http://online.wsj.com/articles/hbo-to-launch-standalone-streaming-service-1413385733
QuoteHBO is finally giving the cord-cutters what they want.
Speaking at Time Warner Inc. 's investor day meeting on Wednesday, Richard Plepler, the chief executive of HBO, announced that the pay-TV channel would launch a stand-alone, online streaming version of its service next year.
The new service, an expansion of the pay-TV channel's popular HBO Go streaming platform available to pay-TV subscribers, will be primarily targeted at the 10 million people in the U.S. who don't currently have a cable or satellite-TV subscription.
"That is a large and growing opportunity that should no longer be left untapped," Mr. Plepler told investors.
Consumers have been pushing for HBO to offer its network on the Internet for years and the success of Netflix has put additional pressure on HBO to go over-the-top.
But HBO has been reluctant to pursue that strategy out of fears it would rock the boat with its traditional distributors—cable and satellite providers.
Few details about the over-the-top service were revealed, including at what price HBO will offer it. A person familiar with the plans said it wouldn't be cheaper than what it currently costs subscribers to get HBO through their multichannel video program provider.
That is crucial because if HBO were to offer its online version at a discount to what pay-TV customers pay it would likely create a backlash from cable and satellite operators, which are already worried about losing customers to broadband video services such as Netflix and Hulu.
An online-only version of the channel could translate to hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for HBO, Mr. Plepler said.
HBO currently has about 30 million subscribers in the U.S. Mr. Plepler said not only would HBO Go target so-called cord-nevers—people who have never had a pay-TV subscription—but that it would also aggressively market its service to the more than 70 million pay-TV homes that currently aren't subscribing.
Traditionally, HBO relies heavily on distributors to market and promote HBO. Mr. Plepler indicated that many are falling down on the job.
HBO also wants to rework its partnership with distributors to increase the revenue it gets. Mr. Plepler said there are hundreds of millions of dollars its partners aren't sharing.
"We will get our taste," Mr. Plepler said, quoting a character from the network's mob hit "The Sopranos."
I guess HBO finally changed their mind on whether it would be profitable to have a streaming services. :D
Damn, I have enough difficulty keeping up with a mail-in dvd rental service, no tv and occasional bbc catch use. Again how do some of you guys manage to watch all of that stuff.
It's about time. Maybe they saw some stats on how many people pirate Game of Thrones.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 15, 2014, 02:38:48 PM
It's about time. Maybe they saw some stats on how many people pirate Game of Thrones.
Yeah I had read a blurb from them on those stats and they were like well we will do so if it makes financial sense.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 15, 2014, 02:38:48 PM
It's about time. Maybe they saw some stats on how many people pirate Game of Thrones.
Yeah that did seem an odd way to 'contain' a runaway success.
Over here it was only available on a individually priced episode basis from one or two service; so expensive it was as cheap to just outright buy the dvd boxed sets
I don't know. How many movies HBO "owns" at a given time? If it have rights for, lets say, 10,000 movies, then it might be worth the money.
I can see the potential, but they would need to offer something similar to Netflix to be competitive.
That's good. I will still subscribe to both cable and streaming HBO though.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 15, 2014, 02:38:48 PM
It's about time. Maybe they saw some stats on how many people pirate Game of Thrones.
For sure. But will the pirates pay for something they can get for free? I know that their "excuse" has been they didn't have cable or satellite. But now...will they pay?
Quote from: Josephus on October 15, 2014, 03:58:39 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 15, 2014, 02:38:48 PM
It's about time. Maybe they saw some stats on how many people pirate Game of Thrones.
For sure. But will the pirates pay for something they can get for free? I know that their "excuse" has been they didn't have cable or satellite. But now...will they pay?
Some will, and many won't.
Not sure about the US, but here a lot of piracy is availability driven. I havent pirated a HBO show since I get them legally from HBO Go. There are other shows which I cant watch except with a 6-12 month delay and with bad Polish dubbing - I would welcome the ability to watch them immediately.
In related news...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/peterlauria/netflix-loses-about-7-billion-in-value-after-missing-subscri#2k46u69
QuoteNetflix Loses About $7 Billion In Value After Missing Subscriber Targets
Netflix stock plummeted by about $115 per share after reporting third quarter results that missed expectations and followed an announcement earlier in the day that HBO Go will be available to people without a pay-TV subscription starting next year.
After nearly two years of near-flawless execution, Netflix offered up a rare miss with its third quarter earnings, sending its stock down more than $115 in after-hours trading Wednesday.
The streaming video service, which had been on a subscriber addition tear since 2013, missed both its own and Wall Street's projections for new signups during the quarter. Netflix said it added just over 3 million subscribers globally during the quarter, with just under one million coming from the U.S. and just over 2 million coming internationally. The company now has 53 million total subscribers worldwide, with 37.2 million in the U.S. and 15.8 million internationally.
Netflix took full responsibility for the miss, saying that it "over forecast" subscriber additions for the quarter. The company also said that as best as it can tell the primary cause for the miss is owed to "the slightly higher prices we now have compared to a year ago." Netflix pricing varies but the basic streaming product costs $8.99 per month in most markets.
"In hindsight, the impact of higher prices [last quarter and in the early part of this one] appeared to be offset for about two months by the large positive reception to Season Two of Orange is the New Black," Netflix said in a statement. "We remain happy with the price changes and growth in revenue and will continue to improve our service, with better content, better streaming and better choosing."
Netflix shares, which ended the day down 53 cents to $448.59, fell more than $115 in after-hours trading to as low as $330.50 per share. The company's worth declined by about $7 billion as a result, to around $20 billion from $27 billion.
On its last two earnings calls, Netflix made big news by first coming out publicly against the Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger and next detailing plans for a massive international expansion of its business. But the impact of its subscriber miss was likely compounded by the fact that HBO, one of its biggest competitors, made headlines earlier Wednesday by announcing that it would make its HBO Go streaming service available to people without a pay-TV subscription beginning next year. The move puts HBO in direct competition with Netflix for the first time ever — Netflix's Ted Sarandos famously said that the company's goal was "to become HBO before HBO becomes us."
Netflix inserted a short comment into its letter to shareholders addressing the HBO GO news, saying that, "Starting back in 2011 we started saying that HBO would be our primary long-term competitor, particularly for content. The competition will drive us both to be better. It was inevitable and sensible that they would eventually offer their service as a standalone application. Many people will subscribe to both Netflix and HBO since we have different shows, so we think it is likely we both prosper as consumers move to Internet TV."
Indeed, while HBO and Netflix will be in direct competition, that doesn't necessarily mean consumers will choose one at the expense of the other. More likely is that they end up subscribing to both at the expense of a pay-TV subscription or other streaming video service.
The big advantage HBO has over Netflix is in theatrical movies, where the network has long-term licensing deals in place with three of Hollywood's biggest studios: Warner Bros., Universal Studios, and 20th Century Fox. Movies are still cited by consumers as the top reason for subscribing to HBO, with 40% doing so solely for them. Plepler said, for instance, that movies such as Reds 2, Fast and Furious 6, and We're the Millers were each watched by more than 20 million people. Fourteen of the top 25 movies released so far this year will be available exclusively on HBO, Plepler said.
For its part, Netflix has deals with Disney, The Weinstein Company and a handful of other independent studios for movies. During the third quarter Netflix also made its much anticipated move into the movie business, announcing a 4 picture deal with Adam Sandler and an agreement to co-finance the sequel to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon from The Weinstein Company. Sandler's films under the deal will appear exclusively on Netflix beginning in 2016, while the Crouching Tiger sequel will appear simultaneously on Netflix and in select IMAX theaters when it premieres in August.
Netflix said it is investing in original movies because financially it is better than some pay-TV deals and because "it is consistent with the desires of the global on-demand generation to enjoy new movies without having to wait for months after they debut in U.S. theaters."
While Netflix released more new original programming during the quarter, including BoJack Horseman and the second season of Hemlock Grove, it didn't have anything approaching the popularity of House of Cards or Orange is the New Black. Its next major original series, Marco Polo, is slated to premiere in December. In addition, the company said it is in production on nine other original series and during the quarter signed a deal for a new comedy series from Judd Apatow to debut in 2016.
For the quarter, Netflix reported revenue of $1.2 billion and net income of $59 million, or 96 cents per share. It finished the quarter with $1.7 billion in cash and $8.9 billion left to pay on content, or what the company calls "content obligations."
But Netflix shares swing wildly based on its subscriber targets, and the miss coupled with the HBO Go announcement appears to have spooked investors. BTIG analyst Richard Greenfield projected in a report earlier this week, for instance, that he expects Netflix to reach 100 million subscribers worldwide by 2017.
While no other details about the planned HBO GO stand-alone service were released, including how much it would cost and what kind of content would be available on it and when, its CEO Richard Plepler said a big focus would be on marketing it to broadband-only homes in the U.S. and "millennials," basically the people who have been a huge boon to Netflix and other streaming video services by cutting the cord or bypassing pay-TV altogether.
Quote from: Josephus on October 15, 2014, 03:58:39 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 15, 2014, 02:38:48 PM
It's about time. Maybe they saw some stats on how many people pirate Game of Thrones.
For sure. But will the pirates pay for something they can get for free? I know that their "excuse" has been they didn't have cable or satellite. But now...will they pay?
I saw the light when HBO opened up a streaming service for Scandinavia some years back.
I think we are seeing the start of the end of cable and satellite as content delivery mechanisms.
It simple doesn't make any sense.
Some entity creates content they want to sell to consumers.
The current model of cable and/or satellite as the means of getting that content into your home makes absolutely no sense at all except as a legacy. You don't need them, nobody needs them, the internet can deliver digital media just fine.
The only reason there isn't a more integrated, rational delivery method already is because cable and satellite don't allow it. This cannot last.
Sell any stock you have in cable/satellite providers. They will go the way of Kodak.
Quote from: Berkut on October 17, 2014, 01:55:59 AM
The only reason there isn't a more integrated, rational delivery method already is because cable and satellite don't allow it. This cannot last.
It's not just the cable companies, the content owners don't like streaming either.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 17, 2014, 02:23:53 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 17, 2014, 01:55:59 AM
The only reason there isn't a more integrated, rational delivery method already is because cable and satellite don't allow it. This cannot last.
It's not just the cable companies, the content owners don't like streaming either.
That's true, streaming monetizes poorly and stuff like Netflix cannibalizes DVD sales and even digital downloads. There's no need to own stuff when you can watch almost anything you'd want for 9 bucks a month. It's such a good deal it's a no brainer.
We are facing a similar phenomenon than the music industry faced in the 2000s; where streaming and digital formats have provoked a race to the bottom, not only because of piracy, but because those formats don't monetize as well. However they are much better products for the customer, and at the end the better product wins out. Companies can't stop it, but they will try their darndest to stall it as much as they can.
Quote from: Josephus on October 15, 2014, 03:58:39 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 15, 2014, 02:38:48 PM
It's about time. Maybe they saw some stats on how many people pirate Game of Thrones.
For sure. But will the pirates pay for something they can get for free? I know that their "excuse" has been they didn't have cable or satellite. But now...will they pay?
Only speaking for myself, but since my Spotify subscription I've not downloaded any music illegally, largely because I can use it on PC, phone and tablet, so having files to transfer becomes irrelevant. If there was a movie/TV show equivalent with a similar range I'd be willing to pay for that, too, and probably quite a bit.
Not sure if in the US of A it's different, but here, in Canada, with the major cable/satellite subscriptons owned by Bell and Rogers, who also own the major internet subscriptions, in the end it doesn't matter for them if you leave cable or not. Either way you're going to end up paying them. Either for a cable package or for an upgraded and expensive bandwith subscription.
The Cable co will answer back, Berkut.
Mainly by lobbying until the FCC completely kills Net Neutrality.
and on that day, they will have won.
In Canada, the recurring allowance by the CRTC to institute retail data caps will kill any and all of efforts of Cord Cutting.
There's been a streaming service called HBO Nordic for a year or so.
It's been a blessing.
It finally got Deadwood too.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 17, 2014, 07:38:43 AM
The Cable co will answer back, Berkut.
Mainly by lobbying until the FCC completely kills Net Neutrality.
and on that day, they will have won.
In Canada, the recurring allowance by the CRTC to institute retail data caps will kill any and all of efforts of Cord Cutting.
I agree that your have accurately described what has happened in Canada to date. But I also think Berkut is correct that a big change is coming. In the recent spat between teh CRTC and Netflix I think you are seeing the last days of content regulation. It has become largely irrelevant.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2014, 08:34:30 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 17, 2014, 07:38:43 AM
The Cable co will answer back, Berkut.
Mainly by lobbying until the FCC completely kills Net Neutrality.
and on that day, they will have won.
In Canada, the recurring allowance by the CRTC to institute retail data caps will kill any and all of efforts of Cord Cutting.
I agree that your have accurately described what has happened in Canada to date. But I also think Berkut is correct that a big change is coming. In the recent spat between teh CRTC and Netflix I think you are seeing the last days of content regulation. It has become largely irrelevant.
Has it? CRTC's content regulation is mandated in the Broadcasting act, is there Political will to amend that? I understand that English Canada(and the ROTW) really just wants to watch American TV shows.
Simultaneous substitution has made Bell, Shaw & Rogers very lazy with their programming.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 17, 2014, 09:02:29 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2014, 08:34:30 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 17, 2014, 07:38:43 AM
The Cable co will answer back, Berkut.
Mainly by lobbying until the FCC completely kills Net Neutrality.
and on that day, they will have won.
In Canada, the recurring allowance by the CRTC to institute retail data caps will kill any and all of efforts of Cord Cutting.
I agree that your have accurately described what has happened in Canada to date. But I also think Berkut is correct that a big change is coming. In the recent spat between teh CRTC and Netflix I think you are seeing the last days of content regulation. It has become largely irrelevant.
Has it? CRTC's content regulation is mandated in the Broadcasting act, is there Political will to amend that? I understand that English Canada(and the ROTW) really just wants to watch American TV shows.
Simultaneous substitution has made Bell, Shaw & Rogers very lazy with their programming.
There is no need to amend anything. Netflix already falls outside the regulations. That is the spat I referred to in my post. The CRTC can't regulate content on the internet with any practical effect. The CRTC can go on regulating the content of cable all it wants and the diminishing number of people that will actually impact.
The CRTC is under the impression, and acts accordingly, that Netflix falls under it's umbrella and operates under a 1999 Exception Order for new media(same thing for Youtube).
While the government will never allow it, the CRTC has the authority & the means to make the Canadian ISPs block NetFlix/Youtube.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 17, 2014, 11:00:00 AM
The CRTC is under the impression, and acts accordingly, that Netflix falls under it's umbrella and operates under a 1999 Exception Order for new media(same thing for Youtube).
While the government will never allow it, the CRTC has the authority & the means to make the Canadian ISPs block NetFlix/Youtube.
Like I said, the CRTC can't regulate the internet with any practical effect....
Yes but the CRTC can and does regulate your access to the internet.
RoBellus will go and has gone before the CRTC arguing that Netflix competition is unfair and doesn't respect rules they have too.
It is a grimm picture but has long has we have no vertical structural seperation those that own the cables will make our access to Netflix and other OTT services harder & more expensive everyday.
Quote from: Syt on October 17, 2014, 04:54:26 AM
Only speaking for myself, but since my Spotify subscription I've not downloaded any music illegally, largely because I can use it on PC, phone and tablet, so having files to transfer becomes irrelevant. If there was a movie/TV show equivalent with a similar range I'd be willing to pay for that, too, and probably quite a bit.
Grooveshark for me, since it's a little better for allowing access to the international music market, but we'll see how long that keeps up now that GS is in the damages phase of a massive copyright lawsuit. I would really not be surprised to see them fold, with other services like IHeartRadio, Spotify, and Pandora circling the wagons to cover their backsides, or at least the portion of their backsides that is exposed to the licensing aspects of their businesses.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 17, 2014, 11:54:00 AM
Quote from: Syt on October 17, 2014, 04:54:26 AM
Only speaking for myself, but since my Spotify subscription I've not downloaded any music illegally, largely because I can use it on PC, phone and tablet, so having files to transfer becomes irrelevant. If there was a movie/TV show equivalent with a similar range I'd be willing to pay for that, too, and probably quite a bit.
Grooveshark for me, since it's a little better for allowing access to the international music market, but we'll see how long that keeps up now that GS is in the damages phase of a massive copyright lawsuit. I would really not be surprised to see them fold, with other services like IHeartRadio, Spotify, and Pandora circling the wagons to cover their backsides, or at least the portion of their backsides that is exposed to the licensing aspects of their businesses.
Yeah, Grooveshark is done. Surprised they're still operating at this point. The trial found they had just started offering up songs and planned to get licensing deals with the record labels "eventually".
Is that not ok?
I mean, if they have the best of intentions to eventually get licensing, I don't see what the problem is...
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 17, 2014, 02:23:53 AM
It's not just the cable companies, the content owners don't like streaming either.
That may be the case with the content owners that have or had content on TV.
My impression is that there are a lot of other content creators and potential creators that would be delighted with the demise of cable TV.
Sure. The ones who aren't as good want a more wide open field, the ones with the best stuff want the best monetization.
I don't think it's necessarily related to how good it is, but rather to whether they've managed to cross the bar to entry.
Put it this way- I haven't seen a single webseries* that I felt would be better off in hour long chunks than the 5 minute chunks they typically come in.
*Excluding original shows from Netflix, Hulu, etc.
On a different note, what is up with some of these original shows being debuted as a full season. I guess it doesn't matter as much for Netflix, but still seems like they could have more buzz, more lasting users if they released on a weekly basis or something like that. As it was, I got free trial, watched Arrested Development and peaced.
In the case of Amazon, it seems like it make more sense to have users continuously coming in as that's more times you could potentially make a sale.
Quote from: Berkut on October 17, 2014, 12:02:52 PM
Is that not ok?
I mean, if they have the best of intentions to eventually get licensing, I don't see what the problem is...
The problem is they proved the GS people knew they were using the material illegitimately. Even if it was temporary, it was willful copyright infringement. And there were 6,000 uploads at issue, so given the courts' tendency to award punitive damages for willful infringement, they're looking at potential judgments far oustripping the company's revenue.
Also, they proved GrooveShark hasn't been aggressive in taking down uploads of material owned by labels with which they still don't have any sort of deal (particularly Sony), so no safe harbor exemption.
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2014, 01:17:55 PM
On a different note, what is up with some of these original shows being debuted as a full season.
A lot of people prefer binge watching a show as opposed to stretching it out over months.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 17, 2014, 02:42:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2014, 01:17:55 PM
On a different note, what is up with some of these original shows being debuted as a full season.
A lot of people prefer binge watching a show as opposed to stretching it out over months.
I understand why a consumer would like that, but I wonder if it would really stop people from tuning in if the service did what was better for its business. Besides, eventually binge watch would be possible just not in the "original run".
I guess they figure it isn't worth mildly inconveniencing a lot of customers(some of whom will be on the fence about leaving at any given point) to retain a handful who are only on for the one show.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 17, 2014, 03:19:37 PM
I guess they figure it isn't worth mildly inconveniencing a lot of customers(some of whom will be on the fence about leaving at any given point) to retain a handful who are only on for the one show.
Again I can sort of understand for Netflix which is soft - as well as it doesn't matter much when customers come in, but not sure why Amazon is falling in same footsteps given that for them it would help to have steady traffic rather than binges.
Besides both services have a lot of content that can be binge-watched. I don't see why anyone would leave if the original content was in a format that triggered them to tune in next week. "Fuck Netflix, I ain't going to watch Orange is The New Black because I can't watch it all in one day for the season debut"?
I think it's a strange decision. I get that's probably more convenient for customers, but they lose the hype that can be built with the weekly discussions in social media after each episode is broadcast, etc... also you can "lock" fans of the series for a longer stretch of time where they will be paying your monthly subscription.
I suppose that Netflix wanted to make a bit of a splash by being "different" and disrupting how a series is presented in order to garner exposure, and now Amazon has sort of been forced to follow in their steps - since it's something that customers are getting used to now and will demand from original online content providers.
Quote from: celedhring on October 17, 2014, 04:10:28 PM
I think it's a strange decision. I get that's probably more convenient for customers, but they lose the hype that can be built with the weekly discussions in social media after each episode is broadcast, etc... also you can "lock" fans of the series for a longer stretch of time where they will be paying your monthly subscription.
Yeah exactly.
Quote from: celedhring on October 17, 2014, 04:10:28 PM
I suppose that Netflix wanted to make a bit of a splash by being "different" and disrupting how a series is presented in order to garner exposure, and now Amazon has sort of been forced to follow in their steps - since it's something that customers are getting used to now and will demand from original online content providers.
I wonder if Amazon really is though. I mean Amazon's streaming is just one part of Amazon Prime, so it isn't like they likely have many customers who sign up just to binge watch original content.
Quote from: Berkut on October 17, 2014, 01:55:59 AM
I think we are seeing the start of the end of cable and satellite as content delivery mechanisms.
It simple doesn't make any sense.
Some entity creates content they want to sell to consumers.
The current model of cable and/or satellite as the means of getting that content into your home makes absolutely no sense at all except as a legacy. You don't need them, nobody needs them, the internet can deliver digital media just fine.
The only reason there isn't a more integrated, rational delivery method already is because cable and satellite don't allow it. This cannot last.
Sell any stock you have in cable/satellite providers. They will go the way of Kodak.
I'm not so sure; look at the concessions Netflix had to make with the cable providers recently. It may be Netflix content, but it's still the cable providers' pipelines, and the cable providers know it.
I see it falling similar to the way the deregulation of the energy industry went years ago: sure, you can now pick your energy supplier from a list of multiple providers, but you're still paying your local regulated utility through them because it's still their infrastructure.
Cable and satellite may make less money in the future, but they'll still be making a shitload--even if it's in hidden payments piggybacked onto Netflix and HBO--if their providers want to use their pipes.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 17, 2014, 09:24:09 PM
I'm not so sure; look at the concessions Netflix had to make with the cable providers recently. It may be Netflix content, but it's still the cable providers' pipelines, and the cable providers know it.
I see it falling similar to the way the deregulation of the energy industry went years ago: sure, you can now pick your energy supplier from a list of multiple providers, but you're still paying your local regulated utility through them because it's still their infrastructure.
Cable and satellite may make less money in the future, but they'll still be making a shitload--even if it's in hidden payments piggybacked onto Netflix and HBO--if their providers want to use their pipes.
I'm gonna have to disagree. The pressure on the FCC to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II is already massive, and it's only increasing. Once that happens, I think we're likely to see a repeat of the Bell breakup in the '80s, with Comcast and possibly Time Warner having to split up into smaller companies to compete with themselves.
It's conceivable that Comcast, Time Warner, Charter, et al will revert to internet service providers.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 17, 2014, 10:02:32 PM
I'm gonna have to disagree. The pressure on the FCC to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II is already massive, and it's only increasing. Once that happens, I think we're likely to see a repeat of the Bell breakup in the '80s, with Comcast and possibly Time Warner having to split up into smaller companies to compete with themselves.
Common carrier regulation? In the Age of Deregulation? Meh.
And you're smoking your socks if you think the Roberts court is going to allow anything to be broken up like Ma Bell was. The Feds will lose that fight.
Nah...Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and every other broadband bully that dug those trenches, laid that fiber, and go out and repair it all are not going to go anywhere, even with content delivery networks helping defray the costs.
The SC hasn't looked at an antitrust case in, what, 50 years?
There are natural monopolies folks, get used to it. But one of the truly magical things about the US market is that there are a million greedy peckerheads out there, who are looking to eat the lunch of any corporation that is extracting monopoly rents.
Microsoft was the big bad bear in the 1980s. They were going to drive every other software company in the world into extinction by bundling goodies free with the operating system. Now the only people in the world who use IE are semi-retarded Somali layabouts.
Greed is good. Greed is the power that will protect you all from the big bad wolf. There will *always* be a competitor.
And yet we already do pay quite a bit more for our internet and TV than most countries folks do IIRC.
Here's from a quick google.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F70699000%2Fgif%2F_70699733_cost_broadband_around_the_world_v2.gif&hash=0b4c6658aa3cafe3638def1dcbb41f53a3b640a1)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F70717000%2Fgif%2F_70717869_countries_with_high_speed_broadband.gif&hash=ab8f68c49518c447c09d0a937d2c3fe97b62c856)
Source: BBC
It's a free market. You don't like it, break out the rabbit ears.
It's not a free market; it's a regulated monopoly.
I'm curious who paid for the infrastructure in those other countries.
It's a regulated monopoly. You don't like it, break out the rabbit ears.
So Canada and the USA get the shittiest service and pay the most. Hm.....
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 19, 2014, 02:56:11 PM
It's not a free market; it's a regulated monopoly.
I'm curious who paid for the infrastructure in those other countries.
In South Korea, it was heavily subsidized.
America & Canada, need to stop letting the incumbets who took advantage of the landscape in the 80s decide.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 19, 2014, 04:09:29 PM
America & Canada, need to stop letting the incumbets who took advantage of the landscape in the 80s decide.
Please elaborate.
Here's the link to the BBC article that MIM's graphs came from--
Why is broadband more expensive in the US?
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24528383
Quote"We deregulated high-speed internet access 10 years ago and since then we've seen enormous consolidation and monopolies, so left to their own devices, companies that supply internet access will charge high prices, because they face neither competition nor oversight."
God Bless America! :yeah: :shareholdervalue: :profit!: :fuckyall:
Quote from: Josephus on October 19, 2014, 03:57:20 PM
So Canada and the USA get the shittiest service and pay the most. Hm.....
I pay about ten bucks for my broadband, seems a reasonable service to me.
Quote from: mongers on October 19, 2014, 04:56:41 PM
Quote from: Josephus on October 19, 2014, 03:57:20 PM
So Canada and the USA get the shittiest service and pay the most. Hm.....
I pay about ten bucks for my broadband, seems a reasonable service to me.
Yeah, about the same here, and then about 10 bucks extra to stream HBO.
Quote from: Liep on October 19, 2014, 05:07:56 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 19, 2014, 04:56:41 PM
Quote from: Josephus on October 19, 2014, 03:57:20 PM
So Canada and the USA get the shittiest service and pay the most. Hm.....
I pay about ten bucks for my broadband, seems a reasonable service to me.
Yeah, about the same here, and then about 10 bucks extra to stream HBO.
Indeed.
Interesting to note, this post of mine is the first on Languish in more than 2 hours, since you post. :gasp:
Quote from: mongers on October 19, 2014, 07:16:38 PM
Interesting to note, this post of mine is the first on Languish in more than 2 hours, since you post. :gasp:
It's Sunday. The forum is resting.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 19, 2014, 04:14:43 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 19, 2014, 04:09:29 PM
America & Canada, need to stop letting the incumbets who took advantage of the landscape in the 80s decide.
Please elaborate.
In Canada, the incumbents built their network on the public dime, were gifted wireless spectrum and enjoyed state mandated monopolies.
Now, everytime we want to make a change to improve the landscape, they are against it & the CRTC always listen to them. (It kinda has too).
You mean taxpayers paid the entire bill for cable hookups and/or fiber optic?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 19, 2014, 07:33:28 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 19, 2014, 07:16:38 PM
Interesting to note, this post of mine is the first on Languish in more than 2 hours, since you post. :gasp:
It's Sunday. The forum is resting.
See Norwegian conscript thread for details of unusual language specialists call up. :bowler:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 19, 2014, 07:55:42 PM
You mean taxpayers paid the entire bill for cable hookups and/or fiber optic?
No fiber back then but afaik, yes.
here's a good article on why this model won't last forever:
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/20/theyre_going_to_start_destroying_each_other_why_tvs_new_golden_age_is_doomed/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
The problem, as the article points out, is that at some point people will still have to chose which streaming companies they want to subscribe to. Do you want both Netflix and HBO? What about Cinemax?
Which is why Spotify, and ohter music streaming sites, work for instance. You don't go to Spotify to listen to 70s prog and Rhapsody to listen to heavy metal. It's all under one streaming service. But if you want to watch Game of Thrones and The Knick as well as boxing, you need to subscribe to multiple streaming services.
Quote from: Josephus on October 20, 2014, 05:27:15 PM
here's a good article on why this model won't last forever:
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/20/theyre_going_to_start_destroying_each_other_why_tvs_new_golden_age_is_doomed/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
The problem, as the article points out, is that at some point people will still have to chose which streaming companies they want to subscribe to. Do you want both Netflix and HBO? What about Cinemax?
Which is why Spotify, and ohter music streaming sites, work for instance. You don't go to Spotify to listen to 70s prog and Rhapsody to listen to heavy metal. It's all under one streaming service. But if you want to watch Game of Thrones and The Knick as well as boxing, you need to subscribe to multiple streaming services.
Yeah, it seems to me that Netflix will die off. HBO isn't going to just have their own content but has a lot of deals with major movie houses.
So yeah it does seem like you typically need about 2-3 services (currently Netflix, Hulu+ and Amazon Prime in US). Amazon Prime though is less of a thing you get for the streaming and more that is added benefit on top of other benefits from Amazon Prime. Netflix (or HBO) gets you broader selection of movies and then Hulu+ gets you current broadcast television.
However, there was a period of time when ABC tried to have its own service but gave up and joined Hulu.
Of course, even if one was to be paying for multiple services (which I don't think currently happens as most people I know tend to share their passwords for these services, excepting Amazon as that is linked to more stuff), it would still be cheaper than what you currently have to pay to sign up for cable. :D -_-
Quote from: Berkut on October 17, 2014, 01:55:59 AM
I think we are seeing the start of the end of cable and satellite as content delivery mechanisms.
It simple doesn't make any sense.
They have one key competitive advantage - live sports.
The current model of cable delivery actually subsidizes heavy watchers of live sporting events because the extra charges associated with them are spread over all subscribers within a tier.
Back in the day when most live sports were broadcast in the air, that could be easily worked around with a decent antenna but those days are long gone.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 19, 2014, 04:26:25 PM
Here's the link to the BBC article that MIM's graphs came from--
Why is broadband more expensive in the US?
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24528383
Quote"We deregulated high-speed internet access 10 years ago and since then we've seen enormous consolidation and monopolies, so left to their own devices, companies that supply internet access will charge high prices, because they face neither competition nor oversight."
God Bless America! :yeah: :shareholdervalue: :profit!: :fuckyall:
That's unlikely, since we know for fact that a deregulated free market provides the best prices for consumers.
Quote from: Jacob on October 20, 2014, 06:47:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 19, 2014, 04:26:25 PM
Here's the link to the BBC article that MIM's graphs came from--
Why is broadband more expensive in the US?
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24528383
Quote"We deregulated high-speed internet access 10 years ago and since then we've seen enormous consolidation and monopolies, so left to their own devices, companies that supply internet access will charge high prices, because they face neither competition nor oversight."
God Bless America! :yeah: :shareholdervalue: :profit!: :fuckyall:
That's unlikely, since we know for fact that a deregulated free market provides the best prices for consumers.
I mean does anyone here ever argue that monopolies benefit consumers?
Quote from: Jacob on October 20, 2014, 06:47:46 PM
That's unlikely, since we know for fact that a deregulated free market provides the best prices for consumers.
This is not true in all cases.
And of course if the government gave the service away for free that would be an awesome price for consumers.
Fuck monopolies.