My challenges with the streaming services

[triplemultiplex]

What year, make, and model of your television?

A Samsung something-something; must be 7 years old now? I don't know model names; to me it's just brand + size = TV.

I refuse to buy "Smart" TVs because a) they're usually terrible and b) they're selling my data, including listening to what I'm saying in my living room.  So I use a Roku (also selling my data, but always the ones without audio command capabilities).  I'd rather spend more money on a "dumb" TV (yes, regular TVs are more expensive than smart TVs -- see again about selling your data) that will work reliably for 10-15 years and replace the Roku dongle for $30 every 3 years or so, than have to replace a $250 smart TV every couple of years when the TV-OS craps-out.

Not all "smart" TV's have a listening/voice-activated thing going on. "Smart" just means you can hook it up to the internet to stream stuff.  No additional hardware needed.
But yeah, obviously they're noting what we're watching.  That's valuable intel.
With Hulu canceled, I disconnected the TV from the internet.

My folks have a Roku and the remote is the most poorly designed piece of shit ever engineered.  It's like someone looked at an iPod and was like, "THAT, but worse!"  Not enough buttons.  And the buttons the remote does have are NOT intuitive.  This isn't hard, people, we figured it all out generations ago.

[HighwayStar]

What year, make, and model of your television?

A Samsung something-something; must be 7 years old now? I don't know model names; to me it's just brand + size = TV.

I refuse to buy "Smart" TVs because a) they're usually terrible and b) they're selling my data, including listening to what I'm saying in my living room.  So I use a Roku (also selling my data, but always the ones without audio command capabilities).  I'd rather spend more money on a "dumb" TV (yes, regular TVs are more expensive than smart TVs -- see again about selling your data) that will work reliably for 10-15 years and replace the Roku dongle for $30 every 3 years or so, than have to replace a $250 smart TV every couple of years when the TV-OS craps-out.

Not all "smart" TV's have a listening/voice-activated thing going on. "Smart" just means you can hook it up to the internet to stream stuff.  No additional hardware needed.
But yeah, obviously they're noting what we're watching.  That's valuable intel.
With Hulu canceled, I disconnected the TV from the internet.

My folks have a Roku and the remote is the most poorly designed piece of shit ever engineered.  It's like someone looked at an iPod and was like, "THAT, but worse!"  Not enough buttons.  And the buttons the remote does have are NOT intuitive.  This isn't hard, people, we figured it all out generations ago.

Dumb TVs are actually very affordable, the used market is swimming with them. And you can setup your own devices for providing Plex,  YouTube, and other internet content to avoid the privacy issues.
I have used Cromeboxes, old Dell Optipli, a Raspberry Pi 4, an old Thinkpad Laptop, etc. for my devices and its a great way to recycle, tinker, and secede from the system.

[ZLoth]

Well...most people somehow envision that if cable is say $50 a month and has 50 channels, than you should be able to get any one of them for $1 (or something to that effect).

Several years ago, I was a participant of a DBS board (DBS=Dish Network and DirecTV), and was, in the mid-2000s, a moderator of that same board. The fact is that per-channel subscriber fee is NOT $1 per channel, but varies wildly. While the per-channel fee may vary from provider to provider and is considered confidential information, it is well known that the most expensive channels outside of the premiums is ESPN (at $7.64 per subscriber in 2020 per https://variety.com/vip/pay-tv-true-cost-free-1234810682/) and the Regional $ports Networks. Next most expensive is TNT at $2.20 per subscriber, and only a few others are between $1-$2 per subscriber including retransmission consents for local statins. Most are, in fact, under a $1 per subscriber. But, during carriage negotiations, it is negotiated what channels get carried and at which tier. The customer ends up paying for channels they are not interested in.

The Strike
I really could care less about the strike, its Hollywood fighting Hollywood and I'm not watching the new garbage whenever they do go back to work so I don't care.

From what I can see, the studios are not in a hurry to resolve this strike. And, all I can see ahead is MAD conclusion.... mutually assured destruction.

[HighwayStar]

Several years ago, I was a participant of a DBS board (DBS=Dish Network and DirecTV), and was, in the mid-2000s, a moderator of that same board. The fact is that per-channel subscriber fee is NOT $1 per channel, but varies wildly. While the per-channel fee may vary from provider to provider and is considered confidential information, it is well known that the most expensive channels outside of the premiums is ESPN (at $7.64 per subscriber in 2020 per https://variety.com/vip/pay-tv-true-cost-free-1234810682/) and the Regional $ports Networks. Next most expensive is TNT at $2.20 per subscriber, and only a few others are between $1-$2 per subscriber including retransmission consents for local statins. Most are, in fact, under a $1 per subscriber. But, during carriage negotiations, it is negotiated what channels get carried and at which tier. The customer ends up paying for channels they are not interested in.

Oh I'm well aware that the cable company cost is not the same for each channel. But again, that is irrelevant. Prices are set by what a buyer will pay

Customers are not paying for channels they are not interested in. They are paying for the channels they are interested in and the others are just there. Here is a basic sketch of the proof

If I have a reservation price of $60 for ESPN, and a reservation price of $0 for all other channels, and I pay $50 for cable each month, I am paying $50 for ESPN, because that is my reservation price. I'm not paying for the others, I'm paying for ESPN. If they offered ESPN for a price of $50 alone, I would still buy it because my reservation price is $60. Notice nothing changes here if we remove the other channels, thus I'm not paying for them.

[vdeane]

I would not necessarily agree that the Internet was great for music. We end up seeing much the same problem in the long run. Music is increasingly pushing towards streaming only content which is supported by adds or subscriptions. That is just another format for radio and paid satellite radio. Streaming music is actually lower quality than the CDs we were buying a few years back, which gave us lifetime access to the entire album for a reasonable price. I agree that to a degree music was different, in that it went through a longer period of technological disruption where file sharing threatened the entire business model, which was less of an issue for movies and TV due to the data size of video versus audio.  But in the long run I can't say that the internet was good for music either.

I am not aware of streaming-only artists or the exclusivity crap like we see with movies/TV.  Where are you seeing that?  The only song I wanted to download on MP3 (which is DRM free, by the way) recently that Amazon wouldn't let me was Evidemment, presumably due to some international copyright issue.  For the rare song that does that (or for remixes and the like), there's YouTube, an my browser has an adblocker built in, so I've never dealt with their ads.  I'm not paying for any subscription services at all.

I don't really care about albums, however, with two exceptions - the Trans-Siberian Orchestra and Marie-Mai.

[bugo]

I had Peacock for about a month because WWE discontinued the WWE Network in the US and made it a part of Peacock. I watched all of the old WCCW programs I wanted to, then I let the subscription lapse. It seems that the old WWE Network had a lot more material on it than the WWE section of Peacock does. Since the WWE owns so many tape libraries plus their own tape library, I think they should put (virtually) everything in the vaults on there. There are some things that obviously couldn't be added like Mohammed Hassan's "terrorist attack" on the Undertaker and the death of Owen Hart, but 99% of their library should be available. I'd subscribe to Peacock permanently if they added all of the old WWF programming plus WCW, AWA, WCCW, UWF and the rest of the tape libraries.

[Scott5114]

The problem with that is that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay. Let me repeat that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay.

So since I'm only willing to pay $0.00 for it, they'll give it to me for free?

[bugo]

The entertainment industry history is filled with things that were entertaining.  And unprofitable.  It seems, IMHO, that the markets are coming to realize that non-linear general streaming is just not something that can make a profit.  This is compounded by the fact that, unlike most every other consumer product in history, streaming has almost no equipment costs or rollout costs at all.  No one is waiting on streaming to come to their town.  If you want it, you have it.  Unlike waiting on the store to get more DirecTV boxes, or them to build a Blockbuster in your town, or your city to get a fourth TV station, or so on.  If you want streaming, you have it.  And the number of people willing to pay for any one streaming service, save only Netflix, is LESS than what it costs to make its content. 

But a lot of Americans are still waiting for broadband internet to come to their homes. My family lives in a rural area, and the only kind of internet that is available out there except for dial up is satellite internet, and it's slow and unreliable. It's fast enough in good conditions that they can stream as long as they're not downloading a bunch of other stuff, but sometimes it goes out when it rains. They live in a valley, and cell phone service is extremely poor. You can get a signal with AT&T and Verizon if you put the phone in a certain place and prop it up a certain way, but it is only useful as a hot spot. T-Mobile and Sprint don't work out there at all. Some of us forget that not everybody has access to fast, reliable internet, and may not for years.

[bugo]

I also get tired of the predictions about linear TV's supposed coming death.  As stated, EVERYONE who does not want linear TV had dumped it already.  That leaves about 60% of the populace still paying for linear TV, via cable, via DirecTV or DISH, or via internet such as YouTubeTV or DirecTV Stream.  Still MEGA profitable (unlike non-linear streaming).  It will be around for decades to come.

The average age of cable subscribers is increasing, and they're going to start dying off in a few years. Baby boomers tend to be afraid and mistrusting of modern technology, so they avoid it whenever they can. You don't have to click a mouse 20 times to watch what you want to, you just push a button and it comes up. Cable TV boxes are far simpler to use than streaming services. and a lot of the non-technically savvy stick with it because it's what they know. Members of generation X are generally much more comfortable with using computers because we were the first generation to grow up with them in our homes, and using them has always felt natural and familiar with us. Millennials and whatever they're calling the kids these days also grew up around technology, so it is natural to them. I don't think cable TV is going to go away anytime soon, but I think it will continue to decline. It does have the advantage of being in real time and you don't have to deal with buffering, which is terribly annoying, and it's more reliable.

[bugo]

YES! Another physical media lover! My entire library which consists mostly of BluRays plus a handful of DVDs and 4Ks. While my entire collection has been "ripped" and placed on my Plex media server for personal streaming use, I still prefer to collect the physical disc rather than have a title that goes poof-it's gone. It's bad enough that a major chunk of early film history is gone forever partially because of the silver nitrate film, partially because the format was considered "disposable". Hopefully, I will be able to fulfil a 20+ year dream of finally having my own home theater in a few years.

Not to mention the reuse of expensive video tape and the lack of kinescope recordings for many shows from the 1950s.

[Rothman]

I also get tired of the predictions about linear TV's supposed coming death.  As stated, EVERYONE who does not want linear TV had dumped it already.  That leaves about 60% of the populace still paying for linear TV, via cable, via DirecTV or DISH, or via internet such as YouTubeTV or DirecTV Stream.  Still MEGA profitable (unlike non-linear streaming).  It will be around for decades to come.

The average age of cable subscribers is increasing, and they're going to start dying off in a few years. Baby boomers tend to be afraid and mistrusting of modern technology, so they avoid it whenever they can. You don't have to click a mouse 20 times to watch what you want to, you just push a button and it comes up. Cable TV boxes are far simpler to use than streaming services. and a lot of the non-technically savvy stick with it because it's what they know. Members of generation X are generally much more comfortable with using computers because we were the first generation to grow up with them in our homes, and using them has always felt natural and familiar with us. Millennials and whatever they're calling the kids these days also grew up around technology, so it is natural to them. I don't think cable TV is going to go away anytime soon, but I think it will continue to decline. It does have the advantage of being in real time and you don't have to deal with buffering, which is terribly annoying, and it's more reliable.

Millennials are in their 40s...

What's interesting is the very youngest generations, Gen Z and Gen Alpha, are not good at figuring technology out when things go awry.  The older generations had to deal with less reliable technology and having to really dig into programming in order to get computers to do what they wanted, whereas the kids nowadays are the "sticky tablet" generation: Point and tap.  They aren't used to messing around with registries and drivers.

[HighwayStar]

I would not necessarily agree that the Internet was great for music. We end up seeing much the same problem in the long run. Music is increasingly pushing towards streaming only content which is supported by adds or subscriptions. That is just another format for radio and paid satellite radio. Streaming music is actually lower quality than the CDs we were buying a few years back, which gave us lifetime access to the entire album for a reasonable price. I agree that to a degree music was different, in that it went through a longer period of technological disruption where file sharing threatened the entire business model, which was less of an issue for movies and TV due to the data size of video versus audio.  But in the long run I can't say that the internet was good for music either.

I am not aware of streaming-only artists or the exclusivity crap like we see with movies/TV.  Where are you seeing that?  The only song I wanted to download on MP3 (which is DRM free, by the way) recently that Amazon wouldn't let me was Evidemment, presumably due to some international copyright issue.  For the rare song that does that (or for remixes and the like), there's YouTube, an my browser has an adblocker built in, so I've never dealt with their ads.  I'm not paying for any subscription services at all.

I don't really care about albums, however, with two exceptions - the Trans-Siberian Orchestra and Marie-Mai.

Its not that they have out and out eliminated it yet, but compared to the days when everything was on CD there are far fewer people getting DRM free downloads or physical media these days. The trend is very clearly headed towards forcing people onto streaming.

[HighwayStar]

The problem with that is that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay. Let me repeat that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay.

So since I'm only willing to pay $0.00 for it, they'll give it to me for free?

No, if your reservation price is $0, then you do not consume, and hence you are not a buyer.
The point of saying that prices are set buy what a buyer will pay is to make clear that costs do not determine price except to set a floor under it. It does not say everyone pays what they want, it says that the market clearing price will rise to what a buyer will pay (though for this to be a long term equilibrium that must be in excess of the total cost to supply). That buyer can be any buyer, and includes people that outbid you.

[HighwayStar]

The entertainment industry history is filled with things that were entertaining.  And unprofitable.  It seems, IMHO, that the markets are coming to realize that non-linear general streaming is just not something that can make a profit.  This is compounded by the fact that, unlike most every other consumer product in history, streaming has almost no equipment costs or rollout costs at all.  No one is waiting on streaming to come to their town.  If you want it, you have it.  Unlike waiting on the store to get more DirecTV boxes, or them to build a Blockbuster in your town, or your city to get a fourth TV station, or so on.  If you want streaming, you have it.  And the number of people willing to pay for any one streaming service, save only Netflix, is LESS than what it costs to make its content. 

But a lot of Americans are still waiting for broadband internet to come to their homes. My family lives in a rural area, and the only kind of internet that is available out there except for dial up is satellite internet, and it's slow and unreliable. It's fast enough in good conditions that they can stream as long as they're not downloading a bunch of other stuff, but sometimes it goes out when it rains. They live in a valley, and cell phone service is extremely poor. You can get a signal with AT&T and Verizon if you put the phone in a certain place and prop it up a certain way, but it is only useful as a hot spot. T-Mobile and Sprint don't work out there at all. Some of us forget that not everybody has access to fast, reliable internet, and may not for years.

Actually few Americans are waiting for that. This is a recent headline from the ITIF

The majority of Americans can access speeds above the FCC's baseline; in 2019, 92 percent of the U.S. population had access to fixed broadband at 100/10. In 2020, 25 percent had access to highly superfluous gigabit speeds, on par with South Korea.

[bugo]

Actually few Americans are waiting for that. This is a recent headline from the ITIF
The majority of Americans can access speeds above the FCC's baseline; in 2019, 92 percent of the U.S. population had access to fixed broadband at 100/10. In 2020, 25 percent had access to highly superfluous gigabit speeds, on par with South Korea.

That's 8% that don't have access. A significant number, especially when you take into consideration that some of these places have no plans to extend broadband to rural areas. Satellite sucks, and most work at home jobs will not allow you to work if that's all you have.

[Ted$8roadFan]

For those (like me) who are torn between cable and streaming:

https://www.broadbandsearch.net/blog/should-you-cut-cord-stick-with-cable

[hotdogPi]

I don't watch TV or movies, but my music collection is almost entirely CD, either given to me handed down (since you don't need them anymore if you've already downloaded them digitally) or bought for used CD prices (typically $5 or less, most commonly $2). I have about 9 1/2 days of music. One disadvantage, however, is that it takes up 28 GB, and for those doing DVDs it would be a lot more because it's video rather than audio. I still prefer CDs over buying digitally, and I don't stream at all. (Of note is that I haven't lost any data since I got my first computer on Christmas 2010, even transferring between computers three times.)

[bugo]

I have 225 GB of music on my hard drive.

[Rothman]

Actually few Americans are waiting for that. This is a recent headline from the ITIF
The majority of Americans can access speeds above the FCC's baseline; in 2019, 92 percent of the U.S. population had access to fixed broadband at 100/10. In 2020, 25 percent had access to highly superfluous gigabit speeds, on par with South Korea.

That's 8% that don't have access. A significant number, especially when you take into consideration that some of these places have no plans to extend broadband to rural areas. Satellite sucks, and most work at home jobs will not allow you to work if that's all you have.

Then move out of the boondocks and into civilization, if it means that much to you.

"I want to live in the country where I can get away from it all...Wait, I didn't mean that..."

[1995hoo]

One thing I've heard some people complain about with regard to streaming services is that it takes longer to start things up when you want to watch TV. Instead of turning it on and then going to the channel you want, you have to turn on the TV, open the appropriate app, wait for it to load, tune to the appropriate network or program, etc. I can understand why some people find that annoying when all you want to do is, say, turn on the 11:00 news while you're getting ready for bed.

The complaint I don't understand is from people who complain that the "cable replacement" services don't necessarily have channel numbers (YouTube TV doesn't, for example). There's a practical reason for that–those services are trying to be platform-agnostic so that they'll work regardless of your device and its remote control, and some of the most popular streaming devices (Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV Stick or Cube, Roku boxes) have remote controls that don't have numbers for typing in channel numbers. Channel numbers are arbitrary anyway for the most part–different cable/satellite/fiber optic providers assign different numbers to the same TV station. If you change from cable to satellite, for example, you'll probably get all new channel numbers anyway (I remember when I had cable TV, our regional sports network, the one now known as NBC Sports Washington, was Channel 86, then when I switched to DirecTV it was Channel 642), so what difference does it make just to drop all the channel numbers? YouTube TV, at a minimum, lets you rearrange the program guide to put the stations you watch the most at the top of the guide for easier access so as to reduce the amount of scrolling you do.

[abefroman329]

One thing I've heard some people complain about with regard to streaming services is that it takes longer to start things up when you want to watch TV. Instead of turning it on and then going to the channel you want, you have to turn on the TV, open the appropriate app, wait for it to load, tune to the appropriate network or program, etc. I can understand why some people find that annoying when all you want to do is, say, turn on the 11:00 news while you're getting ready for bed.

I do miss having the ability to channel-surf.  Before I cut the cord altogether, I had a cable package that just included the local OTA channels, but being able to flip through those few channels was enough.  Sometimes I just want to watch something for a few minutes and I don't want to have to think about what I want to watch, or figure out where I need to go to stream it, etc.

And I hoped I'd get a similar experience from Pluto, but, alas.

[JREwing78]

Here's my situation:
- Good, high-speed internet
- Marginal at best OTA TV reception (I'm in-between two medium-size TV markets and just outside two large TV markets)
- It's only me (no wife or kids to entertain)
- A lot of time to watch/listen in background while working, driving, or relaxing

For TV, I subscribe to YouTube TV. Compared to the cable TV packages available, it's a good deal and works well. But the price has more than doubled ($35 -> $75) since I started using it, and the vast majority of the changes they've made don't benefit me much. I'm contemplating dumping it for a cheaper service that gets me ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX, or just losing OTA TV altogether, but I haven't pulled the trigger yet. Again, OTA is not an option for me. ATSC 3.0 (when it gets to my area) may solve my OTA reception problem.

I have a paid ad-free YouTube subscription that I use the hell out of. Easily the best $10/month I spend on entertainment.

I have a paid subscription to Motor Trend On-Demand. I have certain shows there I watch religiously. For $7/mo it's worth it to me.

I have Amazon Prime; that doesn't get used that heavily for TV or other entertainment. Also, frankly, not sure it's worth it for the other Prime perks. Considering dropping.

I have Tidal Hi-Fi Plus, which for $20/month gets me access to CD and better quality music streaming. I do this in lieu of buying physical media because of the breadth of its back catalog and constant access to new music (though I'll still buy CDs from select artists). It works well and I have no complaints. Definitely a better deal than Spotify or a SiriusXM subcription.

I listen to a lot of podcasts, and have a couple of paid podcast subscriptions interspersed with mostly free podcasts and a small yearly fee for the podcatcher software (Pocket Casts Plus).

[Rothman]

One thing I've heard some people complain about with regard to streaming services is that it takes longer to start things up when you want to watch TV. Instead of turning it on and then going to the channel you want, you have to turn on the TV, open the appropriate app, wait for it to load, tune to the appropriate network or program, etc. I can understand why some people find that annoying when all you want to do is, say, turn on the 11:00 news while you're getting ready for bed.

I do miss having the ability to channel-surf.  Before I cut the cord altogether, I had a cable package that just included the local OTA channels, but being able to flip through those few channels was enough.  Sometimes I just want to watch something for a few minutes and I don't want to have to think about what I want to watch, or figure out where I need to go to stream it, etc.

And I hoped I'd get a similar experience from Pluto, but, alas.

If you miss channel surfing, TikTok is for you.  Same thing.

[abefroman329]

One thing I've heard some people complain about with regard to streaming services is that it takes longer to start things up when you want to watch TV. Instead of turning it on and then going to the channel you want, you have to turn on the TV, open the appropriate app, wait for it to load, tune to the appropriate network or program, etc. I can understand why some people find that annoying when all you want to do is, say, turn on the 11:00 news while you're getting ready for bed.

I do miss having the ability to channel-surf.  Before I cut the cord altogether, I had a cable package that just included the local OTA channels, but being able to flip through those few channels was enough.  Sometimes I just want to watch something for a few minutes and I don't want to have to think about what I want to watch, or figure out where I need to go to stream it, etc.

And I hoped I'd get a similar experience from Pluto, but, alas.

If you miss channel surfing, TikTok is for you.  Same thing.

TikTok is most certainly not for me.

[JoePCool14]

Streaming services definitely have gotten ridiculous over the years. I've never cared a huge amount for network TV. In terms of video-streaming services, I'm subscribed to only two: YouTube Premium and F1 TV. My YouTube Premium money is incredibly well worth it, considering how much I watch. F1 TV is great because I love watching F1 and it makes it easy-peasy. It will be a sad day if a future TV contract rids us Americans of this service.

As for music, I subscribe to Apple Music, which works well. But I'd like to get more into actually buying CDs, and other physical media in general. I'm not a big fan of the "you'll own nothing and be happy" model taking over. Music is probably the easiest service to subscribe to, since it's nice to just pop up a 3 minute song and have it immediately. But if I really wanted to do that for a gimmick or joke, I'd just use YouTube which I already have ad-free on. I've already been a big proponent of buying physical video games, but video games are much more difficult to deal with due to frequent updates.