Re: The price of streaming

[A Friend]

In article <2afcfeda-ed5e-45c2...@googlegroups.com>,
chromebook test <chromiu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The price of streaming
>
> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/13/netflix-to-charge-6point99-a-month-for-ad-supp
> orted-tier-starting-nov-3.html
>
>
> Netflix
> $6.99 - basic with ads
> $9.99 - basic without ads
> $15.49 - standard without ads
>
> HBO Max
> $9.99 - with ads
> $14.99 - without ads
>
> Hulu
> $7.99 - with ads
> $14.99 - without ads
>
> Paramount+
> $4.99 - with ads
> $9.99 - without ads
>
> Peacock
> $4.99 - premium with ads
> $9.99 - without ads
>
> Disney+
> $7.99 - with ads*
> $10.99 - without ads*
>
> *Available starting in December



I already pay significant bucks to get TV into my home. I'm not paying
more.

[shawn]

But this is different TV. Maybe even better TV?
It's a problem that so many people are facing as they can end up
paying almost as much as cable TV if they elect to sign up for all the
streaming options.

[Your Name]

There are far too many different companies, all idiotically with their
own "exclusive" content. People acan't afford to pay all these
companies simply for the "privilege" of watching one or two shows on
each. They'd probably make more money by combining with other services,
as well as selling content to normal broadcast TV providers.

It's the same with Sky TV. You pay a monthly fee for the standard
package, plus extar for other packages, and get 100 or so channels ...
but the reality is that most of them are garbage and you only want
about six of the channels. It would be better if they had a much
cheaper option where you can pick the few channels you want.

[Dimensional Traveler]

That's why they don't offer those options, so you _have_ to pay so much
for what you actually do want.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

[shawn]

Though at least there are more options now. Instead of paying for
cable TV you can pay for a streaming service that provides the same
channels at a cheaper price. For the channels I was getting with AT&T
Uverse I could pay less through either DirectTV's streaming service or
YoutubeTV or SlingTV or others. I think when I looked at it SlingTV
was the cheapest option. Though these services do require you to have
some sort of smart box (computer, smart phone, smart TV or a set top
box) to watch the service.

That said you are still going to end up paying for a big bundle of
channels even if you only want a few because that's how the networks
want it. Disney requires cable companies to carry all of their
channels to get any of them. The other companies do something similar.
So they make it impossible to pick and choose which channels you want
because that puts more $$ in their pockets as they can count more
homes as viewers for all of their channels.

[trotsky]

Do you not know what "cord cutting" is then? Or ordering a la carte?

[A Friend]

In article <tibasl$1gas$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, trotsky <gms...@email.com>
wrote:

Of course I do. Don't be condescending. I pay more than $200/mo for
TV and internet. I'm not paying more for additional services I can do
without.

[trotsky]

A couple of things: a) if Anim8r is anywhere near the conversation it's
hard to be condescending. b) assuming you do know what cord cutting is,
then, if you're paying that much for the two services you should cut the
cord on the TV service and stream channels a la carte with a streaming
device. I use Roku and have for a really long time, but depending what
you're trying to do you might prefer something else. There are some
cases where a TV service used to be the only game in town, like for
ESPN, but that's not really true anymore. I was in the cable business
for a long time and know most of this stuff. But the thing I find most
curious is why you seem to think you have to keep the TV service and pay
addl. for streaming.

[A Friend]

In article <ticiih$17cm$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, trotsky <gms...@email.com>

I think that because I don't care about streaming. There is nothing
available via streaming that I'd care to watch, based on what I've read
here and elsewhere. My wife recently watched a series on Netflix, but
I've already forgotten which one. I had no interest in it, even though
it was bought and paid for. I'm not sure I've answered your point, but
my basic premise is that if I'm not interested, I'm not watching it,
even if we paid for it because my wife wanted to watch it. (I myself
have not watched anything on Netflix or anything else that requires
extra payment. There's plenty of TV that I don't have to pay extra
for.)

[trotsky]

Well this is a fruitless dialogue. If you're paying to $200 for the two
services you're already paying too much. Deciding what's worth paying
for and what isn't is mentally challenging though so if you're not up to
the task or just don't care about it that much that's a horse of another
color. It sounds like you're just trying to trash streaming video
because it's too newfangled for you. To each their own.

[trotsky]

I'll tell you one more thing: during the lockdown I subscribed to the
Criterion channel and it was the best money I ever spent on any video
service. As soon as I decide which channels to jettison I'll get it
again, this time for keeps I reckon.

[RichA]

On Thursday, 13 October 2022 at 15:24:54 UTC-4, chromebook test wrote:
> The price of streaming
> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/13/netflix-to-charge-6point99-a-month-for-ad-supported-tier-starting-nov-3.html
>
>
> Netflix

> $6.99 − basic with ads
> $9.99 − basic without ads
> $15.49 − standard without ads
>
> HBO Max
> $9.99 − with ads
> $14.99 − without ads
>
> Hulu
> $7.99 − with ads
> $14.99 − without ads
>
> Paramount+
> $4.99 − with ads
> $9.99 − without ads
>
> Peacock
> $4.99 − premium with ads
> $9.99 − without ads
>
> Disney+
> $7.99 − with ads*
> $10.99 − without ads*
>
> *Available starting in December

ON top of that, anything foreign may be censored and cut for time. Meanwhile, some people report pulling in 80+ over-air stations in a large urban area (or within 100 miles of them) with a decent antenna and amplifier.

[A Friend]

In article <ticqor$1t9f$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, trotsky <gms...@email.com>

I agree that this discussion is fruitless, especially as you've
misrepresented what I've said. In short, I decide if something is
worth paying for if the ads are good and/or the discussion here and
elsewhere is positive and persuasive. (There's also the bit about
whether my wife wants to watch it.)

I am not trashing streaming video when I say that they haven't wrangled
me in there yet. If and when there is something I'm interested in,
I'll avail myself of it. I haven't slammed any doors, and I haven't
said anything to suggest otherwise.

[A Friend]

In article <ticqse$1t9f$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, trotsky <gms...@email.com>
wrote:

> I'll tell you one more thing: during the lockdown I subscribed to the
> Criterion channel and it was the best money I ever spent on any video
> service. As soon as I decide which channels to jettison I'll get it
> again, this time for keeps I reckon.

Thanks for the rec. Criterion has a great rep.

[trotsky]

On 10/14/2022 6:55 PM, chromebook test wrote:

> Quite a few years ago for some reason I decided to assemble a collection of the top 100 films as ranked by the American Film Institute. I began with a visit to the local library and over time, checked out all the available movies in DVD format. The DVD ripping process took ages. The films had to be 1) ripped and 2) shrunk to 4.7 GB each to fit on a 3) burned single archival DVD disk, I was using to store them on at the time. Eventually the collection was complete and stored away until recently I decided to pull them out, transfer each to a 5-TB HDD to use with the PLEX Media Server. But alas, PLEX won't playback ISO or VOB files, probably for copyright infringement reasons.
>
> So a couple weeks ago, mime began the collection process over again, this time with high quality MKV or MP4 rips from the grey web. Slowly taking my time, but already have maybe 10 off the list of 100 I wanted to re-view again. Indiana Jones, Rear Window, Toy Story, have already been enjoyed, with Dr Strangelove, Casablanca, JAWS and Pulp Fiction cued on the PLEX home server, when time to watch is available.
>
> Eventually I'll have the 100 again, and then start on a new list.


Toy Story is on the list? Whatever.

[trotsky]

On 10/14/2022 7:42 PM, chromebook test wrote:
> On Friday, October 14, 2022 at 7:20:50 PM UTC-4, gmsin...@gmail.com wrote:

> https://films.criterionchannel.com/
>
>
> mine may have found a new list to begin the new Hunt


That would be a wise choice.

[trotsky]

I believe I interpreted what you said correctly, and now you've further
clarified it.

[trotsky]

Going all the way to the days of laserdiscs.

[Micky DuPree]

I've heard good things about Roku, but you still need to get their
widget. I'd like to see it in action and play around with it before I
could make a decision on it.

What I don't get is why people are looking at it as all or nothing. Most
of the streaming services work on a monthly payment basis. (I don't know
if you can get Prime Video to pro-rate your service if you don't use it
for a whole year.) You subscribe to them serially. E.g., subscribe to
Netflix for a month. Watch the things that you find interesting on it,
then unsubscribe, move on to another service, and so on. Never pay for
more than one streaming service at a time. If you're really clever
and/or lucky, you can get free trials and not pay at all. (Amazon did
not offer me a free month, though, the last time I checked out.
Instead, it now offers me a trial week at $1.99. Nope.)

A lot of what's on the streamers is better than what's available via the
usual cable fare, but it's not all gold.

-Micky