 DaSneaky1Done wall to block them allPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou | Hulu might be helping their own demise With their plan to go to a subscription model, the likelihood of someone paying two providers for tv is slim. |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by DaSneaky1D:With their plan to go to a subscription model, the likelihood of someone paying two providers for tv is slim. This is a very good point when you can get essentially the same content from both.
I know a la carte isn't very popular, but if I could switch to a model where I could get a few networks delivered in 720p HD over the internet (Discovery for example), I'd pay $9.99/month per network and cancel my cable.
--
trafficcloak.com - pptp/sstp vpn services |
|
1 edit | reply to DaSneaky1D
Subscriptions could be a way to self-terminate but the only other way to kill Hulu is for a mega media/telcom company (like Verizon) to buy it for the sole purpose of shutting it down.
Traditional re-broadcast/cable companies will downplay streaming until they figure out a way to profit from it. If they can't, they'll find a way to shut it down - by buying it out. |
|
 nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | reply to Matt
said by Matt:said by DaSneaky1D:With their plan to go to a subscription model, the likelihood of someone paying two providers for tv is slim. This is a very good point when you can get essentially the same content from both. I know a la carte isn't very popular, but if I could switch to a model where I could get a few networks delivered in 720p HD over the internet (Discovery for example), I'd pay $9.99/month per network and cancel my cable. Exactly. And, at $100 just for the cable (and $60+ on top for IP), one could afford to drop TV and pay for ten $9.99 subscription services and still break even.
There's a non-trivial number of cable subscribers that, even though they're paying for 300+ channels are only viewing less than a dozen on any kind of regular basis.
Hell, if tv content providers simply went away from tiers to blocks of channels (do I *really* need to get SD channels just to get HD channels?) - even using the same blocks of channels that they now sell as tiers - a lot more customers would be able to get the type of programming they want without breaking the bank. It would also lower the value proposition of going full IP.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
damoxPremium
join:2002-01-07
Olympia, WA Reviews:
 ·Comcast Formerl..
| reply to DaSneaky1D
I'd be willing to pay, depending on the fee. I pay less than $16 for my cable now, of course that is basic basic, but I like to be able to watch shows that aren't available on my cable plan, plus I like being able to watch shows I do not wish to stay up and watch. Again though, it depends on how much they are planning to charge.
--
DAMOX |
|
zipjay
join:2003-03-11
South Williamson, KY | reply to DaSneaky1D
Or dump your cable and just use Hulu. I have cable internet but no TV service and been happy like this for going on over 2 years. If Hulu goes subscription, if its cheap (lets say $10/mo for all of hulu) I probrably will be signing up! |
|
| reply to DaSneaky1D
I'd say its more close to none. |
|
 sitrix
join:2002-04-15
Tacoma, WA | reply to Matt
Matt, it's a great idea and something I have often thought of. Unfortunately I don't see it becoming a reality that soon (at least for me) since even compressed 720p video coming to several devices in your house will make you hit that monthly bandwidth limit rather quickly.
In the end, when internet TV will start gaining ground, large ISP's will cry about their network not being able to handle it and will control us by lowering bandwidth limits while increasing internet monthly costs. Not sure we can do much about that when it happens, till FCC passes a form of regulation preventing that. Non the less, that's a bit aways from now. |
|
Mark F
join:2007-08-01
Fort Wayne, IN | reply to DaSneaky1D
If Verizon, Comcast, etc are unhappy that many of their customers are watching classic TV shows over the internet (Hulu etc), then why not devote a cable channel to carry such shows?
If the best of TV's past is online then put it back on a channel where everyone can watch it, like TV Land once was.
Mark F |
|
Reviews:
 ·VOIPo
·Callcentric
| reply to DaSneaky1D
I get all of my TV over the air with an antenna, but both of my CBS affiliates are on VHF so it is almost impossible to watch most of the time. I watch all CBS programming on Hulu that is there. I would subscribe to Hulu for a small fee if they had more HD programming. I would rather pay Hulu than pay cable/satellite.
And for some reason, the local VHF stations don't understand they are losing viewers for the Internet or other sources. I think their advertisers would be interested in knowing thousands of OTA viewers are gone because of the poor quality of over the air television on VHF. The station likes saving those big dollars off their electric bill though. |
|
| reply to nixen
said by nixen:Hell, if tv content providers simply went away from tiers to blocks of channels (do I *really* need to get SD channels just to get HD channels?) - even using the same blocks of channels that they now sell as tiers - a lot more customers would be able to get the type of programming they want without breaking the bank. It would also lower the value proposition of going full IP. I'm still gunning for ala carte, because there are a grand total of a whopping 5-6 channels that I watch on an irregular basis. One of those my carrier doesn't receive, so technically it's 4-5. But if they charged me $5/channel I'd be all set; that's more than fair.
To your comment though, Dish Network is the only carrier that I'm aware of that offers a straight HD-only package. No SD channels to be found. It ranges from $30-$60 depending on how many HD channels you get though. For me the $40 package is more than enough. |
|
nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | said by ReVeLaTeD:I'm still gunning for ala carte, because there are a grand total of a whopping 5-6 channels that I watch on an irregular basis. One of those my carrier doesn't receive, so technically it's 4-5. But if they charged me $5/channel I'd be all set; that's more than fair. For me, it'd be great to only have to buy the HD block and the Discovery Channels block and possibly pick up the sports block (ESPN/VS/CSN/MASN). It'd also be great if NHL Center Ice were actually available in HD.
said by ReVeLaTeD:To your comment though, Dish Network is the only carrier that I'm aware of that offers a straight HD-only package. No SD channels to be found. It ranges from $30-$60 depending on how many HD channels you get though. For me the $40 package is more than enough. Unfortunately, my house is surrounded by tall trees, particularly in the direction I'd have to point the dish. So, not a good option for me. 
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
