Miss your Cable TV Packages yet?

Online now: No visible users
Post Reply
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
https://www.theringer.com/tv/2019/7/12/ ... g-services


Now that streaming has become mainstream, every two-bit huckster in Hollywood wants to be the next Netflix. Charging customers $2 or $3 for every episode of every show, $10-$15/ month, sometimes with limited content and extra charge for no commercials ...
It's easy to see why the sale of OTA antennas has increased In a market with multiple stations available it's a no brainer.

So, have you given this any thought? Do you have a plan for the day it all blows up and the human waste hits the fan, and the "content providers" start demanding $$ for each individual episode of each individual show, a-la iTunes?
Are we there yet?
Will Red Box be your go-to provider? How long before they set up a streaming service too?(Oh wait! They already have!)
What's next? Tying a service to a device? Netflix only available on Roku? Prime is only on Fire? Gotta get the AT&T box to watch HBO? Are they gonna fiddlesticks with us until we just say "fiddlesticks it" and quit buying the product, or will this be another thing that separates the haves from the have-nots? Will Pirate Bay save us? Will there be a black market in usernames and passwords, like there's not already ?
How do you think people; YOU, will deal with the coming tv apocalypse?
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
Yeah, well, those TV packages are getting worse and worse by the day too. We now have three more channels locked out because of contract disputes.

Fortunately, piracy appears to still be alive and well. Or, you could do what I do - and just don't watch TV. :shrug:
arkayn Aaarrrggghhhh
User avatar
I will keep watching the three shows via browser until they eliminate that option. Then I will give up watching TV all together.
eMule shows at work and take them home on a USB key to watch. That's been my method since 2009. Works perfectly.
Mostly I don't watch that much TV, and I pay little attention to shows that I'm currently not paying for. Probably means I'm missing out on a lot of good human waste, but if I don't know it exists does that really matter?
macnuke Afar
User avatar
wife has amazon prime... lots of shows included with that.
kodi on the xBox... all shows included with that.

zero problems and zero extra money watching what I want.
TOS
User avatar
i definitely can't afford multiple streaming services ... i have netflix and amazon prime and that's it

i expect netflix to go under eventually, so i might replace it with something else, although the pickings in canada are a lot slimmer (and i do not want to give money to the asswipe telecoms)

at this point i can't imagine diddling around with actual files for watching, but i do think that piracy is going to come roaring back
I have an over the air antenna; and Amazon Prime (mostly bought for work purchases); and of course AppleTV. I have done the math and buying the 4-5 shows on iTunes that you might like is cheaper than cable or sat TV by a long shot. But since I have got Amazon Prime, I've been purchasing a lot less on iTunes.

It definitely is a human waste show now for streaming services. Everyone is trying to make their own service and own programs. Right now I honestly do not see how some of the cable only channels are going to survive, let alone the cable companies.

It would be nice if someone was able to provide really good internet in all cities to challenge Comcast, CenturyLink, Verizon and Google. I believe in Longmont, CO (Uncle lives there) the city actually put in gigabit everywhere so you just pay for it like water or electricity.
We have Netflix, Hulu, Amazon. We watched a month or so of CBS all access to watch the good fight. What we plan on doing is to just pay per month on a streaming channel, binge content, cancel it, then go on to the next.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
Sling + OTA for local channels gives us all we got from cable for < half the price. Add in Roku + Netflix, and we have essentially infinite TV. Mom tried Hulu but found the service here just sucked (it does offer local channels...but the connection and performance was just too spotty).
justine Elitist Beer Lover
User avatar
:hugs Xfinity:
obvs precoupado
Send private message
TOS posted:
i expect netflix to go under eventually...
I think that's interesting. Why?
doesn't bother me, I torrent tv.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
Eventually it's all going into the archive. It actually amazes me how long its taken to integrate the computer and the television entirely.
TOS
User avatar
obvs posted:
TOS posted:
i expect netflix to go under eventually...
I think that's interesting. Why?


they've taken on a truly insane amount of debt, so to stay solvent they'll have to rapidly accelerate their user base ... this was never very likely, but given the approaching tsunami of competition (and the loss of key programming) it's even less likely now

Image

some people i work with dismiss the entire operation as a money laundering business
macnuke Afar
User avatar
I heard netflix lost a few money makers to some other startups like disney and such ilk.
long term netflix best get some of their own good series to bring in some cash.

I'll still hang in there with Kodi.... i can actually lose Prime and not lose much that cannot be recovered on Kodi.
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
This is a simple matter of short-sighted greed. Studios hate the idea of giving anyone a cut, so they try to start their own streaming networks. This works great as long as you have enough popular content to convince people to shell out for YOUR monthly fee over someone else's. The trick, as we have noticed, is that this adds up fast. Pretty soon it makes cable look attractive, and it's essentially the same problem news is having. No one can afford subscriptions to every news source.

So, if you have diverse interests, you should subscribe at the end of a season, binge watch, and cancel, which, in the long term, is probably more of a haircut than paying Netflix a percentage to host the content.

However, as we noted with the whole VCR debate (and many others) these people are so freaking stupid they shouldn't be allowed to run a lemonade stand without adult supervision.
... What vcr debate? Was that before my time?
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
Betonhaus posted:
... What vcr debate? Was that before my time?


Jack Valenti:
The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone.


This was during the time when the MPAA was trying to get VCRs banned for copyright infringement. Fortunately, the SCOTUS at the time realized how freaking retarded they were, did NOT ban VCRs, and the studios enjoyed massive profits from selling movies on tape, eventually even sending some titles "direct to VHS"
ukimalefu Rebel? resistance? why not both?
User avatar
maurvir posted:
Betonhaus posted:
... What vcr debate? Was that before my time?


Jack Valenti:
The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone.


This was during the time when the MPAA was trying to get VCRs banned for copyright infringement. Fortunately, the SCOTUS at the time realized how freaking retarded they were, did NOT ban VCRs, and the studios enjoyed massive profits from selling movies on tape, eventually even sending some titles "direct to VHS"


video killed the radio star

Oh, and publishers of sheet music protested when the radio came out.
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
ukimalefu posted:
maurvir posted:
Betonhaus posted:
... What vcr debate? Was that before my time?


Jack Valenti:
The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone.


This was during the time when the MPAA was trying to get VCRs banned for copyright infringement. Fortunately, the SCOTUS at the time realized how freaking retarded they were, did NOT ban VCRs, and the studios enjoyed massive profits from selling movies on tape, eventually even sending some titles "direct to VHS"


video killed the radio star

Oh, and publishers of sheet music protested when the radio came out.


Technology has certainly challenged the notion of copyright, but in almost every case, the copyright maximilists have gotten it wrong. Insanely wrong. That said, there is an argument to be made that something was lost along the way.

This all got started with the very first automated music playing technology - the player piano. (actual analog recordings were no threat to musicians) Before player pianos, the only way to hear music was to attend a live performance. These new machines, on the other hand, allowed (almost ironically) digital reproduction of music and it caused a massive stink. (It's also where the concept of mechanical royalties came from). However, it also meant that you could hear music in vastly more places, and soon a lot of money was made selling rolls of music for them.

However, what really amazes me, is that the recording studios could have pre-empted Napster (and the later loss of control to Apple) had they learned their lessons from history. Had they created iTunes before Apple, made it reasonable and charged reasonable prices, Napster likely would have never taken off. Remember, people still paid for music back then.

Instead, they insisted on resisting digital media at first, then insisted on asinine DRM schemes doomed to failure, creating an opportunity for the pirates to offer a superior product with a vastly superior distribution system. Given all that, and a price of free, it's no surprise what happened.

As I said, these people are too stupid to run a lemonade stand without adult supervision.
maurvir posted:
[snip]
However, what really amazes me, is that the recording studios could have pre-empted Napster (and the later loss of control to Apple) had they learned their lessons from history.
[snip, bold added]

:lol: Image :lol:

You funny.
TOS
User avatar
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
Is the risk associated with eMule similar to torrents or is there some secret sauce that makes eMule safer?
Personally I am inclined to get back into Usenet again.
I have been poking around and Usenet is still the place the various pirate clans post their rips for larger distribution and there is absolutely zero risk associated with downloading unlike with torrents.
fiddlesticks the studios, there is always a way around them.
I'm not in a hurry, so I use eMule.

I have had a torrent blocked so I don't use it but eMule has shown no signs of interference.
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
Ribtor posted:
I'm not in a hurry, so I use eMule.

I have had a torrent blocked so I don't use it but eMule has shown no signs of interference.

You are not in the USA, correct?
Pariah posted:
Ribtor posted:
I'm not in a hurry, so I use eMule.

I have had a torrent blocked so I don't use it but eMule has shown no signs of interference.

You are not in the USA, correct?


Correct.
ukimalefu Rebel? resistance? why not both?
User avatar
now anybody can make their own "netflix" server and their friends can stream from it

https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/23/2069 ... aming-wars
ukimalefu Rebel? resistance? why not both?
User avatar
Subsequent topic  /  Preceding topic
Post Reply

Miss your Cable TV Packages yet?