Just Curious - What streaming service(s) do you pay for and why?

[wtburnette]

Just came across this article on yahoo finance talking about this very issue...

Americans are canceling more streaming plans as prices balloon

As the golden age of streaming seemingly comes to an end, subscribers are cancelling plans to combat rising costs.

finance.yahoo.com

There's a chart near the bottom that shows full-freight (non-special/trial) pricing for 9 of the most popular services (netflix, amazon, disney, apple, hulu, hbomax, discovery, paramount, and peacock). The ad-supported price for all 9 totals $66/mo. Not unreasonable compared to cable (yet). To get them all ad-free you'd be looking at $115/mo though. No thanks!

Not to mention all of them are mostly Leftist garbage, with the occasional gem. I've decided to not subscribe to any but the ones I get free/with other things and to occasionally subscribe for a month to consume content and then cancel again. Paying services all year when I only watch a few things on those platforms is just stupid.

 

[Ingomike]

I have to believe that's where we're headed. The media companies lost their golden goose (cable) and will eventually push to get it back. If they can consolidate streaming down to a few choices to eliminate consumer options and raise prices, they will. They'll get the prices to the point where you have to choose between cable or streaming, but the price will be similar no matter which you choose. The golden days of cheap streaming are coming to an end.

Actually, for most folks the cable model was a better option. I have been interested in this issue for thirty years, began as a proponent of buying only the channels we wanted. However reading the writings of sound economists taught me that the only pay for the channels you want would cost more, and they are being proven right.

Cable had three main types of channels, the channels the cable company paid to broadcast, ESPN for example, free channels to the cable company they can broadcast, any station that only got money from commercials, and channels that pay the cable companies, like shopping channels.

The shopping channels subsidize the pay channels the free ones boost selection. Grandma has cable and watches cat tricks on a free channel she subsidizes ESPN for sports fans but all those sports fans are subsidizing the very network that carries the programming, without which the cat tricks network would never see a screen.

With the bundled cable model we all had more choices at a lower cost per channel. Some, like me, have our strategy to save significant money but that requires discipline and diligence an 80 year old will likely never do that, even 60’s friends lament they do not know how to stream shows.

 

[wtburnette]

Actually, for most folks the cable model was a better option. I have been interested in this issue for thirty years, began as a proponent of buying only the channels we wanted. However reading the writings of sound economists taught me that the only pay for the channels you want would cost more, and they are being proven right.

Cable had three main types of channels, the channels the cable company paid to broadcast, ESPN for example, free channels to the cable company they can broadcast, any station that only got money from commercials, and channels that pay the cable companies, like shopping channels.

The shopping channels subsidize the pay channels the free ones boost selection. Grandma has cable and watches cat tricks on a free channel she subsidizes ESPN for sports fans but all those sports fans are subsidizing the very network that carries the programming, without which the cat tricks network would never see a screen.

With the bundled cable model we all had more choices at a lower cost per channel. Some, like me, have our strategy to save significant money but that requires discipline and diligence an 80 year old will likely never do that, even 60’s friends lament they do not know how to stream shows.

The biggest problem with cable, IMO was how they priced it. Why should I have to call every 6 months to a year to find "special savings"? Why am I paying one price and my neighbor another? The price should be the price, no matter what. I can understand limited time special pricing for new customers, but other than that each bundle should have a set price and that should be it. The price I paid was always dependent upon the rep I talked to, which was ridiculous.

 

[Ingomike]

The biggest problem with cable, IMO was how they priced it. Why should I have to call every 6 months to a year to find "special savings"? Why am I paying one price and my neighbor another? The price should be the price, no matter what. I can understand limited time special pricing for new customers, but other than that each bundle should have a set price and that should be it. The price I paid was always dependent upon the rep I talked to, which was ridiculous.

In general business I would disagree but in a monopoly situation I agree. I hate that vehicle sales are pretty much set nowadays as I can negotiate but others here have indicated they do not like or are lousy negotiators…

 

[wtburnette]

In general business I would disagree but in a monopoly situation I agree. I hate that vehicle sales are pretty much set nowadays as I can negotiate but others here have indicated they do not like or are lousy negotiators…

Auto dealers, another place for absolutely stupid sales hijinks. This isn't a third world country that has haggling. I don't go into Kroger and negotiate the price of my groceries and shouldn't have to for my cable or vehicles either.

 

[Ingomike]

Auto dealers, another place for absolutely stupid sales hijinks. This isn't a third world country that has haggling. I don't go into Kroger and negotiate the price of my groceries and shouldn't have to for my cable or vehicles either.

Freedom and capitalism require negotiation to properly function. It is a form of socialism to create a system of non-negotiation as I see it.

 

[wtburnette]

Freedom and capitalism require negotiation to properly function. It is a form of socialism to create a system of non-negotiation as I see it.

To each their own. To me, you can have set prices and the market will dictate what those prices will be. Negotiation doesn't have to be a part of that.

 

[Jsomerset]

I have hbo Max and all the hbo channels that entails which is included with my phone plan. Prime that comes with the free shipping plan. All the usual suspects free over the internet, plex, tubi, freevee, Pluto, VEVO, Filmrise,and more news channels that are one side or the other (Cronkite must be spinning like the turnstile at the whore house outside Subic Bay on the first night of shore leave) and a slew of others. Only thing I pay for is Paramount+ which has Stallone in Tulsa King, and all the cbs fare new and old like everybody loves Ramon odd couple and others. So for $60 a year I never watch anything I don’t like. My only worry is if I am missing something better than what I’m enjoying at the moment. I believe I’ve chalked up over 300 favorites on the channel favorites. Now who the heck can watch that much TV.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Just came across this article on yahoo finance talking about this very issue...

Americans are canceling more streaming plans as prices balloon

As the golden age of streaming seemingly comes to an end, subscribers are cancelling plans to combat rising costs.

finance.yahoo.com

There's a chart near the bottom that shows full-freight (non-special/trial) pricing for 9 of the most popular services (netflix, amazon, disney, apple, hulu, hbomax, discovery, paramount, and peacock). The ad-supported price for all 9 totals $66/mo. Not unreasonable compared to cable (yet). To get them all ad-free you'd be looking at $115/mo though. No thanks!

But WTF would you subscribe to 9 a a time? That's more than anyone can reasonably watch in a month.

I get some people don't want to flip services or, somehow, don't know how it's done. Ignorance and convenience always come at a higher price than savvy effort.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Freedom and capitalism require negotiation to properly function. It is a form of socialism to create a system of non-negotiation as I see it.

This. Literally impossible for capitalism to exist without negotiation. You, the consumer in a modern western culture, probably don't negotiate many retail purchases but you can guarantee that all along the supply chain negotiation occurred, from purchase of raw material to worker wages to shipment costs to wholesalers etc etc etc.

 

[Libertarian01]

One of my big issues with Cable or Frontier or whatever else service you use for "normal" television is that they bundle in crap you don't want and charge extra for the good stuff you do want.

What if there was a law passed that simply gave us, the consumer, the actual power to choose? For example, you buy the bundle that includes QVC but then tell the provider to take out QVC and oh, by the way, remove the FEE for QVC?

My opinion is that there are a LOT of niche channels that simply would not exist were it not for them being bundled in with other more popular products.

I for one do not care a whit for sports, so I would block and not pay for ESPN. Some folks like ESPN and so would keep, and pay, for it. I believe I am in the minority of demographics for men and sports. However, I believe their fear is that single women who buy for themselves or their children would lean demographically to block sports. So I think their fear is that some channels that appeal to a certain demographic simply wouldn't be supported unless shoved down all demographic groups.

In a normal free market the consumers generally set the price using supply and demand. Demand goes up, supply reduces, and thus prices increase as the supply is stretched. When the price becomes so high that most cannot afford it then the consumer faces a "want v/s need" analysis and stops buying what they truly do not need. OR, if they do need it then they find ways to stretch what they do buy. This can happen with gas. If gas becomes too high people who are truly pushed to the brink will drive less, only when necessary, or start to carpool.

But with cable services it isn't possible when all the companies follow the same pattern and force the consumer to pay for crap they don't want or need by bundling it in with channels they do want. This is a form of corporate socialism. They (the cable companies) are supporting niche channels in order to maximize profits both for themselves and the niche channel. But they are doing so at the expense of the consumer. If the consumer had the legal means of opting out of supporting such niche channels most would die OR their prices would increase in order to survive - provided there were enough people interested in paying for and keeping the channel afloat.

The problem with niche markets is just that, they address a small slice of the demographics. They need large populations to keep them in business. I've often thought about opening a store in Fort Wayne that would sell only high end niche food, such as good caviar, fine imported cheeses and such. However, I don't believe Fort Wayne has the population to pay for and support such a market. How many people are there here that would be willing to spend $250 - $1,200 / oz for high end caviar? Or be interested in seeing a thousand choices of cheese to chose from? Not enough to justify the investment. Indianapolis or larger, perhaps.

The same with cable channels. Are there really enough people interested in Home & Garden TV (HGTV) that would be willing to support it on its own? Maybe... Maybe not... So we all get stuck paying for it whether we want to or not.

Then we get PO'ed.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Ingomike]

What if there was a law passed that simply gave us, the consumer, the actual power to choose? For example, you buy the bundle that includes QVC but then tell the provider to take out QVC and oh, by the way, remove the FEE for QVC?

First off no government involvement, surprising coming from a member named “libertarian”.

Most of your points are addressed in my earlier post #42. The QVC example fails because removing it removes the money THEY PAY the cable company to be carried thereby reducing the consumers cost.

From an article on the topic:
“In many cases, these shopping channels actually pay a reverse-retransmission fee to the distributor to carry their programming.”

Cable is dying and will likely disappear in the not so far off future. Frontier cable has stopped offering cable tv to new customers, now just offers internet. They are offering subscriptions to YouTube TV. Cable as we knew it is in a death spiral hemorrhaging customers at near 20,000 A DAY. The pricing will necessarily skyrocket as fewer subscribers pay to keep the ship afloat. ESPN is soon if not already offering a stand alone streaming sports which will clobber the cable industry that already has lost over one third of their subscribers.

Economies of scale can work and gave the consumer wide variety and many options for reasonable cost, but the negatives you cite were real. It was great back in the day that no matter where we visited they had the same channels available. Now, not so much.

For thirty years I have been reading from respected economists that when the bundle was broken the consumer would actually pay more. Many I know of certainly do. If it is just a couple and they manage their subscriptions they can save but it gets hard for those with multiple children to satisfy.

This Cable TV Company Is Replacing its TV Service With YouTube TV & DIRECTV STREAM | Cord Cutters News

Recently we learned that Sparklight Cable was shutting down its traditional TV service and replacing it with its own streaming service. Now Frontier has stopped offering cable TV to new customers and instead directing them to DIRECTV STREAM or YouTube TV. The best part is Frontier internet...

cordcuttersnews.com

 

[Ingomike]

The current battle between ESPN and cable has cable telling their customers to stream it as the margins are too thin on cable TV. Had not payed much attention to this detail but it now seems obvious, they changed their names, now calling themselves communications companies not cable companies…

Disney-Charter fight could have long-term implications

www.sportsbusinessjournal.com

 

[DragonGunner]

Usually if it ain’t free we don’t bother. However I got Paramount+ for some reason for $24 for a year. Watched what I wanted and ain’t been nothing good on it since…lol. Free you tube is where I’m at most of the time.

 

[Wabatuckian]

I've had this discussion with a friend of mine and we both agreed that IF we were willing to pay for everything we wanted to watch, well, we'd go broke. So it came down to a series of choices of what to pay for and what not to.

We both pay for Amazon, for multiple reasons. So with that we get all of what is on Amazon for free. Jack Ryan and Reacher ROCK!

I also pay for BBC and Starz. I love a lot of the British police shows, especially Silent Witness. I think I've absorbed a bit of a significant cultural deviation between American law enforcement and British law enforcement cultures. I like learning through observation.

I started paying for Starz because there were two (2) series years ago that I had started but never finished. The first was Black Sails and the second was Spartacus. Now I'm enjoying Outlander, especially it's take on the American Revolution.

Once Outlander ends after next year I may well drop Starz if I don't find anything else and subscribe to another service. As of now, beyond Amazon, I'm limiting myself to two (2). Any more and where do I stop? I'd love to watch all the new and olde Star Trek stuff but NOPE! Not paying for Paramount. Not happening until I drop BBC or Starz.

She has a subscription to Amazon, Netflix, and something else. We get together now and watch The Recruit on her subscription to Netflix.

So I'm just curious as to peoples thoughts in general. Do you have a limit and if so what? And why? Or no subscriptions at all?

Regards,

Doug

Prime Video, because it's included with my Prime membership.

Netflix, because Stranger Things and Cobra Kai. Those shows are ending, though, and their newer shows suck. I might downgrade or cancel when these series end.

Paramount+, mostly because Star Trek.

 

[Wabatuckian]

Forgot to add:

HD TV Shows - TV Series - Free HD TV

Watch HD TV shows online for free.

hdtvshows.net

Back in 2014, we lived way out in the country. Internet was by way of an amplified 3g hotspot, and streaming was pretty impossible.

I found this site, and would use my parents' Internet (much closer to town and much faster) to download entire series. If there's something I want to watch and don't have a subscription to the service carrying the show, I still use this. It's much cheaper than buying individual shows off, say, Amazon.

 

[bobzilla]

We pay for amazon, which also gets us Tubi, Freevee and something else free. Paid for paramount for a couple months to watch a specific show, same with Disney+ for a short time.

 

[Ingomike]

Usually if it ain’t free we don’t bother. However I got Paramount+ for some reason for $24 for a year. Watched what I wanted and ain’t been nothing good on it since…lol. Free you tube is where I’m at most of the time.

“Free you tube” is not so free anymore. So many ads. A company that made its mark on pirated content now is a content reseller and gate keeper. For example recently heard about the band Kansas documentary, not there. Used to I could always find stuff like that there.

 

[wtburnette]

“Free you tube” is not so free anymore. So many ads. A company that made its mark on pirated content now is a Left wing content reseller and gate keeper. For example recently heard about the band Kansas documentary, not there. Used to I could always find stuff like that there.

FIFY

Of course, they always were, but it's becoming more obvious over time.

 

[Ingomike]

FIFY

Of course, they always were, but it's becoming more obvious over time.

I was alluding to the YouTube TV that basically makes them an internet based cable company not their political crap, but yep, they restrict the heck out of what can be said.