dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
11
share rss forum feed

moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
reply to fiberguy

Re: Goodbye Hulu........

said by fiberguy:

Micronet / Compuserve is your example? and AOL? Really????

First off, you, like so many other BBR people make a HUGE mistake.. you forget that companies are in the business to make a profit.. not break even.. not be consumer friendly (that's like saying "the customer is always right - that's a touchy feel good saying)
Actually, yes, those are my examples.

And, yes, I know businesses are trying to make profits but I also know the early days of the internet were more about information than selling. In fact, most companies use their websites for support and marketing(in addition to selling things.) Cheaper than a support rep on a phone.

said by fiberguy:

Maybe Micronet was cheap.. Compuserve also expanded and made investment.. back then it was VERY common to bill by the minute.. phone companies did it for years, and still does. Technology changes.. it cost money.. they obviously figured it was best to charge by the minute..

AOL... they did not just "introduce flat rate pricing".. you forget they used to have a monthly fee AND per minute pricing for the longest time! AOL is actually a good example and I'm glad you brought it up! When they moved away from fee + minute billing to flat rate, you remember what happened, right?? .. the system got SO over loaded from people abusing the resource. They had people logging in and walking away for an hour or more taking up limited phone lines.. they got sued. Hmmm I wonder if the AOL story has any merrit moving forward with why ISPs want to move BACK to a flat rate + overage model. When AOL was by the minute, people did what they needed too. there was no waste..
Micronet was Compuserve sold by Radio Shack. And they were the same price.

AOL was using the same model as Compuserve and even Prodigy until they decided to offer their $19.99 unlimited plan. And again, yes, I remember when their system became overloaded. They added extra capacity and even made you click on windows to make sure you were still in front of your computer and not just trying to hold a connection.

And look what happened when AOL went to unlimited.....Compuserve and others either followed or gave up and shut down. In fact, many independent dial up ISPs used that same unlimited model and they flourished until the cable companies introduced high speed internet service.

said by fiberguy:

And, while most of the "internet stuff" is "free" , which it is still paid for, it's paid by advertisements... those very things.. those "pesky" things that the very people on this site condone blocking..
People block them because what started out as a small ad on the side because intrusive popups. Even IE will blocked them now.

said by fiberguy:

You also forget that while people may go elsewhere.. where are they going to go? once the model is created, they will all follow.

NOTHING in life is free..
Many newspaper companies when to a web subscription model and most lost readership. People get the news elsewhere.

Hulu started off as free and it is mostly stuff you get for free.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

I don't disagree with MOST of what you say, however, you're still,.. um.. wrong in your thinking.

First of all, listen to you.. it's not about non-profit and it's not about "information".. we live in a capitalistic society.. you want socialism? Sure.. go for it.. but until then, it's not about doing the common good.. it's business.

AOL was a pay per minute FAR longer than they were unlimited. You're talking about competition and advancement.. well, not all advancement goes the same way.. back then, it was internet only.. today, its a model of MSO.. if it wasn't for the MSO model, the price of internet would be more like $80 as it was when BB first came out... still.

The AOL unlimited plan, as I said, was, in full, shorter than their per minute plan.. I know MANY people that had $100+ bills with AOL.. why don't you mention that in your posts? Compuserve didn't really shut down until a few years ago.. it was still around and was part of AOL for a long time.. why do you think it "died"..

Still, when you talk about ads, um, no.. they were still using the same similar sized banner ads.. I don't care if it's 1 pixel by 1 pixel, there are MANY people here that believe they shouldn't be sent to their computer.. don't even get me started on this becuase I'll become an ass about it.. I can NOT stand selfish, greedy, unreasonable people.. you want a service for free, take the ads that pay for it.. and if you don't like it.. stop bitching and go elsewhere.. I wonder how many sites would remain on line if the ads went away.. hrmmm.. I dunno, they'd probably go the way of compuserve "and the others"... try to deny that.

Newspapers went off for many reasons.. not one single reason. A lot of it also has to do with competition.. there are MANY sources to get news these days.. AND, many people really don't care about the news like they did in the old days with 4 channels and 2 papers... there's thousands of sources for what people want to call news these days..

And you know what? If hulu goes pay and dies.. WHO CARES! The model didn't work either way.. it can't run for free forever.. and it can't run as a pay site.. what do you want them to do? Its one way or the other.. I could REALLY care less about those that want everything free.. who ever told people that all of the internet was free should check themselves in.. unreasonable selfish greedy people think they are entitled to everything for free.. there are no such things as free rides.. it's people like that who piss me off becuase the REST OF US get to pay their way..

NO THANKS!


moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

said by fiberguy:

I don't disagree with MOST of what you say, however, you're still,.. um.. wrong in your thinking.

First of all, listen to you.. it's not about non-profit and it's not about "information".. we live in a capitalistic society.. you want socialism? Sure.. go for it.. but until then, it's not about doing the common good.. it's business.
My thinking is not wrong.

Think about it this way. Why do banks love ATMs? Because they no longer have to have a teller take care of easy tasks like cashing checks (use the card), making simple deposits, and even paying loans through the bank. Let a machine that works 24 hours a day take the job of a person who works MAYBE 10 hours at most with various smoke breaks and 30 minutes for lunch.

said by fiberguy:

AOL was a pay per minute FAR longer than they were unlimited. You're talking about competition and advancement.. well, not all advancement goes the same way.. back then, it was internet only.. today, its a model of MSO.. if it wasn't for the MSO model, the price of internet would be more like $80 as it was when BB first came out... still.

The AOL unlimited plan, as I said, was, in full, shorter than their per minute plan.. I know MANY people that had $100+ bills with AOL.. why don't you mention that in your posts? Compuserve didn't really shut down until a few years ago.. it was still around and was part of AOL for a long time.. why do you think it "died"..
AOL was not doing much since they were still a per minute service. Compuserve was around much longer and had the users. I know many people (from techies to normal) that would not touch either because of the per minute charges. One of my old bosses even got a trial to Prodigy and gave it up because of the per minute charges (wasn't worth it.) And even I knew people with high Compuserve bills back in 1987.

When AOL first went to a few hours included and then to unlimited, their subscriber base exploded causing the issues you stated earlier. However, the damage to Compuserve was down and even through various name changes, it became irrelavent, gobbled up and, eventually, put out of its misery. It was held onto mostly so people could keep their email addresses (which is still a concern by some these days.)

said by fiberguy:

Still, when you talk about ads, um, no.. they were still using the same similar sized banner ads.. I don't care if it's 1 pixel by 1 pixel, there are MANY people here that believe they shouldn't be sent to their computer.. don't even get me started on this becuase I'll become an ass about it.. I can NOT stand selfish, greedy, unreasonable people.. you want a service for free, take the ads that pay for it.. and if you don't like it.. stop bitching and go elsewhere.. I wonder how many sites would remain on line if the ads went away.. hrmmm.. I dunno, they'd probably go the way of compuserve "and the others"... try to deny that.
And here is the counter argument. Telemarketers used to call all hours of the day and night. When the law came out to control them came out, they cried they couldn't make money and would "self-police" themselves (which never worked anyway.) They became a nuisance and paid the price. Yes, you still have illegal operations but people get a LOT less calls than before.

Now, many ISPs are looking at per byte billing. Each ad will add bytes to the stream and can add costs to a user's bill. Ads are supposed to drum up business, not cost anything to the viewer.

Also, look at some of the ads out there. Many are for stuff that doesn't exist or are bogus in nature. Some even infect your system. Look what Google did with some of their questionable ad servers. That's why many, on this board in particular, block those ads as most will not buy anything from them. Remember when pop-ups would harass you yet advertisers were saying they were o.k? Because a few want to be idiots about it, people rebelled. The good guys are paying for the deeds of the scam artists.

said by fiberguy:

Newspapers went off for many reasons.. not one single reason. A lot of it also has to do with competition.. there are MANY sources to get news these days.. AND, many people really don't care about the news like they did in the old days with 4 channels and 2 papers... there's thousands of sources for what people want to call news these days..
The same could be said for Hulu. There are many places (legal and illegal) to get those same shows they broadcast. There is still over the air broadcasting and buying a DVR (either TIVO or a Media Center PC.)

said by fiberguy:

And you know what? If hulu goes pay and dies.. WHO CARES! The model didn't work either way.. it can't run for free forever.. and it can't run as a pay site.. what do you want them to do? Its one way or the other.. I could REALLY care less about those that want everything free.. who ever told people that all of the internet was free should check themselves in.. unreasonable selfish greedy people think they are entitled to everything for free.. there are no such things as free rides.. it's people like that who piss me off becuase the REST OF US get to pay their way..

NO THANKS!
Where is the value? That should be asked of any service or product. With Hulu, under the free model, advertisers get their ads shown and Hulu can sell ad time based on number of views.

Under a subscription model, Hulu would have to add something to make people pay for it in numbers that make it profitable. Just using it as a time-shifting DVR won't do unless you have someone with a lot of disposable cash and no time.

Hulu is free for a reason. It drew people in and now, the powers that be are thinking that they won't want to be without it. If people don't have the money, they won't sign up and if it was free before, why charge now for the same service?

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Please go back and re-read the whole thread.. and include what I actually said.. .. maybe it will make more sense.. cuz I'm talking about one thing.. you're off on another continent.