, Sky News, YouTube Kids, Watch HGTV, Watch Travel, Watch Food Network, Discovery, Bravo, Animal Planet Live, Xumo, Feeln, and Fandango Now.


----------



## mcf57 (Oct 19, 2012)

hefe said:


> I'm already subscribing to Vue at $35 and regular Hulu at $8. While it would be cheaper to do Hulu, it's missing 2 channels that I watch something on, AMC and BBC. I wish one service would have all the channels I want...


You might want to check out the IPTV service at www.setvnow.com. $19.99/month for about 300+ channels. Includes AMC and BBC as well


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think it's just a matter of time. All these services are new and it probably takes a while for the lawyers to do all the deals with the content providers. They start offering the service when they have enough to make it marketable, but they're still working on deals with more. And as other competing services come online and have deals with other channels, it will become almost a necessity for these services to have a pretty complete list of the "standard" channels if they want to compete.
> 
> And of course, by that point, those services will not be any cheaper than a cable bundle and yet the service will be worse because we won't be able to FF through commercials without paying an additional fee.


So we now have two different systems for accessing live pay TV (i.e. "cable TV"): traditional, in which a provider manages delivery over their own system (cable, satellite, fiber, telco, etc.) and OTT, where a standalone provider streams it over the internet. I think what we're going to see happen over time is that both systems will end up being about the same. To start with, traditional providers insisted on pricey but full-featured bundles. That's what opened the door for the OTT providers to come in with smaller, less expensive packages, which are all compromised in some way -- typically, fewer channels and a half-a$$ed DVR service. But over time (and to some extent, already), we're seeing the OTT providers offer upgrades to get higher tiers with more channels and/or better DVR service. Hulu is really the first that I can see to allow customers to pay more to upgrade to a DVR service that matches what you'd typically expect from a traditional provider: 200 hours of HD capacity, no expirations on recordings, and full FF/rew capabilities that allow for zipping past ads.

Meanwhile, this kind of competition from the OTT providers is prompting the traditional providers to offer smaller, less costly channel bundles, including some without ESPN. As cloud DVR becomes more prevalent among traditional providers, perhaps we'll also see them throw in a "free" basic DVR service on their lowest cost plans -- like Hulu's base DVR service with limited hours and no FF through ads -- while their upper tiers retain the kind of premium DVR service we have on our TiVos.

So eventually, whether you go traditional or OTT, I think you're going to see a broader range of price points, channel bundles and feature sets. Which is a good thing. And, of course, having the various OTT options also allows for different choices in terms of UI and HD picture quality. In the end, though, I question whether any of the OTT services will be able to beat the traditional guys on price -- for roughly equivalent packages -- since they don't have the power to bundle TV + internet. We'll see.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> And of course, by that point, those services will not be any cheaper than a cable bundle and yet the service will be worse because we won't be able to FF through commercials without paying an additional fee.


When the "cut the cable cord" movement really started getting going, I wondered, for those going a la carte, what the price would be, once various services were combined, along the lines of your thought. It looked like savings could be small, at best. But, of course, it all depends on one's own use--certainly, truly cutting the cord, even if combined with a judicious extra or 2, can result in significant savings. But, then, certain content may be lost--e.g. HBO (absent adding that to the services being added back in, and that adding, again, to the cost).


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

Started the 7 day free trial today. Already seeing some glitchiness with shows skipping backwards and repeating sections etc. I do like the ability to rewind but it's not smooth at this point. I'll need to see if I get used to the interface but initially I'm not terribly impressed. Large graphics mean minimal info on the screen at one time requiring lots of scrolling most of it vertically. I don't see an option for a traditional style guide which personally I like having that option. Also haven't figured out the DVR function as of yet.

I've had the Directv Now service since it started so I have the 100 channel package for $35. Even though DTVN initially got a bad reputation for functionality issues, it now works very reliably for me. While I see a some advantages to the Hulu service (minimal DVR function included in the base price + more broadcast network content) what I have with DTVN is a superior value for me. I am still holding out hope for DTVN to add DVR functionality as promised sometime this year. 

For new subscribers Hulu may be a good option if it offers the content you need. Especially for those who don't have OTA access to the broadcast networks. It seems to be a bit more turn-key cord cutter solution, just with a more limited channel selection.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> And of course, by that point, those services will not be any cheaper than a cable bundle and yet the service will be worse because we won't be able to FF through commercials without paying an additional fee.


The cheapest cable packages are still at least twice as expensive as what I pay. If it does reach equality with cable, I'll probably cut the cord on the cut cords too. There's a limit to what it's worth to me.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

I am glad there are more and more options out there but Pay TV is Pay TV. Regardless of what it costs and what you get each person has to decide if what is being offered is what they want and if they find the cost acceptable. What the current crop of OTT cable replacement options are doing is offering less for less money. Which is great if that is what someone wants. 

What I find a real joke is when people still want to call this cord cutting. If you are still paying for Pay TV, well you are still paying for Pay TV. I does not really matter if it is coming via a traditional cable company, a Satellite provider, a Telco company, or an OTT provider. It is still Pay TV.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Ewww. Just saw updated app on Apple TV. Huuuuuge text.


----------



## idksmy (Jul 16, 2016)

Equally 'funny' is when people refuse to accept the common meaning of a term. As most people know, and accept, cord cutting is replacing cable TV with a no contract service that provides more choices, in most cases for less money.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

idksmy said:


> Equally 'funny' is when people refuse to accept the common meaning of a term. As most people know, and accept, cord cutting is replacing cable TV with a no contract service that provides more choices, in most cases for less money.


When you are subbing to a service that provides you with linear broadcast channels you are subbing to "cable TV" I don't care what delivery tech is being used, saying anything else is just foolishness.

The term "cord cutting" existed years before you could replace cable TV with any OTT cable replacement pay TV services and has always meant you stopped paying for a subscription to linear broadcast pay TV.

Might just as well say you cut the cord because you dropped down to the lowest cost cable TV option, which in my area is still less than any of these new OTT cable TV replacement services and still doesn't require a STB if you have a TV with a QAM tuner. Unless of course the new meaning of "I cut the cord" is "I switched to a lower cost pay TV service/package".


----------



## idksmy (Jul 16, 2016)

atmuscarella said:


> When you are subbing to a service that provides you with linear broadcast channels you are subbing to "cable TV" I don't care what delivery tech is being used, saying anything else is just foolishness.


Please let us know when the number of people who agree with your definition of cord cutting exceeds 1.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

idksmy said:


> Please let us know when the number of people who agree with your definition of cord cutting exceeds 1.


Well I am not the one trying to change the meaning, perhaps you should prove to all of use who were around and actually cord cutters when the term was coined (at least a decade ago) that the world voted to change the meaning to what you have decided it is.

In any event, that isn't really my point, which is anyone who believes they have dropped cable TV just because they switched providers is just fooling themselves.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

How does a service like Netflix (or my current non-live Hulu) count here? I'd still be watching the same content (plus NF/Hulu originals) but I wouldn't have a "cord", channels, or commercials.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

atmuscarella said:


> ght just as well say you cut the cord because you dropped down to the lowest cost cable TV option, which in my area is still less than any of these new OTT cable TV replacement services and still doesn't require a STB if you have a TV with a QAM tuner.


Must be nice. I don't have an option like that. My cheapest cable package available from Comcast is $70. I pay half that for a subscription service.


----------



## idksmy (Jul 16, 2016)

atmuscarella said:


> Well I am not the one trying to change the meaning...


Of course you're not. 



atmuscarella said:


> ...perhaps you should prove to all of use who were around and actually cord cutters when the term was coined (at least a decade ago) that the world voted to change the meaning to what you have decided it is.


Good response. Accuse me of what you're doing. The world didn't decide to change the definition, you did.



atmuscarella said:


> In any event, that isn't really my point, which is anyone who believes they have dropped cable TV just because they switched providers is just fooling themselves.


Your point is clear...Anyone who disagrees with you is foolish.

*Definition - What does Cord Cutting mean?*
Cord cutting refers to the process of cutting expensive cable connections in order to change to a low-cost TV channel subscription through over-the-air (OT) free broadcast through antenna, or over-the-top (OTT) broadcast over the Internet. Cord cutting is a growing trend that is adversely affecting the cable industry.


----------



## idksmy (Jul 16, 2016)

hefe said:


> Must be nice. I don't have an option like that. My cheapest cable package available from Comcast is $70. I pay half that for a subscription service.


My cable company charges $22.81 for what they call Broadcast Basic. The next step up costs $79.41.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

idksmy said:


> My cable company charges $22.81 for what they call Broadcast Basic. The next step up costs $79.41.


I can get broadcast over the air. The only reason to subscribe to either cable *or *an internet plan is to get certain pay channels that I want.

For me, the competition to broadcast basic is $0.


----------



## idksmy (Jul 16, 2016)

hefe said:


> I can get broadcast over the air. The only reason to subscribe to either cable *or *an internet plan is to get certain pay channels that I want. For me, the competition to broadcast basic is $0


Same for me. I can receive all the broadcast networks OTA via an antenna in the attic.

While we don't have any pay channels, our cable company is also our ISP. For 60/6, they charge $6 more/month if you only have the broadcast channels and $15 more/month if all you have is Internet access. So, I could save about $65/month by going to an Internet access only plan. If I would subscribe to an OTT, my net savings would drop to around $30/month, and that'd only happen if I did not exceed the 1.2 TB/month data transfer limit.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

allan said:


> How does a service like Netflix (or my current non-live Hulu) count here? I'd still be watching the same content (plus NF/Hulu originals) but I wouldn't have a "cord", channels, or commercials.


The generally accepted meaning of cord cutting before the advent of these new (within the last year or 2) OTT cable replacement services (Sling TV, etc.) was that it meant you dropped your subscription to linear broadcast TV (cable & satellite at the time I first remember hearing it used) and where using OTA and/or VoD via the Internet to replace it. The key item used to be dropping of the linear broadcast subscription and replacing it with other sources to obtain content.

Apparently some people like idksmy have decided to change this meaning. Now if you switch your cable TV provider to another cable TV provider that provides the same linear broadcast channels (or some subset of them) via OTT delivery instead QAM delivery you are now a cord cutter. Might just as well decide that switching to a satellite or IPTV cable TV provider is cord cutting too.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

idksmy said:


> Same for me. I can receive all the broadcast networks OTA via an antenna in the attic.
> 
> While we don't have any pay channels, our cable company is also our ISP. For 60/6, they charge $6 more/month if you only have the broadcast channels and $15 more/month if all you have is Internet access. So, I could save about $65/month by going to an Internet access only plan. If I would subscribe to an OTT, my net savings would drop to around $30/month, and that'd only happen if I did not exceed the 1.2 TB/month data transfer limit.


I looked at bundled plans. To get the channels I want and keep the internet tier I'm at, I would pay about $50 more incrementally, so more than the cost of my internet OTT sub. Not a lot more, but I can find other uses for that money, and we'd have to replace or add on to the hardware, which I don't want to do.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

idksmy said:


> Of course you're not.


Correct I am not changing anything. You are adding things to the meaning of cord cutters that did not exist when the term was coined - sorry if reality is getting in your way.

G


idksmy said:


> ood response. Accuse me of what you're doing. The world didn't decide to change the definition, you did..


OTT cable replacement service could not have been including in cord cutting because they didn't exist when the term was coined. So yes you are changing the meaning I have changed nothing.



idksmy said:


> Your point is clear...Anyone who disagrees with you is foolish.


If you can find some place where I said that please quote it. Other wise stop making Sh** up.



idksmy said:


> *Definition - What does Cord Cutting mean?*
> Cord cutting refers to the process of cutting expensive cable connections in order to change to a low-cost TV channel subscription through over-the-air (OT) free broadcast through antenna, or over-the-top (OTT) broadcast over the Internet. Cord cutting is a growing trend that is adversely affecting the cable industry.


And like I have continue to say this has to be a change because OTT broadcasts did not exist when we started using the term cord cutter.

And yes I still think calling switching from one cable TV provider to another cable TV provider, cord cutting because one used QAM to delivery the cable TV channels while the other delivers them via OTT tech is foolishness and significantly changes what the term has meant since it was coined.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

atmuscarella said:


> Well I am not the one trying to change the meaning, perhaps you should prove to all of use who were around and actually cord cutters when the term was coined (at least a decade ago) that the world voted to change the meaning to what you have decided it is.
> 
> In any event, that isn't really my point, which is anyone who believes they have dropped cable TV just because they switched providers is just fooling themselves.


I agree ; cord cutting always meant you were no longer paying for "tv". OTA, Netflix , Hulu are all part of cord cutting-- . paying for a package of channels brought into your house is not cord cutting. It is "switching providers"


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

One more thing- cutting the cord in hard core terms meant OTA exclusively. Cord for cable and internet was cut. You were no longer paying for entertainment. People kept the internet for other reasons and now all these options have popped up. I'll take a nice fat cable package and a TIVO anyday!


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

mattyro7878 said:


> I'll take a nice fat cable package


Well, they are fat. No thank$.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Cord cutting actually means cutting that bloody wiring between a baby and its mother.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

mattyro7878 said:


> One more thing- cutting the cord in hard core terms meant OTA exclusively. Cord for cable and internet was cut. You were no longer paying for entertainment. People kept the internet for other reasons and now all these options have popped up. I'll take a nice fat cable package and a TIVO anyday!


Yes I am fairly sure that in the "user" community that view was popular. While including VoD via the Internet was more popular in the "media" version. I am good with either, but tend to favor including VoD via the Internet.

What is lost by sum is the concern by the financial world wasn't just for the Comcasts of the world but also for the Disneys of the world. People not subbing to a service providing linear broadcast channels is a much larger disruption than just changing the way the linear broadcast channels are delivered. That is why these OTT cable replacement services are not as big a threat to the whole "TV" world, as the VoD only service providers. They still deliver the same linear broadcasts, just with different package levels and different levers of service. Both of which I think are good for consumers.

The VoD only services may still end up being the big disrupters as I still think we are moving to more VoD and less linear broadcasts but only time will tell where that all levels out.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> Yes I am fairly sure that in the "user" community that view was popular. While including VoD via the Internet was more popular in the "media" version. I am good with either, but tend to favor including VoD via the Internet.
> 
> What is lost by sum is the concern by the financial world wasn't just for the Comcasts of the world but also for the Disneys of the world. People not subbing to a service providing linear broadcast channels is a much larger disruption than just changing the way the linear broadcast channels are delivered. That is why these OTT cable replacement services are not as big a threat to the whole "TV" world, as the VoD only service providers. They still deliver the same linear broadcasts, just with different package levels and different levers of service. Both of which I think are good for consumers.
> 
> The VoD only services may still end up being the big disrupters as I still think we are moving to more VoD and less linear broadcasts but only time will tell where that all levels out.


Yep. I've noticed lately when the media reports about the increase in "cord cutting," they'll cite the decrease in traditional pay TV subscribers but then offset that by the number of OTT cable replacement subscribers. So they're noting the distinction.

I'm not much of a stickler about the semantics. I'd call myself a cord-cutter (OTA + Hulu + Netflix + Showtime + HBO) but it's not a big deal or some sort of philosophical stance on my part. (In actuality, I have a very small SD cable TV bundle from Comcast packaged in with my internet, but I don't even have the cable box hooked up.) Depending on where my tastes, future technology, and service pricing leads me, I could return to cable TV at some point, although I currently have no plans to do so. PS Vue looks like the best deal to me of the current OTT cable services but I really have no desire to spend $30-40 on it right now.

I agree that purely OTT services like Netflix, Amazon Prime and plain ol' YouTube are bigger threats to the cable TV ecosystem than are OTT cable services like Sling TV and PS Vue. Why bother with cable when just about anything I want to see on those channels will come to an OTT service (with better PQ) in a few months, I figure? (Kinda like not paying to see stuff now at the theater when you figure you'll catch it on disc or streaming several months down the road.) Although, that reasoning is why you're seeing cable networks becoming more careful about licensing their content to OTT services, like HGTV pulling their past seasons from Netflix and HBO pulling their older stuff from Amazon Prime. But at the same time, these OTT services are building up the number of hours of original, exclusive content that permanently resides there, so they don't need as much last-season cable content to pad their rosters. As more and more of Hollywood's talent gets pulled into creating original content for Netflix, Amazon, etc., the less non-sports fans will know or care about what's happening over on traditional cable (or broadcast) channels.

So I really tend to think the bigger threat to cable TV isn't cord cutters but "cord nevers" -- younger people who've only ever relied on purely OTT services (plus maybe free OTA). If they don't feel like they're missing out by not having cable TV, they won't ever sign up for it.


----------



## RoamioPete (Apr 3, 2017)

Since I physically cut the Directv cords off my house and didn't replace them in the repaired living room wall, can I truly say I'm a cord cutter? 

(and yes all I use is OTA, Netflix, Hulu)


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

mcf57 said:


> You might want to check out the IPTV service at www.setvnow.com. $19.99/month for about 300+ channels. Includes AMC and BBC as well


This service can't possibly be legal, can it? Has anyone here tried it? How does it work? The website just says it works on all devices but it doesn't really have a list of devices on which they offer a dedicated app.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> This service can't possibly be legal, can it? Has anyone here tried it? How does it work? The website just says it works on all devices but it doesn't really have a list of devices on which they offer a dedicated app.


Can't be legal.


----------



## NYHeel (Oct 7, 2003)

idksmy said:


> Please let us know when the number of people who agree with your definition of cord cutting exceeds 1.


Make that now. I agree with atmuscarella. Linear pay tv is linear pay tv. Doesn't matter whether you call it cable, satellite, streaming or whatever. It's the exact same thing sent in a different way via a different medium. When people talk about cord cutting hurting the companies like ESPN they're not talking about this. ESPN still gets their subscriber charge the same way they did via cable or satellite. This is still the exact same thing just done via a different distribution channel. It wasn't revolutionary when satellite came out and it's not revolutionary now.

Now services like Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu (before this $40 linear TV option) are truly different. It's offering an on demand collection of content for a monthly fee. That's significantly different than linear pay tv bundles being sold the same way they were before but with different technology and different delivery system.

Personally these services aren't for me. They cost me more or about as much as what I pay Verizon and provide far fewer channels and options. I have the Ultimate package with all the premiums and pay around $50 to Verizon including cable card and all taxes and fees. Well really I pay $119 but phone and internet would be at least $70 with out TV. But I realize others don't have that good a price/package deal.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

idksmy said:


> Please let us know when the number of people who agree with your definition of cord cutting exceeds 1.


Now. I have taken the same stance.

I agree that the term has changed but it is now meaningless because people are using it to just mean they don't have a QAM based cable system. Linear channels are linear channels. Paying for a package is paying for a package. It is just the delivery mechanism.

Cutting the cord used to mean OTA and selective on demand or rental means including DVDs. That was when the term had significance. Now you can "cut the cord" by buying the same product from the same company that you cut the cord from and it is just delivered differently. That is technology, not cutting a cord.

You and others have been DUPED by businesses such as Dish and others into thinking you are doing something new and cool and are just doing the same thing you always did: pay for linear programming.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> ...
> You and others have been DUPED by businesses such as Dish and others into thinking you are doing something new and cool and are just doing the same thing you always did: pay for linear programming.


I think it was pretty clear that Dish via Sling TV was going after "cord nevers" along with trying to still get some revenue from those who where truly going to "cut the cord" anyway. Having the media try and change the meaning of "cord cutters" was just icing on the cake for Sling TV and those that followed.

In the end what I consider the big plus is that people who want to purchase some level of a linear broadcast Pay TV package will have more choices and that is good.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> You and others have been DUPED by businesses such as Dish and others into thinking you are doing something new and cool and are just doing the same thing you always did: pay for linear programming


Not duped. I pay less for what I want.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

hefe said:


> Not duped. I pay less for what I want.


And you get less. You get less functionality. You get fewer channels. You still need to supplement locals in most cases and have a dvr to fill that function. Several of the services have a lot of missing channels and don't have DVR functionality or good DVR functionality and have replaced it with on demand with commercials. You get slower response on everything. You get a requirement to have internet with good speeds which costs (and which will eventually bite everyone in the ass). And who the heck says the prices and bundles will stay the same. Traditional cable was pretty much where these new services are just a few years ago in price point.

Look at the new Hulu service. The cost is already equitable with standard cable. For less. Limited streams. Limited capability. Limited channels.

Unless these guys have nailed the exact channels every consumer wants, it is a grand duping.

Or maybe you think they are all in it to save you money.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> I think it was pretty clear that Dish via Sling TV was going after "cord nevers" along with trying to still get some revenue from those who where truly going to "cut the cord" anyway. Having the media try and change the meaning of "cord cutters" was just icing on the cake for Sling TV and those that followed.
> 
> In the end what I consider the big plus is that people who want to purchase some level of a linear broadcast Pay TV package will have more choices and that is good.


Pretty sure Dish advertised to cord cutters as well for their Dish TV product, but, yes, they went for more of the cord nevers, in the beginning. But that is still the same market and the same lie.


----------



## idksmy (Jul 16, 2016)

hefe said:


> Not duped. I pay less for what I want.


Give up. If you don't agree, you are being duped. Find a package that both meets your needs and costs less is not enough. You are still being duped.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

idksmy said:


> Give up. If you don't agree, you are being duped. Find a package that both meets your needs and costs less is not enough. You are still being duped.


That's not what is being said. If a streaming package works for you, or saves you money, that's great. You're not being duped if you like that service. You're only being duped if you believe that you are a "cord cutter."


----------



## idksmy (Jul 16, 2016)

DevdogAZ said:


> That's not what is being said. If a streaming package works for you, or saves you money, that's great. You're not being duped if you like that service. You're only being duped if you believe that you are a "cord cutter."


I must have misunderstood the following.



Tonyd79 said:


> Unless these guys have nailed the exact channels every consumer wants, it is a grand duping. Or maybe you think they are all in it to save you money.


and this...



tonyd79 said:


> You and others have been DUPED by businesses such as Dish and others into thinking you are doing something new and cool and are just doing the same thing you always did: pay for linear programming.


My sincerest apology for the faux pau.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> And you get less.


Right, I WANT less.

I pay for what I consider to be of value, and not more. I can only choose from the products that are available, and I pick the best value for me.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> That's not what is being said. If a streaming package works for you, or saves you money, that's great. You're not being duped if you like that service. You're only being duped if you believe that you are a "cord cutter."


Correct if any duping is going on, it is if someone believes OTT cable TV isn't cable TV or that the they are getting the same level of service being offered by traditional cable company/package for less money.

OTT cable TV is cable TV, what they offer cost less because people are getting less, either less programing, less service or less control of the content or some combination of these.

If what they offer is a good value is up to each person to decide and of course if what they offer meets a persons needs/desires is up to that person.

I am sticking with choice is good.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

idksmy said:


> I must have misunderstood the following.
> 
> and this...


You did. There are two different arguments going on here, and Tony's posts are conflating the two.

Argument #1: The term "cord cutter" means someone who is no longer paying for a linear TV package. Several people have taken this stance pointing out that if subscribing to a streaming service (that delivers the same content as a cable company) is considered cutting the cord, then that term essentially becomes meaningless.

Argument #2: These new streaming services are not a good deal because they're giving you lower quality, fewer options, and no control over the content. This is where Tony is using the term "duped" to say that people who think they're getting a good deal from these streaming services are actually not.

I'm not sure why Tony started spouting off Argument #2 in a post that was responding to Argument #1. That's where the confusion lies.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

TonyD79 said:


> Look at the new Hulu service. The cost is already equitable with standard cable. For less. Limited streams. Limited capability. Limited channels.
> 
> Unless these guys have nailed the exact channels every consumer wants, it is a grand duping.


OK, let's look at the new Hulu service with live TV. Add in an extra $15 for full-fledged DVR (200 hours, with FF capability and multiple simultaneous recordings) and we're at $55 per month. That gives you HD service with 50+ popular live linear channels, VOD and cloud DVR to two screens simultaneously, whether big TV screens at home or mobile phones on the go. No hidden charges, use your own equipment, no contract, free trial.

There are a ton of different cable providers out there, all with different pricing schemes, including intro promotional rates, plus savings for bundling in with internet. But to see if your claim held any merit in my case, I logged into my Comcast account to see what they charge for a small-ish bundle of popular cable channels with HD DVR service for 2 TVs. Unfortunately, they would only show me two standalone TV options, one with just locals and another with something like 220 channels, which would cost around $135 with HD DVR (non-X1) on 2 TVs. Beyond that, the cheapest double-play option for the X1 platform has 140 channels and 75 Mbps internet. With HD DVR on 2 TVs, that would come to $142 per month for the first year, with an increase the next year, before rising to the normal price of $182 at month 25 and beyond. So Comcast doesn't seem to offer anything here that competes with Hulu with Live TV. (But that should change in a few months when their skinny bundle service called Xfinity Instant TV rolls out.) So for now, strike one for you. Comcast doesn't offer something equal or better to Hulu at an equivalent cost.

Next up is AT&T U-verse. Again, they don't really have a small bundle of popular channels. I guess the closest TV package they have is U-Family, which may actually have more channels than Hulu with Live TV but is missing lots of popular ones (like any of the sports channels, AMC, FX, USA, TBS, Comedy, etc.). Anyhow, it would cost $56 per month the first year, then up to the regular cost of $103 per month thereafter. It requires a 12-month contract. Those prices don't include certain taxes and fees either. But HD DVR service is included for up to 4 TVs! So, it's got that going for it. Or, increase those monthly prices by $20 per month and you can go with their U-200 package, which has about 200 channels (not all HD), including all the most popular ones. So it looks like AT&T will sell me a much worse (IMO) TV package for about the same price as Hulu with Live TV, but only for the first year; afterwards, it's more expensive. Or you can get a TV package that's arguably better than Hulu with Live TV but it's going to cost you about $20/mo. more the first year, before becoming about $70/mo more expensive afterwards. (And, to be fair, neither AT&T TV package contains Hulu's own premium-type stuff: original series and uncut ad-free recent theatrical movies. That ought to be worth maybe the cost of an EPIX subscription, no?) So that would be strike two for you.

Lastly, let's have a look at DISH. This one is interesting because DISH's satellite service has begun toying with smaller, less expensive bundles. Let's go with their Flex Pack. The required base tier has quite a few HD channels, including AMC and IFC (which Hulu with Live TV is missing), although it doesn't have any sports channels like ESPN, FS1 or NBCSN, all of which Hulu has. News junkies will be disappointed that the Flex Pack doesn't have Fox News, MSNBC or HLN (all of which are on Hulu), but hey, at least it's got CNN. Also, no Disney channels for the kids in the Flex Pack. But on the plus side for the Flex Pack, it has some Viacom channels like Comedy Central, VH1, TV Land, Spike and CMT, all of which are missing from Hulu. Let's add Locals to the Flex Pack since Hulu automatically has those channels (well, except for PBS and The CW). Then let's add Hopper DVR service for 2 TVs. That brings us to $57/mo, not including "taxes and surcharges". (I suspect those surcharges are for carrying the local broadcast channels. I knew the amount and included them in the prices for Comcast and AT&T. It may add another $3 - 7 to DISH's prices here.) At least the price is guaranteed for 2 years. (Not sure if there's a contract.) So this option comes the closest to what Hulu with Live TV offers. The price is just slightly more than Hulu, although it's arguable whether the channel line-up is as good. Also, let's remember, Hulu brings a lot of other VOD stuff to the table, including their original series and Hollywood movies. So while some folks may say the Flex Pack is better, I think most (especially sports and news fans) would say it's not. Since DISH's Flex Pack doesn't clearly beat Hulu with Live TV, then, I'm calling this strike three for your claim.

Hulu with Live TV is a service that offers less than typical traditional pay TV packages but it's also priced less. For folks who want pretty much all of the most popular channels (except AMC) but not a ton of other stuff, it looks to me like a pretty good service that's priced fairly.

EDIT: Added Viacom channels to the DISH Flex Pack.


----------



## osu1991 (Mar 6, 2015)

Flex pack is for people tired of paying for sports and locals. They can be added to Flex if one wants them occasionally. Locals can be added to Flex pack for $10 
I think sports packages are $10 too


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

osu1991 said:


> Flex pack is for people tired of paying for sports and locals. They can be added to Flex if one wants them occasionally. Locals can be added to Flex pack for $10
> I think sports packages are $10 too


Yeah, I included the $10 locals pack in my figures above. I was trying to arrive at a package as close in content and pricing as Hulu with Live TV. If you want to add sports to DISH's Flex Pack, you can get ESPN, ESPN 2 and FS1 for another $10. If you want some regional sports channels (some of which come with Hulu), that's another $10. If you want several news channels (including Fox News, MSNBC and others), that's another $10. At that point, you've definitely got all the channels that Hulu has plus some others, but you're also paying over $30 more per month.


----------



## delgadobb (Mar 6, 2004)

idksmy said:


> Please let us know when the number of people who agree with your definition of cord cutting exceeds 1.


Looks like there are several, myself included. Just 'letting you know'.

Cord cutting was coined as a term before these OTT services existed & referred to eliminating pay TV for a user-controlled option (OTA, WMC, Plex server). Sure, people have tried to alter the definition over time much like the link you referenced. Doesn't make it the de facto definition; it's just somebody's spin on it. There may be no absolute correct definition at this point, but make no mistake it originated with eliminating pay TV for a user-controlled option.

Periodically I look at some of the other options; competition from other delivery methods including OTT may be good. Locally, I hope it puts pressure on Cox. As long as I can get the cable TV I want for about a $50 price delta above straight internet cost I'll stick around - the convenience with Tivo is worth it. If they get too greedy & stubborn, I'll say 'sayonara' & go OTA. (If I got rid of cable, I'm gonna add $35-50 to my bare internet cost for OTT so how much am I really saving? Cox is pretty much the only internet game in town here, Century Link is a joke.)

My concern with many of the OTT services is just how functional a cloud DVR might be & how much control we'll have over the content. I love that I can skip commercials with Tivo (quickmode is a bonus) & many of the offerings I've seen force you to sit through commercials and/or marketing stuff. How convenient that some allow you to avoid this for another additional fee It all comes down to value. Most cloud DVR functionality has not 'wowed' me as of yet.

If Cox remains too greedy I'll switch my Tivos to OTA initially. Maybe I'll eventually add Netflix and/or Amazon Prime. With 3000+ HD hrs on my Tivos I have enough content to binge watch indefinitely before I worry about 'missing out' on the latest episodes of something. (Having the entire series of Dexter, Homeland, Shameless, Game of Thrones, Luther, Silicon Valley, The Americans, Walking Dead, Portlandia to watch along with hundreds of uncut movies ... and I'll be recording my network shows OTA along the way ...) If PS Vue, YouTube TV or something else shows significant value I may go that route, but they'd better have a reasonable value with DVR & commercial skipping options ...


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

delgadobb said:


> I love that I can skip commercials with Tivo (quickmode is a bonus) & many of the offerings I've seen force you to sit through commercials and/or marketing stuff. How convenient that some allow you to avoid this for another additional fee


On cable, that "additional fee" is paying twice as much for the service.


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

Cord shaver is a term I've heard for those who are looking for lower cost alternatives to traditional cable TV service. That said I'm always willing to consider a lower quality product if the cost savings is enough to make the compromise worth it. At this point OTT streaming cable alternatives are a lower quality product compared to cable TV. However for me full cable TV isn't worth the cost for the perceived benefit I get from it. In fact most of the streaming services at this point aren't worth the asking price for me personally. The Directv Now package I'm using currently costs $60 but I'm grandfathered in at the $35 intro price. If it were $60 I would not subscribe.

Another consideration is Cable TV is a mature product whereas OTT cable alternative streaming services are in their infancy. I think OTT streaming cable alternatives quality will improve as they mature even if the channel offerings may remain a bit more limited to maintain competitve pricing. The increased competition from these services will likely drive increased choice and value propositions for consumers which should be a good thing.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> Correct if any duping is going on, it is if someone believes OTT cable TV isn't cable TV or that the they are getting the same level of service being offered by traditional cable company/package for less money.


The thing to keep in mind is, there's no "free lunch". Awhile back, my mom asked about Sling TV because she saw an ad that sounded like it was much cheaper than her cable. I researched, and it didn't have everything she wanted.


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

An opps on my part. Forgot how limited the device options are for Hulu live streaming at this point. On my main set I have an apple TV 4 with Hulu's live streaming set up on it. I decided to add it also to my bedroom set via my Amazon Fire stick. While much of the functionality to watch shows is there including continuing with shows I started watching on the Apple TV 4, you can't access live TV yet as the Fire Stick is not a fully supported device for the live service. I had forgotten that until I kept trying to access live TV on the Fire Stick and couldn't find it! Doh! It is however somewhat useful for watching on demand programming.


----------



## RoamioPete (Apr 3, 2017)

Not sure if this is what your are looking for but I can watch live TV channels (Food Network, TLC, HGTV) utilizing my ROKU TV and the apps for those channels.


----------



## NYHeel (Oct 7, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> OK, let's look at the new Hulu service with live TV. Add in an extra $15 for full-fledged DVR (200 hours, with FF capability and multiple simultaneous recordings) and we're at $55 per month. That gives you HD service with 50+ popular live linear channels, VOD and cloud DVR to two screens simultaneously, whether big TV screens at home or mobile phones on the go. No hidden charges, use your own equipment, no contract, free trial.
> 
> There are a ton of different cable providers out there, all with different pricing schemes, including intro promotional rates, plus savings for bundling in with internet. But to see if your claim held any merit in my case, I logged into my Comcast account to see what they charge for a small-ish bundle of popular cable channels with HD DVR service for 2 TVs. Unfortunately, they would only show me two standalone TV options, one with just locals and another with something like 220 channels, which would cost around $135 with HD DVR (non-X1) on 2 TVs. Beyond that, the cheapest double-play option for the X1 platform has 140 channels and 75 Mbps internet. With HD DVR on 2 TVs, that would come to $142 per month for the first year, with an increase the next year, before rising to the normal price of $182 at month 25 and beyond. So Comcast doesn't seem to offer anything here that competes with Hulu with Live TV. (But that should change in a few months when their skinny bundle service called Xfinity Instant TV rolls out.) So for now, strike one for you. Comcast doesn't offer something equal or better to Hulu at an equivalent cost.
> 
> ...


The problem is that, as you said, all cable packages vary in pricing depending on where you live and the competition in that location. I have a great deal with Fios. I pay a total of $119 including taxes and fees for phone, internet, and their ultimate TV package which includes just about all linear channels currently being offered including all the premium movie channels and NFL Red Zone. That includes $5 for a cable card for my Tivo and the bogus RSN and Broadcast fees. I've actually looked into pricing for phone and internet alone and it would likely be at least $70 with taxes and fees. That puts my TV package at under $50 a month, less than the Hulu option with DVR. I can actually drop my package to the Extreme package for $10 less lowering my price to under $40 for TV. I'd lose a few premium movie packages (but would keep HBO and Showtime) and Red Zone. Red Zone is a must for me and since they charge about $60-$70 a season for Red Zone I just keep the Ultimate package.

So my long winded point is that for some people the streaming packages are a good deal and will save them money if they're ok with the channel bundle and services offered. However, the assumption that the streaming packages are obviously cheaper than regular cable packages is wrong. For many people, their cable packages are cheaper or at least very close in price, after factoring the cost for internet and/or phone service.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

NYHeel said:


> The problem is that, as you said, all cable packages vary in pricing depending on where you live and the competition in that location. I have a great deal with Fios. I pay a total of $119 including taxes and fees for phone, internet, and their ultimate TV package which includes just about all linear channels currently being offered including all the premium movie channels and NFL Red Zone. That includes $5 for a cable card for my Tivo and the bogus RSN and Broadcast fees. I've actually looked into pricing for phone and internet alone and it would likely be at least $70 with taxes and fees. That puts my TV package at under $50 a month, less than the Hulu option with DVR. I can actually drop my package to the Extreme package for $10 less lowering my price to under $40 for TV. I'd lose a few premium movie packages (but would keep HBO and Showtime) and Red Zone. Red Zone is a must for me and since they charge about $60-$70 a season for Red Zone I just keep the Ultimate package.
> 
> So my long winded point is that for some people the streaming packages are a good deal and will save them money if they're ok with the channel bundle and services offered. However, the assumption that the streaming packages are obviously cheaper than regular cable packages is wrong. For many people, their cable packages are cheaper or at least very close in price, after factoring the cost for internet and/or phone service.


As you say (and as I originally stated), it all depends on the specifics of your local providers. The point of my long post wasn't to say that Hulu with Live TV is the best deal for everyone, but simply to show that, for a lot of folks, myself included, you can't necessarily get a better deal though traditional TV providers, even if you bundle internet in with your TV service. To say that OTT services like Hulu with Live TV amount to a "grand duping" -- as the guy I was responding to claimed -- is silly.

One thing I'd point out about your own pricing analysis, though, is that you aren't taking into account the amount that you spent for your TiVo hardware and service. For a fair comparison against an OTT service with cloud DVR, you have to factor in the true cost of your TiVo DVR service. For folks who have already sunk hundreds into the cost of TiVo hardware and lifetime service, the numbers going forward are going to look a lot better to stay with traditional cable.

BTW, $119 for the level of services you're getting is great. For something similar from Comcast ("X1 Premiere Triple Play"), with X1 DVR service for two TVs, you're looking at $197/mo for the first year, with a regular price of about $240/mo. I don't know what the price discount would be to use your own Tivo hardware rather than their X1 DVRs, but I don't think it would bring the price down to $119.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> BTW, $119 for the level of services you're getting is great. For something similar from Comcast ("X1 Premiere Triple Play"), with X1 DVR service for two TVs, you're looking at $197/mo for the first year, with a regular price of about $240/mo. I don't know what the price discount would be to use your own Tivo hardware rather than their X1 DVRs, but I don't think it would bring the price down to $119.


I didn't grow up in a cable household, and only rarely have had it (former tenant moved out, cableco didn't turn cable off for months). I always wonder, though: do people realize that they're spending $3000/year on cable? That's a heck of a lot of scratch--that's a car.


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

When do the Hulu "stacking" rights expire for a given show? In other words, let's say they can offer all current season episodes of Show XYZ. The show has it's season finale in late May, and the next season premiere in late September. When do the current season episodes go away? End of May? Sometime in June? Sometime in September?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> I didn't grow up in a cable household, and only rarely have had it (former tenant moved out, cableco didn't turn cable off for months). I always wonder, though: do people realize that they're spending $3000/year on cable? That's a heck of a lot of scratch--that's a car.


I am nearly 60, never had cable TV (not available where I have lived). I did have satellite for maybe 10 years in the late 90s to 2007ish, just didn't find enough value in it for me. For my money a would rather watch OTA TV and spend my money on going to see movies in a theater, but for some (especially those who watch lots of sports, with kids, and/or us multiple TVs in the home) cable is really a pretty good deal if the cost fits into their budget.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> I am nearly 60, never had cable TV (not available where I have lived). I did have satellite for maybe 10 years in the late 90s to 2007ish, just didn't find enough value in it for me. For my money a would rather watch OTA TV and spend my money on going to see movies in a theater, but for some (especially those who watch lots of sports, with kids, and/or us multiple TVs in the home) cable is really a pretty good deal if the cost fits into their budget.


Don't get me wrong--I see the attraction of it and there are wonderful series that I'd like to have, between HBO, Showtime, etc. But looking at the various series and premium channels and what it would do to the monthly charge, I just have gone, wow. And then I sign up for the series at my local library, when the DVDs come out later (I don't feel a great need to be the first at the water cooler to watch a new show).


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

mrizzo80 said:


> When do the Hulu "stacking" rights expire for a given show? In other words, let's say they can offer all current season episodes of Show XYZ. The show has it's season finale in late May, and the next season premiere in late September. When do the current season episodes go away? End of May? Sometime in June? Sometime in September?


 They vary according to show, and where the show lands next. Most of them will be on Hulu through early fall, say Bones for instance. There are exceptions, the last season of Marvel's Agents of Shield left Hulu in early summer, and showed up on Netflix a few days later. I've found NBC and Fox shows tend to follow the early fall, or when the next season of the show arrives.
ABC owned shows can be the wild card, especially if they are contracted to Netflix. It will drive you crazy sometimes..


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

mrizzo80 said:


> When do the Hulu "stacking" rights expire for a given show? In other words, let's say they can offer all current season episodes of Show XYZ. The show has it's season finale in late May, and the next season premiere in late September. When do the current season episodes go away? End of May? Sometime in June? Sometime in September?


That's a good question. I *think* that if they have full current-season rights to a show, the whole season will remain available until the next season premieres, or just before it does. (Modern Family is an example of such a show.) Likewise, for shows that they only have rights to the last five eps (e.g. The Middle), I think those five eps will remain available over the summer until the next season premieres in the fall. But I'm not sure, to be honest. But looking back at lists of "what's coming and going on Hulu" from last May and June, I didn't see any big network series listed, even though that timeframe is when lots of them have their season finales. So that leads me to believe those seasons would remain available until the fall.

Also, keep in mind that there are a lot of series for which Hulu has bought the full series streaming rights, so prior seasons stay on Hulu too. Current series in this category include Empire, The Last Man on Earth, Brooklyn Nine Nine, Blackish, The Goldbergs, Blindspot, This Is Us, Family Guy, Sleepy Hollow, etc.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

tenthplanet said:


> They vary according to show, and where the show lands next. Most of them will be on Hulu through early fall, say Bones for instance. There are exceptions, the last season of Marvel's Agents of Shield left Hulu in early summer, and showed up on Netflix a few days later. I've found NBC and Fox shows tend to follow the early fall, or when the next season of the show arrives.
> ABC owned shows can be the wild card, especially if they are contracted to Netflix. It will drive you crazy sometimes..


Ah, good to know. Looks like if there's a deal in place for that season of a show to go to another streaming service, like Netflix, it can get yanked early from Hulu. Otherwise, it stays on Hulu until the next season begins.


----------



## kokishin (Sep 9, 2014)

Is Hulu still stereo only? I tried Hulu for 30 days and was disappointed that it did not support Dolby Digital 5.1 or Dolby Digital Plus 5.1. I have Amazon Prime Video and it supports Dolby Digital Plus 5.1.


----------



## RoamioPete (Apr 3, 2017)

kokishin said:


> Is Hulu still stereo only? I tried Hulu for 30 days and was disappointed that it did not support Dolby Digital 5.1 or Dolby Digital Plus 5.1. I have Amazon Prime Video and it supports Dolby Digital Plus 5.1.


Yep, just stereo, discovered the disappointing info last night watching Raiders. Such a shame they won't offer 5.1.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

kokishin said:


> Is Hulu still stereo only? I tried Hulu for 30 days and was disappointed that it did not support Dolby Digital 5.1 or Dolby Digital Plus 5.1. I have Amazon Prime Video and it supports Dolby Digital Plus 5.1.


Yeah, I think they're still only stereo. Although maybe that's going to change soon, once the new app and the live TV service exit beta. Given that Netflix and Amazon have supported DD 5.1 for a long time now, you'd think Hulu would step up to compete. That said, I'm not that picky about surround sound. I just have my receiver set to create pseudo-surround sound (Dolby Pro Logic) from the stereo track and it does a surprisingly good job of it. But I do enjoy proper 5.1 when I watch Blu-rays.

At least Hulu has begun streaming some content in 1080p. They always maxed out at 720p until fairly recently. And if you're using the latest XBox or PlayStation console, you can stream a bit of stuff in 4K UHD. Hopefully they extend that soon to 4K smart TVs and 4K Rokus and Fire TVs.


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

NashGuy said:


> At least Hulu has begun streaming some content in 1080p. They always maxed out at 720p until fairly recently.


Does the TiVo app support 1080p? Are you seeing bit rate information in the TiVo app or via other apps?

EDIT: Whoops; not bit rate. Meant resolution.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

mrizzo80 said:


> Does the TiVo app support 1080p? Are you seeing bit rate information in the TiVo app or via other apps?
> 
> EDIT: Whoops; not bit rate. Meant resolution.


I don't know. I stopped using the Hulu app on my Roamio because it seems to top out at SD. It's awful. The Bolt app is reportedly much better, so maybe it will do 1080p.

I can't say for sure that the app on my TV does 1080p but I tend to think it does for some stuff. PQ is quite good. At any rate, multiple sources I've read online say that Hulu has been doing 1080p for awhile now and they confirm it on their site.

Hulu Help


----------



## cybergrimes (Jun 15, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I think they're still only stereo. Although maybe that's going to change soon, once the new app and the live TV service exit beta. Given that Netflix and Amazon have supported DD 5.1 for a long time now, you'd think Hulu would step up to compete. That said, I'm not that picky about surround sound. I just have my receiver set to create pseudo-surround sound (Dolby Pro Logic) from the stereo track and it does a surprisingly good job of it. But I do enjoy proper 5.1 when I watch Blu-rays.
> 
> At least Hulu has begun streaming some content in 1080p. They always maxed out at 720p until fairly recently. And if you're using the latest XBox or PlayStation console, you can stream a bit of stuff in 4K UHD. Hopefully they extend that soon to 4K smart TVs and 4K Rokus and Fire TVs.


I can't find any source at the moment but I thought I read some comment by a Hulu exec to the effect of "most people don't have surround and those that do can use matrix tech like Dolby Pro Logic". Hopefully soon they'll step up the audio with these other changes...


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

Canceled Hulu live today before my 7 day free trial ended. They offered me a free month of regular Hulu so I took them up on it. After trying the live service I feel it could be a reasonable option for Cord Nevers that just want a simple option for TV anywhere. I say this because Hulu live has wider access to broadcast network content than most of the other services (albeit still very limited live broadcast networks). The Hulu brand is also pretty familiar to most, it has a great deal of on demand content, and the base service at least includes minimal DVR functionality. It's far from perfect and the price could be better for the number of channels included but IMHO it just seems better positioned for success. PS Vue would also be a decent option but I think Hulu live is just better positioned, there isn't the confusion the PlayStation name creates, nor the weird way PS Vue was rolled out initially. Only time will tell though.


----------



## idksmy (Jul 16, 2016)

TeamPace said:


> PS Vue would also be a decent option but I think Hulu live is just better positioned, there isn't the confusion the PlayStation name creates, nor the weird way PS Vue was rolled out initially. Only time will tell though.


Shouldn't the criteria be content, price and features and not superficial things like the name and how something was rolled out?


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

idksmy said:


> Shouldn't the criteria be content, price and features and not superficial things like the name and how something was rolled out?


I agree as to deciding which might be better, but I'm referring more as to which one has a better chance of succeeding. History shows it's not always the best product that wins out in the end. For the most part I'd agree PS Vue has some advantages.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

idksmy said:


> Shouldn't the criteria be content, price and features and not superficial things like the name and how something was rolled out?


But if half the population doesn't even consider PS Vue because they think you have to have a Playstation 4 to get that service, then it doesn't matter how good the service or price is. You can see in PS Vue's most recent ads that they're trying to combat this problem.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

NashGuy said:


> I don't know. I stopped using the Hulu app on my Roamio because it seems to top out at SD. It's awful. The Bolt app is reportedly much better, so maybe it will do 1080p.
> 
> I can't say for sure that the app on my TV does 1080p but I tend to think it does for some stuff. PQ is quite good. At any rate, multiple sources I've read online say that Hulu has been doing 1080p for awhile now and they confirm it on their site.
> 
> Hulu Help


I get HD on my Roamios and Minis, so not sure why yours tops out at SD. The app on the Bolt is the same as the Roamio. It's a little faster on the Bolt, because it's better hardware, but it's the same UI.


----------



## idksmy (Jul 16, 2016)

Naming it PS Vue is, IMO, as shortsighted as the name DirecTV Now. You do not need a PlayStation nor a satellite dish, respectively. It is hard to believe that someone at Sony, for example, didn't ask the question, "Won't people think they need a PlayStation to use this service?". On second thought, it's not all that hard to believe. If they thought the name and misunderstanding would result in increased sales of PlayStations they were really nuts.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

idksmy said:


> Naming it PS Vue is, IMO, as shortsighted as the name DirecTV Now. You do not need a PlayStation nor a satellite dish, respectively. It is hard to believe that someone at Sony, for example, didn't ask the question, "Won't people think they need a PlayStation to use this service?". On second thought, it's not all that hard to believe. If they thought the name and misunderstanding would result in increased sales of PlayStations they were really nuts.


I agree. I have Vue, but I never would have if I wasn't specifically researching over a year ago what service I could subscribe to for FS1 for baseball playoffs. I happened upon Vue, and have been a subscriber ever since. It has the most complete channel package for what I want for the money, but I didn't really even know about it.


----------



## huskerpower95 (Jan 12, 2016)

Cutting the cord is dropping of cable tv to OTA services.

Cord Cutting was only option prior to sling tv. Services like Sling, PS Vue, DTVNow, and others gave people "flexibility" to get the content they want with out outrageous extra costs to get that "tier of service".

SO, "cutting the cord" is an obsolete term in the environment today of choices for entertainment. "Flexible entertainment" allows one to watch programming with out the add on and for the duration of time people want.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Its all garbage since the channels are bundled. There is no real choice with streaming cable channels over ip.
In fact its pretty stupid.


----------



## idksmy (Jul 16, 2016)

While it is 'garbage' and 'pretty stupid' for you, it is not for a lot of people. What would be 'garbage' and 'stupid' is for people to stay with cable when there are less expensive alternatives for the networks they watch.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

The only stupid thing is paying more for something that doesn't fit my needs. That would be stupid.


----------



## idksmy (Jul 16, 2016)

hefe said:


> The only stupid thing is paying more for something that doesn't fit my needs. That would be stupid.


And don't forget 'garbage'. 'its all garbage'.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Garbage is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

foghorn2 said:


> Its all garbage since the channels are bundled. There is no real choice with streaming cable channels over ip.
> In fact its pretty stupid.


It's only garbage because you have the mistaken belief that things would be cheaper if you could purchase channels a la carte. However, I don't think there's any way that would end up being cheaper because the reduced subscribers would either put the channels out of business or cause them to increase their subscriber fees significantly.


----------



## idksmy (Jul 16, 2016)

hefe said:


> Garbage is in the eye of the beholder.


I agree and I beheld it at 12:39 pm.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

I'm sure some of you who are interested in skinny bundles have seen talk of a non-sports, non-locals bundle from Viacom, AMC, Discovery and maybe others for $10 - $20, possibly launching later this year. That would be a nice complement to an OTA DVR for some.
Discovery CEO: Many TV channel packages are 'overstuffed turkeys' | FierceCable


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

NashGuy said:


> I'm sure some of you who are interested in skinny bundles have seen talk of a non-sports, non-locals bundle from Viacom, AMC, Discovery and maybe others for $10 - $20, possibly launching later this year. That would be a nice compliment to an OTA DVR for some.
> Discovery CEO: Many TV channel packages are 'overstuffed turkeys' | FierceCable


 That could blow YouTube Live TV right out of the water.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Depends on the channel selection.


----------



## BillyClyde (Mar 3, 2017)

I think the "stupid" comes in when you pay more for a channel (cable co.) than you can get it for elsewhere (OTT, OTA provider), bundled or not. 

The term "garbage" is applicable when you're talking about the crap programming that is on most of the channels, most of the time.


----------



## delgadobb (Mar 6, 2004)

BillyClyde said:


> I think the "stupid" comes in when you pay more for a channel (cable co.) than you can get it for elsewhere (OTT, OTA provider), bundled or not.


I think I just learned I'm "stupid", since I'm paying a few bucks more in my cable bundle than I would with PSVue/Hulu/YouTube/etc (up to $10/mo, depending on config - probably $3-5 more than I could elsewhere) 

Obviously, the other options also give me 3,000+ HD hrs of DVR storage with no limitations, right? I can keep stuff forever, skip all the commercials & transfer recordings among devices. Right? I can stream/transfer recordings from a few years ago to my iPad or Android phone to show my mom when I visit. Right? It will work on 6-7 TVs with my existing setup (currently 6 active). Right?

*It depends. Context matters.*


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Maybe I should clarify my statement:

Paying more, streaming + hsi provider, for streaming services over hsi + cable bundle with a TiVo DVR for the same crappy channels is certainly stupid.

Stealing HSI from a neighbor and paying for streaming might be cheaper, but illegal.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

NashGuy said:


> I'm sure some of you who are interested in skinny bundles have seen talk of a non-sports, non-locals bundle from Viacom, AMC, Discovery and maybe others for $10 - $20, possibly launching later this year. That would be a nice complement to an OTA DVR for some.
> Discovery CEO: Many TV channel packages are 'overstuffed turkeys' | FierceCable


There should be NO BUNDLES! Let each channel survive on their own. Then maybe we will get some quality programming.


----------



## BillyClyde (Mar 3, 2017)

delgadobb said:


> I think I just learned I'm "stupid", since I'm paying a few bucks more in my cable bundle than I would with PSVue/Hulu/YouTube/etc (up to $10/mo, depending on config - probably $3-5 more than I could elsewhere)
> 
> Obviously, the other options also give me 3,000+ HD hrs of DVR storage with no limitations, right? I can keep stuff forever, skip all the commercials & transfer recordings among devices. Right? I can stream/transfer recordings from a few years ago to my iPad or Android phone to show my mom when I visit. Right? It will work on 6-7 TVs with my existing setup (currently 6 active). Right?
> 
> *It depends. Context matters.*


Yes sorry. Context does matter. And the context I used for my post was clarification not accusation because people starting talking about "garbage" when discussing pricing, but I think when the person initially used the terms "garbage" and "stupid", it was in the context that I clarified.

If that wasn't correct I was hoping that person would come and clarify.

Sorry for any confusion. No, you or anyone else with cable aren't stupid. If that were the case then it would indict myself too!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

foghorn2 said:


> There should be NO BUNDLES! Let each channel survive on their own. Then maybe we will get some quality programming.


Again, you're absolutely wrong on that. We'd get very little programming at all, because many channels would go out of business, and the "quality" stuff that costs several million per episode to produce would be few and far between because only a small handful of channels would have enough paying subscribers to warrant the expenses.


----------



## osu1991 (Mar 6, 2015)

DevdogAZ said:


> Again, you're absolutely wrong on that. We'd get very little programming at all, because many channels would go out of business, and the "quality" stuff that costs several million per episode to produce would be few and far between because only a small handful of channels would have enough paying subscribers to warrant the expenses.


Really? Where is all the quality stuff on all these channels. 90% of them just rehash the same old episodes from sister networks and parent companies.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> Again, you're absolutely wrong on that. We'd get very little programming at all, because many channels would go out of business, and the "quality" stuff that costs several million per episode to produce would be few and far between because only a small handful of channels would have enough paying subscribers to warrant the expenses.


Wrong, when anyone or anything has to earn your money, the quality/quantity will improve. Plain and simple.
Socialism for tv channels is not working. And why do you have to pay to watch commercials and infomercials?

They are screwing with us, hollywood and the entertainment industry is severely scummy (look at the last CHiPs remake) and leeching off our dollars. And we are stupid for continually handing them cash while they give us crap.

$40 for streaming Hulu for a small handful of bundled channels? No real DVR? On top of that pay for the internet and deal with the data caps for streaming that chit?

No sorry, I find that very stupid. Thats my opinion.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

osu1991 said:


> Really? Where is all the quality stuff on all these channels. 90% of them just rehash the same old episodes from sister networks and parent companies.


There is more original scripted programming on US TV right now than at any time in history. TV critics are calling this the "Platinum Age," because they already used "Golden Age" to refer to the era from The Sopranos through Breaking Bad. There are more scripted shows on right now than at any point in history. Critics are calling it "Peak TV" and they keep expecting the bubble to burst, but it keeps growing. A-list actors who once thought of TV as "beneath them" are flocking to TV in growing numbers. And all that is made possible by the money that is available to these networks and streaming outlets through subscriber fees. If you make everything a la carte, not only will you pay more for the things you want, but you'll also have much less choice, because many of the outlets will not survive. Right now subscribers are paying less than $1/mo. for quality channels like TNT, TBS, AMC, FX, USA, Comedy Central, and BBC America. But unbundle everything and suddenly, instead of these channels having 90 million subscribers and being able to spread their costs to everyone, they would drop to 20-40 million subscribers each and they'd have to raise their subscriber fees accordingly. So instead of paying $100/mo for hundreds of channels, you'll have the "choice" to pay $5/mo for a single channel. And if you're a sports fan, ESPN would probably cost $25/mo in the a la carte era. So be careful what you wish for.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

You mean scripted reality tv shows on cable channels in between commercials and infomercials.

Platinum crap age of tv.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

foghorn2 said:


> You mean scripted reality tv shows on cable channels in between commercials and infomercials.
> 
> Platinum crap age of tv.


I specifically said scripted because that doesn't include reality and any of the other stuff. In each of 2015 and 2016, there were over 400 scripted (i.e. not reality) programs airing on cable and streaming. Some experts think that number could be closer to 500 this year.



> It's a great time to be watching TV. The only problem is that there's too much of it. Last year, there were 412 scripted series produced for primetime. When you factor in reality programming, documentary shows, and other non-scripted formats, the number rises above 1,400. FX head John Landegraf calls the phenomenon "Peak TV" and predicts it won't start to slope off for another two years.


"The Golden Age of TV is Exhausting" Boston Globe, April 7, 2017

Other reads:

"Welcome to the Platinum Age of TV"

"5 Reasons We're in the Platinum Age of Television"

"How to Enjoy the Platinum Age of Television Without Going Broke"

Bottom line: All of this quality scripted programming is made possible by cable bundles that spread the wealth around to many outlets. If we go a la carte, there won't be much money saved, but the money will be concentrated in just a few outlets while the rest of the outlets go bankrupt.


----------



## osu1991 (Mar 6, 2015)

DevdogAZ said:


> There is more original scripted programming on US TV right now than at any time in history. TV critics are calling this the "Platinum Age," because they already used "Golden Age" to refer to the era from The Sopranos through Breaking Bad. There are more scripted shows on pay right now than at any point in history. Critics are calling it "Peak TV" and they keep expecting the bubble to burst, but it keeps growing. A-list actors who once thought of TV as "beneath them" are flocking to TV in growing numbers. And all that is made possible by the money that is available to these networks and streaming outlets through subscriber fees. If you make everything a la carte, not only will you pay more for the things you want, but you'll also have much less choice, because many of the outlets will not survive. Right now subscribers are paying less than $1/mo. for quality channels like TNT, TBS, AMC, FX, USA, Comedy Central, and BBC America. But unbundle everything and suddenly, instead of these channels having 90 million subscribers and being able to spread their costs to everyone, they would drop to 20-40 million subscribers each and they'd have to raise their subscriber fees accordingly. So instead of paying $100/mo for hundreds of channels, you'll have the "choice" to pay $5/mo for a single channel. And if you're a sports fan, ESPN would probably cost $25/mo in the a la carte era. So be careful what you wish for.


Just because it's being ordered doesn't make it quality. Other than a few weeks a year for certain shows, most cable networks are bleeding viewers overall, just like the broadcast networks. There are not as many quality scripted shows out there as they want everyone to believe. What is it, 25 shows this year, cancelled after just 1 season on air.

I would much rather pay $20 for 5 channels I want to watch than pay $40 for 50 I'll never turn on. If they can't survive on their own, shut them off. I can only think of 1 show on all the "quality" channels that were listed, that I stuck with for more than 1 episode. That would be Shooter on USA. You're paying more than a $1 for those channels no matter what they say, because you are also forced to pay for all their sister networks that are riding along filled with the repeats and more commercial time. Squeeze a 1hr20min movie into a 3 hr block or 40mins of programming in an 1hr block.

Some may think its a great deal paying for a bunch of channels in a bundle, but many are finally realizing it's not.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Determining the value of any Pay TV offering is PERSONAL. Determining if a scripted show is "high quality" and provides enough entertainment to be worth watching is PERSONAL.

Everyone gets to make those personal determination, and frankly anyone with a brain doesn't give a crap what someone else thinks.


----------



## Eddie501 (Jun 4, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> Bottom line: All of this quality scripted programming is made possible by cable bundles that spread the wealth around to many outlets. If we go a la carte, there won't be much money saved, but the money will be concentrated in just a few outlets while the rest of the outlets go bankrupt.


Except the vast, vast majority of QUALITY scripted programming is not on cable bundled networks at all. Instead it's on Netflix, Amazon, HBO, Showtime, etc. All of which can be streamed individually without having to bundle in package of commercial infested crap.

I always try out these live streaming services just to see how they work. But I never keep them because it always reminds me of what a cesspool basic cable has become. Maybe some channels NEED to go away. Maybe channels that DO produce quality original programming like AMC & FX need to charge more than bottom feeder networks like TLC and E!. Maybe they need to offer a better experience than shows littered with screen clutter & ads. But what's happening now ain't working for me & a growing number of households.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

foghorn2 said:


> You mean scripted reality tv shows on cable channels in between commercials and infomercials.
> 
> Platinum crap age of tv.


There's more crap on TV, but there's also more quality stuff. There's just more of everything. I watch 3 "reality" shows, and the rest is scripted drama or comedy. There certainly are networks that are heavy on reality programs that I don't care about or watch.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Awhile back, everytime I looked to see what was on network TV, it was all (un) reality and s#itcoms. I'm not sure when that changed, but it HAS changed. I'm sure a lot of it is still crap, but when I include Netflix and my current Hulu service, there's more worth watching than I have time to watch. Even without that, I was watching quite a bit, though several of them have had their season finales by now.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

allan said:


> Awhile back, everytime I looked to see what was on network TV, it was all (un) reality and s#itcoms.


Based on that statement, it seems like you're only interested in one-hour scripted shows. If so, then broadcast is definitely not where you should be looking. Being on a broadcast network used to be a huge benefit. Actors and writers on broadcast shows got paid more than their cable counterparts and viewership on the broadcast networks was significantly higher. But things have definitely changed over the past 10-15 years. Now being on a broadcast network is pretty much a detriment. Between trying to appeal to the masses, being subject to FCC oversight, and to stretching the ideas too thin by having too many episodes per season, all of the best creative talent is shunning the broadcast networks and that's why you're seeing such an explosion of quality shows from all these other outlets, from basic cable to premium cable to streaming. And the viewership advantage is gone as well. Shows like The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones consistently out-rate just about everything on broadcast, so there really isn't any benefit to producing a quality show for broadcast anymore.

Broadcast is now primarily the domain of procedurals where they can tell basically the same story, week after week, without needing to advance any underlying storylines or exercise much creativity.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

DevdogAZ said:


> Based on that statement, it seems like you're only interested in one-hour scripted shows. If so, then broadcast is definitely not where you should be looking. Being on a broadcast network used to be a huge benefit. Actors and writers on broadcast shows got paid more than their cable counterparts. But things have definitely changed over the past 10-15 years. Now being on a broadcast network is pretty much a detriment. Between trying to appeal to the masses, being subject to FCC oversight, and to stretching the ideas too thin by having too many episodes per season, all of the best creative talent is shunning the broadcast networks and that's why you're seeing such an explosion of quality shows from all these other outlets, from basic cable to premium cable to streaming.


Yeah. I like the broadcast nets (and therefore Hulu) for half-hour comedies but, other than American Crime (which just got cancelled at ABC), I can't think of a quality hourlong scripted show I've watched from ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox in a long time. (I enjoyed season one of Wayward Pines to begin with but then, sure enough, they ran it into the ditch and tried to make it an ongoing rather than finite limited series.) For hourlong (and some half-hour) scripted shows, I look to Showtime, HBO, Netflix, Hulu, etc.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

NYHeel said:


> The problem is that, as you said, all cable packages vary in pricing depending on where you live and the competition in that location. I have a great deal with Fios. I pay a total of $119 including taxes and fees for phone, internet, and their ultimate TV package which includes just about all linear channels currently being offered including all the premium movie channels and NFL Red Zone.


That's an unusually low price. My cable company wants $100 for phone and internet only.

I think one of two things will happen. (1) Cable companies will be permitted to break up basic cable into three subpackages (A) local broadcast retransmit, (B) entertainment channels, and (C) sports channels. If you can purchase these systems separately than cable will be able to compete with streaming TV.

The other eventual outcome is that almost all the smaller cable companies will become ISP providers only and you will have to purchase a streaming service if you want TV.

With net neutrality crumbling, I think that soon Comcast will provide an app that will let you stream USA, SyFy, and Bravo on a Roku or similar device when you purchase Comcast internet only. These channels are all revenue driven by commercials, owned by Comcast, and they want you the fees can be absorbed into Comcast's overall price of getting internet. I doubt that they will give away NBC Sports Network, Comcast SportsNet, or even NBC.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Pacomartin said:


> I think one of two things will happen. (1) Cable companies will be permitted to break up basic cable into three subpackages (A) local broadcast retransmit, (B) entertainment channels, and (C) sports channels. If you can purchase these systems separately than cable will be able to compete with streaming TV.


They're already "permitted" to do that. There's no regulation that requires them to bundle certain channels together. The problem is they've all signed contracts with ESPN (and dozens of other channels) that require those channels to be included in the basic bundle. So until those contracts expire (or someone is willing to defend a lawsuit for breach of contract), the basic bundles will continue to include all of those channels.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

DevdogAZ said:


> They're already "permitted" to do that. There's no regulation that requires them to bundle certain channels together.


I admit that was a poor choice of words. The word "permit" makes it sound like an FCC regulation. As you said the expectation of a normal contract would include this option.

For instance since fall of 1993 according to FCC regulations broadcast channels could charge a fee to cable companies to re-transmit their signal. But in reality, no cable company was willing to pay for something that could be received on an antenna for free. Broadcast networks would settle for some kind of deal, like Disney required a cable company to purchase ESPN2 before they would give that company the right to retransmit ABC. Most cable companies easily considered the small fee for ESPN2 and customer satisifaction to having another sports channel a reasonable fee.

What has happened recently is not a change in FCC regulations, it's just that the fees demanded by broadcasters have grown exponentially larger, and now they all want cash instead of just trades. The cable companies have been reluctant in most cases to push the broadcasters out completely (except for short negotiating periods).

The new competition from streaming TV services is simply going to increase the pressure to negotiate more flexible contracts. Otherwise, the cable companies will just get out of the TV business and let their customers purchase SlingTV or their favorite service.


----------

