Will Video Streaming Services Become What We Hated About Cable?

[GO-NAD!]

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/06/warnermedia-and-new-streaming-tv-era/591373/

I cut my cable a couple of years ago, because it wasn't worth the cost, considering how little of it that we watched. I have an OTA antenna and Netflix, which is sufficient at the moment. It isn't perfect - I ended up buying Game of Thrones Seasons 1-7 BD set on a Boxing Day sale, because it streams on Crave in Canada. There is no Crave app available for my Roku and do I want two streaming subscriptions anyway?

If, as implied by the article, increasing numbers of streaming services start to hive off content, forcing people to have multiple subscriptions in order to see the content they want, will be right back where we are/were with cable providers - paying too much for the small number of programs we want to see?

 

[Trell]

I'm thinking the same. Currently I've Netflix and HBO, but sadly in EU the streaming providers offers different programming for different countries (license issues), which I don't like at all.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I'm thinking the same. Currently I've Netflix and HBO, but sadly in EU the streaming providers offers different programming for different countries (license issues), which I don't like at all.

It's the same with Netflix in Canada and the USA. When Netflix started streaming in Canada, it was a very poor cousin to the American version. It's much better now, but they certainly aren't identical.

 

[panteragstk]

I pretty much saw this coming when Disney announced their service even though they have the Hulu platform to build off of.

The up side to this is that it essentially creates the al a carte cable we all wish existed. Pay for the networks you want and be done with it.

It was nice that you could netflix, hulu, and prime video and really miss out on almost nothing. The good ole days.

I will say though a lot of streaming TV options are expensive, Philo is pretty great for the $16/mo I'm paying for it. No sports, but that's easily fixed with another service. I get ATT WatcTV for free with my phone plan so I've got lots of options.

What will really be necessary is a content aggregator to put all these services into one interface to make watching what you want easy. I've got a few services now and remembering what show is on what under what profile is irritating.

 

[Hobbit]

I'm pretty sure it will,,,,,, unfortunately. It's already stratifying. It seems to me Netflix is having problems getting new material (that they don't make). Thus, I'm seeing lots of old shows and movies which are easy to get appear on their playlists.

At this point, I'm hoping the only difference once the dust settles is timing. For example, Disney runs their stuff then let's Netflix play it. From a $$$ POV this makes sense. If you must see show X on Disney you pay for their service. Once the show is old, Disney can make more $$$ licensing it to Netflix for a period of time. And so on.

 

[Darenwh]

Better question is 'Will this be the nail in the coffin for physical media?' If Disney continues coming out with blockbusters like they have been for quite a long time would you subscribe if that was the only way for you to get their programming at home? How about Warner Media (AT&T)?, Netflix?, Comcast (owns NBC/Universal I believe)? If each of these companies can entice people to subscribe by making physical media a thing of the past then they likely will take that direction in the future.

Since many of these companies will likely not share content with other streaming companies that would limit the consumer to choosing to subscribe to the platforms or skip their programming all together. If NFL had a streaming platform that carried 100% of their programming and no other service could carry it would you subscribe?

The thought of subscribing to one or two services to get all your programming may very well be a pipe dream. Instead, you may need to subscribe to every service that has any content that you really want to have. Yes, you will get a very large amount of programming you don't want going this way but those who were hoping for a way to pick and choose only those programs they want are unfortunately likely going to get a rude awakening.

Fair disclosure, I work for AT&T but have no input on how this is going to go over time. Everything I say is based on only my point of view and does not reflect anything about AT&T's view. Nothing should be taken for anything more that what it is, which is, how I see things going.

 

[BMXTRIX]

YES!

The cost of cable companies isn't about the cable companies, but about what they are providing to consumers.

If you want your live channels and you want ESPN, and a bunch of other networks. You have a wife who likes Food Network, or DiY or sometimes MTV. If you like having those options instead of carefully selected plans, then the cost will end up being the same.

If you get unlimited services, then you will need to buy enough of them to replace cable in a meaningful manner, and there is little to no chance that it will end up being less money.

That's not to say that some people simply don't get by already by hooking up an antenna and just using Netflix and Hulu and calling it done. Plenty of people are already there with that. But, more and more I expect TV providers to pull services from individual streamers and offer up their version of the same thing.

Want ONE Disney channel? EF YOU! You get 9 channels or 0 channels. Nothing in between. $14.99 a month.

 

[lovinthehd]

What I mostly hated about cable when I had it was the inconsistent speed/service and poor customer service. Then I moved away to where sat was the only option for general tv content (such as local/network programs as well as specialty channels) and just recently cut DirecTV off completely as for the money the content was poor, seemed you were mostly paying for access to tons of channels playing commercials full time or at least good chunks of the time. I'm going with primarily Netflix and Prime with HBO for the most part (using Fire TV Sticks) as well as a disc subscription into at least the near future....

 

[j_garcia]

They already have. As with cable though, it is content. They keep going for content, content, content (their own) but if they just spent a bit more time on quality they'd do a lot better I think. Making 100 shows that the average person watches about 2 of, and the other 98 are watched by 1% or less of people, is kind of pointless.

Their new idea is exclusivity, hello, the same thing the big cable networks had. GoT pretty much shows how that works out though, people subscribe, watch the season and then cancel because the rest of what they offer isn't worth it.

 

[Erod]

Here's their problem.

Millennials pay for NOTHING. If Mom and Dad won't pay for it, or if they can't hack it and steal it online, they simply find another free shiny toy to distract them. There's a communal nature to that generation, and they take great pride in collectively working their way around the system.

The same people that threaten to destroy this hobby of ours with their smart phone/sound bar obsession are the same people that don't pay for cable or pretty much anything. They want a state-run everything, so they can live a care-free virtual life with no worries.

These people spend hours of their time and their own money watching other people play video games in basketball arenas. For crying out loud.

I'm wildly generalizing, of course, but it's significant enough to be real. Hollywood, sports, and the entertainment industry, not to mention the distributors of all entertainment, are struggling to get their arms around where this is headed.

 

[Trell]

Here's their problem.

Millennials pay for NOTHING. If Mom and Dad won't pay for it, or if they can't hack it and steal it online, they simply find another free shiny toy to distract them. There's a communal nature to that generation, and they take great pride in collectively working their way around the system.

I think that it's a bit harsh, to be honest.

... I'm wildly generalizing, of course, but it's significant enough to be real...

 

[panteragstk]

Here's their problem.

Millennials pay for NOTHING. If Mom and Dad won't pay for it, or if they can't hack it and steal it online, they simply find another free shiny toy to distract them. There's a communal nature to that generation, and they take great pride in collectively working their way around the system.

The same people that threaten to destroy this hobby of ours with their smart phone/sound bar obsession are the same people that don't pay for cable or pretty much anything. They want a state-run everything, so they can live a care-free virtual life with no worries.

These people spend hours of their time and their own money watching other people play video games in basketball arenas. For crying out loud.

I'm wildly generalizing, of course, but it's significant enough to be real. Hollywood, sports, and the entertainment industry, not to mention the distributors of all entertainment, are struggling to get their arms around where this is headed.

FWIW the millennial generation has a HUGE age range (me included, which I refuse to accept) and sadly a lot of them are the way you say, but a very large number (like me) have no issue paying for these sorts of things. I had HBO bundled with Hulu and used HBO now quite a lot. Then my $4/mo deal expired. $15 for the limited quantity HBO has is too much. ATT thinks so too. Whether that's good or bad, well, we'll have to see.

What's really bad is the fact that HBO Now/Go apparently only has a 4mbps stream cap. That's very low and not worth $15 per month. Quality over DirecTV for me wasn't very good at all. I think Amazon has better stream quality for some reason, but I haven't found a solid source for that.

One thing I had issues with on season 7 of GOT was my DTV box was being dumb and there were skips in the recording. Tried watching via HBO Now and it had even worse issues. Downloaded a copy and it played perfectly. That's a big reason piracy is on the rise again. That and nobody wants to subscribe to 50 services just to watch one show per service. That's a dumb model. It'd be easier to buy individual shows via Amazon, itunes, google play, etc. But, if their agreements with content providers expires, the show you "bought" is no longer available.

This comic is a bit dated, but still makes the point.

 

[Kvn_Walker]

That was always one of my fave Oatmeal comics. Sad but true.

 

[sven1olaf]

That oatmeal comic is spot on! When legit access is hidden behind a barrier that is more difficult to deal with than a less-legit solution...the less legit solution will win every time.

For the record, I don't torrent content, but don't blame the technology either.

We are rapidly running into a time where our ISP's throttling and metering our internet access is the limiting factor in our ability to consume media. Content creators should be up in arms about the lack of net neutrality, though I fear they believe they can ride the wave for short term gains. Anything gained today will be lost tomorrow as consumers continue to test and stretch the limits of their internet connections.

 

[Ponzio]

I have an Amazon Fire Stick and all I can say is, thank god for my millennial son-in-law otherwise I wouldn't spend any of my hard-earned cash on any of the alternate content providers with the exception of Netflix.

It's bad enough with what I'm paying thru the nose for Verizon FiOS to get local stations ... what a rip-off!

I'm lucky if I watch 5% of the content and that's for the sports or TNT/FX, the rest they could flush down the toilet.

 

[Phase 2]

Give them time, they will go up in price. Some already have, sure they start out with low prices just like cable TV and satellite did. Paying 150 to over 200 a month is throwing good money over there. I have over the air TV, get 16 channels, plus with my UHD TV it has a whole bunch of free apps. I use my cell data to stream what I want to watch. If I want I can pay for a new movie cost 1.99. like the rest I had COX cable, DirecTV satellite, every year they would go up on price, started out at 89 bucks got up to over 150. Now, outside of what my cell plan is 43 bucks a month that's it! I won't pat a dime for any music streaming services. I stream off of my cell data also tons of free music and much better from Norway, Scandinavia. FM sucks the big one never use it anymore, the USA sucks with all the censorship crap that's on the FM radio. Given time Netflix's Amazon streaming and so on will go up in price.

 

[panteragstk]

More streaming news. Every network is gunning for their own service.

All this news seems particularly bad for Netflix.

 

[2channel lover]

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/06/warnermedia-and-new-streaming-tv-era/591373/

I cut my cable a couple of years ago, because it wasn't worth the cost, considering how little of it that we watched. I have an OTA antenna and Netflix, which is sufficient at the moment. It isn't perfect - I ended up buying Game of Thrones Seasons 1-7 BD set on a Boxing Day sale, because it streams on Crave in Canada. There is no Crave app available for my Roku and do I want two streaming subscriptions anyway?

If, as implied by the article, increasing numbers of streaming services start to hive off content, forcing people to have multiple subscriptions in order to see the content they want, will be right back where we are/were with cable providers - paying too much for the small number of programs we want to see?

I hope not, but I'm afraid it's heading that direction.

We cut the cord about 9 mos ago, and picked up a bundler to ease into it (YoutubeTV+ hi speed+ amazon prime).

I've since started to get collect some of the core streaming stations I watch individually on my Roku....for free. YoutubeTV as it was originally planned was fine...roughly 40 channels, for $40 bucks a mos...more than enough for us. The problem is now they're wanting to expand their channel line up (adding more stuff that we're not going to watch) and they are going up $5 bucks a mo.

I've drawn a line in the sand at $50...if (more like when) it goes up again it will likely cross that line in the sand I've drawn and it will be time to cut them off.

 

[Bucknekked]

I hope not, but I'm afraid it's heading that direction.

We cut the cord about 9 mos ago, and picked up a bundler to ease into it (YoutubeTV+ hi speed+ amazon prime).

I've since started to get collect some of the core streaming stations I watch individually on my Roku....for free. YoutubeTV as it was originally planned was fine...roughly 40 channels, for $40 bucks a mos...more than enough for us. The problem is now they're wanting to expand their channel line up (adding more stuff that we're not going to watch) and they are going up $5 bucks a mo.

I've drawn a line in the sand at $50...if (more like when) it goes up again it will likely cross that line in the sand I've drawn and it will be time to cut them off.

It seems we have a true first world set of problems here. First, we complain (rightly so) about bundled deals and stuff we don't watch. The prices continue to go up, so we dump the bundles and cable. We rejoice in "choice" and we choose some lesser number of options for a smaller price. Then we opine for the stuff we don't have. The providers see an opportunity so they give us a few more choices for a few more bucks. We sign up. Then we complain about bundles again.

We cut the cord 6 years ago. We've been pretty happy with our streaming choices but as everyone on this thread has noted, the prices are creeping up because of how things get tied together. Overall, we are still paying far less than the old cable bill. Way less. But, the costs have gone up. In fairness, so has our enjoyment of many of those new choices we added.

I don't know how this will end except to say we will probably be shelling out more money. I can say that with confidence because history is a pretty good teacher. I spent most of my life paying about $10 bucks a month for a telephone line. Dial tone. Now what do I pay for a phone? Depending on how you define it, WAY MORE. And I have to buy the phone. And I have to replace the phone every so often because it becomes obsolete or the battery fails and costs an obscene amount of money. You get the picture.

We used to watch TV over the air for free. Like the venerable telephone, it provided a service and the fee was minimal. Now however we have "choices" and "technology" and hocus pocus. Its gonna cost more is the moral of the story. Unless you really want to go back to rabbit ears and rotary phones. I'm gonna pay up, get some popcorn, and enjoy what choices I'm gonna make.

 

[2channel lover]

It seems we have a true first world set of problems here. First, we complain (rightly so) about bundled deals and stuff we don't watch. The prices continue to go up, so we dump the bundles and cable. We rejoice in "choice" and we choose some lesser number of options for a smaller price. Then we opine for the stuff we don't have. The providers see an opportunity so they give us a few more choices for a few more bucks. We sign up. Then we complain about bundles again.

We cut the cord 6 years ago. We've been pretty happy with our streaming choices but as everyone on this thread has noted, the prices are creeping up because of how things get tied together. Overall, we are still paying far less than the old cable bill. Way less. But, the costs have gone up. In fairness, so has our enjoyment of many of those new choices we added.

I don't know how this will end except to say we will probably be shelling out more money. I can say that with confidence because history is a pretty good teacher. I spent most of my life paying about $10 bucks a month for a telephone line. Dial tone. Now what do I pay for a phone? Depending on how you define it, WAY MORE. And I have to buy the phone. And I have to replace the phone every so often because it becomes obsolete or the battery fails and costs an obscene amount of money. You get the picture.

We used to watch TV over the air for free. Like the venerable telephone, it provided a service and the fee was minimal. Now however we have "choices" and "technology" and hocus pocus. Its gonna cost more is the moral of the story. Unless you really want to go back to rabbit ears and rotary phones. I'm gonna pay up, get some popcorn, and enjoy what choices I'm gonna make.

Congrats on 6 yrs!

As we've gotten older, I've started to hark back on things my parents used to say and one of them was you gotta start watching those cash leaks. I knew what it meant, but never really paid much attention until about 3 yrs ago and since then we've paired down cell phone bills, gym memberships we were no longer using regularly, any kind of bill that repeats month after month.

We finally got around to TV last yr. I literally watched about 8 to 10 channels on a regular basis, and the wife watched even fewer, so having 150+ channels on cable was overkill to the 10th power.

We're happy with our new streaming setup, but I don't need more, more, more. I'm quite okay with a market condition price increase, but if their growth projection is 100+ channels and a price to support it, eventually they will lose us for something more simple.