Octopus Overlords

Get off El Guapo's lawn.

I'm going to guess that it has something to do with money for the partners.

Isgrimnur wrote: CBS All Access might get you their NFL broadcasts.

That'll take care of a couple of games per year. Most of the games I watch are on FOX or NBC, with an occasional game on ESPN or the NFL network. I need one solution, not 5.

Isgrimnur wrote:I'm going to guess that it has something to do with money for the partners.

What partners? The way the website describes it you are either subscribing through the app *or* through an affiliated provider (Optimum or Verizon). If you're subscribing through the app, aren't you dealing only with HBO?

Also, those damn kids should get off my lawn.

Jeff V wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote: CBS All Access might get you their NFL broadcasts.

That'll take care of a couple of games per year. Most of the games I watch are on FOX or NBC, with an occasional game on ESPN or the NFL network. I need one solution, not 5.

And that's why you're paying $220 a month. Not to mention that most streaming services would black you out from the local team anyway.

El Guapo wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:I'm going to guess that it has something to do with money for the partners.

What partners? The way the website describes it you are either subscribing through the app *or* through an affiliated provider (Optimum or Verizon). If you're subscribing through the app, aren't you dealing only with HBO?

Also, those damn kids should get off my lawn.

Nope. I had to cancel my subscription through the App Store. Apple gets a cut of every purchase and subscription that they "manage". I imagine the others are the same.

geezer wrote:FWIW I certainly get your point - it's already annoying to have to subscribe to Hulu, Netflix, etc. etc. etc. as various content providers choose up partners and segment their shows amongst various platforms, and CBS will just be one more platform to manage. (That said, for years I've been listening to people complain that they want to get just ESPN, or just the big networks and add ESPN or CNN or, God forbid, just Fox News or whatever.) Bringing it back on topic, we are now going to have the chance to get 4-5 hours of new Star Trek EVERY MONTH for the price of a Pumpkin Spice Latte, or 1/2 to 1/3 the price of a movie ticket. That hardly seems outrageous.

I sooo want my cable a la carte but CBS elite anytime prime all access special is not the same as getting the service a la carte. It's the same as getting it separate. If it were the same as getting a la carte then it would be an option for an extra feature on my internet or cable bill, one I'd likely turn down. (But that's me.)

As much as I hate to be with JeffV, I'm with JeffV, though $220 for Cable? I have shit cable/Internet and combined they are $100. $60 of that is for about 90 channels of cable.

And now that JeffV breaks it down, that means I pay about $.75 an hour to watch to have TV keep me company while I get ready to fall asleep and on the weekends.

LordMortis wrote:

geezer wrote:FWIW I certainly get your point - it's already annoying to have to subscribe to Hulu, Netflix, etc. etc. etc. as various content providers choose up partners and segment their shows amongst various platforms, and CBS will just be one more platform to manage. (That said, for years I've been listening to people complain that they want to get just ESPN, or just the big networks and add ESPN or CNN or, God forbid, just Fox News or whatever.) Bringing it back on topic, we are now going to have the chance to get 4-5 hours of new Star Trek EVERY MONTH for the price of a Pumpkin Spice Latte, or 1/2 to 1/3 the price of a movie ticket. That hardly seems outrageous.

I sooo want my cable a la carte but CBS elite anytime prime all access special is not the same as getting the service a la carte. It's the same as getting it separate. If it were the same as getting a la carte then it would be an option for an extra feature on my internet or cable bill, one I'd likely turn down. (But that's me.)

I'm confused about what the problem is. Getting channels separately *is* a la carte. Is it that you would like one company to offer everything and then you decide which of everything you take? That would be great, but the core of the current problem is that consumers have traditionally had to deal with one company that offers everything (the local cable company), but having to deal with only one company means high prices and low quality.

He wants to stop at one shop and order a burger, onion rings, and a shake. He doesn't want to have to stop at three separate shops to get one of each.

Isgrimnur wrote: And that's why you're paying $220 a month. Not to mention that most streaming services would black you out from the local team anyway.

So it's hardly a solution, even if it was available for every station I need. I would not complain though if every station were available ala carte for $6 per month, I think I could save a little bit of money just subscribing as needed to the stations I am watching at the time (I almost never watch FOX or CBS outside of football, for example, so I don't need them half the year).

El Guapo wrote:I'm confused about what the problem is. Getting channels separately *is* a la carte. Is it that you would like one company to offer everything and then you decide which of everything you take? That would be great, but the core of the current problem is that consumers have traditionally had to deal with one company that offers everything (the local cable company), but having to deal with only one company means high prices and low quality.

Getting channels separately through a single service and invoice is a la carte. Going to basic cable for some programming, and then getting Amazon Prime for some programming, and then Netflix for some programming, and CBS All Access for some programming is going building a meal with take out form 4 separate restaurants. It might serve the same purpose but it's a hassle... One I'd probably deal with if it saved me a substantial amount of money but as it goes, it better be a hell of a meal for me to want to go through bother gathering it for dinner.

Isgrimnur wrote:He wants to stop at one shop and order a burger, onion rings, and a shake. He doesn't want to have to stop at three separate shops to get one of each.

How is it you are the only person who can translate me? What voodoo do you have?

I'm not the only one, but there are moments where I can see a break in your clouds and get good optics at the landscape below.

LordMortis wrote:

El Guapo wrote:I'm confused about what the problem is. Getting channels separately *is* a la carte. Is it that you would like one company to offer everything and then you decide which of everything you take? That would be great, but the core of the current problem is that consumers have traditionally had to deal with one company that offers everything (the local cable company), but having to deal with only one company means high prices and low quality.

Getting channels separately through a single service and invoice is a la carte. Going to basic cable for some programming, and then getting Amazon Prime for some programming, and then Netflix for some programming, and CBS All Access for some programming is going building a meal with take out form 4 separate restaurants. It might serve the same purpose but it's a hassle... One I'd probably deal with if it saved me a substantial amount of money but as it goes, it better be a hell of a meal for me to want to go through bother gathering it for dinner.

I mean, that would be nice, but like I said the core of the problem with cable has been having to deal with only one company. Dealing with several companies is kind of the cost of not having to deal with only one company, right?

That said, providers of content do have an interest in being on as many platforms as possible. I expect that over time it will be like console games - there will be some offered on an exclusive basis through one service, while others are provided everywhere.

Isgrimnur wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote: CBS All Access might get you their NFL broadcasts.

That'll take care of a couple of games per year. Most of the games I watch are on FOX or NBC, with an occasional game on ESPN or the NFL network. I need one solution, not 5.

And that's why you're paying $220 a month. Not to mention that most streaming services would black you out from the local team anyway.

He's paying $220 a month because he doesn't have a nice, cheap neighborhood tavern within few block's walking distance.

LawBeefaroni wrote: He's paying $220 a month because he doesn't have a nice, cheap neighborhood tavern within few block's walking distance.

How cheap is a cheap tavern? A portion of that $220 is for internet access. In a tavern environment, we're talking 4 beers minimum during a 3 hour football game -- I rarely see a beer selling for less than $6 now. So including tip, but no food, we're talking $30 per football game, $120-150 per month just for 4-5 football games. And I still need TV for non-football things, including other sports.

And that's not even considering the challenge of trying to enjoy an entire football game in a bar while simultaneously entertaining a 2 year old.

Jeff V wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote: He's paying $220 a month because he doesn't have a nice, cheap neighborhood tavern within few block's walking distance.

How cheap is a cheap tavern? A portion of that $220 is for internet access. In a tavern environment, we're talking 4 beers minimum during a 3 hour football game -- I rarely see a beer selling for less than $6 now. So including tip, but no food, we're talking $30 per football game, $120-150 per month just for 4-5 football games. And I still need TV for non-football things, including other sports.

And that's not even considering the challenge of trying to enjoy an entire football game in a bar while simultaneously entertaining a 2 year old.

So keep the $220 cable.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote: He's paying $220 a month because he doesn't have a nice, cheap neighborhood tavern within few block's walking distance.

How cheap is a cheap tavern? A portion of that $220 is for internet access. In a tavern environment, we're talking 4 beers minimum during a 3 hour football game -- I rarely see a beer selling for less than $6 now. So including tip, but no food, we're talking $30 per football game, $120-150 per month just for 4-5 football games. And I still need TV for non-football things, including other sports.

And that's not even considering the challenge of trying to enjoy an entire football game in a bar while simultaneously entertaining a 2 year old.

So keep the $220 cable.

Which I have little other option. But don't suggest I'm not paying enough for my programming (as Geezer did), or that I could some how go with other options and pay less which would somehow make paying $6 per month for one show an attractive offer.

I'm sure that was more targeted to the cord cutters. Honestly, if CBS were smart, they's let all the cable slaves have All Access for free. It's not like streaming services through the box aren't already a thing.

Jeff V wrote: Which I have little other option. But don't suggest I'm not paying enough for my programming (as Geezer did), or that I could some how go with other options and pay less which would somehow make paying $6 per month for one show an attractive offer.

Pay less for exactly the same thing? No. Pay less for less crap? Sure.

I watch a lot of live sports. I've never had cable (or dish). I manage somehow. But then I am willing to listen to the radio or choke down $3.50 beers and go to order-in taverns.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Jeff V wrote: Which I have little other option. But don't suggest I'm not paying enough for my programming (as Geezer did), or that I could some how go with other options and pay less which would somehow make paying $6 per month for one show an attractive offer.

Pay less for exactly the same thing? No. Pay less for less crap? Sure.

I watch a lot of live sports. I've never had cable (or dish). I manage somehow. But then I am willing to listen to the radio or choke down $3.50 beers and go to order-in taverns.

There used to be a lot more sports OTA than there is now. I am far more entertained by a high-def picture on my big-assed TV than I will ever be listening to the radio (which I only do when driving). I don't think I've seen a $3.50 beer in decades. At least nothing I would consider to be beer.

I would like to pay less for less crap. But right now there are 5 stations that carry football, 5 more for hockey and basketball; and I don't even watch that much sports. Just off the top of my head, there's probably 15 channels that I frequent often enough to warrent subscribing. So 25 channels at, for the sake of argument, $6 a pop is $150. So while the other hundreds of channels are largely unnecessary, they are also not costing me anything.

LawBeefaroni wrote:choke down $3.50 beers and go to order-in taverns.

That was me. I was happy to not have NBC Sports or ESPN to go out and be social over the game and pay for that experience. I can't really drink nowadays though. I swear I'm getting a hang over a half drink into the evening and it only gets worse the next day. I miss it.

That was Value Added sports viewing though.

Personally, I'm looking to reduce costs while maintaining the stuff I want to see at the expense of crap I don't care about. I'm not looking to find new more expensive stuff to care about. I'm not looking to reduce costs and reduce the stuff I care about, though, that may be an eventuality. That is why a la carte appeals to me. That is why I watch to see how Sony Vue goes. And that is why I havene't cut the cord to go with Amazon Prime and Netflix Streaming and Hulu Prime and individualized supplemental subscriptions.

LordMortis wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:choke down $3.50 beers and go to order-in taverns.

That was me. I was happy to not have NBC Sports or ESPN to go out and be social over the game and pay for that experience. I can't really drink nowadays though. I swear I'm getting a hang over a half drink into the evening and it only gets worse the next day. I miss it.

That was Value Added sports viewing though.

The LM Special:
Sunday at Grand River Bar: $3 Bud/Bud Light and $3 Coneys.

LawBeefaroni wrote:The LM Special:
Sunday at Grand River Bar: $3 Bud/Bud Light and $3 Coneys.

I know I'm a shut in. That's doesn't sound cheap to me. I think every thing still costs around 2006 or earlier in my head, but still that's plenty reasonable if I enjoy the atmosphere. Again, value added experience, I guess.

LordMortis wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:The LM Special:
Sunday at Grand River Bar: $3 Bud/Bud Light and $3 Coneys.

I know I'm a shut in. That's doesn't sound cheap to me. I think every thing still costs around 2006 or earlier in my head, but still that's plenty reasonable if I enjoy the atmosphere. Again, value added experience, I guess.

Considering that it's surrounded by places with $14 ramen or $400 burlap footstools, it's not bad.

And it sure beats Star Trek! *ducks*

[/derail]

Lobster tail and filet ramen?

LordMortis wrote:Lobster tail and filet ramen?

Pork belly. It's damned good and worth it as a treat, but more often that not I'll opt for the 2 beers and 2 dogs.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

LordMortis wrote:Lobster tail and filet ramen?

Pork belly. It's damned good and worth it as a treat, but more often that not I'll opt for the 2 beers and 2 dogs.

Pork belly > pig anus.

Jeff V wrote:
But don't suggest I'm not paying enough for my programming (as Geezer did), or that I could some how go with other options and pay less which would somehow make paying $6 per month for one show an attractive offer.

No I didn't. I'm not talking about whatever other costs you may have, I'm stating that paying $6 for 4-5 hours of quality entertainment is very reasonable (assuming you like the subject), and if you DO like the subject, you should support the creators appropriately.

And as I stated, I pay a large cable bill that I think should adequately cover all of the content I consume. It's not like it'll be offset by a $6 refund for content I would no longer be consuming as a result of this proposed transaction.

Jeff V wrote:And as I stated, I pay a large cable bill that I think should adequately cover all of the content I consume. It's not like it'll be offset by a $6 refund for content I would no longer be consuming as a result of this proposed transaction.

It DOES cover all the content you consume. But you want MORE content (i.e. more work from a third party) for the same price, or you think the bill you pay should be sufficient for all the content all the time. Either way, it makes no sense.

geezer wrote:

Jeff V wrote:And as I stated, I pay a large cable bill that I think should adequately cover all of the content I consume. It's not like it'll be offset by a $6 refund for content I would no longer be consuming as a result of this proposed transaction.

It DOES cover all the content you consume. But you want MORE content (i.e. more work from a third party) for the same price, or you think the bill you pay should be sufficient for all the content all the time. Either way, it makes no sense.

No, I do not want more. It would replace content I already consume -- I do not have the time to consume more content. Other networks appear to be able to provide new content without charging additional -- why should I expect otherwise from CBS? If this business model proves successful, then every new show is going to extort additional fees...my budget for this sort of thing is at its limits and will not be stretched further. I very much want this model to fail spectacularly.

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2 ... g-service/

At least they're totally honest.

And there you go:

As it turns out, the motivations are pretty much exactly what you’d guess — using the loyalty of “Star Trek” fans to boost All Access, which launched last fall.

Dance for us!

Loyalty ends at the pocketbook.

Man, it's almost like corporations are all focused on making money. It's like, c'mon CBS, why don't you ever just come over to talk and hang out?

CBS All Access and chill?

It's interesting. Technically, competition should be a good thing. I think the problem is, there's only so much TV we can get invested in in our daily lives. We tend to want simple choices, destinations for our content. Currently, this means several destinations, each of them offering different things. The problem is when you start to get too many of them, splintering our attention, because they too feel they deserve our attention. That's where CBS is right now. It's a single network, not a set of networks coming together to offer something, which is what Hulu is if I'm not mistaken. So, add another service to the bunch, and it adds up every month.

A lot of it comes down to value as well. $6 a month for one show someone is interested in vs $11 a month to Netflix for dozens.

Make a deal with Amazon or Netflix. Let us subscribe to first-run Star Trek for a small fee - say, $1.00/month with ads, $2.00 without. You'd be maximizing sales rather than maximizing per-sale profit, which would probably be the way to go if you have a product you want to pass on to millions.

Yeah, exactly. I've heard it said before that the hardest thing in business is the act of convincing. Once you have those people, you're pretty good to go. But they'd have a much easier time by maximizing their views in which the majority already have access to, by going to Netflix which pretty much means instant audience. This in comparison is like pulling a mule up a steep hill.