I saw an article over the weekend about Netflix buying a first run series that will only be available on their rental platform. I know Direct TV has done something like this on its Channel 101. Is this business plan something that should cause the traditional OTA networks (and I guess some cable channels) to be concerned?
-
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
Netflix
- Thread starter ricksegers
- Start date
I doubt this is any concern for the OTA networks, at least right now. The only people who will be exposed to the new series will be people who are already Netflix customers. I highly doubt many new people are going to sign up for Netflix just to watch some new show that they've never even heard of. (Just like I doubt anyone switched their tv service provider to Directv just to watch the 101). If by some chance the series became really popular like The Sopranos then maybe it would catch more attention.
It's a very expensive marketing ploy. It may backfire on them. Showtime has essentially said they won't make any of their shows available for streaming on Netflix now.
tested said:
Any current shows, that is. Shows that have ended their run will remain. This was something that was being negotiated before the original series was signed, as this contract was signed yesterday (and these negotiations don't happen overnight).
With that said, I'm surprised it has taken them this long to determine that Netflix is a competitor. Not only is it competing for the eyeballs of Americans, but why bother to pay up to $20 a month for one network with a limited selection, when the same price per month gets you access to (basically) every DVD made?
I get HBO and Starz as part of my forced package (removing them would cause my bill to go up) and feel that they are such a waste. Outside of original series (which come out a year later on DVD anyways), every Movie on HBO is something I've seen months ago thanks to Netflix.
If someone wasn't into live sports, you could basically get rid of cable and get the 8 disc at a time unlimited plan (giving you a total of 16 DVD's a week if you planned it right) for LESS than what you pay for basic cable. As it stands now, 3 discs at a time EASILY gives you 6 discs per week, plus unlimited streaming, and you're not stuck watching commercials or waiting weeks for the next episode. Of course, the downside is you are a year behind on TV, but oh well, right?
mnradiofan said:
Specifically college sports and your local MLB and NBA teams, which still pretty much mandates cable for ESPN, Fox Sports Net, and your favorite conference channel (BTN, etc.). The NBA, NHL, and MLB are available online for those who want to pay for them ($120 for MLB.TV is about 6 weeks of cable for 6 months of baseball), local team excepted, and eventually the DirecTV monopoly on Sunday Ticket will have to end since the NFL is increasing its online/phone presence (NFL Network is already available on smartphones).
As far as I'm concerned, other for college hoops, I don't miss cable at all. I pay for MLB.TV and prefer to watch football in my local bar. The rest of the garbage on cable could vanish today and I wouldn't care. Not paying for Netflix yet, but I'm considering it. And Hulu, C-Span, and my local channels are all free.
KeithE4 said:
No, if you can prove that you cannot receive DirecTv via satellite from your home, I believe in the future you will be able to buy the Sunday Ticket To Go from DirecTv without a Sunday Ticket subscription. I didn't pay the extra for it last year but when it was part of the Superfan, which you needed to buy to get HD, I did watch a couple of games on my laptop. They still blacked out the games that your local FOX and CBS stations were broadcasting online, I guess based on your zip code where you have DirecTv.
Bill_W said:
Cox Cable in Phoenix had a byte-cap 10 years ago (2 Gb per day, 30 Gb per month total), but they eventually dropped it. I got a nasty-gram from them back in 2001 for downloading 3 CDs of a Linux distribution (2.1 Gb total) on one day. I never got shut off, but I was told not to do it again or I would be. Never had a problem with Ygnition in the 15 months I've been with them.
Mark said:
What if Netflix buys an ISP or smaller Cable operator like Charter, CenturyLink, Level 3, or Clearwire?
Mark said:
That's a fine line to tread. DSL is getting better and better as the years go on, and if they choose not to follow suit, not only will Cable lose customers, but the FCC or DOJ might take notice, since they also provide video programming, and this move could be seen as "anti-competitive".
Personally, I wish Netflix would step up and fight this practice, on behalf of it's customer base. If not stopped, this will ultimately lead to metered bandwidth, which would be very bad for all involved and could kill things like internet video and streaming radio.
mnradiofan said:
1,000% agree.
The pipeline should not be owned by the content. But I seriously doubt the DOJ has the gonads to take on this elephant in the room.
--Russell
I just signed up for a free 30 day trial for Netflix and I find that their selection of streaming movies and tv shows is kind of weak. Out of the IMDB Top 250 movies ( http://www.imdb.com/chart/top ) only about 30% are available through streaming and most of those available do not appeal to my taste.
stationi said:
I noticed that too. When I first heard Netflix was streaming I got excited. But when I looked at the actual selection of streaming movies available I was greatly disappointed, so I never signed up. I think the movie studios are restricting if/when movies are made available for streaming in order to get people to pay more to go out to the movies or buy the DVD's.
I was already subscribing to Netflix for DVDs before I was able to get it online, so I'm looking at as an added bonus. But I do hope that the online selection will improve in the future.
anotherguy said:
Exactly. Movie streaming is a work in progress. 'You have to walk before you can fly,' and all that. Obviously, content streaming is the wave of the future - NetFlix will be able to eliminate all those DVDs, paper, postage, and all the jobs required to service their current by-mail infrastructure. But there are issues still to deal with. Among them:
* People will want blu-ray equivalent hi-def picture quality.
* Film producers and distributors will have to agree to stream a greater percentage (and eventually all) of their catalogs, Right now, they're trying to get over the fact that their existing revenue stream (DVD sales) are falling, and are eventually doomed to flatline.
And the biggest issue:
* What happens when all of us want to stream films every day? The demands on internet bandwidth will be IMMENSE. Will the internet providers generously spend a gazillion dollars to upgrade their delivery systems without getting paid back, or will they expect NetFlix (and similar companies) and consumers to pick up some of the tab? I think you can expect the latter.
Lkeller said:
That's just it though. Netflix ALREADY pays for streaming TO me, and I ALREADY pay to stream from Netflix (for bandwidth AND content). I pay to have a pipeline, which Comcast has defined at 20mbps with a cap of 250GB. If every one of their subscribers chooses to utilize what they pay for, then Comcast should be ready to accept it. If they aren't, then they are just taking advantage of the fact that nobody will use it (much like health clubs).
- Status