Cord cutting, inflation, and streaming with advertisements

[GunsMadeAmericaFree]

I just saw that Disney is increasing the cost of ESPN+ by 43%. Since I'm not a sports fan, that doesn't affect me, but it's yet another regular cost that is going way up for a lot of people.

I also read that both Netflix and Disney are going to offer lower cost options with advertisements.

It's curious to me, because we already have free broadcast TV with ads. We get something like 50 channels and sub channels using our free over the air Winegard antenna and a Channel Master amplifier - even pulling in a low power station that calls itself WKRP from about 55 miles away.

I guess what I find myself thinking about is this: why in the world would people pay a monthly fee for TV with ads, when TV with ads is already available for free? Why wouldn't folks expect such an offering to be free, as it is with Pluto TV, Roku TV, etc?
I'm thinking this is in response to how many folks sign up for "HULU with ads" every December for $12 a year. It isn't free, but it's close, and I'm guessing Disney makes an awful lot of money off of all of those advertisements.

What do you think, should TV with ads be free, or not?

 

[nakedfrog]

I guess what I find myself thinking about is this: why in the world would people pay a monthly fee for TV with ads, when TV with ads is already available for free?

Content.
The free OTA content is not the same as the paid online content. Based on your logic, why would people have paid for cable TV for the past few decades? It mostly has commercials as well.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I wish people would just exercise some fucking self control and walk away from crap like this when it happens, but the tragedy of the commons is real (not entirely accurate in this context but you'll know what I mean). Collective action on the part of consumers seems like more and more of a pipe dream everyday.

What I think about the price structure of any "luxury" good in a capitalist society doesn't really mean dick.

Either I pay for it and partake, or I don't and I don't.

Cable was supposed to be an ad free pay for service. Hulu has been a paid with ads service for ages and it seems to be doing fine. If consumers are willing to get on their knees mouth open for the double dip, why shouldn't companies get in every inch they can?

 

[GunsMadeAmericaFree]

>The free OTA content is not the same as the paid online content. Based on your logic, why would people have paid for cable TV for the past few decades? It mostly has commercials >as well.

Eventually it is pretty close. Over time, movies that were originally only showing in the movie theater, on pay per view or disk are shown on broadcast TV, with commercials. All you have to do is be patient. Shows that were only on cable tv, or were only shown during prime time show up on those sub channels (5.1, 5.2, 5.3, etc.) at various times of day or night with commercials. I've even seen things like Farscape, which was originally on the Sci-Fi channel, now free on broadcast TV - you guessed it, with commercials.

 

[brianmanahan]

ads made america free

 

[WilliamM2]

I dropped Netflix partially because of the constant price hikes, but mostly because they no longer get the rights to any decent programming. So there isn't much worth paying for.

I get about 30 OTA channles here. On windy days my TV reception can be poor for some of my favorites. So I'd sign back up with commercials, for say $1.99 a month, just for those days.

Otherwise? Forget it.

 

[balloonshark]

I live in a valley about 1 hour away from the closest tv station. Plus I live in an apt. so no big antenna for me plus the mountians would block the signal. I'm maxxed out on my digital streaming budget with netflix, hbo max (discount rate), Prime video (discount rate) and hulu (discount $1 month rate). I also added 3 channels to prime during prime day at $1 month for 2 months. I also share these services with a family member but I pay the bill. She watches hulu and mostly netflix. I like movies and can't stand commercials so I use the other services. If I want to watch sports I have to do it illegally.

 

[nakedfrog]

>The free OTA content is not the same as the paid online content. Based on your logic, why would people have paid for cable TV for the past few decades? It mostly has commercials >as well.

Eventually it is pretty close. Over time, movies that were originally only showing in the movie theater, on pay per view or disk are shown on broadcast TV, with commercials. All you have to do is be patient. Shows that were only on cable tv, or were only shown during prime time show up on those sub channels (5.1, 5.2, 5.3, etc.) at various times of day or night with commercials. I've even seen things like Farscape, which was originally on the Sci-Fi channel, now free on broadcast TV - you guessed it, with commercials.

Can you provide any examples of content exclusive to a streaming provider going to free OTA channels?

 

[Scarpozzi]

I used to have DirecTV and paid $108 for 4 genie receiver dvrs/month. I had cancelled internet because my mobile hotspot was enough for Web browsing....covid gave me reason to get internet at home for office and kids homeschooling.

When I pulled DTV out, I plugged an outdoor antenna into the splitter so it went to all TVs.

We get Hulu for free through a cellphone plan and subscribe to Amazon Prime.....many other apps like Tubi.

We pay for Netflix and annual subscriptions of Discovery+.

We're still cheaper than DTV.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

When I first got Dish TV in the mid 90s shortly after they went live, I was more than mildly annoyed that I was still seeing ads after I'd paid a few hundred for the equipment and monthly rate.

I came to realize there must be substantial cost involved to throw moving pictures up above the clouds and bring them back down to the little box in my house.

(And if you get that reference, I'll be highly surprised!!)

 

[KMFJD]

Can't stand commercials, other than sports, the last time there was anything i wanted to watch on ota/major networks was Lost

Netflix i only get subscription for a month to binge on a show i watch, i'll watch Prime whenever amazon gives me a free month, i do pay a subscription for F1 (no commercials) and another one for NFL , for football i'll set a timer for a minute 50 seconds and switch the channel to redzone until the timer is up then go back to my game...

 

[Scarpozzi]

My biggest gripe is that many OTA antennas are cheap and don't work well. I live in a place that I can pick up NBC....but if I want CBS, I need to change the direction of my antenna entirely. I ended up getting an omnidirectional, but it still isn't 100%. In the old days, you had fuzzy reception..... These days, you totally lose picture when the signals weak.

They need more signal repeaters I suppose. I just hope someone along the way doesn't decide that OTA broadcast should become obsolete (distant future). It's about access and being available even when internet is not.

 

[snoopy7548]

I think free access to TV is a basic human need, so yes it should be free.

 

[Red Squirrel]

IMO there should be a very cheap cable package like $10/mo which would include all the base channels and local stuff and it should be free with ads. This would be a super no frills package, like if you need support you would actually have to pay for the service call. But the trade off is you're paying next to nothing for the service. If you want ad free and free support you would then get higher tier packages. From a technical standpoint easiest way to do this would be to have duplicate channels that have no ads so when you get the higher end channel they would just swap them in your account.

I guess the issue is each respectful channel programs commercials in themselves so it would require a lot of coordination to basically have 2 versions of their broadcast. For static content like TV episodes it would be pretty easy to do since everything is just pre done anyway but for things that are live like news, sports etc it would be trickier.

 

[Captante]

Other folks can do whatever they want... I for one refuse to pay AND watch commercials. Pick one.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

^^^ And more commercials than programming.

And nothing but 'infomercials' all night long ... the same one on 8 or 10 channels at the same time.

That's why I turned it all off.

 

[sdifox]

My biggest gripe is that many OTA antennas are cheap and don't work well. I live in a place that I can pick up NBC....but if I want CBS, I need to change the direction of my antenna entirely. I ended up getting an omnidirectional, but it still isn't 100%. In the old days, you had fuzzy reception..... These days, you totally lose picture when the signals weak.

They need more signal repeaters I suppose. I just hope someone along the way doesn't decide that OTA broadcast should become obsolete (distant future). It's about access and being available even when internet is not.

Antenna web can tell you how to point your antenna.

Something like this ought to do
https://www.amazon.ca/Focus-Antenna...IQFnoECA4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0MqAaaIW9k2ZXExkmd1aKX[/URL]

 

[Red Squirrel]

Come to think of it, it would be cool to see more OTA TV channels. We used to get 3 channels back when it was analog, then when they switched to digital we got one. They recently shut down the tower so we have none now. Suppose with a tower and a high gain antenna I could maybe pickup something though. I was only doing a long wire antenna and it was not even tuned or anything.

Wonder what is involve din running an OTA station actually, it would be kind of fun to set something like that up. I imagine it's super expensive though. Licensing fees for content etc.

 

[Spacehead]

Yeah, i refuse to pay for a satellite TV service since it still has comercials. All i use is OTA so i get that there will be (a lot of) commercials but yeah, it's free. I'll be damned if i'm going to pay to see commercials. Lucky for me they've added all these subchannels to show old shows as i watch those more than network stuff. Right now i'm waiting for Star Trek TNG to come on at 9

I've also been buying up cheap DVD/Blueray for my movie watching and some older TV series.

If/when i get internet fast enough to stream anything i'll probably look into something then.

 

[GunsMadeAmericaFree]

I dropped Netflix partially because of the constant price hikes, but mostly because they no longer get the rights to any decent programming. So there isn't much worth paying for.

I get about 30 OTA channles here. On windy days my TV reception can be poor for some of my favorites. So I'd sign back up with commercials, for say $1.99 a month, just for those days.

Otherwise? Forget it.

 

[GunsMadeAmericaFree]

My parents dropped Netflix for the same reason - they didn't get the great movies any more. I'm temporarily subscribing to commercial free Discovery+ until my oldest son and I finish off 1 season of Gold Rush. I presently have Disney+ through October (got a free year), but think I'll let it lapse. A friend shares his Hulu with commercials that he gets for about $12 a year. I also got a special of a year of AMC+. So far, I've noticed that the more services you have, the less you use each one of them. In other words, the less you seem to get your money's worth. It's definitely starting to look like the best strategy would probably be to get one service for a month or two, binge watch stuff on there, then wait another 2-3 months, and get different service for a month or two.

 

[KLin]

rarbg is free for all!

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I don't do ads. When anything references a commercial, I make confused unga bunga noises.

On ESPN+: I know nothing about it. Did they show the 4th of July Hot Dog eating contest? Because folks evidently lost their collective shit, because ESPN was showing Wimbledon instead.

 

[Shmee]

I don't do ads either. I run ublock origin, on both computers and on my phone. I don't watch much actual TV or even streaming.

 

[JM Aggie08]

I like sports, so we use FuboTV.

As far as other content... we won't discuss that...