# Streaming TV is about to get very expensive



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Just saw this article and thought it might be of interest:

Streaming TV is about to get very expensive - here's why

This isn't news for most of us, but there are a few new wrinkles I wasn't aware of. I figured it was just a matter of time before cord cutting became the more expensive option to watching TV. Frankly, I think streaming services are getting ridiculous. It's getting to where you have to subscribe to a different service for each show you want to watch. At some point this has to come crashing down and viewers will just stop streaming altogether. All I see this doing is just promoting more piracy.

This is sheer madness.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> Just saw this article and thought it might be of interest:
> 
> Streaming TV is about to get very expensive - here's why
> 
> ...


I've been saying this for months. The networks have seen the writing on the wall. CBS All Access has had some success and now they all want in. At $10-$15 a pop, it's going to wind up in the end costing more. On the bright side, those who've been screaming for al a carte cable for years are going to get their wish. And now they will realize how expensive that option is going to be.


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

I don't get the problem, unless you are forced to subscribe to services long term.

More content providers mean more content to choose from. How is that a bad thing? 

If you are allowed to subscribe to Apple or Disney for a month or two and then shut it off, you might have to change the way you subscribe. Instead of never shutting off a streaming service, you might be forced to jump from one to another. The viewer will need to adjust.

I'm in. Every change has been better for the viewer since the days of just the networks.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Family said:


> I don't get the problem, unless you are forced to subscribe to services long term.
> 
> More content providers mean more content to choose from. How is that a bad thing?
> 
> ...


Because here's why. In order for these streaming services to be successful they will need to provide more and more quality programming. Lets say you subscribe to HBO Now for Game of Thrones, that ends and then...Oh look, they have Big Little Lies, I wanted to see that, so you stay and when that ends there's another show you want to watch. So now they've got you. And the same thing happens on Showtime, on NBC, on Disney, on Hulu and so forth. So now you have five regulars that you subscribe to..that's $50 at least. Now add on at least 3-4 you rotate between. That's another $40 at least. So you are now up to $90. And not everyone will be as disciplined as you. And now you have the networks seeing this popularity and rates start going up. More and more commercials that quite often you CAN'T SKIP. Plus, people only have so much money. Smaller niche networks go away because there's just not enough subscribers who are willing to fork over $10 a month for something on Discovery or HGTV or whatever. What you think is great now, may not be so great a couple of years down the road. What if there's a show or two you want to see on one of those, so you might plunk down some On-Demand money, but people don't like having to pay for EVERYTHING. And that's what you are devolving into, and it will feel like you are being nickel and dimed to watch something. Sure you might say that's happening now with all the crazy fees and I get that.


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> Because here's why. In order for these streaming services to be successful they will need to provide more and more quality programming. Lets say you subscribe to HBO Now for Game of Thrones, that ends and then...Oh look, they have Big Little Lies, I wanted to see that, so you stay and when that ends there's another show you want to watch. So now they've got you. And the same thing happens on Showtime, on NBC, on Disney, on Hulu and so forth. So now you have five regulars that you subscribe to..that's $50 at least. Now add on at least 3-4 you rotate between. That's another $40 at least. So you are now up to $90. And not everyone will be as disciplined as you. And now you have the networks seeing this popularity and rates start going up. More and more commercials that quite often you CAN'T SKIP. Plus, people only have so much money. Smaller niche networks go away because there's just not enough subscribers who are willing to fork over $10 a month for something on Discovery or HGTV or whatever. What you think is great now, may not be so great a couple of years down the road. What if there's a show or two you want to see on one of those, so you might plunk down some On-Demand money, but people don't like having to pay for EVERYTHING. And that's what you are devolving into, and it will feel like you are being nickel and dimed to watch something. Sure you might say that's happening now with all the crazy fees and I get that.


Wow you watch a lot of TV. You should pay more 

People in your (our) age group complained the same way when cable (pay TV) was introduced. More choices is almost never a bad thing.

I don't see any of the issues that you mentioned being a problem, except for CAN'T SKIP, which will also likely be an option if you pay more. Like Tivo, which you pay more for today.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I get the argument about smaller, niche networks. However on the flip side, maybe some of the larger networks will take on smaller, niche programs that have a solid following, even if it's small, because that guarantees them some revenue.

I really have never had any problem with bundling, _except_ sports networks. I don't watch any sports except what's on the main networks, and the sports channels are so expensive that it really annoys me. I'm willing to pay a little extra for some bizarre channel I'll probably never watch but that is too much.

I think the idea with stopping/starting is that instead of holding on to the subscription throughout the season, you wait for the season to be over, subscribe for a month, and watch "all the things" during that month. Then you unsubscribe and do it again with a different channel. This will only be an issue if some streaming services don't provide their back catalog.

I doubt the next generations will think anything of that. They're used to hopping around and have no ingrained loyalty to these providers to overcome . We will all begin to think nothing of waiting for a few months to watch a show.

To me the biggest loss will be to sites like this one: there won't be any such thing as "appointment TV" (already of course it's going away but it will only get worse if everyone is essentially binging series on their own schedule) which makes discussion forums more difficult and less useful. Only truly phenomenal shows will break the mold.

However it will be interesting to see what happens with "can't skip". Personally I've never once subscribed to anything that has "can't skip" commercials. I don't even watch youtube videos if there's a can't skip commercial that is longer than 10s. I'd rather not watch a show, even one I would probably love, than deal with commercials. However, I doubt that that's a very common attitude. Maybe my pool of possible shows will continue to decrease as "can't skip" becomes more prevalent.

Oh well, there're a ton of books I've not found time to read yet... luckily it seems like they're a long ways from figuring out how to add "can't skip" commercials into books


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Family said:


> Wow you watch a lot of TV. You should pay more
> 
> People in your (our) age group complained the same way when cable (pay TV) was introduced. More choices is almost never a bad thing.
> 
> I don't see any of the issues that you mentioned being a problem, except for CAN'T SKIP, which will also likely be an option if you pay more. Like Tivo, which you pay more for today.


I never complained and could understand the complaints. When I fist got cable, I had about 25 channels. Now I probably have about 500 channels. Yes, i pay more but have more choices, but I doubt I pay 20x what I used to pay (relative to inflation) plus I have much better equipment that does much more. You mention choice. Really the choice you have it to pay for JUST what you want? With that you are paying more or less depending on the content du jour. I have a choice of 500 channels, about 20-25 I watch actively (meaning at least once a week). Another 50 or so I'll watch at least once a month and others occasionally. But I have that choice to watch any channel press of button, not having to go sign up for a channel, then watch that show and maybe cancel the channel. I want to watch something on Smithsonian (a channel I very rarely watch), Sure, I just do it. And what would 20-25 channels cost me to subscribe to?

I will bet that within the next 2-3 years, it's not going to be as easy as signing up and then cancelling a channel like the current method. The networks will get wise to that.

Also you pay more to skip channels on a TiVo? I was unaware of that. I thought that was basic functionality?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Family said:


> Wow you watch a lot of TV. You should pay more
> 
> People in your (our) age group complained the same way when cable (pay TV) was introduced. More choices is almost never a bad thing.
> 
> I don't see any of the issues that you mentioned being a problem, except for CAN'T SKIP, which will also likely be an option if you pay more. Like Tivo, which you pay more for today.


Lamb to slaughter.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

This will probably work well for us. Most of the time there isn’t anything on that we would pay extra for. Living without TV is becoming easier all the time.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Because here's why. In order for these streaming services to be successful they will need to provide more and more quality programming. Lets say you subscribe to HBO Now for Game of Thrones, that ends and then...Oh look, they have Big Little Lies, I wanted to see that, so you stay and when that ends there's another show you want to watch. So now they've got you. And the same thing happens on Showtime, on NBC, on Disney, on Hulu and so forth. So now you have five regulars that you subscribe to..that's $50 at least. Now add on at least 3-4 you rotate between. That's another $40 at least. So you are now up to $90. And not everyone will be as disciplined as you. And now you have the networks seeing this popularity and rates start going up. More and more commercials that quite often you CAN'T SKIP. Plus, people only have so much money. Smaller niche networks go away because there's just not enough subscribers who are willing to fork over $10 a month for something on Discovery or HGTV or whatever. What you think is great now, may not be so great a couple of years down the road. What if there's a show or two you want to see on one of those, so you might plunk down some On-Demand money, but people don't like having to pay for EVERYTHING. And that's what you are devolving into, and it will feel like you are being nickel and dimed to watch something. Sure you might say that's happening now with all the crazy fees and I get that.


Your core premise seems to be that we are going to get a large number of quality shows we actually want to watch, which seems to me to be arguing directly for this new era and not against it. You'd rather not have HBO put on shows you actually want to watch? That seems extremely absurd.

You don't have to watch most HBO shows live. Nothing is stopping you from turning it on and off. They have their entire back catalog in the service. Same for Showtime. Disney+ has explicitly stated the whole "vault" is being opened. Maybe that will change for them, maybe not. Hulu, if you are looking at their originals, seem to have the full catalog to me. Nothing stops you from turning them on and off currently.

Anyway $90 is cheaper than a full cable or satellite subscription unless you regularly play the cancel game, which is a much bigger hassle and more or less means you are doing the same thing you describe with streaming services. Plus only a fraction of the best content is even on cable (or broadcast tv) anymore.

HGTV will be fine. It's one of the most popular networks. Regardless, in the general case of niche networks, if they can't survive based on direct subscriptions then they don't deserve to exist. There's nothing inherently better about more channels. I could survive on 3 channels out of all the channels I have and would barely notice a difference.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> Your core premise seems to be that we are going to get a large number of quality shows we actually want to watch, which seems to me to be arguing directly for this new era and not against it. You'd rather not have HBO put on shows you actually want to watch? That seems extremely absurd.
> 
> You don't have to watch most HBO shows live. Nothing is stopping you from turning it on and off. They have their entire back catalog in the service. Same for Showtime. Disney+ has explicitly stated the whole "vault" is being opened. Maybe that will change for them, maybe not. Hulu, if you are looking at their originals, seem to have the full catalog to me. Nothing stops you from turning them on and off currently.
> 
> ...


No, either I didn't explain it clearly or you missed the point (and probably some of both). My argument is this. Lots of cord cutters here play the Subscribe for a month and cancel game. What I'm saying is that these networks will hook you with good programming. Obviously, that's what we want. But, if there are 10 networks that "hook" you, that's at LEAST $100 probably more. But with that, you get a whole lot less channels than you get with cable for what could amount to the same money. If you do the triple play and take the ISP piece out of it...right now, you can get the full package (everything, all premiums) for around $150. That's for 6 TVs (I recently priced it) and that included the internet piece. So, lets say the internet piece is $50 (which is probably on the low side) you are getting EVERYTHING for the same price (and yes, I get that's for just the first year). Even if it goes up 50% for the cable piece, you now pay $150 for 500 channels, Everything you are getting with your 10 premiums AND more. Plus that includes your sports channels, which is ANOTHER issue with streaming. Yes, RSNs are often included in some streaming packages, but, really those are just cable light. What I'm talking about is the a la carte vision that the networks are trying to push. I just think it's the beginning of this whole thing and in the long run, it might be cheaper now, but just like cable did, it's going to cost you more in the end. Buy the NBC package and you'll get a lot of channels you don't watch as well (because they'll roll into them USA, and Bravo and other Comcast owned channels. And that will also be rolled into your subscription price.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> No, either I didn't explain it clearly or you missed the point (and probably some of both). My argument is this. Lots of cord cutters here play the Subscribe for a month and cancel game. What I'm saying is that these networks will hook you with good programming. Obviously, that's what we want. But, if there are 10 networks that "hook" you, that's at LEAST $100 probably more. But with that, you get a whole lot less channels than you get with cable for what could amount to the same money. If you do the triple play and take the ISP piece out of it...right now, you can get the full package (everything, all premiums) for around $150. That's for 6 TVs (I recently priced it) and that included the internet piece. So, lets say the internet piece is $50 (which is probably on the low side) you are getting EVERYTHING for the same price (and yes, I get that's for just the first year). Even if it goes up 50% for the cable piece, you now pay $150 for 500 channels, Everything you are getting with your 10 premiums AND more. Plus that includes your sports channels, which is ANOTHER issue with streaming. Yes, RSNs are often included in some streaming packages, but, really those are just cable light. What I'm talking about is the a la carte vision that the networks are trying to push. I just think it's the beginning of this whole thing and in the long run, it might be cheaper now, but just like cable did, it's going to cost you more in the end. Buy the NBC package and you'll get a lot of channels you don't watch as well (because they'll roll into them USA, and Bravo and other Comcast owned channels. And that will also be rolled into your subscription price.


I don't care how many channels I get. Number of channels is a weak indicator of quality. I don't need 500 channels or any RSNs. If I still pay $100 (which I don't) and that goes towards the channels or services that are providing the content I want, then that's an improvement over paying $100 for 500 channels, only 3 of which I actually watch.

The main argument I've heard that is of some concern is the notion that all of the good content will be way more dispersed than it is now. If 20 shows I love are on 5 channels/streaming services now, it will eventually be on 20 different services. At some point the hassle to add and drop could reach a breaking point. I'm sure we will reach that phase eventually but I don't see it lasting. If no one is subscribing because it's a hassle to constantly switch, they'll merge back together again.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

I love the Pollyanna view that companies will make it better and cheaper for consumers. Nonsense. They exist to milk money. They are just leading consumers in with the cheaper drug now.


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

I would tend to think this fracturing of the streaming audience will reduce the quality of original programming. When a service has millions of subscribers, they can afford to produce lots of first-rate original productions. But if that audience is spread among many other services, each service will have less revenue in which to create original productions. Maybe it will create an environment where each service focuses on one or two premier original productions to create buzz (e.g. HBO's Game of Thrones, Hulu's Handmaid's Tale, etc.), but the rest is 3rd tier schlock.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

warrenn said:


> I would tend to think this fracturing of the streaming audience will reduce the quality of original programming. When a service has millions of subscribers, they can afford to produce lots of first-rate original productions. But if that audience is spread among many other services, each service will have less revenue in which to create original productions. Maybe it will create an environment where each service focuses on one or two premier original productions to create buzz (e.g. HBO's Game of Thrones, Hulu's Handmaid's Tale, etc.), but the rest is 3rd tier schlock.


And with this race to develop more and more content, that means networks will spend more and more. Look at the debt Netflix has incurred to try and pay for it all. AT&T has huge debt and they are going to have to pay that off somehow. Who's going to pay for it? Not the stockholders. We are. And that's why they blew up their DirecTV model for the new TW streaming service that's coming. Like Tony said, they are luring you in and eventually prices will go up and everyone will be moaning again. But as we know, this new way is how the "kids" watch TV. They look for the content they want and just watch that. I admit I'm an old fuddy duddy stuck in my ways somewhat. I like that I have choices and lots of them. I like that I can find stuff on a channel I don't normally watch by channel surfing. Not everyone is me.


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

Of course, your cable bill *never* goes up in price either.

Personally I think the guardian piece was an agenda piece written by someone that has interests in cable staying relevant.

TV over the next 5-10 years is probably going to look significantly different than it does now. Whether it'll be more expensive or not, who knows. But realistically, a lot of cable companies have reached the point where they only want subscribers that are willing to pay for top-tier programming packages. More and more of them have stopped playing the game of calling in when your promo rate expires and discounting you again, and instead are basically saying c'ya, don't let the door hit you on the way out. They're perfectly happy just nailing you for the costs of accessing the internet instead.

It'll probably be interesting, but I suspect it's also going to be fairly rocky on the way.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

I remember in the early days of cable when HBO was the only premium movie channel available. Just about any movie from any studio would become available on HBO. Then came Showtime. At first both services showed the same films, sometimes on the same day and time. But that didn't last too long. Eventually each service signed exclusive deals with movie studios. For example: A 20th Century Fox film would be on HBO while Paramount would be on Showtime. This meant you now had to subscribe to 2 services to watch all the films available. Then came Starz which had exclusive deals with Disney and a few other studios. Now to see any movie you wanted you had to subscribe to 3 services. Next came EPIX which took Paramount, MGM and Lionsgate movies from Showtime. Now you had to subscribe to 4 services to watch what you once had to pay only one service for. You think that's good for the consumer?
So now it looks like streaming services will go the same route as premium channels did in the early days of cable. I do not see this as being good for the consumer. I just see the consumer not watching everything they may want to watch. I don't subscribe to Netflix no matter how good a review a show gets. I just do without.


----------



## rharmelink (Dec 1, 2015)

I remember the early days too. HBO and Showtime started producing their own content because it was a cheaper way to fill their schedule than paying for more theatrical content. It started out with just movies, but then migrated into series.

The article I read on the issue at the time that posed the question, "Why should we pay $3M for limited viewings of a 100-minute theatrical release when we can produce a 100-minute movie ourselves for $1.5M and use it as often into the future as we'd like?" But they were primarily talking about dramatic movies at that time.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

If I had my way, and I don't, I would have each streaming service have two options: 1. a service with commercials that you can't fast forward through for free. 2. a commercial free service that you pay for. It's not going to happen, but that's my 2¢.


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

jamesbobo said:


> If I had my way, and I don't, I would have each streaming service have two options: 1. a service with commercials that you can't fast forward through for free. 2. a commercial free service that you pay for. It's not going to happen, but that's my 2¢.


If I had my way, there wouldn't be subscriptions to services, there would be on demand streaming of individual shows which you pay for. Most of the stuff on every subscription service is garbage.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

I do 3 streaming services, but only pay directly for one.

Netflix is the one I deliberately signed up for.
Amazon Prime is a side benefit from Prime shipping.
And recently Hulu, but only because I pay for Spotify, and they recently got together. I finally got around to watching something on Hulu to see what the Catch-22 hulabaloo was all about.

--Carlos V.


----------



## jcondon (Jul 9, 2003)

jamesbobo said:


> I do not see this as being good for the consumer. I just see the consumer not watching everything they may want to watch. I don't subscribe to Netflix no matter how good a review a show gets. I just do without.


We have already given up on shows that moved to channels that either my cable company (or previously Fios) doesn't carry or doesn't carry in the TV tier we have. Or is on a channel they drop for whatever reason.

Which is not a big deal IMO. We have more then enough to watch either way. We recently picked up CBS All Access for 90 days for "free" (purchase of a Roku streaming stick). Watched ST Discovery both seasons and the Twilight Zone. Had it until Wednesday last week. We missed the first episode of BB 21. Watched it on All Access they night before it went away. As long as we have access to CBS (currently through old fashioned CATV) I don't see the value in the service. There is NOTHING else on there we would watch. We will likely pay for a month of the commercial free version for a month next year and watch season 3 of ST Discovery.

More choice is good IMO. I can't possibly watch everything that remotely interests me. If something really interests me and isn't on a service I already pay for I will consider picking up whatever service it is on and it is worth the $10 or whatever the monthly fee is. Most of the time I don't bother. Maybe if they have 2 or more things I want to watch I will pay. I waited well over a year to watch ST Discovery. No big deal.

It is a bit more "work" to figure out what you might want to watch and what service you need to watch it. I mentioned in another thread we personally like having Tivos with a bunch of stuff recorded on them. We like the old way but will also utilize streaming to supplement CATV and Tivo.

At least with streaming I have the OPTION to watch things that are not on my CATV lineup if I so choose. The old way of CATV I would have to pay for a more expensive tier of channels or maybe just SOL.

Steve mentioned sports. My wife watches the Mets and I watch the Yankees (very occasionally now). There was a time were I raced to get DirecTV installed when my local cable company wasn't going to have the YES network to start the season. Now I wouldn't care enough to spend $10 a month to watch them.

Lots of people don't care about most or any sports. TV rights for the major sports is expensive. Many people would be happy to not be stuck subsidizing. Those who watch sports would very likely have to pay more for the sports they watch. My regional sports fee is $8.97 a month every month. At most we watch 6 months of SNY and YES (and likely much less then that). We pay that fee October - March and watch NOTHING on either channel.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

tomhorsley said:


> Most of the stuff on every subscription service is garbage.


Really? I don't do streaming services right now, but Netflix always has impressed me with its breadth (e.g. foreign films), and the Amazon catalog has seemed nice.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

I think how much one pays will be motivated by one's intention. If one has "must watch" shows, then one will spend money chasing stuff. 

If one just wants "something to watch", then any one of the big ones will do, with Netflix still being at the top of the heap.

I would like to watch some of the CBSAA shows, but I've already got a glut of options with the one (plus two) services I mentioned before, therefore have zero motivation to sign up for it. 

--Carlos V.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

gschrock said:


> Of course, your cable bill *never* goes up in price either.
> 
> *Personally I think the guardian piece was an agenda piece written by someone that has interests in cable staying relevant.*
> 
> ...


It's funny but every time there's an article like that a cord cutter comes out and says what you do. I find that very interesting that you believe that.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Mikeguy said:


> Really? I don't do streaming services right now, but Netflix always has impressed me with its breadth (e.g. foreign films), and the Amazon catalog has seemed nice.


As unbeliever said, the only streamer I pay for is Netflix, but I've had that since the DVD rental days and just "downsized" to streaming when that became a viable option. I have AP but have had that before streaming was available, it's a side benefit. Otherwise, that's it. Really, there's plenty to watch between my DVR and what's on live, oh and sports. I watch a lot of sports. I watch at least all or part of a baseball game most nights during the season. I'm an avid hockey fan and there's games for my team on 3-4 times a week. And I watch NFL games, mostly the Giants on whatever day or night they are on each week. Plus wife and I like a bunch of various shows on OTA networks and cable (we have DirecTV), so that's plenty for us. We sub to HBO on our dish. So when do I watch streaming stuff? during the summer and during the holidays, when the TV season is either on hiatus or over. I like participating here, so generally I don't save up shows and binge. So for how I watch TV, streaming isn't the way to go. Plus quality wise the aggregate streamers (DirecTV Now, YouTube, etc) still have poor DVRs and less than stellar sound (Dolby Digital is rare). I do think if they can figure out a way to get around the blackouts with sports and I'll be able to watch my local teams, that might start to change my mind.

I do get where someone who doesn't watch TOO much TV, has only a couple of people in the house, or just has a limited number of shows they care about might go the streaming route. It's just not for me and how I watch TV. At least not yet


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

tomhorsley said:


> If I had my way, there wouldn't be subscriptions to services, there would be on demand streaming of individual shows which you pay for. Most of the stuff on every subscription service is garbage.


 I'm not sure you would like it so much... unless the only thing you ever want to watch on TV are proven blockbuster shows and not any of the quirky indie shows (and maybe not even then).

TV currently works by someone creating shows on spec, basically. That up-front money has to come from somewhere, and the people who provide it need guarantees that they'll make back their money. If everyone pays for exactly the shows they want then TV will become like the current movie industry, which IMO would definitely spell the end of the current golden age of television.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Right now I pay for a lot of HD channels on Verizon FIOS as well as Showtime. I get HBO free for two years after renewing my contract a while back, but that's probably going to be expiring soon and I have no intention of paying for it when it does. I also get OTA programming using an antenna and subscribe to Netflix streaming and their DVD service. I also get Amazon Prime. I watch mostly shows I record from cable and network TV. I rarely watch any shows on Netflix so I will probably end up dropping them. I get Amazon Prime for shopping but rarely use the streaming service. Both services have so much original programming that it's impossible to watch everything unless it's the only service you use. I use the Netflix DVD service to rent movies on Blu-Ray mostly. I don't subscribe to any of the other streaming services yet I am still able to watch the handful of shows that they offer using other methods to acquire them. I already pay a ton of money for a multitude of channels and streaming programs that I never watch. There isn't a show on any cable channel, network, or streaming service that isn't available if you know where to look. I already pay more than enough for the content I watch. I'm not advising anyone to go down this path, but this is the point I was trying to make about piracy becoming more prevalent if the shows people watch start getting divided up and offered by more and more individual streaming services. At some point people are just going to say "ENOUGH!" and just start pirating the crap out of these shows.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Mikeguy said:


> Really? I don't do streaming services right now, but Netflix always has impressed me with its breadth (e.g. foreign films), and the Amazon catalog has seemed nice.


Sure, they have nice stuff. And then they have a whole lot of crap too.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

eddyj said:


> Sure, they have nice stuff. And then they have a whole lot of crap too.


Welcome to the world of entertainment, lol.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

We only have a limited number of hours in a given day/week/month to watch TV. Therefore, we prefer to watch exactly what we want to watch as much as we can. Sometimes it’s live or near live, such as sports (I’ve been watching the Women’s World Cup recently) and/or news (my wife has some daily shows she likes to watch live or almost live), and the rest is watched whenever we feel like it. 

We have lots to choose from on our OTA TiVo - anything from any local station. Dramas, comedies, PBS stuff like This Old House, etc. 

Then we have streaming services, and we deactivate and reactivate some periodically because subscribing to them all makes no sense to us, given the limited TV watching time we have. 

If we have Hulu active for a few months and then don’t have anything else on Hulu that we want to watch, we can swap in another service for 1+ months. If you go multiple months without any of these services, when you do re-subscribe there will usually be plenty to watch on it. 

We did the same thing before these streaming services - we would subscribe to HBO for a while, then switch to Showtime, etc. 

These streaming services are fundamentally not much different than HBO and Showtime in that regard. Just think of each discrete service as a premium channel.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> As unbeliever said, the only streamer I pay for is Netflix, but I've had that since the DVD rental days and just "downsized" to streaming when that became a viable option. I have AP but have had that before streaming was available, it's a side benefit. Otherwise, that's it. Really, there's plenty to watch between my DVR and what's on live, oh and sports. I watch a lot of sports. I watch at least all or part of a baseball game most nights during the season. I'm an avid hockey fan and there's games for my team on 3-4 times a week. And I watch NFL games, mostly the Giants on whatever day or night they are on each week. Plus wife and I like a bunch of various shows on OTA networks and cable (we have DirecTV), so that's plenty for us. We sub to HBO on our dish. So when do I watch streaming stuff? during the summer and during the holidays, when the TV season is either on hiatus or over. I like participating here, so generally I don't save up shows and binge. So for how I watch TV, streaming isn't the way to go. Plus quality wise the aggregate streamers (DirecTV Now, YouTube, etc) still have poor DVRs and less than stellar sound (Dolby Digital is rare). I do think if they can figure out a way to get around the blackouts with sports and I'll be able to watch my local teams, that might start to change my mind.
> 
> I do get where someone who doesn't watch TOO much TV, has only a couple of people in the house, or just has a limited number of shows they care about might go the streaming route. It's just not for me and how I watch TV. At least not yet


Someone who watches too much tv would be fine with just prime, netflix, and HBO. There's much more quality content on those three platforms than all of broadcast network and cable tv combined. If we could ever get FX as a stand-alone subscription (not requiring a cable subscription) then "regular tv" would be dead to me.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

madscientist said:


> To me the biggest loss will be to sites like this one: there won't be any such thing as "appointment TV" (already of course it's going away but it will only get worse if everyone is essentially binging series on their own schedule) which makes discussion forums more difficult and less useful. Only truly phenomenal shows will break the mold.


This is what bothers me. I've loved coming here over the years and discussing shows as they air. Now it's becoming less and less possible. And I'm not a big fan of binging. At least to the extent that I watch 10 episodes in one day.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Even with Tivo (and HBO), we're still watching one show at a time, unless we deliberately hold off to binge a whole season. Netflix, however, releases a whole season at once. Busy (or slow) people can't keep up with the fast bingers so we avoid the threads until we're ready, and by then the buzz is past. That's a relatively new thing.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

stellie93 said:


> This is what bothers me. I've loved coming here over the years and discussing shows as they air. Now it's becoming less and less possible. And I'm not a big fan of binging. At least to the extent that I watch 10 episodes in one day.


Same here. I think the most consecutive episodes I've ever watched of any given shows was maybe four or five in a row. My idea of binging means getting through an entire season in a matter of days or a weekend, not in one sitting. The positive side of watching an entire season from start to finish is that I can follow the story line with no interruptions. With the number of shows I watch it's near impossible to keep every sequence of events straight in my head from one week to the next, let alone between seasons. I used to fast forward past the recap of the previous episode or season at the beginning of the show because I could keep track of everything. Now I have to watch them as a refresher just to understand what's happening.


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> It's funny but every time there's an article like that a cord cutter comes out and says what you do. I find that very interesting that you believe that.


Probably somewhat true. Although there's definitely been a rise in articles that are pro-cable and anti-streaming that have been popping up lately. I'm just skeptical enough to think there's not a coincidence that it's happening as more people drop cable.

FWIW, I did actually just drop cable myself, somewhere around 2 weeks ago. I spent a while before that really working on evaluating whether it would work for us, and I will say it's definitely a "different" experience.

Sports is kinda the ugly piece in the puzzle. If you want sport channels, it's going to significantly increase the cost of your options. If you don't care about sports, it probably wouldn't be all that hard to save money on the streaming route. Unfortunately, I want the sports for several things I watch, which leaves me stuck subscribing to one of the packages that has live tv streaming. Without that, I'd be fine with the idea of watching things a day later and streaming them. I could probably save about $30/month without that, if not more.

I honestly haven't quite figured out whether I'll be saving money over cable or not. I'm still in enough transition period trying to figure out what the bills will be that I haven't quite figured out exactly what my costs are going to be. However, what really drove me to do the switch - picture quality. Quite honestly, the crap that comcast is putting out these days, especially in markets where they've started downconverting signals, was just getting to the point where it was annoying me. It was somewhat exacerbated by getting a new tv that was larger, but even before that it was annoying. And quite honesty, I was finding that the quality of the video was much better on the streaming side than the cable side. (Directv I think did somewhat better with this, but my neighbor planted willows, and it stopped being an option several years ago.)

So like I said, for me, ultimately, it's not necessarily about saving money, but a better experience. Comcast is behind the curve on 4k stuff too, and I don't forsee them catching up real soon in my area.

But I do think tv is going to change over the next 5 years, and some of those changes could be quite drastic. There are services that exist now that I think will likely go under (quite honestly, netflix I'd be suspicious of), and services that don't exist now that will come into being. Heck, I wouldn't guarantee that all the premium channels that exist now survive, I know comcast is planning on dumping one of them and replacing it with their own channel, and that isn't likely to help the bottom line of that channel. Whether it ultimately is "better" for everyone, that's something we probably won't know until it all shakes out.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> More and more commercials that quite often you CAN'T SKIP.


Except Hulu no commercials, Netflix, and CBS All Access no commercials __don't__ have regular commercials. (I complain about the short "ABC Wed 8:30" kinds of things on Hulu, and those ARE unskippable, though they ARE short..)

I say this even though I still Tivo almost everything as a backup.. but _when_ I can watch it streaming with no commercials, I watch it there instead, since even though they have a worse experience (no regular FF/rewind, CBS does the [email protected]$# autoplay and [email protected]#$ shrink to credits), it's still better than having the superimposed ads and "even" having to 30 second skip past commercials.

I'm still overall a cable "fan" (and have been for a long time even though most families had cable long before I did).. but you can avoid commercials EVEN MORE with the streaming service than you can with Tivo.... if you are willing to pay for it.. and I say that's good, being a capitalist. (I have some netflix stock but am not even a netflix subscriber anymore.)


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

mattack said:


> I say this even though I still Tivo almost everything as a backup.. but _when_ I can watch it streaming with no commercials, I watch it there instead, since even though they have a worse experience (no regular FF/rewind, CBS does the [email protected]$# autoplay and [email protected]#$ shrink to credits), it's still better than having the superimposed ads and "even" having to 30 second skip past commercials.


There are ways for TiVos to auto-skip commercials (whenever the skip data is present). There's a cool Java based app that, if you have it running on a computer (which could be a little Raspberry Pi) and configured properly, watches what's happening on your TiVo, and when it detects that you've entered part of a recording that is in a commerical break, it sends a command to the TiVo that emulates the remote button you'd press to skip over the commercials yourself. It's call kmttg, and if you search the forums you'll find many threads about it.


----------



## Hcour (Dec 24, 2007)

gschrock said:


> TV over the next 5-10 years is probably going to look significantly different than it does now. Whether it'll be more expensive or not, who knows. But realistically, a lot of cable companies have reached the point where they only want subscribers that are willing to pay for top-tier programming packages. More and more of them have stopped playing the game of calling in when your promo rate expires and discounting you again, and instead are basically saying c'ya, don't let the door hit you on the way out. They're perfectly happy just nailing you for the costs of accessing the internet instead.


You sure about that? Because Spectrum sends me offers for "this and that deal" every single week. (Sometimes twice a week.) Literally. Every. Single. Week.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

gschrock said:


> Probably somewhat true. Although there's definitely been a rise in articles that are pro-cable and anti-streaming that have been popping up lately. I'm just skeptical enough to think there's not a coincidence that it's happening as more people drop cable.
> 
> FWIW, I did actually just drop cable myself, somewhere around 2 weeks ago. I spent a while before that really working on evaluating whether it would work for us, and I will say it's definitely a "different" experience.
> 
> ...


Great points made and at least you are honest about the money savings. And I agree about PQ, it's definitely better on streaming (and who would have thought THAT ten years ago). On the other hand, sound quality suffers. There are few channels in Dolby Digital on the aggregators (not the direct channels like HBO Now, or Netflix). I expect that will be coming eventually. I do agree that TV is under drastic changes. Some for the better, some for the worst. I think the biggest change is one that is kind of hidden. The various networks see this as a way get out from under these enormous contracts that they fight every so often with cable and satellite. They will control their own content. Yes, Comcast owns NBC, and AT&T owns quite a bit of content now. With the changing landscape, it makes much more sense to tell them, screw you, we'll just distribute our content ourselves. I disagree that Premium will go away. They will just be rolled into another tier of their owners own service. So how I see it is, AT&T will have their own channel, but if you want premium with no commercials and HBO content, you'll pay more. Viacom and CBS will merge back because it makes the most sense (they are both controlled by the same family anyway). So CBS All Access now becomes your way of seeing CBS AND, Nick, MTV, Comedy Central, and yes, for a fee, Showtime. ABC/Disney/ESPN might one day get rolled up together (although I tend to think they will keep their own sports channels separate giving the cost of sports, it makes more sense to charge more for e separate channel). So I think within 5 years, that's how TV goes. Will it wind up costing the consumer less? It depends on how much you want to spend, and how easy it will continue to be to cancel channels on the fly. I do think cable and sat will exist for those areas of the country where getting broadband is still an issue or too far to pick up a decent local channel signal via antenna.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

It's interesting that you mention sound quality, which is often overlooked. Hulu, CBS All Access, and the DCU streaming services only offer 2-channel stereo audio with their streamed content, but Netflix and Amazon offer 5.1 Dolby Digital. Amazon streams The Handmaid's Tale several days after it airs on Hulu which only streams stereo audio. You can get it in Dolby Digital when it streams on Amazon. Most of the cable and network content that airs on their regular channels are limited to 720p or 1080i. Amazon generally streams them in 1080p and some even in 2160p. The quality of the content on streaming services varies considerably.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> It's interesting that you mention sound quality, which is often overlooked. Hulu, CBS All Access, and the DCU streaming services only offer 2-channel stereo audio with their streamed content, but Netflix and Amazon offer 5.1 Dolby Digital. Amazon streams The Handmaid's Tale several days after it airs on Hulu which only streams stereo audio. You can get it in Dolby Digital when it streams on Amazon. Most of the cable and network content that airs on their regular channels are limited to 720p or 1080i. Amazon generally streams them in 1080p and some even in 2160p. The quality of the content on streaming services varies considerably.


Hulu does 5.1 on most devices (but not Apple TV for some reason) for some content, including originals. CBS AA has been doing 5.1 for some content (Discovery for example) for Apple TV and other devices but apparently some devices (roku, etc.) had that feature broken by firmware updates on and off. Not sure about DCU since I've never subscribed and had to investigate.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I suspect we are in the middle of a transitional phase, when things will evolve fairly quickly in response to new technology and consumer reactions. Right now, there's a kind of Balkanization of service. I agree that in the short run, this will make things more expensive as all the different services try to figure out how to maximize their profits without regard for how they fit into a larger ecosystem. I also suspect that in the long run, there will be new consolidation as consumers get sick of having to pay for many services to get the same level of programming they used to get with one bill for cable/satellite. I'm not sure what the landscape will settle down to, but my guess is it will eventually be fewer services with greater offerings.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> It's interesting that you mention sound quality, which is often overlooked. Hulu, CBS All Access, and the DCU streaming services only offer 2-channel stereo audio with their streamed content, but Netflix and Amazon offer 5.1 Dolby Digital. *Amazon streams The Handmaid's Tale several days after it airs on Hulu which only streams stereo audio.* You can get it in Dolby Digital when it streams on Amazon. Most of the cable and network content that airs on their regular channels are limited to 720p or 1080i. Amazon generally streams them in 1080p and some even in 2160p. The quality of the content on streaming services varies considerably.


Wait, what? How can I get Handmaids Tale on Amazon? Do I have to buy it?

Edit: I see S1 and S2 on Amazon Prime (for purchase). Nothing for S3.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

TAsunder said:


> Hulu does 5.1 on most devices (but not Apple TV for some reason) for some content, including originals. CBS AA has been doing 5.1 for some content (Discovery for example) for Apple TV and other devices but apparently some devices (roku, etc.) had that feature broken by firmware updates on and off. Not sure about DCU since I've never subscribed and had to investigate.


I see. It must be the source material that I'm viewing then. There are ways that you can record from streaming services but all of the methods I've seen have been limited to 2-channel stereo audio. I've been trying to figure out how to record 5.1 audio from streaming providers but so far I've come up blank.



Steveknj said:


> Wait, what? How can I get Handmaids Tale on Amazon? Do I have to buy it?
> 
> Edit: I see S1 and S2 on Amazon Prime (for purchase). Nothing for S3.


I can find S3 episodes of The Handmaid's Tale online that says they're ripped from Amazon with 5.1 audio. They're usually about 3-4 weeks behind the original air date on Hulu. The ones ripped from Hulu are only 2-channel. Somewhere someone knows the secret to recording in 5.1 but it seems to be well guarded.


----------



## osu1991 (Mar 6, 2015)

Those Amazon rips come from outside the US Prime player where Amazon has the streaming rights.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

BrettStah said:


> There are ways for TiVos to auto-skip commercials (whenever the skip data is present). There's a cool Java based app that, if you have it running on a computer (which could be a little Raspberry Pi) and configured properly, watches what's happening on your TiVo, and when it detects that you've entered part of a recording that is in a commerical break, it sends a command to the TiVo that emulates the remote button you'd press to skip over the commercials yourself. It's call kmttg, and if you search the forums you'll find many threads about it.


I use kmttg to download shows..

but that requires (1) you leave the computer running, and (2) still doesn't skip the "coming up on.." etc..


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

mattack said:


> I use kmttg to download shows..
> 
> but that requires (1) you leave the computer running, and (2) still doesn't skip the "coming up on.." etc..


Yep - I already have a computer running at all times doing other things, so adding kmttg was a simple thing to do. Others have figured out how to run it on a Pi, as I mentioned - that's a very cheap way to run it 24/7. "Coming up on..." Parts of shows are indeed annoying - I skip them manually, but that doesn't outwiegh the other benefits the TiVo recordings have for me.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

TAsunder said:


> ...CBS AA has been doing 5.1 for some content (Discovery for example) for Apple TV and other devices but apparently some devices (roku, etc.) had that feature broken by firmware updates on and off..


ST: Discovery is simply outstanding in DD+...nearly theater quality.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

My neighbor doesn't pay for anything, he has a firestick. Sure sometimes he hears coughing or other theater noises, but its free!


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

andyw715 said:


> My neighbor doesn't pay for anything, he has a firestick. Sure sometimes he hears coughing or other theater noises, but its free!


 It may be free but the quality is hit or miss, and mostly it misses. I played around with Kodi and various Android devices to get "free" TV, but most of the stuff I wanted to watch was of so poor quality that I gave up on it fairly quick. I did it mostly out of curiosity than anything else. There are some high quality videos and movies out there, but you have to wade through a lot of crap before you find anything worthwhile. You get what you pay for.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> I see. It must be the source material that I'm viewing then. There are ways that you can record from streaming services but all of the methods I've seen have been limited to 2-channel stereo audio. I've been trying to figure out how to record 5.1 audio from streaming providers but so far I've come up blank.
> 
> I can find S3 episodes of The Handmaid's Tale online that says they're ripped from Amazon with 5.1 audio. They're usually about 3-4 weeks behind the original air date on Hulu. The ones ripped from Hulu are only 2-channel. Somewhere someone knows the secret to recording in 5.1 but it seems to be well guarded.


So pirated then. Nevermind, I'll pass.


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> On the other hand, sound quality suffers. There are few channels in Dolby Digital on the aggregators (not the direct channels like HBO Now, or Netflix). I expect that will be coming eventually.


I'll agree with that, although that's definitely been changing some. I trialed hulu a while back, and everything was 720p and 2 channel audio. It's better now, although not everything is dolby digital yet. But even within, say, 6 months or so I think it was? Things have gotten a lot better. Still needs progress though.

Current pet peeve with hulu tv - if you don't pay for the expanded dvr, you can't fast forward through commercials. Not an issue for things where I can watch on demand versions, but highly annoying.

I've done a little more figuring things out for what I'm paying now. I think right at the moment I'm actually saving some money, maybe as much as about $20 a month from what I was paying. Part of that is not having a showtime subscription that I had before, so real cost difference isn't very much. That doesn't include the savings I can get from buying hulu gift cards through samsung pay. I'll be able to figure things out better in another month or so when my bills settle out. (Because of when I changed service, and when my bills lined up, my next bill actually shows a service credit versus me paying for things, and the changes make it hard to figure out exactly what the cost of the internet is going to be - it's supposedly $80, but not sure on taxes or fees.)

I do have one tv show that I wouldn't mind watching - Pure - that I don't believe I can currently get in any easy manner. WGN doesn't seem to be carried by much out there that's streaming. Hulu has season 1, but not the recently aired season 2. Maybe that'll change, but other than that, I can pretty much get everything I need. I need to pick up hbo to watch the last season of game of thrones, but I would have had to do that with cable also. Just haven't quite gotten around to that yet, and I'll likely only keep that for about a month.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Just to add even more confusion, HBO is starting their own streaming service called HBO Max. You will be able to find Game of Thrones and lots of other original programming as well as Friends that they purloined from NetFlix. There is speculation that the new GoT prequel may only be available on the new service along.


----------



## Intheswamp (Nov 15, 2017)

heySkippy said:


> This will probably work well for us. Most of the time there isn't anything on that we would pay extra for. Living without TV is becoming easier all the time.


Just had a few weeks without TV. We went on a mission trip to Uganda. The weeks leading up to the trip we kept the TV turned-off and it was amazing the added little things that we got accomplished during those weeks. Then on the trip there was no TV except in the restaurant in a hotel we stayed in...and all the language was in Lugandan.  Having returned home now we're still not watching nearly the TV that we did previously. So, whatever comes with streaming media, we'll roll with it. Personally, we watch 95% OTA anyhow.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

mr.unnatural said:


> Just to add even more confusion, HBO is starting their own streaming service called HBO Max. You will be able to find Game of Thrones and lots of other original programming as well as Friends that they purloined from NetFlix. There is speculation that the new GoT prequel may only be available on the new service along.


I'm curious what they'll charge for this. HBO Now is $15/month. Is HBO Max going to be $20-25/month? Disney+ comes out this year and I think will only be $7? I guess neither service is out yet, but in my mind, Disney+ will have more content I'll be interested in.

I'm also curious if HBO Max will be 4K. Better not call something Max and not offer the maximum resolution. 

I get HBO Now for free because I have an unlimited AT&T cellular plan. I wonder if they'll bump us up to Max, or at least give us a discounted Max subscription? Knowing AT&T, they'll dump the free HBO offering all together.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

In the long run I'm not sure what the big deal is. I cut the cord because cutting the cord saved me significant $$. If things change in such a way that going back to cable saves me significant $$, then I'll go back to cable. It's not rocket science.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Dawghows said:


> In the long run I'm not sure what the big deal is. I cut the cord because cutting the cord saved me significant $$. If things change in such a way that going back to cable saves me significant $$, then I'll go back to cable. It's not rocket science.


While that will likely be an option, the streaming services are really focusing on exclusive content. So, cable won't necessarily have what you may want to watch.


----------



## Intheswamp (Nov 15, 2017)

If they go the way this is all sounding....well, there is life after television. We'll all survive, most of us anyhow.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> Just to add even more confusion, HBO is starting their own streaming service called HBO Max. You will be able to find Game of Thrones and lots of other original programming as well as Friends that they purloined from NetFlix. There is speculation that the new GoT prequel may only be available on the new service along.


We've known for a while that WarnerMedia would be launching their own streaming service to compete with Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Hulu, Disney+, and AppleTV+. We just haven't known what it would be called. There are rumors that it will be called HBO Max, probably because HBO is WarnerMedia's flagship TV brand. But whatever they call it, this will be the WarnerMedia streaming service that likely includes all properties owned by WarnerMedia, such as HBO, Cinemax, TNT, TBS, Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, the Harry Potter franchise, the DC movies, the Lord of the Rings franchise, the Matrix franchise, the Lego Movie franchise, Friends, ER, The West Wing, The Big Bang Theory, Will & Grace, Smallville, Two and a Half Men, Veronica Mars, Supernatural, Chuck, Gossip Girl, Fringe, Shameless, etc.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> We've known for a while that WarnerMedia would be launching their own streaming service to compete with Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Hulu, Disney+, and AppleTV+. We just haven't known what it would be called. There are rumors that it will be called HBO Max, probably because HBO is WarnerMedia's flagship TV brand. But whatever they call it, this will be the WarnerMedia streaming service that likely includes all properties owned by WarnerMedia, such as HBO, Cinemax, TNT, TBS, Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, the Harry Potter franchise, the DC movies, the Lord of the Rings franchise, the Matrix franchise, the Lego Movie franchise, Friends, ER, The West Wing, The Big Bang Theory, Will & Grace, Smallville, Two and a Half Men, Veronica Mars, Supernatural, Chuck, Gossip Girl, Fringe, Shameless, etc.


Considering many of those were broadcast via many different networks vs where they were produced I wonder what ABC/Disney, Comcast/NBC and others have to say. Hulu is about release a new season of Veronica Mars and is showing their older seasons. Shameless is Showtime AKA CBS. I find it hard to believe the premium services would give up the game.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

zalusky said:


> Considering many of those were broadcast via many different networks vs where they were produced I wonder what ABC/Disney, Comcast/NBC and others have to say. Hulu is about release a new season of Veronica Mars and is showing their older seasons. Shameless is Showtime AKA CBS. I find it hard to believe the premium services would give up the game.


Generally, the studio that produces a show owns the rights, and then they license the first-run rights to whatever network agrees to air the show. After the first-run window, then it's all about contracts. If WarnerMedia signed an exclusive licensing deal with Hulu for Veronica Mars, then WM won't be able to show it until that licensing deal expires. Similarly with Shamless, if Showtime currently owns the exclusive license for streaming rights, then WM will have to wait until that window closes. But WM will be coming into the streaming game very late and most consumers will already have subscriptions to several other services. In order to create the perceived value in the minds of consumers that WM is a service they want to subscribe to, WM will need to include as much content as they can, which means as current streaming licenses expire, they'll likely pull that content back and retain the streaming rights for themselves.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

BrettStah said:


> While that will likely be an option, the streaming services are really focusing on exclusive content. So, cable won't necessarily have what you may want to watch.


Granted. But what I'm saying is I'm just going to go with the cheapest option that gives me the programming I want.

When I cut the cord, I made a list of everything I want to see, and figured out that the cheapest way for me to get that content was to go streaming-only. I'll just do that again as the options change.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Dawghows said:


> Granted. But what I'm saying is I'm just going to go with the cheapest option that gives me the programming I want.
> 
> When I cut the cord, I made a list of everything I want to see, and figured out that the cheapest way for me to get that content was to go streaming-only. I'll just do that again as the options change.


Understood. But, you have to consider that the cheapest way to watch some things you like might be the ONLY way. And the way this is going, it's quite possible the list of 6-7 must watch, might wind up on 6 or 7 different streaming services, each which will dictate how much they cost, based on content and such. Disney+ might be the ONLY way to see the new Star Wars movie, HBO Max might be the ONLY place to see any of the DC Movies and so on. Thus, you are back to having no real choice. This was the inevitable reaction to the constant battles between content owners and content providers and between broadcasters.

But yeah, given a choice and given you ONLY want to see what you want to see, go with what's cheaper. Makes sense to me.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

I'm kind of at the point that there is no such thing as "must see TV" for me anymore. I have access to so much content, I'll just find something else to watch. I don't discuss TV shows with anyone. I don't listen to podcasts about TV shows. If I miss a show, I don't really feel like I'm missing out on anything.

I'm much more into movies. I listen to multiple movie podcasts. I often see movies opening weekend so I can listen to my movie podcasts talk about the movie. AMC A-List really helps me out there.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Yea it used to be and still is somewhat that as shows got older so to speak they would get shopped to lots of distribution vehicles. It seems the new trend is to keep the back catalog in house as they can themselves be the distribution vehicle.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Hoffer said:


> I'm kind of at the point that there is no such thing as "must see TV" for me anymore. I have access to so much content, I'll just find something else to watch.


I'm finding this more and more to be the case with me, even though I still have access to everything I want. It used to drive me nuts when I wasn't "caught up" on a particular show. These days I don't have that feeling at all, even with the shows I absolutely love. I'm looking forward very very much to the new episodes of Veronica Mars, but my wife and I just recently started a re-watch of the original series. No way we're going to be anywhere NEAR the end of the series before the new episodes show up. We'll probably be a month late or more, and I'm totally OK with it. Heck, we just now started Season 2 of Handmaid's Tale, and Season 3 is already here.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Understood. But, you have to consider that the cheapest way to watch some things you like might be the ONLY way. And the way this is going, it's quite possible the list of 6-7 must watch, might wind up on 6 or 7 different streaming services, each which will dictate how much they cost, based on content and such. Disney+ might be the ONLY way to see the new Star Wars movie, HBO Max might be the ONLY place to see any of the DC Movies and so on. Thus, you are back to having no real choice. This was the inevitable reaction to the constant battles between content owners and content providers and between broadcasters.
> 
> But yeah, given a choice and given you ONLY want to see what you want to see, go with what's cheaper. Makes sense to me.


If it gets where I have 6-7 shows each on a different service, I'll probably re-evaluate just what is "must-watch". As it is, I probably spend as much time on the internet as I do on TV (excluding just having the set on for background noise), and that's during the peak season. Most of the time, half my shows are on hiatus, and of course right now almost everything is off.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Dawghows said:


> Granted. But what I'm saying is I'm just going to go with the cheapest option that gives me the programming I want.
> 
> When I cut the cord, I made a list of everything I want to see, and figured out that the cheapest way for me to get that content was to go streaming-only. I'll just do that again as the options change.


That's exactly what we did - our OTA TiVo gets a decent chunk for us. For the rest, we keep our streaming costs relatively stable, and periodically switch among the various services in order to get new/different content.


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

mr.unnatural said:


> Friends that they purloined from NetFlix.


Purloined is kinda harsh. Netflix renewed their license to show friends at the end of 2018 to be able to show it through 2019. Their contract doesn't go beyond that. (And in fact, I don't think they necessarily have exclusive rights to it in 2019, warner I think can actually start airing it on their own streaming service if they got it going before the end of 2019.)


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

It's also worth watching for shows you happen to like to show up on Amazon for "mistake" prices for the season pass. Seems to happen around the time they put up the next seasons shows, and generally lets you buy the season for what's supposed to be the cost of a single episode. I picked up several shows last year, generally for $2-$3 for the season. It's clearly supposed to be a mistake on amazon's pricing, but it happens often enough that part of me kinda wonders if it's an intentional mistake, although I can't see why they'd do it.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> We've known for a while that WarnerMedia would be launching their own streaming service to compete with Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Hulu, Disney+, and AppleTV+. We just haven't known what it would be called. There are rumors that it will be called HBO Max, probably because HBO is WarnerMedia's flagship TV brand. But whatever they call it, this will be the WarnerMedia streaming service that likely includes all properties owned by WarnerMedia, such as HBO, Cinemax, TNT, TBS, Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, the Harry Potter franchise, the DC movies, the Lord of the Rings franchise, the Matrix franchise, the Lego Movie franchise, Friends, ER, The West Wing, The Big Bang Theory, Will & Grace, Smallville, Two and a Half Men, Veronica Mars, Supernatural, Chuck, Gossip Girl, Fringe, Shameless, etc.


They'll have to do better than a bunch of stuff I've seen before, 'cause there's no way in hell I'm paying to see it again even if I did like it the first time.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

I know Netflix says that a lot of people watch Friends. Just seems crazy how big a deal is made about that show. Like a lot of the HBO Max articles I've read, the first thing mentioned is it is the exclusive streaming home to Friends.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Hoffer said:


> I know Netflix says that a lot of people watch Friends. Just seems crazy how big a deal is made about that show. Like a lot of the HBO Max articles I've read, the first thing mentioned is it is the exclusive streaming home to Friends.


That goes into the Reasons I Don't Need Max column.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Hoffer said:


> I know Netflix says that a lot of people watch Friends. Just seems crazy how big a deal is made about that show. Like a lot of the HBO Max articles I've read, the first thing mentioned is it is the exclusive streaming home to Friends.


We probably watch 1-2 eps of Friends every single day for the past probably 10 years

Granted, we basically fall asleep to it, so I've seen the first 5 min of the eps a lot  
But wouldn't sign up for any service JUST for friends


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

It's unlikely that I'd sign up for a service for ANY single show (GoT was an exception). Currently my thought is, whatever service ends up with most of the shows I want will win my eyeballs. If none of them have enough content, or it's too scattered among 99 services, the internet gets my attention and I'll throw the TV out the window.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Hoffer said:


> I'm kind of at the point that there is no such thing as "must see TV" for me anymore. I have access to so much content, I'll just find something else to watch...


Right there is the key...there's nothing of such a high quality any more that demands my immediate (or delayed) attention. I was never interested in GoT; what little I saw did nothing for me. Rarely watched "Friends" and it has never captured me like it apparently has with so many others. The quality of TV is so watered down now...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

heySkippy said:


> They'll have to do better than a bunch of stuff I've seen before, 'cause there's no way in hell I'm paying to see it again even if I did like it the first time.


They'll most definitely have new, exclusive content. But they'll be building that from scratch, so it will take them some time to build a catalog of exclusive stuff like what Netflix and Amazon have now. We'll just have to wait and see how much they charge and whether any of their exclusive content gets good buzz.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Hoffer said:


> I know Netflix says that a lot of people watch Friends. Just seems crazy how big a deal is made about that show. Like a lot of the HBO Max articles I've read, the first thing mentioned is it is the exclusive streaming home to Friends.


The Office too. I believe those are the two most streamed shows on Netflix. People are different. We all have different tastes. I still enjoy watching reruns of Friends. I don't normally watch The Office and I don't get the big deal about that show (see? but some people love it). Netflix will be losing some of it's most popular content. With that said, do people subscribe to Netflix because of those shows, or do they watch those shows because they have Netflix and it's there. I suspect it's the latter, and if that's the case, Netflix won't get hurt too badly.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

MikeMar said:


> We probably watch 1-2 eps of Friends every single day for the past probably 10 years
> 
> Granted, we basically fall asleep to it, so I've seen the first 5 min of the eps a lot
> But wouldn't sign up for any service JUST for friends


That's me too. Considering it's on OTA here in the NY Metro and on cable channels like Nick at Night, I don't NEED to subscribe to watch it separately.


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> Netflix will be losing some of it's most popular content. With that said, do people subscribe to Netflix because of those shows, or do they watch those shows because they have Netflix and it's there. I suspect it's the latter, and if that's the case, Netflix won't get hurt too badly.


In our house, Netflix has kind of fallen down to the rank of "stuff to watch when I can't find anything better". It's stuff to watch before going to bed, when just hanging out, etc. Almost at the level of HGTV or something. They have a lot of content, but not a lot of it is very compelling. If they lose The Office, I can see cancelling it since that's what our daughter watches all the time. When that's gone, I suspect we could cancel Netflix and it wouldn't really matter all that much to our household.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Hoffer said:


> I'm curious what they'll charge for this. HBO Now is $15/month. Is HBO Max going to be $20-25/month?


It's been widely reported as "$16-$17 a month", FWIW.


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)

Streaming's bounty of choices overwhelms consumers


----------



## cstelter (Mar 18, 2002)

I skipped pages 2 and 3 of this thread, so apologies if this was covered. As long as services continue to provide *all* content and don't release over time, I think the mechanism of subscribing to a single service until you're tired of it and moving on to another would work fine for me. If you have beloved series that you just can't wait for, switch to that service when it comes out. But I can't see how that behavior is going to make the providers happy. They'll get their monthy fee 1-2 months a year from each subscriber. Before long we'll see 1 year contract requirements or absurd fees for partial years. Or if they have a 10 season series they'll only have 3 seasons available any given month, etc.

I do see this can be annoying, but if providers continue to offer all seasons of shows I want to watch, I can see a serialized approach manageable. But we'll see.


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> With that said, do people subscribe to Netflix because of those shows, or do they watch those shows because they have Netflix and it's there. I suspect it's the latter, and if that's the case, Netflix won't get hurt too badly.


I do kinda wonder about it. Netflix obviously considered friends to be critical, to the point that they paid something like $100 million just for the license for it for 2019. Up to that point, it was something like $30 million/year.

Personally, I think some of the numbers that are thrown around for the rights to stream certain shows are just absolutely crazy. I find it hard to believe that it's really worth $100 million to netflix to keep the show, but I also find it hard to believe that Warner would get $100 million a year in value taking the series back, to me, with that type of payment, I'm not convinced they're not better letting things get licensed.

I think that's where some of what's interesting is going to come from. Streaming services are actually going to save a lot of money when they can no longer license some of these shows. Although the rights owners are going to want to make up for that income, but I can't see them getting enough subscribers just for an individual show to cover that type of money. I think regardless of what shows a service carries, they can only raise their price to a certain point where they'll start losing subscribers who just decide it's not worth it anymore. And the more services out there, the lower that number is going to be that people are willing to pay for it.

I don't necessarily mind subscribing to multiple services - but with a couple of catches.  One, the price has to be reasonable. For example, based on our usage, I find cbs to be a reasonable price for the non-commercial version. On top of that, I can tie that in as a channel in my amazon account, which means that I don't need to deal with a separate app for that, and things are relatively easy. (I actually find the value for cbs to be enough that even though I have hulu live, I'll probably pick up the cbs subscription again in the fall because it's that much easier to deal with, and I find it tends to be somewhat better in quality. I dropped it over the summer when I didn't need it.) But when you get past that $10 point, there needs to be a compelling reason for me to want it, and if I need yet another app to get to the content, that makes it that much less likely for me to deal with it.

(Quite honestly, I've probably got enough ripped from my dvd/blu ray collection, both movies and tv shows, of stuff I haven't even watched, that I could probably drop all services and watch stuff simply on my plex server for the next couple of years and not run out of things to watch.)


----------



## dcheesi (Apr 6, 2001)

I think part of the value of popular catalog shows like _Friends_ for Netflix is not just having that particular show; it's also the general perception that Netflix is a primary source for that sort of content. Netflix doesn't have the same deep well of legacy original content to draw on, so they need a broad smattering of such content to keep themselves relevant as a top-tier service, as opposed to just another niche service for specific new content. That's where the $100mil value comes from, in their case.

Whether or not _Friends _ will represent the same value for HBO Max remains to be seen. But in addition to strengthening their own case, taking back all of their catalog content may add competitive value specifically by _weakening_ Netflix's case. Right now Netflix is pretty much _the_ "must-have" streaming service, even for folks who haven't cut the cord entirely. If HBO Max wants to compete for limited subscriber dollars, it would help them if they could knock Netflix down a peg, making it actually conceivable to forego a Netflix sub in favor of an HBO Max (or CBS AA, etc.) service.

EDIT: case in point:


warrenn said:


> In our house, Netflix has kind of fallen down to the rank of "stuff to watch when I can't find anything better". It's stuff to watch before going to bed, when just hanging out, etc. Almost at the level of HGTV or something. They have a lot of content, but not a lot of it is very compelling. If they lose The Office, I can see cancelling it since that's what our daughter watches all the time. When that's gone, I suspect we could cancel Netflix and it wouldn't really matter all that much to our household.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Malcontent said:


> Streaming's bounty of choices overwhelms consumers


Agree with every point in that article. Trying to sift through multiple services and then multiple shows and find something to watch is a real pain and it can be overwhelming. I think they work better if you know what you want to watch ahead of time (i.e. log into Netflix specifically to watch Stranger Things). I find that for times I'm not sure what to watch, scanning through my traditional guide and finding a random show works much better for me. Imagine wanting to watch show x and you cannot remember where it's streaming? Now you have to log into multiple apps to find it. I think (as the AP model is trying to do) where it aggregates the search for you and puts a lot of services in one place is the better way to go.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cstelter said:


> I skipped pages 2 and 3 of this thread, so apologies if this was covered. As long as services continue to provide *all* content and don't release over time, I think the mechanism of subscribing to a single service until you're tired of it and moving on to another would work fine for me. If you have beloved series that you just can't wait for, switch to that service when it comes out. But I can't see how that behavior is going to make the providers happy. They'll get their monthy fee 1-2 months a year from each subscriber. Before long we'll see 1 year contract requirements or absurd fees for partial years. Or if they have a 10 season series they'll only have 3 seasons available any given month, etc.
> 
> I do see this can be annoying, but if providers continue to offer all seasons of shows I want to watch, I can see a serialized approach manageable. But we'll see.


I will bet that some of these content providers will start to offer deals to sign up for a year at a time (without the ability to cancel until the year is over). Lets say HBO Max will be $17 a month ($204 a year), but if you buy for a year it'll cost $180 ($15 a month on a yearly contract). That will be the norm. It will help stop some of the churn.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

allan said:


> It's unlikely that I'd sign up for a service for ANY single show (GoT was an exception). Currently my thought is, whatever service ends up with most of the shows I want will win my eyeballs. If none of them have enough content, or it's too scattered among 99 services, the internet gets my attention and I'll throw the TV out the window.


It seems like so many of them "have a few" and they are spread around . . . .


----------



## rharmelink (Dec 1, 2015)

Related:

The Slow Death of Hollywood

_[Netflix] now routinely ends shows after their second season, even when they're still popular. Netflix has learned that the first two seasons of a show are key to bringing in subscribers-but the third and later seasons don't do much to retain or win new subscribers.

Ending a show after the second season saves money, because showrunners who oversee production tend to negotiate a boost in pay after two years._


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> All I see this doing is just promoting more piracy.
> 
> This is sheer madness.


They believe they can eliminate piracy and _ad hoc_ personal time shifting (really, negating time shifting except on their terms is what they're after) when they're ready, with effective takedowns, desist letters and such. They _can_ make it a lot less painless than it is now, that's for sure.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

rharmelink said:


> Related:
> 
> The Slow Death of Hollywood
> 
> ...


Commerce uber alles.


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

Any way it pans out, change is definitely coming. I can not articulate it fully, but lately when I look to see what movies are available to watch on a given evening on Comcast, the choices are slimmer and slimmer. This is not a perspective issue. There is less to see now. Also Cinemax is being removed from our Premiere package.


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

rharmelink said:


> Related:
> 
> The Slow Death of Hollywood
> 
> ...


I found this really good reading, although I am not sure I agree with all of it. One thing is certain- content is shrinking. When I go to pick a movie to see in the theatres, often not much worthy of 11.00. And where are the multiple seasons of tv? Everything is cancelled before it has a chance.
And if it does survive, one can not expect more than 20 episodes, ever.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

jilter said:


> I found this really good reading, although I am not sure I agree with all of it. One thing is certain- content is shrinking. When I go to pick a movie to see in the theatres, often not much worthy of 11.00. And where are the multiple seasons of tv? Everything is cancelled before it has a chance.
> And if it does survive, one can not expect more than 20 episodes, ever.


But at the same time, I don't recall so many high quality TV series as now, including with mainstream movie talent, between all the cable, etc. offerings.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

Mikeguy said:


> I don't recall so many high quality TV series as now, including with mainstream movie talent, between all the cable, etc. offerings.


I know what you mean and there are times I almost feel the same way.

The buttons that have pre-programmed viewer reactions have by now become very well defined and are easy to push. The patterns and rhythms, and the common denominator plots and flows that've worked in the past are second nature to a lot of TV and movie makers today.

Is it generally high quality? I really don't know. It's competent implementation. It's watchable. It's not unpleasant.

But the amazing thing is there are producers who haven't even learned these simple lessons. Even with the current ease of achieving standard/ OK / even pretty good, there is still so much that is awful by any standard.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

jilter said:


> I found this really good reading, although I am not sure I agree with all of it. *One thing is certain- content is shrinking.* When I go to pick a movie to see in the theatres, often not much worthy of 11.00. And where are the multiple seasons of tv? Everything is cancelled before it has a chance.
> And if it does survive, one can not expect more than 20 episodes, ever.


There's a reason they call this the "Peak TV Era." There is more new, original TV content now than ever before in history.

The movie business has changed significantly over the last decade, and relatively few "mid-budget" movies ($10 million - $50 million) get made anymore. But it seems every week or at least every other week there's another big-budget tentpole movie being released so there's still plenty to see unless you don't like those kinds of movies.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> We've known for a while that WarnerMedia would be launching their own streaming service to compete with Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Hulu, Disney+, and AppleTV+. We just haven't known what it would be called. There are rumors that it will be called HBO Max, probably because HBO is WarnerMedia's flagship TV brand. But whatever they call it, this will be the WarnerMedia streaming service that likely includes all properties owned by WarnerMedia, such as HBO, Cinemax, TNT, TBS, Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, *the Harry Potter franchise*, the DC movies, the Lord of the Rings franchise, the Matrix franchise, the Lego Movie franchise, Friends, ER, The West Wing, The Big Bang Theory, Will & Grace, Smallville, Two and a Half Men, Veronica Mars, Supernatural, Chuck, Gossip Girl, Fringe, Shameless, etc.


Apparently WarnerMedia has licensed the Harry Potter movies to NBC/Universal until 2025, so contrary to my previous post, those movies will not be on the new HBO Max streaming service like I thought.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Here's yet another take on the subject:

*The Golden Age of Cord-Cutting Is Over. Now What?*

The article makes a lot of sense considering the high cost of subscribing to multiple streaming services. Instead of streaming, switching back to cable or satellite may end up being the more cost effective alternative. After all, isn't that what cord cutting was supposed to be all about?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mr.unnatural said:


> Here's yet another take on the subject:
> 
> *The Golden Age of Cord-Cutting Is Over. Now What?*
> 
> The article makes a lot of sense considering the high cost of subscribing to multiple streaming services. Instead of streaming, switching back to cable or satellite may end up being the more cost effective alternative. After all, isn't that what cord cutting was supposed to be all about?


The downside is moving back to cable means abandoning all the stuff that is only on the streaming services. So there's really no way to win in the current market, and that will probably only get worse.

But I suspect in the long run, there's no way for the services to win in the current market, so the current market will have to change. Perhaps some new form of aggregator will come along like cable did back in the day, to serve as an umbrella for all the content that is out there (with, of course, some being basic and some being premium). A kind of 21st-century cable.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

mr.unnatural said:


> Here's yet another take on the subject:
> 
> *The Golden Age of Cord-Cutting Is Over. Now What?*
> 
> The article makes a lot of sense considering the high cost of subscribing to multiple streaming services. Instead of streaming, switching back to cable or satellite may end up being the more cost effective alternative. After all, isn't that what cord cutting was supposed to be all about?


That article mentions 4 new streaming services.

Disney+ - I will for sure get this. $70/year is a fair price for all the great Disney content. Really makes me wonder how other services can charge $15+ per month.

Apple TV+ - I've got an Apple phone, tablet, watch, TV, etc... I currently have no interest in this new service. They have not previewed a single thing I care about.

HBO Max - I currently get HBO free with my AT&T cell phone service. Hopefully I get bumped up to Max.

NBC Universal - "Free with ads" That's a hard pass. I mean, it is free anyway I guess. Still won't use it because you'll be forced to watch ads.


----------



## tigercat74 (Aug 7, 2004)

mr.unnatural said:


> Here's yet another take on the subject:
> 
> *The Golden Age of Cord-Cutting Is Over. Now What?*
> 
> The article makes a lot of sense considering the high cost of subscribing to multiple streaming services. Instead of streaming, switching back to cable or satellite may end up being the more cost effective alternative. After all, isn't that what cord cutting was supposed to be all about?


It might be if I kept all streaming services year round. I sign up for Hulu in August and binge the 4 shows I watch on it during that month. I will probably do the same thing with Disney+ and DC Universe. I keep YouTube TV all year for ESPN but if ESPN+ had all their shows I would think about dropping YouTube.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

tigercat74 said:


> It might be if I kept all streaming services year round. I sign up for Hulu in August and binge the 4 shows I watch on it during that month. I will probably do the same thing with Disney+ and DC Universe. I keep YouTube TV all year for ESPN but if ESPN+ had all their shows I would think about dropping YouTube.


Yeah, I sign up for CBS All Access once a season of Star Trek Discovery is done. This year, I'm waiting until the new Picard show's first season is done. I'll subscribe for a month and watch both of them.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The downside is moving back to cable means abandoning all the stuff that is only on the streaming services. So there's really no way to win in the current market, and that will probably only get worse.
> 
> But I suspect in the long run, there's no way for the services to win in the current market, so the current market will have to change. Perhaps some new form of aggregator will come along like cable did back in the day, to serve as an umbrella for all the content that is out there (with, of course, some being basic and some being premium). A kind of 21st-century cable.


That's what I expect. Probably over IP. For no other reason, but to bring it all into one easily manageable place. But, if subscriptions to these streaming services don't hit the expected numbers, I expect that the amount of exclusive streaming content will just decrease.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

tigercat74 said:


> It might be if I kept all streaming services year round. I sign up for Hulu in August and binge the 4 shows I watch on it during that month. I will probably do the same thing with Disney+ and DC Universe. I keep YouTube TV all year for ESPN but if ESPN+ had all their shows I would think about dropping YouTube.





Hoffer said:


> Yeah, I sign up for CBS All Access once a season of Star Trek Discovery is done. This year, I'm waiting until the new Picard show's first season is done. I'll subscribe for a month and watch both of them.


I fully expect that streaming services will notice this pattern and do something about it. I expect year subscriptions to be the new normal, initially at a discount from monthly and eventually to be common. It will be more like how it's handled by Amazon than Netflix. They will want to lock you in.


----------



## Intheswamp (Nov 15, 2017)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The downside is moving back to cable means abandoning all the stuff that is only on the streaming services. So there's really no way to win in the current market, and that will probably only get worse.
> 
> But I suspect in the long run, there's no way for the services to win in the current market, so the current market will have to change. Perhaps some new form of aggregator will come along like cable did back in the day, to serve as an umbrella for all the content that is out there (with, of course, some being basic and some being premium). A kind of 21st-century cable.


It seems the pie will be cut into small slices and the owners of these small slices believe (and probably rightly so) that they will realize a bit more profit from their personal slice rather than just just having a mixed interest in the entire pie. The pie slice owners will undoubtedly lose some viewers so will the additional profit balance out this loss? And will the additional profit generated be in excess of the cost of their new business structure to deliver, bill, and advertise?

My wife and I were fairly happy with our DISH account when we "cut the cord". Sure, there were *lots* of programs/channels we had no interest in what-so-ever, but it was nice to be able to surf the specialty channels and fine some new and interesting program to watch. My wife and I ditched satellite for primarily one reason...to cut that expense out of our limited budget. I had to work out college football (of course!<grin>), which I did by subscribing to Hulu-Live for the season's duration. Being as there were several shows we enjoyed on Hulu and the granddaughters liked some of the kid shows we kept the base package after football season ended. So, $7 a month. Maybe not cord cutting, but affordable. If suddenly Hulu is a skeleton of a streaming service after several of it's sources leave and go their own way then we will end it.

OTA is still alive and well...for us. We're not addicted to television and many programs produced today just are not worth spending the time to watch. So, it's no issue with folks like us. The vegetable garden always welcomes a little more attention. My camera still loves for me to take it out down some old dusty dirt roads to see the next surprise. My old QRP-CW rigs are on the shelf waiting for me to push some electrons back out a wire. And, it has been a long time since I restfully reclined by the waters edge while waiting for the fish to bite. And...family. Family time seems more and more important as time goes by. Lots of things to replace sitting in front of the Panny 9UK. Most all of them are more important than babysitting that rectangular display.

So, for some of us cord-cutters the "new" landscape of streaming services might just be a blessing. Matter of fact, why wait?...I think the fish are biting.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Hoffer said:


> That article mentions 4 new streaming services.
> 
> Disney+ - I will for sure get this. $70/year is a fair price for all the great Disney content. Really makes me wonder how other services can charge $15+ per month.
> 
> ...


I'm OK with "free with ads" as long as there's a way to skip commercials via a DVR or something similar. I'm torn about this, because SOMEONE has to pay to get content created and for years that was advertisers. And if it's not going to be advertisers, who is it going to be? Ultimately, it will be us, and that will be in increased fees to us for content.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> I'm OK with "free with ads" as long as there's a way to skip commercials via a DVR or something similar. I'm torn about this, because SOMEONE has to pay to get content created and for years that was advertisers. And if it's not going to be advertisers, who is it going to be? Ultimately, it will be us, and that will be in increased fees to us for content.


I would rather pay a subscription than watch ads. I can't imagine this NBC streaming service will have skippable ads.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Hoffer said:


> I would rather pay a subscription than watch ads. I can't imagine this NBC streaming service will have skippable ads.


How much would you be willing to pay? What if subscription prices doubled? Tripled? Again, if nobody wants to watch ads, (i.e. the "free with ads" model doesn't work), then they are going to get their money some other way, and that's going to be from us.

It's nice to have the choice though for those willing to pay.

What I'm imagining with the "free with ads" format is some sort of third party DVR, then I wouldn't mind the "free with ads". Kind of like how I watch TV now.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> What I'm imagining with the "free with ads" format is some sort of third party DVR, then I wouldn't mind the "free with ads". Kind of like how I watch TV now.


How would something like that work? Right now, the closest thing I can think of to a "streaming DVR" is something like a Hauppauge box, but (a) that requires a "box" rather than a "stick" for the streaming service, and (b) you have to select the show and start and stop the recording manually, which kinda sorta defeats the whole purpose of recording it if you're time-shifting.

Any sort of "automated" method can be countered by the streaming channels by, say, displaying a 3-digit number on the screen and then instructing the viewer to press those digits on the streaming box remote to continue.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The downside is moving back to cable means abandoning all the stuff that is only on the streaming services. So there's really no way to win in the current market, and that will probably only get worse.
> 
> But I suspect in the long run, there's no way for the services to win in the current market, so the current market will have to change. Perhaps some new form of aggregator will come along like cable did back in the day, to serve as an umbrella for all the content that is out there (with, of course, some being basic and some being premium). A kind of 21st-century cable.


I couldn't agree more. I see the end result as a lot of pissed off consumers or a drastic increase in piracy. I don't see most people subscribing to more than 2 or 3 streaming services to get their programming, if that. I can understand why the companies want to start their own streaming services from a business perspective. They see how Netflix and Amazon and the other services are doing and they want a piece of the action. I see them making a huge investment for just a small piece of the pie.

I have two streaming services and barely watch anything on either of them. I only have Amazon because it came with Amazon Prime. I mainly watched the Marvel adaptations on Netflix, but since Netflix dropped them there is very little on their service that attracts my attention. I may end up switching to the Disney service at some point mainly because I have grand kids and they will also offer the new Marvel shows. I will probably be dropping Netflix in the very near future. I am not suffering from lack of program material to watch. I find myself selecting fewer and fewer new shows to watch when the fall season starts up because it ends up just being more of the same old crap with new actors.

The irony is that a lot of people have been clamoring for a la carte programming choices from their cable and satellite providers. It looks like this is a prime example of being careful what you wish for.

FYI - There are ways that you can record from streaming services. There's an app called PlayOn that legitimately allows you to record from the major streaming services like Amazon and Netflix and lots of others. I've used it and the major downside is that it only records in stereo and only on your PC.

I have an Android box from Beelink that allows you to record on an internal hard drive. You use any other streaming box like a Shield or a Roku and connect it to your TV or receiver that is HDCP compliant. You insert a HDMI splitter between the streaming box and the TV or receiver and send the 2nd output to the Beelink box. Since the output of the streaming box is feeding an HDCP-compliant device it allows the signal to pass through. This allows you to send the signal to the Beelink box where you can record in up to 1080p, but again only with stereo audio. I have not used it for that very reason. You would also have to pull the hard drive from the Beelink box and connect it to a PC to offload the video files to edit out the commercials.


----------



## rharmelink (Dec 1, 2015)

Steveknj said:


> How much would you be willing to pay [for no commercials]?


Hulu has decided the price is $6 per month. $5.99 with commercials vs $11.99 without.


----------



## rharmelink (Dec 1, 2015)

Steveknj said:


> I'm OK with "free with ads" as long as there's a way to skip commercials via a DVR or something similar.


Some services "skip" commercials when I have uBlock Origin activated. Others just sit there with the wheels spinning with uBlock active and a commercial is trying to play. On some, you need to start the show with uBlock inactive, but then can activate it to suppress all of the commercials during the show.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

rharmelink said:


> Hulu has decided the price is $6 per month. $5.99 with commercials vs $11.99 without.


So essentially double the price. What if NBC/Universal decided to double their price (let's say from $10 a month to $20? What about AT&Ts new service?. They are talking about $17 a month (granted a lot of their content is already commercial free.....perhaps that's why it's so expensive compared to others).

I much prefer a method where I can chose to skip or not skip commercials. The idea is that, while I don't like ads in general, there are some I might watch for whatever reason, like a preview for a new movie I might want to see. I also don't want to see the price of TV sky rocket either.

I don't think networks and streaming services are going to give up revenue because ads will no longer be a legitimate way to do it. They will put that on us, directly.


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

NBC wants to charge $12/month for non-cable subscribers and include ads. Personally, I see that model flopping pretty hard. As far as I'm concerned, if I'm paying $12/month, I shouldn't be dealing with ads.

I'm curious to see what Disney ultimately does with hulu/disney+/espn, and whether they work on anything that aggregates a lot of their property together for a reasonable price.


----------



## Frylock (Feb 13, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I fully expect that streaming services will notice this pattern and do something about it. I expect year subscriptions to be the new normal, initially at a discount from monthly and eventually to be common. It will be more like how it's handled by Amazon than Netflix. They will want to lock you in.


Amazon does offer a monthly option though. They came out with it after the yearly option, but it is there, and it is more expensive to go month-to-month. I think we will see both. Netflix would be smart at some point to offer a discount for a year-long commitment. Until they do, people will continue to add and drop services as they move around. I think that's the big thing with cord cutting. It's not "sign up for X services and keep them all the time". It's more "do x for 2 months, and then y for 3 months, and then z for a month, etc..." There's a lot more options than there is with cable.

And with cable bills being $150+ a month, even at $20/month, that is still more than subscribing to 7 streaming services at once!


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I don't understand why anyone would pay for Amazon's streaming service by itself when it comes free with Amazon Prime. The free shipping on any Prime items pays for itself in no time, but you still have to pay state tax. However, I believe you may still have to pay extra for current TV shows and movies that aren't Amazon originals.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> I don't understand why anyone would pay for Amazon's streaming service by itself when it comes free with Amazon Prime. The free shipping on any Prime items pays for itself in no time, but you still have to pay state tax. However, I believe you may still have to pay extra for current TV shows and movies that aren't Amazon originals.


I'm right on the New Jersey Delaware border. When I buy a big-ticket item, say a lens, I have the lens shipped to an Amazon locker in Delaware, where there's no sales tax.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

mr.unnatural said:


> I don't understand why anyone would pay for Amazon's streaming service by itself when it comes free with Amazon Prime. *The free shipping on any Prime items pays for itself in no time*, but you still have to pay state tax. However, I believe you may still have to pay extra for current TV shows and movies that aren't Amazon originals.


It depends on how often you buy from Amazon, and how quickly you need items. I don't purchase "enough" from Amazon to make Prime cost-effective as to shipping alone, especially when you factor in that I get free shipping if the item(s) are $25 or more or if I group purchases together for free over-$25 shipping, as long as I am fine enough in receiving the items in less than a week (the typical Amazon free-shipping time period for me, nowadays).


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Mikeguy said:


> It depends on how often you buy from Amazon, and how quickly you need items. I don't purchase "enough" from Amazon to make Prime cost-effective as to shipping alone, especially when you factor in that I get free shipping if the item(s) are $25 or more or if I group purchases together for free over-$25 shipping, as long as I am fine enough in receiving the items in less than a week (the typical Amazon free-shipping time period for me, nowadays).


My wife has a steady stream of things coming from Amazon almost on a daily basis so it more than pays for itself in my household. I also make quite a few purchases. We both buy lots of items that cost less than $25 and we get free shipping on all of them. No need to bundle purchases or have to buy more than you need. I used to depend on ebay to purchase hard to find items, but now Amazon is my go-to source for such things most of the time. The only catch is that Amazon may not always have the lowest price, but sometimes the 2-day shipping is worth the extra cost even if I have to pay state tax.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> My wife has a steady stream of things coming from Amazon almost on a daily basis so it more than pays for itself in my household. I also make quite a few purchases. We both buy lots of items that cost less than $25 and we get free shipping on all of them. No need to bundle purchases or have to buy more than you need. I used to depend on ebay to purchase hard to find items, but now Amazon is my go-to source for such things most of the time. The only catch is that Amazon may not always have the lowest price, but sometimes the 2-day shipping is worth the extra cost even if I have to pay state tax.


That's us too...but...if I dropped Prime, I could probably go back to grouping stuff and make one purchase every few weeks or whatever. You get spoiled, but I could unspoil myself. Lots of other places offer free shipping these days as well.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Roku really needs to be able to pool all your streaming options into one interface and search!
And wish you could integrate Plex into that (but that isn't possible I don't believe)


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

I think any streaming provider which tried to encourage yearly signups would need to offer a lot of extra value--like a big discount or external benefit (e.g. prime Amazon shipping). If it's just a little bit of a discount compared to 12 monthly payments, then it probably wouldn't be worth locking yourself in. I would expect it would need to be something like yearly is the cost of 6 or 8 months. If the discount was equivalent to just 1or 2 months, it would likely be better to do monthly and churn providers as content dictates.


----------



## Lurker1 (Jun 4, 2004)

warrenn said:


> I think any streaming provider which tried to encourage yearly signups would need to offer a lot of extra value--like a big discount or external benefit (e.g. prime Amazon shipping). If it's just a little bit of a discount compared to 12 monthly payments, then it probably wouldn't be worth locking yourself in.


Exactly. No single provider has enough good content to pay for an entire year. I'd rather get 12 different providers for one month each. Never run out of good content that way.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

MikeMar said:


> Roku really needs to be able to pool all your streaming options into one interface and search!


Apple TV has that, pretty much.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> That's us too...but...if I dropped Prime, I could probably go back to grouping stuff and make one purchase every few weeks or whatever. You get spoiled, but I could unspoil myself. Lots of other places offer free shipping these days as well.


True, but most other places will send it via the slowest and cheapest method in order to save money. Free 1 or 2-day shipping is worth the cost to me. I tend to order a lot of things on the fly if I really need something. I can't afford to wait a week or more for something to show up if I'm working on a project and need a tool or supplies. The method I really hate is when they ship it via UPS, FedEx, or DHL and then it gets transferred to the post office for final delivery. That usually takes at least a week. I'm currently putting a roof on a new addition to my house and I needed a special hammer for cap nails that has a large magnet in the head of the hammer. Amazon had it here in a day right when I needed it. It wasn't something I could buy locally so I had to order it online.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> True, but most other places will send it via the slowest and cheapest method in order to save money. Free 1 or 2-day shipping is worth the cost to me. I tend to order a lot of things on the fly if I really need something. I can't afford to wait a week or more for something to show up if I'm working on a project and need a tool or supplies. The method I really hate is when they ship it via UPS, FedEx, or DHL and then it gets transferred to the post office for final delivery. That usually takes at least a week. I'm currently putting a roof on a new addition to my house and I needed a special hammer for cap nails that has a large magnet in the head of the hammer. Amazon had it here in a day right when I needed it. It wasn't something I could buy locally so I had to order it online.


I get that. For me, there's very few things I need right away, and if I did, for those few times, I'd either pay the additional shipping cost or go to a big box store (which luckily is an option for me living in the NYC 'burbs). The two day shipping is definitely convenient, but you also get all the other perks with it, and with that, it makes it very much worth it for me.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I'm enough of a hermit (during the week, the only time I leave my home is often the half-mile commute to my office) that free shipping, quick delivery, and not having to make a special trip for stuff makes Prime very much worth it...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'm enough of a hermit (during the week, the only time I leave my home is often the half-mile commute to my office) that free shipping, quick delivery, and not having to make a special trip for stuff makes Prime very much worth it...


I'm not saying it isn't worth it (I joined Prime before they offered their streaming TV service), I'm just saying that there's really something I NEED in two days that I order, and could get used to not having it that quick if I had to. But that on top of everything else they offer makes it almost a bargain.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

I buy very little, other than groceries. About the only thing I order from Amazon is hard to find Blu-Rays and that is only about 3 a year so Amazon Prime will definitely not pay for itself. Sometimes I order from Amazon when I can't find it anywhere else. Remember Totes boots? I had a pair for years and one finally ripped. Despite once being hugely popular and available just about anywhere shoes were sold, I could not find them. I went to 6 different stores and not only didn't they have them but most of the people I talked to never even heard of them. So Amazon was my only option. But that's a rarity.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

jamesbobo said:


> I buy very little, other than groceries. About the only thing I order from Amazon is hard to find Blu-Rays and that is only about 3 a year so Amazon Prime will definitely not pay for itself. Sometimes I order from Amazon when I can't find it anywhere else. Remember Totes boots? I had a pair for years and one finally ripped. Despite once being hugely popular and available just about anywhere shoes were sold, I could not find them. I went to 6 different stores and not only didn't they have them but most of the people I talked to never even heard of them. So Amazon was my only option. But that's a rarity.


And that's what's wrong with this country.

Not what you said; the fact that my initial gut reaction was to convince you that you're wrong.


----------



## rharmelink (Dec 1, 2015)

jamesbobo said:


> I buy very little, other than groceries.


I have Walmart deliver mine. The store is only a half-mile away, but the $7.95 delivery fee is worth not having to take the trip over and back in triple-digit temperatures, going up and down the aisles to find things (and getting some stuff I don't really need), getting in line and checking out, and loading and unloading the groceries from the car.

With delivery, I order them online at 1 or 2 pm, they arrive just after 6 pm, and the only unloading I do is from the bags on the floor in my kitchen into the cupboards, fridge, freezer, and pantry, which I'd need to do anyway.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I'd prefer not to shop at either Walmart or Amazon because of the way they don't share their ridiculous wealth with their hardest working employees but... Walmart is so close and Amazon is really, really convenient with their one day shipping and huge available stock so my conscience might as well pick another fight because it's losing that one. Plus, I love Prime Video. They have tons of interesting documentaries that the other streaming services I subscribe to don't. Netflix is a joke for science and historical documentaries.


----------



## rharmelink (Dec 1, 2015)

cheesesteak said:


> I'd prefer not to shop at either Walmart or Amazon because of the way they don't share their ridiculous wealth with their hardest working employees


There's not much for Walmart to share. They have 2.3 million employees. Their net income last year was $16.3 billion. That means the average employee only generated about $7,000 of net earnings for the company. That's not much.

OTOH, for the biggest oil companies, net earnings can be hundreds of thousands of dollars per employee.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

rharmelink said:


> I have Walmart deliver mine. The store is only a half-mile away, but the $7.95 delivery fee is worth not having to take the trip over and back in triple-digit temperatures, going up and down the aisles to find things (and getting some stuff I don't really need), getting in line and checking out, and loading and unloading the groceries from the car.
> 
> With delivery, I order them online at 1 or 2 pm, they arrive just after 6 pm, and the only unloading I do is from the bags on the floor in my kitchen into the cupboards, fridge, freezer, and pantry, which I'd need to do anyway.


In my case, I just walk accross the street to the supermarket. I live alone and 2 bags that I can easily carry is all the groceries I need for the week.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

When I'm old and feeble I'll be happy Wal Mart, and probably everyone else, delivers groceries to my door. Until then...

/not judging


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

rharmelink said:


> There's not much for Walmart to share. They have 2.3 million employees. Their net income last year was $16.3 billion. That means the average employee only generated about $7,000 of net earnings for the company. That's not much.


And yet, it works out to $16.3 billion.


----------



## rharmelink (Dec 1, 2015)

Mikeguy said:


> And yet, it works out to $16.3 billion.


Reward for putting $325B capital at risk. A 5% return isn't much.

And those employees are already getting a far larger share than the company. The annual payroll is about $40B.

The problem is that minimal skills can only generate minimal added value. And supply and demand devalues those minimal skills. Many of the jobs that existed in retail when I worked in a grocery store 45 years ago have been obsoleted and/or automated. And that will continue as technology improves.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

rharmelink said:


> Reward for putting $325B capital at risk. A 5% return isn't much.
> 
> And those employees are already getting a far larger share than the company. The annual payroll is about $40B.
> 
> The problem is that minimal skills can only generate minimal added value. And supply and demand devalues those minimal skills. Many of the jobs that existed in retail when I worked in a grocery store 45 years ago have been obsoleted and/or automated. And that will continue as technology improves.


Apparently, they think it's enough, or they would be liquidating and investing in a mutual fund instead.


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

One thing I'd like to see in the streaming universe is some sort of pay-as-you-watch plan which are similar to the pay-as-you-go cell plans. These are not subscription plans where you pay $X/month. Rather, you put $X into your account and costs for things like minutes and text are deducted as you use it. I think that model would be useful for streaming since there are so many providers, but not all providers have enough content to justify subscribing.

It might not make sense for big providers like Netflix and HBO, but for the 2nd and 3rd tier providers, I could see it being beneficial. For example, I don't watch enough movies on "Horror Flix" to sign up for $4/mo, but I might watch a few movies every now and then for $.25/hour. Different providers could have a different hourly rate. Even HBO could do it, but maybe it costs $1/hour to watch their shows.

The providers which bundle streaming providers would be the place to do it. So something like Amazon which offers dozens of channels for subscription could be the PAYW provider. You put $X in your Amazon PAYW account and they handle the billing whenever you watch content on those streaming channels. Or Roku, AppleTV, etc. could also do the billing. Something like that would allow providers to get some revenue from casual viewers who would not subscribe.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

warrenn said:


> One thing I'd like to see in the streaming universe is some sort of pay-as-you-watch plan which are similar to the pay-as-you-go cell plans. These are not subscription plans where you pay $X/month. Rather, you put $X into your account and costs for things like minutes and text are deducted as you use it. I think that model would be useful for streaming since there are so many providers, but not all providers have enough content to justify subscribing.
> 
> It might not make sense for big providers like Netflix and HBO, but for the 2nd and 3rd tier providers, I could see it being beneficial. For example, I don't watch enough movies on "Horror Flix" to sign up for $4/mo, but I might watch a few movies every now and then for $.25/hour. Different providers could have a different hourly rate. Even HBO could do it, but maybe it costs $1/hour to watch their shows.
> 
> The providers which bundle streaming providers would be the place to do it. So something like Amazon which offers dozens of channels for subscription could be the PAYW provider. You put $X in your Amazon PAYW account and they handle the billing whenever you watch content on those streaming channels. Or Roku, AppleTV, etc. could also do the billing. Something like that would allow providers to get some revenue from casual viewers who would not subscribe.


You basically just described Pay Per View with the exception of the prepaid account. Chances are you would mostly attract viewers for first run movies unless they could get exclusive rights to broadcast popular TV shows.


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

mr.unnatural said:


> You basically just described Pay Per View with the exception of the prepaid account. Chances are you would mostly attract viewers for first run movies unless they could get exclusive rights to broadcast popular TV shows.


Yes, it would be similar to PPV, but it needs to be done in a way that I don't have to sign up for dozens of different services. It needs to be more like how PPV is on cable. On cable, you have dozens of PPV channels with all different content, but all under one billing account (the cable company). That makes it easy to pick and choose from a variety of PPV sources. With streaming, it's not that convenient. Even if a service has a PPV option, I still have to sign up individually with that service, setup a CC, and so on.

So let's say Starz wanted to have some PPV or PAYW content. That'd be great, but I don't want to have to sign up with Starz for the 1 or 2 things I might occasionally watch. The same goes for any provider like Netflix, CBSAA, HBOGo, etc. I want the channel provider (e.g. Amazon, Roku, AppleTV, etc.) to handle the billing so I can jump into any of the supported channels and pick things to watch without having to sign up for each channel individually.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

warrenn said:


> Yes, it would be similar to PPV, but it needs to be done in a way that I don't have to sign up for dozens of different services. It needs to be more like how PPV is on cable. On cable, you have dozens of PPV channels with all different content, but all under one billing account (the cable company). That makes it easy to pick and choose from a variety of PPV sources. With streaming, it's not that convenient. Even if a service has a PPV option, I still have to sign up individually with that service, setup a CC, and so on.
> 
> So let's say Starz wanted to have some PPV or PAYW content. That'd be great, but I don't want to have to sign up with Starz for the 1 or 2 things I might occasionally watch. The same goes for any provider like Netflix, CBSAA, HBOGo, etc. I want the channel provider (e.g. Amazon, Roku, AppleTV, etc.) to handle the billing so I can jump into any of the supported channels and pick things to watch without having to sign up for each channel individually.


I'm pretty sure that's already how things work on Amazon. They have a lot of shows that you can pay for individually or by the entire season. When you start paying for a la carte services I think you'll find it can get pretty expensive. Providers offer you multiple channels in a package because they can get them cheaper when they bundle them together. In order to get specific channels that are popular to add to their service they generally have to include a bunch of lesser channels as a package deal. If you start picking and choosing which channels you want to watch I think you'll find that you're already getting the best deal that they can offer. I get hundreds of cable channels on Verizon FIOS, but my wife and I only watch a handful of them. If I tried to pay for just the channels I watch it would probably end up costing me more than getting a package deal.

I think most people feel the same way that you do. Cable TV was a wonderful thing back in the day when most people could only get a handful of channels via a rooftop antenna. Cable opened up a whole new world of program content that they couldn't access before. Now there is a wealth of programming out there and the viewer has to make choices about which services to subscribe to in order to get the content they want. It's simply overload for the consumer and the competition for your viewing dollar is getting quite fierce. It's eventually going to get to where you have to subscribe to each individual network to get the shows you want to watch, and there are more "networks" being added all the time.

This takes me back to my original premise that eventually it's simply going to overwhelm the consumer and they'll either quit watching TV or they'll resort to piracy instead of paying a ridiculous amount just to watch TV. I realize it's not quite as cut and dried as that and it may just result in people watching less TV or limiting themselves to a few streaming services. Starting and stopping individual services to watch a single season of a show is certainly an option, but I have a feeling the option to do that may end up being short lived. Providers will start requiring long term renewable contracts to keep you locked in. You may no longer be able to subscribe for a couple of months just to watch a single season of your favorite show. Competition is supposed to be good for the consumer, but when each competitor has something the others don't then it goes beyond normal competition and becomes a multitude of monopolies.


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

The "next thing" is always considered worse than what's current. In the 60's there were numerous articles in TV Guide and other media negatively painting Pay TV as ruining future television.

More choices and options never turns out worse. The market takes care of itself. Every step since TV began has been an improvement.

I remember older folks complaining about having to buy those rabbit ears to watch their favorite sports team fifty years ago.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'm enough of a hermit (during the week, the only time I leave my home is often the half-mile commute to my office) that free shipping, quick delivery, and not having to make a special trip for stuff makes Prime very much worth it...


I live in rural New Jersey where the population of the county is less than 64,000 people and the big thing in town is the Muskrat Festival, so any decent shopping means using Amazon or a trip over the Delaware Memorial Bridge.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

Family said:


> More choices and options never turns out worse.


Which OTA channel carries Monday Night Football, nowadays?


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

krkaufman said:


> Which OTA channel carries Monday Night Football, nowadays?


Yes let's use just one criteria; whether it's free, and pull out specific examples of unique situations.

How were drama shows when Monday Night Football was free over the airwaves? Or any show for any niche audience for that matter???

Now there's something available for pretty much any interest 365 days a week, 24 hours a day.

But you can't get Monday Night Football free with an antenna, so television has progressed in the wrong direction.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

Family said:


> Yes let's use just one criteria; whether it's free, and pull out specific examples of unique situations.
> 
> How were drama shows when Monday Night Football was free over the airwaves? Or any show for any niche audience for that matter???
> 
> ...


>> "never" <<


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Yesterday’s MNF is today’s SNF.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

You could always wait the content to get old and go the DVD route. Assuming the new services don't keep it to themselves in perpetuity vs the first year or two.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

Family said:


> But you can't get Monday Night Football free with an antenna, so television has progressed in the wrong direction.


You can if you live in the home markets of the teams involved.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

zalusky said:


> You could always wait the content to get old and go the DVD route. Assuming the new services don't keep it to themselves in perpetuity vs the first year or two.


You mean, the way you can buy _The Simpsons_ on DVD? Oh, wait, they just announced the release of season 19 in December - which means seasons 21-30 still won't be released yet (season 20 was released right after it aired), even though season 21 was 10 years ago. And the fact that every episode is available for streaming (currently on FXNow, but it will move to Disney Plus in November) probably has a lot to do with that.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Here's a year old article I just ran across.

The Rise of Netflix Competitors Has Pushed Consumers Back Toward Piracy


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

warrenn said:


> Yes, it would be similar to PPV, but it needs to be done in a way that I don't have to sign up for dozens of different services. It needs to be more like how PPV is on cable. On cable, you have dozens of PPV channels with all different content, but all under one billing account (the cable company). That makes it easy to pick and choose from a variety of PPV sources. With streaming, it's not that convenient. Even if a service has a PPV option, I still have to sign up individually with that service, setup a CC, and so on.
> 
> So let's say Starz wanted to have some PPV or PAYW content. That'd be great, but I don't want to have to sign up with Starz for the 1 or 2 things I might occasionally watch. The same goes for any provider like Netflix, CBSAA, HBOGo, etc. I want the channel provider (e.g. Amazon, Roku, AppleTV, etc.) to handle the billing so I can jump into any of the supported channels and pick things to watch without having to sign up for each channel individually.


I don't know about all the streaming services, but this already exists on Google movies and TV. You can buy any show you want whenever you want for $3 and up depending on the content. One episode of your favorite show? $3. First run movie in HD? $10 and so on. This way you pay for only what you want to watch.


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> I don't know about all the streaming services, but this already exists on Google movies and TV. You can buy any show you want whenever you want for $3 and up depending on the content. One episode of your favorite show? $3. First run movie in HD? $10 and so on. This way you pay for only what you want to watch.


Yes, other services do this as well. Much of the Amazon Prime content is also available for rent and purchase if you're not a Prime member. However, the hassle is that I would have to sign up for many different services since exclusive content is spread across so many different providers.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

warrenn said:


> Yes, other services do this as well. Much of the Amazon Prime content is also available for rent and purchase if you're not a Prime member. However, the hassle is that I would have to sign up for many different services since exclusive content is spread across so many different providers.


Yep, and that's why old codgers like me are so resistant to the "new model". I liked it when all my content was in one place, and easy to find, and I can just record it if I want to watch at a later date. Now I have to hunt around over a bunch of streaming services, and soon to me many more.


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

As far as I'm aware, Amazon is the only provider which offers both monthly subscription and price-per-show options. That is, you can subscribe for $X/mo and watch unlimited Prime content, or you can forgo a subscription and purchase/rent content individually. I believe the other providers are all one or the other. So providers like CBSAA, Netflix, HBO, etc are all unlimited content at $X/mo, while providers like Google Play, Vudu, Fandango, etc are all $X/show.

My thought is that as more subscription providers come into the market, the universe of content will be spread thinner among them. When there are 4 providers, they each have a pretty deep catalog of good content. But if there are 20 providers, the good content will not be as deep in each one and a subscription may not be as worth it. I can see a time where subscription providers like Netflix don't have enough content to make a monthly subscription worthwhile. In cases like that, I think it would be valuable if I could still watch content from subscription providers in a pay-as-you-watch model (either $X/hr or $X/show) rather than a monthly subscription.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

warrenn said:


> As far as I'm aware, Amazon is the only provider which offers both monthly subscription and price-per-show options. That is, you can subscribe for $X/mo and watch unlimited Prime content, or you can forgo a subscription and purchase/rent content individually.


It's not quite that simple...there is material that you have to buy/rent even if you're Prime.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

cheesesteak said:


> Here's a year old article I just ran across.
> 
> The Rise of Netflix Competitors Has Pushed Consumers Back Toward Piracy


Yup, makes perfect sense


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

warrenn said:


> Yes, other services do this as well. Much of the Amazon Prime content is also available for rent and purchase if you're not a Prime member. However, the hassle is that I would have to sign up for many different services since exclusive content is spread across so many different providers.


Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was looking at a few of the DIY network shows to rent (the new seasons) but can't find them anywhere
Planning on cutting the cord in Sept, and going with YTTV but it doesn't have DIY network on it. Wife watches some shows on there and we would be fine paying $20 a season or whatever to rent Holmes on Holmes or other stuff.


----------



## EWiser (Oct 2, 2008)

Apple iTunes has allowed you to buy tv shows. Before Amazon got into video. 
I do this with a show my wife likes that we do not get in out cable subscription. 
You also don’t get ads.


----------



## EWiser (Oct 2, 2008)

MikeMar said:


> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was looking at a few of the DIY network shows to rent (the new seasons) but can't find them anywhere
> Planning on cutting the cord in Sept, and going with YTTV but it doesn't have DIY network on it. Wife watches some shows on there and we would be fine paying $20 a season or whatever to rent Holmes on Holmes or other stuff.


Look on iTunes they have diy network shows.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

EWiser said:


> Look on iTunes they have diy network shows.


Uhhhhggg ITunes, we don't have any apple products

Any way to rent from Itunes and watch it on roku without an ios device?


----------



## longrider (Oct 26, 2017)

MikeMar said:


> Uhhhhggg ITunes, we don't have any apple products
> 
> Any way to rent from Itunes and watch it on roku without an ios device?


You can install iTunes on a PC and watch it there. I dont know if you can then stream to anything but an Apple device (I have an Apple TV)


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Philo has DIY channel


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

longrider said:


> You can install iTunes on a PC and watch it there. I dont know if you can then stream to anything but an Apple device (I have an Apple TV)


Yeah that's gross



Dawghows said:


> Philo has DIY channel


Yeah but $20/month just for DIY would be a bit much while we have YTTV

This is why people pirate


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Heh. That's funny. I posted that specifically because you wrote that you'd be willing to pay $20/season to watch it.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Dawghows said:


> Heh. That's funny. I posted that specifically because you wrote that you'd be willing to pay $20/season to watch it.


Yeah, appreciate it. Just wish YTTV had it


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Thinking more about it, I suppose $20/season is probably less that $20/month.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Dawghows said:


> Thinking more about it, I suppose $20/season is probably less that $20/month.


Yeah, guess I'll fire up my iTunes account on a computer that I don't use that has it and see how much each show is


----------



## EWiser (Oct 2, 2008)

MikeMar said:


> Uhhhhggg ITunes, we don't have any apple products
> 
> Any way to rent from Itunes and watch it on roku without an ios device?


Apple TV app on the Roku is coming soon.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

EWiser said:


> Apple TV app on the Roku is coming soon.


Oh good, now we're talking


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

Meh. I only subscribe to two services: Netflix and Hulu. Amazon Prime Video is a benefit of having Prime. It's unlikely I would choose to subscribe to it on its own.

There's lots of popular content out there that I've never seen such as The Sopranos and Game of Thrones. I'm perfectly fine with that. I'm not going to subscribe to a dozen different services. If I stop finding value in Netflix and Hulu, I'll drop them too.

Whenever discussions like this come up, I'm always reminded of an episode of Star Trek The Next Generation, where Data commented that TV was something that didn't survive beyond the 2030's. It seemed comical at the time. It seems prophetic now.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

hapster85 said:


> Whenever discussions like this come up, I'm always reminded of an episode of Star Trek The Next Generation, where Data commented that TV was something that didn't survive beyond the 2030's. It seemed comical at the time. It seems prophetic now.


LoL! Now we know what killed it.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

hapster85 said:


> Meh. I only subscribe to two services: Netflix and Hulu. Amazon Prime Video is a benefit of having Prime. It's unlikely I would choose to subscribe to it on its own.


I'm to the point where if I had to choose one or the other, I'd take Amazon Prime Video over Netflix. The Netflix browsing experience has become so annoying that I only go there once I know exactly what I want to watch. Amazon is much, much more fun for discovering unwatched and/or unheard-of stuff.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

heySkippy said:


> I'm to the point where if I had to choose one or the other, I'd take Amazon Prime Video over Netflix. The Netflix browsing experience has become so annoying that I only go there once I know exactly what I want to watch. Amazon is much, much more fun for discovering unwatched and/or unheard-of stuff.


It's rare that I find something to watch on any service by browsing. Usually I already know what I want to watch before opening any of them.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

hapster85 said:


> It's rare that I find something to watch on any service by browsing. Usually I already know what I want to watch before opening any of them.


Same. That's the equivalent of flipping through channels which I haven't done since I got my first TiVo.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

cheesesteak said:


> Here's a year old article I just ran across.
> 
> The Rise of Netflix Competitors Has Pushed Consumers Back Toward Piracy


This is what I surmised in the very first post of this thread without having to read that article. It's just a foregone conclusion. You give people too many choices that they have to pay for individually and they'll find a way to get it for free.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> Apple TV has that, pretty much.


How is the Apple TV experience? Do you have to dodge all their content to get to your preferred services like on Fire TV?

Even though we have iPhones and iPads, I've been holding a grudge against Apple as a _content provider_ ever since they sold music with DRM.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

We shaved the cord several months ago and turned on HBO (via Amazon Channels) long enough to watch the last GoT season (bonus: Barry and Veep).

While we had HBO, I was already trying to decide if SHO or Hulu would be next. So far, neither. We're full up with shaved cable, Netflix and Prime.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

tlc said:


> How is the Apple TV experience? Do you have to dodge all their content to get to your preferred services like on Fire TV?
> 
> Even though we have iPhones and iPads, I've been holding a grudge against Apple as a _content provider_ ever since they sold music with DRM.


I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "dodge all their content," and I know your question was not directed at me, but when you go to the "Watch Now" screen on an AppleTV (or in the TV app on your iphone/ipad), there is a series of icons, one for each show you are currently watching, gathered from the various streaming services you're subscribed to.* You click on the one you want to see, and it plays that show. Clean and elegant.
EDITED TO ADD: When you have watched all the available episodes of a given show, the icon for that show will disappear from the list. Then when a new episode becomes available, the icon will come back.

*Not every provider is compatible. Netflix shows, for example, do not show as icons in Watch Now. You have to access Netflix specifically through the Netflix app. (This is a Netflix decision, not an Apple decision.) I'm sure Netflix is not the only provider that chooses this route.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

tlc said:


> How is the Apple TV experience? Do you have to dodge all their content to get to your preferred services like on Fire TV?


I haven't tried the Fire TV yet, so I'm not completely sure what you mean, but there are no ads on the Apple TV. They did just recently start doing a Netflix-like thing of playing a preview video of the currently highlighted item, which isn't bad.



> Even though we have iPhones and iPads, I've been holding a grudge against Apple as a _content provider_ ever since they sold music with DRM.


I think it's the record companies you should hold that against. My recollection is that it was Apple who fought (successfully) to undo that.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

tlc said:


> How is the Apple TV experience? Do you have to dodge all their content to get to your preferred services like on Fire TV?
> 
> Even though we have iPhones and iPads, I've been holding a grudge against Apple as a _content provider_ ever since they sold music with DRM.


In addition to what Dawghows said, you don't ever have to see any evidence of Apple as a content provider when using AppleTV. That may change when AppleTV+ goes live, but for now, you can either use the TV app as Dawghows explained, or you can just click on the icon of the service you want to use, and that app will start up and you can select a show from within that app. There is an icon to go into the iTunes store to purchase/rent content, but in 2+ years using AppleTV, I'm not sure I've ever clicked on that icon.


----------



## EWiser (Oct 2, 2008)

tlc said:


> How is the Apple TV experience? Do you have to dodge all their content to get to your preferred services like on Fire TV?
> 
> Even though we have iPhones and iPads, I've been holding a grudge against Apple as a _content provider_ ever since they sold music with DRM.


Man they haven't sold drm music in ages.  No dodging you can watch just a service say CBS all access or using the Apple TV app you see all your shows and the next one to watch in the list at the top of the app. 
Here is the app on a Samsung tv


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> In addition to what Dawghows said, you don't ever have to see any evidence of Apple as a content provider when using AppleTV. That may change when AppleTV+ goes live, but for now, you can either use the TV app as Dawghows explained, or you can just click on the icon of the service you want to use, and that app will start up and you can select a show from within that app. There is an icon to go into the iTunes store to purchase/rent content, but in 2+ years using AppleTV, I'm not sure I've ever clicked on that icon.


Does anyone here know if something similar exists on Roku or Amazon Firestick? This feature would almost convince me to get an ATV if I decided to cut the cord at some point. Consolidating the watchlist among all the various streaming apps is something that's extremely helpful and would make it closer to DVR functionality.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

tlc said:


> How is the Apple TV experience? Do you have to dodge all their content to get to your preferred services like on Fire TV?


I never have to dodge anything to get to my preferred services on Fire TV. I'll sometimes have to skip a Prime Video ad for their original content, but that's only when launching other Prime Video content.

No dodging anything to launch Netflix, Hulu, etc.


----------



## EWiser (Oct 2, 2008)

No ad’s on a Apple TV unless the service has ad’s it’s self. 
The Apple TV is an aggregator of all the stream services that you have subscribed to. The only streamer app that doesn’t allow this is Netflix.


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

I was thinking that one challenge in rotating through providers to avoid having multiple subscriptions is that it depends on what your household is watching. A single person can easily switch depending on what they are personally watching, but a household with lots of people may find that more difficult. Even if I'm not watching Hulu and want to drop it for CBSAA, that doesn't mean that my wife or kids are done with Hulu's content. And they may not care about CBSAA's content anyway. I guess that will shake out differently in different households.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> Just saw this article and thought it might be of interest:
> 
> Streaming TV is about to get very expensive - here's why
> 
> ...


It's pretty much always been this way. I've almost always needed to use multiple streaming services to watch the content I like. Although I first started streaming in 2005 with the Xbox 360. And it wasn't until 2007/2008 I added Vudu and Netflix to that list. And then Amazon, Hulu etc.

The only difference now is that there are many more streaming services available. But I will still subscribe to any service that has content I want to watch. Worst case you sign up for a month or two and cancel. And then you don't subscribe again until it has something you want to watch.

I'm still paying less per month than when I had the Ultimate HD tier on FiOS. Since dropping down to Custom TV it dropped my bill by $65. Although I didn't drop down to save money. I dropped down to get better video quality. Since the video quality from all the streaming services is now better than what FiOS or Comcast provides.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> It's pretty much always been this way. I've almost always needed to use multiple streaming services to watch the content I like. Although I first started streaming in 2005 with the Xbox 360. And it wasn't until 2007/2008 I added Vudu and Netflix to that list. And then Amazon, Hulu etc.
> 
> The only difference now is that there are many more streaming services available. But I will still subscribe to any service that has content I want to watch. Worst case you sign up for a month or two and cancel. And then you don't subscribe again until it has something you want to watch.
> 
> I'm still paying less per month than when I had the Ultimate HD tier on FiOS. Since dropping down to Custom TV it dropped my bill by $65. Although I didn't drop down to save money. I dropped down to get better video quality. Since the video quality from all the streaming services is now better than what FiOS or Comcast provides.


The subscribe and cancel concept works fine if the service dumps the entire season of a show all at once like Netflix is prone to do. However, services like Hulu and the DCU are streaming one show a week to stretch out your contract to several months. You can sign up for the duration or wait until the season is over and get them all at once. It just seems like a monumental pain to keep subscribing and unsubscribing to one service after another.


----------



## MizzouJames (Jul 15, 2019)

mr.unnatural said:


> The subscribe and cancel concept works fine if the service dumps the entire season of a show all at once like Netflix is prone to do. However, services like Hulu and the DCU are streaming one show a week to stretch out your contract to several months. You can sign up for the duration or wait until the season is over and get them all at once. It just seems like a monumental pain to keep subscribing and unsubscribing to one service after another.


Why is it a pain though?? Note that I assume that it is easy to turn these on and off so if they make it difficult then it will be more painful.

Lets say on August 1st I sign up for Hulu. Then I watch a lot of Hulu stuff and before the end of September I finish watching the Hulu stuff I want to watch. So I disable Hulu and on October 1st I sign up for Netflix. Maybe Netflix has more stuff I want to watch so I don't run out until sometime in January so before February I disable Netflix and on February 1 I sign up for HBO MAX, and keep that for a few months. Eventually at some point I get back to Hulu. But probably in one year all I had to do was sign into these websites a couple times each to turn them on or off.


----------



## Lurker1 (Jun 4, 2004)

MizzouJames said:


> Why is it a pain though?? Note that I assume that it is easy to turn these on and off so if they make it difficult then it will be more painful.
> 
> Lets say on August 1st I sign up for Hulu. Then I watch a lot of Hulu stuff and before the end of September I finish watching the Hulu stuff I want to watch. So I disable Hulu and on October 1st I sign up for Netflix. Maybe Netflix has more stuff I want to watch so I don't run out until sometime in January so before February I disable Netflix and on February 1 I sign up for HBO MAX, and keep that for a few months. Eventually at some point I get back to Hulu. But probably in one year all I had to do was sign into these websites a couple times each to turn them on or off.


I have been doing exactly this for a few years, and I can tell you it is no pain. It takes less than a minute to turn a streaming subscription on or off. My favorites/queues/lists are still there waiting for me when I come back. The biggest prerequisite is that you forget the idea that you have to watch anything as soon as it is released.


----------



## MizzouJames (Jul 15, 2019)

Lurker1 said:


> I have been doing exactly this for a few years, and I can tell you it is no pain. It takes less than a minute to turn a streaming subscription on or off. My favorites/queues/lists are still there waiting for me when I come back. The biggest prerequisite is that you forget the idea that you have to watch anything as soon as it is released.


Thank you for confirming my assumption that switching a few times a year isn't a big deal. I sometimes need to turn off and on newspaper delivery and can do that with the website. It makes a lot of sense to allow this because if they didn't then people will avoid their service over others. I bet Hulu and CBS Access (and the others!) would choose a few months a year over zero months.


----------



## EWiser (Oct 2, 2008)

I wonder how long before streaming companies make you sign up for a longer period. As the price of making new shows go up they will need a consistent money stream to make the shows.


----------



## Lurker1 (Jun 4, 2004)

MizzouJames said:


> Thank you for confirming my assumption that switching a few times a year isn't a big deal. I sometimes need to turn off and on newspaper delivery and can do that with the website. It makes a lot of sense to allow this because if they didn't then people will avoid their service over others. I bet Hulu and CBS Access (and the others!) would choose a few months a year over zero months.


Exactly. A service requiring a full year would get $0 from me. For example, I never subscribed to Amazon Video at all until they added the monthly option. Now they get 2 or 3 months a year from me.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> The subscribe and cancel concept works fine if the service dumps the entire season of a show all at once like Netflix is prone to do. However, services like Hulu and the DCU are streaming one show a week to stretch out your contract to several months. You can sign up for the duration or wait until the season is over and get them all at once. It just seems like a monumental pain to keep subscribing and unsubscribing to one service after another.


Not when you can save a bunch of money. For instance Starz. I cancelled last year and then this year they offered me six months for only $6. Only $1 a month.
Then commercial free CBS AA also has deals. I cancel and then months later they offer me several months at half price or buy one month get one free. Most of the streaming services offer deals to come back after you cancel. WHich works out great when you only subscribe a few months out of the year.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> Not when you can save a bunch of money. For instance Starz. I cancelled last year and then this year they offered me six months for only $6. Only $1 a month.
> Then commercial free CBS AA also has deals. I cancel and then months later they offer me several months at half price or buy one month get one free. Most of the streaming services offer deals to come back after you cancel. WHich works out great when you only subscribe a few months out of the year.


I can save even more money by not subscribing to any of them. I don't want to be bothered with subscribing and canceling services on and off all year long regardless of how easy or difficult it is. I would tend to subscribe to a service and then never get around to unsubscribing. That's what they hope most people would do. If you don't mind doing that constantly then why not? I have Netflix and Amazon Prime but I rarely watch either of them. I might binge watch a show once in a while, but only if I'm caught up on all of the other shows that I've recorded. I only have Prime because it came free with my Prime subscription that we use for shopping. One thing I will never suffer is a lack of content to watch. I already have more movies and TV shows on my server than I will ever get around to watching in my lifetime.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

mr.unnatural said:


> The subscribe and cancel concept works fine if the service dumps the entire season of a show all at once like Netflix is prone to do. However, services like Hulu and the DCU are streaming one show a week to stretch out your contract to several months. You can sign up for the duration or wait until the season is over and get them all at once. It just seems like a monumental pain to keep subscribing and unsubscribing to one service after another.


In the instance of episodes being released one per week, waiting until after the entire season is available to temporarily subscribe and binge watch is a no-brainer. I did that to watch Titans on DC's streamer. Didn't actually even need to pay, since I watched the whole season during the 7 day free trial.

That method of waiting to watch may become more complicated if the streaming services start making only a few of the most recent episodes available. For example, the complete Season 1 wouldn't be available until after Season 2 completes, with only the 3 most recent episodes of Season 2 available during that time. Season 1 might disappear after Season 3 begins, etc.

I'm sure such scenarios have occurred to the bean counters already.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Lurker1 said:


> Exactly. A service requiring a full year would get $0 from me. For example, I never subscribed to Amazon Video at all until they added the monthly option. Now they get 2 or 3 months a year from me.


So all the other perks of Amazon Prime don't matter to you?


----------



## Lurker1 (Jun 4, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> So all the other perks of Amazon Prime don't matter to you?


Not at all.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

For me, the free one day shipping from Amazon is the reason I pay for Amazon prime. The video streaming and music streaming is just icing on the cake.
But I also average around one package a day from Amazon.

Sent from my Galaxy S10


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> For me, the free one day shipping from Amazon is the reason I pay for Amazon prime. The video streaming and music streaming is just icing on the cake.
> But I also average around *one package a day from Amazon*.


Lordy!!


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> So all the other perks of Amazon Prime don't matter to you?


In this day and age of online shopping, Amazon Prime is an absolute steal. I'd sign up for it even without the free videos and music for streaming plus free electronic books, IIRC. Aside from shopping at Costco and my local grocery store, the vast majority of my shopping is done online. Amazon may not always have the best prices and they do charge state sales tax where applicable, but their selection is hard to beat and the free one or two day shipping with any Prime item pays for itself in no time. I never have to leave home on Black Friday and I do all of my Christmas shopping online. Anyone that shops online should seriously consider paying for a yearly Prime subscription.



aaronwt said:


> For me, the free one day shipping from Amazon is the reason I pay for Amazon prime. The video streaming and music streaming is just icing on the cake.
> But I also average around one package a day from Amazon.


Are you by any chance related to my wife? She probably averages 4 or 5 packages from Amazon every week and once in a while one comes addressed to me. I made the mistake of encouraging her to shop online for the free shipping and now she's addicted.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> For me, the free one day shipping from Amazon is the reason I pay for Amazon prime. The video streaming and music streaming is just icing on the cake.
> But I also average around one package a day from Amazon.


Aaron, please don't take this the wrong way, but I just have this image of my house full of empty Amazon boxes, in every direction.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Mikeguy said:


> Aaron, please don't take this the wrong way, but I just have this image of my house full of empty Amazon boxes, in every direction.


What, you don't recycle?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> In this day and age of online shopping, Amazon Prime is an absolute steal. I'd sign up for it even without the free videos and music for streaming plus free electronic books, IIRC. Aside from shopping at Costco and my local grocery store, the vast majority of my shopping is done online. Amazon may not always have the best prices and they do charge state sales tax where applicable, but their selection is hard to beat and the free one or two day shipping with any Prime item pays for itself in no time. I never have to leave home on Black Friday and I do all of my Christmas shopping online. Anyone that shops online should seriously consider paying for a yearly Prime subscription.
> 
> Are you by any chance related to my wife? She probably averages 4 or 5 packages from Amazon every week and once in a while one comes addressed to me. I made the mistake of encouraging her to shop online for the free shipping and now she's addicted.


I said in another thread, that I could probably live without the 2 day shipping if I needed to cut costs (We used to just bundle things together so it would be more than $25 for free shipping, and had to wait a week, but most of what I order is not a rush). But as long as I can afford to do it, I will. Netflix costs me around $12 a month for 4K (I think that's the going rate) so AP is actually cheaper per month for steaming AND, you get all the other stuff too.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I said in another thread, that I could probably live without the 2 day shipping if I needed to cut costs (We used to just bundle things together so it would be more than $25 for free shipping, and had to wait a week, but most of what I order is not a rush). But as long as I can afford to do it, I will. Netflix costs me around $12 a month for 4K (I think that's the going rate) so AP is actually cheaper per month for steaming AND, you get all the other stuff too.


I've been a a member of Prime since it first started. A few years ago I decided I was going to drop prime. I didn't even last two months. It sucked not being able ot get my packages in two days. And having to wait a week sometimes.

And now Amazon Prime has One Day shipping. Which is even better. All my Amazon deliveries have been coming in one day for the last couple of months. Well except for the deliveries they've screwed up. And I've received around $150 in credits during the last five weeks for them screwing up a bunch of my Amazon one day deliveries. But those are from Amazon delivery people. Who for some reason can't read a street sign or number for delivery. Yet the USPS, UPS, and FEDEX are able to. The Amazon delivery people are worse than LASER ship was.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

mr.unnatural said:


> What, you don't recycle?


I haven't lacked for a mailing box in over a decade.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> I've been a a member of Prime since it first started. A few years ago I decided I was going to drop prime. I didn't even last two months. It sucked not being able ot get my packages in two days. And having to wait a week sometimes.
> 
> And now Amazon Prime has One Day shipping. Which is even better. All my Amazon deliveries have been coming in one day for the last couple of months. Well except for the deliveries they've screwed up. And I've received around $150 in credits during the last five weeks for them screwing up a bunch of my Amazon one day deliveries. But those are from Amazon delivery people. Who for some reason can't read a street sign or number for delivery. Yet the USPS, UPS, and FEDEX are able to. The Amazon delivery people are worse than LASER ship was.


I agree about the quality of the people delivering packages for Amazon. Most of them are freelancers that rent a U-Haul van for the day and then just drop stuff on your doorstep. I've had at least two occasions where they left packages in front of my garage door where they couldn't be seen if I entered my garage from the house. I backed up over a case of Coffeemate liquid creamers one time because they left it where I couldn't see it. Amazon replaced it right away when I reported it so they're pretty responsive to issues. I got lucky the 2nd time they did it because I noticed it while working outside so I was able to avert a disaster. Most of the time they just leave it on my doorstep and then send me a photo of it to show that it was dropped off.



Mikeguy said:


> I haven't lacked for a mailing box in over a decade.


Me either, but I still have a lot of boxes left over for recycling. No need to have tons of them lying around taking up space.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

The other thing about Amazon is that they have insane productivity requirements. My building has a package room, with shelves for each floor; the delivery people are supposed to put the boxes on the appropriate shelves, and write the unit number on the facing side of the box with a color-coded marker (one for each day, meant to make sure people are picking up their packages on a timely basis.

At first, the Amazon drivers would just dump the packages on the floor and leave. Eventually, management had to threaten not to accept Amazon deliveries any more to coerce the drivers into complying with procedure (apparently, they would lose more points by missing dozens of deliveries a day than they would by spending a few minutes marking the packages and putting them on the shelves!).


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> The Amazon delivery people are worse than LASER ship was.


Just check the current headlines for one example. (yikes)


----------



## rharmelink (Dec 1, 2015)

These days, if I don't need something right away from Amazon, I put the item into my cart and check out manually. I usually get a "no rush" option, where they will give me a $1 credit on a digital purchase. I use them on Kindle books.

For example, yesterday I wanted two of something. I put the first into the cart and checked out, getting the $1 credit. Then I put another into the cart and checked out again, getting another $1 credit. The item cost $12.99, so that's a decent discount. Cheapest I could find it anywhere else was $14.86. After I ordered, I was told delivery on both would be on Aug 5 or 6.

One was delivered TODAY! Next day! The other is now scheduled for Saturday, with another item I ordered a day or two before that and also used the "no rush" option.


----------



## dylanemcgregor (Jan 31, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> I love the Pollyanna view that companies will make it better and cheaper for consumers. Nonsense. They exist to milk money. They are just leading consumers in with the cheaper drug now.


This certainly could be...but luckily for me they've been leading with this cheaper version for a long time now. I've spent on average of ~$20 a month for all of my TV for about 12 years now. That's ~$1000 a year that I've saved compared to cable. And for about 10 of these years I've been hearing how streaming is going to get more expensive real soon. And that's true, things have gotten more expensive, I'm honestly not sure what I'm spending, but I think it is closer to $25 a month now. For that price I get more high quality content then I ever did when I had cable TV, and honestly there's more good shows on my queue than I'd ever have time to watch. If I wanted, I'm pretty sure I could be fairly content just subscribing to one service...but it is cheap enough to sign up for two, and I get the extra Prime services for Amazon...so having two services is an affordable luxury. Usually about once a year I'll even do a month of some other streaming service, but so far those have mostly been free trial months.

For me the secret was just accepting that I don't have (and in fact don't have the time) to watch everything that comes out. It does mean that there's some shows that are appealing to me that I won't watch, or at least won't watch right away. But that's OK, if it is something that is really good I'll probably get around to it eventually.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

John Oliver had a segment a few weeks ago about Amazon and how they treat their workers. The people in the warehouse are given an item to retrieve and told which aisle and bin where the item is located and sometimes it's at the opposite end of the building. They are given a strict time frame to retrieve the item before they get the next item to retrieve, and it's usually measured in seconds. There was an instance where an employee dropped dead in one of the aisles and the other employees were instructed to keep working while the body laid there on the floor. I'm not a huge supporter of unions, but this is one place where a union seems mandated to improve working conditions. Unfortunately, they won't even allow discussions of a union on the premises or you're out the door. I love my one day shipping, but I hate to see all of these people suffer at my convenience.

John Oliver and Amazon


----------



## dylanemcgregor (Jan 31, 2003)

heySkippy said:


> I'm to the point where if I had to choose one or the other, I'd take Amazon Prime Video over Netflix. The Netflix browsing experience has become so annoying that I only go there once I know exactly what I want to watch. Amazon is much, much more fun for discovering unwatched and/or unheard-of stuff.


Interesting. I find it somewhat the opposite, but I'm on an old Roku that has a different UI for both Netflix and Amazon. I bought a new Roku last year, and only managed to use it for a couple of weeks before the new UI and captions format drove me back to the old device. I love Netflix and think it is a great value, but if my old Roku stops working and the Netflix UI is still as bad as it was when I last checked, with autoplaying trailers and captions right in the middle of the screen, I'd think hard about cancelling.


----------



## Lurker1 (Jun 4, 2004)

dylanemcgregor said:


> Interesting. I find it somewhat the opposite, but I'm on an old Roku that has a different UI for both Netflix and Amazon. I bought a new Roku last year, and only managed to use it for a couple of weeks before the new UI and captions format drove me back to the old device. I love Netflix and think it is a great value, but if my old Roku stops working and the Netflix UI is still as bad as it was when I last checked, with autoplaying trailers and captions right in the middle of the screen, I'd think hard about cancelling.


I subscribed to Netflix a lot more with the old UI. The current UI is so horrible, I can barely stand it. They now get about 1 month a year from me, when I binge all their best shows and run away crying before the UI kills me.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Lurker1 said:


> I subscribed to Netflix a lot more with the old UI. The current UI is so horrible, I can barely stand it. They now get about 1 month a year from me, when I binge all their best shows and run away crying before the UI kills me.


I like the newer UI much better than the older one. Especially since I can view my 100+ shows in my list from a grid. Instead of having to look at them from just one row.


----------



## dylanemcgregor (Jan 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> I like the newer UI much better than the older one. Especially since I can view my 100+ shows in my list from a grid. Instead of having to look at them from just one row.


That would be a nice feature for sure. I hadn't noticed how to do that on my Roku, and the default UI seemed to show less cover boxes on the screen than the older UI.


----------



## Lurker1 (Jun 4, 2004)

aaronwt said:


> I like the newer UI much better than the older one. Especially since I can view my 100+ shows in my list from a grid. Instead of having to look at them from just one row.


Yeah, I figured most people do, or they wouldn't keep it. But it makes Netflix miserable for the rest of us.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

dylanemcgregor said:


> For me the secret was just accepting that I don't have (and in fact don't have the time) to watch everything that comes out. It does mean that there's some shows that are appealing to me that I won't watch, or at least won't watch right away. But that's OK, if it is something that is really good I'll probably get around to it eventually.


Exactly. There are lots of popular programs out there that I've never seen. Some I currently have access to, others I don't. I'm perfectly content never having had a subscription to HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, etc. I'm perfectly content never having seen a single episode of The Sopranos or Game of Thrones or dozens of other wildly popular programs.

Multi-tuner DVRs and streaming services are great, but they've also opened the flood gates. You could devote every waking hour to watching TV, and it still would not be humanly possible to see it all. TV viewing has always been a time suck, but for me at least, it had grown to ridiculous proportions. I've cut way back, but still need to do more.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> What, you don't recycle?


Ever since China stopped accepting trash for recycling the town that I live in south New Jersey scrapped their recycling program.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

hapster85 said:


> Exactly. There are lots of popular programs out there that I've never seen. Some I currently have access to, others I don't. I'm perfectly content never having had a subscription to HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, etc. I'm perfectly content never having seen a single episode of The Sopranos or Game of Thrones or dozens of other wildly popular programs.
> 
> Multi-tuner DVRs and streaming services are great, but they've also opened the flood gates. You could devote every waking hour to watching TV, and it still would not be humanly possible to see it all. TV viewing has always been a time suck, but for me at least, it had grown to ridiculous proportions. I've cut way back, but still need to do more.


The people in the 1960s who used to call TV "The Boob Tube" should see it now! I agree, there's just so much out there that it's become overwhelming. I often just not start shows because I'll never have time to watch them. I go back to my old trope about TV now and shows that take "time" to get interesting. With so much content, shows have to grab me right away, or I'm done. I'm sure there's a lot of good stuff that I just don't watch because the topic doesn't interest me at all (even though the show might be great), or the first episode was really slow. Take The Ozarks. Lots of people here and critics have said the show is great. But I watched the pilot and for me it was "meh". It didn't grab me. Watched a little into the second episode, and was done. There's so much content to move on to. This is going to make it much harder for writers to both grab you and keep you.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> The people in the 1960s who used to call TV "The Boob Tube" should see it now! I agree, there's just so much out there that it's become overwhelming. I often just not start shows because I'll never have time to watch them. I go back to my old trope about TV now and shows that take "time" to get interesting. With so much content, shows have to grab me right away, or I'm done. I'm sure there's a lot of good stuff that I just don't watch because the topic doesn't interest me at all (even though the show might be great), or the first episode was really slow. Take The Ozarks. Lots of people here and critics have said the show is great. But I watched the pilot and for me it was "meh". It didn't grab me. Watched a little into the second episode, and was done. There's so much content to move on to. This is going to make it much harder for writers to both grab you and keep you.


I'm the other way, since there is so much to watch, always watching something that I'm catching up on, so I hear about other shows and finally get around to them 2 or 3 seasons in. I trust certain people and if they like it then I probably will, so will watch at least the first season, not just the first few eps. Plenty of great shows start off slow


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

MikeMar said:


> I'm the other way, since there is so much to watch, always watching something that I'm catching up on, so I hear about other shows and finally get around to them 2 or 3 seasons in. I trust certain people and if they like it then I probably will, so will watch at least the first season, not just the first few eps. Plenty of great shows start off slow


No doubt. But for me, I might have 20 shows I'm interested in watching, only a couple of hours a day to watch and if something doesn't grab me, I'll move on. If I watched something I didn't like 2 episodes in should I keep watching in the hopes it gets better? If I'm a season in and it's STILL not good, then I've wasted 10 hours I could be watching something better. I was much more likely to stick with something when the choices were slimmer. Yes, there are a few shows that people here have recommended that I've stuck with longer than I should have (I'm looking at you Breaking Bad), but unless it's a recommendation I won't do that.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

It's getting harder and harder to lure me to a new show. They aren't just competing with other shows, but also the internet, games, books, outdoor activities (on the rare occasions the weather doesn't suck), and not much time for the above. If I see an ad for a show that reminds me of any of the 1,000,001 crap shows I've tried in the past, it probably falls off my radar. And if I do try it, it has to grab me quickly, or I go do/watch something else.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Our general rule is a 3-episode tryout. If something TRULY stinks, of course, we're out sooner. But we seem to have a pretty well-honed sense of what we will and won't like. Obviously we don't stick with every show, but it's been _years_ since we tried something that we hated right off the bat.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

Dawghows said:


> Our general rule is a 3-episode tryout. If something TRULY stinks, of course, we're out sooner. But we seem to have a pretty well-honed sense of what we will and won't like. Obviously we don't stick with every show, but it's been _years_ since we tried something that we hated right off the bat.


We also generally have the 3-episode guideline and will bail earlier if something seems really awful (like that alien show with Katie Sackoff, the name of which I already forgot lol - I gave that like 20 minutes).

On the other hand, if someone whose recommendation I trust suggests a show or a show has universal critical acclaim, we may give it more time (unless the subject matter is just not for us, like Handmaid' Tale).


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

We know exactly two people who we trust enough to override our 3-episode rule. If either of those two tell us to stick with something, we will.

EDITED TO ADD:
We're struggling mightily with Season 2 of Handmaid's Tale. We liked season 1 well enough, although I don't think it's nearly as good as its reputation would have us believe. But season 2 is a drudge so far. I think we're about to bail.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Dawghows said:


> We know exactly two people who we trust enough to override our 3-episode rule. If either of those two tell us to stick with something, we will.
> 
> EDITED TO ADD:
> We're struggling mightily with Season 2 of Handmaid's Tale. We liked season 1 well enough, although I don't think it's nearly as good as its reputation would have us believe. But season 2 is a drudge so far. I think we're about to bail.


Stick with it  The last few episodes of S2 are very good.

For me, this is a show I watched based on reputation, and I enjoyed it from the start. I haven't watched S3 yet. I'm waiting for a weekend to take another free trial (using a new email address) and then watching that and maybe Catch 22 if I have a long enough trial. Then decide if I want to keep or drop Hulu.


----------



## Lurker1 (Jun 4, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> Stick with it  The last few episodes of S2 are very good.
> 
> For me, this is a show I watched based on reputation, and I enjoyed it from the start. I haven't watched S3 yet. I'm waiting for a weekend to take another free trial (using a new email address) and then watching that and maybe Catch 22 if I have a long enough trial. Then decide if I want to keep or drop Hulu.


Season 3 just gets more and more ridiculous. Enjoyable with a heavy helping of suspension of disbelief.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Lurker1 said:


> Season 3 just gets more and more ridiculous. Enjoyable with a heavy helping of suspension of disbelief.


Yeah, whether I come back for Season 4 will have a lot to do with how the last couple episodes of 3 unfold. I guess I'm not finding it as enjoyable as you, although at least it isn't as thoroughly depressing as Season 2 was (this year has only been MOSTLY depressing!).


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Dawghows said:


> We know exactly two people who we trust enough to override our 3-episode rule. If either of those two tell us to stick with something, we will.
> 
> EDITED TO ADD:
> We're struggling mightily with Season 2 of Handmaid's Tale. We liked season 1 well enough, although I don't think it's nearly as good as its reputation would have us believe. But season 2 is a drudge so far. I think we're about to bail.


I can't quite recall which somewhat-middle episode it was, but one of them was very much, IIRC, in Ofred's head and with limited interaction; I just couldn't get into it (perhaps my mood at the time?) and found myself multitasking. I wondered if this was going to be it, but the series definitely picked up after that.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yeah, whether I come back for Season 4 will have a lot to do with how the last couple episodes of 3 unfold. I guess I'm not finding it as enjoyable as you, although at least it isn't as thoroughly depressing as Season 2 was (this year has only been MOSTLY depressing!).


How many episodes are left in S3? I'm trying to time my Hulu trial to the end of the season so I have enough time to watch it all in a month.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> How many episodes are left in S3? I'm trying to time my Hulu trial to the end of the season so I have enough time to watch it all in a month.


Two more.


----------



## Lurker1 (Jun 4, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yeah, whether I come back for Season 4 will have a lot to do with how the last couple episodes of 3 unfold. I guess I'm not finding it as enjoyable as you, although at least it isn't as thoroughly depressing as Season 2 was (this year has only been MOSTLY depressing!).


I often get the feeling they are just stringing together sensational/gratuitous scenes and sequences, without any thought as to whether it has any consistency or makes any sense.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Lurker1 said:


> I often get the feeling they are just stringing together sensational/gratuitous scenes and sequences, without any thought as to whether it has any consistency or makes any sense.


Well, I'd argue that the first season was a masterful exercise in non-gratuitous depictions of appalling and depressing situations. But since then, yes, they seem to have lost the plot, so to speak.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Lurker1 said:


> I often get the feeling they are just stringing together sensational/gratuitous scenes and sequences, without any thought as to whether it has any consistency or makes any sense.


This is (mostly) my problem with S2. I think my problem with S1 may have initially been that my expectations were set too high. I thought it was pretty good, but I was expecting it to be great. Also, without getting into too much detail, I will say the whole premise --though plenty timely-- is more than a little strain on my suspension of disbelief.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Dawghows said:


> This is (mostly) my problem with S2. I think my problem with S1 may have initially been that my expectations were set too high. I thought it was pretty good, but I was expecting it to be great. Also, without getting into too much detail, I will say the whole premise --though plenty timely-- is more than a little strain on my suspension of disbelief.


The first season felt more like a parable than a realistic story. But since then, they've been trying to make it more realistic (world-building), and that just doesn't work with this premise.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

I'm finding it hard to re-commit to some shows after a break. For example, I loved the seasons of Stranger Things and The Man in the High Castle that I watched. If there were more episodes _at the time,_ I would have watched them.

But when they come back with a new season, and I'm watching other things, it seems .... like a large effort or commitment to dive back into them again.

Edit: I'm not sure how this fits into Streaming Gets Expensive, except to say that there's a lot of things to watch out there. Enough that you don't even have to go back to things you liked.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

tlc said:


> I'm finding it hard to re-commit to some shows after a break. For example, I loved the seasons of Stranger Things and The Man in the High Castle that I watched. If there were more episodes _at the time,_ I would have watched them.
> 
> But when they come back with a new season, and I'm watching other things, it seems .... like a large effort or commitment to dive back into them again.
> 
> Edit: I'm not sure how this fits into Streaming Gets Expensive, except to say that there's a lot of things to watch out there. Enough that you don't even have to go back to things you liked.


I've done the same with several series now. I enjoyed watching them at the time, and they're probably still on my list on whichever service. Eventually though, I'll likely decide I'm never going to finish them, and they'll be removed.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Yea I watched the first minute of stranger things this year and just wasn't feeling it. We have been binging literally non stop and I don't know if I will ever get back to it and other similar things.
It is pretty hard to remember the previous seasons on a lot of these shows.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

zalusky said:


> Yea I watched the first minute of stranger things this year and just wasn't feeling it. We have been binging literally non stop and I don't know if I will ever get back to it and other similar things.
> It is pretty hard to remember the previous seasons on a lot of these shows.


I know what you mean. Most of the shows on any of the streaming services are limited to as little as 6 shows or even less in a season, with the average being around 10-13 episodes. That means that in order to fill in the void between seasons you start watching a multitude of other shows with short seasons. After a while they all start to run together. The short seasons are great if you like to binge watch, but I prefer to watch single episodes per week. By the time the next season rolls around I can barely even remember what the show was about, let alone where the story left off.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

tlc said:


> I'm finding it hard to re-commit to some shows after a break. For example, I loved the seasons of Stranger Things and The Man in the High Castle that I watched. If there were more episodes _at the time,_ I would have watched them.
> 
> But when they come back with a new season, and I'm watching other things, it seems .... like a large effort or commitment to dive back into them again.
> 
> Edit: I'm not sure how this fits into Streaming Gets Expensive, except to say that there's a lot of things to watch out there. Enough that you don't even have to go back to things you liked.


I get this 100%. For some shows the wait between seasons is usually so long that it's hard to jump right back in and we don't want to spend time re-watching the prior season just to reacquaint ourselves. It varies show to show, though, as some are easier to get back into than others.

As an example, we had no problem getting back into Stranger Things, however, we're done with Dark. It's just too difficult to remember who was who and when. At the time we were following, with some effort, but there's no chance now. On the other hand, High Castle has a nice refresher when the last season dropped which made it easy to get back into the flow.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

brianric said:


> Ever since China stopped accepting trash for recycling the town that I live in south New Jersey scrapped their recycling program.


It's happened here in Northern Virginia too. In my area they stopped picking up half the recyclables they used to.

Sent from my Galaxy S10


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

Sort of on topic, Disney just announced $12.99 bundle for Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+. I like this because I'm a UFC fan and there is a lot of exclusive stuff on ESPN+ and Disney+ is going to have Star Wars, Pixar, and Marvel stuff.

Disney announces $12.99 bundle for Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+

*Edit:* A Disney spokesperson says there are no plans to offer a tier that include Hulu's ad-free service.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Allanon said:


> Sort of on topic, Disney just announced $12.99 bundle for Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+. I like this because I'm a UFC fan and there is a lot of exclusive stuff on ESPN+ and Disney+ is going to have Star Wars, Pixar, and Marvel stuff.
> 
> Disney announces $12.99 bundle for Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+
> 
> *Edit:* A Disney spokesperson says there are no plans to offer a tier that include Hulu's ad-free service.


Humorously, a minute after reading this, the overnight TV news was reporting it.  I guess it's a big story (and this was on an NBC station, not Disney-owned ABC).


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Everything We Know About Disney+, The Mouse House's Upcoming Streaming Monster << Rotten Tomatoes - Movie and TV News


----------



## wallstreet12345 (Dec 31, 2002)

Will Tivo get an App for Disney Streaming?


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Allanon said:


> Sort of on topic, Disney just announced $12.99 bundle for Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+. I like this because I'm a UFC fan and there is a lot of exclusive stuff on ESPN+ and Disney+ is going to have Star Wars, Pixar, and Marvel stuff.
> 
> Disney announces $12.99 bundle for Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+
> 
> *Edit:* A Disney spokesperson says there are no plans to offer a tier that include Hulu's ad-free service.


Well that about kills it for me. I pay for the ad free version of Hulu and will not go with ad based services anymore.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Allanon said:


> Sort of on topic, Disney just announced $12.99 bundle for Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+. I like this because I'm a UFC fan and there is a lot of exclusive stuff on ESPN+ and Disney+ is going to have Star Wars, Pixar, and Marvel stuff.
> 
> Disney announces $12.99 bundle for Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+
> 
> *Edit:* A Disney spokesperson says there are no plans to offer a tier that include Hulu's ad-free service.


I guess there is no way I will be getting it. Even if they paid me $100 a month, I would not want to watch the Hulu version with commercials. I will only watch the ad free one. At least I've gotten Hulu gift cards at discounts, taking my price down to below the cost of the version with ads. But I'll run out of my credit balance at the end of the next season. And I don't think I can get such a great deal on the gift cards again.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

wallstreet12345 said:


> Will Tivo get an App for Disney Streaming?


While it's certainly a possibility, I wouldn't count on it.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

As of this month, my Netflix bill is over $20. Beginning to wonder if it's still worth it. It's 2019. Why the hell are they, or anyone, still charging a premium for HD?


----------



## Lurker1 (Jun 4, 2004)

hapster85 said:


> As of this month, my Netflix bill is over $20. Beginning to wonder if it's still worth it. It's 2019. Why the hell are they, or anyone, still charging a premium for HD?


It is very easy to cancel now and then reactivate in the future when they have new content you want to see. No need to keep paying for it every month.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

hapster85 said:


> As of this month, my Netflix bill is over $20. Beginning to wonder if it's still worth it. It's 2019. Why the hell are they, or anyone, still charging a premium for HD?


They also tie two streams to the HD plan. Just like they tie four streams to the UHD plan. I don't need four streams but I need UHD. So I pay for the top plan($16). While I know other people that don't need UHD but pay for the top plan because of the four streams.
And then the lowest plan only allows one stream and SD.

I'm glad I got a bunch of Netflix gift cards at half price. So my UHD plan only costs me around $8 a month out of pocket. With my current balance I'm still good for another sixteen months.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

jr461 said:


> I get this 100%. For some shows the wait between seasons is usually so long that it's hard to jump right back in and we don't want to spend time re-watching the prior season just to reacquaint ourselves. It varies show to show, though, as some are easier to get back into than others.
> 
> As an example, we had no problem getting back into Stranger Things, however, we're done with Dark. It's just too difficult to remember who was who and when. At the time we were following, with some effort, but there's no chance now. On the other hand, High Castle has a nice refresher when the last season dropped which made it easy to get back into the flow.


So many shows on the backlog, at the point just going to keep watching the shows we watch and only start new shows that are already complete


----------



## Lurker1 (Jun 4, 2004)

MikeMar said:


> So many shows on the backlog, at the point just going to keep watching the shows we watch and only start new shows that are already complete


We do the same thing. This way we avoid the stinkers and prematurely-cancelled shows altogether. We can focus our limited watching time on the best of the best.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

Lurker1 said:


> It is very easy to cancel now and then reactivate in the future when they have new content you want to see. No need to keep paying for it every month.


Because then I might need to find a new place to live? Lol

While I'm beginning to question the value, not sure the other members of the household are. Definitely warrants discussion in the near future, though.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

aaronwt said:


> I'm glad I got a bunch of Netflix gift cards at half price. So my UHD plan only costs me around $8 a month out of pocket. With my current balance I'm still good for another sixteen months.


I'll have to keep an eye out for Netflix gift cards being on sale. Good strategy.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

Allanon said:


> Disney just announced $12.99 bundle for Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+...


... that will become available in November.



aaronwt said:


> Netflix gift cards at half price


How does one get those, at that-ish cost?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

krkaufman said:


> ... that will become available in November.
> 
> How does one get those, at that-ish cost?


I most recently got them last year or early this year on eBay. But when I looked earlier today I did not see any. So either they aren't available any more or they will show up again around the holidays.

I got great deals on Hulu, Netflix, and Verizon gift cards in the past from eBay. Saving 40% to 60%. I'm glad I purchased several hundred dollars worth at a time. I'll do it again if they show up during the holidays this year. Since the prices are too good to pass up.


----------



## Lurker1 (Jun 4, 2004)

aaronwt said:


> I most recently got them last year or early this year on eBay. But when I looked earlier today I did not see any. So either they aren't available any more or they will show up again around the holidays.
> 
> I got great deals on Hulu, Netflix, and Verizon gift cards in the past from eBay. Saving 40% to 60%. I'm glad I purchased several hundred dollars worth at a time. I'll do it again if they show up during the holidays this year. Since the prices are too good to pass up.


Did you ever have any trouble with the cards not working? I worry that huge-discount ebay cards are a scam or stolen or something.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Lurker1 said:


> Did you ever have any trouble with the cards not working? I worry that huge-discount ebay cards are a scam or stolen or something.


Out of the dozens of digital codes I purchased, I did have a couple with an issue. But the sellers quickly gave me a new code that worked. But that's why I've always redeemed the codes right away. Since if there is an issue, the seller can quickly make it right. Or, worst case, eBay or Paypal would give me a refund. Either way I'm either getting the product I purchased or I'm getting a refund.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Lurker1 said:


> I worry that huge-discount ebay cards are a scam or stolen or something.


This is what I have heard, and why I do not use them. But I am not sure if it is true. If not, how the hell are they getting unlimited 1/2 price cards (less than 1/2 price, since they must be making a profit!).


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

zalusky said:


> Well that about kills it for me. I pay for the ad free version of Hulu and will not go with ad based services anymore.





aaronwt said:


> I guess there is no way I will be getting it. Even if they paid me $100 a month, I would not want to watch the Hulu version with commercials. I will only watch the ad free one. At least I've gotten Hulu gift cards at discounts, taking my price down to below the cost of the version with ads. But I'll run out of my credit balance at the end of the next season. And I don't think I can get such a great deal on the gift cards again.


Won't the ad-free version of Hulu still be available, just not as a bundle with Disney+ and ESPN+? I assume you'd be able to subscribe to each service separately and keep your ad-free Hulu if you want.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Won't the ad-free version of Hulu still be available, just not as a bundle with Disney+ and ESPN+? I assume you'd be able to subscribe to each service separately and keep your ad-free Hulu if you want.


I will stay on that. I was just saying that the bundle is not an option unless they have ad-free upgrade to it.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> I'm glad I got a bunch of Netflix gift cards at half price. So my UHD plan only costs me around $8 a month out of pocket. With my current balance I'm still good for another sixteen months.


You're the King of Streaming Service Gift Cards! :clapping:


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

Interesting... So based on this thread, I want out to eBay and searched for "Netflix Gift Cards", and the only thing that came up was a listing to buy a PDF document that gives you a website to go to and purchase deeply discounted gift cards.

Sounds a little scammy to me... So does the purchaser also get a userid and password to get into this website? And if not, why is the link to this "special" website not already leaked to the rest of the world for free?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

MikeekiM said:


> Interesting... So based on this thread, I want out to eBay and searched for "Netflix Gift Cards", and the only thing that came up was a listing to buy a PDF document that gives you a website to go to and purchase deeply discounted gift cards.
> 
> Sounds a little scammy to me... So does the purchaser also get a userid and password to get into this website? And if not, why is the link to this "special" website not already leaked to the rest of the world for free?


That's what I saw when I looked today. But late last year/early this year that was not the case. There were a bunch of sellers with Netflix gift cards at 30%, 40%, and 50% off or more. And there were still some with a markup or selling at face value. I'm just glad I purchased a bunch when I did.


----------



## DawnW (Nov 28, 2008)

I just dropped cable TV. I found that 90% of what I watch is on network TV anyway, or reruns on things like Spike and ION. So an OTA Tivo is really the best option for me. And we do have Netflix. And I do have a Fire TV with apps if I really want to watch something. I can't tape it (or if I can please fill me in!), but I can at least watch it. I watched a Lifetime show last night on one of the Live TV apps.

I don't think I will ever get a streaming service like Youtube TV. I won't say never, but probably not. 

We just changed our ATT phone plan and get some streaming TV now through that, but apparently you can only stream one device at a time. Stupid.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

MikeekiM said:


> Interesting... So based on this thread, I want out to eBay and searched for "Netflix Gift Cards", and the only thing that came up was a listing to buy a PDF document that gives you a website to go to and purchase deeply discounted gift cards.
> 
> Sounds a little scammy to me... So does the purchaser also get a userid and password to get into this website? And if not, why is the link to this "special" website not already leaked to the rest of the world for free?





aaronwt said:


> That's what I saw when I looked today. But late last year/early this year that was not the case. There were a bunch of sellers with Netflix gift cards at 30%, 40%, and 50% off or more. And there were still some with a markup or selling at face value. I'm just glad I purchased a bunch when I did.


My guess (and pure speculation) is that Netflix closed the hole that was allowing these cards.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Read this on the YouTubeTV page, wondering if anyone has canceled and come back less than 6 months later if their shows were still there?

If you’d like to take a break without losing recordings that you’ve saved, you can also simply pause your membership for up to six months.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

mr.unnatural said:


> What, you don't recycle?


Weekly recycling still wouldn't rid him of all those boxes.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

AT&T TV launches in ten markets:
Confirmed: AT&T TV Launches Tomorrow in 10 Test Markets - Cord Cutters News

I'd think about it, but the maximum of 3 concurrent streams doesn't work for me.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> AT&T TV launches in ten markets:
> Confirmed: AT&T TV Launches Tomorrow in 10 Test Markets - Cord Cutters News
> 
> I'd think about it, but the maximum of 3 concurrent streams doesn't work for me.


Note:


> Cloud DVR recordings expire after 90 days.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Mikeguy said:


> Note:


My normal viewing habits would allow me to live with that (I'm not usually a binger on DVR recorded stuff). I'd miss being able to save up movies to watch during slow times, but I could probably live with that.

To me though that's an advantage of having a physical drive DVR rather than a cloud one. With the cloud ones, you always wind up either having limited space or time limits because the provider either wants to preserve space on their end, or, sell you more space at a premium. It's the same methodology used by companies like Dropbox, Google Cloud and One Drive. They give you a small amount for free, and you pay if you need more. It's the concurrent live streams that would break this deal for me. There would be a mutiny in my house if that happened.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

The 2-year contract is the part that puts me off.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

Dawghows said:


> The 2-year contract is the part that puts me off.


Yep, especially considering that the 2nd year prices are WAY higher than 1st year. No significant savings over cable/sat imo, but with significant downsides.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

If AT&T's goal is to have their Sat users move to streaming, this will fail miserably. There's no clear advantage to it.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Yea it is getting more and math complicated. We are retired with 3 TVs and two people so two streams I suppose. It's really more about package combinations.

For now we have two phone lines with the second being a legacy fax but thats only a $10 upcharge and I can't find a reliable cheaper approach to the second line as a fax.
HBO
Showtime
Hulu
Amazon Prime
Netflix
Cooking Shows
Hockey
Late night shows
a few broadcast shows
MSNBC

I pretty much stream the premium shows but the wife records the cooking shows.
I don't care about the Marvel stuff much so Disney+ is not an imperative. 
Right now I don't see a cheaper approach to buy separate streaming packages for HBO/Showtime and downgrade Cable.


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

That also kinda implied that AT&T TV uses a box, and not just an app on another device? That with the pricing, I don't see this as something that's going to appeal to anyone that knows enough to dump cable or satellite and go with the various online services like hulu live or youtube tv.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> If AT&T's goal is to have their Sat users move to streaming, this will fail miserably. There's no clear advantage to it.


I think their goal is to transition their live TV to a 5G cellular network rather than continuing to maintain an expensive fleet of satellites. It will obviously take several years to fully transition, but I think that's the plan.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think their goal is to transition their live TV to a 5G cellular network rather than continuing to maintain an expensive fleet of satellites. It will obviously take several years to fully transition, but I think that's the plan.


I agree. The guys over at DBS tell me I'm crazy, but that's what I'm thinking and from what their CEO keeps saying, it sounds like that. But, again, as a SAT customer now, i don't see what incentive I have to move to the new system? The price seems like it won't be any cheaper, I still have to sign up for 2 years, and if I did that now, the service might be bad and I'm stuck.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think their goal is to transition their live TV to a 5G cellular network rather than continuing to maintain an expensive fleet of satellites. It will obviously take several years to fully transition, but I think that's the plan.


While that may be part of their desire, I for one don't think 5G will be a real thing outside of a few cities by the end of next year. Last I looked the spec for it isn't even set in stone yet.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think their goal is to transition their live TV to a 5G cellular network rather than continuing to maintain an expensive fleet of satellites. It will obviously take several years to fully transition, but I think that's the plan.


I have a feeling that, at least in the short term, the goal is not to get rid of DirecTV, but to get rid of U-Verse TV, which is pretty much just a glorified streaming service anyway.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> AT&T TV launches in ten markets:
> Confirmed: AT&T TV Launches Tomorrow in 10 Test Markets - Cord Cutters News
> 
> I'd think about it, but the maximum of 3 concurrent streams doesn't work for me.



Wow!! That pricing seems a little outrageous. $93 a month for the second year? For just the low end package?
Even the FiOS Ultimate HD tier didn't cost me that much.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

AT&T apparently missed the memo about why people started cord-cutting in the first place. Why would anyone sign up for this?


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

hapster85 said:


> AT&T apparently missed the memo about why people started cord-cutting in the first place. Why would anyone sign up for this?


Aye, that's the rub. AT&T likes this as it saves them money in customer acquisition costs which puts money in their pocket. And it is a little cheaper than satellite because of equipment fee differences.

For the consumer I see little to make this attractive. It is similarly priced to satellite TV but with significant downsides. Like less channels no gift card like sat tv offers for new customers, and no NFLST either. And with a potential to make your internet service costs go up.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

A cord-cutter's guide to all the big new streaming services

Looks like Disney+ is going to be a a definite pick up for me in the first week it's available. Superheroes and Star Wars? I'm in.

DC Universe is on the fence for me right now. I'm currently subscribing to it but it just doesn't have enough new content. I may drop it by the end of the year and maybe try it again after a year so that it can build up a catalog.

Netflix ain't exactly thrilling me right now either. The bell might be tolling for them soon too.

I like Amazon. Their original shows are good but I love their extensive documentaries catalog.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> A cord-cutter's guide to all the big new streaming services
> 
> Looks like Disney+ is going to be a a definite pick up for me in the first week it's available. Superheroes and Star Wars? I'm in.
> 
> ....


Disney+ is the only one of those new four services that is a must have for me. Along with Netflix and Amazon. The other three new services, I will just subscribe to as needed.


----------



## tivotvaddict (Aug 11, 2005)

cheesesteak said:


> A cord-cutter's guide to all the big new streaming services


Helpful link, thank you!


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

One thing nobody...nobody at all...mentions when discussing streaming services is whether the audio will be 5.1 surround or not and, if so, on which platforms that is supported. So far only Netflix and Prime have been universally supported in 5.1 on the platforms I've tried (Roku, Firestick, Sony Android TV, Samsung TV). Probably no chance they will mention whether anything will be in 4K.

As far as the services, HBO Max seems worthwhile if one is already paying monthly (like I am ). I wonder if I switch to subbing outside of cable if a discounted rate may be more available when it launches (as the article alluded to).

Apple TV+ looks like it may be OK for original programming (certainly getting name actors) but subscribing will solely depend on the price for the few shows that may interest me, unless they have something else to draw the viewer in. 

The Disney service has no appeal to me whatsoever. The full bundle at $13 including Hulu interested me for a second until it said it was the commercial version. For the extra $2 I would consider switching for the commercial free Hulu.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

jr461 said:


> One thing nobody...nobody at all...mentions when discussing streaming services is whether the audio will be 5.1 surround or not and, if so, on which platforms that is supported. So far only Netflix and Prime have been universally supported in 5.1 on the platforms I've tried (Roku, Firestick, Sony Android TV, Samsung TV). Probably no chance they will mention whether anything will be in 4K.
> 
> As far as the services, HBO Max seems worthwhile if one is already paying monthly (like I am ). I wonder if I switch to subbing outside of cable if a discounted rate may be more available when it launches (as the article alluded to).
> 
> ...


Disney Deploys 4K And HDR In Its Assault On Netflix And Apple



> Disney has stated that its 4K, Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos support (as well as simultaneous streaming on four separate household devices) will be offered on supporting devices within the standard $6.99 a month


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

realityboy said:


> Disney Deploys 4K And HDR In Its Assault On Netflix And Apple


That's really awesome.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

jr461 said:


> One thing nobody...nobody at all...mentions when discussing streaming services is whether the audio will be 5.1 surround or not and, if so, on which platforms that is supported. So far only Netflix and Prime have been universally supported in 5.1 on the platforms I've tried (Roku, Firestick, Sony Android TV, Samsung TV). Probably no chance they will mention whether anything will be in 4K.
> 
> As far as the services, HBO Max seems worthwhile if one is already paying monthly (like I am ). I wonder if I switch to subbing outside of cable if a discounted rate may be more available when it launches (as the article alluded to).
> 
> ...


At under $4 a month when paying for three years upfront, Disney+ is a steal. For me they have a bunch of new content I want to watch. Plus they have a bunch of existing content I will watch. And they will have Atmos and Dolby Vision available.

I was planning on signing up yearly for the $70. But with the current deal for three years at only $140, it's a no brainers for me. I pay more than that a month for some services I rarely use. Like XM radio.

Sent from my Galaxy S10


----------



## type_g (Sep 9, 2002)

Off Topic but still worth a mention in this thread. Crazy Deal alert for those who are going to subscribe to Disney+. 3 year Disney + subscription for $141 is floating around right now. That makes it $47 a year or $3.92 a month!!!


----------



## pkscout (Jan 11, 2003)

type_g said:


> Off Topic but still worth a mention in this thread. Crazy Deal alert for those who are going to subscribe to Disney+. 3 year Disney + subscription for $141 is floating around right now. That makes it $47 a year or $3.92 a month!!!


Looks like you have to be a D23 member to get this deal, and the D23 site is down right now due to technical difficulties. The offer ends September 2, and it apparently takes 36 hours for a new member to get setup. So if you're not a member yet it might be too late (unless they get the site up and running again soon).

D23 members get 33% off a three-year subscription to Disney+


----------



## type_g (Sep 9, 2002)

yeah and you can signup for a free D23 membershi option to. Hopefully site is back up soon.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

It's probably down because so many people have been going to the site. I would expect there to be huge interest in getting Disney+ for under $3.90 a month.

Sent from my Galaxy S10


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

type_g said:


> Off Topic but still worth a mention in this thread. Crazy Deal alert for those who are going to subscribe to Disney+. 3 year Disney + subscription for $141 is floating around right now. That makes it $47 a year or $3.92 a month!!!


I'd say that's right on topic.

Anyway, it's an interesting deal, to be sure.

If they offer a deal to Hulu Live customers, similar to the Hulu, Disney, ESPN deal already announced, I'd definitely consider subscribing long-term. Otherwise, I'm thinking no.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

pkscout said:


> Looks like you have to be a D23 member to get this deal, and the D23 site is down right now due to technical difficulties. The offer ends September 2, and it apparently takes 36 hours for a new member to get setup. So if you're not a member yet it might be too late (unless they get the site up and running again soon).
> 
> D23 members get 33% off a three-year subscription to Disney+


I signed up for D23 yesterday and the offer is available to me. The fine print says you have to be a D23 member by Sept. 1 to be eligible for the offer.


----------



## pkscout (Jan 11, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> It's probably down because so many people have been going to the site. I would expect there to be huge interest in getting Disney+ for under $3.90 a month.


Turns out the site isn't really down. They just replaced the homepage with an error message. I went to /login on the site and got a page saying I needed to login or create an account. From there I was able to create one, so we'll see if I get an email with the offer or not. I guess they realized that if too many people take them up on the offer that they'll lose money over all. It's hard to understand why someone didn't think of that and just say you had to have a D23 membership as of the day before the announcement. Oh well.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

realityboy said:


> Disney Deploys 4K And HDR In Its Assault On Netflix And Apple


Thanks for this. The question then is which devices will be supported for Disney and Apple TV+ for 4K and advanced sound options.

As we've seen, aside from Netflix and Prime, the other streaming services pick and choose where 4K and/or 5.1 sound is supported. Probably obvious that the Apple TV box will support for their service but will they allow on smart TVs, Roku, Firestick, etc? From the article, Disney in 4K won't be on Apple TV.



aaronwt said:


> At under $4 a month when paying for three years upfront, Disney+ is a steal. For me they have a bunch of new content I want to watch. Plus they have a bunch of existing content I will watch. And they will have Atmos and Dolby Vision available.
> 
> I was planning on signing up yearly for the $70. But with the current deal for three years at only $140, it's a no brainers for me. I pay more than that a month for some services I rarely use. Like XM radio.


True but there still doesn't seem to be much if anything we would watch.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I signed up for D23 yesterday and the offer is available to me. The fine print says you have to be a D23 member by Sept. 1 to be eligible for the offer.


Is there a direct link to the signup page? Is it free to join? I know my son and daughter would be interested in this. Son is a big Marvel and Star Wars fan and daughter is just a huge Disney fan and an aspiring artist.

Edit: I found the link, and realized I had a login already. Hopefully the free account is good enough to get the discount.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Is there a direct link to the signup page? Is it free to join? I know my son and daughter would be interested in this. Son is a big Marvel and Star Wars fan and daughter is just a huge Disney fan and an aspiring artist.
> 
> Edit: I found the link, and realized I had a login already. Hopefully the free account is good enough to get the discount.


Yes it is. That is what I have. A few minutes ago I paid them the $140.97 for three years of Disney+


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> Yes it is. That is what I have. A few minutes ago I paid them the $140.97 for three years of Disney+


Thanks, I'm still waiting for mine to show up in My Account. Once it does, I'll spring for it. My son is already excited about it and plans to watch a few things. That's great, because now I'm going to hit him up for half the fee


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

I was all onboard to joining for 3 years, but then realized that I would really only join for the shows as I have all the disney/marvel movies I want to see again.
Be cheaper to join for a month or two here or there at $7 vs $4 every month


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

MikeMar said:


> I was all onboard to joining for 3 years, but then realized that I would really only join for the shows as I have all the disney/marvel movies I want to see again.
> Be cheaper to join for a month or two here or there at $7 vs $4 every month


For under $4 a month it's less of a hassle for me to just sign up for three years. Then I don't need to worry about it. Based on the shows they have announced so far, I will more than get my moneys worth.

Especially if I calculate it on a worst case per episode price. So far the most I have paid per episode, for an entire season, was $2. So with over half a dozen shows I'll be watching, I'll be paying less than that. Plus I'll have access to other content I might want to watch.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

I'm still very much leaning towards the 12.99 triple bundle, mainly because I actively want ESPN+.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

jr461 said:


> One thing nobody...nobody at all...mentions when discussing streaming services is whether the audio will be 5.1 surround or not and, if so, on which platforms that is supported. So far only Netflix and Prime have been universally supported in 5.1 on the platforms I've tried (Roku, Firestick, Sony Android TV, Samsung TV).


5.1 support has historically been a crap shoot when it comes to dedicated streaming apps. The HBO Now and CBSAA apps were stereo only when they first debuted. I moved both services to Amazon Prime Channels, where 5.1 support was always there. Hulu has only recently offered 5.1, but with glaring device omissions like Roku and Apple TV.

I suspect 5.1 support with the new services will be chaotic at first too. I would subscribe to Disney's new service if it was offered through Prime Channels.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I wonder how soon after movies start to get distributed digitally will they be shown on here. For example if the latest Avengers movie becomes available on Bluray or streaming, will it become available on D+ as well? If that's the case, then it will save my son a lot of money since he always buys them on BD (well 4K).


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I wonder how soon after movies start to get distributed digitally will they be shown on here. For example if the latest Avengers movie becomes available on Bluray or streaming, will it become available on D+ as well? If that's the case, then it will save my son a lot of money since he always buys them on BD (well 4K).


Avengers Endgame will show up in December on Disney+. December 11th is the date Disney said it will be available to stream.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> Avengers Endgame will show up in December on Disney+. December 11th is the date Disney said it will be available to stream.


And that's the one that just came out on disc like last week?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> And that's the one that just came out on disc like last week?


Yes.


----------



## tigercat74 (Aug 7, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> Is there a direct link to the signup page? Is it free to join? I know my son and daughter would be interested in this. Son is a big Marvel and Star Wars fan and daughter is just a huge Disney fan and an aspiring artist.
> 
> Edit: I found the link, and realized I had a login already. Hopefully the free account is good enough to get the discount.


I signed up for D23 this morning and I was just able to signup for the three year plan just now.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Signed up for the 3 year plan.

Besides all the big stuff, I'm hoping they do some shows on the parks.

-smak-


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

lambertman said:


> I'm still very much leaning towards the 12.99 triple bundle, mainly because I actively want ESPN+.


What do you want ESPN+ for? You a big soccer fan?


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Squeak said:


> What do you want ESPN+ for? You a big soccer fan?


Yes.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

tigercat74 said:


> I signed up for D23 this morning and I was just able to signup for the three year plan just now.


I found the link. I'll have to check to see if I can sign up now


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

I signed up as well. Interested in the new Star Wars stuff coming out, and several movies I haven't seen yet that I'd like to watch.


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

It's kinda weird, because I really do get somewhat annoyed at the number of subscriptions it takes these days, but I signed up for the disney+ service 3 year thing. I'm not absolutely sure it's going to be used as much as I'd like, but there's a part of me that doesn't really mind paying the amount up front that it's costing. (In fairness, my cable bill used to be more than that per month.)

On the other hand, I'm starting to get frustrated with the number of ads I have to put up with on the non-ad version of hulu.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

gschrock said:


> On the other hand, I'm starting to get frustrated with the number of ads I have to put up with on the non-ad version of hulu.


They really should call it "reduced ads, maybe". Some networks seem to only sort of participate, while others don't at all. I've been wondering lately if it's even worth paying for. Maybe I should opt out for a couple it months and see if anyone notices.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

I’ve been a TiVo user way too long to tolerate ads on a service I’m paying for. Not happening.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

heySkippy said:


> I've been a TiVo user way too long to tolerate ads on a service I'm paying for. Not happening.


I can't stand ads either. But on Hulu I only have a few shows I watch with any ads. And then it's only a 15 second spot before the show. I can tolerate that 15 seconds for a few shows. But that is pretty much my limit. And the vast majority of shows i watch on Hulu have no ads on the ad-free plan.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is the only show I watch on Hulu (so far) that has ads.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Dawghows said:


> Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is the only show I watch on Hulu (so far) that has ads.


Yes that is one of mine. And Grey's Anatomy. And possibly How to Get Away with Murder.
All ABC shows.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

aaronwt said:


> Yes that is one of mine. And Grey's Anatomy. And possibly How to Get Away with Murder.
> All ABC shows.


We usually watch Grey's recorded OTA but occasionally have to catch an episode on Hulu. Last season it had one ad before the show, and one after. Who sticks around for the one after?


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

So I've done my homework and here's what I'll do:

- Get Sling Orange and Blue, buy the "get it all" package for $20. And subscribe to Starz and Showtime.
- Get YouTube TV
- Subscribe to HBO Now
- Get a Roku for each TV to streamline the guide and interface experience.

Total Cost: $135 per month instead of the current $240 to DirecTV.

I will not have Cinemax but will have Telemundo, BeIn, NFL redzone, and a few more channels that I don't have right now.

I also will get the pleasure of calling AT&T and telling them to kiss my huge butt


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

I’ve been doing some homework too! This month I’m doing stress test of bandwidth usage with almost all streaming. Some minor usage of cable for the locals until I get the outdoor antenna mounted.

I’m subbed to Sling Blue + DVR for one month trial @$20, that will increase to $30 at the end of the month. After looking through my OnePasses I found that only 9 cable type channels are used. AMC, SyFy, TBS, TNT, USA, BBC, FX, IFC and Paramount. Everything else is seeing minimal use if any.

If at the end of the month I’m OK with all of it I’ll cancel cable TV and repurpose my Tivo Bolt to OTA. My AppleTV 4K will then take on a bigger role.

Or at least that’s my current thinking...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

hapster85 said:


> We usually watch Grey's recorded OTA but occasionally have to catch an episode on Hulu. Last season it had one ad before the show, and one after. Who sticks around for the one after?


Yes. We go on to the next episode, so there is only one, fifteen second ad, at the beginning of each epsiode.

Sent from my Nexus 7(32GB)


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

Anubys said:


> - Get YouTube TV


I recently tried a free trial of YouTube TV and found the user interface to be very clunky and their DVR functionality very weak. If watching a show live you can pause, rewind, and fast forward. You can even record the show and it will record future episodes. But after the show has aired if the show is in their VOD library then your recording is replaced with the VOD video and it has commercials that can't be skipped. That was a deal breaker for me.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Anubys said:


> So I've done my homework and here's what I'll do:
> 
> - Get Sling Orange and Blue, buy the "get it all" package for $20. And subscribe to Starz and Showtime.
> - Get YouTube TV
> ...


Still shocked you are paying $240 for JUST TV to DirecTV??? that seems crazy crazy high


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Allanon said:


> I recently tried a free trial of YouTube TV and found the user interface to be very clunky and their DVR functionality very weak. If watching a show live you can pause, rewind, and fast forward. You can even record the show and it will record future episodes. But after the show has aired if the show is in their VOD library then your recording is replaced with the VOD video and it has commercials that can't be skipped. That was a deal breaker for me.


Was that on any channels other than CBS? 
Could you provide some of the shows it did this for?

Going to get a YTTV trial tomorrow probably


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

MikeMar said:


> Was that on any channels other than CBS?
> Could you provide some of the shows it did this for?
> 
> Going to get a YTTV trial tomorrow probably


I was trying during the day so these were reruns. I picked TLC and Motortrend because those are channels my family watch a lot. TLC had a _Say Yes To The Dress_ marathon going on so I recorded a few shows and each had unskippable commercials after the live air time. I also recorded some car show from Motortrend and it too had unskippable commercials.

Maybe I was doing something wrong and going to the wrong place in the UI because like I said it is very clunky.


----------



## dimented (May 21, 2003)

MikeMar said:


> Was that on any channels other than CBS?
> Could you provide some of the shows it did this for?
> 
> Going to get a YTTV trial tomorrow probably


CBS and CW both do the on demand instead of the recorded version. I have found however that if you wait long enough with CW shows, eventually you can watch the recorded version and skip commercials. I am not sure how long that is though.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Allanon said:


> I recently tried a free trial of YouTube TV and found the user interface to be very clunky and their DVR functionality very weak. If watching a show live you can pause, rewind, and fast forward. You can even record the show and it will record future episodes. But after the show has aired if the show is in their VOD library then your recording is replaced with the VOD video and it has commercials that can't be skipped. That was a deal breaker for me.


Whoa...I had not heard about this...that is a deal break for me as well...

As for the user interface, it's Google; I'm sure it will get better 



MikeMar said:


> Still shocked you are paying $240 for JUST TV to DirecTV??? that seems crazy crazy high


It was about $160 for 2 years but rebates ended...it's crazy...they charge for each DVR...then charge for HD on each DVR...are you kidding me? that would be like a gas station charging extra for unleaded...who the frak doesn't have HD at this point?


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

My wife did point out that the 50 hours of DVR available from Sling is not going to cut it. All our DVRs right now have external HDDs that are between 3-5 TBs. 50 hours is what I record in a couple of days!

So I need to figure some stuff out, still!


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

dimented said:


> CBS and CW both do the on demand instead of the recorded version. I have found however that if you wait long enough with CW shows, eventually you can watch the recorded version and skip commercials. I am not sure how long that is though.


Just found this on reddit, sounds like it lines up with what you are saying

"CBS and CW will go straight to VOD. After about 5 weeks the CBS show will be available on your DVR for the rest of the 9 months. That might be the case with CW if you get it locally. Other than those to everything is available on your DVR for the 9 months."

But looks like just CBS and CBS owned stations, so that's not too bad


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Anubys said:


> My wife did point out that the 50 hours of DVR available from Sling is not going to cut it. All our DVRs right now have external HDDs that are between 3-5 TBs. 50 hours is what I record in a couple of days!
> 
> So I need to figure some stuff out, still!


Read my post above this, I'd give it a shot (like I'm doing) and one of the main reasons (like you) I'm going YTTV is the unlim/9 month DVR


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Well, I have to also have Sling since they have a couple of channels that YouTube TV doesn't have (Comedy Central, BeIn, NFL network, NFL Redzone, Cooking...etc.)

so I think we will make a rule to only record Sling if it's something not in YTTV

I'm glad the commercial skipping thing is only on CBS. Now that the Big Bang is gone, I don't think there's anything on CBS that I will miss


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

I recently signed up for Sling Blue as it has my 9 must have channels and quite a few of seldom watched but nice to have channels. HDPQ isn’t the best but it is very watcheable IMO and sound is almost all only stereo. Those downsides are taken care of with the much lower cost!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

*Disregard what I said!*

I still have time on my trial so I went to Youtube TV on my computer and the interface is a lot better than my Vizio TV. The stuff I recorded didn't have unskippable commercials. On my Vizio TV the recordings were mixed in with VOD videos and the only way to tell if it was a recording or VOD is to read "recording" in the description of the show instead of "release". I had to search though all seasons to find the recordings.

Sorry for the misinformation.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

dimented said:


> CBS and CW both do the on demand instead of the recorded version. I have found however that if you wait long enough with CW shows, eventually you can watch the recorded version and skip commercials. I am not sure how long that is though.


Too long. That and On Demand with commercials is the reason I didn't go with the streaming services for most of my content. I use ad free Hulu and Philo to cover most of my content. And the five or so CW shows I watch, I buy outright from Amazon, Fandango Now, or Vudu. Whichever has the lowest price for the season.


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

hapster85 said:


> They really should call it "reduced ads, maybe". Some networks seem to only sort of participate, while others don't at all. I've been wondering lately if it's even worth paying for. Maybe I should opt out for a couple it months and see if anyone notices.


Part of my issue may be that I've got the live tv version, but with the no-ad version of the ondemand stuff. I know that stuff I record I can't skip on the dvr without paying for their extra premium dvr nonsense (something I find quite ridiculous), but I've been finding even stuff that aired recently that I don't have on the dvr but play ondemand had commercials in it (that were unskipable). I get the impression that some networks for a little while after the episode airs can have their commercials left in the on-demand version, then after a certain number of days it goes to completely ad-free. Ran into this with Good Eats and So You Think You Can Dance recently.

Hulu sort of acknowledges this in one spot, but that acknowledgement isn't particularly clear on what content is really covered by that, and how it really works. To see an "ad-free" service and still allow that to be happening is really kinda sketchy.

On the bright side, it annoyed me enough to take the time to figure out why my plex server had stopped recording things (turns out they did an upgrade that I needed to do to keep getting the guide data).


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

MikeMar said:


> Still shocked you are paying $240 for JUST TV to DirecTV??? that seems crazy crazy high


I pay $262/month, that includes all taxes & fees (the credit card charge is what I looked up). Only TV (what else do they offer?). I have every channel you can get, premiums and all. Plus a Genie, plus 3 Minis.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

astrohip said:


> I pay $262/month, that includes all taxes & fees (the credit card charge is what I looked up). Only TV (what else do they offer?). I have every channel you can get, premiums and all. Plus a Genie, plus 3 Minis.


Guess premiums add up but I have Verizon paying 180 including internet and phone too. Have a middle package and 3 dvrs
When we had direct TV 10 years back my bill was like 70 or something


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

astrohip said:


> I pay $262/month, that includes all taxes & fees (the credit card charge is what I looked up). Only TV (what else do they offer?). I have every channel you can get, premiums and all. Plus a Genie, plus 3 Minis.


Wow!! And I thought I was paying alot for DirecTV in 2001. When I paid $120 a month. I got it back then mainly for the handful of HD channels they had. But that was more than Comcast had in my area(they had zero back then). Plus, getting DirecTV in 2001 is how I discovered their TiVo options. And I fully embraced TiVo when I got three of the DirecTV TiVos back then. Plus one, non TiVo, HD STB in 2001.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I think DirecTV's DVRs are excellent...and their packages are competitive with other providers. It's the nickel and dime crap that gets the prices so high. You used to offset all those charges by calling and getting credits but those days are long gone once AT&T bought them.

AT&T used to be a stock I owned because they paid excellent dividends. I know this is not their core business but if their management is that short-sighted, there's no way they will grow relative to others. I dumped their stock over a year ago. As Mr. Buffett always said, you buy the management team. This management team is exceedingly stupid.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I think I pay about $158 per month with Verizon for their Xtreme HD package with Showtime and I get HBO free for two years. That price also includes internet and a landline phone. I watch a handful of cable channels and most of the network channels via OTA antenna. The wife likes to watch old sitcoms and the classic movie channels plus Fox News. I'd cut back on my TV service if the basic package offered the channels she likes to watch. I can find anything I watch via other sources if need be, and usually at a higher resolution than what I get on FIOS.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Anubys said:


> I think DirecTV's DVRs are excellent...and their packages are competitive with other providers. It's the nickel and dime crap that gets the prices so high. You used to offset all those charges by calling and getting credits but those days are long gone once AT&T bought them.
> 
> AT&T used to be a stock I owned because they paid excellent dividends. I know this is not their core business but if their management is that short-sighted, there's no way they will grow relative to others. I dumped their stock over a year ago. As Mr. Buffett always said, you buy the management team. This management team is exceedingly stupid.


I've been saying this for awhile. We are kind of back in the 1980s again where companies are diversifying into things they have no business getting into. I guess they saw a synergy between mobile and the entertainment business but it's not really there or ready and things are moving too fast for them to build this out properly. They really know little about this business and I think they saw it as a way to get possible clients for their mobile (indeed when they first bought they company they used to hard sell you their mobile service when you made a CS call. Now that they are losing subs at a faster clip than they anticipated they have no idea how to stop the bleeding. This latest venture, which I was really interested in is ridiculous. There's no current Sat subscriber who would switch from a system that works well for the, to a system that might not work as good, has more limits and cost as much AND locks you in for a 2 years. This is exactly why people are cutting the cord, yet they are doubling down on a dying system. And I'm REALLY scared what they will do to the Time Warner owned content, including HBO. That's another business they had no business getting into. Eventually, like what happened after the diversify boom in the 1980s, companies divested of everything but their core businesses. I expect in 5-10 years we'll see the same thing here.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> I think I pay about $158 per month with Verizon for their Xtreme HD package with Showtime and I get HBO free for two years. That price also includes internet and a landline phone. I watch a handful of cable channels and most of the network channels via OTA antenna. The wife likes to watch old sitcoms and the classic movie channels plus Fox News. I'd cut back on my TV service if the basic package offered the channels she likes to watch. I can find anything I watch via other sources if need be, and usually at a higher resolution than what I get on FIOS.


Cable is offering deals similar and I've been tempted to switch to cable, only I can't get any good information on the quality of their DVRs (Atlice One) and any limitations they have that might wind up having this cost me more in the long run. So I'm sticking with what I know for now.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

I pay xfinity $193 a month, of which my wife's company refunds us $50 for her home office. Preferred TV, one DVR downstairs, Stream app on the upstairs Roku (still free during a lengthy beta), HBO, extreme internet and phone. We'll re-add Showtime and Starz on short-term bases when certain shows start back up, pushing us as high as $210. I haven't bought RedZone back since they stopped giving it to me free, and I do miss it, but I don't miss it $10 worth yet.

I'm sure there are better deals to be had, but that's a lot of moving parts to upend. I'm lazy and my wife likes to get her work done.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Right now I'm using Media Center and my OTA antenna plus netflix and Amazon prime. But by the end of the year they won't be supporting Media Center anymore. I don't need more channels, but I can't live without DVR. I know Tivo has an OTA DVR, and I've seen some others out there pretty cheap. Any recommendations? Do they supply guide data?


----------



## xuxa (Oct 8, 2001)

stellie93 said:


> Right now I'm using Media Center and my OTA antenna plus netflix and Amazon prime. But by the end of the year they won't be supporting Media Center anymore. I don't need more channels, but I can't live without DVR. I know Tivo has an OTA DVR, and I've seen some others out there pretty cheap. Any recommendations? Do they supply guide data?


HDHomeRun and use Plex - something like this -all guide data plus you can watch live tv/dvr/media on any of your devices. Not too different from your Media center setup and even better.

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/silico...age/9999300000000165.p?skuId=9999300000000165


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

stellie93 said:


> Right now I'm using Media Center and my OTA antenna plus netflix and Amazon prime. But by the end of the year they won't be supporting Media Center anymore. I don't need more channels, but I can't live without DVR. I know Tivo has an OTA DVR, and I've seen some others out there pretty cheap. Any recommendations? Do they supply guide data?


A "renewed" Roamio OTA from the TiVo online outlet (guide data subscription included), or a Bolt OTA (subscription at a reduced price from the normal TiVo pricing). Also, check out used items in the sales section here in the forum. TiVo also will be bringing out a new model of box, with slight audio/video capability enhancements over the current, in the near future.

An Amazon Recast--missing some of TiVo's great features but nicely-priced (guide data is included), and inexpensive to extend to additional TVs (as opposed to the price with TiVo, currently requiring a TiVo Mini for each additional television*--simply requiring an Amazon Fire stick for each television).

Recommendation: look for sales--November/December/Black Friday is a good time, and TiVo has had sales, then, the past few years. The Amazon Recast has been on extended sale in the past for ~$100 less than the current price.

* TiVo currently is working on free apps to extend use to additional televisions without requiring a Mini. The timetable is any time now.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

astrohip said:


> I pay $262/month, that includes all taxes & fees (the credit card charge is what I looked up). Only TV (what else do they offer?). I have every channel you can get, premiums and all. Plus a Genie, plus 3 Minis.


To compare, I pay Comcast $240/month, and that includes Internet. Same level of channels. But I don't pay Comcast for a DVR (have TiVo's), whereas I do DirecTV.

Any way you slice it, DirecTV is one of the more expensive TV options. And for some of us, the *only* option. (I don't count Dish)


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

astrohip said:


> To compare, I pay Comcast $240/month, and that includes Internet. Same level of channels. But I don't pay Comcast for a DVR (have TiVo's), whereas I do DirecTV.
> 
> Any way you slice it, DirecTV is one of the more expensive TV options. And for some of us, the *only* option. (I don't count Dish)


Can you stream as I outlined in my post using a combo of Sling and youtubetv? my cost (similar to yours) will be cut in half. The only problem I see with streaming is the audio is stereo for the most part. I invested a significant amount in my audio equipment and I hate to downgrade to only stereo.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Mikeguy said:


> A "renewed" Roamio OTA from the TiVo online outlet (guide data subscription included), or a Bolt OTA (subscription at a reduced price from the normal TiVo pricing). Also, check out used items in the sales section here in the forum. TiVo also will be bringing out a new model of box, with slight audio/video capability enhancements over the current, in the near future.
> 
> An Amazon Recast--missing some of TiVo's great features but nicely-priced (guide data is included), and inexpensive to extend to additional TVs (as opposed to the price with TiVo, currently requiring a TiVo Mini for each additional television*--simply requiring an Amazon Fire stick for each television).
> 
> ...


Does Amazon Recast work with cable too or just OTA? What about Amazon streamed live content?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Anubys said:


> Can you stream as I outlined in my post using a combo of Sling and youtubetv? my cost (similar to yours) will be cut in half. The only problem I see with streaming is the audio is stereo for the most part. I invested a significant amount in my audio equipment and I hate to downgrade to only stereo.


If your receiver properly applies post processing, then it should sound pretty much the same.
In my testing of the streaming shows I watch that have stereo audio, compared with my TiVo recordings of the same shows with 5.1 audio. Using Dolby Surround processing the audio was placed in the same locations. The same audio emanated from the same speakers.

Of course sometimes the 5.1 audio or the 2.0 audio broadcast is not done properly. And in those cases post processing can't be properly applied. But this has always been the case with OTA and cable. So it's normal for it to happen with streaming as well. But with the content I watch, the vast majority of the time, the audio they send is correct. And post processing can be properly applied.

Most recently I tested the last episode of Killjoys. From Fandango now from my Roku in 5.1 DD+, Fandango Now from my Shield TV with 2.0 PCM, and from my TiVo recording with 5.1 DD. There was one scene that had audio coming from multiple locations. With all three, I got the same audio emanating all my speakers in the 5.1.2 setup I was using.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> Does Amazon Recast work with cable too or just OTA? What about Amazon streamed live content?


It's strictly OTA. For Amazon content, you would need to rely on the Amazon Fire stick that is needed for each of the televisions that the Recast is casting to.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Mikeguy said:


> It's strictly OTA. For Amazon content, you would need to rely on the Amazon Fire stick that is needed for each of the televisions that the Recast is casting to.


Thanks. Just looking at options for down the road. I already own 3-4 firesticks so that's not an issue (and they are cheap enough if I needed more.

I've been considering cable again as they have some decent deals in my area, but, from the little I have read about them, the Altice One DVR stinks and has some weird limitations. I can go the TiVo route of course, but the outlay of cash for it to be viable on all the TVs I'd need it on is pretty steep. So the Amazon Recast, if available for cable use would be a great option. I'm with DirecTV now, but I get more and more mad at what AT&T has done to the service since taking over.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> Thanks. Just looking at options for down the road. I already own 3-4 firesticks so that's not an issue (and they are cheap enough if I needed more.
> 
> I've been considering cable again as they have some decent deals in my area, but, from the little I have read about them, the Altice One DVR stinks and has some weird limitations. I can go the TiVo route of course, but the outlay of cash for it to be viable on all the TVs I'd need it on is pretty steep. So the Amazon Recast, if available for cable use would be a great option. I'm with DirecTV now, but I get more and more mad at what AT&T has done to the service since taking over.


For OTA, the Recast gets especially seductive when it is on sale, as it often has been (~$180 for the more-stocked unit). TiVo also especially can be good when on sale--there typically have been sales in the Nov./Dec./Black Friday season, not too far away (when I would expect the Recast to be on sale as well) . . . .


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

aaronwt said:


> If your receiver properly applies post processing, then it should sound pretty much the same.
> In my testing of the streaming shows I watch that have stereo audio, compared with my TiVo recordings of the same shows with 5.1 audio. Using Dolby Surround processing the audio was placed in the same locations. The same audio emanated from the same speakers.
> 
> Of course sometimes the 5.1 audio or the 2.0 audio broadcast is not done properly. And in those cases post processing can't be properly applied. But this has always been the case with OTA and cable. So it's normal for it to happen with streaming as well. But with the content I watch, the vast majority of the time, the audio they send is correct. And post processing can be properly applied.
> ...


that's a relief...my receiver does post processing...I assumed something must still get lost (like compressing video and then uncompressing it loses something)...thanks!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Mikeguy said:


> For OTA, the Recast gets especially seductive when it is on sale, as it often has been (~$180 for the more-stocked unit). TiVo also especially can be good when on sale--there typically have been sales in the Nov./Dec./Black Friday season, not too far away (when I would expect the Recast to be on sale as well) . . . .


The problem I have with TiVo (and it's almost sacrilegious on this site to say it!) Is that it's REALLY expensive to bring into my system, considering I'd have to buy the head unit PLUS a bunch of minis. If I went with the Recast (and it did what TiVo did), I could use very inexpensive firesticks (and I really would only have to buy one or two more) and the head unit and be done with it. Unfortunately it's only for OTA, and that's only about half of what I'd want to record (and I'd also have to invest in an outdoor antenna, as the indoor ones only bring in about half the available channels).


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Anubys said:


> that's a relief...my receiver does post processing...I assumed something must still get lost (like compressing video and then uncompressing it loses something)...thanks!


But, is Dolby Surround = to Dolby Digital processing? I could be totally wrong but I always assumed that Dolby Digital content was designed to be broadcast that way, while Dolby Surround just took stereo processing and "simulated" multichannel. So the while DD (or DD+ for streaming services) might have, say a cat meowing coming from the back left speaker in a 5.1 setup, the Dolby Surround simulation might have it coming from a different speaker as it wasn't designed to know where it's supposed to come from. Thus, the sound might not sound as natural as DD might. And of course Atmos takes it all a step further.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> But, is Dolby Surround = to Dolby Digital processing? I could be totally wrong but I always assumed that Dolby Digital content was designed to be broadcast that way, while Dolby Surround just took stereo processing and "simulated" multichannel. So the while DD (or DD+ for streaming services) might have, say a cat meowing coming from the back left speaker in a 5.1 setup, the Dolby Surround simulation might have it coming from a different speaker as it wasn't designed to know where it's supposed to come from. Thus, the sound might not sound as natural as DD might. And of course Atmos takes it all a step further.


You are absolutely correct. Dolby Surround fakes surround sound, and really not very well (I believe it just sends the R&L sounds to the surround speakers as well as to the R&L speakers).


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> But, is Dolby Surround = to Dolby Digital processing? I could be totally wrong but I always assumed that Dolby Digital content was designed to be broadcast that way, while Dolby Surround just took stereo processing and "simulated" multichannel. So the while DD (or DD+ for streaming services) might have, say a cat meowing coming from the back left speaker in a 5.1 setup, the Dolby Surround simulation might have it coming from a different speaker as it wasn't designed to know where it's supposed to come from. Thus, the sound might not sound as natural as DD might. And of course Atmos takes it all a step further.


That cat would also be coming from the back left speaker. Assumming the 2.0 is encoded properly. This is what I most recently tested with an episode of Killjoys. Audio that came from the back left or back right with the 5.1 broadcast also came from those speakers with the 2.0 audio from my Shield.

Previously, I've mainly tested with 2.0 audio from Hulu, compared to the 5.1 audio from my TiVo recordings from either OTA or cable.
I prefer to watch from the streaming services because they have better video quality than FiOS. And better quality than OTA in the DC area has now. And initially I was concerned about the stereo audio from some of the shows with the streaming services I used. Until I did a bunch of comparisons.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> You are absolutely correct. Dolby Surround fakes surround sound, and really not very well (I believe it just sends the R&L sounds to the surround speakers as well as to the R&L speakers).


Not at all. If it just put the FL/FR in the rear speakers, it would sound like utter crap. If the 2.0 broadcast is done correctly, it has all the same audio info as the 5.1 encode. As long as all that info is there, the Dolby post processing can properly place the audio. And my comparison testing over the last nine months has shown that. I'll get the same bass from the subwoofer etc.

Even if you have a soundfield test with a person speaking from each channel. If the 2.0 track is encoded properly, after post processing is applied, the voice will still come out of each channel properly. (ie. FL, Center, FR, RR, RL, subwoofer)

Of course, as I mentioned, sometimes the OTA/Cable 5.1 broadcast is messed up. And sometimes the 2.0 streaming broadcast is messed up. In both those cases, post processing cannot be properly applied. And even if you direct play the 5.1 or 2.0 audio in those situations, it still sounds like crap since the audio is not placed in the proper channels.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> That cat would also be coming from the back left speaker. Assumming the 2.0 is encoded properly. This is what I most recently tested with an episode of Killjoys. Audio that came from the back left or back right with the 5.1 broadcast also came from those speakers with the 2.0 audio from my Shield.
> 
> Previously, I've mainly tested with 2.0 audio from Hulu, compared to the 5.1 audio from my TiVo recordings from either OTA or cable.
> I prefer to watch from the streaming services because they have better video quality than FiOS. And better quality than OTA in the DC area has now. And initially I was concerned about the stereo audio from some of the shows with the streaming services I used. Until I did a bunch of comparisons.


From Dolby Laboratory's own documentation:


> 5.1-channel Dolby Digitalprovides two surround channelsto Dolby Surround's one for moreprecise localization of soundsand a more convincing, realisticambience. Also, the surroundchannels cover the entire audiblerange (20-20,000 Hz), whereasthe range of Dolby Surround'ssingle surround channel islimited to 7,000 Hz. This furtherheightens realism and givessound mixers more creativefreedom.In addition, Dolby Digital'smultiple discrete channels enablemore sharply delineated spatialeffects, and its ".1" LFE trackmakes it possible to reproducelow bass effects with stunningimpact (twice as loud as theother channels).


And also this:

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-digital.pdf

Your testing might have different results and of course can be subjective, depending on your hearing, your equipment, the sound source, room design and other factors. These are NOT the same technologies, but can sound similar for sure, and in many cases, only a discerning ear can tell the difference.

Listen to stereo soundtracks on your discs and compare them to what you get with a DD soundtrack. A couple of suggestions would be The Beatles Love or Alan Parsons Project Eye in The Sky which are both avaialbe in stereo and DD formats.

https://www.amazon.com/Love-CD-Audio-DVD-Beatles/dp/B000JJS8TM

https://www.amazon.com/Eye-35th-Ann...=B07D5952LV&psc=1&refRID=0CKAR25XC2BGX6G46HH5


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> From Dolby Laboratory's own documentation:
> 
> And also this:
> 
> ...


That article is almost twenty years old. It's ancient. I am not talking about what they called DOlby Surround back then.
What Dolby calls Dolby Surround today works differently. It would be like comparing apples to oranges. (of course it would have helped to make things less confusing if DOlby had not re-used Dolby Surround for their current processing)

BAck in 2001 I had a 7.1 receiver with the then current DOlby processing, ProLogic II. The DOlby processing available today, is nothing like what they had back then. I thought it did a great job back in 2001. But then in 2005, when I got a newer receiver with PLIIx, it created what seemed like discrete channels in the rear, compared with what they had in 2001. Which worked better. And now, with the current DOlby Surround processing, it works even better.

As I mentioned, I can play back a test signal. Where a person speaks from one channel and then another, and another etc.. Going through all the channels. With the proper 2.0 signal and the Dolby Surround processing, those voices still come from the same channels when they are speaking. The Front audio is not folded into the back.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> That article is almost twenty years old. It's ancient. I am not talking about what they called DOlby Surround back then.
> What Dolby calls Dolby Surround today works differently. It would be like comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> BAck in 2001 I had a 7.1 receiver with the then current DOlby processing. The DOlby processing available today, is nothing like what they had back then.


Which flavor of Dolby Surround are you using? Are you comparing that to a Dolby Digital soundtrack 5.1? I didn't realize that was an old article. Here's a better description from AVSFoorum (a sister site to this one):



> Discrete or "True" surround sound w/compressed audio:
> - Dolby Digital or DTS = 5.1
> - Dolby Digital EX or DTS-ES Discrete = 6.1
> - Dolby Digital Plus or DTS-HD = 7.1
> ...


Broadcast/cable TV is such a bad example of either format because there's often so much compression that content might not be designed to be either true DD or even true stereo. A few shows are good at it but most aren't. What you are suggesting, using post processing is probably fine for that sort of content. I'd never use stereo unpmixed using Dolby Surround if I have a DD stream available.

Last night i watch Catch 22 on Hulu which was in 2.0 and upconverted it to an upmix (actually DTS Surround), and it sounded decent, but I the sound just wasn't as deep or rich than most DD formatted contented on Netflix. Take a listen to one of those sources I mentioned which have both soundtracks. You can definitely here the difference.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Which flavor of Dolby Surround are you using? Are you comparing that to a Dolby Digital soundtrack 5.1? I didn't realize that was an old article. Here's a better description from AVSFoorum (a sister site to this one):
> 
> Broadcast/cable TV is such a bad example of either format because there's often so much compression that content might not be designed to be either true DD or even true stereo. A few shows are good at it but most aren't. What you are suggesting, using post processing is probably fine for that sort of content. I'd never use stereo unpmixed using Dolby Surround if I have a DD stream available.
> 
> Last night i watch Catch 22 on Hulu which was in 2.0 and upconverted it to an upmix (actually DTS Surround), and it sounded decent, but I the sound just wasn't as deep or rich than most DD formatted contented on Netflix. Take a listen to one of those sources I mentioned which have both soundtracks. You can definitely here the difference.


I have the Beatles one. But I also don't typically use DOlby for music. I like the DTS processing better. But I also typically use my nine Echos and two Echo subwoofers when listening to music at home. I don't typically use the audio systems at my TVs. But I'll need to check out the Beatles tracks from my ripped disc.(i haven't listened to an actual CD in many, many years)

With the TV stuff I was mostly comparing my recordings from my TiVos with 5.1 audio, from both OTA and cable. To 2.0 from Hulu. And as you mentioned we are talking broadcast TV. But it does a great job with it. Like I mentioned with a soundfield test. The voice will still come from the proper channel with the soundfield test using 2.0 output and applying DOlby Surround Post processing.

For higher quality content it is lossless and is already in 7.1 audio. Or I'll have a 2.0 track with a 96Khz sampling rate. Instead of the normal 48khz that the 7.1 track typically has. And I do have several titles with 192Khz tracks. But i think one of them had a mono 192Khz track. No idea why.

I do know my favorite is the Akira Blu-ray Disc. With a 5.1, 192Khz, Dolby True HD Japanese track.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> I have the Beatles one. But I also don't typically use DOlby for music. I like the DTS processing better. But I also typically use my nine Echos and two Echo subwoofers when listening to music at home. I don't typically use the audio systems at my TVs. But I'll need to check out the Beatles tracks from my ripped disc.(i haven't listened to an actual CD in many, many years)
> With the TV stuff I was mostly comparing my recordings from my TiVos with 5.1 audio, from both OTA and cable. To 2.0 from Hulu. And as you mentioned we are talking broadcast TV. But it does a great job with it. Like I mentioned with a soundfield test. The voice will still come from the proper channel with the soundfield test using 2.0 output and applying DOlby Surround Post processing.
> 
> For higher quality content it is lossless and is already in 7.1 audio. Or I'll have a 2.0 track at 96Khz.


Some interesting discussion on this here:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...584-dolby-surround-vs-dolby-digital-plus.html

AVSForum is great for this stuff. Learning a lot just trying to understand what you are doing here. Thanks for this. It's interesting that there's an even newer format (and I have it on my receiver, just didn't understand what it does) that takes your DD soundtrack, and upmixes it using Dolby Surround to Atmos. So they've really taken it even a step further. This stuff really fascinates me.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> The problem I have with TiVo (and it's almost sacrilegious on this site to say it!) Is that it's REALLY expensive to bring into my system, considering I'd have to buy the head unit PLUS a bunch of minis. If I went with the Recast (and it did what TiVo did), I could use very inexpensive firesticks (and I really would only have to buy one or two more) and the head unit and be done with it.


Of course, that's one reason why the Recast proves so attractive.

Options for the TiVo cost issue: buy used, or wait and see what happens with Black Friday, etc. sales.

Also, TiVo announced earlier this year that it was working on streaming device apps, due to come out right about now; they would allow a TiVo box's output to be played wirelessly on a television through a streaming device (Fire, Roku, and Apple TV devices/technology), rather than requiring a Mini. TiVo stated that the use of the apps would be no-cost. Of course, this is highly anticipated, and would lessen the cost of TiVo multi-device viewing. (Note that it is unlikely that a TiVo app would provide as high quality (including resolution)/full an experience as a Mini would, and TiVo has suggested or stated as such. But it all remains to be seen.)


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Mikeguy said:


> Of course, that's one reason why the Recast proves so attractive.
> 
> Options for the TiVo cost issue: buy used, or wait and see what happens with Black Friday, etc. sales.
> 
> Also, TiVo announced earlier that it was working on streaming device apps, due to come out right about now; they would allow a TiVo box's output to be played wirelessly on a television through a streaming device, rather than requiring a Mini. TiVo stated that the use of the apps would be no-cost. Of course, this is highly anticipated. (Note that it is unlikely that a TiVo app would provide as high quality (including resolution)/full an experience as a Mini would, and TiVo has suggested or stated as such. But it all remains to be seen.)


Once that is release, TiVo would be a much more attractive option. I'll have to pay attention!!


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> Once that is release, TiVo would be a much more attractive option. I'll have to pay attention!!


I had edited my post to note that TiVo is working on its apps for Roku, Fire, and Apple TV devices/technology--already having Fire sticks, you would already be covered in that regard.  I would expect_ lots_ of chatter here when/if the apps issue.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Mikeguy said:


> I had edited my post to note that TiVo is working on its apps for Roku, Fire, and Apple TV devices/technology--already having Fire sticks, you would already be covered in that regard.  I would expect_ lots_ of chatter here when/if the apps issue.


Also have Roku too, so I'm covered there as well. I will keep my eyes open. That might be the time I jump ship from DirecTV


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

Since dropping cable, I've actually had offers from them for as little as $80/month for their "Extra" level of tv channels, their 250Mbps speed internet, free dvr for 24 months, free showtime for 24 months. I have to pay $80/month just for the (150Mbps) internet right now. In a way, that's almost tempting to go back to, but it's really more like $100-$110 by the time you add fees in, and part of the reason I left comcast was I was getting disappointed by their picture quality. But it's laughable in a way, because when I commented on offers like these to new customers when I went to turn in my equipment, they wouldn't do anything at all for me.

Also interesting that they now seem to actually offer gigabit service in my area, for $90/month for 12 months. Not really worth upgrading from 150Mbs a month for my purposes, especially with 1T caps in my area.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Anubys said:


> Can you stream as I outlined in my post using a combo of Sling and youtubetv?


No Internet. That's why I have DirecTV.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> Which flavor of Dolby Surround are you using? Are you comparing that to a Dolby Digital soundtrack 5.1? I didn't realize that was an old article. Here's a better description from AVSFoorum (a sister site to this one):
> 
> Broadcast/cable TV is such a bad example of either format because there's often so much compression that content might not be designed to be either true DD or even true stereo. A few shows are good at it but most aren't. What you are suggesting, using post processing is probably fine for that sort of content. I'd never use stereo unpmixed using Dolby Surround if I have a DD stream available.
> 
> Last night i watch Catch 22 on Hulu which was in 2.0 and upconverted it to an upmix (actually DTS Surround), and it sounded decent, but I the sound just wasn't as deep or rich than most DD formatted contented on Netflix. Take a listen to one of those sources I mentioned which have both soundtracks. You can definitely here the difference.


I have my receiver set to decode when the source is stereo and when it's true 5.1 it uses that.

It's used mostly for Hulu which is a great improvement over the dopey stereo they insist on providing on many platforms (Android TV in my case). I do hear sounds from behind that are not in the front and of course dialog from the center, however, as you mention, there is a definite loss in depth.

My receiver is a few years old and it uses Pro Logic II. I don't know if it has IIx or if that would be better. I'll check later.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

I really need to check out my reciever and make sure my settings are good



Steveknj said:


> Which flavor of Dolby Surround are you using? Are you comparing that to a Dolby Digital soundtrack 5.1? I didn't realize that was an old article. Here's a better description from AVSFoorum (a sister site to this one):
> 
> ```
> Discrete or “True” surround sound w/compressed audio:
> ...


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

hapster85 said:


> As of this month, my Netflix bill is over $20. Beginning to wonder if it's still worth it. It's 2019. Why the hell are they, or anyone, still charging a premium for HD?


The most expensive plan on Netflix is $15.99 - are you paying for more than one account? You can get HD for $12.99.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

Zevida said:


> The most expensive plan on Netflix is $15.99 - are you paying for more than one account? You can get HD for $12.99.


Hapster85 might also have a DVD/Blu-ray plan.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

Allanon said:


> Hapster85 might also have a DVD/Blu-ray plan.


I do. $12.99 streaming plan plus $5.99 single Blu-ray plan for $18.98. I think I need to reach out to them, though. Looking at my billing history, the tax doubled in July, and doubled again in August.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

stellie93 said:


> Right now I'm using Media Center and my OTA antenna plus netflix and Amazon prime. But by the end of the year they won't be supporting Media Center anymore. I don't need more channels, but I can't live without DVR. I know Tivo has an OTA DVR, and I've seen some others out there pretty cheap. Any recommendations? Do they supply guide data?


Windows Media Center hasn't been supported by Microsoft for at least a couple of years. They no longer offer it in the Microsoft Store as a download for Windows 8.1. That doesn't mean you can't still use it. I use an app called epg123 that gets guide data from Schedules Direct for a fee of $25 per year for up to five TVs, IIRC. I will continue to use Windows Media Center for years to come. I switched to epg123 because I got tired of guide data almost running out and everyone going into a panic over it. Microsoft switched to using Rovi as their provider a couple of years ago and we all know how crappy that is. Schedules Direct gets their data from Tribune Media. The data is more complete and it will never run out, unlike the Rovi data from Microsoft. Epg123 allows you to customize how your data looks and I believe you can get data out as far as 30 days, although a lot of it is mostly placeholders. Most channels don't have any meaningful data beyond two weeks. I love that you can include the season and episode information in the title of the recording.

The support forum is here and there's a download link for the app and setup instructions at the top of the forum. If you enjoy using WMC then it's well worth it. It's relatively easy to set up and it can be scheduled to run on a daily basis so you will always have the latest guide data.

I'm on Verizon FIOS and the only hardware I rent are two cablecards. One is used in a Ceton InfiniTV6 cablecard tuner and the other is used in a SiliconDust HDHomeRun Prime. I have five HTPCs in my house that run 24/7 and all of them use epg123 with Windows 7 Media Center and they can access every FIOS channel that I subscribe to. The Ceton tuner is installed in a full ATX HTPC that's part of my home theater system. The other TVs are run off of 1st generation Intel NUCs which are all about the size of a Roku box.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

This is great--thanks. I'll give it a try when my data runs out. The only thing is my computer is old and very short on space. When it dies. media center goes with it, right?


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

If you want free EGP data use zap2xml.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

For those with YouTubeTV

When you record a sporting event, do you need or can you pad it? Or does it automatically get the whole game?


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

MikeMar said:


> For those with YouTubeTV
> 
> When you record a sporting event, do you need or can you pad it? Or does it automatically get the whole game?


Only had it two weeks, but all the games I've recorded have had the full game.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

One thing with YTTV that I don't like is you can't mark something to save forever. I have no idea when the DVR deletes older recordings.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

DavidTigerFan said:


> One thing with YTTV that I don't like is you can't mark something to save forever. I have no idea when the DVR deletes older recordings.


When does it delete old recordings, you mean after 9 months? Thought it was an unlimited DVR


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I just listened to a college football podcast where they were talking about the different cord-cutting options and they were extolling the virtues of YTTV. The hosts were talking about how they had dozens of CFB games from last fall still saved on their YTTV DVRs, some more than 9 months old. So is YTTV not very diligent about deleting stuff after 9 months?


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

MikeMar said:


> When does it delete old recordings, you mean after 9 months? Thought it was an unlimited DVR


Its unlimited so far, but surely they delete your watched recordings at some point?


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

I'd ASSumed that "unlimited" was space, not time. You can record as much as you want, but they delete it after 9 months.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Well going to be testing the quality of NFL games

recording the game tonight and the pats game on

Fios
YouTubeTV
Sling


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

allan said:


> I'd ASSumed that "unlimited" was space, not time. You can record as much as you want, but they delete it after 9 months.


You are correct. Did someone say anything different? I think one poster noticed that things may have stayed longer than 9 months and another said maybe they're not diligent in deleting things.

But it's unlimited space and you can't count on things older than 9 months old to still be there.

Here's the text from their site:

*The only DVR with unlimited storage space*
Build your dream library of sports, news, shows, and movies-at no additional cost.


No limit on simultaneous recordings
Stream your library wherever you go
Personal library space for each account
Recordings kept for 9 months


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

MikeMar said:


> Well going to be testing the quality of NFL games
> 
> recording the game tonight and the pats game on
> 
> ...


Can't wait to see what you find...I didn't even think of recording the game on Sling and compare it to DirecTV 

I'll do that for MNF


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Anubys said:


> Can't wait to see what you find...I didn't even think of recording the game on Sling and compare it to DirecTV
> 
> I'll do that for MNF


Actually couldn't watch the game last night, but looked quickly this morning

Fios and YouTubeTV were DAMN close or the same basically
Sling was meh

So going to record everything I can on YouTubeTV


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

stellie93 said:


> This is great--thanks. I'll give it a try when my data runs out. The only thing is my computer is old and very short on space. When it dies. media center goes with it, right?


Not if you're running Windows 7. Just reinstall it and set it back up. I would highly recommend creating a backup of your current PC so you can restore it later if need be. It's much easier than reinstalling everything from scratch again. I'm not sure if you could even download any updates for it once Microsoft pulls the plug. Note that it will only restore to a PC with the exact same motherboard and CPU. Ebay is your friend for finding older hardware. Storage space can be added with no problem.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Anubys said:


> I think one poster noticed that things may have stayed longer than 9 months and another said maybe they're not diligent in deleting things.


It's like the yellow exclamation mark on a TiVo, that supposedly means a program is about to be deleted. Year after year.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Allanon said:


> If you want free EGP data use zap2xml.


That's great, but does it automatically import the guide data into WMC or give you any other options like adding season and episode information? How far out does the data extend? Epg123 does all of this for you and $25 per year for guide data isn't going to break the bank for anyone. I don't doubt that there are other options out there, but there aren't too may configured to use with WMC as easily as epg123 using the data from Schedules Direct.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

mr.unnatural said:


> That's great, but does it automatically import the guide data into WMC or give you any other options like adding season and episode information? How far out does the data extend? Epg123 does all of this for you and $25 per year for guide data isn't going to break the bank for anyone. I don't doubt that there are other options out there, but there aren't too may configured to use with WMC as easily as epg123 using the data from Schedules Direct.


I don't use it with WMC but the XML file it produces is standard and works with most devices. You can run and update the data whenever you want using the Windows Scheduler. Using zap2it.com you can get 10 days of data and 13 days from TVGuide.com. I use Kodi as my media center and it has other addons that handle episode and series data and I'm sure WMC has other addons as well.

I was just pointing out a free option, not dissing EPG123.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I can't find anything on the Sling web site to tell me what resolution they have...Do they have anything in 4k?


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

Anubys said:


> I can't find anything on the Sling web site to tell me what resolution they have...Do they have anything in 4k?


I don't think so.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Allanon said:


> I don't use it with WMC but the XML file it produces is standard and works with most devices. You can run and update the data whenever you want using the Windows Scheduler. Using zap2it.com you can get 10 days of data and 13 days from TVGuide.com. I use Kodi as my media center and it has other addons that handle episode and series data and I'm sure WMC has other addons as well.
> 
> I was just pointing out a free option, not dissing EPG123.


I understand, but the discussion about epg123 was pertaining to it being used with Windows Media Center. It integrates seamlessly with the DVR function in WMC and replaces the Rovi guide provided by Microsoft. Unless I'm mistaken, zap2it is the same as Tribune Media so the guide data is coming from the same source. Epg123 allows you to download up to 30 days worth of data, although the first 14 days is really the only meaningful data as most channels don't have data that far out.

WMC used to have all sorts of add-ons once upon a time, but most of them have vanished into the woodwork. I used to have all sorts of themes and other add-ons for my HTPCs, but I found that just keeping the configuration as simple as possible made for a much more reliable experience without all of the bells and whistles. I have Kodi installed on several of my HTPCs, but I use JRiver Media Center on my Windows 10 HTPC for 4k playback and Nvidia Shields for streaming and playing movies on other PCs.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Watching the NFL Redzone channel on Sling. Observations:

1. Picture was a little jittery at the start for 1-2 seconds. This happened a couple of times but stopped.
2. Can't pause/rewind (not allow on this channel).
3. Watched the recording of it instead, and I can pause and rewind.
4. When I press rewind (or FF), the picture continues to play as if I'm not doing anything. The marker goes backwards, though. When I press play, it does start to play from where I had stopped rewinding. But that makes it impossible to know if you've gone back far enough or too far if the picture does not rewind with you!


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Anubys said:


> Watching the NFL Redzone channel on Sling. Observations:
> 
> 1. Picture was a little jittery at the start for 1-2 seconds. This happened a couple of times but stopped.
> 2. Can't pause/rewind (not allow on this channel).
> ...


Agree to all of this, if they hope they bring in people because of RedZone, not happening
I'm recording everything I can on YouTubeTV and only watching redzone on Sling (and wife with lifetime) but that's it. Sling interface and everything is just not good

YouTubeTV is just light years ahead of Sling


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I'll also add that there's no screen saver on Sling...

I will stay pay them rather than pay DirecTV (I'll pay more to Sling if I have to!), but I sure hope their interface improves


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

I've cut the cord with YouTube TV, but I'm finding that some of my recordings are forcing me to watch commercials even if I've recorded the show. Specifically, big brother. Watching the one recorded on Wednesday this week and it's making us watch unskippablecommercials everycommercial break. This is like when your watching on demand shows. What gives.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Did some digging. I had the DVR recording available under "other recordings" but it said "CBS has restricted access to this, watch another recording instead" it then makes me watch the VOD version that has commercials. That's BS


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Ugh. Evidently it's just CBS that does this.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Not surprising...CBS has long been the most DVR-unfriendly network.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

jr461 said:


> I have my receiver set to decode when the source is stereo and when it's true 5.1 it uses that.
> 
> It's used mostly for Hulu which is a great improvement over the dopey stereo they insist on providing on many platforms (Android TV in my case). I do hear sounds from behind that are not in the front and of course dialog from the center, however, as you mention, there is a definite loss in depth.
> 
> My receiver is a few years old and it uses Pro Logic II. I don't know if it has IIx or if that would be better. I'll check later.


Yes. That is extremely old. My 2001 receiver had PLII and my 2005(or was it 2008?) receiver had PLIIx. Neither of those are even an option on the last receiver I got a few years ago

PLIIx simulated discrete surround channels while PLII had mono surround.
What's available now is far beyond what those were capable of.
Sent from my Nexus 7(32GB)


----------



## tigercat74 (Aug 7, 2004)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Ugh. Evidently it's just CBS that does this.


CBS and CW


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Not surprising...CBS has long been the most DVR-unfriendly network.


Another reason why it's not a surprise is we discussed this issue a few posts ago and concluded that it's only CBS and CW


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> Yes. That is extremely old. My 2001 receiver had PLII and my 2005(or was it 2008?) receiver had PLIIx. Neither of those are even an option on the last receiver I got a few years ago
> 
> PLIIx simulated discrete surround channels while PLII had mono surround.
> What's available now is far beyond what those were capable of.
> Sent from my Nexus 7(32GB)


My receiver is vintage 2016. The newest (at least as of 2016) iteration of Dolby Surround is oddly called well, Dolby Surround (which makes things REALLY confusing (rival DTS has something similar for their discreet sound) What Dolby Surround does that Pro Logic didn't is try to emulate Atmos if you have upfiring speakers. So it REALLY sounds a LOT better than Pro Logic. It's STILL not quite as good as Dolby Digital, let alone Atmos, but it IS a lot better than what it used to be. It's STILL a simulator and for most content that's fine. But for content that is designed to use true DD or Atmos, it just doesn't sound as good. It just doesn't sound as "rich". For example, the airplane sound on Catch 22 on Hulu kind of emulate overhead sounds, but similar sound on a movie like Dunkirk pretty much shake the ground as it goes overhead and you really get the feeling of planes overhead. Most content on regular TV (broadcast or cable channels) don't really make good used of the Dolby Digital content they have. Most is just upmixed stereo which works fine for Dolby Surround. A few shows (and I've noticed this quite often on NBC shows....Chuck from a few years ago was an example) have a good Dolby Digital sound mix. But mostly they aren't great.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Not surprising...CBS has long been the most DVR-unfriendly network.


I only see this with their Sunday prime time lineup. CBS has been screwing up their Sunday night schedule for decades. I just pad any recordings of CBS shows on Sunday nights by an hour to account for any NFL overruns. Otherwise I just delete the show from my recording schedule. There's nothing on the networks that I consider "must see TV" regardless of what they say. I don't recall ever having any issues with the CW as far as their schedule for any of the shows I record.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

aaronwt said:


> Yes. That is extremely old. My 2001 receiver had PLII and my 2005(or was it 2008?) receiver had PLIIx. Neither of those are even an option on the last receiver I got a few years ago
> 
> PLIIx simulated discrete surround channels while PLII had mono surround.
> What's available now is far beyond what those were capable of.
> Sent from my Nexus 7(32GB)


It's not that old - it's a Yamaha RX V473 which I have for about 5 years and I think it came out around 2012 or so.

Anyway, it's just for Hulu as I'm getting 5.1 from all the others now that I discovered that optical audio cables don't support DD+  
Switching to HDMI, running cable through the receiver and utlizing ARC brought in the 5.1 from CBSAA and HBO Go, leaving Hulu as the only one still just in stereo (I'm using the Android TV apps). I can live with the faux surround although I was told by their CS that my TV model should support 5.1 on Hulu.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jr461 said:


> It's not that old - it's a Yamaha RX V473 which I have for about 5 years and I think it came out around 2012 or so.
> 
> Anyway, it's just for Hulu as I'm getting 5.1 from all the others now that I discovered that optical audio cables don't support DD+
> Switching to HDMI, running cable through the receiver and utlizing ARC brought in the 5.1 from CBSAA and HBO Go, leaving Hulu as the only one still just in stereo (I'm using the Android TV apps). I can live with the faux surround although I was told by their CS that my TV model should support 5.1 on Hulu.


Is there a model or a streamer that does Hulu 5.1? I have tried it with Roku, and LG's Web OS (I also have a Firesick and XBox so I can try those as well.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

Steveknj said:


> Is there a model or a streamer that does Hulu 5.1? I have tried it with Roku, and LG's Web OS (I also have a Firesick and XBox so I can try those as well.


Hulu supports some content in 5.1 on some devices. See here:

Hulu Help


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

hapster85 said:


> Hulu supports some content in 5.1 on some devices. See here:
> 
> Hulu Help


Thanks. I wonder why my LG TV didn't pick up 5.1. Maybe it was just the content I was watching (Handmaid's Tale, Catch 22) I'll have to try again.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

MikeMar said:


> Still shocked you are paying $240 for JUST TV to DirecTV??? that seems crazy crazy high


Wowzer! I thought satellite was less expensive and that was why a lot of peeps went from cable to satellite. I pay a little less than that for cable tv, landline, and internet combined. TV - I have all the Premium channels. Internet - fast.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> Is there a model or a streamer that does Hulu 5.1? I have tried it with Roku, and LG's Web OS (I also have a Firesick and XBox so I can try those as well.


The 4K Firestick has Hulu in 5.1. My Sony TV model (2018) is also supposed to be supported per a chat I had with them but it's still only stereo.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jr461 said:


> The 4K Firestick has Hulu in 5.1. My Sony TV model (2018) is also supposed to be supported per a chat I had with them but it's still only stereo.


I'll have to try it with the firesitck (I have the 4k version from a couple of years ago).


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

jr461 said:


> The 4K Firestick has Hulu in 5.1. My Sony TV model (2018) is also supposed to be supported per a chat I had with them but it's still only stereo.


The problem is that even though it might be outputting 5.1 from Hulu, sometimes the 5.1 is borked. And actually the 2.0 encode is correct and creates a proper soundfield. While the 5.1 soundfield sounds like ass.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> The problem is that even though it might be outputting 5.1 from Hulu, sometimes the 5.1 is borked. And actually the 2.0 encode is correct and creates a proper soundfield. While the 5.1 soundfield sounds like ass.


That's a problem with lots of content. Even with that, you have a borked soundfield vs. a "guessed" soundfield (using Dolby Surround). Neither is probably what production wants. So it's really whatever sounds better to the listener. Stereo might be the best option here and might just be more natural sounding.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

So just spoke with Verizon and got these 2 offers

$120 100/100 Internet/Phone (taxes, fees, all included) and also a $12 rental of modem included
or
$105 about for 100/100 Internet/Phone/Streaming only TV (same, all taxes/fees included) and also the $12 modem rental

Have the Eero setup but with Fios modem in Bridge. Going to get that plugged directly into the Fios ONT box and not need the modem anymore and go with the triple bundle obviously

So wouldn't be bad for like $90'ish for those 3 (probably never use streaming, but who knows for random channels I don't get on YTTV)


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> That's a problem with lots of content. Even with that, you have a borked soundfield vs. a "guessed" soundfield (using Dolby Surround). Neither is probably what production wants. So it's really whatever sounds better to the listener. Stereo might be the best option here and might just be more natural sounding.


The issue only occurs when the 2.0 or 5.1 audio is not encoded properly. Fortunately most of the content I watch is encoded properly. When it is, it will produce a proper soundfield from post processing. When it isn't, it sounds like ass.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

So, Apple TV+ will be $4.99/month for a family subscription. But they are giving a free year with every Apple device purchase. That's smart. Being a new service with 100% original content, they need to get people to give it a try, somehow.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

markb said:


> So, Apple TV+ will be $4.99/month for a family subscription. But they are giving a free year with every Apple device purchase. That's smart. Being a new service with 100% original content, they need to get people to give it a try, somehow.


Tim Cook mentioned there would be lots of other movies and programs available, so I don't think they're going to be 100% original. They must have licensed some additional content to make their offering more competitive.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Tim Cook mentioned there would be lots of other movies and programs available, so I don't think they're going to be 100% original. They must have licensed some additional content to make their offering more competitive.


That will certainly help. I wonder what they're going to be able to license, though, with everyone and their brother launching a streaming TV service, these days!


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

jr461 said:


> It's not that old - it's a Yamaha RX V473 which I have for about 5 years and I think it came out around 2012 or so.
> 
> Anyway, it's just for Hulu as I'm getting 5.1 from all the others now that I discovered that optical audio cables don't support DD+
> Switching to HDMI, running cable through the receiver and utlizing ARC brought in the 5.1 from CBSAA and HBO Go, leaving Hulu as the only one still just in stereo (I'm using the Android TV apps). I can live with the faux surround although I was told by their CS that my TV model should support 5.1 on Hulu.


I'm noticing something odd since switching to ARC. Again, the receiver is about 5 years old and the TV is a 2018 model Sony (X900F).
When I power them on, I get sound through the receiver for just a few seconds and then no sound. If I turn the receiver off and then on again the sound is fine.

Any ideas on what's causing this? I would replace the receiver if it was a bad jack but my thought is that if the HDMI jack was bad then powering off and on wouldn't help. Not sure if this is relevant but I power everything on with a Harmony 650 remote - is it possible I need to build in a delay between TV and receiver power (or the other way around)?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jr461 said:


> I'm noticing something odd since switching to ARC. Again, the receiver is about 5 years old and the TV is a 2018 model Sony (X900F).
> When I power them on, I get sound through the receiver for just a few seconds and then no sound. If I turn the receiver off and then on again the sound is fine.
> 
> Any ideas on what's causing this? I would replace the receiver if it was a bad jack but my thought is that if the HDMI jack was bad then powering off and on wouldn't help. Not sure if this is relevant but I power everything on with a Harmony 650 remote - is it possible I need to build in a delay between TV and receiver power (or the other way around)?


First thing I'd try is replacing the HDMI cable. At least rule that out. I've had that issue before, and it just did that, but for some reason eventually it self righted and worked. ARC has always been very finicky. As I've said, this Denon is the first AVR that I've owned where ARC works around 90% of them time, (and it's been about 100% of the time for about a year now). When it doesn't work, I'll just run an Optical cable for sound (which doesn't handle more advanced sound like DD+ or above), and every so often try ARC again. It's not critical for me, as most TV I watch comes from other sources (DirecTV Receiver, Roku, etc.), but since my TV does Dolby Vision, I like to watch Netflix through the Smart TV.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> First thing I'd try is replacing the HDMI cable. At least rule that out. I've had that issue before, and it just did that, but for some reason eventually it self righted and worked. ARC has always been very finicky. As I've said, this Denon is the first AVR that I've owned where ARC works around 90% of them time, (and it's been about 100% of the time for about a year now). When it doesn't work, I'll just run an Optical cable for sound (which doesn't handle more advanced sound like DD+ or above), and every so often try ARC again. It's not critical for me, as most TV I watch comes from other sources (DirecTV Receiver, Roku, etc.), but since my TV does Dolby Vision, I like to watch Netflix through the Smart TV.


I can check it with another cable but replacing the one that's there now would be problematic since it's installed behind the wall and getting a new one in there is not something I'm equipped to do. It is a new cable, however, so hopefully that's not it. On the other hand, if ARC is finicky to begin with, even if it works with another cable it may not mean it's the cable.

Just curious - how old is your receiver? I'm wondering if a newer one might be more stable with ARC possibly (or maybe I'm just looking for an excuse to get a new one ).

Thanks


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jr461 said:


> I can check it with another cable but replacing the one that's there now would be problematic since it's installed behind the wall and getting a new one in there is not something I'm equipped to do. It is a new cable, however, so hopefully that's not it. On the other hand, if ARC is finicky to begin with, even if it works with another cable it may not mean it's the cable.
> 
> Just curious - how old is your receiver? I'm wondering if a newer one might be more stable with ARC possibly (or maybe I'm just looking for an excuse to get a new one ).
> 
> Thanks


My receiver is a 2016 Denon - lower middle tier receiver AVRS920H I believe is the model number. I know there's a new standard called eARC which is suppose to be better and more robust, and I think it was rolled on the more current receivers (2018 and 2019 models). I've had Onkyo, Pioneer and Sony receivers that ARC worked pretty poorly with. As I said, this is the first receiver that it works reasonably well with.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

Hmm...eARC. Maybe that's the answer! I believe the same company now owns Onkyo, Denon, Marantz and Pioneer. Of course that doesn't mean they're all the same. Just look at who Volkswagen owns!

Anyway, I can receive any of these tomorrow with free returns. Might be worth a try. I think the Sony would be my last choice among these but curious if you (or anyone) had any feelings one way or another towards any of them.

https://www.amazon.com/Sony-STR-DH7...ords=earc&qid=1568388708&s=electronics&sr=1-5

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07CF9H3KW/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_1?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07QRC9NP5/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_1?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> My receiver is a 2016 Denon - lower middle tier receiver AVRS920H I believe is the model number. I know there's a new standard called eARC which is suppose to be better and more robust, and I think it was rolled on the more current receivers (2018 and 2019 models). I've had Onkyo, Pioneer and Sony receivers that ARC worked pretty poorly with. As I said, this is the first receiver that it works reasonably well with.


eARC allows for lossless audio. SO the same audio you can send directly to the receiver can be sent over eARC.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jr461 said:


> Hmm...eARC. Maybe that's the answer! I believe the same company now owns Onkyo, Denon, Marantz and Pioneer. Of course that doesn't mean they're all the same. Just look at who Volkswagen owns!
> 
> Anyway, I can receive any of these tomorrow with free returns. Might be worth a try. I think the Sony would be my last choice among these but curious if you (or anyone) had any feelings one way or another towards any of them.
> 
> ...


I like Denon products. And that one has more HDMI ports that the other. if you don't think you need more, you might in the future 

If you are not adverse to refurbs I bout my AVR from accessories4less. Here's the Denon you were looking at:

DENON AVR-S650H 5.2-Ch x 75 Watts A/V Receiver w/HEOS


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Just cut the cord officially. Dtv cancelled service yesterday. Youtube TV is working great!


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> I like Denon products. And that one has more HDMI ports that the other. if you don't think you need more, you might in the future
> 
> If you are not adverse to refurbs I bout my AVR from accessories4less. Here's the Denon you were looking at:
> 
> DENON AVR-S650H 5.2-Ch x 75 Watts A/V Receiver w/HEOS


Thanks for the tip, although that one is sold out. I also just read that both components (TV and receiver) need to have eARC and my TV only has ARC, so it doesn't sound like eARC on the receiver will help towards achieving startup stability


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jr461 said:


> Thanks for the tip, although that one is sold out. I also just read that both components (TV and receiver) need to have eARC and my TV only has ARC, so it doesn't sound like eARC on the receiver will help towards achieving startup stability


I don't know if it would improve it even if just one part has it. I guess it takes two to tango. I know how frustrating ARC can be. You might just want to use optical and be done with it. Just upconvert using Dolby Surround as Aaronwt has been suggeting for surround on things other than vanilla Dolby Digital, until you can upgrade your components.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> I don't know if it would improve it even if just one part has it. I guess it takes two to tango. I know how frustrating ARC can be. You might just want to use optical and be done with it. Just upconvert using Dolby Surround as Aaronwt has been suggeting for surround on things other than vanilla Dolby Digital, until you can upgrade your components.


That's what I was doing but it's nice having "real" 5.1. I'll play around with things and see if anything helps. Thanks for all the advice.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I like Denon products. And that one has more HDMI ports that the other. if you don't think you need more, you might in the future
> 
> If you are not adverse to refurbs I bout my AVR from accessories4less. Here's the Denon you were looking at:
> 
> DENON AVR-S650H 5.2-Ch x 75 Watts A/V Receiver w/HEOS


I bought my old Denon 4520 from them 5+ years ago. It crapped out on me 2.5 years later and I still haven't sent it in to get repaired yet, under the extended warranty. I made the mistake of buying that right before Atmos blew up. I spent way too much money on it even being a refurb. Now you can get something that is much better, brand new, for half the price.

I also bought another Denon from them in 2009/2010, 380xx series. That one worked fine for the five years I had it.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> I bought my old Denon 4520 from them 5+ years ago. It crapped out on me 2.5 years later and I still haven't sent it in to get repaired yet, under the extended warranty. I made the mistake of buying that right before Atmos blew up. I spent way too much money on it even being a refurb. Now you can get something that is much better, brand new, for half the price.
> 
> I also bought another Denon from them in 2009/2010, 380xx series. That one worked fine for the five years I had it.


I'm on about 2 years on mine, and it's been pretty solid. Usually I can go 3-4 years before there's some new feature I want and I get something new. So if I do refurb and it lasts me that long, I'm happy. I had refurb speakers from Onkyo that lasted me about 10 years before I decided I wanted something a bit better. Only thing I could find wrong with them was a very minor blemish that nobody would notice unless you looked.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Officially cut the cord (well TV cord) with Verizon

Before - TV (Middle package, good amount of channels but not all) 100/100 internet, and phone
Cost *$180* a month

Now - TV is YouTubeTV, internet got bumped for free to gig! (well 900/900), and ditching their router, got Eero, and phone (and an extra $10 discount for having mobile phones on unlimited)
Cost $87 to Verizon and $50 to YTTV so *$137* with a massive speed upgrade and only thing missing of note is DIY network

Pretty happy with that


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

MikeMar said:


> Now - TV is YouTubeTV, internet got bumped for free to gig! (well 900/900), and ditching their router, got Eero, and phone (and an extra $10 discount for having mobile phones on unlimited)
> Cost $87 to Verizon and $50 to YTTV so *$137* with a massive speed upgrade and only thing missing of note is DIY network


I'm not sure what you mean by "for free"? New customer Internet-only rates for Fios are $40 for 100/100, $80 for 940/880 (or whatever).


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

wmcbrine said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "for free"? New customer Internet-only rates for Fios are $40 for 100/100, $80 for 940/880 (or whatever).


I have phone too

The cost was the exact same if I stayed with 100
I asked like 20 times


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

I don't have a link to the full story, but the headline is pretty explosive:

Investors Claim AT&T Created Fake Streaming Service Accounts to Hide Failure | New York Law Journal


----------



## longrider (Oct 26, 2017)

Interesting article, outline was able to get it

https://outline.com/Y5byVj


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Company fraud is not a good thing.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

hey, the stock price is at a 52 week high (or close to it, IIRC)...so they're doing something right


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

longrider said:


> Interesting article, outline was able to get it
> 
> https://outline.com/Y5byVj


That link doesn't work for some reason.


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

DevdogAZ said:


> That link doesn't work for some reason.


This one will: Outline - Read & annotate without distractions


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> That link doesn't work for some reason.


If you cut and paste the article's title in to Google then click the link in the search results you should be able to read the entire article. The news sites don't want other sites benefiting from their stories so they ask you to register. They don't ask you to register if the link is from a search engine.

In the Chrome Browser you can just highlight the title and right click and select search.


----------



## longrider (Oct 26, 2017)

DevdogAZ said:


> That link doesn't work for some reason.


I fixed the link, the issue was the forum software added an extra http:// so the link was "http://https://outline..."


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

News on HBO Max: It will arrive May 2020, at a price of $14.99/month.

And in what's good news for me, if you subscribe to HBO thru ATT or DirecTV, you will have access to HBO Max at no additional charge.

HBO Max Sets May Launch, Reveals $14.99/Month Subscription Price


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

astrohip said:


> News on HBO Max: It will arrive May 2020, at a price of $14.99/month.
> 
> And in what's good news for me, if you subscribe to HBO thru ATT or DirecTV, you will have access to HBO Max at no additional charge.
> 
> HBO Max Sets May Launch, Reveals $14.99/Month Subscription Price


Nice. I hope this means if you have HBO through AT&T then you get HBO Max, period. I have it now because I'm on unlimited choice but that plan no longer exists, replaced by unlimited more. Hopefully it's not just for those on the unlimited more plan or whatever plan it is they have by the time Max rolls out.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Isn't $15/month about what HBO currently charges for HBO Go? So basically this new service will replace the existing HBO streaming offering and provide more content for the same price. Seems like a no-brainer for people who already pay for HBO.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Isn't $15/month about what HBO currently charges for HBO Go? So basically this new service will replace the existing HBO streaming offering and provide more content for the same price. Seems like a no-brainer for people who already pay for HBO.


Yes, HBO Now is the standalone streaming service, and it's $15. HBO Go comes with a subscription to HBO through cable or similar. I have HBO as part of my cable package so I'll just have to wait and see how that works out.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Heard on /filmdaily I think it was talking about who gets HBO MAX included in what package. Basically they have to negotiate with each provider (Verizon, Xfinity, Amazon, iTunes, etc) separately, so won't know the details for a while


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Luckily for me, I recently switched my cable package on Comcast to one that doesn't include HBO and I then subscribed to HBO directly via HBO Now (and still saved money). I'm all set for HBO Max next spring...


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

I have HBO Now through my Hulu subscription. I suppose I should cancel that and sign up directly with HBO Now.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Dawghows said:


> I have HBO Now through my Hulu subscription. I suppose I should cancel that and sign up directly with HBO Now.


Maybe? AT&T could still strike a deal with Hulu to offer HBO Max. So far, they haven't really given any information on how that was going.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

realityboy said:


> Maybe? AT&T could still strike a deal with Hulu to offer HBO Max. So far, they haven't really given any information on how that was going.


Exactly. But it makes no real difference to me; the price is the same, currently, whether I go through Hulu or subscribe directly. I only went the Hulu route because it was an option when I signed up for Showtime via Hulu (which, at the time, _did_ save money on Showtime).


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

realityboy said:


> Yes, HBO Now is the standalone streaming service, and it's $15. HBO Go comes with a subscription to HBO through cable or similar. I have HBO as part of my cable package so I'll just have to wait and see how that works out.


Thanks. I always got confused with Now and Go as to which was the OTT service.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I just signed up for Disney+ at the yearly rate of $69.99. The free preview period begins Nov 12. I use an Nvidia Shield for streaming but there is currently no app for watching Disney+ available. Is it safe to assume that one will become available once they start streaming? Is there one available for the Tivo yet? They say I can stream on up to a dozen different devices but there's no info on their website that says how I can do that.

Never mind. Just found out that the Disney+ app will be released on Nov 12


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> I just signed up for Disney+ at the yearly rate of $69.99. The free preview period begins Nov 12. I use an Nvidia Shield for streaming but there is currently no app for watching Disney+ available. Is it safe to assume that one will become available once they start streaming? Is there one available for the Tivo yet? They say I can stream on up to a dozen different devices but there's no info on their website that says how I can do that.
> 
> Never mind. Just found out that the Disney+ app will be released on Nov 12


Along a similar line, I have a Sony TV with Android, and watch streaming services via the native Android apps on the TV* (Netflix, Amazon, Hulu,etc). Can we expect Disney+ to get added as an app? Anyone have any experience with how Sony (or Android) have handled this in the past?


_*Load time Netflix on Roamio, 10 secs. Load time Android on TV, 1 sec. And 4K!_


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

There's an Android TV Disney+ app coming (although reports from beta-testing is that it's not very good yet)...

But I'm sure, quality issues aside, that Disney will have apps available on pretty much every platform at launch.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> There's an Android TV Disney+ app coming (although reports from beta-testing is that it's not very good yet)...
> 
> But I'm sure, quality issues aside, that Disney will have apps available on pretty much every platform at launch.


Thanks. I'm a novice at Streaming, so I'm not sure I'm even asking the right question... When you say "every platform", you mean hardware devices? Like Roku? Because the only devices I have are TVs and TiVos.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

astrohip said:


> Thanks. I'm a novice at Streaming, so I'm not sure I'm even asking the right question... When you say "every platform", you mean hardware devices? Like Roku? Because the only devices I have are TVs and TiVos.


I would suspect that pretty much any way you can get Netflix, you'll be able to get Disney+...


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

astrohip said:


> Thanks. I'm a novice at Streaming, so I'm not sure I'm even asking the right question... When you say "every platform", you mean hardware devices? Like Roku? Because the only devices I have are TVs and TiVos.


I just bought an LG smart TV. It has all the apps. Still, I got a Roku for it. Roku is 100 times better than any smart platform on any TV (I also have Samsung and Sony smart TVs). Roku blows them all away. It's a small investment since there's no monthly cost and it's worth the money. Moreover, with each TV having Roku, the interface is the same regardless of TV brand.

I never even considered Roku except that it came free with my Sling subscription. But once I used it, there was no other option for me!


----------



## Lurker1 (Jun 4, 2004)

Anubys said:


> I just bought an LG smart TV. It has all the apps. Still, I got a Roku for it. Roku is 100 times better than any smart platform on any TV (I also have Samsung and Sony smart TVs). Roku blows them all away. It's a small investment since there's no monthly cost and it's worth the money. Moreover, with each TV having Roku, the interface is the same regardless of TV brand.
> 
> I never even considered Roku except that it came free with my Sling subscription. But once I used it, there was no other option for me!


The built-in TV apps are like the built-in speakers. Fine for people who don't care, but everyone else will want to replace them with something better.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

astrohip said:


> Along a similar line, I have a Sony TV with Android, and watch streaming services via the native Android apps on the TV* (Netflix, Amazon, Hulu,etc). Can we expect Disney+ to get added as an app? Anyone have any experience with how Sony (or Android) have handled this in the past?


Apps for Disney+ are supposed to become available for all iOS and Android platforms on the 12th. This should also include smart TVs.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Anubys said:


> Roku is 100 times better than any smart platform on any TV


Why?


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

Anubys said:


> I just bought an LG smart TV. It has all the apps. Still, I got a Roku for it. Roku is 100 times better than any smart platform on any TV (I also have Samsung and Sony smart TVs). Roku blows them all away. It's a small investment since there's no monthly cost and it's worth the money. Moreover, with each TV having Roku, the interface is the same regardless of TV brand.
> 
> I never even considered Roku except that it came free with my Sling subscription. But once I used it, there was no other option for me!


I vote Roku as well.

If it's either/or Tivo/Roku; I keep Roku.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

astrohip said:


> Why?


It's a combination of things...the interface is really easy, the remote is very nice, you can sort the apps so the ones you use are at the top, it seems to really optimize the wireless signal so you get the best quality (if you have a hard line, there's a roku for that as well), it has any app you can want...etc.

For someone like me, with many different brands of TVs in the house, roku not only has the best interface, but streamlines it across platforms. That makes my wife have one fewer things to complain about!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

It can't be 100 times better for me, because my TV does everything I want it to do for streaming, without having to buy something else or hook up something else. Therefore, by definition Roku is worse.

For me.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Anubys said:


> It's a combination of things...the interface is really easy, the remote is very nice, you can sort the apps so the ones you use are at the top, it seems to really optimize the wireless signal so you get the best quality (if you have a hard line, there's a roku for that as well), it has any app you can want...etc.
> 
> For someone like me, with many different brands of TVs in the house, roku not only has the best interface, but streamlines it across platforms. That makes my wife have one fewer things to complain about!


Thanks, good info. I've never used a Roku, or any device for that matter. Other than TiVo.

All our TVs are new Sony's, so the same interface. And all my wife streams is Netflix or Prime, so the TiVo can handle that. She doesn't even know our TVs stream, when she sees me streaming, she thinks it's thru the TiVo.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> It can't be 100 times better for me, because my TV does everything I want it to do for streaming, without having to buy something else or hook up something else. Therefore, by definition Roku is worse.
> 
> For me.


Same here. I tend to use the TV, not the TiVo, to stream. And the interface is easy for me, plus the picture is 4K. I have to use the Sony remote, but it's no big deal to use one more remote.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

astrohip said:


> Same here. I tend to use the TV, not the TiVo, to stream. And the interface is easy for me, plus the picture is 4K. I have to use the Sony remote, but it's no big deal to use one more remote.


I have a Harmony, so I'm still at just one remote.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

Whether an external device is "better" depends on one's needs vs what the TV offers natively. I also have a Sony with Android (2018 model) and it's just easier to use the native apps. That said, I don't have a need for the many, many niche apps that the Roku has.

I've had plenty of Firesticks and Rokus over the years (since before TVs had apps) and in fact have a Firestick 4K plugged into the back of the Sony. I buy them when they are on half price sales and use as a backup and for apps the Sony may not have. 

As it turns out, Sony hasn't added the Apple TV Plus app so I have been using it for that. I can control with my relatively primitive Harmony 650 so it's a good option for us although it does require switching inputs rather than just pressing the "Watch Streaming" button. For some reason the Sony's Hulu app is also just in stereo so if I want to watch that with 5.1 sound I can also use the Firestick.

PQ and streaming quality on the native apps are perfect. I do have it hard wired but unless an app I want is not on the TV's platform I see no reason to add a device and have to switch inputs (more an issue for others in the house than me).


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I have both a Roku and Nvidia Shields. The Shield is the closest device I've found to replacing my HTPC and I prefer it over the Roku.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Anubys said:


> I just bought an LG smart TV. It has all the apps. Still, I got a Roku for it. Roku is 100 times better than any smart platform on any TV (I also have Samsung and Sony smart TVs). Roku blows them all away. It's a small investment since there's no monthly cost and it's worth the money. Moreover, with each TV having Roku, the interface is the same regardless of TV brand.
> 
> I never even considered Roku except that it came free with my Sling subscription. But once I used it, there was no other option for me!


I will say that WebOS (LG's smart TV software) is the best I've ever used and I use it quite often, despite having a Roku, Firestick, XBox, Chromecast and others. Of course it does Dolby Vision native that I don't always get from some of the devices. And I believe the newer ones support Atmos on Netflix (mine is a couple of years old). With that said, I probably use them all at various times, depending on content (all Netflix streaming with Atmos support goes through the XBox for example as it's the only device that I have that supports it).


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I have a Harmony, so I'm still at just one remote.


Mostly true for me as well. The Firestick doesn't work with my Harmony (700), or well with my XBox (I bought an XBox remote for like $10 for "TV" functionality). But for everything else my Harmony works well.


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

mr.unnatural said:


> I have both a Roku and Nvidia Shields. The Shield is the closest device I've found to replacing my HTPC and I prefer it over the Roku.


The shield for me is the one device to rule them all. Although it obviously depends on how someone uses their setup. If they're happy using the speakers in a tv, and running the tv app, so be it, but if you're running a home theater setup, get the shield. Atmos support, works with prime video better than the fire sticks do, makes a great plex client (I won't use it as a plex server myself although I know people do). Doesn't support the 4k broadtcast of thursday night football yet though, which is annoying.

I finally had to succumb and go with a harmony remote to make it so I could once again use a single remote. Too many devices using bluetooth these days. But even the Harmony elite is a vastly inferior remote to my old pronto 9400, so I feel like it's a real downgrade, but I'll take single remote even with an inferior remote over juggling multiple remotes. (And if you buy the harmony elite from the uk instead of the us, you can frequently get it far cheaper.)


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Disney+ launched, looks good. I need to test out the 4k streaming.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

It seems if you have an Apple Music student subscription ($5/month), they are now throwing in Apple TV+ for free! (But for a limited time, and I don't see any elaboration what that means.)

Get an Apple Music student subscription with free Apple TV+


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

astrohip said:


> Anubys said:
> 
> 
> > Roku is 100 times better than any smart platform on any TV
> ...


On the /r/DisneyPlus subreddit, there are a lot of threads saying that Disney+ doesn't work with this or that smart TV. To me, that's one of the biggest advantages of Roku---it works with everything and even if your Roku gets so old that it's not supported anymore, it costs less than $100 to replace it...


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

Decided to give Disney+ a try. Since we already have Hulu Live, I opted for the bundle, which reduces the price of the bundle to $7. I don't know that we'll even use ESPN+, but this option makes it free.

Anyway, the app was a bit glitchy on Fire TV when I installed it at 8pm Eastern. The home page wouldn't load, couldn't create profiles, or even change the icon on the default profile. I could, however, browse and search available titles. We selected Sister Act, and watched without incident. No glitches. No buffering. Afterwards, around 10pm, the app appeared fully functional. Was also able to create and customize profiles.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I set up the Disney Plus app on both of my Shields yesterday morning. I had to go through the Google Play store to download and install it. Easy to install but it couldn't connect to the server on either Shield when I tried it. No doubt there was a flood of people getting it set up on their devices and the servers were probably overloaded. I tried it again a few hours later with no problem. I haven't had a chance to watch anything on it yet, but so far it looks good. Apparently they have been beta testing the apps in the Netherlands for several months before they released it here and there were lots of reports of it being glitchy. Hopefully they've gotten all of the bugs worked out, but chances are they'll still have some growing pains until they get it right.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

mr.unnatural said:


> Hopefully they've gotten all of the bugs worked out, but chances are they'll still have some growing pains until they get it right.


Would it be possible to _not_ have glitches when launching something this large? I'm actually surprised it has gone as smoothly as it has so far. The ESPN+ portion of my bundle hasn't yet been activated. If that isn't corrected soon, I'll have to contact them about it.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> On the /r/DisneyPlus subreddit, there are a lot of threads saying that Disney+ doesn't work with this or that smart TV. To me, that's one of the biggest advantages of Roku---it works with everything and even if your Roku gets so old that it's not supported anymore, it costs less than $100 to replace it...


First day glitches notwithstanding, my Sony's have been working great with Disney+. No issues, and no need for an external device.


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

hapster85 said:


> Would it be possible to _not_ have glitches when launching something this large? I'm actually surprised it has gone as smoothly as it has so far.


For all the flack they've been getting over a buggy launch, I'm actually pretty impressed with how smoothly it's been going. You know they had a massive number of people trying to log in the first day, I honestly figured there'd be a fair chance that the first day or two would be almost unusable as they sorted through things. Last night watched Avengers Endgame in 4k on the shield, no problems at all. Hardest part for me was finding the app to get it installed, the search function in google play basically being all voice on the shield is a pain in the neck. Especially when you're using a remote without voice capability.

I kinda glanced through trying to get an idea of what might be 4k, or not, and had some areas where I was surprised it was available, and some areas where I was disappointed it wasn't. It'll be interesting to see how much use I get out of it (paid the 3 years up front). Seriously thinking of dropping netflix again for a while since I don't really have much I'm watching on there at the moment.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

gschrock said:


> Hardest part for me was finding the app to get it installed, the search function in google play basically being all voice on the shield is a pain in the neck.


I had to do a search online to figure out how to download the app on my Shield. There's an app section on the Shield but it never occurred to me that I had to go through the Google Play Store to get it. I always feel like an idiot when I have to talk to devices to get them to work. Most of the time they either don't understand you or they're just ignoring you. It's like having another kid. There's nothing I hate more than paying for a device that doesn't do what you tell it to do. I eventually got it to understand me and got the app downloaded.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

astrohip said:


> First day glitches notwithstanding, my Sony's have been working great with Disney+. No issues, and no need for an external device.


Same here (once I found the app on the Sony). The 4K looks great and no issues even on day 1.
I only need an external device (Firestick 4K) for the Apple TV app. Hopefully Sony adds that at some point.


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

Hulu live going up $10/month. That's a big ouch. Honestly, the one thing I'm missing is a way to get sports without having to subscribe to a whole live package of things. For 99% of the time for the rest of things, I'd be fine with an on-demand model. But I'd like to have the sports live, and so I'm stuck with large packages like hulu live. I need to compare pricing and stuff now for youtube tv and see what I think. Youtube had some limitations I thought on resolution and audio that hulu had finaly gotten around though.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

gschrock said:


> Hulu live going up $10/month. That's a big ouch. Honestly, the one thing I'm missing is a way to get sports without having to subscribe to a whole live package of things. For 99% of the time for the rest of things, I'd be fine with an on-demand model. But I'd like to have the sports live, and so I'm stuck with large packages like hulu live. I need to compare pricing and stuff now for youtube tv and see what I think. Youtube had some limitations I thought on resolution and audio that hulu had finaly gotten around though.


Ouch! I don't want to do without Live, but I might rethink YTTV. Problem is, they'll probably raise their price too.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

allan said:


> Ouch! I don't want to do without Live, but I might rethink YTTV. Problem is, they'll probably raise their price too.


At some point these options (plus the cost of internet) will no longer yield the savings results people were expecting and we'll be right back where we started with cable/satellite still the best choice.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

It's a bit ironic that all of these services are cropping up. For years people have wanted the option of paying for channels a la carte so they would only have to pay for the ones they want. Problem is, going this route tends to be more expensive than getting all of the crap content bundled in with the few channels you actually watch. Right now I have Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Disney Plus in addition to premium cable with FIOS. I also have OTA tuners with an antenna. There are only a few things I actually watch on either Netflix or Amazon and I'm thinking of dropping Netflix. I have four grand kids, which is part of the reason I signed up for Disney Plus, but I also wanted the Star Wars and Marvel content for myself. If it weren't for the classic movie channels that my wife watches I would consider dropping cable altogether. I have so much crap stored on my server that I could probably drop cable and all of my streaming services and never run out of stuff to watch.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

jr461 said:


> At some point these options (plus the cost of internet) will no longer yield the savings results people were expecting and we'll be right back where we started with cable/satellite still the best choice.


I dropped cable/satellite because of all the fees they use to pad the bill. Even with Hulu Live going up again, it's still about half of what I was paying DirecTV when I cancelled. Sure, they offered to drop my bill to around $90 for a year, but that's still $40 more than my current Hulu Live bill.

If I decide live streaming is too expensive, I'll drop it. But I won't go back to cable. There's nothing they have to offer that I can't do without. They had a good thing going, but their greed ruined it.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Cable (everything but the premiums) and high-speed internet are "free" in my building (paid through association fees), so it would be crazy for me to drop it. The only thing I pay for on my cable bill is HBO.


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

From what I gathered in posts here in TCF and in other forums and blogs, the primary reason people were cutting the cord is so they pay only for content they want. It winds up costing less because they don't have to pay for what they don't want which is what they were practically forced to do with cable.

I think that still holds true even today with the proliferation of streaming services now. If you have a YTTV or Hulu live or a similar service and only get one or two of their add-one for sports or premiums, then get one or two of the Netflix/D+ type type services, you’re probably still paying less or just about the same as a standard (i.e. more than a skinny bundle) cable TV package with a premium channel or two. At least that's what I took away from a couple of posters here who recently cut the cord and itemized how they made out.

Sure, if you get every streaming service available then of course it'll cost more than a kitchen sink cable subscription. But most who go the streaming route either don't do that or prefer to get their content that way. It comes out as there being more options out there and I'm all for that.

Me, I'm a cable guy. It's not that I'm skeptical of streaming. Cable just fits in better with the way I consume content.


----------



## Lurker1 (Jun 4, 2004)

mr.unnatural said:


> It's a bit ironic that all of these services are cropping up. For years people have wanted the option of paying for channels a la carte so they would only have to pay for the ones they want. Problem is, going this route tends to be more expensive than getting all of the crap content bundled in with the few channels you actually watch.


Streaming is expensive if you subscribe to all of your desired services at the same time. Unlike cable, there is no requirement to do this. You can easily add and drop services online anytime you wish.


----------



## longrider (Oct 26, 2017)

Lurker1 said:


> Streaming is expensive if you subscribe to all of your desired services at the same time. Unlike cable, there is no requirement to do this. You can easily add and drop services online anytime you wish.


That is exactly what I do, when Impulse dropped a couple weeks ago I signed up for You Tube premium and now that I have finished it I will be cancelling. Once The Expanse comes out in December I will sign up for Amazon Prime, and cancelling when I am done. Finally Star Trek: Picard will get me to sign up for CBS all access until I am done. Most of my viewing is OTA so no costs there and the few regular cable shows I watch (SyFy, USA, etc) I buy the series on iTunes so no subscription at all


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

I just got the first year of Disney+ for free through Verizon.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

allan said:


> Ouch! I don't want to do without Live, but I might rethink YTTV. Problem is, they'll probably raise their price too.


I have Hulu Live, and now I'm running the YTTV 14-day free trial so I can compare "side-by-side". One thing I noticed right away is the video quality is better with YTTV. Watching live NHL last night and comparing, there's an obvious difference. Sure, if I go with YTTV and cancel Hulu, there's a good chance YTTV will also increase. But we added Hulu Live last December, and the price has now increased 37.5% in less than that year. Screw them...it's a matter of principle. Plus, the YTTV guide and the DVR (no limit) is nicer. There are other nuances that pretty much cancel each other out, but, as I said, it's a matter of principle right now.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jr461 said:


> At some point these options (plus the cost of internet) will no longer yield the savings results people were expecting and we'll be right back where we started with cable/satellite still the best choice.


Been saying this for a couple of years now. People are going to "want" all of these streaming services. And at some point the number of people who will play service roulette, moving from service to service depending what's on will diminish too because of of two things will happen. Either the content will keep you there, or, these services will get "smart" and realize that a lot of people are jumping and either give discounts for yearly subscriptions or just do away with monthly subs.


----------



## longrider (Oct 26, 2017)

Steveknj said:


> Been saying this for a couple of years now. People are going to "want" all of these streaming services. And at some point the number of people who will play service roulette, moving from service to service depending what's on will diminish too because of of two things will happen. Either the content will keep you there, or, these services will get "smart" and realize that a lot of people are jumping and either give discounts for yearly subscriptions or just do away with monthly subs.


If that does happen than I am out. I will NOT pay $100/month for an hour or two of Tv a night. Granted there are shown on subscription services I like - Impulse/YT Premium, The Expanse/Amazon Prime, Stranger Things/Netflix and star Trek/CBS AA but I can get my fill of TV from OTA and what I can buy on iTunes for $25/season


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

longrider said:


> If that does happen than I am out. I will NOT pay $100/month for an hour or two of Tv a night. Granted there are shown on subscription services I like - Impulse/YT Premium, The Expanse/Amazon Prime, Stranger Things/Netflix and star Trek/CBS AA but I can get my fill of TV from OTA and what I can buy on iTunes for $25/season


You probably aren't typical. People will see things they want to watch and subscribe, and a good service will continue to offer programming that people want. And if there are enough of these shows on enough of these services then you are going to have the scenario I described. These Executives are smart. They know that people will do what they do and they will do whatever it takes to prevent loss of subs if possible.


----------



## EWiser (Oct 2, 2008)

I think there will be a cost to short subscription periods by the streaming services. Either allowing for a short subscription period at a higher price. Or paying for a whole season on a show at a higher that subscription price.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

As we've been streaming longer and longer, I realize my wife and I have also gotten more and more binge-ified in our viewing habits. Counting Amazon Prime, which we'd have whether we had cut the cord or not, we subscribe to 4 services concurrently. But I notice that with very, very few exceptions, we only watch one or two shows at a time these days (excluding live hockey games). If/when the streaming services decide to penalize start-and-stop subscribers, it might very well be cheaper for us to buy our shows a la carte from iTunes or Amazon. It might actually be cheaper for us to do that now.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

Steveknj said:


> These Executives are smart.


Are they? They had a good thing going with cable and satellite, but ruined it by trying to wring more and more money out of their customers. People who cut the cord with cable for won't hesitate to drop a steamer. Look at AT&T. They're killing there Now service.

The truly smart services will survive. The ones who aren't, won't.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

hapster85 said:


> Are they? They had a good thing going with cable and satellite, but ruined it by trying to wring more and more money out of their customers. People who cut the cord with cable for won't hesitate to drop a steamer. Look at AT&T. They're killing there Now service.
> 
> The truly smart services will survive. The ones who aren't, won't.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


I think AT&T is the exception. But I do think that you're right. The smart ones will survive. Where cable and satellite failed is that they didn't see this coming as quickly as it did. DirecTV saw that the NOW service they were offering made no sense. You can see all of these services are having trouble. Sony has dropped theirs already. The model was priced too low. The content was much more expensive than they anticipated. All of these services have had multiple price increases of the last few years. Now you see that most are going to abandon that model, and just provide their own content. Thus, you have Disney +, HBO Max, Peacock, CBS All Access. ANd with that comes a cost for all of them. Those who want it all will find out that cable/sat is still the best option. Those who want more selective options will go the streaming route. That's where I can see this going. These OTT services, that offer some channels for a reduced rate will eventually go away as it's just not cost effective and too selective in it's options (one offers Viacom, another Discovery, etc.) I think you will see OTT setups like what TMobile and ATT's upcoming service, with a cable like offering might be more the future for those who want cable/sat. But these half-a$$ed ones we see now for $50 or $60 will eventually rolled into those services.


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

One thing I could see happening is that there might be umbrella service which charges a pay-per-minute price to view a wide variety of streaming services. The pricing could be similar to playing games at an arcade. Some games are cheap to play and some are more expensive. It could be the same with streaming services. A junk channel could be very cheap while Disney+ would be a lot higher. Pricing could be such that viewing 5-10 hours of a service would be similar to the monthly fee for that service. People who watch a single service a lot would likely just subscribe to that service since it would save a lot of money. But for a lot of the other services, I feel they would make more money if people had an option to only pay when they viewed. Lots of services aren't compelling enough to subscribe to--even for just a month. But if I could just click on a service and pay as I watched, I would end up watching a lot more of content from those minor services and they would make something from me rather than nothing.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

Steveknj said:


> The model was priced too low. The content was much more expensive than they anticipated. All of these services have had multiple price increases of the last few years. Now you see that most are going to abandon that model, and just provide their own content. Thus, you have Disney +, HBO Max, Peacock, CBS All Access.


Everyone wants a piece of the pie, but the fundamental flaw in their thinking always seems to be overvaluing their content. So they all think they deserve a bigger cut, which continues to be the driving force behind most fee increases, for both cable and the live streamers. I don't think that fracturing the market along studio lines is sustainable long term either.

I think it will be interesting to see how things play out over the next few years as the landscape continues to evolve.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

I don't necessarily *want* a service like hulu live. But if you want sports, you don't really have a choice but to subscribe to one of these types of services. Other than the sports, I'd be fine with things that are completely on demand and not live. 

Even with this increase I don't think I'm quite at the cost of what I was paying before I dropped cable. And in general I think I'm somewhat more satisfied with the quality of what I'm getting (I found comcast to be getting worse and worse in the amount of compression that was going on).


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)

NBC's new Peacock streaming service is just one big ad-injection machine



> Comcast's NBCUniversal finally unveiled its big swing at streaming on Thursday, which the megacorp has titled Peacock. (Yeah, the name really leaves something to be desired.)


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Free with ads is a valid business model. Pluto comes to mind, frankly. Or actually, to their point, live broadcast TV. I'd give free Peacock a try.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

I don't see how free with ads can be viewed negatively compared to Hulu's $6 with ads tier...


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> I don't see how free with ads can be viewed negatively compared to Hulu's $6 with ads tier...


The free version only has some content so unless you're a Comcast customer it's $5 with ads, $10 without.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I signed up for Hulu basic with ads for a year for only $2.99 per month. There are several older sitcoms that my wife and I like to watch, but sitting through the commercials was driving me nuts. I bought a lifetime license for an app called PlayOn a couple of years ago that allow me to record from any streaming service on my PC. I just set up the various streaming services in the Channels section of the app and provide my login info to allow it to connect. I can browse through the various selections being offered and add the ones I want to record to the queue. The shows are streamed in real time to my PC and recorded. I then edit out the commercials using VideoReDo and save them as mkv files on my server. I only do this with older TV shows since PlayOn does not support 5.1 audio and only allows me to record in 2-channel stereo. I recorded every episode of Cheers and Frasier so far and have all of the commercials edited out. I think the PlayOn license was about $30-40. 

I recently upgraded my VideoReDo license to the latest TVSuite version 6. I've been using VRD ever since the days when we first learned how to transfer Tivo recordings to our PCs using a TivoNet/TurboNet adapter and it was the only editing software available that would work with Tivo files. I love it because it also works with wtv and dvr-ms files from Windows Media Center, which happens to be my primary method of recording TV nowadays.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

I just read about Comcast's NBC Peacock streaming service. Unlike most services, it will be free for those willing to watch ads. There will be a fee for those who want to be ad free. I believe it is set to start sometime in February.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

jamesbobo said:


> I just read about Comcast's NBC Peacock streaming service. Unlike most services, it will be free for those willing to watch ads. There will be a fee for those who want to be ad free. I believe it is set to start sometime in February.


Peacock Streaming Service: Pricing Tiers, Release Dates, What Will Be on the New NBCUniversal Streaming Service, and More

"The two tiers include "*Peacock Free*," an ad-supported plan that's available to anyone and will offer 7,500 hours of programming, including access to movies and classic TV shows. But if you want to see any of the service's original content, including shows like *MacGruber* or *Sam Esmail*'s new take on *Battlestar Galactica*, you'll have to shell out for "*Peacock Premium*," which gives access to the full 15,000 hours of programming - including sports and, for the first time ever, early access to NBC's stable of late-night talk shows. New episodes of *The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon* will be available to stream on Peacock Premium starting at 8pm ET and *Late Night with Seth Meyers* will begin streaming at 9pm ET (both are about three and a half hours before their traditional broadcast slots)."


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

MikeMar said:


> Peacock Streaming Service: Pricing Tiers, Release Dates, What Will Be on the New NBCUniversal Streaming Service, and More
> 
> "The two tiers include "*Peacock Free*," an ad-supported plan that's available to anyone and will offer 7,500 hours of programming, including access to movies and classic TV shows. But if you want to see any of the service's original content, including shows like *MacGruber* or *Sam Esmail*'s new take on *Battlestar Galactica*, you'll have to shell out for "*Peacock Premium*,...


Thanks for the info. It looks like there are two tiers of content and three tiers of cost:

$0 - Peacock Free (7,500 hours of older and limited content)
$4.99 - Premium with ads (all content)
$9.99 - Premium without ads

I actually think this is a good pricing model for streaming services and I wish more services did it this way. The people who watch a lot of content can sign up for a subscription, but the people who only watch occasionally can watch for for free with ads. There are a lot of streaming services that I only want to watch once in a while. I'm never going to subscribe, but I'd watch occasionally even if it had ads.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

MikeMar said:


> ...you'll have to shell out for "*Peacock Premium*," which gives access to the full 15,000 hours of programming - including sports and, for the first time ever, early access to NBC's stable of late-night talk shows. New episodes of *The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon* will be available to stream on Peacock Premium starting at 8pm ET and *Late Night with Seth Meyers* will begin streaming at 9pm ET (both are about three and a half hours before their traditional broadcast slots)."


Whoa...not interested in that bull pucky. I'm out... and will take the free.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

warrenn said:


> Thanks for the info. It looks like there are two tiers of content and three tiers of cost:
> 
> $0 - Peacock Free (7,500 hours of older and limited content)
> $4.99 - Premium with ads (all content)
> ...


It's kinda 2 streaming services in 1
1 - Their old/limited stuff (free with ads) (Just a big VOD of their backlog)
2 - Hulu like streaming, $5 for all contact with ad's or $10 for all without ad's


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

And Comcast X1 customers will get the Premium w/ads for no extra charge and pay just $4.99 for the Premium without ads options.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> Free with ads is a valid business model. Pluto comes to mind, frankly. Or actually, to their point, live broadcast TV. I'd give free Peacock a try.


I find it interesting that for the better part of the first 70 years of television that we've been looking for ways to avoid ads (everything from going to the bathroom of for a snack when they are on, to VCRs,) and then FINALLY get a DVR, and even Netflix and AP, where we can live in commercial-free bliss if we choose to, and now we are voluntarily PAYING for the privilege of watching ads on streaming services. Yes some will pay for the ad-free version, but I'd bet most subscribers won't. How soon before AP and Netflix and possibly even HBO with their greedy new overlords offer an ad based version of their streaming service? We've come full circle people!


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I'd prefer to TiVo it and skip ads if I could, but not for $180/month, where my cable + internet bill had climbed.

But all I said was free with ads is a valid business model. If HBO had a free-with-ads tier I'd give it a shot.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I like this...apropos of this thread:

Opinion | We Should Have Bought the DVDs


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

The author's fallacy is in believing that one must remain subscribed to every service that offers programming that you might want to watch from time to time. There's nothing wrong with subscribing to two at a time and rotating among them. Delayed gratification is a great budgeting tool.
If that's still too hard, a lifetime subscription of PlayOn is on special for something like $29.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> The author's fallacy is in believing that one must remain subscribed to every service that offers programming that you might want to watch from time to time. There's nothing wrong with subscribing to two at a time and rotating among them. Delayed gratification is a great budgeting tool.
> If that's still too hard, a lifetime subscription of PlayOn is on special for something like $29.


I think part of the point is that each one of these services, as time goes on, will offer so much content that you might be less likely to jump from service to service. You don't think that these services are looking at this now to come up with a solution? Disney+ already offered a 3 year sub at a discounted rate, that's what will eventually happen, until, at some point they just drop the month to month, or maybe month to month just becomes too expensive. Hulu has also been offering discounts for a year's subscription. They are also counting on the laziness of most of us who will sign up and just forget about it. It's great if you are diligent in doing what you described, but I'll be most of us don't.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

This discussion goes back and forth all the time, but if someone cuts the cord primarily because of price, then they will do whatever the feel they need to do in order to keep their monthly cost low. For others, like me, cost was only one of several reasons I cut out cable. But I would need to subscribe to _A LOT_ of simultaneous services before I would reach the level of what I was paying for cable before I cut.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I think part of the point is that each one of these services, as time goes on, will offer so much content that you might be less likely to jump from service to service. You don't think that these services are looking at this now to come up with a solution? Disney+ already offered a 3 year sub at a discounted rate, that's what will eventually happen, until, at some point they just drop the month to month, or maybe month to month just becomes too expensive. Hulu has also been offering discounts for a year's subscription. They are also counting on the laziness of most of us who will sign up and just forget about it. It's great if you are diligent in doing what you described, but I'll be most of us don't.


Very few would have purchased 3 years of Disney+ if they didn't have a huge catalog of content that people wanted. What you are describing is good, not bad. There's always this worry that, "Oh no, the companies are going to start producing content I want!!" I honestly don't understand it. When companies have to actually compete, we get better content and less likelihood of being locked in. You don't have to buy a year of hulu, 3 years of disney, etc. You get a discount for doing so, just like you should, like you do everywhere else where competition exists.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

Hulu doesn’t have an annual plan.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> They are also counting on the laziness of most of us who will sign up and just forget about it. It's great if you are diligent in doing what you described, but I'll be most of us don't.


The headline there isn't "Streaming is too expensive," it's "People are too lazy for their own good."


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

lparsons21 said:


> Hulu doesn't have an annual plan.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


I recently got 12 months of Hulu (ad supported) for $1.99 a month. So maybe it's not part of their standard offering, but they do things like this from time to time. Last year IRC it was a year for $1 per month.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

Steveknj said:


> I recently got 12 months of Hulu (ad supported) for $1.99 a month. So maybe it's not part of their standard offering, but they do things like this from time to time. Last year IRC it was a year for $1 per month.


Yeah, I forgot about the 'specials' they do now and then.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> The headline there isn't "Streaming is too expensive," it's "People are too lazy for their own good."


That's just human nature. People forget, they have a million things going on. These companies know this.

But back to my original point. Maybe I need to understand this better. So would you for example sign up for 3 months for Netflix, watch EVERYTHING you wanted to watch from the past year, then move on to HBO, do the same, and then move on to Hulu and so forth? Is that how you do it? What happens when there's this show on Netflix you are dying to watch? Do you wait 9 months to watch it, or are you suddenly tempted to activate your account again to watch that show? I know myself, I could never be that disciplined. I bet there are more like me than would do what I described.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> Very few would have purchased 3 years of Disney+ if they didn't have a huge catalog of content that people wanted. What you are describing is good, not bad. There's always this worry that, "Oh no, the companies are going to start producing content I want!!" I honestly don't understand it. When companies have to actually compete, we get better content and less likelihood of being locked in. You don't have to buy a year of hulu, 3 years of disney, etc. You get a discount for doing so, just like you should, like you do everywhere else where competition exists.


No, I agree, it's good. But that's my point. What happens if D+ had a lot of content, Netflix has a lot of content, HBOMax, Amazon, Peacock and so forth. Now you are less likely to swap out as there's always something there to watch. I'm not arguing that this is a bad thing, I'm arguing that because of all this great content, you'd be more likely to sign up for many of these on a more permanent basis and thus, it will cost you. And you might actually see that because of this a couple of things might happen. One is that that these streaming services will use the D+ model (as they did with the Mandelorian) and show their prime series weekly (which guarantees you are on the service for 3 months and find other stuff to watch too) and the other, is like I said, get you on a yearly sub instead of monthly.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> No, I agree, it's good. But that's my point. What happens if D+ had a lot of content, Netflix has a lot of content, HBOMax, Amazon, Peacock and so forth. Now you are less likely to swap out as there's always something there to watch. I'm not arguing that this is a bad thing, I'm arguing that because of all this great content, you'd be more likely to sign up for many of these on a more permanent basis and thus, it will cost you. And you might actually see that because of this a couple of things might happen. One is that that these streaming services will use the D+ model (as they did with the Mandelorian) and show their prime series weekly (which guarantees you are on the service for 3 months and find other stuff to watch too) and the other, is like I said, get you on a yearly sub instead of monthly.


Still not seeing the issue here. More high quality content = better for consumers. Period. If all of the major streaming providers have good enough content that I never want to drop them, that would mean that we are even better off than we are now (where, IMO, there are at most 10 good shows on broadcast+basic cable, and dozens or more on the streaming providers + premiums). Hulu has been doing weekly shows for years, as has HBO. You can still add them at the end of a season, binge, then drop them. You don't have to get Disney+ on day 1. Even if you don't drop streaming providers, right now HBO+Netflix+Hulu without ads+Disney+Amazon combined is still noticeably cheaper than the average cable bill, with at least 10 times as much quality content as just a basic cable subscription (probably more, considering Hulu includes FX and other cable TV shows).


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> Still not seeing the issue here. More high quality content = better for consumers. Period. If all of the major streaming providers have good enough content that I never want to drop them, that would mean that we are even better off than we are now (where, IMO, there are at most 10 good shows on broadcast+basic cable, and dozens or more on the streaming providers + premiums). Hulu has been doing weekly shows for years, as has HBO. You can still add them at the end of a season, binge, then drop them. You don't have to get Disney+ on day 1. Even if you don't drop streaming providers, right now HBO+Netflix+Hulu without ads+Disney+Amazon combined is still noticeably cheaper than the average cable bill, with at least 10 times as much quality content as just a basic cable subscription (probably more, considering Hulu includes FX and other cable TV shows).


I think you are missing MY point. Yes, I agree with you, the more great content the better. What I'm saying is that with all that great content, the desire to swap between these services diminishes, and once that happens, than your cost savings will diminish as well. In this case I'm talking about the strategy of swapping between services when there's something good on one and not on others. If there's 12 months of great content, you won't be swapping. Sure that's great in that you get all that great content, but it's not so great for your wallet, in that instead of paying for 3 months, you're paying permanently (well as long at there's great content). Hence, the "streaming is about to get very expensive" title of this thread. Instead of paying fore 2-3 services a month, you're now paying for 5-6 of them. For some, that might still be cheaper than cable, for others, perhaps not.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> I think you are missing MY point. Yes, I agree with you, the more great content the better. What I'm saying is that with all that great content, the desire to swap between these services diminishes, and once that happens, than your cost savings will diminish as well. In this case I'm talking about the strategy of swapping between services when there's something good on one and not on others. If there's 12 months of great content, you won't be swapping. Sure that's great in that you get all that great content, but it's not so great for your wallet, in that instead of paying for 3 months, you're paying permanently (well as long at there's great content). Hence, the "streaming is about to get very expensive" title of this thread. Instead of paying fore 2-3 services a month, you're now paying for 5-6 of them. For some, that might still be cheaper than cable, for others, perhaps not.


I think all the streaming services are just like the cable premium channels

A lot of people have Netflix (HBO)
and people will have a mix of all the streaming stuff (Disney, Peacock, Hulu, HBO Max, etc)

And some people will have all of them


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> What happens when there's this show on Netflix you are dying to watch?


 What happens is whatever I want to happen at that time. What DOESN'T happen is I don't continually pay for 500 channels that have zero content that I'm interested in. I'm less concerned about my total monthly cost, and more concerned that whatever the monthly cost is, I'm paying for the content I actually want to see.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I think you are missing MY point. Yes, I agree with you, the more great content the better. What I'm saying is that with all that great content, the desire to swap between these services diminishes, and once that happens, than your cost savings will diminish as well. In this case I'm talking about the strategy of swapping between services when there's something good on one and not on others. If there's 12 months of great content, you won't be swapping. Sure that's great in that you get all that great content, but it's not so great for your wallet, in that instead of paying for 3 months, you're paying permanently (well as long at there's great content). Hence, the "streaming is about to get very expensive" title of this thread. Instead of paying fore 2-3 services a month, you're now paying for 5-6 of them. For some, that might still be cheaper than cable, for others, perhaps not.


I don't understand your thinking. I only have limited time and I prefer to binge shows. In your described scenario, I'm not going to suddenly watch more TV. I'll watch the same amount of TV and have much better options from which to choose. So either I'll actually swap _more _or I'll use fewer services, possibly only a single one. Both are wins for me in terms of quality _and_ cost. Right now I keep multiple providers because there's not enough good content available during various parts of the year. Back when cable was my only option I'd settle for junk TV. Now I don't have to, but I still have to keep multiple providers because no one provider reliably has 1000+ hours of high quality content. If every provider had amazing shows all the time I'd need to keep fewer of them and would either swap more than I do now or not at all, both of which are better for me.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Another component of this issue is that, even when I was paying for cable, I was still paying for two (and sometimes more) streaming services _in addition_ to cable. Imagining the scenario where all the streaming services have such uber-compelling content that I feel the need to simultaneously subscribe to them all, I'd still be saving money by not paying for cable_ in addition_ to all those theoretical services.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Dawghows said:


> What happens is whatever I want to happen at that time. What DOESN'T happen is I don't continually pay for 500 channels that have zero content that I'm interested in. I'm less concerned about my total monthly cost, and more concerned that whatever the monthly cost is, I'm paying for the content I actually want to see.


That's kind of silly really. So you wouldn't pay the same for more channels than for JUST the channels you watch, $100 for 20 channels vs. $100 for 500 channels (that include the 20 you watch)? I'd gladly pay the same for more, because even though I have core channels I watch, there's almost always a one off series I might watch on a channel I normally don't. For example, I might not watch WGN, but there might be a series that I like on there.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

Dawghows said:


> Another component of this issue is that, even when I was paying for cable, I was still paying for two (and sometimes more) streaming services _in addition_ to cable. Imagining the scenario where all the streaming services have such uber-compelling content that I feel the need to simultaneously subscribe to them all, I'd still be saving money by not paying for cable_ in addition_ to all those theoretical services.


Yep, me too! And with the OTA/Streaming trial I did for a month when I finally cut the cord I won't have to add any service to get all the shows I'm actually interested in. Between Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Prime and CBS All Access, which I sub to now, nearly every show on cable/sat/OTS is there. Might be a bit delayed but so what? As to sports, well all I might be interested in watching will be on OTA.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Dawghows said:


> Another component of this issue is that, even when I was paying for cable, I was still paying for two (and sometimes more) streaming services _in addition_ to cable. Imagining the scenario where all the streaming services have such uber-compelling content that I feel the need to simultaneously subscribe to them all, I'd still be saving money by not paying for cable_ in addition_ to all those theoretical services.


I do that too. That's why you have to way what works for you best. I've never said streaming doesn't work for some. I'm just saying that over time, you might not really be saving the money. I agree now, that as long as you get the content you want, the quality and the experience is good (if needed), and you save money, then by all means, you should. But don't expect, over time, when things become more more mainstream and possibly more consolidated, that it won't get more expensive, and the experience may not be as good.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> That's kind of silly really. So you wouldn't pay the same for more channels than for JUST the channels you watch, $100 for 20 channels vs. $100 for 500 channels (that include the 20 you watch)? I'd gladly pay the same for more, because even though I have core channels I watch, there's almost always a one off series I might watch on a channel I normally don't. For example, I might not watch WGN, but there might be a series that I like on there.


In that scenario, most of your money goes towards stuff you don't care about, thereby failing to adequately incentivize the content you like most.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> That's kind of silly really. So you wouldn't pay the same for more channels than for JUST the channels you watch, $100 for 20 channels vs. $100 for 500 channels (that include the 20 you watch)? I'd gladly pay the same for more, because even though I have core channels I watch, there's almost always a one off series I might watch on a channel I normally don't. For example, I might not watch WGN, but there might be a series that I like on there.


If that were how it would work out, then of course it would be silly. But that's not how it would work out. Assuming I would keep adding services until my monthly cost was $100, all of that money would be going toward services that I actually deemed worth the cost. That is, I could be paying that $100 to a cable company for a handful of channels I want and 500 I don't (at which point there would still be streaming content out there I might want), or I could pay that same $100 for streaming services, all of which offer me something I do want. We're talking about the difference between cost and value.



Steveknj said:


> I do that too. That's why you have to way what works for you best. I've never said streaming doesn't work for some. I'm just saying that over time, you might not really be saving the money. I agree now, that as long as you get the content you want, the quality and the experience is good (if needed), and you save money, then by all means, you should. But don't expect, over time, when things become more more mainstream and possibly more consolidated, that it won't get more expensive, and the experience may not be as good.


 Sure, but I don't think people expect that it's not going to get more expensive over time. Pretty nearly everything gets more expensive over time. But if the expense is your concern, then there is no question that streaming offers more flexibility to manage that expense than does cable.


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> No, I agree, it's good. But that's my point. What happens if D+ had a lot of content, Netflix has a lot of content, HBOMax, Amazon, Peacock and so forth. Now you are less likely to swap out as there's always something there to watch. I'm not arguing that this is a bad thing, I'm arguing that because of all this great content, you'd be more likely to sign up for many of these on a more permanent basis and thus, it will cost you.


I guess it depends on someone's personality if they feel they have to subscribe to all at the same time. With streaming, you can typically watch all the old content if you don't mind being behind. So you don't have to watch something like "Game of Thrones" real time. I still haven't seen it, but I could subscribe to HBO and watch it all if I wanted. That's different than how most cable/network has been in the past. Previously, you had to subscribe to cable so you could watch shows like "The Walking Dead" on A&E when it came out or see it in reruns. You didn't always have the option of watching it at your convenience at a later time. But now with all these streaming providers, you can watch pretty much any show from any year at any time.

The people who feel they need to see the newest shows as soon as they come out will likely end up subscribing to lots of services at the same time. But the people who don't care as much and are fine watching a show whenever when they get around to it will likely subscribe to fewer services and they'll watch whatever happens to be available at the time.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

warrenn said:


> I guess it depends on someone's personality if they feel they have to subscribe to all at the same time. With streaming, you can typically watch all the old content if you don't mind being behind. So you don't have to watch something like "Game of Thrones" real time. I still haven't seen it, but I could subscribe to HBO and watch it all if I wanted. That's different than how most cable/network has been in the past. Previously, you had to subscribe to cable so you could watch shows like "The Walking Dead" on A&E when it came out or see it in reruns. You didn't always have the option of watching it at your convenience at a later time. But now with all these streaming providers, you can watch pretty much any show from any year at any time.
> 
> The people who feel they need to see the newest shows as soon as they come out will likely end up subscribing to lots of services at the same time. But the people who don't care as much and are fine watching a show whenever when they get around to it will likely subscribe to fewer services and they'll watch whatever happens to be available at the time.


But again, with more and more content you may want to see, playing streamer roulette is going to be a much more difficult decision. Imagine you only plan to buy Netflix for 3 months of the year, and the buy a different streamer for another 3 months, but you find that Netflix has so much content you want to see, that you just can't unsubscribe. But you are right, everyone watches TV differently. With more and more options, the decision how to watch it all will become more difficult.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

pdhenry said:


> Free with ads is a valid business model. Pluto comes to mind, frankly. Or actually, to their point, live broadcast TV. I'd give free Peacock a try.


Exactly. I mean, it's what I do today quite a bit of the time


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> Exactly. I mean, it's what I do today quite a bit of the time


Which again, is the irony of making this point in a forum about TiVo, which, one of it's primary features is the ability to NOT watch commercials  We've come full circle!!


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> Which again, is the irony of making this point in a forum about TiVo, which, one of it's primary features is the ability to NOT watch commercials  We've come full circle!!


But that really wasn't a primary reason I got TiVo


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> But back to my original point. Maybe I need to understand this better. So would you for example sign up for 3 months for Netflix, watch EVERYTHING you wanted to watch from the past year, then move on to HBO, do the same, and then move on to Hulu and so forth? Is that how you do it? What happens when there's this show on Netflix you are dying to watch?


I decided to only subscribe to one streaming service at a time, yes ( I have Prime but not just for the streaming so I don't include it. My money, my rules) Then Hulu offered me 6 months for $3/month so eventually I signed back up for Netflix without canceling Hulu. When Hulu goes back up I'll probably drop it - there's not a lot there to watch.

If I want to sign back up for HBO I'll catch up on everything I want to see on Netflix, then, yes I'll cancel Netflix and sign up for HBO. I know that both Netflix and HBO will probably keep their original programming available for at least a year if not indefinitely.

PlayOn helps with getting everything out of one service before starting the next. I started recording Breaking Bad from AMC this weekend onto YTTV, then I realized I could record the unbleeped version off of Netflix. I'll get through all 5(?) seasons this week then watch at my leisure.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> But again, with more and more content you may want to see, playing streamer roulette is going to be a much more difficult decision. Imagine you only plan to buy Netflix for 3 months of the year, and the buy a different streamer for another 3 months, but you find that Netflix has so much content you want to see, that you just can't unsubscribe. But you are right, everyone watches TV differently. With more and more options, the decision how to watch it all will become more difficult.


But there are finite hours in the day to watch TV, no matter how many options exist. There are already more TV shows I want to see than I have time to watch. I've been picking and choosing what I want to see for years. I dare say the same is true for everyone on these boards. Adding more and more options does not change this equation, except that I get to choose from a better and better range of possibilities.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Dawghows said:


> But there are finite hours in the day to watch TV, no matter how many options exist. There are already more TV shows I want to see than I have time to watch. I've been picking and choosing what I want to see for years. I dare say the same is true for everyone on these boards. Adding more and more options does not change this equation, except that I get to choose from a better and better range of possibilities.


Yeah. Totally. This is one big reason I don't feel a need to subscribe to a bunch of services. I already have more content than u can handle

Sure, I miss out on some shows that friends watch. But it's not like I am sitting around with nothing to entertain me. .


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Yeah. I might want to watch a specific show that's on one service. But I already have more shows than I could watch, so I don't really need anymore services, and could reduce what I already have.


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

I know I'm planning on dropping netflix streaming for a while because I just have too much other stuff to watch for now. I tend to find that I have so much stuff I want to watch that the idea of something "I have to watch now" just doesn't work anymore. I'm too far behind on basically *everything*. I did dump cbs for a while over the summer when I didn't really feel I needed it, so I do find I can drop things as needed at least.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I'm sort of at the opposite point. All the shows I used to consider "good" now don't stand up to shows that are "great." There are enough great shows that I don't feel inclined to spend time on "merely good" shows, but not enough "great" shows that I can just pick any service and stick with it.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Dawghows said:


> ...I would need to subscribe to _A LOT_ of simultaneous services before I would reach the level of what I was paying for cable before I cut.


The point being (I would guess) is that you (and I) were getting way more than what we really wanted or needed. So we cut the cord to "trim the fat".


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

jamesbobo said:


> I just read about Comcast's NBC Peacock streaming service. Unlike most services, it will be free for those willing to watch ads. There will be a fee for those who want to be ad free. I believe it is set to start sometime in February.


I could never watch TV with ads after owning a Tivo.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> I find it interesting that for the better part of the first 70 years of television that we've been looking for ways to avoid ads (everything from going to the bathroom of for a snack when they are on, to VCRs,) and then FINALLY get a DVR, and even Netflix and AP, where we can live in commercial-free bliss if we choose to, and now we are voluntarily PAYING for the privilege of watching ads on streaming services. Yes some will pay for the ad-free version, but I'd bet most subscribers won't. How soon before AP and Netflix and possibly even HBO with their greedy new overlords offer an ad based version of their streaming service? We've come full circle people!


I disagree with your premise. What is happening is we have done such a good job of avoiding ads that content distributors have countered with more innovative ways to force us to watch them. It's not a full circle, it's an escalation in tactics by our enemies!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Anubys said:


> I disagree with your premise. What is happening is we have done such a good job of avoiding ads that content distributors have countered with more innovative ways to force us to watch them. It's not a full circle, it's an escalation in tactics by our enemies!


Well I do agree with that. And what they've done, is make it harder for us to avoid them. They've tried to do that on DVRs too. PPV disables the ability to FF on DirecTV for example. But still, we are now paying for the privilege of viewing content with commercials. That's the irony. But I guess we've been doing that for years if we were cable/Sat subscribers, before DVRs were available.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> But back to my original point. Maybe I need to understand this better. So would you for example sign up for 3 months for Netflix, watch EVERYTHING you wanted to watch from the past year, then move on to HBO, do the same, and then move on to Hulu and so forth? Is that how you do it? What happens when there's this show on Netflix you are dying to watch?


For us, so far, Netflix is kept year round.

OTOH, Showtime will be dropped after the last Shameless of the season, which is Sunday. We'll have paid for two months, and we watched Billions, Shameless, Ray Donovan and maybe two movies. Two shows were finished "live" (we were late on the first few eps.). The Billions season was from many months ago, but we had other TV to watch. BTW, we started this sub when network TV dried up for the holidays. None of these were "must see live" TV for us.

So far, we've only done this type of short-term subscription twice. The previous time covered the last season of GoT, which was "must see live", and we watched Veep and Barry "late". Both subs were via Amazon Prime, so we didn't need to deal with accounts for and paying more companies. And it's easy to drop a sub online. We used to get "all" the premium movie channels in a larger cable package.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I'm currently subscribed to Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu Basic with ads (per the $1.99 monthly special mentioned by others) and Disney Plus. I signed up for Amazon Prime for the free shipping, but the streaming service was just a bonus. I have grand kids so getting Disney Plus was a no-brainer. The Hulu deal was worth getting just for the price.

I don't have Apple+ but I do have access to many of the shows they offer and I have to tell you that my overall reaction is meh.



Spoiler



I've seen The Morning Show, For All Mankind, See, and Servant. For All Mankind was probably the best of the bunch. It's basically about an alternate timeline where Russia beats us in the space race and lands cosmonauts on the moon first. See is a ridiculous post-apocalyptic scenario whereby everyone left alive on the planet is blind. How they can travel great distances and not see where they're going is beyond belief. Servant has M. Night Shyamalan as Executive Producer and it is just plain weird. It's about a couple that lost their infant son and the mother has PTSD or something similar so they give her a baby doll that she thinks is her living son. They bring in a nanny to care for the doll and then for some reason the baby comes to life but decides to switch back and forth between being alive and an inanimate doll. The Morning Show is basically a current event situation that deals with a Harvey Weinstein type of situation at a network show. It's OK, but not worth the price of admission.



The main thing about Apple+ is that it's all original content. They still have a long way to go to complete with the other services unless they can find other content to fill the void.

I think that if I had to pick one service to become a cord cutter it would be Hulu+Live TV. I could definitely drop my cable service and still get most of the same channels I currently subscribe to plus you get access to their entire library of older shows and movies for $54.99 monthly. You can get the ad-free version for $60.99 per month, but that only applies to their catalog of shows and not live TV. You're still stuck watching commercials with live TV and no way to record them or fast forward through them. I'm not sure if shows that are aired live are available on demand at a later time. The lack of recording ability for timeshifting is a non-starter for me. I get Amazon Prime with my annual subscription so that's basically a freebie.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

I did a month long OTA/Streaming experiment a bit ago and from that I found that I don’t really need or want any OTT (cable/sat replacement) service at all. All the shows I want are available somewhere on varying delay schedules. 
What that means is that when I make the switch my TV bill will drop $60/month under the current bundled deal and over $100/month when the deal goes full retail.
That will leave me with my Tivo for OTA DVR and AppleTV for all the rest. The streaming will be a mix of ad-free and ad-supported with some having a fee and others for free. I can do it that way as I don’t ever watch anything live and I’m not a big sports fan.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

mr.unnatural said:


> I think that if I had to pick one service to become a cord cutter it would be Hulu+Live TV. I could definitely drop my cable service and still get most of the same channels I currently subscribe to plus you get access to their entire library of older shows and movies for $54.99 monthly. You can get the ad-free version for $60.99 per month, but that only applies to their catalog of shows and not live TV. You're still stuck watching commercials with live TV and no way to record them or fast forward through them. I'm not sure if shows that are aired live are available on demand at a later time. The lack of recording ability for timeshifting is a non-starter for me. I get Amazon Prime with my annual subscription so that's basically a freebie.


Hulu Live has a 50 hour DVR included, with more space available for an additional fee. My daughter utilizes it quite a bit. She's discovered that with The CW, for example, if she watches Supernatural within 3 days of recording it, she can FF through commercials. After 3 days, the on-demand version of the episode replaces the recording, and forces commercials. My daughter informs me, however, you can circumvent this behavior by going to Manage DVR and playing the episode from there, instead of just using "next episode".[1]

As to the ad-free, it doesn't just apply to the back catalogue. What's ad-free and what isn't varies. ABC, NBC, and FOX have (most) episodes available on-demand the next day without ads. A few very popular shows will have limited ads. Grey's Anatomy on ABC, for example, plays an ad before and after the episode; no idea who sticks around for that after ad. CBS and The CW also have episodes the next day, but always with ads. Most of the cable networks also have episodes available the day after airing. Being ad-free varies by network, and sometimes by show, it seems.

Over all, other than sports, we actually watch very little live on Hulu Live.

[1]Edited for clarification.


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

Hulu's ad free stuff is really starting to annoy me, to the point where in my opinion its borderline false advertising. Ok, yeah, I understand that the live television stuff is going to have ads, that's obvious. But they advertise that the "vast majority of their library of shows and movies" can be streamed without ads. But there's no real distinguishment made on their part between what's part of their library, and what might be "additional on-demand content you gain access to". So it seems like I'm streaming an awful lot of stuff that has ads in it - anything Food network seems to get ads, anything History channel has ads. A number of network shows will have ads either right after they've aired, or maybe a week after they stop having ads, or sometimes it seems like the opposite? It's really seemed more to me like "pay extra, and if you roll the proper number whatever you try watching might not have ads". And of course you can't skip ads on stuff you might dvr unless you pony up to their extortion fee to give you the advanced dvr option.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

gschrock said:


> Hulu's ad free stuff is really starting to annoy me, to the point where in my opinion its borderline false advertising. Ok, yeah, I understand that the live television stuff is going to have ads, that's obvious. But they advertise that the "vast majority of their library of shows and movies" can be streamed without ads. But there's no real distinguishment made on their part between what's part of their library, and what might be "additional on-demand content you gain access to". So it seems like I'm streaming an awful lot of stuff that has ads in it - anything Food network seems to get ads, anything History channel has ads. A number of network shows will have ads either right after they've aired, or maybe a week after they stop having ads, or sometimes it seems like the opposite? It's really seemed more to me like "pay extra, and if you roll the proper number whatever you try watching might not have ads". And of course you can't skip ads on stuff you might dvr unless you pony up to their extortion fee to give you the advanced dvr option.


I think it's up to the network in question if they choose to participate in being ad-free, and to what extent. I agree it's annoyingly confusing sometimes. Do what I did. Just before your billing cycle ends, switch to the version with ads. I quickly learned the ad-free version was eliminating more than I thought it was. Didn't take long for me to switch back. Depending on what you're watching, though, you may find it's not worth the extra few bucks.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

hapster85 said:


> Hulu Live has a 50 hour DVR included, with more space available for an additional fee. My daughter utilizes it quite a bit. She's discovered that with The CW, for example, if she watches Supernatural within 3 days of recording it, she can FF through commercials. After 3 days, the on-demand version of the episode replaces the recording, and forces commercials.
> 
> As to the ad-free, it doesn't just apply to the back catalogue. What's ad-free and what isn't varies. ABC, NBC, and FOX have (most) episodes available on-demand the next day without ads. A few very popular shows will have limited ads. Grey's Anatomy on ABC, for example, plays an ad before and after the episode; no idea who sticks around for that after ad. CBS and The CW also have episodes the next day, but always with ads. Most of the cable networks also have episodes available the day after airing. Being ad-free varies by network, and sometimes by show, it seems.
> 
> Over all, other than sports, we actually watch very little live on Hulu Live.


Thanks for that. I forgot about their DVR service. I haven't tried any of their ad-free stuff so I wasn't aware of how it actually worked. My thought of using Hulu + Live was because they offer a lineup that has about 98% of the channels we watch. After what you told me I'm not so sure it's the service that I'd choose if I ever truly wanted to cut the cord, but it's still worth considering.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Putting this here because there isn’t a “My Streaming TV Has Gotten Cheaper” thread:

For the past couple years we were subscribed to HBO through our Hulu account. In mid-December I canceled it, partly because we weren’t watching anything on HBO at that time and partly because it wasn’t clear whether or not we’d get the Max upgrade via Hulu when the time comes. Anyway, when I canceled it said my current subscription would end on 1/4/20. But it didn’t. My Hulu account shows that it’s been canceled, and my credit card is being charged the correct amount, but HBO Now is still working. I discovered it when I tried subscribing directly to HBO Go, and got a message saying my email address was already in use for an account via Hulu. So at least for the time being I’m getting HBO for free. 

Has anybody else had this happen?


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

mr.unnatural said:


> Thanks for that. I forgot about their DVR service. I haven't tried any of their ad-free stuff so I wasn't aware of how it actually worked. My thought of using Hulu + Live was because they offer a lineup that has about 98% of the channels we watch. After what you told me I'm not so sure it's the service that I'd choose if I ever truly wanted to cut the cord, but it's still worth considering.


I edited the post you quoted to make a clarification. She was watching an episode of CBS's Blue Bloods this morning, which she recorded 3 weeks ago, and was FF'ing through commercials. When I asked about it, she told me she figured out that if you go to Manage DVR, the recording is still there, and can still be played. It's only when using "next episode" from your Keep Watching stream that on-demand versions, with forced commercials, replace recordings. Hulu doesn't explain that. For obvious reasons, I suppose.


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

Hulu doesn’t offer people like me a 3/5/7 day trial. I was really surprised by that. 

I’ve been a Hulu SVOD subscriber for a couple years. I’ve never used their Live TV offering and I’ve never done a trial for it. I was told by a CSR last night that they stopped trials because people were taking advantage of them. Surely there is a way to prevent that while still offering potential new customers a few days to trial the service before committing. Brand new Hulu customers can still trial it. 

The rep looked up my existing billing interval date and told me I could use it for about a week, then call and cancel it, and only be charged about $15 for ~10 days of usage.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

mrizzo80 said:


> Hulu doesn't offer people like me a 3/5/7 day trial. I was really surprised by that.
> 
> I've been a Hulu SVOD subscriber for a couple years. I've never used their Live TV offering and I've never done a trial for it. I was told by a CSR last night that they stopped trials because people were taking advantage of them. Surely there is a way to prevent that while still offering potential new customers a few days to trial the service before committing. Brand new Hulu customers can still trial it.
> 
> The rep looked up my existing billing interval date and told me I could use it for about a week, then call and cancel it, and only be charged about $15 for ~10 days of usage.


Sign up with a different email and payment method to get the free trial as a "new" customer.


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)

How Much Are We Paying for Our Subscription Services? A Lot


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

I just encountered a streaming expense that I hadn't previously considered. About five days ago I received a notification from Comcast that we had used 90% of our allotted 1TB of monthly data. We recently got our first 4K TV, and have been streaming a ton of stuff in 4K. Prior to this, we had never been close to the cap, but 4K content clearly takes up WAY more bandwidth. Given this fact, I don't think we will ever be under the 1TB cap again. We are now forced to pay $50/month extra for unlimited data, or rent one of Comcast's xFi gateways for $20 a month. I'm not thrilled about either of those options.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I have ATT GB Fiber, unlimited, so I'm good on that, but it's pricey at $106 a month. I just noticed that Google Fiber is starting their street work on moving into this neighborhood, too, so I'm hoping that their competition will drive the price down some when they're ready to go.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

We have ATT fiber in the neighborhood and Sonic resells them with phone for $80 and unlimited so if I want to cut the cord that may be the direction I take.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Howie said:


> I have ATT GB Fiber, unlimited, so I'm good on that, but it's pricey at $106 a month. I just noticed that Google Fiber is starting their street work on moving into this neighborhood, too, so I'm hoping that their competition will drive the price down some when they're ready to go.


We have Metronet Fibre 100/100 unlimited service for $59/mo here in the Indy area.


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)

ViacomCBS to launch new streaming service blending CBS All Access with Paramount films, Viacom channels


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Malcontent said:


> ViacomCBS to launch new streaming service blending CBS All Access with Paramount films, Viacom channels


That headline seems a bit premature. From the article:


> While ViacomCBS executives haven't made any firm decisions, they are considering creating a service ...


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Malcontent said:


> ViacomCBS to launch new streaming service blending CBS All Access with Paramount films, Viacom channels


If that happens, that would be a major blow to Epix. Paramount films are about the only good, popular films they have.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

jamesbobo said:


> If that happens, that would be a major blow to Epix. Paramount films are about the only good, popular films they have.


Which is why they have been moving more into original content similar to HBO. At some point expect all MGM labels to be consolidated onto Epix, Disney grabbed away Lionsgate films for Hulu and FX down the line. Wait till the contract for Universal and 20th Century run out for HBO down the line. That will be messy.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

mr.unnatural said:


> Just saw this article and thought it might be of interest:
> 
> Streaming TV is about to get very expensive - here's why
> 
> ...


Streaming was never cheap if you wanted to watch anything new. People who said it was had "magic free internet". Piracy is a moral choice, a thief is a thief. You can't catch them all, but you should have no mercy for the ones you do.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

tenthplanet said:


> Streaming was never cheap if you wanted to watch anything new. People who said it was had "magic free internet". Piracy is a moral choice, a thief is a thief. You can't catch them all, but you should have no mercy for the ones you do.


Is it wrong that I pirated some stuff from Amazon or Netflix just to have it all in 1 place? Not to derail the thread


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I remember when Netflix was pretty much all there was and you could view a certain number of hours per month according to how many disks were on your plan. It was pretty cheap then.
Amazon wasn't even streaming - you had to download the show before you could watch it.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

AT&T is launching their AT&T TV streaming service (not to be confused with AT&T TV Now), and if you like contracts and fees, you're going to love this!

AT&T TV Is a Smart Idea Hampered by an Obscene Price


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

markb said:


> AT&T is launching their AT&T TV streaming service (not to be confused with AT&T TV Now), and if you like contracts and fees, your going to love this!
> 
> AT&T TV Is a Smart Idea Hampered by an Obscene Price


The goal here, is for AT&T to eventually replace DirecTV for those users who "want it all" and don't mind paying for it. Right now, that's me. They have mentioned they will stop marketing DirecTV going forward. I still have the issue where it would take 2-3 different streaming servcies like YTTV or Hulu to get what are my essentials....all of the broadcast channels, the three local RSNs (plus their overflow channels) and all of the cable channels that the 5 of us watch. Plus a decent DVR, and advanced audio and video. There's not a streamer out there that gives me all of this. And right now neither does this new service, but it's close. It's missing three essential channels for me, CW (in the NY Metro), PBS (again, in the NY Metro) and MeTV (okay, that might not be essential, but I do watch stuff on that channel). The other annoying limitation is that their "box" only allows for 3 simultaneous streams and my house I'd need a minimum of 5.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Yeah. This is the replacement for satellite and ATT fiber. The reviewer misplaced the market here. I beta tested this device using ATT Now and it was a nice piece of hardware. Even though ATT Now doesn’t use channel numbers, when using this box, it did so you could express tune to 206 for ESPN, etc. 

This is not meant to compete with small packages but to be for the larger package folks who have satellite now.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> The goal here, is for AT&T to eventually replace DirecTV for those users who "want it all" and don't mind paying for it. Right now, that's me. They have mentioned they will stop marketing DirecTV going forward. I still have the issue where it would take 2-3 different streaming servcies like YTTV or Hulu to get what are my essentials....all of the broadcast channels, the three local RSNs (plus their overflow channels) and all of the cable channels that the 5 of us watch. Plus a decent DVR, and advanced audio and video. There's not a streamer out there that gives me all of this. And right now neither does this new service, but it's close. It's missing three essential channels for me, CW (in the NY Metro), PBS (again, in the NY Metro) and MeTV (okay, that might not be essential, but I do watch stuff on that channel). The other annoying limitation is that their "box" only allows for 3 simultaneous streams and my house I'd need a minimum of 5.


I get the need for a higher-price "want it all" plan. But the two-year contract and the hidden fees seem so retro. (I know, these are a part of many of AT&T's current offerings, but it goes against how other streaming services do it, including AT&T TV Now and HBO Now, from what I can see.) What they should do is offer it as a higher-priced tier on AT&T TV Now, and do away with the contracts and fees.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

TonyD79 said:


> Yeah. This is the replacement for satellite and ATT fiber. The reviewer misplaced the market here. I beta tested this device using ATT Now and it was a nice piece of hardware. Even though ATT Now doesn't use channel numbers, when using this box, it did so you could express tune to 206 for ESPN, etc.
> 
> This is not meant to compete with small packages but to be for the larger package folks who have satellite now.


Except that YouTubeTV @$50/month provides a better channel lineup than does ATT's first two levels. So regardless of who ATT wants you to think it compete with, the competition in reality IS YTTV and Hulu+Live and with a bit of a stretch, some combo of others. All with no contracts, no ETF and the biggest benefit of all, not dealing with ATT!

This is designed to suck in what's left of the older ones of us that are uncomfortable with much change. My prediction, before a full year is out this will change or be gone. For smart buyers, it probably will be DOA.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

lparsons21 said:


> Except that YouTubeTV @$50/month provides a better channel lineup than does ATT's first two levels. So regardless of who ATT wants you to think it compete with, the competition in reality IS YTTV and Hulu+Live and with a bit of a stretch, some combo of others. All with no contracts, no ETF and the biggest benefit of all, not dealing with ATT!
> 
> *This is designed to suck in what's left of the older ones of us that are uncomfortable with much change*. My prediction, before a full year is out this will change or be gone. For smart buyers, it probably will be DOA.


But it's not significantly different from the rest of the streaming services, so for those who fear change, if they were willing/able to adopt this new service, they'd be 90% of the way to just adopting streaming. So it's really only good for those who have very specific sports requirements that can't be met through the other streaming platforms, and my guess is that's a very small number that are willing to pay the necessary pricing to get those very specific channels.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

lparsons21 said:


> Except that YouTubeTV @$50/month provides a better channel lineup than does ATT's first two levels. So regardless of who ATT wants you to think it compete with, the competition in reality IS YTTV and Hulu+Live and with a bit of a stretch, some combo of others. All with no contracts, no ETF and the biggest benefit of all, not dealing with ATT!
> 
> This is designed to suck in what's left of the older ones of us that are uncomfortable with much change. My prediction, before a full year is out this will change or be gone. For smart buyers, it probably will be DOA.


Who's talking about the lower levels of ATT? They have ATT Now for that. This is the heavy hitter of directv satellite with hundreds of channels including out of region sports channels and all that.

Oh, and the box integrates apps into it.

They may not be targeting the right thing but that is what they are attempting. To target the part of the industry that are satellite customers.

I've looked at YouTube. It doesn't provide the same extensive lineup.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

lparsons21 said:


> Except that YouTubeTV @$50/month provides a better channel lineup than does ATT's first two levels.





TonyD79 said:


> Who's talking about the lower levels of ATT? They have ATT Now for that.


Not for long:
AT&T Announces it Will No Longer Be Marketing AT&T TV NOW & AT&T Watch TV - Cord Cutters News


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

TonyD79 said:


> Who's talking about the lower levels of ATT? They have ATT Now for that. This is the heavy hitter of directv satellite with hundreds of channels including out of region sports channels and all that.
> 
> Oh, and the box integrates apps into it.
> 
> ...


I wasn't referring to ATT Now, but the lower 2 levels of the newly announced product. And those aren't any better than what is currently on YTTV or Hulu+Live.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

lparsons21 said:


> I wasn't referring to ATT Now, but the lower 2 levels of the newly announced product. And those aren't any better than what is currently on YTTV or Hulu+Live.


Okay. I was not clear. I'm not sure they are gong to succeed. Only that they are attempting to transition the same level of satellite to streaming.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

markb said:


> I get the need for a higher-price "want it all" plan. But the two-year contract and the hidden fees seem so retro. (I know, these are a part of many of AT&T's current offerings, but it goes against how other streaming services do it, including AT&T TV Now and HBO Now, from what I can see.) What they should do is offer it as a higher-priced tier on AT&T TV Now, and do away with the contracts and fees.


There's a lot of discussion on DBS Forum about this and the same points are made there. Yes, I agree, that AT&T is introducing this poorly and a lot of people think it's dead in the water. if the goal is to move people to this rather than DirecTV or UVerse there's zero incentive to move. If it's to move people who like cable to this, then the 2 year commitment is a killer, especially for a system that's brand new and people will have reservations about trying it and having to commit to it for 2 years if it's terrible. I certainly wouldn't. I sort of like the idea of what they are doing, but whoever came up with the process should be fired.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

lparsons21 said:


> Except that YouTubeTV @$50/month provides a better channel lineup than does ATT's first two levels. So regardless of who ATT wants you to think it compete with, the competition in reality IS YTTV and Hulu+Live and with a bit of a stretch, some combo of others. All with no contracts, no ETF and the biggest benefit of all, not dealing with ATT!
> 
> This is designed to suck in what's left of the older ones of us that are uncomfortable with much change. My prediction, before a full year is out this will change or be gone. For smart buyers, it probably will be DOA.


I've tried YTTV and for those of us used to cable/sat it's not very intuitive, has a terrible interface and there are a lot of limitations. So while you might be correct about channel selection on the first two tiers, (I'm interested in the 3rd), this is much more high quality stuff, with some 4K offerings, better sound quality and so forth. but I agree, that most people will look at the two systems and those who don't need the advanced stuff will go with the lower cost choice every time. But they are doing that anyway.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

TonyD79 said:


> Okay. I was not clear. I'm not sure they are gong to succeed. Only that they are attempting to transition the same level of satellite to streaming.


For the life of me, I can't figure out a sales pitch that makes this new offering from ATT a success. It isn't really offering more channels unless you get one of the top 2 levels, the price is higher than nearly any other streaming service and you get locked into a 2 year contract.

In general I've found that people switch TV providers for one of two reasons. Cost is usually right up there at the top usually brought about by the end of whatever 'deal' your cable/sat provider gave you is expiring. The other one is channel disruptions. A very small percentage change because of technical issues.

So here's a streaming solution that is more costly to start with, is guaranteed to nearly double in the 2nd year and is still just as likely to have channel contentions as any other service.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

Steveknj said:


> I've tried YTTV and for those of us used to cable/sat it's not very intuitive, has a terrible interface and there are a lot of limitations. So while you might be correct about channel selection on the first two tiers, (I'm interested in the 3rd), this is much more high quality stuff, with some 4K offerings, better sound quality and so forth. but I agree, that most people will look at the two systems and those who don't need the advanced stuff will go with the lower cost choice every time. But they are doing that anyway.


Yeah, YTTV's UI could use some work, couldn't agree more. I'm 76 and have had cable/sat for a lot of years, so I'm as used to those UIs as anyone else. I got started looking at dropping the tv cord when I found that during the day TV watching just sucks. The choices are reruns of the same shows and episodes on more than one channel. So I found other ways to get something to watch during the day and streaming filled the bill. The next step to finally drop cable/sat was easy after that.

I'm not on YTTV because I find better value using a combo of apps I was already using and adding Sling Blue to it. Helps that I can get all my locals via OTA and Tivo. But if I needed the whole widget to switch, YTTV would be at the top of my list.

EDIT: I've read that ATTs offering has 5.1 audio which is missing from the other live streaming offerings. But 4K? Yeah, I read that they can, but there isn't any there now from reviews I've read.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, YTTV's UI could use some work, couldn't agree more. I'm 76 and have had cable/sat for a lot of years, so I'm as used to those UIs as anyone else. I got started looking at dropping the tv cord when I found that during the day TV watching just sucks. The choices are reruns of the same shows and episodes on more than one channel. So I found other ways to get something to watch during the day and streaming filled the bill. The next step to finally drop cable/sat was easy after that.
> 
> I'm not on YTTV because I find better value using a combo of apps I was already using and adding Sling Blue to it. Helps that I can get all my locals via OTA and Tivo. But if I needed the whole widget to switch, YTTV would be at the top of my list.
> 
> EDIT: I've read that ATTs offering has 5.1 audio which is missing from the other live streaming offerings. But 4K? Yeah, I read that they can, but there isn't any there now from reviews I've read.


My guess is they will have 4K sooner rather than later, maybe just some OD offerings at first.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> My guess is they will have 4K sooner rather than later, maybe just some OD offerings at first.


Especially as they are targeting existing and potential satellite users which has the most 4K of any linear provider.

My had to leave directv due to line of sight problems a few years ago. If this existed then, I may have jumped on it. Since then, fios has caught up on a lot of HD sports (full EI, etc, ESPN college channels) so my incentive is less.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> I've tried YTTV and for those of us used to cable/sat it's not very intuitive, has a terrible interface and there are a lot of limitations...


I could not disagree more. YTTV has a fine interface; I wouldn't call it outstanding, but I wouldn't call it "terrible" - certainly the better of the two (Hulu and YTTV). What limitations do you mean? The only limit on the DVR is 9 months there's no "capacity" limit. Please describe to us how you think YTTV is "terrible".


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

DirecTV is much easier to navigate and to quickly accomplish what you want to do than YTTV, to me at least. Now that could be because I've been using DirecTV for the last 25 years and it's second nature to me. I suppose I'd get better at YTTV with a little more practice at it.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

If YTTV had more direct navigation to a given channel it might be easier to use, but I just end up adding all my programs to the library and watch from there so I do very little navigation of the Live TV grid.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> I could not disagree more. YTTV has a fine interface; I wouldn't call it outstanding, but I wouldn't call it "terrible" - certainly the better of the two (Hulu and YTTV). What limitations do you mean? The only limit on the DVR is 9 months there's no "capacity" limit. Please describe to us how you think YTTV is "terrible".


For me it was horrible to navigate. Giant channel icons at the bottom where I had to scroll constantly for what i wanted to watch. Compared to the ease of use typing in a channel number onscreen or going to a guide where you can see what's currently playing and what's upcoming for the next 2 hours. Limitations include lack of "advanced" sound, like Dolby Digital. no 4k that I can see. And it's missing some channels I watch regularly. I never used Hulu Live so I can't compare, but compared to what I am used to, it was terrible. I didn't try it but is there the ability to swap back and forth with the previous channel, something I do frequently when watching live sports.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

No wonder you hated it. You had no clue how to use it.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mdavej said:


> No wonder you hated it. You had no clue how to use it.


Huh? Care to explain? It's TV, there shouldn't have to be a "learning curve".


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

Steveknj said:


> Huh? Care to explain? It's TV, there shouldn't have to be a "learning curve".





Steveknj said:


> For me it was horrible to navigate. Giant channel icons at the bottom where I had to scroll constantly for what i wanted to watch. Compared to the ease of ... going to *a guide where you can see what's currently playing and what's upcoming for the next 2 hours*. Limitations include lack of "advanced" sound, like Dolby Digital. no 4k that I can see. And it's missing some channels I watch regularly.


Guide: 1 click, same as Tivo. No learning curve.









No DD yet, I'll give you that.

How many 4k channels do you get on Tivo?

I can do without a couple of channels to save $50+/month. It's only TV.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mdavej said:


> Guide: 1 click, same as Tivo. No learning curve.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No DD is a deal breaker for me. I don't use TiVo, I'm in DirecTV. We have about 5-6 4k channels, but, three's also live sports that is in 4k, including the Olympics which is something I'm interested in. And like the beginning of HD 15 years ago, it will take time to get more.

For me, the couple of channels include channels I watch regularly. My local demo (when I tested a couple of months ago) didn't include CW and PBS. It didn't include MSG, and as I'm an avid hockey fan, that also makes it a deal breaker. So, as I said, missing important channels, tech is not up to standards, and (for me) ease of navigation. I don't begrudge anyone who uses and and enjoys the savings, but for me, it's about more than money. Until there's one service that meets my needs, I'll stick with the "expensive" service for as long as I can afford to.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

Uh, no the guide is just barely similar to Tivo. Just program name, no description of episode unless you start viewing it that I can find, and that holds true throughout. Frankly the iOS version of the app works better though it has plenty of warts too.

And the guide width is not even a full day.

I like YTTV for lots of things, its UI isn’t one of them.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

lparsons21 said:


> Uh, no the guide is just barely similar to Tivo. Just program name, no description of episode unless you start viewing it that I can find, and that holds true throughout. Frankly the iOS version of the app works better though it has plenty of warts too.


Very true. I said it was "1 click like Tivo". Guide itself leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

Steveknj said:


> No DD is a deal breaker for me. I don't use TiVo, I'm in DirecTV. We have about 5-6 4k channels, but, three's also live sports that is in 4k, including the Olympics which is something I'm interested in. And like the beginning of HD 15 years ago, it will take time to get more.
> 
> For me, the couple of channels include channels I watch regularly. My local demo (when I tested a couple of months ago) didn't include CW and PBS. It didn't include MSG, and as I'm an avid hockey fan, that also makes it a deal breaker. So, as I said, missing important channels, tech is not up to standards, and (for me) ease of navigation. I don't begrudge anyone who uses and and enjoys the savings, but for me, it's about more than money. Until there's one service that meets my needs, I'll stick with the "expensive" service for as long as I can afford to.


Yeah, it's going to be impossible to replace a $130+ DirecTV service with a $50 one. But it should at least have CW and PBS by now in most markets. If I really need DD, I can get it from the individual TVE apps. Otherwise PLII is close enough for now.

I had DirecTV on and off for a number of years. You definitely get what you pay for. Whatever you do, don't let AT&T trick you into switching to AT&T TV. It has no 4K or PBS either. There are many reports in the forums of reps telling customers DirecTV isn't available anymore and that they have to switch.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mdavej said:


> Yeah, it's going to be impossible to replace a $130+ DirecTV service with a $50 one. But it should at least have CW and PBS by now in most markets. If I really need DD, I can get it from the individual TVE apps. Otherwise PLII is close enough for now.
> 
> I had DirecTV on and off for a number of years. You definitely get what you pay for. Whatever you do, don't let AT&T trick you into switching to AT&T TV. It has no 4K or PBS either. There are many reports in the forums of reps telling customers DirecTV isn't available anymore and that they have to switch.


No, not switching to AT&T TV either. At least not yet. But it is certainly more robust than YTTV on the outset, and that's why it's more expensive. Still AT&T, for such a large company has no idea how to market this. They just seem to be throwing stuff against the wall to see how it sticks. People are moving away from the services they are offering. I'm a dinosaur and I admit that. I want it all and will pay for it. But the "kids" who are used to streaming and finding their own content are moving away from the model that appeals to me.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

Steveknj said:


> No, not switching to AT&T TV either. At least not yet. But it is certainly more robust than YTTV on the outset, and that's why it's more expensive.


I ran the beta for AT&T TV for nearly 2 years. Nowhere near as robust or feature rich as YTTV. Not even in the same ballpark. DVR barely works and has virtually no advance features. It's nearly impossible to cancel a series recording. No profiles. Forced HDR that ruins the picture on many TVs. Many, many other bugs. I would not wish it on my worst enemy.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mdavej said:


> I ran the beta for AT&T TV for nearly 2 years. Nowhere near as robust or feature rich as YTTV. Not even in the same ballpark. DVR barely works and has virtually no advance features. It's nearly impossible to cancel a series recording. No profiles. Forced HDR that ruins the picture on many TVs. Many, many other bugs. I would not wish it on my worst enemy.


No, you ran the beta of AT&T Now. AT&T TV is a different animal and is MUCH more robust than both YTTV and DirecTV Now.

Edit to add: And this is why I say AT&T is screwing the pooch marketing this.

First of all, why get rid of a known brand like DirecTV which many (most?) people consider quality premium TV? They have this desire to throw their corporate name on everything. They would have been better off naming it DirecTV Streaming.

Second of all, the name is WAY too similar to their existing product that people have been leaving and moving on to other systems like YTTV. People are getting VERY confused, and will have no idea what the difference is.

They have really messed this up and I question if they can ever recover from it. That's what happens when a mobile phone company tries to tackle something they have no clue about.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

Steveknj said:


> No, you ran the beta of AT&T Now. AT&T TV is a different animal and is MUCH more robust than both YTTV and DirecTV Now.


Really? It's the same exact app.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mdavej said:


> Really? It's the same exact app.


You DO realize that AT&T TV requires and external box, right?

AT&T TV - Live Streaming TV + Apps, Voice Controlled

This just came out this past week and there have been beta testers of the receiver for about 6 months.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

Steveknj said:


> You DO realize that AT&T TV requires and external box, right?
> 
> AT&T TV - Live Streaming TV + Apps, Voice Controlled
> 
> This just came out this past week and there have been beta testers of the receiver for about 6 months.


Yeah, I had 2 hardware versions of the boxes and 3 versions of the remotes. Same hardware, same app. First box was manufactured 3/2018, exactly 2 years ago. I did 2 rounds of beta testing. Recently sold all my hardware on ebay.

Here's my thread about it:
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/184-...w-t-directv-now-android-tv-streaming-box.html

Tell me more about this robustness.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

I don't know if I ever wrote about this at AVS forum, but digging into the file system of the beta box, everything was named "AT&T TV", no mention of "NOW". AT&T has publicly stated both services use the same app. So there's no doubt this was a beta test of AT&T TV. I can give you numerous examples of bugs between beta 1 and beta 2 that were never fixed and still persist to this day. I have yet to encounter any bugs at all in the YTTV app.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mdavej said:


> I don't know if I ever wrote about this at AVS forum, but digging into the file system of the beta box, everything was named "AT&T TV", no mention of "NOW". AT&T has publicly stated both services use the same app. So there's no doubt this was a beta test of AT&T TV. I can give you numerous examples of bugs between beta 1 and beta 2 that were never fixed and still persist to this day. I have yet to encounter any bugs at all in the YTTV app.


Over at DBS Forum there's a great thread on testing the box being used by AT&T TV. It's a good read:

C71KW Review (AT&T TV device)

techguy88 seems like the resident expert over there.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

Steveknj said:


> Over at DBS Forum there's a great thread on testing the box being used by AT&T TV. It's a good read:
> 
> C71KW Review (AT&T TV device)
> 
> techguy88 seems like the resident expert over there.


How have I not proven to you that I had exactly the same box, 2 of them in fact, and tested them much longer than techguy? Do I need to dig up the pictures from my ebay listings?

Yes, he gave a great, detailed review. But he missed a number of things and failed to thoroughly test the DVR functionality or even mentioned forced HDR, the most glaring bug. He doesn't even have a 4K TV.


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)

Quibi is giving people a 90-day free trial in hopes they'll actually sign up



> Quibi is finally almost here, and in an effort to entice people who are probably already spending too much on content every month, the short form video streaming service is giving people a 90-day free trial for a limited time.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

There has been a TON of money invested in Quibi and god I hope it crashes and burns for some reason

About 1.75 BILLION (WTF?)


----------



## dcheesi (Apr 6, 2001)

MikeMar said:


> There has been a TON of money invested in Quibi and god I hope it crashes and burns for some reason
> 
> About 1.75 BILLION (WTF?)


...and yet, this is literally the first I've heard of it 

EDIT: I think I recall the ad that the photo in the article is taken from --but I still had no recollection, nor even recognition of the name "quibi" as a word I'd ever heard/seen before. Advertising FAIL


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

dcheesi said:


> ...and yet, this is literally the first I've heard of it
> 
> EDIT: I think I recall the ad that the photo in the article is taken from --but I still had no recollection, nor even recognition of the name "quibi" as a word I'd ever heard/seen before. Advertising FAIL


I think they just started actual advertising (I've heard talk about it on podcasts/trade sites) for over a year now

They had a superbowl add


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Has anyone heard anything one way or another if Quibi, Peacock and HBO Max will still launch as originally scheduled? (6 April, 15 April and May, respectively)


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> Has anyone heard anything one way or another if Quibi, Peacock and HBO Max will still launch as originally scheduled? (6 April, 15 April and May, respectively)


HBO Max, Quibi Won't Change Launch Dates for Coronavirus - Cord Cutters News


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

'Star Trek: Picard' Star Patrick Stewart Announces Free Month of CBS All Access


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> 'Star Trek: Picard' Star Patrick Stewart Announces Free Month of CBS All Access


I'll take some of that...


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

Unfortunately I subscribe to cbs through amazon, so don't think there's any way for me to take advantage of that.


----------



## Generic (Dec 27, 2005)

Streaming service Quibi off to strong start, topping Disney+ and Netflix in downloads


----------



## NatasNJ (Jan 7, 2002)

Generic said:


> Streaming service Quibi off to strong start, topping Disney+ and Netflix in downloads


So far all the reviews I have listened to have been bad. Can't stream it to TV (easily), gimmicky display ratio, shows are edited to fit the short episode model VS being designed specifically for the new format. Only 2-3 decent shows of the 50 upon launch. Most reviews say it would be good as a freeium model but not a paid subscription model.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

NatasNJ said:


> So far all the reviews I have listened to have been bad. Can't stream it to TV (easily), gimmicky display ratio, shows are edited to fit the short episode model VS being designed specifically for the new format. Only 2-3 decent shows of the 50 upon launch. Most reviews say it would be good as a freeium model but not a paid subscription model.


I listened to a podcast and gave top 5 shows, so I added those to watch, but would never pay for it.


----------



## Generic (Dec 27, 2005)

Cable TV channels from an over-the-air antenna? Next Gen TV makes it possible


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Generic said:


> Cable TV channels from an over-the-air antenna? Next Gen TV makes it possible


What an interesting concept. Options are good things.


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

Generic said:


> Streaming service Quibi off to strong start, topping Disney+ and Netflix in downloads


See, now that's why you can't trust anything that papers write anymore. The headline only sort of vaguely actually reflects what the story says.

There were more downloads of Quibi on the day it released than there were for disney+ and netflix on that same day. Which isn't real surprising, because those weren't new services that day which were being downloaded.

There were about 300k downloads of quibi on release day. Compared to about 4 million disney+ downloads on release day. But of course, that doesn't sounds nearly as impressive as a headline as claiming the service beat things like Disney.

(Personally, I haven't seen anything about this service that would cause me to actually be willing to pay for it. I've got enough better content elsewhere to watch.)


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

Generic said:


> Cable TV channels from an over-the-air antenna? Next Gen TV makes it possible


This is an old idea with new technology. Back in the late 70s and early 80s there was a pay channel called OnTV that used a scrambled UHF channel to broadcast it's content and the subscriber had a box that would unscramble the channel. The problem they encountered was people were able to make a pirate box to unscramble the channel and the company had no way to tell they were doing it.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Allanon said:


> This is an old idea with new technology. Back in the late 70s and early 80s there was a pay channel called OnTV that used a scrambled UHF channel to broadcast it's content and the subscriber had a box that would unscramble the channel. The problem they encountered was people were able to make a pirate box to unscramble the channel and the company had no way to tell they were doing it.


In NYC there was Wometco Home Theater.
Wometco Home Theater - Wikipedia
I remember trying to watch scrambled "soft porn" as a teenager in Brooklyn on this. I think the dates in the Wiki page might be a little off as I distinctly remember it from the late 1970s before we moved to Arizona in January 1980.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> In NYC there was Wometco Home Theater.
> Wometco Home Theater - Wikipedia
> I remember trying to watch scrambled "soft porn" as a teenager in Brooklyn on this. I think the dates in the Wiki page might be a little off as I distinctly remember it from the late 1970s before we moved to Arizona in January 1980.


Wow - WHT! I thought I was the only one. I convinced my dad to get it so we could watch the 3-4 Mets games they broadcast per month that were otherwise only on SportsChannel. In Queens we didn't get cable until after I moved out which was in 1986 so we only had the channel 9 games, usually Tues, Fri and the weekend.

Nice callback!


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

gschrock said:


> ..(Personally, I haven't seen anything about this service that would cause me to actually be willing to pay for it. I've got enough better content elsewhere to watch.)


Me either. Format doesn't appeal to me, nor does the content.


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

Allanon said:


> The problem they encountered was people were able to make a pirate box to unscramble the channel and the company had no way to tell they were doing it.


My guess is now the encryption keys are ever-changing, so the cable box needs to be connected to the net in order to download the keys ever so often.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

NatasNJ said:


> Can't stream it to TV (easily), gimmicky display ratio


Quibi actually offers _two_ aspect ratios for everything -- portrait and landscape. It switches instantly as you rotate your device. So far, I've only watched one segment of one show, but it showed a lot more in landscape mode, so I stuck with that. (Landscape mode is normal 16:9, AFAICT.)

But yeah, I can't get it to the TV (yet) -- I tried screen mirroring from iPad to Apple TV, and the audio went to the TV, while the video stayed on the iPad.


----------



## NatasNJ (Jan 7, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> Quibi actually offers _two_ aspect ratios for everything -- portrait and landscape. It switches instantly as you rotate your device. So far, I've only watched one segment of one show, but it showed a lot more in landscape mode, so I stuck with that. (Landscape mode is normal 16:9, AFAICT.).


That's the gimmick. The one aspect ratio is kinda of pointless. So why offer it if it doesnt provide much or anything?


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

NatasNJ said:


> That's the gimmick. The one aspect ratio is kinda of pointless. So why offer it if it doesnt provide much or anything?


The main pitch for this is for people on the go
So if you are standing in a subway or something, you might want portrait (easier to hold) and other times landscape

Yeah it's kind of stupid and aimed for people probably 30 and under max.
It's designed to compete with like snap chat, tik tok, instagram, and the like
NOT Netflix etc

I'm watching some things but will never pay


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

NatasNJ said:


> That's the gimmick. The one aspect ratio is kinda of pointless. So why offer it if it doesnt provide much or anything?


This video explains where they want to go with viewing in both portrait and landscape mode:


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Allanon said:


> This video explains where they want to go with viewing in both portrait and landscape mode:


When I watched it (again, only one segment of one show, so not a scientific sample, but), the portrait view in one scene was just one character from a conversation, never even cutting to the other one. It seemed like an afterthought. I dunno, I'll try it some more.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

wmcbrine said:


> When I watched it (again, only one segment of one show, so not a scientific sample, but), the portrait view in one scene was just one character from a conversation, never even cutting to the other one. It seemed like an afterthought. I dunno, I'll try it some more.


Yeah it seems like a LOT of the shows weren't made specifically for Quibi in mind, so they don't make use of it.

If they really were on the ball, they would make it almost 2 different experiences if I watched it in landscape and you in portrait


----------



## Teavo (Feb 12, 2020)

Quibi is free if you have T-Mobile.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Teavo said:


> Quibi is free if you have T-Mobile.


Only for some plans.


----------



## Teavo (Feb 12, 2020)

looks like they are covering a majority of their plans, both new Magenta and the One plans with 2 or more lines which seems on par with most of these kinds of deals.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

But not some of the 55 plans, for example.


----------



## Teavo (Feb 12, 2020)

Probably not the market for Quibi anyway so I can see not wanting to cover 55+ crowd.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

I think it’s the same as the eligibility for the free/reduced Netflix. I read one article that said that customers would have to choose Netflix or Quibi going forward after the free year of Quibi.


----------



## Teavo (Feb 12, 2020)

That's an easy one,I would easily say bye bye to Quibi.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Teavo said:


> Quibi is free if you have T-Mobile.


Free 90 day trial for everyone, and you'll probably want to cancel anyways


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

jr461 said:


> Wow - WHT! I thought I was the only one. I convinced my dad to get it so we could watch the 3-4 Mets games they broadcast per month that were otherwise only on SportsChannel. In Queens we didn't get cable until after I moved out which was in 1986 so we only had the channel 9 games, usually Tues, Fri and the weekend.
> 
> Nice callback!


The Bronx were also the bastard children of the cable companies (Cablevison). I too remember WHT scrampled porn channels LOL! My building in the early 80s had a microwave antenna installed on the roof and we subscribed to HBO. It was on channel 6. I remember the first movie I saw was Gloria with Gena Rowlands. It was the first time I heard cuss words on TV...LOL


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

The first time I ever saw cable TV was when I went to college. (It wasn't available when/where I grew up in NC.) For the first 6 months or so I suspect my roommates and I probably spent almost as much time watching for the occasional glimpse of unscrambled porn as we did watching actual TV.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

gossamer88 said:


> The Bronx were also the bastard children of the cable companies (Cablevison). I too remember WHT scrampled porn channels LOL! My building in the early 80s had a microwave antenna installed on the roof and we subscribed to HBO. It was on channel 6. I remember the first movie I saw was Gloria with Gena Rowlands. It was the first time I heard cuss words on TV...LOL


Our building also had the HBO dish on the roof and same, came in on Ch 6. I remember that HBO told us that we needed to get like 2/3 of the building to sign up for them to do it. We only got like 1/3 and they did it anyway. I remember watching an ELO concert on HBO (which I recently re-watched on YouTube or Vemo or one of the video sites), and watching Knicks and Rangers games without commercials!! Also boxing and Robert Klein and George Carlin comedy specials (where they said the dreaded F curse!)


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Dawghows said:


> The first time I ever saw cable TV was when I went to college. (It wasn't available when/where I grew up in NC.) For the first 6 months or so I suspect my roommates and I probably spent almost as much time watching for the occasional glimpse of unscrambled porn as we did watching actual TV.


First time we had cable was when we moved to Arizona. I think I was more excited about that than the actual move! I remember watching hours and hours of MTV which was brand new then. Our cable box had a wired remote (remember those?) and my dad rigged up an extension to the wire so it wouldn't drag across the floor.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I know this is a little off-topic, but it seemed like a good spot to interject a little story. Back in the days when we had cable I had one of those magic cable boxes that unscrambled all of the channels. We used to go on vacation at an ocean resort town in my state every year with the whole family and they used the same type of scrambling on the cable system so I would always take the cable box with us so everyone could watch movies and such. I recall it was a Saturday evening and the kids were all watching a rock concert on one of the PPV channels. What none of us realized was that at 11 pm that channel switched over to an adult channel. We were enjoying the concert when suddenly the scene shifted to something you definitely did not want your kids to see. What happened next still has me laughing every time I think about it. My wife bolted out of her chair and threw herself onto the TV like a soldier jumping on a live grenade. I quickly grabbed the remote and changed the channel. My wife was pissed but everyone in the room was in stitches. You simply cannot buy memories like that.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> I know this is a little off-topic, but it seemed like a good spot to interject a little story. Back in the days when we had cable I had one of those magic cable boxes that unscrambled all of the channels. We used to go on vacation at an ocean resort town in my state every year with the whole family and they used the same type of scrambling on the cable system so I would always take the cable box with us so everyone could watch movies and such. I recall it was a Saturday evening and the kids were all watching a rock concert on one of the PPV channels. What none of us realized was that at 11 pm that channel switched over to an adult channel. We were enjoying the concert when suddenly the scene shifted to something you definitely did not want your kids to see. What happened next still has me laughing every time I think about it. My wife bolted out of her chair and threw herself onto the TV like a soldier jumping on a live grenade. I quickly grabbed the remote and changed the channel. My wife was pissed but everyone in the room was in stitches. You simply cannot buy memories like that.


I bought a box in the late 80s and we used to call it wiggle vision as it tried to sync the channel.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

HBO Max worked out a deal with Charter. HBO Max will be given at no additional cost to all of the HBO subscribers including those that have it as part of their package.

WarnerMedia Sets HBO Max Distribution Deal With Charter - Deadline


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Dawghows said:


> The first time I ever saw cable TV was when I went to college. (It wasn't available when/where I grew up in NC.) For the first 6 months or so I suspect my roommates and I probably spent almost as much time watching for the occasional glimpse of unscrambled porn as we did watching actual TV.


When my house first got cable TV, all it did was (a) bring in the local stations much more clearly, and (b) bring in a handful of broadcast stations from outside of the local area - I had three ABC stations at one point, in the days before the local stations could force blackouts on network programming on the others. There was no "cable box"; there were 12 stations, mapped to VHF channels. This is why, in the San Francisco area, KICU is almost always on channel 6, and KBCW on channel 12 - because that's where they were back then.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

realityboy said:


> HBO Max worked out a deal with Charter. HBO Max will be given at no additional cost to all of the HBO subscribers including those that have it as part of their package.
> 
> WarnerMedia Sets HBO Max Distribution Deal With Charter - Deadline


Man that is sweet. I don't see FiOS doing that.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

realityboy said:


> HBO Max worked out a deal with Charter. HBO Max will be given at no additional cost to all of the HBO subscribers including those that have it as part of their package.
> 
> WarnerMedia Sets HBO Max Distribution Deal With Charter - Deadline


Only deal my cable company has done was with CuriosityStream.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

Not sure if this is old news. I've been wondering since HBO Max was announced if I'd get it free through my unlimited A&T cell phone plan. I've been getting HBO Now free for a couple years, and wasn't sure if the same was true for HBO Max.

Stumbled upon a new Verge article about HBO Max. Part of the article describes AT&T services that will give you free access to HBO Max. Below is the list. My first thought was I wasn't sure if I had the AT&T Unlimited Elite plan. I checked and I had something like Unlimited Choice Plus. So, I'm wondering if Elite was a much more expensive plan. Turns out, Elite is $75/month and my current plan is $80/month. I did a comparison, and it appears Elite is better in about every way. So, I switched over to Elite. (Now I wait for someone to tell me this was a terrible decision.)

Get HBO Max included at no additional cost with:

DIRECTV PREMIER
DIRECTV LO MAXIMO
U400 and U450 TV
AT&T TV NOW Max
AT&T Unlimited Elite wireless plan


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

I'm _very_ curious to see what happens with HBO Max for me. As I'm sure I mentioned at least once before, HBO Now thinks I'm subscribed via Hulu. This used to be true, but I dropped it from Hulu in January.


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

Hoffer said:


> Turns out, Elite is $75/month and my current plan is $80/month. I did a comparison, and it appears Elite is better in about every way. So, I switched over to Elite. (Now I wait for someone to tell me this was a terrible decision.)


It's a no-brainer. Whether or not you really needed to go to Elite to get Max becomes irrelevant as you're paying less per month for more.

In my case, I'm on the Unlimited Choice Enhanced. It's at $65/mo for me. I looked at what the Elite gives me and it looks like it's a hotspot, HD video, and -- in the future -- 5G. Unless I lose my HBO Go when Max comes out, I'm not sure if the $10 extra per month is a good value for me. The thing that may potentially be attractive for me is 5G, but I'm going to need a 5G-capable phone first.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

Hoffer said:


> Not sure if this is old news. I've been wondering since HBO Max was announced if I'd get it free through my unlimited A&T cell phone plan. I've been getting HBO Now free for a couple years, and wasn't sure if the same was true for HBO Max.
> 
> Stumbled upon a new Verge article about HBO Max. Part of the article describes AT&T services that will give you free access to HBO Max. Below is the list. My first thought was I wasn't sure if I had the AT&T Unlimited Elite plan. I checked and I had something like Unlimited Choice Plus. So, I'm wondering if Elite was a much more expensive plan. Turns out, Elite is $75/month and my current plan is $80/month. I did a comparison, and it appears Elite is better in about every way. So, I switched over to Elite. (Now I wait for someone to tell me this was a terrible decision.)
> 
> ...


I think the easy way to tell is, do you get regular old HBO now via an AT&T service? If so, you'll get HBO Max for no extra cost. That's my understanding, anyway.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

markb said:


> I think the easy way to tell is, do you get regular old HBO now via an AT&T service? If so, you'll get HBO Max for no extra cost. That's my understanding, anyway.


Besides AT&T, they've also announced deals with Spectrum and YouTubeTV.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I was not happy to see that those with less than a DirecTV Premier tier will only get a year free. I guess I should have expected that, but all the press before this said anyone with DirecTV would get HBOMax for free.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

So how does HBO MAX differ from HBO or HBO ON DEMAND?


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

HBO Max has more programming than just HBO


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

jamesbobo said:


> So how does HBO MAX differ from HBO or HBO ON DEMAND?


HBO Max vs HBO Go vs HBO Now: Here's how they compare | Tom's Guide


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

And of course this being AT&T, they have thoroughly confused us, with too many platforms with the similar names. This isn't as bad as all the AT&T TV things, but still confusing.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> HBO Max vs HBO Go vs HBO Now: Here's how they compare | Tom's Guide


After reading this it sounds like Joker will only be available on HBO Max and not HBO with a cable subscription. Are they trying to kill HBO on cable? Or did I misread it? Mayby on HBO Max first, then on cable?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jamesbobo said:


> After reading this it sounds like Joker will only be available on HBO Max and not HBO with a cable subscription. Are they trying to kill HBO on cable? Or did I misread it? Mayby on HBO Max first, then on cable?


I think they are going to have some HBO Max only content. Sort of like what CBS All Access does with their content.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

Since HBO and HBO Max are the same price I can’t figure out any way that HBO non-Max will even be a thing going forward. Doesn’t make sense. But then again, AT&T seems hell bent on doing things that don’t make sense when it comes to streaming TV!


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> I think they are going to have some HBO Max only content. Sort of like what CBS All Access does with their content.


The difference between HBO and CBS is I'm paying a premium to watch HBO already and now they want more for what they should already be giving me but I'm not paying extra for CBS Network content so I find it fair for them to charge extra for stuff they deem premium content. Seems like HBO is double dipping.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Allanon said:


> The difference between HBO and CBS is I'm paying a premium to watch HBO already and now they want more for what they should already be giving me but I'm not paying extra for CBS Network content so I find it fair for them to charge extra for stuff they deem premium content. Seems like HBO is double dipping.


Not more. The same. HBO Max costs the same amount as HBO where it is offered.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

realityboy said:


> Not more. The same. HBO Max costs the same amount as HBO where it is offered.


I thought HBO Max was going to require a subscription to HBO plus $14.99 on top of that. If not then I'm in.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Allanon said:


> I thought HBO Max was going to require a subscription to HBO plus $14.99 on top of that. If not then I'm in.


They've made it clear as mud, but I know with Spectrum, all HBO subscribers get Max at no extra charge. Same for those that subscribe directly from HBO. (I assume YouTubeTV is the same but it hasn't really announced pricing). They need to make deals with all the other cable companies, but if they don't make a deal, worst case scenario is canceling HBO through cable and paying HBO the $14.99 directly for HBO Max.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Allanon said:


> I thought HBO Max was going to require a subscription to HBO plus $14.99 on top of that. If not then I'm in.


Definitely not.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I was not happy to see that those with less than a DirecTV Premier tier will only get a year free. I guess I should have expected that, but all the press before this said anyone with DirecTV would get HBOMax for free.


I might be remembering incorrectly, but I thought it was always "If you have HBO on an ATT platform (eg, DirecTV), you will get HBOMax free. Never was it _any _DirecTV subscriber getting HBOMax. That wouldn't make sense.



Allanon said:


> I thought HBO Max was going to require a subscription to HBO plus $14.99 on top of that. If not then I'm in.


No.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

I just checked HBO's schedule. Joker will premiere on HBO (cable) May 16th at 8pm eastern time.


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

AT&T's HBO Max page (HBO Max - Stream Movies, Original Shows & More - AT&T) now says the same thing as the Verge article referenced upthread said. It'll be offered free to those who are already subscribed to the following AT&T products:


> Get HBO Max included at no additional cost with:
> 
> DIRECTV PREMIERTM
> DIRECTV LO MAXIMO
> ...


So it's official that my paltry unlimited choice enhanced plan will not get it. Hopefully I still keep HBO Go, which is all I need for now.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

mlsnyc said:


> AT&T's HBO Max page (HBO Max - Stream Movies, Original Shows & More - AT&T) now says the same thing as the Verge article referenced upthread said. It'll be offered free to those who are already subscribed to the following AT&T products:
> 
> So it's official that my paltry unlimited choice enhanced plan will not get it. Hopefully I still keep HBO Go, which is all I need for now.


If you have HBO Go from AT&T, I believe you're good. Those plans include HBO and get it automatically, but it looks like any plan can get it by paying for HBO.

Edit: This is from the FAQ on the HBO Max website: Subscribers who get HBO through AT&T video services (such as AT&T TV or U-Verse TV) will also get access to WarnerMedia's new offering, HBO Max, at no extra charge. Also subscribers of premium AT&T mobile and broadband services, will be offered bundles with HBO Max at no extra charge.


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

realityboy said:


> If you have HBO Go from AT&T, I believe you're good. Those plans include HBO and get it automatically, but it looks like any plan can get it by paying for HBO.
> 
> Edit: This is from the FAQ on the HBO Max website: Subscribers who get HBO through AT&T video services (such as AT&T TV or U-Verse TV) will also get access to WarnerMedia's new offering, HBO Max, at no extra charge. Also subscribers of premium AT&T mobile and broadband services, will be offered bundles with HBO Max at no extra charge.


That'd be nice. I guess I'll wait and see when it rolls out. And when I compared the difference between my Choice Enhanced and Elite, both just said they offered HBO. So maybe it will carry over. Overall while I'd love to get Max, it's more that I don't want to lose Go.

FYI I didn't see anything anywhere about losing Go. But I also didn't see any mention of it at all. So while I assume I'd continue to have it, since I was getting it as part of my AT&T mobile service, there was a nagging thought in my mind that they'd change what they offered to cellular subscribers. Maybe they still will down the road.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

mlsnyc said:


> That'd be nice. I guess I'll wait and see when it rolls out. And when I compared the difference between my Choice Enhanced and Elite, both just said they offered HBO. So maybe it will carry over. Overall while I'd love to get Max, it's more that I don't want to lose Go.
> 
> FYI I didn't see anything anywhere about losing Go. But I also didn't see any mention of it at all. So while I assume I'd continue to have it, since I was getting it as part of my AT&T mobile service, there was a nagging thought in my mind that they'd change what they offered to cellular subscribers. Maybe they still will down the road.


Honestly, is AT&T always this bad? They couldn't have made this launch more confusing if they tried.


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

realityboy said:


> Honestly, is AT&T always this bad? They couldn't have made this launch more confusing if they tried.


I've been with them since forever (i.e. when they bought out Cingular) so they have their moments, good and bad.

In this case it wouldn't surprise me if they were being intentionally vague to give themselves the wiggle room to squeeze as much money out of this as they can. They already knew they were going to be one of the more expensive options out there and there wasn't much margin of error. And I'm sure they were caught flat-footed by this covid thing totally upending how all businesses, especially streaming, would need to adapt.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

ATT has made one misstep after another with video. When they bought out DirecTV they quickly removed channels from their streaming product, ATT TV Now, and raised prices making their skinny bundle of streaming channels the most expensive with the nearly the fewest channels. Hence, the nearly 50% loss of subscribers over the last year to that service.

Then they just opened up their full live streaming, cable/sat replacement service, ATT TV, complete with fat channels, an unneeded box, a contract and an ETF. Pricing is high making it an even less desirable product.

Of course in this latest financial from them they blame 
Coronavirus for some of it, but I don’t think Coronavirus had any effect on it that wouldn’t have been there anyway because the product is not what the consumer wants and the price for it is too darned high. Many ‘experts’ have been saying the same thing for a very long time.

Making ATT TV an even tougher sale is that cable companies can sell their TV service bundled with internet for less. On ATT’s side, getting people on streaming cuts their costs but without benefit to the consumer.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

lparsons21 said:


> Since HBO and HBO Max are the same price I can't figure out any way that HBO non-Max will even be a thing going forward. Doesn't make sense. But then again, AT&T seems hell bent on doing things that don't make sense when it comes to streaming TV!


I'm guessing it's because when you subscribe via a cable co., the cable co. gets some of the money. When you switch to Max-for-the-same-price, HBO gets all the profit. Customers have an incentive to switch and no price increase.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Dawghows said:


> I'm _very_ curious to see what happens with HBO Max for me. As I'm sure I mentioned at least once before, HBO Now thinks I'm subscribed via Hulu. This used to be true, but I dropped it from Hulu in January.


Well, last night it finally happened. My wife and I sat down to watch the Downton Abbey movie (not very good, BTW), and the HBO Now app said we needed to renew our subscription in order to continue watching. So now we're signed up directly to HBO Now on the $11.99/mo introductory deal. I was expecting the account to get straightened out during their changeover to MAX, and I'm guessing that's what happened.


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

mlsnyc said:


> That'd be nice. I guess I'll wait and see when it rolls out. And when I compared the difference between my Choice Enhanced and Elite, both just said they offered HBO. So maybe it will carry over. Overall while I'd love to get Max, it's more that I don't want to lose Go.


Well alrighty then...


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

I recently learned that FIOS customers who subscribe to HBO will be able to view HBO MAX at no additional charge. I don't have a smart TV so unless FIOS offers it through their DVR like it does Netflix I don't think I'd use it much since I'm not a fan of watching shows on the desktop computer.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

jamesbobo said:


> I recently learned that FIOS customers who subscribe to HBO will be able to view HBO MAX at no additional charge.


My cable company is Suddenlink and just found out the same:


> Altice USA will give all its existing Optimum and Suddenlink HBO and HBO Now subscribers immediate access to HBO Max. The service will be available to these customers in addition to their existing HBO linear and on demand services at no extra cost. Customers will be able to access HBO Max by downloading the app or accessing it on desktop and logging in using their Altice One, Optimum or Suddenlink credentials. Altice's remaining and new customers will be able to purchase HBO Max directly from the company as part of a cable TV package, as an add-on to a video package or as a standalone streaming service available to internet-only customers.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

jamesbobo said:


> I recently learned that FIOS customers who subscribe to HBO will be able to view HBO MAX at no additional charge. I don't have a smart TV so unless FIOS offers it through their DVR like it does Netflix I don't think I'd use it much since I'm not a fan of watching shows on the desktop computer.


Roku. Apple TV. Fire TV. Chromecast. All pretty cheap.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

^^No deal yet for HBOMax with Roku, for the record.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

lambertman said:


> ^^No deal yet for HBOMax with Roku, for the record.


Or Amazon.


----------



## markymark_ctown (Oct 11, 2004)

Did HBO pull their free content from Amazon Prime? We have been watching Six Feet Under (now in Season 3) and when we went to watch an episode last night, we had a purchase option rather than just viewing the episode.


----------



## Generic (Dec 27, 2005)

Entire 'Ed Sullivan Show' Catalogue Hits Streaming Platforms


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Generic said:


> Entire 'Ed Sullivan Show' Catalogue Hits Streaming Platforms


The story *says* that, but the only details are that selected performances from the Ed Sullivan Show are hitting YouTube. I am utterly baffled.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

lambertman said:


> The story *says* that, but the only details are that selected performances from the Ed Sullivan Show are hitting YouTube. I am utterly baffled.


Yeah, if the deal is with UMe, as the story says (i.e., Universal Music Group), there's a _lot_ of "Ed Sullivan Show" content that still wouldn't be covered by those rights.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I have the Beatles performances on the Ed Sullivan show on DVD (at least the first two in NY and Miami...or as Ed called it My-am-eh). It's the whole show in it's entirely (including commercials!) So I wonder if they can stream something similar.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

WHAT THE EVERY LOVING Hell?

YouTubeTV price jumping to $65????

YouTube TV Hikes Price by 30% to $65 per Month - Variety


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

The old Comcast trick. Add channels/speed, follow up with a non-negotiable price hike later.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

See how the Wife factor goes, but I could be on board with dropping it flat out and going fully streaming or just cheap hulu


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

I'm surprised that it took them this long since when Hulu raised it's hulu live prices for youtube to do the same. And what a great selection of channels they added as part of that price hike . With the lack of anything new really and no sports, I dropped the live tv part for the time being. With F1 coming back soon, I might have to reassess that decision, but right now it seems like it's an awful lot more to pay just to watch one extra thing.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

As I mentioned in some other thread. I tried the Youtube TV 5 day trial, and cancelled. This was just a week or two ago. Really nothing I care that much about. Plus, I pay for a number of streaming services that give me more options than I could possibly ever watch. I do pay for Youtube Premium. There is infinitely more stuff I find interesting on Youtube than on Youtube TV.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

gschrock said:


> With F1 coming back soon, I might have to reassess that decision, but right now it seems like it's an awful lot more to pay just to watch one extra thing.


Why not get an F1 TV sub?


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

I've been complaining lately about our somewhat minimal usage of YTTV. This sizable increase makes my decision easy. 

I'm out, immediately.

Edit: Just a few clicks, easy peasy.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

So, let me get this straight, you won't pony up the cost of two fancy Starbucks drinks per month? OK...yeah, it's the "principle" of the thing. The gall of Google to do something so terrible. And, lest ye think I'm a Google fanboy, I'm totally immersed in the  ecosystem.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

markp99 said:


> I've been complaining lately about our somewhat minimal usage of YTTV. This sizable increase makes my decision easy.
> 
> I'm out, immediately.
> 
> Edit: Just a few clicks, easy peasy.


Maybe if 30% of subscribers do that, they'll rethink it.
The "new content" isn't a 30% bump. 
It's not as if the providers (cable and otherwise) have lowered their fees even though all the sports channels have been nothing but talk for months.
I also suspect contact will be lacking in about a year, since most production has been shut down.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

It's quite a dilemma. In my house, we find ourselves watching less and less cable TV programming, so it's value to us keeps going down, while the price keeps going up. But we still watch some things on it, and it's really nice to have it available when we want to watch something on a whim. (We're not actually YouTube TV subscribers, yet, but we were thinking of switching.)


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

randian said:


> Why not get an F1 TV sub?


I honestly didn't even realize that was available for the US. Hmm, $80 (presumably $60 after the discount they're advertising) for live, or $27 for the on demand. The live stuff would basically be the cost of turning hulu live back on for me for a couple months. But realistically I have to admit I seldom watch the races live given the time zones, so that on demand pricing is actually a definite possibility for now.

Hmm, although the replays might only be 2 days later, even on their more expensive package. Whereas with hulu live the espn feed is available later that same day. Hmm, pondering pondering.

Thanks.


----------



## PaulS (Sep 16, 2002)

I'm also out on YouTubeTV. It was barely worth the cost to me at $50/month, given what I was watching (a few shows and live sports which are currently non-existent). Adding 8 channels I'll never watch and an additional cost of $15/month to the bargaining table tips the scales quite easily for me.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

PaulS said:


> I'm also out on YouTubeTV.


We're in the same market. What's your plan for Live Locals & Sports?

Locast will bring me most of my locals, but NESN and NBC Sports are not in the mix. Ugh.


----------



## PaulS (Sep 16, 2002)

Rabbit ears aren't an option for me - I'd only get Channel 9 reliably. Hulu Live doesn't carry NESN, so I'd have to go with whatever streaming option the NHL is providing to watch the B's. I don't really watch locals except when the Pats are on. Not sure what to do there. Haven't really evaluated the options in too much detail yet. Decision was made easier by the fact that there's nothing new on TV right now - that will change when sports start back up.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

So, I'm now a YouTube TV subscriber. Even at $65/month, it makes sense to me. Although put in terms of paying $15/month for Viacom, of which only one channel we might watch occasionally, it's very bad deal. (Somehow it got tuned to MTV, and OMG, what's wrong with kids today? I suppose I'm officially old!)

I'm having some trouble adjusting to the "library" interface. It categorizes things in a way I don't appreciate, and the very first category, "new in your library", only ever shows one series (always the same series). Also, it mixes VOD episodes in with recordings, even though I have zero interest in watching things with with ads I can't skip. Worse, it mixes in AMC Premiere content (which costs extra!) in with my AMC recordings.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

PaulS said:


> Rabbit ears aren't an option for me - I'd only get Channel 9 reliably. Hulu Live doesn't carry NESN, so I'd have to go with whatever streaming option the NHL is providing to watch the B's. I don't really watch locals except when the Pats are on. Not sure what to do there. Haven't really evaluated the options in too much detail yet. Decision was made easier by the fact that there's nothing new on TV right now - that will change when sports start back up.


I thought that if you lived in an hockey (or baseball, or basketball) team's RSN region, you couldn't stream that team's games if they were airing on the RSN, whether or not you had cable TV. One site I have seen says that only Fubo and YouTube TV have NESN (and YTTV does not have NESN+).


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

That Don Guy said:


> I thought that if you lived in an hockey (or baseball, or basketball) team's RSN region, you couldn't stream that team's games if they were airing on the RSN, whether or not you had cable TV. One site I have seen says that only Fubo and YouTube TV have NESN (and YTTV does not have NESN+).


Nowhere near true. You are thinking of the sports packages like Center Ice which does local blackouts. I'd your carrier streams the channel, it is typically available everywhere. Also, at least for baseball, all the Fox owned RSNs can be viewed in their apps but you may need to have cable. I think same is true for most others like NBC owned and ATT owned.

ATT streaming just added several RSNs. Here I can watch any of the pro teams in the Baltimore Washington area now. I need to be in market to get them. They just added MASN which didn't stream anywhere before. I assume that means a change in MASN policy.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

There's sports to watch?


----------



## tigercat74 (Aug 7, 2004)

DouglasPHill said:


> There's sports to watch?


I've been watching a lot of EPL but that season just ended this weekend.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Nowhere near true. You are thinking of the sports packages like Center Ice which does local blackouts. I'd your carrier streams the channel, it is typically available everywhere. Also, at least for baseball, all the Fox owned RSNs can be viewed in their apps but you may need to have cable. I think same is true for most others like NBC owned and ATT owned.


That's what I meant - @PaulS said that he can't get NESN on Hulu Plus, so he was looking into whatever options the NHL had for streaming, which I assumed meant Center Ice.


----------



## PaulS (Sep 16, 2002)

Yeah, I need my hockey! Super pumped to watch 13 hours of hockey every day. LOL
Anyways, it looks like NHL.TV is like $5 for the post-season stuff, which is kind of a steal. I might do that.

I have my doubts about NFL, given today's unsurprising announcements from MLB.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

A *ton* of games are going to be on NHL Network and NBCSN. You may not need center ice.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

lambertman said:


> A *ton* of games are going to be on NHL Network and NBCSN. You may not need center ice.


I've found center ice to be basically useless for playoffs in a normal year. More games this year but I'd expect to be able to see every game without it.

I just checked. Every game on my TiVo that is on CI is on a national network. Data is up to August 6.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

just noticed my DVR recorded some hockey...I wonder what the heck it is...going to check...


----------



## PaulS (Sep 16, 2002)

lambertman said:


> A *ton* of games are going to be on NHL Network and NBCSN. You may not need center ice.


My problem is that I've recently ditched YouTubeTV (over their recent $15/mo price hike). Looking for alternate methods to watch hockey outside of cable and YouTubeTV. Don't really need any other "linear" programming, so that kind of rules out Fubo or Philo.


----------



## Generic (Dec 27, 2005)

Cities sue Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, claim they owe cable "franchise fees"


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

Generic said:


> Cities sue Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, claim they owe cable "franchise fees"


Don't see them winning that one. Although it is 2020, so who knows. Lol


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

NFL Network added to YouTubeTV
Redzone for $11 a month
and more

Major updates to sports on YouTube TV


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

The problem isn’t the cost of the NFL Network and Redzone on YTTV, it is the value proposition of any live streaming service at all these days.

It is not the fault of the live streaming services, it is just that the content producers aren’t producing anything new or interesting these days, mostly because of the shutdowns caused by coronavirus.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

Generic said:


> Cities sue Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, claim they owe cable "franchise fees"


That's absurd, of course, but I found this quote just silly:



> "For years, cable companies have called franchise fees unfair because competitors who don't need the right of way-such as satellite-TV services or online-video services-don't have to pay cities a dime," The Colorado Sun wrote in a 2019 article.


Oh, boo hoo! Launch a satellite, if that's what you want! (I hear that's pricey, too!)


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

lparsons21 said:


> The problem isn't the cost of the NFL Network and Redzone on YTTV, it is the value proposition of any live streaming service at all these days.
> 
> It is not the fault of the live streaming services, it is just that the content producers aren't producing anything new or interesting these days, mostly because of the shutdowns caused by coronavirus.


ummm ok

Well this is a nice addition to the current price of YTTV and I'm happy that I can get RedZone for just $11 addon and not have to subscribe to Sling just for Redzone


----------



## samsauce29 (Nov 30, 2007)

MikeMar said:


> ummm ok
> 
> Well this is a nice addition to the current price of YTTV and I'm happy that I can get RedZone for just $11 addon and not have to subscribe to Sling just for Redzone


Agreed. I've never had Red Zone, but for $11, I'll try it for a month... Thanks for the info.


----------



## tigercat74 (Aug 7, 2004)

samsauce29 said:


> Agreed. I've never had Red Zone, but for $11, I'll try it for a month... Thanks for the info.


I tried Redzone for a couple Sundays. It wasn't for me. I didn't like the bouncing around to different games. I just liked focusing on one.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

tigercat74 said:


> I tried Redzone for a couple Sundays. It wasn't for me. I didn't like the bouncing around to different games. I just liked focusing on one.


I'm the opposite. When my team is not playing and I don't have a great interest in the games that are on, it's a great way to see what's going on in all the other games.


----------



## type_g (Sep 9, 2002)

jr461 said:


> I'm the opposite. When my team is not playing and I don't have a great interest in the games that are on, it's a great way to see what's going on in all the other games.


100% agree. Also if you play fantasy football, like I do, RedZone is a must so you can root for your player when that game is switched to on RedZone.


----------



## tigercat74 (Aug 7, 2004)

type_g said:


> 100% agree. Also if you play fantasy football, like I do, RedZone is a must so you can root for your player when that game is switched to on RedZone.


I don't play fantasy football. I can see how that would be helpful.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jr461 said:


> I'm the opposite. When my team is not playing and I don't have a great interest in the games that are on, it's a great way to see what's going on in all the other games.


I root for the same team as you, and it's usually the only game I watch in full. I don't really care about any other game, unless it's late in the season and another game matters to the Giants. Red Zone can be fun to just be able to watch the good parts of games.

With all that, DirecTV is giving me NFL Sunday Ticket for free this year, so I have this and all the games.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

Yesterday, I tried to sign up for Sunday Ticket via streaming at the student rate, as I've done for the last several years. I still have one kid in college, but it kept telling me "student record not found". Guess I won't be getting Sunday Ticket this year.

It's just as well, because last season, I was busy with other things on Sunday so often that it didn't seem work even the $100 student rate.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Anyone have any idea how the adding sports tier works (red zone) in terms of timing

Does it just lineup with my monthly bill or does it start when I start it?
Wonder if I can just turn this on now or if I should wait until Sat/Sun to start it?


----------



## Grasshopper AZ (Apr 29, 2005)

MikeMar said:


> Anyone have any idea how the adding sports tier works (red zone) in terms of timing
> 
> Does it just lineup with my monthly bill or does it start when I start it?
> Wonder if I can just turn this on now or if I should wait until Sat/Sun to start it?


I signed up last night. It said I would be billed partial for the reaming time this month and then in full going forward.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Grasshopper AZ said:


> I signed up last night. It said I would be billed partial for the *reaming* time this month and then in full going forward.


Freudian?


----------



## Grasshopper AZ (Apr 29, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> Freudian?


Well....... My YTTV bill is creeping closer to what my dishnet bill used to be


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

I'll be switching to YTTV if Comcast stops supporting the operation of my exisiting cable card. I'm on a grandfathered comcast plan for our TV and 200mb service. the cost of YTTV will be covered by shifting to the competitor (Burlington Telecomm here in VT) for an internet only plan or strongarming comcast to give me similar pricing


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Anyone able to go to the free preview of red zone channel on YTTV?

I added it to my guide but nothing shows up when I scroll through the live


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

MikeMar said:


> Anyone able to go to the free preview of red zone channel on YTTV?
> 
> I added it to my guide but nothing shows up when I scroll through the live


Same here. I'm thinking it won't show up until just before game time. I did notice that you can still sign up for a week of free Sports +, which includes the Redzone.


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

RedZone just appeared on my guide without me doing anything. I watched a bit of it yesterday.

The email I got telling me about the free preview weekend said you’re not supposed to have to do anything to see it.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

It's weird. On my custom guide I can add it
But in the love guide it's not there

But I can record it. Very weird


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I have Red Zone checked in the Live Guide, and moved it to the top of the listing. It doesn't actually appear on any of the devices.

I can display it by searching for "Red Zone," however.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I finally got Redzone in the Home screen and then it showed up on the Live guide, too. I have a hard time sorting things out when they have 3 games on screen along with the announcers from those games and the Redzone announcer all talking at once. I think I might mute it all and put on some music.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I'm not in the target audience for Red Zone. I'm literally dizzy with all the game shifts.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Red Zone holds no pull for me anymore because my team is trash and therefore always plays at 1.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

lambertman said:


> Red Zone holds no pull for me anymore because my team is trash and therefore always plays at 1.


Put a 2nd TV next to your tv OR

Just do what I did, Pats played at 1
Record both
Watch Pats game slightly delayed, skip halftime, and watch redzone after
I setup this table to block the scroll at the bottom


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

MikeMar said:


> View attachment 52363
> 
> 
> Put a 2nd TV next to your tv OR
> ...


I use PIP on my tv. Switch around a lot. Miss Sunday Ticket on Directv. Easier to switch around when I had Directv.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

MikeMar said:


> It's weird. On my custom guide I can add it
> But in the *love guide* it's not there
> 
> But I can record it. Very weird


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Bierboy said:


>


haha whoops, typo there
But yeah it shows up when it airs
Really annoying that you have to search to add it the first time to record


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

Quibi is officially shutting down its streaming service


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

Hulu live + no ads going up $10 month. Not sure I'm seeing $71 worth of value there, but still need to find a way to get sports.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Up again?!!?! $10 more?!?! It's already pretty expensive!


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I had Hulu basic for a while when they offered it at something like $1.99 per month, but I never watched it so I eventually dropped it. My Disney+ just came up for renewal and I just dropped that one as well. I still get Amazon with Prime and I also subscribe to Netflix, neither of which I watch all that much, but the grand kids like the kids shows so we'll keep it. Most of the things I watch are on FIOS or OTA with a handful of streaming shows when the mood strikes me. When you add up all of the costs involved to get the shows you want from the various services it adds up pretty quick. Cable starts looking a lot better as an alternative when you see what just a few streaming services will cost you. I know that a lot of people will sign up for a service just to watch one season of a particular show and then drop the service, but I'd rather not have to deal with that. My wife only watches the classic movie channels and doesn't even bother tuning to the HD versions of those channels, which frustrates the heck out of me.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> I had Hulu basic for a while when they offered it at something like $1.99 per month, but I never watched it so I eventually dropped it. My Disney+ just came up for renewal and I just dropped that one as well. I still get Amazon with Prime and I also subscribe to Netflix, neither of which I watch all that much, but the grand kids like the kids shows so we'll keep it. Most of the things I watch are on FIOS or OTA with a handful of streaming shows when the mood strikes me. When you add up all of the costs involved to get the shows you want from the various services it adds up pretty quick. Cable starts looking a lot better as an alternative when you see what just a few streaming services will cost you. I know that a lot of people will sign up for a service just to watch one season of a particular show and then drop the service, but I'd rather not have to deal with that. My wife only watches the classic movie channels and doesn't even bother tuning to the HD versions of those channels, which frustrates the heck out of me.


Been saying exactly this for awhile now. Sports is a major issue for me, ease of finding things in one place is another (though getting better), sound quality, dependence on the internet, lackluster DVR services, and streaming limits (concurrent streams) are others. And now, as the popularity is rising, the content will get more expensive, and the streamers will raise prices. And because of this, we are seeing sports disappearing quickly.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

My subscription renewal is on the 26th, so I'll have one more at the current rate. May give Sling Blue a look after that, idk.


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

Steveknj said:


> nd now, as the popularity is rising, the content will get more expensive, and the streamers will raise prices. And because of this, we are seeing sports disappearing quickly.


From what I've read here and heard from my friends, this is not an issue and maybe even a plus. For people who don't like sports, their issue with the traditional model is they have to pay for the programming which drive up costs for something they don't watch. For those who do like sports, well, a good friend of mine who only watches TV for sports has totally cut the cord. He says it's a huge PITA but he finds a way to watch the games.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mlsnyc said:


> From what I've read here and heard from my friends, this is not an issue and maybe even a plus. For people who don't like sports, their issue with the traditional model is they have to pay for the programming which drive up costs for something they don't watch. For those who do like sports, well, a good friend of mine who only watches TV for sports has totally cut the cord. He says it's a huge PITA but he finds a way to watch the games.


Can't argue that for folks who don't watch sports (where I'm seeing most of the cord cutting) there almost certainly a cost savings. As I'm an avid sports fan, which during normal times is probably 30% of my TV viewing, cord cutting is not an option and completely becoming less so, at least for those of us who live in the NYC Demo. I love that I have the option to watch:

All three local RSNs
The sport centric networks like NFL Network, MLB Network, MLB Network, etc.
ESPN and all of it's iterations.
FSN, NBCSN (a must for me as a hockey fan), CBSSN
NFL Sunday Ticket (though I don't normally sub to this, I'm getting it as a freebie this year)

Is there any one streamer that gives me at least the first 4? I know the answer to that.

At this point streaming to replace SAT is a non starter. I'm sure your friend has ways to watch what he wants, but I'll bet it's a PITA to figure that all out.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

My YTTV lineup has

the NBC regionals (2 Philly, one DC) (varies by market, obviously)
ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, SEC Network, ACCN, ESPNU, BIG 10 Network
MLB Network, NBA TV, NFL Network, Golf Channel, Tennis Network, Olympic Channel
FS1, FS2, CBS Sports Nework, NBCSN


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

Steveknj said:


> Is there any one streamer that gives me at least the first 4? I know the answer to that.


And even worse than that, we're Yankee fans and YES network is no longer on Hulu Live, which was the last streaming provider to offer it. So we're outta luck unless we have Cable/Satellite. My friend who cut the cord isn't a Yankee fan, but his wife is a rabid one. She's making do with checking the score online if the game is on Yes.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mlsnyc said:


> And even worse than that, we're Yankee fans and YES network is no longer on Hulu Live, which was the last streaming provider to offer it. So we're outta luck unless we have Cable/Satellite. My friend who cut the cord isn't a Yankee fan, but his wife is a rabid one. She's making do with checking the score online if the game is on Yes.


You can play games with VPNs and such to try and get MLB AB, but I don't want to do that. MSG Network, which is important to me even more than the Yankees because of the Rangers) isn't available on any of the major streamers (but I think on the one that's sports oriented, Fubo I think?) So for me, to watch that my choices are cable and DirecTV, period.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> Is there any one streamer that gives me at least the first 4? I know the answer to that.


FUBO.TV has a lot of what you listed plus more. Look at the
Elite Plan.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

Currently with streaming, the two prime pushers of rates is having the locals and sports. If you can get those two without streaming, there is real savings to be had. But add either or both to your streaming choices and the costs are getting very close to cable/sat.

For sports the Sinclair/Fox RSNs seem to be the harder ones to get streaming. Unless I’m missing something it seems that only ATT TV (and Now) have them. But minimum cost with any ATT TV streaming version subscription levels that have those RSNs is $80/month.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Allanon said:


> FUBO.TV has a lot of what you listed want plus more. Look at the
> Elite Plan.


That's the one I was thinking of, but I see YES Network is no longer offered. Thus it's a non-starter


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

We only have one regional sports network here, so that's a little easier. I also don't care too much about nfl tv, nhl tv, etc - those sports specific ones. I do want espn, and big ten network. Between those and the regionals, I'd probably get about 90% of the sports I tend to watch.

I'm finding that except for the sports part, I never use the "live" part of hulu live. Makes it tough swallowing another $10 increase.

I'm not going back to cable, that's not really an option. Quite honesty, the HD picture here kept getting worse and worse, so it was already on my nerves anyways. I may just have to reconsider what sports I watch, I've been annoyed with some of them anways lately.


----------



## kcarl75 (Oct 23, 2002)

I think I'm going to do the Hulu 1.99 for 12 months tomorrow - Hulu Help
Not a fan of ads, but that's pretty nice.

Has anyone seen if Amazon is doing any Black Friday promotions for channels within Prime Video? My Prime day specials for Showtime and Starz run out next month.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Hulu deal is live. 

FYI: My buddy, who did last years deal went for it but it kept getting declined despite using a new email/cc. I suggested he use his phones hotspot and it worked.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

If you're a Sprint customer, you can get Hulu w/Ads for free.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I went to cancel my Hulu subscription that I started with last year's BF deal and is about to expire. I got a screen that says

"*Get 1 Month of Hulu*
Try our ad-supported plan. Only $1.99/month after offer period. FYI, you'll lose access to any free trials immediately. If you are subscribed to the Disney bundle, you'll give up Disney+ and ESPN+.

After your offer period, and at the end of any applicable discounts, you will be charged $1.99/month plus taxes, if any, on a recurring basis. If you cancel during your offer period, you will not be charged. Your subscription will continue until you cancel. To cancel, log into the Hulu website, go to your account page, and follow the instructions. By selecting 'Take Offer,' you agree to this recurring charge."

So does this mean if I accept this offer it just extends the $1.99 Hulu deal that I'm currently on indefinitely after giving me a free month? I'm not sure if there's some catch that I'm not seeing.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

I would not take any chances. I cancelled and the last page mentions you can continue to watch 'til the billing cycle ends.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)




----------



## DawnW (Nov 28, 2008)

I jumped on the Hulu with Disney+ for $4.99/mo for 12 months when it was available. 

We still have DISH from when my dad was here and wanted it. I would like to get rid of it, but we haven't done it yet.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I'm still subscribed to FIOS because my wife likes to watch the classic movie channels and I record some cable shows. I recently dropped Netflix because I rarely used it. I do have Paramount+ and Amazon Prime, mainly because I'm signed up for Prime for the free shipping. I signed up for Paramount+ because it offered some quality shows that I do watch. Pretty much anything that Taylor Sheridan is involved with plus the Star Trek shows and SEAL Team.

My one major beef with streaming services is the inability to record shows in order to skip commercials. Being able to watch whatever you want on demand is a nice feature, but recording everything I watch gives me the same flexibility plus the ability to skip past commercials. I know that I could sign up for Hulu+ to watch shows without commercials, but the service doesn't provide all of the shows I like to watch. The way I see it, having to sign up for multiple streaming services to get all of the content you want just promotes piracy unless you don't care about the cost. 

The only sports I watch on a regular basis is the NFL, but I will watch baseball and hockey on occasion. I watched the NFL game last Thursday night on Amazon Prime and I kept wanting to skip past the commercials. The strange thing is that the image quality of the commercials was crap and painful to watch. The game itself was fine but if I have to suffer through commercials they should at least try to make them watchable.


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)

mr.unnatural said:


> My one major beef with streaming services is the inability to record shows in order to skip commercials.


'Philo' streaming service offers the ability to record shows. I don't know the details. I've been hearing commercials on radio about 'Philo'. I don't know if they carry the shows your interesting in. 









$25 TV Subscription: Live & On-Demand TV Streaming Service | Philo


Philo's TV streaming service is available for only $25 a month! Enjoy live and on-demand TV, unlimited DVR and 60+ channels with Epix and Starz add-on options. A&E, AMC, BET, Comedy Central, Discovery Channel, Hallmark, VH1, Food Network, HGTV, MTV, TLC, AXS.




www.philo.com


----------



## MrDell (Jul 8, 2012)

Malcontent said:


> 'Philo' streaming service offers the ability to record shows. I don't know the details. I've been hearing commercials on radio about 'Philo'. I don't know if they carry the shows your interesting in.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Philo has unlimited DVR service and it will store your shows for up to one year.


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)

Roku Is Now Making Its Own TVs


The streaming device company will design and make its own televisions while promising to maintain its current partnerships with TCL and others.




www.cnet.com


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

MrDell said:


> Philo has unlimited DVR service and it will store your shows for up to one year.


Really?!?! They must have changed it. When I last had Philo, one year ago, they only kept the recordings for thirty days. The number of recordings was unlimited. But they limited how long they would store them to thirty days.

Having them keep the recordings for a year is a much, much better deal.


----------



## MrDell (Jul 8, 2012)

aaronwt said:


> Really?!?! They must have changed it. When I last had Philo, one year ago, they only kept the recordings for thirty days. The number of recordings was unlimited. But they limited how long they would store them to thirty days.
> 
> Having them keep the recordings for a year is a much, much better deal.


Yes.. I currently subscribe to Philo and find the one year Dvr storage very useful.


----------



## osu1991 (Mar 6, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> Really?!?! They must have changed it. When I last had Philo, one year ago, they only kept the recordings for thirty days. The number of recordings was unlimited. But they limited how long they would store them to thirty days.
> 
> Having them keep the recordings for a year is a much, much better deal.


They changed it to one year when they raised the price to $25. I’m still grandfathered on the old $20 plan so still only have 30 days dvr storage.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Malcontent said:


> 'Philo' streaming service offers the ability to record shows. I don't know the details. I've been hearing commercials on radio about 'Philo'. I don't know if they carry the shows your interesting in.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I just checked the link for Philo and the channels you can record are the same channels I can currently record from FIOS. They don't provide a means to record from streaming services like NetFlix or Amazon. I have a PlayOn subscription that allows me to record from any streaming service I'm subscribed to, but it limits me to 2.0 channel stereo and I think it also limits the resolution, but I'm not 100% sure about that since I haven't used it in quite some time.

You set up PlayOn with your login credentials for each streaming service and then you add programs you want to record to your queue. It records them in real time so it's doesn't simply download the shows to your PC. It sets up folders on your PC for each show ad season that you're recording and keeps them in a library on your PC so you can keep them for as long as you like.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> I just checked the link for Philo and the channels you can record are the same channels I can currently record from FIOS. They don't provide a means to record from streaming services like NetFlix or Amazon. I have a PlayOn subscription that allows me to record from any streaming service I'm subscribed to, but it limits me to 2.0 channel stereo and I think it also limits the resolution, but I'm not 100% sure about that since I haven't used it in quite some time.
> 
> You set up PlayOn with your login credentials for each streaming service and then you add programs you want to record to your queue. It records them in real time so it's doesn't simply download the shows to your PC. It sets up folders on your PC for each show ad season that you're recording and keeps them in a library on your PC so you can keep them for as long as you like.


I don't think there's anything else out there besides PlayOn that allows you to record from something like Netflix. But I've always wondered why anyone would need that? You have access to any of those services just by going into the app and streaming the show OnDemand. Most of them allow you to download so you can watch offline as well. Is there a use case I'm not thinking about, except maybe piracy? The only one I can think of is to potentially have it all in one place. OK, thought of one....maybe for shows leaving a certain streaming service, like Westworld leaving HBOMax. Any others?


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> But I've always wondered why anyone would need that? You have access to any of those services just by going into the app and streaming the show OnDemand.


Shows are on streaming services for a limited time. Less so for HBO shows on HBO Max but definitely for Netflix.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> Shows are on streaming services for a limited time. Less so for HBO shows on HBO Max but definitely for Netflix.


I can see that. Not what I usually do. If it's something I really want to watch, I watch fairly quickly. If it's something that can wait, it means if it goes off the service, I move on to something else. But everyone is different.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I don't think there's anything else out there besides PlayOn that allows you to record from something like Netflix. But I've always wondered why anyone would need that? You have access to any of those services just by going into the app and streaming the show OnDemand. Most of them allow you to download so you can watch offline as well. Is there a use case I'm not thinking about, except maybe piracy? The only one I can think of is to potentially have it all in one place. OK, thought of one....maybe for shows leaving a certain streaming service, like Westworld leaving HBOMax. Any others?


Two scenarios: 1. To remove commercials from ad-supported streaming services. 2. To be able to watch at faster than 1x speed.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> I don't think there's anything else out there besides PlayOn that allows you to record from something like Netflix. But I've always wondered why anyone would need that? You have access to any of those services just by going into the app and streaming the show OnDemand. Most of them allow you to download so you can watch offline as well. Is there a use case I'm not thinking about, except maybe piracy? The only one I can think of is to potentially have it all in one place. OK, thought of one....maybe for shows leaving a certain streaming service, like Westworld leaving HBOMax. Any others?


I will sometimes use PlayOn to download series from different streaming services and upload them to my Tivo. That way it's in the "My Shows" menu and I don't have to search 5 different apps to find something to watch. Plus the fast forward and rewind is much better.


----------



## tigercat74 (Aug 7, 2004)

Can PlayOn remove commercials from Hulu and Peacock?


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

tigercat74 said:


> Can PlayOn remove commercials from Hulu and Peacock?


I download PlayOn shows to Channels DVR which nukes the commercials.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I used to use PlayOn for many of the reasons already mentioned. I never know when I'll get a chance to watch a particular show or series so I like to archive it on my server so it will always be available when I finally find the time. Shows on NetFlix and other services aren't available indefinitely so I tend to grab them when they're available, especially older TV shows that are only in mono or 2-channel stereo. Newer stuff with full surround and 4k I will watch directly from the source.

Truth is, I bought a lifetime license for PlayOn years ago but I hardly ever use it. Sometimes I'll hear about an old show that' being shown on one of the streaming services I subscribe to so I'll record the series and watch it at my leisure.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

tigercat74 said:


> Can PlayOn remove commercials from Hulu and Peacock?


Their new PlayOn Home software claims to skip commercials in all recordings.


----------

