As long as you have data caps, this won't take off. High Def would eat through a data cap like you won't believe. I live in Chicago, and my only high speed internet option is DSL from ATT, as ATT Uversere nor Comcast Internet is available in my section of Chicago, though Comcast cable TV, oddly enough, is.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
CBS Launches $5.99 A Month Subscription Streaming Service
- Thread starter mvcg66b3r
- Start date
The classic shows that will be available are the ones that are now owned by CBS. The good side of that is it would include shows like Star Trek and Cheers, even though they were never on CBS. The bad side of that is that it wouldn't include other shows like All in the Family, MASH or the MTM shows that are owned by Fox, Sony, or other distributors.
Exactly! This is what my response has been to people who keep screaming for "a la carte." If you are really one of those people who just wants the Big 4 networks and CNN (or whatever), a la carte might actually be cheaper for you. But you are living in the past. Most good TV dramas and other innovative programming are on basic and premium cable. When those go a la carte, the total monthly bill will get pricy.
It might be a phone cord. I don't know how truly high-speed Internet access works with my phone company, but they have it in some areas and you don't have to deal with the cable company. I also don't know if I could get high-speed Internet capable of the speed needed for video where I live.
My experience with DSL via CenturyLink (local phone company) was fine other than their customer service sucked. 7Mbps was satisfactory for one user downloading or streaming but when my son came to stay with us I upped it first to 12 then to 20 because he had a ton of stuff going on and caused my streams to buffer. I had no problems at 20 however.
I hope this doesn't mean shows won't be available free if we watch commercials. Every now and then I miss an episode for some reason. Because I was at the beach I missed "Red Band Society". I had actually cancelled it on one TiVo that was getting full and told another to tape it. Why I had the same episode twice I didn't know until the next week when it didn't record.
My cable went out during a "Scandal" episode which might have been repeated, but you never know.
Football can go over on Sundays and although I can remember to add time, I have to actually do it.
And then there is the occasional show which I didn't even know was going to be on. I tape by show name these days, not time.
My cable went out during a "Scandal" episode which might have been repeated, but you never know.
Football can go over on Sundays and although I can remember to add time, I have to actually do it.
And then there is the occasional show which I didn't even know was going to be on. I tape by show name these days, not time.
Welp, with this news CBS has just pushed me back to the less than legal methods of obtaining their content (of which there are many).
I was fine watching shows I've missed on Hulu or CBS.Com legally but now that there's a paywall I won't be ponying up.
Before ABC, NBC and FOX get any bright ideas I will do the same if they pull this stunt.
I was fine watching shows I've missed on Hulu or CBS.Com legally but now that there's a paywall I won't be ponying up.
Before ABC, NBC and FOX get any bright ideas I will do the same if they pull this stunt.
ABC & Disney Channel already have restricted on-demand meaning when watching their shows on-demand online, a participating cable company or satellite provider subscription is required. ABC has the WatchABC feature at ABC.com. Disney Channel has the WatchDisney feature at DisneyChannel.com. NBC & FOX did have restricted on-demand, but they don't anymore. They went back to making their shows on-demand for free. Where FOX is concerned, new episodes of shows are on-demand for free for a limited time. This varies from show to show. That's not a problem. If that's the way they want to do things, fine. I'm not stopping them. My prayer is that NBC & FOX don't go back to restricted on-demand and then do what CBS is doing by going the extra mile to charge a subscription separate from a cable bill. That is ridiculous.
There is one thing that FOX is still holding on to. Restricted online next day viewing. Here's the text you get when you attempt to watch something online that has a padlock symbol on it, "To watch your favorite FOX shows the next day after they air, just pop in your TV Provider's Username and Password. It's quick and easy with no delays. Don't wait 8 days to keep up with the latest shows you love. Instead watch them in 24 hours - while they're still the latest." Therefore, the episode of a show becomes free a week after it already aired. It shouldn't be that long. However, I am thankful that there are websites out there that have network original series online next day viewing for free.
Since we are talking about programs broadcast OTA, so long as you are a resident in the broadcast area how can viewing of these shows "via other means" be considered "less than legal"?
Is it technically illegal for me to record an OTA program and send it to my neighbor who didn't watch it the first time it aired?
So if you had the choice of paying $50/month for 10 channels or $50/month for 150 channels, you would choose the 10-channel option? That makes no sense.
Except it doesn't work out that way. In those days when we could pick and choose you might get a few extra channels with a bundle at the same price as choosing just the channels you watch but they were always junk channels - religion or sales etc.
I work nights, and have since 1981. I haven't bothered with following a current primetime series in eons. I cut the cord nearly five years ago. What I watch on the computer is sports, news and classic TV. I pay for a couple of sports leagues' programming. Everything else, I can find free on the Internet, either on YouTube or similar sites or, in the case of niche sports, specialized sports sites or offshore streamers. And my ISP has a deal with ESPN that allows me access to all the sports on ESPN3 without having a cable subscription, again perfect for someone whose tastes in sports often extend to European events and so-called minor college sports.
Last edited:
Something I discovered is that the classic shows that had been on CBS.com are now available only through All Access. I really don't like that idea.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
If the 10 channel option was 10 channels that had programs I really wanted to see, while the 150 channel package was all channels that had nothing I wanted to see, I'd pick the package that had the channels with programming I wanted to see.
Exactly! and that is how people think. 150 channels of I-don't-want-to-watch-those is not a bargain at any price.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
For a brief spell I went without cable. I could pick up something like 25 channels with the modern, digital equivalent of rabbit ears. By the time I deleted all the channels that were in Spanish or Korean, and all the shopping channels, and the "send in your money for a prayer" religious channels, there were something like 6 channels with programs I actually wanted to see. My wife and I spent so much money at Redbox and so much time watching TV on my computer we decided to renew our cable subscription.
I have found alternative ways to get what little programming I would watch on cable if I had cable. It costs no where near what cable would charge. I have stereo speakers and a 24" LED monitor on my PC and I am happy as a clam watching it here instead of trying to book time on my big screen (where you-know-who is watching).
A
Avid Listener
Guest
That only has meaning to those people who share your taste in what you watch. The programming I want to see is not so readily available from alternate sources.
As I've said before in this continuing dumb-a** debate about a la carte, cable and satellite companies are not in the business of cutting profits. If you think they're just going to give in to the pressure to charge per channel, you are kidding yourself. Yes - it could be legislated, but the cable/satellite companies would then find a way to charge you MORE for LESS.
As for the future of streaming - again - if you think those big corporations (both broadcast and cable channels) are going to continue to let you watch for free, you are living in a fool's paradise. At $5.99 or more per "channel," it will be a $100 a month or more if you're like me, and want to see programs on 15 or 20 streaming websites.
I am used to streaming The Good Wife for free. Now it will cost me $5.99 per month. Given that there are no other shows on CBS that I like, I won't pay it. I'll just have to catch the new episodes a couple years from now on NetFlix, or whatever. It's too bad, but that's the way it is.
- Status