Your Digital Media Has Never Looked So Good

 
West Ham
Posts: 322
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 7:40 am

Re: Food For Thought, Cord Cutters

Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:21 pm

krisbee wrote:
As far as torrents go,I think everyone has there own tolerance.Thats up to the individual.The shows that I downloaded were all from channels that I had a subscription for at the time.I just didnt want them on the DVR because of grandkids.I dont have that any longer so I am not sure how that will play out


I am not going to go on an ethical thing here - it isn't the place for it. However, unless you are using super private trackers - your ip is out there for anyone to capture and you will get caught one day, especially on current content. Think about it, all HBO has to do is download the torrent at the same time as you and capture all the IP's that are out there for the torrent and then contact your internet provider. Seen it done, so it does happen.



That is why people over the age of 13 do not use torrents. Rapidshare/Hotfile replaced torrents a long time ago
 
mommom
Posts: 971
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 9:21 am

Re: Food For Thought, Cord Cutters

Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:22 pm

"I am not going to go on an ethical thing here - it isn't the place for it. However, unless you are using super private trackers - your ip is out there for anyone to capture and you will get caught one day, especially on current content. Think about it, all HBO has to do is download the torrent at the same time as you and capture all the IP's that are out there for the torrent and then contact your internet provider. Seen it done, so it does happen.'

I have something recommended by my FAA IT director son.Have no idea how it works,but I trust him to not steer me wrong.

You know while I like saving money,the best part of cord cutting and using the internet and OTA is I watch what I want now,I would pay for the ability to stream what I want.
 
Metro11
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 8:10 am

Re: Food For Thought, Cord Cutters

Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:43 pm

robertm wrote:
The SyFy network had to cancel Stargate Universe and Caprica because it does not have enough money to maintain too many shows at one time unless they have a really strong following. What happens to Eureka and Warehouse 13 if there is a mass exodus from cable? Not to mention that the internet infrastructure cannot handle a massive number of cable refugees yet. Personally I hope the growth for streaming remains manageable and does not get out of control because I have enough headaches with it as it is and many of my favorite shows are not on network TV.


This a good and very valid point. We may soon see the disappearance of a lot of original programming due to the changing economics of the cable industry. However, it's inevitable change and, in part, may be the fault of the cable industry themselves for their failure to go to a more reasonable a la carte model which could still support programming development. I hope in the future individual cable networks will make themselves available for streaming or through a la carte cable services, for a low set monthly fee.

Ironically it was Stargate Universe which convinced me to cut the cord last Fall. I am a science fiction fan, and SyFy was one of the few (six or seven) cable channels I watched with any regularity. I watched the first few episodes of the second season of SGU and didn't see any improvement in the series from my perspective. I hated it -- from the over-the-top acting of Robert Carlyle to the gimmicky travel-back-home stones. I questioned why I was paying a hefty monthly bill to Time Warner for the relatively few cable shows I did enjoy watching. The only big stumbling block to cord-cutting remaining was MLB as I am a baseball fan, but I'll just have to find solutions for that.
 
robertm
Posts: 2665
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:06 pm

Re: Food For Thought, Cord Cutters

Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:53 pm

vmps wrote:
robertm wrote:
What I do not understand is why a cord cutter would want anyone else to cut the cord. Unless you don't watch any of them, there is no answer for what happens to the content produced on cable channels.


Sure there is: they'll find a different revenue model. Evolution in the ways people are entertained has happened a lot over the past few thousand years, but somehow people muddle along.



A different revenue model means they will still require the same amount of money. Also, if hulu plus is an example of how advertising dollars will be collected we may soon be forced to watch 16 minutes of advertising per hour again. That is not a step forward it is a step back.

I don't understand why everyone just assumes streaming will be cheaper if it has to carry the weight currently distributed to cable and satellite subscribers. People are so caught up with how cheap netflix is they forget there are billions and billions and billions of dollars collected and spent long before those shows end up on netflix. There are around 120 million homes paying a cable or satellite bill.

At the end of the day, there is no viable alternative yet. Until there is, cutting the cord may only cut the amount of available content.
 
mommom
Posts: 971
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 9:21 am

Re: Food For Thought, Cord Cutters

Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:02 pm

Funny but SGU was why I was hanging on hoping for the series to morph into the new Stargate Atlantis.It never did,but it had the makings of a great story.If they had just left out the trips home and concentrated more on the really interesting characters-poor Chloe got stuck in her room forever,Levi never got to really break out,Matt was the blandest character ever.I gave up when the extra months of Dish they had given me when I first tried to cancel were up.I might have hung on to a minimal subscription if the SF channel had not morphed into the wrestling/ghost hunters network.GH must cost like $200 per episode.

Being able to stream Ala-Carte would let people build their own packages.It might produce better programming.I would go back to dish if I could use it that way.For some its necessity to reduce cost,for others its about value.I would pay more for what I want to watch.With cable and with Sat I had lots of crappy shopping networks,hunting channels,vast amounts of infotainement channels,about 7 I actually watched. The "premium" channels playing the same few shows over and over.

Maybe the streaming model will get the cable and sat operators to provide a better,more usable service.
 
krisbee
Posts: 1065
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:09 pm

Re: Food For Thought, Cord Cutters

Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:27 pm

I don't understand why everyone just assumes streaming will be cheaper if it has to carry the weight currently distributed to cable and satellite subscribers. People are so caught up with how cheap netflix is they forget there are billions and billions and billions of dollars collected and spent long before those shows end up on netflix. There are around 120 million homes paying a cable or satellite bill.


According to HBO's own press releases, they make $7 per subscriber per month. If they charged you direct for that, that is already cheaper - however there is the overhead of computer servers, etc.

How this model will have to work in the future is that your local internet provider will have servers to stream content and you access there, or mega server farms (amazon already offers this service, as do others). How many shows do you actually watch (opposed to just leave on)? I think most of us would pay $10 a month for premium content.

Regular channels are suprisingly cheap. Like $1-$2 per subscriber cheap. Many less than that! Again, I think many of us would love an ala carte option along with a dvr and an antenna we would be over the moon. And you can scale however you want - Like a certain show, only pay for that show. Stream it down to your netbox with an hard drive when data rates are slower and have it encrypted and set to autodelete. DirectTV already does that with its' ppv.

It costs alot to put up a satellite and maintain it. When it goes out, it is a big problem. When a server goes out, you reroute traffic. I think traditional tv might change sooner than later.
 
robertm
Posts: 2665
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:06 pm

Re: Food For Thought, Cord Cutters

Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:15 pm

Metro11 wrote:
robertm wrote:
The SyFy network had to cancel Stargate Universe and Caprica because it does not have enough money to maintain too many shows at one time unless they have a really strong following. What happens to Eureka and Warehouse 13 if there is a mass exodus from cable? Not to mention that the internet infrastructure cannot handle a massive number of cable refugees yet. Personally I hope the growth for streaming remains manageable and does not get out of control because I have enough headaches with it as it is and many of my favorite shows are not on network TV.


This a good and very valid point. We may soon see the disappearance of a lot of original programming due to the changing economics of the cable industry. However, it's inevitable change and, in part, may be the fault of the cable industry themselves for their failure to go to a more reasonable a la carte model which could still support programming development. I hope in the future individual cable networks will make themselves available for streaming or through a la carte cable services, for a low set monthly fee.

Ironically it was Stargate Universe which convinced me to cut the cord last Fall. I am a science fiction fan, and SyFy was one of the few (six or seven) cable channels I watched with any regularity. I watched the first few episodes of the second season of SGU and didn't see any improvement in the series from my perspective. I hated it -- from the over-the-top acting of Robert Carlyle to the gimmicky travel-back-home stones. I questioned why I was paying a hefty monthly bill to Time Warner for the relatively few cable shows I did enjoy watching. The only big stumbling block to cord-cutting remaining was MLB as I am a baseball fan, but I'll just have to find solutions for that.



The big question is will streaming seem like a better option if the original content from cable channels dries up. I have been around the forum long enough to know that many many cord cutters are content to wait a year to see their favorite cable programming . I am all for it being cheaper but I do not want to go back to the dark ages of 4 network channels worth of programming.

SGU had become a C level program for me. I watched it when I ran out of A and B level stuff that I liked better. It had potential but it had not really found its way yet. The big problem is that it probably killed the franchise.
 
vmps
Posts: 758
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:48 am

Re: Food For Thought, Cord Cutters

Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:16 pm

robertm wrote:
A different revenue model means they will still require the same amount of money.


No, they don't. There are so many variables that's it's absurd that their revenue can or will remain constant. It's almost certain that profit margins will be lower, and that production costs will have to go down. But money never bought quality, and there's a difference between "have to spend less" and "OMG we won't have any shows". Even under the current model HBO has pulled the plug on more than one show because the costs went spiraling out of control, and having less money to throw around will simply mean that more restraint will have to be exercised up front.
 
robertm
Posts: 2665
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:06 pm

Re: Food For Thought, Cord Cutters

Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:50 pm

vmps wrote:
robertm wrote:
A different revenue model means they will still require the same amount of money.


No, they don't. There are so many variables that's it's absurd that their revenue can or will remain constant. It's almost certain that profit margins will be lower, and that production costs will have to go down. But money never bought quality, and there's a difference between "have to spend less" and "OMG we won't have any shows". Even under the current model HBO has pulled the plug on more than one show because the costs went spiraling out of control, and having less money to throw around will simply mean that more restraint will have to be exercised up front.



Low production costs get you channels like TLC that are full of faux drama and shock TV. No thanks. If a show becomes a hit the actors expect to get paid and production costs go up. Otherwise we have one after another short-lived TV series which is also very annoying.

You might be satisfied with low production value shows but I am willing to bet you are in the minority. Some of us like a series to go for 8 or more years. Some of us like some special effects and elaborate sets. Sure there are shows like Big Bang Theory that have very few sets and rely heavily on scripts and comedy but I don't want to watch that all the time.

Streaming is not a step forward if we have to sacrifice the kinds of shows we have come to love.

Then, of course, you have to answer how much it will cost to stream to over a 120 million homes and how long it will take to get to that level of technology. Right now the internet can handle, what, about 2 million simultaneous streaming sessions? All of that infrastructure will come at a cost. In the time it takes streaming to reliably deliver to that many homes how much further will cable and satellite technology progress? It is more likely the current version of IPTV will be the model and it has package bundles just like the cable company.
 
mikebdoss
** Valued Community Member **
Posts: 4967
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:52 am

Re: Food For Thought, Cord Cutters

Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:07 pm

robertm wrote:
Low production costs get you channels like TLC that are full of faux drama and shock TV. No thanks. If a show becomes a hit the actors expect to get paid and production costs go up. Otherwise we have one after another short-lived TV series which is also very annoying.

You might be satisfied with low production value shows but I am willing to bet you are in the minority. Some of us like a series to go for 8 or more years. Some of us like some special effects and elaborate sets. Sure there are shows like Big Bang Theory that have very few sets and rely heavily on scripts and comedy but I don't want to watch that all the time.

Streaming is not a step forward if we have to sacrifice the kinds of shows we have come to love.

Then, of course, you have to answer how much it will cost to stream to over a 120 million homes and how long it will take to get to that level of technology. Right now the internet can handle, what, about 2 million simultaneous streaming sessions? All of that infrastructure will come at a cost. In the time it takes streaming to reliably deliver to that many homes how much further will cable and satellite technology progress? It is more likely the current version of IPTV will be the model and it has package bundles just like the cable company.


Streaming isn't the first technology that's been "The end of television", nor will it be the last. As long as there are viewers, there will be new television of all shapes and sizes. And imagine this: there are hundreds of television shows, many costing millions of dollars per episode, that are given away over the air for free.

Television drama isn't going anywhere.
 
vmps
Posts: 758
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:48 am

Re: Food For Thought, Cord Cutters

Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:28 am

robertm wrote:
[blah blah]


We'll see. Maybe you're right and this is the end of civilization. But I'll bet that I'm right and in ten years we'll have vastly more streaming, the internet won't have collapsed, and we'll have just as much junk to watch as we do now, with about the same small percentage of quality shows. (And in my experience the best are not the ones that cost the most, quite the opposite. If, on the other hand, you think the last budget-busting season of seinfeld, for example, was the best, well, I guess you may actually be really disappointed in the future.)
 
deppeler
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:02 am

Re: Food For Thought, Cord Cutters

Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:07 am

I don't have Hulu Plus, but if the quality (stream) is anything like a lot of content on the Roku, I for one will stick to cable.
Point in question, I was watching the Live Soccer on (NowhereTV?) and it was sub-par reception (like 10 years ago on the computer, no offense to nowhereman whom I love :) ), after 45 minutes I said st...f this, clicked on ESPN (I don't have ESPN HD) and even though it wasn't HD it was MILES better than on the Roku.
Until the quality is consistently good and the way we find content on the Roku improves, cable (unfortunately) will be a part of my household.
I don't want to accept sub-par just for the heck of it, not spend ages looking through 'clips' to find decent content.
It may be just me but I find the Channel Store approach very disjointed, I find it hard to remember where I found a good show etc, and the same show appears in multiple channels. It just seems like too many steps are involved to get to your content.
I don't know if a playlist would help or a different TV Guide type setup (maybe by content not channel).
In 12 months time there will be so many channels on the Roku, content will be impossible to find going through the channel store.
Square boxes denoting content is not very practical when you have 100's of choices. A row and column system may be better???
Last edited by deppeler on Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
krisbee
Posts: 1065
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:09 pm

Re: Food For Thought, Cord Cutters

Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:24 am

I don't want to accept sub-par just for the heck of it, not spend ages looking through 'clips' to find decent content.
It may be just me but I find it very disjointed, it needs to be set up more like a TV guide....or content orientated not channel orientated.


I agree alot of the private channel content picture quality is lacking, but that is because most of the feeds they are using is meant for an iphone at 15fps, which looks terrible blown up. When ipads really start to take hold, I think a lot of the ancellary channels will get a significant upgrade.

However, I like the channel concept - if I want to see a specific genre of entertainment, I think I find it easier than a tv guide free-for-all. I know if I am in the mood for someone getting kicked in the b*lls on youtube or watch a TedTalks lecture (which video quality looks good to me!).

Still working on a private dvr/roksbox combo here to get the network tv onto the roku instead of the overcompressed satellite signals that have dropouts all the time. Once that happens, I will be using my roku even more.
 
robertm
Posts: 2665
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:06 pm

Re: Food For Thought, Cord Cutters

Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:50 am

vmps wrote:
robertm wrote:
[blah blah]


We'll see. Maybe you're right and this is the end of civilization. But I'll bet that I'm right and in ten years we'll have vastly more streaming, the internet won't have collapsed, and we'll have just as much junk to watch as we do now, with about the same small percentage of quality shows. (And in my experience the best are not the ones that cost the most, quite the opposite. If, on the other hand, you think the last budget-busting season of seinfeld, for example, was the best, well, I guess you may actually be really disappointed in the future.)



Cute. i never said this was the end of civilization. I guess you need it to be that drastic because you have a dog in this fight. I don't. All I ask is for my favorite shows to go untouched and not be forced to watch 16 minutes of commercials per hour again. I don't care if it is satellite or streaming that delivers my content.

Your experiences and preferences do not matter, it is what the average viewer wants that matters. The average viewer kept shows like Seinfeld and ER on until they were ridiculously expensive shows to produce. The average viewer would have kept Seinfeld on for additional seasons.

You are right though. In the future shows will be cheaper to produce because actors will work for less. Milk and gas will get cheaper. Star atheletes won't have multi-million dollar contracts. If your hover car breaks down you can beam yourself to work and society will wake up and stop placing so much importance on entertainment. Let's all hold our breaths until this happens. :roll:

Streaming may eventually take over. I think we won't see much of any savings if it does because I am betting there will always be a middle man between content owners and distributors and that middle man will want to get paid.

I am also curious about my 3 possibilities for content in my area. Cable, IPTV, and satellite. With 3 competitors I wonder why one of them doesn't offer a la carte channels. They would have to know it would give them an advantage over the other 2. Consumers have been screaming for it for years and years. There may be more to packaged TV than we realize.
 
StellarRat
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 3:34 pm

Re: Food For Thought, Cord Cutters

Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:30 am

A different revenue model means they will still require the same amount of money. Also, if hulu plus is an example of how advertising dollars will be collected we may soon be forced to watch 16 minutes of advertising per hour again. That is not a step forward it is a step back.

I don't understand why everyone just assumes streaming will be cheaper if it has to carry the weight currently distributed to cable and satellite subscribers. People are so caught up with how cheap netflix is they forget there are billions and billions and billions of dollars collected and spent long before those shows end up on netflix. There are around 120 million homes paying a cable or satellite bill.

At the end of the day, there is no viable alternative yet. Until there is, cutting the cord may only cut the amount of available content.
That's exactly what I think. When streaming becomes more prevalent they will figure out a way to jack up the prices, put in commercials and get their hooks back into us. They only thing that will still be cheap are ancient re-runs and homemade shows (ala YouTube.) Enjoy cheap streaming while it lasts.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests