view:

topics flat nest

davidc502

join:2002-03-06

Mount Juliet, TN 1 edit davidc502 Member Don't think so I'm not going to pay for something I can get for free. It's my understanding they won't stop OTA because if they do, they will loose very expensive spectrum.. and that's just for starters.



So not only do they want people to pay for access, but they want to you to watch the commercials... and on top of that 30% of every hour is dedicated to commercials! Also, to think I'm paying for something I have to wait the next day to watch is completely out of line.



This is just a ploy to try to pick up some of the stray cable cutters. I'm sure subscriptions to this will be minimal until something major happens down the road.



My 2¢ elefante72

join:2010-12-03

East Amherst, NY elefante72 Member Re: Don't think so At the end of the day this is essentially a way to pay for these mondo sports contracts. No doubt they will charge extra for the NFL, etc if customers want this. And it makes sense because live sports is one of those things best delivered live.



Popcorn and the like are wrecking that channel so if they don't get competitive they will be out some real profit...



He didn't want to say only his family signed up for it...



As for other providers, that is a pipe dream unless it's old syndicated shows... The real goldfinger reason for this is sports and think about it, public forums (bars, etc). DTV charges mondo amounts of money to have NFL ST. For smaller establishments this may be a more reasonable way to have the "game" on and still draw the sports crowd..

n2jtx

join:2001-01-13

Glen Head, NY n2jtx to davidc502

Member to davidc502

said by davidc502 It's my understanding they won't stop OTA because if they do, they will loose very expensive spectrum.. and that's just for starters.[/bquote : True under the "use it or lose it" rules. Of course they could in theory run infomercials 20 hours a day and have some public interest programming for a few hours a day/week in order to meet the "serve in the public interest" requirements of their broadcast license. Considering what passes for broadcast TV on independent channels these days (WRNN north of New York City for example) I am sure they could get away with it.

davidc502

join:2002-03-06

Mount Juliet, TN davidc502 Member Re: Don't think so Surely, there would be a lot of inner cities across America that would be 'up in arms'... No?

n2jtx

join:2001-01-13

Glen Head, NY n2jtx Member Re: Don't think so said by davidc502: Surely, there would be a lot of inner cities across America that would be 'up in arms'... No? Since it appears of late all you need to do is run two hours or so of "E/I" programming on Saturday mornings and a half hour or so of news and you get to keep your license, what are they going to do? Every time a broadcast license comes up for renewal the stations do state on the air that comments can be sent to the FCC. Why bother? The only licenses I recall being yanked in recent memory were those for stations owned by RKO General back in the 1980's. And that was due to illegal activity which forced the government to revoke them. It was not public comment.

jseymour

join:2009-12-11

Waterford, MI jseymour to davidc502

Member to davidc502

said by davidc502: So not only do they want people to pay for access, but they want to you to watch the commercials... and on top of that 30% of every hour is dedicated to commercials! Also, to think I'm paying for something I have to wait the next day to watch is completely out of line.



A couple $$/mo., maybe. But $6/mo.? Ain't gonna happen. Even if CBS killed-off their local OTA affiliate. In that case I just wouldn't see their programming any more. It would not be the end of the world.



Jim Yup.A couple $$/mo., maybe. But $6/mo.? Ain't gonna happen. Even if CBS killed-off their local OTA affiliate. In that case I just wouldn't see their programming any more. It would not be the end of the world.Jim

burner50

Proud Union THUG

Premium Member

join:2002-06-05

Iowa burner50 to davidc502

Premium Member to davidc502

said by davidc502: I'm not going to pay for something I can get for free. It's my understanding they won't stop OTA because if they do, they will loose very expensive spectrum.. and that's just for starters.



So not only do they want people to pay for access, but they want to you to watch the commercials... and on top of that 30% of every hour is dedicated to commercials! Also, to think I'm paying for something I have to wait the next day to watch is completely out of line.



This is just a ploy to try to pick up some of the stray cable cutters. I'm sure subscriptions to this will be minimal until something major happens down the road.



My 2¢ As a paying member of their streaming service (loads of people have been screaming for À la carte for decades), I find it to be worth the few dollars per month that I pay for it. I don't pay for cable / sat television, and I'm too far from transmitter sites for any reliable, convenient, service. Albert71292

join:2004-10-31

West Monroe, LA Albert71292 Member I'd Subscribe... ...for the library of classic shows, IF they get the service on the Roku. Until then, no sale. Don't want to watch TV on my computer.

davidc502

join:2002-03-06

Mount Juliet, TN davidc502 Member Re: I'd Subscribe... Just get PlayOn (PlayOn.tv) and stream those CBS shows over to your Roku. Roku has a plugIn for Playon, so it works pretty nicely.



David elefante72

join:2010-12-03

East Amherst, NY 2 recommendations elefante72 Member Re: I'd Subscribe... Yeah thats consumer friendly... I know people on this forum are advanced and it seems simple to us, but to the average person running a media server is rocket science....They will need apps Roku, Amazon, ATV for sure...Maybe Xbox.

davidc502

join:2002-03-06

Mount Juliet, TN davidc502 Member Re: I'd Subscribe...



Of course we know what happens when we assume I would assume the directed audience of anyone posting on these forums to the advanced enough.Of course we know what happens when we assume

TechyDad

Premium Member

join:2001-07-13

USA TechyDad Premium Member Re: I'd Subscribe...



Yes, the CBS subscription would cost money, but if they - as Albert71292



If I had already decided that the CBS online subscription was worth it, requiring additional hardware just to get it on your TV reduces the value of the service and makes it more likely that I'll cancel. I'm advanced enough to be able to run a media server and stream videos to my Roku box. Practically speaking, though, I can't afford to. We only have laptop computers right now. Buying a desktop computer just to use as a media server would cost money at a time when money is tight. However, a Roku channel requires no additional hardware purchase.Yes, the CBS subscription would cost money, but if they - as Albert71292 proposed - included a back library of all of their content then I'd make a judgement as to whether that small monthly fee was worth it.If I had already decided that the CBS online subscription was worth it, requiring additional hardware just to get it on your TV reduces the value of the service and makes it more likely that I'll cancel.

Hall

MVM

join:2000-04-28

Germantown, OH Hall MVM CBS executive(s) are idiots First, they report "self-reported numbers" on Netflix, pretty much say they don't believe them or know if they're accurate, and think they will trick Netflix into releasing better data. Oooh, I bet they almost fell for it !



The numbers that matter to Netflix are how many pay their subscription each month. It doesn't matter how many watch anything at all - Netflix got their money. Shows just how stuck in the past the CBS folks are. elefante72

join:2010-12-03

East Amherst, NY elefante72 Member Re: CBS executive(s) are idiots It does matter to Netflix. The content contracts are based upon volume/windows/ or both. The reason that Starz went away is because they signed a purely window contract (x amount of years and access to their catalog). Well when Starz signed they never thought NFLX would be as popular as it was... Oops. In resign that went away and then they wanted too much and NTFX walked. Many of the early contracts were volume. After show xxx is watched 1,000 times it goes away...



Even though it is a subscription, like a cableco they need to balance their costs to make a profit, and w/ Netflix its content contracts, delivery, and native content...



They don't want to publish that because those are private contracts and to release that would give the networks ammo into their pricing/strategy/etc.,.. InvalidError

join:2008-02-03 1 recommendation InvalidError Member Bringing you yesterday's news today! If I was paying $6/month directly to a TV network instead of the $1-2/month they get through the BDU (or nothing at all for OTA), I would expect same-day availability of their premiere content.

n2jtx

join:2001-01-13

Glen Head, NY n2jtx Member Wow! That many???? LOL



(If the numbers were outstanding they would be standing on the roof shouting it for everyone to hear)



Sadly I am becoming less impressed with CBS corporation every day and that says a lot as I can recall when they were the premier network back in the day. William S. Paley would not recognize the place now (nor would Edward R. Murrow). unclexrico

join:2014-03-28

Brooklyn, NY unclexrico Member Re: Wow! said by n2jtx: That many???? LOL



(If the numbers were outstanding they would be standing on the roof shouting it for everyone to hear) Proves what you know. You can't even count the amount of people who want to pay 5.99 a month for cheers with commercials and no football. It's so many they're not even done counting. ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23

Tuscaloosa, AL ISurfTooMuch to n2jtx

Member to n2jtx

I lost all respect for them when they forced CNET to pull Dish's Hopper's award for CES product of the year. Not only was it dishonest, it blew up in their faces big time. CNET lost any credibility it had left in the tech industry, Dish got more free publicity than it could ask for, the CEA dropped CNET from judging future shows, AND, in the end, the CEA handed the award to the Hopper anyway.



Hey Les, that was a brilliant bit of stategery on your part.

psiuuu

@104.10.89.x psiuuu Anon Re: Wow! Whenever I wonder how any of the shows I would be watching on network TV are doing, I just look at the Aereo logo in the middle of my Roku channels and seethe.



Don't really miss them much at all, honestly.

newview

Ex .. Ex .. Exactly

Premium Member

join:2001-10-01

Parsonsburg, MD newview Premium Member I'd be willing to wager ... that numbers are way up there in the double digits ... maybe even 100 ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23

Tuscaloosa, AL ISurfTooMuch Member Re: I'd be willing to wager ... Yeah, those are great numbers, but how many of them aren't CBS employees and their families? Kuro

join:2014-10-01 Kuro Member The one Is this going to be the thing that every other network points at to 'prove' streaming doesn't work and cord cutters are a myth/have no money?

Bagnon

Snoogans

join:2000-11-19

Hamilton, ON ·Start.ca

Bagnon Member I hope more networks do this If CBS wants to provide a streaming content service, so be it. I think it's great. I hope other networks do this. This may be what the future will become. I can see it becoming an app service within your TV or set top box. Select the network you want to watch and choose a show or channel. I'm sure eventually there will be guides that will access all app channels. It'd be kind of like a la carte but, content provider packages.

odreian615

join:2006-01-18

Chicago, IL odreian615 Member It should be $6-10 for ALL of the channels National Amusements owns Who the heck would pay for OTA broadcast when you can get them for free

cork1958

Cork

Premium Member

join:2000-02-26 cork1958 Premium Member Re: It should be $6-10 for ALL of the channels National Amusements owns said by odreian615: Who the heck would pay for OTA broadcast when you can get them for free Besides, there aren't $6 worth of show to watch on CBS anyway!

AnonDude

@97.95.147.x AnonDude to odreian615

Anon to odreian615

said by odreian615: Who the heck would pay for OTA broadcast when you can get them for free People with cable or satellite are paying for them now aren't they? Also not everyone can get in OTA. Yeah I can CBS on a SD sub channel. ABC and PBS are the only channels I can get in HD reliably.

NJxxxJon

2 0 1 7 Mmm Here We go man!

Premium Member

join:2005-10-22 NJxxxJon Premium Member Tried the free trial..... I tried the freeness....and it lagged/froze pretty bad. And that was mid day when everyone should be at work. devolved

join:2012-07-11

Rapid City, SD devolved Member If he won't say how many If he won't say how many, that means not many have signed up.

Flyonthewall

@206.248.154.x Flyonthewall Anon Smoke screen This is just an attempt to make a cable subscription over the internet, so when you order those services, you get commercials, help pay for sports even if you don't watch it, and support crap programming.



I wouldn't bite, but I'm sure some will. your comment..

