King P
Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul
Premium
join:2004-11-17
Inman, SC | Why?
Because it just makes too much sense. |
|
Boomerang86
Got FUD?
Premium
join:2002-10-18
VampireState
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·VOIPo
·Time Warner VOIP
2 edits | It will be a hard sell
Your typical TV audience member just wants to turn on the display and surf channels until they find something they like; the whole "What's on?" scheme. Most of us have no idea a particular TV show even exists (much less know if it is any good) without discovering it by the above method.
On demand TV works only when you know exactly what you want and know where to find it. This works fine for Hollywood releases, well known TV series, news programs and (of course) sports events.
The non-DVR crowd simply doesn't want to watch the boob tube any other way; they WANT their experience to be programmed.
--
Life is a journey; death is a given. |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Obvious.
No more price bundles Isn't it obvious? |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | You'd be surprised. |
|
silica
join:2004-05-20
Duluth, GA | reply to Boomerang86
Re: It will be a hard sell
I agree completely. I have only one program per week that I really want to see. Otherwise, I just want to channel surf to see what's on and stay on what strikes my fancy. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to Boomerang86
point is there should be both honestly, with what people pay nowdays for video/data and phone services you should not only have your normal TV and its channel surfing, but On-Demand and the ability to download the show onto your computer.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
malvado6
I pee on Bushes.
join:2003-09-13
00001
| it's the pay to play, stupid
If the average cable/satellite subscriber had their monthly bill broken down to the day and that translated into a cost per show , i think most would seriously cut back on their tv viewing (maybe not such a bad idea).
in other words, i'll drop $45/month for cable, but at $1.50 a day, suddenly, $1 for a primetime show or $.25 for an I Love Lucy re-run gets really expensive.
with the average home watching 3-4 hours of tv a day, most would take a bundle, me thinks. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to Boomerang86
Re: It will be a hard sell
I agree with you. Most users like the current system and have no desire to pay per show. And also don't want to search for shows. Channel surfing is an American pastime, and this new model doesn't fit that at all.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to silica
What if you could see a breakdown of every program being watched internet wide, it's popularity, a vivid description, and watch a quick preview with a few clicks of a living room keyboard or remote?
There are ways to implement a system like this that I think would appeal to the channel surfer segment. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to malvado6
Re: it's the pay to play, stupid
Could still be subscription, like Xbox live, where you got unlimited downloads for $X dollars. Programs could be downloaded a la carte, but you still paid a flat fee.
There's a billion ways to price it out that make sense, without paying a buck for some boring FoodTV program. |
|
nozzer
join:2004-06-25
Waltham, MA
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: It will be a hard sell
Hmm - the only reason this model has taken root in the first place is the abundance of commercials (which occupy almost 50% of the time), and the rather hopeless "Nielsen" ratings model which, because it has such a small sample audience (5000), is utterly useless for many of the smaller channels. Despite this, advertisers still use it - so what you see on the smaller channels is now a preponderance of shows designed to catch the surfers, rather than anything of any depth or substance.
I think if something different is offered, many will take it. Look at the success of HBO's shows. In the long term the major networks will be safe, but the small channels that rely on surfers will eventually wither away and die. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD | reply to malvado6
Re: it's the pay to play, stupid
This would almost literally kill the sports channels since they cost more per subscriber than others. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| I find it hard to believe that ESPN would cease to exist. They've got deep pockets and creative minds, I'm sure they'd soon find profitability by offering individual HD broadcasts of top NFL games for $10 a pop, which millions upon millions of people would pay for....probably with ads included.... |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| reply to King P
Re: Why?
said by King P  :Because it just makes too much sense. Pretty much. If I could pay ~$50 month for point-and-click TV I'd pay for it. Hell, I'd even be willing to $`-$2 per channel for a stream. So I could just stream Cartoon Network, Sci-Fi, or whatever channels. A-la-cart over the internet would be awesome! It couldn't fully compete with Cable yet because stream, even over a 3M connection wouldn't compare in quality to that with cable. When pipes are fat enough I'd be willing to pay more then $1-$2 per channel. But this all makes too much sense, and if suggested at a meeting someone would say, "Let me just play devil's advocate..." and it would be shot down that fast.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad |
|
older dog
Premium
join:2005-06-09
Norwich, NY | reply to Karl Bode
Re: It will be a hard sell
I had questions, on how the channel surfer segment would be accommodated.
I also had a concern on how a new show would get noticed.
Your system would work for both of these
Your method would be a step up, from the system we have now. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | I think to see a real-time view of what everyone else is watching, ranked by popularity, would revolutionize TV (kind of what already exists via Bit Torrent). Users would dictate quality, not marketing departments. |
|
chaser7016
@comcast.net
| reply to Karl Bode
Monthly Bandwidth Allotment could be the solution! Consumers pay for X amount of bandwidth per month(various plans would be offerred) and any overage consumer would pay a la cell phone bills.
P2P could become legal n profitable as any n ALL copyrighters would get paid for each download from consumers bills. The net neutrality issue would be null n void, as the ISPs make their dough off consumer monthly bandwidth activities and dont care what IP service run on their network, the more the better! This scheme would create a new and more profitable free market for the US economy and in turn the global economy as other countries follow our lead!
Channel surfing will evolve where it will go from channel to channel to surfing categories that are webpage like with thumbnails that come to life when the remote puts them in focus. Viewer then clicks thumbnail to go full screen.
Could this be the future? |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Boomerang86
quote:
On demand TV works only when you know exactly what you want and know where to find it.
I don't agree with that at all. You can most definitely "surf" through the VOD listings. I find it more conducive to discovering new shows, not less. With VOD, *everything* is available to investigate, not just what happens to be on this hour. And, it's more organized. There's more "categories" than just looking at a flat list of channels and just guessing at what types of shows might be on it based on the channel's callsign.
We've gotten into so many HBO and Showtime series' because of VOD. We definitely have much more success surfing VOD when we're bored than looking through the TV guide.
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network |
|
older dog
Premium
join:2005-06-09
Norwich, NY
| reply to Karl Bode
I have this image of Edith Bunker, asking Archie whats on, since we can get, all the best shows now.
Archie replies: Its all crap, always has been, always will be, dingbat.
This could make enterainment production explode around the world.
I can see where big media has a reason to be scared. |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
·PHONE POWER
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to moonpuppy
Re: it's the pay to play, stupid
It won't kill a thing. You mean they might have to stop paying jocks millions of dollars? Boo-fricken' hoo.
It just would mean that the rest of us can finally stop subsidizing sports. Sports is not a niche market, there's no reason why you sports fans can't support yourselves.
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network |
|
