ABC, CBS consider offering monthly subscription online service
David
Reports: Disney, CBS Eye Apple TV Service
Would make programs from ABC, Disney Channel, ABC Family, CBS and The
CW available on online-TV subscription service
By Todd Spangler
The Walt Disney Co. and CBS have expressed interest in cutting deals
with Apple to offer programming as part of a monthly Internet TV
subscription service, according to published reports.
The media companies are in early discussions with Apple on the
service, which is being positioned as a competitor to cable and
satellite TV, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times reported.
Disney is said to be considering delivering ABC, ABC Family and Disney
Channel programming, while CBS may provide shows from CBS and CW,
according to the reports.
The model isn't new: Both CBS and Disney, for example, have deals with
Netflix to offer access to a range of shows to subscribers for a flat
monthly fee on a PC or Internet-connected TV device (see Netflix Gets
'Lost,' Other ABC Fare and Netflix To Stream Disney Channel, CBS
Shows). Netflix also has streaming-video deals with Starz
Entertainment, MTV Networks, Showtime Networks, Discovery
Communications and A&E.
Apple's proposed service, which was first reported by the Journal's
All Things Digital last month, would be different in the sense that it
would be packaged specifically around TV shows.
The company initially floated a $30-per-month consumer subscription
plan that would be advertising-free but may be rethinking that
approach, according to the Journal. At this point, Apple is proposing
to pay $2 to $4 per month per subscriber for broadcast networks and $1
to $2 per month per subscriber for cable networks, the newspaper
reported.
Meanwhile, to protect their existing pay-TV subscription models
against a rising tide of Internet-delivered video, cable, satellite
and telco TV operators are experimenting with "TV Everywhere" services
that would provide programming to Web and mobile devices as part of
traditional TV packages.
The most visible TV Everywhere effort to date has been from Comcast,
which last week widened access to the newly renamed Fancast Xfinity TV
service -- with 2,000 hours of video -- to some 14 million broadband
and cable subscribers (see Comcast Keeps 'Beta' Tag On Online TV
Service).
Mikey
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:r6q1j55r8bteqbmvn...@4ax.com...
I watch shows on both ABC and CBS's web sites. I would not pay for them
though. Theya re too glitchey, herky jerky and sometimes they just don't
work. What their subscription services would do is prevent me from sampling
and then becoming fans of their shows. I never watched Castle on broadcast
until I had watched a couple of episodes online.
I have also noticed that where you used to have only a few 15-20 second
commercials on the online shows, now, in CBS's case, you get multiple
commercials with every break, and they are lasting longer. Oh well, what was
once a good thing is now being ruined....
Mikey :)
pkj...@aol.com
>http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/441470-Reports_Disney_CBS_Eye_Apple_TV_Service.php
>
>Reports: Disney, CBS Eye Apple TV Service
>Would make programs from ABC, Disney Channel, ABC Family, CBS and The
>CW available on online-TV subscription service
>By Todd Spangler
>
>The Walt Disney Co. and CBS have expressed interest in cutting deals
>with Apple to offer programming as part of a monthly Internet TV
>subscription service, according to published reports.
>
>The media companies are in early discussions with Apple on the
>service, which is being positioned as a competitor to cable and
>satellite TV, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times reported.
>Disney is said to be considering delivering ABC, ABC Family and Disney
>Channel programming, while CBS may provide shows from CBS and CW,
>according to the reports.
[snip]
I continue to be baffled by folks watching TV on their computers. Why
spend a bunch of money on widescreen/HDTVs if you're satisfied with
computer screens and, good grief, cell phone screens? And why do nets
seem to favor Internet over cable on-demand?
On the one hand, the tech is moving to bigger and higher def TVs.
OTOH, everyone is supposedly running to watch TV on ever-smaller
screens. Isn't there a weird contradiction in all this?
Ian J. Ball
> "David" <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:r6q1j55r8bteqbmvn...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> >http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/441470-Reports_Disney_CBS_Ey...
>
> > Reports: Disney, CBS Eye Apple TV Service
> > Would make programs from ABC, Disney Channel, ABC Family, CBS and The
> > CW available on online-TV subscription service
> > By Todd Spangler
>
> > The Walt Disney Co. and CBS have expressed interest in cutting deals
> > with Apple to offer programming as part of a monthly Internet TV
> > subscription service, according to published reports.
>
> > The media companies are in early discussions with Apple on the
> > service, which is being positioned as a competitor to cable and
> > satellite TV, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times reported.
> > Disney is said to be considering delivering ABC, ABC Family and Disney
> > Channel programming, while CBS may provide shows from CBS and CW,
> > according to the reports.
>
> > plan that would be advertising-free but may be rethinking that
> > approach, according to the Journal. At this point, Apple is proposing
> > to pay $2 to $4 per month per subscriber for broadcast networks and $1
> > to $2 per month per subscriber for cable networks, the newspaper
> > reported.
>
> though. Theya re too glitchey, herky jerky and sometimes they just don't
> work. What their subscription services would do is prevent me from sampling
> and then becoming fans of their shows. I never watched Castle on broadcast
> until I had watched a couple of episodes online.
>
> I have also noticed that where you used to have only a few 15-20 second
> commercials on the online shows, now, in CBS's case, you get multiple
> commercials with every break, and they are lasting longer. Oh well, what was
> once a good thing is now being ruined....
There's no question that people will not put up with commercials if
they're paying for a subscription service. They can do ads in free-
over-the-net streaming, *or* they can do they subscription services
free of ads. But if they try and do both, it'll fail...
Adam H. Kerman
>There's no question that people will not put up with commercials if
>they're paying for a subscription service. They can do ads in free-
>over-the-net streaming, *or* they can do they subscription services
>free of ads. But if they try and do both, it'll fail...
Uh, basic cable?
Rob Jensen
wrote:
>I watch shows on both ABC and CBS's web sites. I would not pay for them
>though. Theya re too glitchey, herky jerky and sometimes they just don't
>work. What their subscription services would do is prevent me from sampling
>and then becoming fans of their shows. I never watched Castle on broadcast
>until I had watched a couple of episodes online.
I have that problem with both ABC and CBS's websites, too, but ABC's
shows don't have that problem (and look extra great) on Hulu. I wish
CBS's shows were also on Hulu as the couple of times I've had to
iTunes episodes of CSI: Original Recipe, it's looked absolutely
beautiful -- last season's first couple of episodes in particular.
Also, I'd really like to be able to watch Criminal Minds online
because, like CSI, it's so noir in the lighting that anything that's
lit darkly is almost impossible to see in SD format.
I would imagine that if ABC and CBS do start offering subscriptions
that they would throw out their own sites' broken architecture and go
with something based on how iTunes or Hulu work.
-- Rob
Rob Jensen
>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:44:31 -0500, David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/441470-Reports_Disney_CBS_Eye_Apple_TV_Service.php
>>
>>Reports: Disney, CBS Eye Apple TV Service
>>Would make programs from ABC, Disney Channel, ABC Family, CBS and The
>>CW available on online-TV subscription service
>>By Todd Spangler
>>
>>The Walt Disney Co. and CBS have expressed interest in cutting deals
>>with Apple to offer programming as part of a monthly Internet TV
>>subscription service, according to published reports.
>>
>>The media companies are in early discussions with Apple on the
>>service, which is being positioned as a competitor to cable and
>>satellite TV, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times reported.
>>Disney is said to be considering delivering ABC, ABC Family and Disney
>>Channel programming, while CBS may provide shows from CBS and CW,
>>according to the reports.
>
>[snip]
>
>I continue to be baffled by folks watching TV on their computers. Why
>spend a bunch of money on widescreen/HDTVs if you're satisfied with
>computer screens
My computer monitor is a 23" 1080p LCD, so it's not exactly small.
When I got it in August, I was having trouble adjusting to it for
about a month, but eventually figured out that I had to do my own
preset for extremely low light levels for computer use because its
computer-use preset was far closer to its bright TV-use preset. It's
still a really big monitor even with some other things I have to do
with other presets. So don't think that just because we're watching
online that we're watching with dinky little 17" or 19" SD CRT
monitors.
>and, good grief, cell phone screens? And why do nets
>seem to favor Internet over cable on-demand?
Because they want to see if they can cut out the cable and sat
middlemen entirely.
>On the one hand, the tech is moving to bigger and higher def TVs.
>OTOH, everyone is supposedly running to watch TV on ever-smaller
>screens. Isn't there a weird contradiction in all this?
No contradiction. When people are at home, they want to watch their
TV and movies on big screens -- when they're on the go, they want to
be able to watch 'em on the small screens of portable devices. Totally
practical. Now, what I don't get is why people want to watch this
stuff on screens as small as cell phones. IMO, lowest people should
be willing to go is a Kindle-sized screen or one of the tablet PCs
that are still in development. I had a Casio handheld SD LCD TV like
the one that House was using to watch his soaps in early seasons of
House and that was just plain ridiculous. Had to use it in teh
pre-Hulu days when the front TV was taping CSI, my computer was DVRing
Grey's Anatomy and I needed *some* way to watch The Office and Scrubs
on NBC.
-- Rob
Rob Jensen
Yep. They'd might as well revive DivX 1.0 if they try to charge a fee
*and* include commercials. That's why the studios have never been
successful at putting forced commercials for anything other than
movies and TV shows on their DVDs (and VHS before that). It's
charging twice for the same service.
-- Rob
Rob Jensen
Basic cable is a flat monthly fee for a tier of zillions of channels,
it's not a fee for any particular channel. So it's more that we've
been paying fees to the cable/sat channels to access their . . . umm,
cables and satellites . . . than that we're paying for the basic cable
itself over the past 37-ish years of cable/sat's existence. Now, if
we were paying the additional premium for basic cable that we pay for
HBO, Showtime, etc., that'd be a different story, IMO.
-- Rob
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Ian J. Ball <ib...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>>There's no question that people will not put up with commercials if
>>>they're paying for a subscription service. They can do ads in free-
>>>over-the-net streaming, *or* they can do they subscription services
>>>free of ads. But if they try and do both, it'll fail...
>>Uh, basic cable?
>Basic cable is a flat monthly fee for a tier of zillions of channels,
>it's not a fee for any particular channel.
Generally, basic cable channels get a fee per subscriber. They aren't ad
free. The model is in place, just not for the main content of the broadcast
networks.
>So it's more that we've been paying fees to the cable/sat channels
>to access their . . . umm, cables and satellites . . . than that
>we're paying for the basic cable itself over the past 37-ish years of
>cable/sat's existence.
I don't agree. If cable were a la carte, or entirely pay per view, I have
no idea what the fee would be to pay the cable company's expenses plus
profits, but it would be a hell of a lot less if it didn't include all the
channels that get forced down our throats. Isn't ESPN $4 a subscriber? I
don't watch it.
>Now, if we were paying the additional premium for basic cable that we
>pay for HBO, Showtime, etc., that'd be a different story, IMO.
Just because the model isn't a la carte as it is with tiers of service for
premium channels doesn't mean that Americans don't understand that
1) They are paying to receive specific channels and 2) It's not ad free.
Obveeus
<pkj...@aol.com> wrote:
> I continue to be baffled by folks watching TV on their computers. Why
> spend a bunch of money on widescreen/HDTVs if you're satisfied with
> computer screens and, good grief, cell phone screens? And why do nets
> seem to favor Internet over cable on-demand?
>
> On the one hand, the tech is moving to bigger and higher def TVs.
> OTOH, everyone is supposedly running to watch TV on ever-smaller
> screens. Isn't there a weird contradiction in all this?
It isn't really a contradiction so much as a simple fact that a large
portion of the population is stupid. A really big TV is a phallic symbol.
A 'cell phone' that you can watch TV on is a phallic symbol. People with
huge TVs that are watching a good portion of their video entertainment on a
'cell phone' are simply fools that fall for every technical gizmo because it
makes their head feel bigger.
record hunter
> I continue to be baffled by folks watching TV on their computers. Why
> spend a bunch of money on widescreen/HDTVs if you're satisfied with
> computer screens and, good grief, cell phone screens?
That's exactly what a friend of mine did. Went through this whole
"let's buy a flat-screen" process with no end of flourishes a couple
of years ago, but every time he talks about a show he just watched, it
was his 17" computer screen he watched it on.
record hunter
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:32:32 -0500, "Mikey" <mminor...@earthlink.net>
CBS did work for awhile, but lately it's wonky. I've stopped looking.
I've never had a problem with ABC, though I probably haven't looked at
one of their shows online. GLEE is about the only show I watch online,
and that only infrequently, partly because I can't stand the hand
lotion commercial that's been on every break on every episode.
Ian J. Ball
<428091f6-92ad-497b...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
record hunter <record...@gmail.com> wrote:
I've had only minor issues with ABC.com the half a dozen times, or so,
that I've used it to stream content...
--
"There's no business, like Cho business."
- Patrick Jane, "The Mentalist", 02/11/09
Ian J. Ball
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
Well, I could go into the details about how cable evolved in order to
bring broadcast TV to people who couldn't get it over the air, so isn't
probably comparable to the streaming over the net, but...
what's for breakfast?! :)
Mikey
> spend a bunch of money on widescreen/HDTVs if you're satisfied with
> computer screens and, good grief, cell phone screens? And why do nets
> seem to favor Internet over cable on-demand?
>
> On the one hand, the tech is moving to bigger and higher def TVs.
> OTOH, everyone is supposedly running to watch TV on ever-smaller
> screens. Isn't there a weird contradiction in all this?
I'm going to show my age here, but I can remember that the top of the line
tv was a 23" console model that everyone wanted. When growing up, the family
tv was a 19" black and white job that had legs like a coffee table, giant
rabbit ears and was the center of attention in the living room. Of course
there was the obligatory demands from my mom to not sit so close to the tv,
cause it was going to ruin my eyesight.
Now, my computer monitor is bigger than that 19" family tv, high definition,
color and I sit 18" from it for hours on end. It is no problem watching a
show on it, even if I don't have the picture maximized to the fit the
screen.
Mikey :)
Joe Ramirez
> I continue to be baffled by folks watching TV on their computers. Why
> spend a bunch of money on widescreen/HDTVs if you're satisfied with
> computer screens and, good grief, cell phone screens? And why do nets
> seem to favor Internet over cable on-demand?
>
> On the one hand, the tech is moving to bigger and higher def TVs.
> OTOH, everyone is supposedly running to watch TV on ever-smaller
> screens. Isn't there a weird contradiction in all this?
Actually, the screen of my notebook computer (16") a couple of feet
away occupies a space in my field of vision that isn't much smaller
than the space in the field occupied by my TV (52") on the other side
of the room. In any case, I normally use a 5-meter HDMI cable to
connect my computer to the TV to watch video from Netflix, iTunes,
Hulu/Fancast, etc., or the computer's Blu-ray player. So in my case,
using the Internet as the video source doesn't have to mean watching
it on a smaller screen. Cable (FIOS for me) on demand is an option as
well, but it's much more expensive than every other option.
Mikey
"Rob Jensen" <Shut...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:m0h3j5loqvg8h117u...@4ax.com...
And that is why Time Warner Cable and Fox Broadcasting is fighting over the
price to have Fox content on Cable?
Mikey :|
David
wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:32:32 -0500, "Mikey" <mmin...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I watch shows on both ABC and CBS's web sites. I would not pay for them
>>though. Theya re too glitchey, herky jerky and sometimes they just don't
>>work. What their subscription services would do is prevent me from sampling
>>and then becoming fans of their shows. I never watched Castle on broadcast
>>until I had watched a couple of episodes online.
>
>I have that problem with both ABC and CBS's websites, too, but ABC's
>shows don't have that problem (and look extra great) on Hulu. I wish
>CBS's shows were also on Hulu as the couple of times I've had to
>iTunes episodes of CSI: Original Recipe
Fancast.com has most of CBS's shows and doesn't have their player
issues.
David
Who's watching a "good portion of their video entertainment" on their
cellphone?? It's good for when you're out of the house. I would've
loved to have had that option in college while waiting between
classes. But I can't imagine someone sitting at home huddled over
their cellphone screen.
Obveeus
"Mikey" <mmin...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:maydnYNtmLgxrq_W...@earthlink.com...
> Of course there was the obligatory demands from my mom to not sit so
> close to the tv, cause it was going to ruin my eyesight.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/nearsightedness-increasing/
Your mom was right.
Mark Nobles
<Shut...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:40:45 -0500, pkj...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >and, good grief, cell phone screens? And why do nets
> >seem to favor Internet over cable on-demand?
>
> Because they want to see if they can cut out the cable and sat
> middlemen entirely.
But they can't. The satellites and cable are what bring the internet to
us. That's why they want network neutral, without which they can make
internet TV look glitchy and herky jerky. Then they say you don't get
the quality on internet that you got from cable.
Barry Margolin
"Ian J. Ball" <ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote:
> In article <hgsdro$a69$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> > Ian J. Ball <ib...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > >There's no question that people will not put up with commercials if
> > >they're paying for a subscription service. They can do ads in free-
> > >over-the-net streaming, *or* they can do they subscription services
> > >free of ads. But if they try and do both, it'll fail...
> >
> > Uh, basic cable?
>
> Well, I could go into the details about how cable evolved in order to
> bring broadcast TV to people who couldn't get it over the air, so isn't
> probably comparable to the streaming over the net, but...
> what's for breakfast?! :)
But he wasn't referring to the broadcast channels. Basic cable is
channels like TNT, CNN, Lifetime, etc. They all have commercials, even
more than broadcast networks, despite the fact that the only way to get
them is through a pay service.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Ian J. Ball
> In article <ijball-NO_SPAM-6ED541.07111023122...@nntp.aioe.org>,
> "Ian J. Ball" <ijball-NO_S...@mac.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <hgsdro$a6...@news.albasani.net>,
> > "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ian J. Ball <ib...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > >There's no question that people will not put up with commercials if
> > > >they're paying for a subscription service. They can do ads in free-
> > > >over-the-net streaming, *or* they can do they subscription services
> > > >free of ads. But if they try and do both, it'll fail...
>
> > > Uh, basic cable?
>
> > Well, I could go into the details about how cable evolved in order to
> > bring broadcast TV to people who couldn't get it over the air, so isn't
> > probably comparable to the streaming over the net, but...
> > what's for breakfast?! :)
>
> But he wasn't referring to the broadcast channels. Basic cable is
> channels like TNT, CNN, Lifetime, etc. They all have commercials, even
> more than broadcast networks, despite the fact that the only way to get
> them is through a pay service.
Again, the point is how cable evolved - its evolution facilitated ad-
supported cable-only networks (though there were certainly a number
that were ad-free cable nets originally, and even today there's even
still a few of those around...), right along side ad-supported
broadcast net affiliates - i.e. in the early days, many people didn't
know the difference.
The point is this will *not* play out the same way on the internet.
Zombie Elvis
wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:40:45 -0500, pkj...@aol.com wrote:
Most modern HDTVs have VGA or DVI connectors. My Mac Mini for example
is currently connected to a 40" 1080i HDTV in my living room. And
excepting the occasional glitch due to bandwidth limitations, web
video looks great on it.
>
>>and, good grief, cell phone screens? And why do nets
>>seem to favor Internet over cable on-demand?
>
>Because they want to see if they can cut out the cable and sat
>middlemen entirely.
And because newer cell phones are packing bigger, brighter screens
with plenty of memory. I remember watching ripped episodes of Star
Trek and Buffy, the Vampire Slayer on a Treo 600 with a 160x160 pixel
screen a few years ago. My current phone, a Palm Pre has a 480x320
screen. So the technology is there and has been there for a long time
to enable people to watch video on mobile devices. The networks are
finally realizing that and this is why they are pushing themselves
onto cell phones.
>
>>On the one hand, the tech is moving to bigger and higher def TVs.
>>OTOH, everyone is supposedly running to watch TV on ever-smaller
>>screens. Isn't there a weird contradiction in all this?
>
>No contradiction. When people are at home, they want to watch their
>TV and movies on big screens -- when they're on the go, they want to
>be able to watch 'em on the small screens of portable devices. Totally
>practical. Now, what I don't get is why people want to watch this
>stuff on screens as small as cell phones.
Because they always have their cell phones with them and many modern
phones have the horse power to handle it.
> IMO, lowest people should
>be willing to go is a Kindle-sized screen or one of the tablet PCs
>that are still in development.
What? And carry around yet another gadget? I already carry my phone,
my iPod, and very often a netbook laptop everywhere I go. All three of
these devices play video quite well and I don't want or need another
gadget.
> I had a Casio handheld SD LCD TV like
>the one that House was using to watch his soaps in early seasons of
>House and that was just plain ridiculous.
I had one of those too, it was huge compared to my cell phone at the
time and as soon as I got my Treo 600, I quickly noticed that it had a
similarly sized screen, the horse power to play xvid video files, and
was much smaller. That was the day I retired my Casio.
> Had to use it in teh
>pre-Hulu days when the front TV was taping CSI, my computer was DVRing
>Grey's Anatomy and I needed *some* way to watch The Office and Scrubs
>on NBC.
I've been ripping DVDs and downloading video from the net for years.
The small screen doesn't bother me when I'm on the move.
--
"I recall a time not long ago when a bullet in the chest meant a
sucking chest wound, not a quick bandage job and a climactic
final confrontation with a criminal mastermind atop an unfinished
skyscraper."
- Seen on The Onion
Roberto Castillo
roberto...@ameritech.net
http://mind-grapes.blogspot.com/
http://zombie-gulch.myminicity.com/
Zombie Elvis
Actually, the opposite is true. The cable companies and telcos hate
the idea network neutrality because it means that they can't reduce
the priority of packets which carry video and voice over IP phone
service. But if net neutrality rules are abolished, Comcast for
example, can inspect every data packet that comes in and out of its
network and slow down those from "bandwidth hogs" like Hulu. And thus
Internet Freedom is preserved for the big cable and telephone
companies.
http://gizmodo.com/5388381/john-mccains-internet-freedom-act-seeks-to-block-fccs-net-neutrality-rules
--
"If the president is so serious about the war on terror, why doesn't he hunt down and capture Barack Obama before he strikes again? It's time for a change America. That's why I'm voting for Osama in 2008."
- Jenna Maroney in 30 Rock
Mr. Hole The Magnificent: An ABC Studios Production
> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/441470-Reports_Disney_CBS_Ey...
>
> Reports: Disney, CBS Eye Apple TV Service
> Would make programs from ABC, Disney Channel, ABC Family, CBS and The
> CW available on online-TV subscription service
> By Todd Spangler
>
> The Walt Disney Co. and CBS have expressed interest in cutting deals
> with Apple to offer programming as part of a monthly Internet TV
> subscription service, according to published reports.
>
> The media companies are in early discussions with Apple on the
> service, which is being positioned as a competitor to cable and
> satellite TV, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times reported.
> Disney is said to be considering delivering ABC, ABC Family and Disney
> Channel programming, while CBS may provide shows from CBS and CW,
> according to the reports.
>
> Netflix to offer access to a range of shows to subscribers for a flat
> monthly fee on a PC or Internet-connected TV device (see Netflix Gets
> 'Lost,' Other ABC Fare and Netflix To Stream Disney Channel, CBS
> Shows). Netflix also has streaming-video deals with Starz
> Entertainment, MTV Networks, Showtime Networks, Discovery
> Communications and A&E.
>
> Apple's proposed service, which was first reported by the Journal's
> All Things Digital last month, would be different in the sense that it
> would be packaged specifically around TV shows.
>
> plan that would be advertising-free but may be rethinking that
> approach, according to the Journal. At this point, Apple is proposing
> to pay $2 to $4 per month per subscriber for broadcast networks and $1
> to $2 per month per subscriber for cable networks, the newspaper
> reported.
>
> against a rising tide of Internet-delivered video, cable, satellite
> and telco TV operators are experimenting with "TV Everywhere" services
> that would provide programming to Web and mobile devices as part of
> traditional TV packages.
>
> The most visible TV Everywhere effort to date has been from Comcast,
> which last week widened access to the newly renamed Fancast Xfinity TV
> service -- with 2,000 hours of video -- to some 14 million broadband
> and cable subscribers (see Comcast Keeps 'Beta' Tag On Online TV
> Service).
Well good luck with that.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>>Uh, basic cable?
Ian, I do not agree with you. I do not know, but I suspect, that the vast
majority of cable subscribers believe that a portion of the fees they pay
to the cable operator are turned over to the owners of cable/satellite
basic cable stations, simply because they see higher tiers of programming
offered for additional fees. Subscribers aren't stupid, and would believe
that everybody gets a cut of their monthly checks.
I do not agree that cable subscribers believe that basic cable and higher
cable ties have advertising because broadcast networks have ads. And of
course subscribers knew the difference from the start. They knew which
programming came from over-the-air stations versus satellite. Who has never
seen television via antenna?
Personally, I find the model disgusting, but I still pay for it. I find
most second-run syndication unwatchable on all but a few stations. It's
not because of the commercials, per se, but because the breaks are in the
wrong places and the shows are edited.
Whenever possible, I watch On Demand. There's so much less abuse, even
though there are commercials and on-screen bugs. At the moment, only a
bit of On Demand programming is obliterated with moving graphics promoting
something else.
When On Demand gets as bad as everything else, I won't find cable tolerable
any longer.
>The point is this will *not* play out the same way on the internet.
The model is already in place, and they are testing to see if they can
implement the model on a different media. If it's paid for, but it's not
abused with squished credit, ad breaks in the wrong place, bugs and graphics
that obliterate part of the image, people might pay for it.
Ian J. Ball
I feel fairly confident in predicting that if they try subscription
*and* ad-support in the same model, no one will buy it, and it will
fail.
One way or the other, we're likely to soon find out.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>The point is this will *not* play out the same way on the internet.
>>The model is already in place, and they are testing to see if they can
>>implement the model on a different media. If it's paid for, but it's not
>>abused with squished credit, ad breaks in the wrong place, bugs and graphics
>>that obliterate part of the image, people might pay for it.
>I feel fairly confident in predicting that if they try subscription
>*and* ad-support in the same model, no one will buy it, and it will
>fail.
. . . except when cable subscribers are willing to be abused in that manner.
>One way or the other, we're likely to soon find out.
I don't see how networks can lose.
shawn
<ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote:
>In article <hgvdmp$vql$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> Ian J. Ball <ib...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The point is this will *not* play out the same way on the internet.
>>
>> The model is already in place, and they are testing to see if they can
>> implement the model on a different media. If it's paid for, but it's not
>> abused with squished credit, ad breaks in the wrong place, bugs and graphics
>> that obliterate part of the image, people might pay for it.
>
>I feel fairly confident in predicting that if they try subscription
>*and* ad-support in the same model, no one will buy it, and it will
>fail.
>
>One way or the other, we're likely to soon find out.
One way to find out how successful it might be is to see what kind of
numbers they are getting for their online streaming of shows now. I've
not seen any numbers on how many people actually go to the CBS or ABC
site or check out Hulu to see the latest network show. I can't see a
subscription service doing much better than those, and it certainly
won't do better if they charge a subscription fee and show ads.
Especially since they will make it so that you can't skip the ads.
shawn
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
They probably can't. At the worst they try it and it fails. They still
have all of their other methods of getting out their programming so
all they really lose is a bit of money.
pkj...@aol.com
When the day comes, and I'm sure it will, that my computer is
integrated with my TV, I'll be happy to watch shows from the Internet
on my TV, assuming they get rid of the glitches. And again, I'm sure
they will, since I can already watch small tidbits of a news program
or a music video without the endlessly buffering stops&starts.
I'm perplexed about on demand, because in my area, if you have digital
cable, you have TV on demand. There's a decent amount of variety in
the TV programming, and if you already sub to pay channels, you also
get those programs on demand with no fee.
To me, this is basically the same as watching free TV from the
Internet on my computer, except I'm watching it on my big-screen TV
while being a lay-about on the sofa or the bed <g>. No connections
necessary. I've had cable for umpteen-zillion years, so it's not as
if I subbed to cable for on demand. It's just a nice option that
costs me nothing extra than what I would pay for anyway.
Mark Nobles
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:19:06 -0600, Mark Nobles
> <cmn-n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <aah3j5hcesoung4p0...@4ax.com>, Rob Jensen
> ><Shut...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:40:45 -0500, pkj...@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >and, good grief, cell phone screens? And why do nets
> >> >seem to favor Internet over cable on-demand?
> >>
> >> Because they want to see if they can cut out the cable and sat
> >> middlemen entirely.
> >
> >But they can't. The satellites and cable are what bring the internet to
> >us. That's why they
DON'T
> >want network neutral, without which they can make
> >internet TV look glitchy and herky jerky. Then they say you don't get
> >the quality on internet that you got from cable.
>
> Actually, the opposite is true. The cable companies and telcos hate
> the idea network neutrality because it means that they can't reduce
> the priority of packets which carry video and voice over IP phone
> service. But if net neutrality rules are abolished, Comcast for
> example, can inspect every data packet that comes in and out of its
> network and slow down those from "bandwidth hogs" like Hulu. And thus
> Internet Freedom is preserved for the big cable and telephone
> companies.
>
> http://gizmodo.com/5388381/john-mccains-internet-freedom-act-seeks-to-block-fccs-net-neutrality-rules
You're right, that's what I meant to say. I don't know how I left out
the very important word before. Thanks for making it clear and correct.
Mark Nobles
> I already carry my phone,
> my iPod, and very often a netbook laptop everywhere I go. All three of
> these devices play video quite well and I don't want or need another
> gadget.
And for your next round you will have one device that combines all
these functions, and it will shoot movies and record your voice notes
as well. It probably won't run Photoshop though.
Mark Nobles
Maybe not today, but even now there are a lot of people who use their
cell as their only phone. I can see them taking the next step to use
their cell as their only TV. All they need is TV on demand and TiVo is
gone.
But it has to be genuine TV on demand that lets me pull up anything I
have in my DVD collection without having to pay for it again, or make
the ppv fee quite a bit less than it is now.
Mark Nobles
Huh. Mine always told me that it was the deadly radiation from the TV
that would fry my eyeballs. Flatscreens don't have that.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>Of course there was the obligatory demands from my mom to not sit so
>>>close to the tv, cause it was going to ruin my eyesight.
>>http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/nearsightedness-increasing/
>>Your mom was right.
>Huh. Mine always told me that it was the deadly radiation from the TV
>that would fry my eyeballs. Flatscreens don't have that.
I thought blindness was a side effect of masturbation.
Steve Newport
I continue to be baffled by folks watching TV on their computers. And
why do nets seem to favor Internet over cable on-demand? I'm perplexed
about on demand, because in my area, if you have digital cable, you have
the Internet on my computer, except I'm watching it on my big-screen TV
while being a lay-about on the sofa or the bed <g>. No connections
necessary. I've had cable for umpteen-zillion years, so it's not as if I
subbed to cable for on demand. It's just a nice option that costs me
nothing extra
I feel the same way. And the prime-time shows I watch on Monday,
Tuesday, and Thursday are all available on demand, in addition to shows
like SNL-- without the musical guests, which is a plus.
BTW, with Web TV, one can post from bed-- with some nice show or holiday
music on in the background.
Mark Nobles
<http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/50802/title/Nearsightedness_
increasing_in_the_United_States>
Adam H. Kerman
>>>>http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/nearsightedness-increasing/
>>>>Your mom was right.
I was 5 when I was diagnosed, so it can't be blamed on the old wive's tale.
Weird that it's not all traced to genetic pre-disposition. That's readily
explained that eyeglasses keep nearsighted parents from tripping and falling
down wells before being able to reproduce.
David
<cmn-n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Who's watching a "good portion of their video entertainment" on their
>> cellphone?? It's good for when you're out of the house. I would've
>> loved to have had that option in college while waiting between
>> classes. But I can't imagine someone sitting at home huddled over
>> their cellphone screen.
>>
>Maybe not today, but even now there are a lot of people who use their
>cell as their only phone. I can see them taking the next step to use
>their cell as their only TV. All they need is TV on demand and TiVo is
>gone.
I don't see any kind of portable TVs as the future, though it'll be a
nice thing to have on the side.
Ian J. Ball
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:57:57 -0600, Mark Nobles
>
> >David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Who's watching a "good portion of their video entertainment" on their
> >> cellphone?? It's good for when you're out of the house. I would've
> >> loved to have had that option in college while waiting between
> >> classes. But I can't imagine someone sitting at home huddled over
> >> their cellphone screen.
>
> >Maybe not today, but even now there are a lot of people who use their
> >cell as their only phone. I can see them taking the next step to use
> >their cell as their only TV. All they need is TV on demand and TiVo is
> >gone.
>
> I don't see any kind of portable TVs as the future, though it'll be a
> nice thing to have on the side.
If people ever go widely to video "tablets"(/clipboard) type thingies,
you could definitely "watch TV" on one of those, and that'd be
"portable".
David
That'd be good to have outside of the home but it wouldn't replace TV.
People want TVs to get bigger, not hand-held.
Anim8rFSK
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Whenever possible, I watch On Demand. There's so much less abuse, even
> though there are commercials and on-screen bugs. At the moment, only a
> bit of On Demand programming is obliterated with moving graphics promoting
> something else.
Is your On Demand functional at the level where it's an enjoyable
experience?
For instance, on Xmas Eve, I went looking to see if there was any
background stuff.
After literally 5 minutes of searching, I found screensavers. There was
Xmas, fireplace, etc.
So we try one. Xmas. It's massively lame. There's no way out of it
except to exit On Demand completely and start over.
We try fireplace instead. It's okay. It runs 20 minutes total, at the
end of which you have to exit On Demand completely and start over.
And while these things are called HDScreensavers, they are in fact all
SD.
It honestly wasn't worth the effort. I have no idea if Cox On Demand is
just encoded really really lamely or what.
Oh, every time you start a HDScreensaver, you have to sit through an ad
for HDScreensavers, part of which is step by step directions on how to
navigate to HDScreensavers. This has two problems. 1) you can't see
the ad on how to navigate until you've already navigated and B) the ad
is 100% TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY WRONG.
--
Tiger Woods has just been named "Athlete of the Decade"
His chosen event? The Broad Jump.
Mark Nobles
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:47:24 -0800 (PST), "Ian J. Ball"
> <ib...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
Or we could get good video headsets that project the picture so close
to your eyes that it looks very large. And we would probably need a way
to tell if someone is using one while driving, cause that's got to be
much more distracting than talking on the phone.
Adam H. Kerman
>>Whenever possible, I watch On Demand. There's so much less abuse, even
>>though there are commercials and on-screen bugs. At the moment, only a
>>bit of On Demand programming is obliterated with moving graphics promoting
>>something else.
>Is your On Demand functional at the level where it's an enjoyable
>experience?
It's cable, dude. At least it's not Cox.
Fast forward and rewind are very slow. It doesn't react immediately to a
command for pause, so you miss the frame you wanted to look at. There's no
frame by frame forward or backward.
It's not as good as recording to hard drive, but the version of the episode
is superior to what's shown on tv.
Anim8rFSK
Wait - you can record On Demand to your hard drive? Ours is streaming
only.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>Whenever possible, I watch On Demand. There's so much less abuse, even
>>>>though there are commercials and on-screen bugs. At the moment, only a
>>>>bit of On Demand programming is obliterated with moving graphics promoting
>>>>something else.
>>>Is your On Demand functional at the level where it's an enjoyable
>>>experience?
>>It's cable, dude. At least it's not Cox.
>>Fast forward and rewind are very slow. It doesn't react immediately to a
>>command for pause, so you miss the frame you wanted to look at. There's no
>>frame by frame forward or backward.
>>It's not as good as recording to hard drive, but the version of the episode
>>is superior to what's shown on tv.
>Wait - you can record On Demand to your hard drive? Ours is streaming only.
Alas, no, not on the Motorola set-top box rented from Comcast.
I hated the On Demand interface so much that I used to record On Demand
SD output to a TiVo Series2 box. Alas, I don't have an HD TiVo.