- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Netflix:Also to Blame
Posted on 5/22/12 at 9:50 am to guedeaux
Posted on 5/22/12 at 9:50 am to guedeaux
quote:
I wish that I could pay for the upgraded Netflix
The studios will NEVER allow an upgraded Netflix......it will kill the cable companies and they will never allow that. They are dead set on running Netflix out of business.
2
Posted on 5/22/12 at 9:56 am to bbrownso
quote:
HBO co-president Eric Kessler stated to industry leaders that HBO content would NEVER be available to non-subscribers on digital platforms. LINK
And the year before he said if they would increase their price he would give them content. The reason Starz left NetFlix is because they wouldn't move to a tiered pricing model and they felt their brand was suffering by being at a cheap all you can eat buffet. NetFlix has as many subscribers as the biggest cable companies in the country. If they change their model HBO will change their tune.
Posted on 5/22/12 at 9:57 am to simbo
quote:
Don't be so sure. Netflix only exists if the content providers are willing to provide them the content.
The studios are so ingrained to their old release systems, theaters, DVD's, cable providers that they will make sure, as soon as they can, to cut Netflix out.
Naaaa, the market forces will prevail eventually. And either a production company will step up, or a giant will take the reins, Google or Amazon. Someone will make it work I trust that.
quote:
The studios are testing their own delivery systems all the time and once they have something suitable to them, they drop Netflix.....they already are dropping them.
Netflix is doomed and them adding commercials isn't going to fix it. It's content.....they don't own the content and can't get it.
TBS doesn't own Big Bang Theory, yet they play it. There are ways around it, and someone will find that way. Like Antonio said, it's ridiculous that cable companies aren't built for a more accessible audience. How does one watch Season 1 of The Office at this point without Netflix or Renting? NBC is counting on that, yet there are common stories all the time of people discovering shows. This board is proof of that.
I agree that it's TECHNICALLY stealing, but if Showtime isn't giving me an OPTION to watch The Wire, except to spend $100+ dollars on buying the DVDs, what kind of business is that? They really think an old show is worth $100 per consumer? That's where the overvalue comes in. Or again, "misguided values."
Given the availability of streaming options (amazon, netflix, etc.) that's just plain wrong.
quote:
The studios are going to get a system that will only allow streaming content. It'll work on the every device they choose but they'll be in complete control of the content again. Streaming is the future but not the way you expect.....i.e., any movie you want anytime.
Again, I think we'll get there, eventually. But yes it will take time. If someone figures how how to make it work first, they'll be rich.
quote:
It'll be what they want to show you and they'll be in complete control of price and it won't be $25 a month.
Doesn't need to be that cheap. If that really was the endgame, full available content, anytime, any device, (or some sort of package plan), then yeah, that's worth cable prices. Easily.
quote:
Once they get rid of DVD's and portable content and go full streaming to devices, we're screwed.
If we're "screwed," then torrenting and pirating will increase AGAIN.
Posted on 5/22/12 at 9:59 am to TigerinATL
quote:
And the year before he said if they would increase their price he would give them content. The reason Starz left NetFlix is because they wouldn't move to a tiered pricing model and they felt their brand was suffering by being at a cheap all you can eat buffet. NetFlix has as many subscribers as the biggest cable companies in the country. If they change their model HBO will change their tune.
Exactly.
And it seems Netflix isn't interested in that and I don't know why. It really comes down to two main things:
1) STATISTICS
2) MORE PAYMENT OPTIONS
Posted on 5/22/12 at 10:00 am to Freauxzen
quote:
We will all have on demand streaming sometime in the next 25 years. I'm trying to keep Netflix on the edge of that, because right now, they are one of the few innovators.
Companies innovate and become outmoded all the time. Netflix will make itself even more irrelevant in the near future and become the Betamax of digital distribution.
I'll contribute more to this thread when it shifts to a discussion on an a la carte cable model and the effect it would have on programming, if the discussion ever gets that far.
Posted on 5/22/12 at 10:03 am to ProjectP2294
quote:
Companies innovate and become outmoded all the time. Netflix will make itself even more irrelevant in the near future and become the Betamax of digital distribution.
Agreed. DVR is the same thing really. It's a stop-gap solution to a problem that won't exist in a few years. Or at least shouldn't exist. That's why I dislike people bringing it up as a defense. DVR isn't the future. Roku is more the future than DVR.
quote:
I'll contribute more to this thread when it shifts to a discussion on an a la carte cable model and the effect it would have on programming, if the discussion ever gets that far.
Are you one of the ones who think this would kill availability of programming?
Posted on 5/22/12 at 10:04 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
That's a huge reach.
No. A stretch, maybe. Yea, it doesn't have unlimited catalogs, but providers also have on demand services that don't require recording and add in new features like HBO GO, and you have mobile entertainment that is more than what is recorded.
quote:
First, DVR has limited space and limited recording. For instance, with Cox, I can only record two shows at once and I have to have the box on one of the recorded channels to work.
Probably the two biggest limitations.
quote:
Second, I can only record present and future episodes. If I subscriber wants to watch the Sopranos from episode one, he is shite out of luck with cable/DVR.
See above regarding on demand services.
quote:
I honestly don't get how anyone 25-35 spends enough time on the couch to warrant cable, I'll be honest.
Ignores the on the go provider option I mentioned, like DISH remote access.
I most certainly do think PRICE is the issue, or you would have cable/ satellite and all the content you could consume, ON THE GO. Also, you could simply buy a Slingbox type device to watch all of this stuff without being "on the couch."
Lastly, I just want to say that I get that Netflix could be a better business. It is great that you have ideas for it, but I think the company sees the writing on the wall. They are getting stonewalled by the machine, and it is showing in their actions.
Posted on 5/22/12 at 10:05 am to simbo
quote:
The studios will NEVER allow an upgraded Netflix......it will kill the cable companies and they will never allow that
Never is a long time. The studios have no vested interest in protecting the cable companies other than they are their main customer base. If they can make money with NetFlix they will. HBO is the hottest production studio right now, you really think Cox or Comcast would threaten to stop selling HBO if HBO went on NetFlix? Not very likely. And the cable companies are already starting to adjust. They had previously thought they could stop NetFlix with data caps and legislation, but now they are finally realizing that they are being demoted from content provider to Internet provider and are starting to charge more for more data usage.
There's enough regulation involved that it's possible the status quo stays in place for a while, but the future is probably 20% - 30% cheaper over all. Less money for content from low overhead distributors like NetFlix/Google/Amazon/Apple but more money for Internet since overpriced content will not be subsidizing the infrastructure side of things.
Posted on 5/22/12 at 10:10 am to Archie Bengal Bunker
quote:
Ignores the on the go provider option I mentioned, like DISH remote access.
Good call. I don't mean to ignore it, I didn't know that was true, or how expansive or good it is. I shall do more research.
quote:
Lastly, I just want to say that I get that Netflix could be a better business. It is great that you have ideas for it, but I think the company sees the writing on the wall. They are getting stonewalled by the machine, and it is showing in their actions.
And I, at least, don't think it HAS to be that way. Simple fact, it comes down to profit right?
If Netflix could either A) Prove Profits for companies or B) Make profits itself to pay companies more, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Posted on 5/22/12 at 10:13 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Again, I think we'll get there, eventually. But yes it will take time. If someone figures how how to make it work first, they'll be rich.
Again, Netflix, Amazon, BB, Apple have all figured out a way to make it work but they don't own the content.
The studios and cable companies want their giant cut. You think the studios will cut HBO out and go full bore to some third-party streaming service? Never. They have a funding mechanism in place that gives them the largest payout possible and they are determind to stick with that.
People can invent any system they want but the owners of the content have to comply.
Like I said, the studios want everything to eventually be streaming from them to device. No DVD's, no ability to copy etc. Then once again, they are in control of the content, price, etc. They'll still get their cut on "new releases" and then will give the cable companies their cut by letting them exclusively stream like they already do.
Once the studios have their streaming method worked out, this will be the new model and the consumer will have less choice than before.
The music industry went along with Apple and iTunes because they had to. Movie studios are in a much better position and will not turn their content over to a third party to make the riches.
Posted on 5/22/12 at 10:14 am to Freauxzen
quote:
TBS doesn't own Big Bang Theory, yet they play it.
Yeah, TBS acquired the syndication rights (so did Fox). Which required them to negotiate with whoever held the rights. Netflix has to acquire the rights to stream content from the producers/rights holders. That's not exactly forthcoming these days because the studios and cable channels want to get a better price for their content and keep the current system going. LINK
quote:
2ND UPDATE 9:00 PM: Informed sources now tell me the off-network TV rights to The Big Bang Theory went for a record even bigger than first thought: $2+M per episode. The breakdown is TBS paying over $1.5M and Fox broadcast stations over $500K. What a huge haul for Warner Bros Domestic TV Distribution.
Guess Warner Bros held the rights.
quote:
UPDATE 5:00 PM:I’ve just learned that The Big Bang Theory‘s off-network syndication rights sold for a record $1.5 million an episode. (Warner Bros will not confirm this figure.) That shatters the previous record of $1M for a sitcom cable sale fetched by Seinfeld in its first deal with TBS. Last night, bidding was fierce until the bitter end: TBS vs FX on the cable net side, and Fox vs Tribune on the broadcast stations side.
Posted on 5/22/12 at 10:17 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Are you one of the ones who think this would kill availability of programming?
While I would be for a la carte, it would certainly have that potential. Basically, it could effectively push TV back into the days of only a few channels controlling everything like the networks did in the mid '90s.
If a la carte had come around as little as 10 years ago, we wouldn't have nearly the original programming we're getting from some of the cable channels.
On the same note though, I think you would see some channels return to their roots a little bit. How many people would pay a la carte for the actual history portion of the History Channel, and jettison the Ice Road Pawn Pickers?
Posted on 5/22/12 at 10:21 am to bbrownso
quote:
Yeah, TBS acquired the syndication rights (so did Fox). Which required them to negotiate with whoever held the rights. Netflix has to acquire the rights to stream content from the producers/rights holders. That's not exactly forthcoming these days because the studios and cable channels want to get a better price for their content and keep the current system going. LINK
They own the rights not the contents. I know that's how Netflix has to work as well.
But saying that because Netflix doesn't own the rights and therefore doesn't have a stake in the game isn't accurate. That's all I meant.
If Netflix was able to prove more profitable, like TBS, then I'm sure they could get similar deals, hence the OP.
This post was edited on 5/22/12 at 10:22 am
Posted on 5/22/12 at 10:23 am to Freauxzen
quote:
And I, at least, don't think it HAS to be that way. Simple fact, it comes down to profit right?
If Netflix could either A) Prove Profits for companies or B) Make profits itself to pay companies more, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Here is the problem with Netflix, they don't own the content or the way to deliver the content.
Even if Netflix could get tons of great content that everyone wanted, we still have infrastructure issues. Cable companies own the pipe. If everyone stopped watching cable, then two things would likely happen. 1] bandwidth becomes more scarce because everyone is on the internet now streaming video, and 2] the price of bandwidth skyrockets.
quote:
Good call. I don't mean to ignore it, I didn't know that was true, or how expansive or good it is. I shall do more research.
Full disclosure, I don't have any of those services. So, I can't tell you about them. I don't watch enough TV to care, but I know that they exist. Further, why doesn't a Slingbox solve your mobility issues? Do, they suck or something?
Posted on 5/22/12 at 10:24 am to ProjectP2294
quote:
On the same note though, I think you would see some channels return to their roots a little bit. How many people would pay a la carte for the actual history portion of the History Channel, and jettison the Ice Road Pawn Pickers?
This. And this is exactly what forced me to cut the cord. I used to watch the hell out of the history channel (and is why Netflix is awesome with loads of old content). Discovery. Gone. MTV2. Gone.
On that note, why hasn't someone made a Pandora for Music videos, would be nice to have that on Roku.
Posted on 5/22/12 at 10:28 am to Archie Bengal Bunker
quote:
Here is the problem with Netflix, they don't own the content or the way to deliver the content.
Even if Netflix could get tons of great content that everyone wanted, we still have infrastructure issues. Cable companies own the pipe. If everyone stopped watching cable, then two things would likely happen. 1] bandwidth becomes more scarce because everyone is on the internet now streaming video, and 2] the price of bandwidth skyrockets.
Point taken. I'm not saying Netflix should replace cable either, I'm saying they could be mutually beneficial.
Eventually that service will, but not now.
quote:
Further, why doesn't a Slingbox solve your mobility issues? Do, they suck or something?
It solves one, mobility, but not the other, watching old content. Maybe I'm an old fogey, but because of the way things are, I find it impossible to keep with new shows, so I watch everything from last season (except for Fringe and Castle, there go my two couch hours per week).
I would have never watched Parks and Rec without Netflix. Or Castle. Or The Killing. Etc.
Posted on 5/22/12 at 10:35 am to Archie Bengal Bunker
quote:
2] the price of bandwidth skyrockets.
One question I've always had is are Cable broadcasts more or less efficient than Internet Streaming? Is delivering 4 Internet Video Streams to my house more efficient than having 150 cable channel broadcasts filling up my pipe? Is delivering 4 Streams to the 100 houses in my neighborhood (400 streams) less efficient than broadcasting all 150 channels?
Posted on 5/22/12 at 10:39 am to TigerinATL
quote:
One question I've always had is are Cable broadcasts more or less efficient than Internet Streaming? Is delivering 4 Internet Video Streams to my house more efficient than having 150 cable channel broadcasts filling up my pipe? Is delivering 4 Streams to the 100 houses in my neighborhood (400 streams) less efficient than broadcasting all 150 channels?
Good question.
Posted on 5/22/12 at 12:12 pm to Archie Bengal Bunker
quote:
See above regarding on demand services.
OnDemand services are extremely limited. Outside of the Premium channels, it's nearly worthless.
I can list 100 shows that are/were extremely popular that you can't get near with OnDemand. I can think of maybe 10 that you can access with OnDemand and that's because they're still on the air.
Like I said earlier, the networks/media conglomerations will eventually figure out how to make this work. We already see this with the companies like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and SmartTVs.
It will definitely be more expensive and some companies, like Netflix, may end up being the "AOL" of this technology, but it will happen.
I would guess that within 20 years, most television and movie entertainment will be available as a streaming service which the user has vast access to.
Once the technology was introduced and people saw how convenient and accessible it was, the wheels started moving towards a change in the industry.
Posted on 5/22/12 at 12:12 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
One question I've always had is are Cable broadcasts more or less efficient than Internet Streaming? Is delivering 4 Internet Video Streams to my house more efficient than having 150 cable channel broadcasts filling up my pipe? Is delivering 4 Streams to the 100 houses in my neighborhood (400 streams) less efficient than broadcasting all 150 channels?
It doesn't really work that way, in my understanding. TV is like a radio signal that gets sent directly to your home via coaxial cable [TV used to actually be an RF signal, but now most providers have switched to digital. But that doesn't matter for this conversation, similar to how radio stations have largely converted to digital] , and you need a receiver to "hear" it [in this case, a TV to modulate the multi-plexed signal]. So, TV is a one way street. Like radio stations, it is there all the time, regardless if people use it. More people listening to the radio doesn't burden the system.
Whereas, internet is sending and receiving of data, like downloading a file [or streaming a movie]. It is on request. And takes resources every time. And, too many requests can put a strain on the pipe.
What I'm looking for an answer to is what kind of resources sending TV takes up. The limit on bandwidth is resources, like the cable's [coax, fiber, etc.] data transfer rate, switch's ability to process signals, etc. that allows us to send and receive data. What I don't know is if TV uses up some of that available pipeline from the cables [like the coax in your house], or if the internet is already using the maximum speed of the coax cable.
If the internet is already transferring at the maximum speed, then it doesn't matter that TV is on the line too because the data [TV and internet] come from different places and work differently. I am under the impression that internet uses the max data transfer speed of cable even with TV on the line too, but I'm looking for confirmation.
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News