Tell me more x
, there is a new speed test available. Give it a try, leave feedback!
dslreports logo
spacer
1
spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer

view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-08-31 08:53:11: HBO is finally allowing users to view their broadband streaming content without having to subscribe to traditional cable. Unfortunately, it's only happening in Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. ..

page: 1 · 2

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to 88615298

Re: Testing the waters

I personally believe if they went at it separately they would alienate cable companies because they (the cable companies) believe it will cause users to stop paying them for all their other fluff just to get HBO. This would cause cable companies to want to pay HBO even less to get their material, thus HBO would get less from them. That may or may not be true, but what they believe is what is important. I personally believe it to be true and I will never subscribe to an HBO or Showtime type service with my cable/sat/iptv subscription. They have no value to me in that format. Format being a monthly charge for all content, when 99.9% of it I dont care for and probably just want 1 show.

Example: True Blood. My fiance loves that show and I would pay to get it which I can through Amazon. However, the season isnt even available yet. So she finds another way to watch it. One I do not approve of, but none the less they go from earning some money to none.

All the other shows we watch are either on non-premium channels or OTA so we DVR them and watch at our convenience. I can't even tell you when the last time I watched a live, non-sporting event program on TV.

If all the shows we currently watch or may want to watch in the future were available for streaming and a reasonable fee (with no HD because we can fee) and at the same time or immediately following the original broadcast I would cancel uVerse in a heartbeat and purchase them as I see fit. The only need at that point is live sports so I will either go without completely (lost revenue for them), catch some at a friends or local establishment (lost revenue for them, gain for local establishment) and hope some day they will stream it as well.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to praetoralpha

Re: Interesting

said by praetoralpha:

All it takes is some marketing douche to say that cord cutters are the hot new customers, it will be big enough immediately, regardless of how few of them there are. No decade needed.

True enough... but I think at HBO at least those guys got overruled by the accounting team haha.
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to Morac

Re: We'll never see this in the U.S.

I'm not sure how they would block that and would certainly question it.

Your second point may very well be correct - Microsoft throwing piles of cash at them. However, I would question this as well. Whom is Comcast to decide what appliances can be put on their network to gain access to internet material? I'm sure they think they can and should be paid for it but I would strongly disagree.

If you are Comcast user and subscribe to HBO, then you should be able to use any device that HBO2Go supports to access the material. Comcast should certainly have no say in the matter and them meddling in something like this should be a cause of concern for their users and the regulating bodies.


Morac
Cat god

join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by Skippy25:

If you are Comcast user and subscribe to HBO, then you should be able to use any device that HBO2Go supports to access the material. Comcast should certainly have no say in the matter and them meddling in something like this should be a cause of concern for their users and the regulating bodies.

You'd think that would be the case, but apparently HBO and cable companies have a licensing deal as to what devices HBO2Go is allowed to work on. Comcast decided to restrict it to portable devices (phones, tablets and laptops) and XBox360 (again likely in exchange for a pile of money from Microsoft).

Why is any of this legal? Likely because Comcast isn't doing the actual blocking, it's HBO which is doing the restricting (albeit at Comcast's request).

What's stupid is there's really no reason to do this, unless Comcast believes it will hurt cable box/card rentals.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired.


mackey
Premium
join:2007-08-20
kudos:14

1 recommendation

reply to pnh102

Re: Interesting

said by pnh102:

The problem of course is that as so many people pirate HBO content, they will be less inclined to be drawn into a legitimate alternative that will cost them more money they are paying now.

And who forced people to learn how to pirate by not providing any other choice? Perhaps if they offered this from the get-go people would never have gotten used to getting it for free.

/M

zod5000

join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC
Reviews:
·Shaw
reply to mogamer

Re: Testing the waters

said by mogamer:

HBO is just testing the waters here. But this is a hopeful sign for people wanting a shake-up of the current delivery model.

I've said it before, the only services that can truely start a major shake-up in content delivery are HBO and ESPN. Once either one, or both, of these services have a subscription model not dependant upon the cabelco/telco/satcos, everything will change.

Could you imagine if sports channels offered direct subscriptions in HD?

The amount of channels people have to subscribe to just to get sports is insane.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to mackey

Re: Interesting

said by mackey:

And who forced people to learn how to pirate by not providing any other choice? Perhaps if they offered this from the get-go people would never have gotten used to getting it for free.

I generally agree but I would not say that anyone was "forced" to pirate anything. To pirate or not is a conscious, willful and voluntary decision.

But going beyond that, piracy, whether content providers want to accept it or not, is a de facto distribution method for their work. For most content providers who aren't tied to a distributor (the way HBO needs pay tv providers to get their product to the customers), they are free to price their products in such a way as to make piracy a less attractive alternative.

I just don't see how HBO can do this without burning the bridges with the cable companies.
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to Skippy25

Re: Testing the waters

said by Skippy25:

I personally believe if they went at it separately they would alienate cable companies because they (the cable companies) believe it will cause users to stop paying them for all their other fluff just to get HBO. This would cause cable companies to want to pay HBO even less to get their material, thus HBO would get less from them. That may or may not be true, but what they believe is what is important. I personally believe it to be true and I will never subscribe to an HBO or Showtime type service with my cable/sat/iptv subscription. They have no value to me in that format. Format being a monthly charge for all content, when 99.9% of it I dont care for and probably just want 1 show.

But it's NOT true. If HBO sells HBOGo standalone at $15 a month which is the same as what cable companies charge for HBO then why would a personal with HBO drop it for HBOGO stand alone? They wouldn't. If your cable company is already giving you HBOGO for free included in your HBO subscription it's not logical to pay the same amount and get less.

If you don't want to pay for HBO to your cable company it doesn't make sense to pay the same amount to get LESS by getting HBOGo stand alone since cable companies offer it for FREE included in your HBO subscription.

Example: True Blood. My fiance loves that show and I would pay to get it which I can through Amazon. However, the season isnt even available yet. So she finds another way to watch it. One I do not approve of, but none the less they go from earning some money to none.

Anohter way HBO is being stupid and missing out on money. But the same excuse they give for not offering HBOGO standalone is the same reason why they don't offer current seasons on Amazon. Cable companies are afraid you'll cancel HBO. Of course you don't have, it won't ever have it, thus cable isn't losing anything, but they don't see it that way. They think if they keep the content away for long periods of time you'll just pony up the cash totally unaware apparently there are other ways to obtain the content. And HBO is too stupid to understand this too.

If all the shows we currently watch or may want to watch in the future were available for streaming and a reasonable fee (with no HD because we can fee) and at the same time or immediately following the original broadcast I would cancel uVerse in a heartbeat and purchase them as I see fit. The only need at that point is live sports so I will either go without completely (lost revenue for them), catch some at a friends or local establishment (lost revenue for them, gain for local establishment) and hope some day they will stream it as well.

Which is exactly why cable fights stuff like this tooth and nail.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to pnh102

Re: Interesting

said by pnh102:

I'm not sure what to think here... HBO is more or less "stuck" with its current business model:

1. It becomes a radically different business when you have to do billing and content delivery all by yourself.

How are the doing it Scandinavia then?

2. If you offer an easy-to-use alternative, more people will drop cable... the cable companies upon who you depend for 100% of your current customers won't be thrilled with that.

That is untrue. HBO costs me $15 via cable I get 6 HBO channels and HBOGo. HBOGo standalone for $15 is LESS of a value. Why would I get that instead of regular HBO? Now someone who is already a cord cutter is ADDITIONAL revenue for HBO and is not lost revenue for cable because if they wanted cable they would have it.

I used to preach anti-piracy to people all the time. I try to show them what they were doing wasn't right. But the more companies pull this bullshit the more I'm inclined to say fuck it and not bother.

HUGE difference between someone downloading HBO shows because they are too cheap to pay for HBO and someone WANTING to hand their money over to HBO. And HBO says "Nah we don't want it" then fuck 'em.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
said by 88615298:

said by pnh102:

1. It becomes a radically different business when you have to do billing and content delivery all by yourself.

How are the doing it Scandinavia then?

It could be they are testing the waters in an area where they purportedly do not offer their cable channels for viewing through cable TV.

According to Wiki, HBO doesn't have its cable channels offered in Denmark, Norway, Sweden or Finland. This is probably why they chose to do this there.
said by 88615298:

That is untrue. HBO costs me $15 via cable I get 6 HBO channels and HBOGo. HBOGo standalone for $15 is LESS of a value.

No. HBO costs you $15 + whatever you pay for cable TV and a box rental. That would probably make it well over $50 and possibly clost to $100 or so a month. You can't get HBO programming any other way, and for someone who doesn't want cable TV, but who wants to watch HBO programming, it is a pretty steep hill to climb just for that one set of channels.
said by 88615298:

HUGE difference between someone downloading HBO shows because they are too cheap to pay for HBO and someone WANTING to hand their money over to HBO. And HBO says "Nah we don't want it" then fuck 'em.

Well, until the number of total pay-tv subscribers in the US goes from ~100 million to say, ~70 million or so, my bet is that HBO will maintain the status quo here. Right now, the number of cord cutters is in the low hundreds of thousands at best.
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge.


nickz
In A Past Life I Was Astroguy
Premium
join:2001-12-04
Hammond, IN
reply to mdurkin

Re: I don't think HBOGo requires any relationship with ISPs

Yeah, that line sounded funny to me. I stream HBOGo on my Rokus over Comcast HSI. My HBO sub is from Dish.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to pnh102

Re: Interesting

said by pnh102:

No. HBO costs you $15 + whatever you pay for cable TV and a box rental. That would probably make it well over $50 and possibly clost to $100 or so a month. You can't get HBO programming any other way, and for someone who doesn't want cable TV, but who wants to watch HBO programming, it is a pretty steep hill to climb just for that one set of channels.

That assumes one decides to finally cut the cord because they can get HBOGo separately. That's simply untrue. If you cut cable you may still get HBO if HBOGo is offered separately but you're not getting all those other channels your cable provider provides. How many people are willing to give those up? My guess is not many. And for every person that cuts the cord because they can get HBOGo standalone you have another person keeping their HBO cable subscription because of HBOGo. So it evens out. The only reason I got HBO was because they offered it for $5 a month for a year. Well when it goes back up to regular price I'm considering keeping it because of HBOGo. Without HBOGo I doubt I keep HBO.