HBO considering offering HBO GO w/o cable

[brandx]

When people talk about $175 cable bill, we need to remember that includes internet access - usually around $45.

[Coleman]

LOL....."included for "free".

The American public is duped daily.  One of my old bosses is the head of program acquisition for Amazon Prime.  There is nothing free about it, but the American consumer will buy some of that stuff up until the cows come home.  It is fun to watch.  They charge $99 for Prime....it is profitable for them....most of their consumers don't come close to consuming the shipping costs or the content costs for audio and video....note the service was $79 just last year, so that extra $20 is part of that "FREE" stuff.  LOL

Well, considering I probably get well over $99 worth in free shipping, yes, the digital content is free for me. I signed up for Prime before it included digital streaming, so I view it as free.

[Coleman]

When people talk about $175 cable bill, we need to remember that includes internet access - usually around $45.

That's still way too high. Mine is under $100, including internet, TV (HD) and HBO.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Same here. If MU was still on the ESPN family of networks as it was in the old Big East, I'd seriously consider this new DISH a la carte option.

For a single guy, that makes sense, or someone with a significant other that doesn't care about those services....it can only serve one person, that's the key.  It will make sense for some people.  Just make sure you are one of the first, because they have to stop selling it when it reaches a certain number. 

As for Fox, Chase Carey is absolutely against a la carte so I don't think you will see that happen any time soon.  They are committed to an authenticated model because of their economic structure, at least for the time being.

The anti-piracy stuff is the stuff that I'm most intrigued by because the studios, networks, leagues, etc are paying so much attention to them now, working with gov'ts on how to stop it, prosecute it, etc.  I think change in that space in the next year is going to be very interesting as concurrent streams are reduced, geo targeting tied to IP ownership is implemented, prosecuting individuals and websites, etc.  I haven't seen them this ramped up and that's bad news for a lot of people that think the world is free and shouldn't cost anything.

[Coleman]

With all due respect.  Your definition of a la carte is unlike any I have ever seen, be it for food, tv, etc.   That's not a la carte the way you describe it.

A la carte is buying individual items rather than a bundled or part of a set (i.e. a meal).

I guess my point is that this is a bigger step towards a la carte than we have ever seen. As others have noted on this thread, these things are evolutionary, it does not happen overnight.

I concede it is not true a la carte (paying per channel), but it is close enough, in that the cost is low enough to justify only wanting ESPN/ESPN2 for a lot of people

[brandx]

As for Fox, Chase Carey is absolutely against a la carte so I don't think you will see that happen any time soon.  They are committed to an authenticated model because of their economic structure, at least for the time being.

Please... we have heard all of this from you before.

Only a few months ago you posted an article with this heading from the head of ESPN: SKIPPER FIRMLY AGAINST A LA CARTE:

You also posted the article: A La Carte ESPN Would Cost Consumers $30 Per Month

Now you give us this great "insight" from Fox.

We can also look back to your posts about HBO.  Wrong again!

Your MO is always to quote someone else saying what you believe so you have deniability regarding the comments, but we all know better.


We all said it would start small and build from there. We are seeing that now. These are just the first baby steps - we will have to wait and see what happens next - but one thing can be taken to the bank: We ain't going backwards..

[MUsoxfan]

For a single guy, that makes sense, or someone with a significant other that doesn't care about those services....it can only serve one person, that's the key.  It will make sense for some people.  Just make sure you are one of the first, because they have to stop selling it when it reaches a certain number. 

As for Fox, Chase Carey is absolutely against a la carte so I don't think you will see that happen any time soon.  They are committed to an authenticated model because of their economic structure, at least for the time being.

The anti-piracy stuff is the stuff that I'm most intrigued by because the studios, networks, leagues, etc are paying so much attention to them now, working with gov'ts on how to stop it, prosecute it, etc.  I think change in that space in the next year is going to be very interesting as concurrent streams are reduced, geo targeting tied to IP ownership is implemented, prosecuting individuals and websites, etc.  I haven't seen them this ramped up and that's bad news for a lot of people that think the world is free and shouldn't cost anything.

I think there are people that feel that this should all be free. Mainly the millenials. However, I think most reasonable people are willing to pay, but won't/can't continue paying 4x the rate of inflation to watch TV. There's a breaking point and it's coming soon.

[brandx]

I think there are people that feel that this should all be free. Mainly the millenials. However, I think most reasonable people are willing to pay, but won't/can't continue paying 4x the rate of inflation to watch TV. There's a breaking point and it's coming soon.

In all honesty, I have never met a single person who thinks that this should be free.

Of course that doesn't change the fact that many people will attempt to get it free through whatever means they can.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Thanks for sharing.

I appreciate the insights.

While I understand that INSERT CABLE COMPANY will own "the pipe", I also believe that the high price for content delivery leaves a space in the market for somebody to develop a better mousetrap. Now, I have no idea what it will look like, or how it will work. But, I know that if there is a profit to be made, somebody will find out a way to do it.

EXAMPLE: Amazon has basically eliminated Best Buy for me. I haven't been in one of their stores for years. I don't need a salesman. I need a way top purchase products efficiency (headphones, laptop, hard drive, batteries, usb stick, etc.)

10 years ago, that would have been a crazy thought. Today, it seems perfectly rational.

In 10 years, we might see some advances in personalized media that still provide value to the brands/networks, but also offer consumers a more competitive pricing model.

Some of this is true and many of us have tried like the dickens to intergrate all into one.  It's starting to happen, but very slowly.

You will see a point in time an integrated search.  You'll go to your cable or satellite or telco video provider, aind withing their GUI you will also see Netflix or Hulu, etc.  Now, some are doing this today, but still as an app. 

I'm talking about living beyond the app....where it's all part of the same ecosystem.  So I search for Unforgiven and it shows up that I can watch it on my HBO service, or on AMC, or on Netflix, etc....all options, all there at one time.   The challenge has been Netflix doesn't want to share with Hulu who doesn't want to share with Xfinity who doesn't want to share with .... you get the idea.  Plus how to divide the $$$.  It will get there eventually, but that is part of the better mousetrap idea.

Ultimately, the number one problem still revolves around content and the enormous costs to make content.  Whomever had the landline comparison earlier....might as well compare cadiallacs to french fries.  Content is so unique in it's cost to create, produce, develop, etc, that any comparison to any other industry is futile at this point.  Those peeps want to get paid....be it actors, athletes, directors, etc.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Time Warner announced that they will be adding a $2.75 sports surcharge on all bills in order for customers to blame sports for their higher cable bills

This is been going on for at least 2 years if not 3 years.  Similar surcharges have come up over local broadcasting networks. 

TWC in So. California been going on since January '13.   Satellite started in '12 if I recall.  Sports channels were (still are) killing MVPDs with distribution demands and costs, so they needed a mechanism to fight back and at least try to educate the consumer where those costs were coming from.  For a national provider like a Dish or DTV, you will see them do it on a DMA by DMA level.  In some DMAs, there are no surcharges because there are no associated RSN (regional sports network) fees.  In some DMAs there are enormous costs like Los Angeles (3 RSNs) or New York (4 RSNs) so the surcharge is high, while still in other DMAs there might be one but at a lower rate like $1.00.  It's dependent upon what territory a customer lives, how many RSN's there are and what the costs are due to the number of RSNs serving that territory.

This is why so many MVPDs in So. Cal refused to launch the Dodgers channel, because there is already the Lakers Channel, Fox Sports West, Prime Ticket.  Three RSNs for the Angels, Ducks, Lakers, Kings, UCLA, USC, Clippers.  The Dodgers used to be part of that mix, but they broke off to create their own.  It would have added another $5 a month in costs to consumers for that one channel.  The MVPDs said no.  Enough.

Sports is an enormous cost to television pricing.  ENORMOUS.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Well, considering I probably get well over $99 worth in free shipping, yes, the digital content is free for me. I signed up for Prime before it included digital streaming, so I view it as free.

Understood....but the irony in all this is this is a classic example where you are getting the benefit of a BUNDLED DEAL.  Others are subsidizing your shipping costs, you make out for it.

Just as you do with sports channels, etc on television.   

Those that don't ship a lot that pay for Prime, actually lose out on it.  Same as those that are paying for TV but don't care about sports, they are subsidizing the rest.

Ironic.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think there are people that feel that this should all be free. Mainly the millenials. However, I think most reasonable people are willing to pay, but won't/can't continue paying 4x the rate of inflation to watch TV. There's a breaking point and it's coming soon.

I've been hearing that for 15 years.  Same for college expenses.  Gasoline...we were all going to ditch our cars.  So on and so forth.

Life is about choices.  If you don't want it, don't pay for it.   Or, instead of paying $6 a day for your Starbucks habit, pay $3 a day for television.  No one is putting a gun to anyone's head.....unless of course it's the gov't and forcing you to buy healthcare....ironic....another way people have to subsidize others....but it's ok in that case.  LOL

[MUsoxfan]

I've been hearing that for 15 years.  Same for college expenses.  Gasoline...we were all going to ditch our cars.  So on and so forth.

Life is about choices.  If you don't want it, don't pay for it.   Or, instead of paying $6 a day for your Starbucks habit, pay $3 a day for television.  No one is putting a gun to anyone's head.....unless of course it's the gov't and forcing you to buy healthcare....ironic....another way people have to subsidize others....but it's ok in that case.  LOL

Good Lord, can you check the Rush Limbaugh schtick at the door?

My point is your point (your first point, anyway). Nobody is forced to buy TV. Nobody is forced to pay for coffee.

 But the TV bubble is on it's way and much of the public will be making choices between life's luxuries. Coffee will win out more than many TV execs think.

You can't just throw infinite billions of dollars at sports leagues, expect the consumer to pick up the tab and enjoy wild success for an infinite amount of time

[Hards Alumni]

Good Lord, can you check the Rush Limbaugh schtick at the door?

My point is your point (your first point, anyway). Nobody is forced to buy TV. Nobody is forced to pay for coffee.

 But the TV bubble is on it's way and much of the public will be making choices between life's luxuries. Coffee will win out more than many TV execs think.

You can't just throw infinite billions of dollars at sports leagues, expect the consumer to pick up the tab and enjoy wild success for an infinite amount of time

He can't.  He is far more secure in his bubble that he has created for himself.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Good Lord, can you check the Rush Limbaugh schtick at the door?

Good Lord, what does that even mean?

Also, I love how if Chicos says some Vets are disappointed in the direction of our country, the libs on this board start wetting their pants about the "politicization" of threads or whatever. But attacking Rush Limbaugh or whatever clearly isn't political. 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I've been hearing that for 15 years.  Same for college expenses.  Gasoline...we were all going to ditch our cars.  So on and so forth.

Life is about choices.  If you don't want it, don't pay for it.   Or, instead of paying $6 a day for your Starbucks habit, pay $3 a day for television.  No one is putting a gun to anyone's head.....unless of course it's the gov't and forcing you to buy healthcare....ironic....another way people have to subsidize others....but it's ok in that case.  LOL

Knock it off.

We were having a pretty good discussion over the past 48 hours.

[Coleman]

Good Lord, what does that even mean?

Also, I love how if Chicos says some Vets are disappointed in the direction of our country, the libs on this board start wetting their pants about the "politicization" of threads or whatever. But attacking Rush Limbaugh or whatever clearly isn't political.  

What the hell are you talking about?

There was nothing political about this thread until Chicos made it political.

Its obnoxious. We were having good discussion (Chicos included, until he went there). And now we are one more post from you or Chicos from getting it locked. Contribute something worthwhile or get lost.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Some of this is true and many of us have tried like the dickens to intergrate all into one.  It's starting to happen, but very slowly.

You will see a point in time an integrated search.  You'll go to your cable or satellite or telco video provider, aind withing their GUI you will also see Netflix or Hulu, etc.  Now, some are doing this today, but still as an app. 

I'm talking about living beyond the app....where it's all part of the same ecosystem.  So I search for Unforgiven and it shows up that I can watch it on my HBO service, or on AMC, or on Netflix, etc....all options, all there at one time.   The challenge has been Netflix doesn't want to share with Hulu who doesn't want to share with Xfinity who doesn't want to share with .... you get the idea.  Plus how to divide the $$$.  It will get there eventually, but that is part of the better mousetrap idea.

Ultimately, the number one problem still revolves around content and the enormous costs to make content.  Whomever had the landline comparison earlier....might as well compare cadiallacs to french fries.  Content is so unique in it's cost to create, produce, develop, etc, that any comparison to any other industry is futile at this point.  Those peeps want to get paid....be it actors, athletes, directors, etc.

I brought up the landline comparison, and this is where we fundamentally disagree.

I don't think content is that expensive to create. I think it WAS expensive to create back in the day (film, staff, actors, sets, distribution, etc.)

I don't think it's that expensive anymore, and I think the system is adapting.

You and I have already had this conversation, so we don't need to rehash it again. It's just a fundamental point that we disagree on.

[Coleman]

I brought up the landline comparison, and this is where we fundamentally disagree.

I don't think content is that expensive to create. I think it WAS expensive to create back in the day (film, staff, actors, sets, distribution, etc.)

I don't think it's that expensive anymore, and I think the system is adapting.

You and I have already had this conversation, so we don't need to rehash it again. It's just a fundamental point that we disagree on.

I think it just depends on the content. Game of Thrones is expensive to create. A YouTube superstar with millions of views can create content for virtually nothing. Both are capable of bringing in A LOT of money.

I think there will always be expensive blockbuster content, with big actors and effects. But the difference is, you don't NEED that sort of investment to get a return. And other people will innovate and find ways to do it less expensively. The field is becoming much more open.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I think it just depends on the content. Game of Thrones is expensive to create. A YouTube superstar with millions of views can create content for virtually nothing. Both are capable of bringing in A LOT of money.

I think there will always be expensive blockbuster content, with big actors and effects. But the difference is, you don't NEED that sort of investment to get a return. And other people will innovate and find ways to do it less expensively. The field is becoming much more open.

Exactly. I realize the the large scale movies and whatnot cost a TON of money. No doubt.

But, as an example, I was very entertained by "Serial podcast"... which didn't even require a video camera. So, content and entertainment aren't really that expensive to make if they are done correctly.

Not EVERYTHING has to be a blockbuster.

[Coleman]

Exactly. I realize the the large scale movies and whatnot cost a TON of money. No doubt.

But, as an example, I was very entertained by "Serial podcast"... which didn't even require a video camera. So, content and entertainment aren't really that expensive to make if they are done correctly.

Not EVERYTHING has to be a blockbuster.

Serial is an even better example.

[brandx]

I wonder how Chicos feels now that his company is "censoring" Fox News. 

http://247wallst.com/media/2015/01/12/bill-oreilly-charges-dish-network-with-censorship/

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I wonder how Chicos feels now that his company is "censoring" Fox News. 

http://247wallst.com/media/2015/01/12/bill-oreilly-charges-dish-network-with-censorship/

Stop.

I've given chico's some grief about this kind of stuff, and now you're doing the same kinda thing.

If you want to troll each other, just send him a private message.

[brandx]

Stop.

I've given chico's some grief about this kind of stuff, and now you're doing the same kinda thing.

If you want to troll each other, just send him a private message.

You are completely right on this, Ammo.

My comments should have stayed on-issue. I should have asked why is it censorship when Fox is in a Money dispute, yet censorship was never raised when CBS was in the exact same type of dispute.

[g0lden3agle]

You are completely right on this, Ammo.

My comments should have stayed on-issue. I should have asked why is it censorship when Fox is in a Money dispute, yet censorship was never raised when CBS was in the exact same type of dispute.

Because the gasbag Bill O’Reilly works for Fox News and not CBS?