USA distribution -CBS All Access discussion

[Krandor]

Disney is pretty much the only sole company that could probably thrive with it's own network, as they own ABC, ESPN, Disney XD, and more.

Yep and they just announced they are entering the streaming marketplace in 2019.

Just like with Discovery and CBSAA, I firmly expect that one of the first original shows on Disney streaming will be something from Star Wars and probably a marvel show too.

 

[Albinator]

Yep and they just announced they are entering the streaming marketplace in 2019.

Just like with Discovery and CBSAA, I firmly expect that one of the first original shows on Disney streaming will be something from Star Wars and probably a marvel show too.

I think because Marvel already has their own original content on Netflix, it's more likely to be Star Wars. I also think there's a fair chance something like Tron or even Frozen, Cars, or Wall-E gets a series at launch.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

I also think there's a fair chance something like Tron or even Frozen, Cars, or Wall-E gets a series at launch.

They could bring back Tron Uprising!

 

[PixelMagic]

... I wouldn't be surprised if more Star Trek TV series will be greenlit to fill the 35+ weeks Discovery isn't on.

There are always possibilities.

 

[milo bloom]

The one thing I'll never understand is people complaining about paying $6 to watch one show.

For decades cable TV was charging over $100 for service that included tons of channels most people didn't want or ask for. When I had cable I had to pay the price for a bigger package just so I could get Sci-Fi. Some people had to pay for Showtime and Cinemax just so they could get HBO. Others had to pay for sports packages that included 30 extra channels just so they could watch the one channel that carried their favorite team's games.

And in those cases we're talking about $100 or more a month! Sometimes close to $200! As a teen I can think of maybe FIVE channels my family watched regularly on cable (Discovery, Sci-Fi, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, and the regional sports network)... yet to get them we had to pay nearly $150 a month and wound up with 200 channels we never watched.

Now we're in an age where we can pick and choose: $10 for Netflix, $10 for Hulu, $10 for Amazon, and now $6 for CBS. And you can watch the shows whenever you want, over and over, you can choose which episodes to watch, view old shows, movies, etc.

I don't get the complaint.

That's just it. For years now people like my wife and I having been ditching cable TV because we were tired of paying so much for so little that we actually watched. We *literally* never watched ESPN. Yet every cable package crams it in there. We cut the cord about 9 years ago. We have a sizable DVD collection to watch, and we have subscriptions to Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime (and we'll occasionally buy things through iTunes). It's one thing to have streaming "networks" that cover a wide range of material, but these specific ones that we're seeing now (like the Disney one) are pure greed, and as a consumer it's where I draw the line.

There is no need to launch competing streaming services. I won't be buying the Disney one, and we will not be watching Discovery on the CBS one.

 

[Vger23]

There are always possibilities.

Wonderful...more $hit for people to go batcrap crazy about.

 

[Albinator]

That's just it. For years now people like my wife and I having been ditching cable TV because we were tired of paying so much for so little that we actually watched. We *literally* never watched ESPN. Yet every cable package crams it in there. We cut the cord about 9 years ago. We have a sizable DVD collection to watch, and we have subscriptions to Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime (and we'll occasionally buy things through iTunes). It's one thing to have streaming "networks" that cover a wide range of material, but these specific ones that we're seeing now (like the Disney one) are pure greed, and as a consumer it's where I draw the line.

There is no need to launch competing streaming services. I won't be buying the Disney one, and we will not be watching Discovery on the CBS one.

How greedy of them to charge money for their product. SHAME!

 

[PixelMagic]

10 years ago..."Let us buy channels a la carte!"

2017..."Put it on Netflix or kiss my ass!"

 

[Noname Given]

Yep and they just announced they are entering the streaming marketplace in 2019.

Just like with Discovery and CBSAA, I firmly expect that one of the first original shows on Disney streaming will be something from Star Wars and probably a marvel show too.

^^^
Or when the agreement with Netflix expires - all the current Netflix Marvel-based shows will appear on the new Disney streaming service.

(I know Netflix doesn't have as big a video catalog abroad as compared to Netflix in the U.S. - but I have a feeling Netflix U.S. will become similar to how the service is abroad in the foreseeable future.)

 

[Albinator]

That's just it. For years now people like my wife and I having been ditching cable TV because we were tired of paying so much for so little that we actually watched. We *literally* never watched ESPN. Yet every cable package crams it in there. We cut the cord about 9 years ago. We have a sizable DVD collection to watch, and we have subscriptions to Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime (and we'll occasionally buy things through iTunes). It's one thing to have streaming "networks" that cover a wide range of material, but these specific ones that we're seeing now (like the Disney one) are pure greed, and as a consumer it's where I draw the line.

There is no need to launch competing streaming services. I won't be buying the Disney one, and we will not be watching Discovery on the CBS one.

Thinking about it further, your logic is like saying "no need to open a new store, just put your product in someone else's! Selling a new product in a dedicated store... that's just pure greed!

You clearly don't understand business, capitalism, or real life. It's a wonder you figured out how to log onto this website.

And really, why use Trekbbs.com? Isn't that just pure greed? Why not just host it on AOL.com?

 

[USS Triumphant]

a glorified a la Carte system.

This might not be directly aimed at you, but you've set me off. I've been arguing this a long time, and here we go again: Getting channels that you don't want and paying for them as part of your cable/dish bill is GOOD. I'll explain.

Say I like Game Show Network (I do), you don't but you like the Travel channel (which I watch very rarely and usually only in hotel rooms as a nice quiet noise to go to sleep by), and Bob likes the Golf channel (blech) and doesn't watch either. None of them might make enough on their own to make it if people had to choose them ala carte and they didn't get that base money from just being in the lineup. So you and Bob help pay for my GSN viewing, and I help pay for your Travel channel and Bob's stupid golf crap. We all win. Commercial sales make up another portion of the needed income for the networks (except the premium channels which are a slightly different model and usually ARE a la carte), so if they can't sell enough ads to their niche, there's still a way for really bad or unpopular channels to fail. A la carte would kill everything except the most popular.

If you don't think that's a problem, consider that sometimes channels that haven't had a winner in a while have generated massive cultural phenomena (AMC's The Walking Dead, for example). For another, maybe YOU don't like Food Network, but maybe the new guy/girl/small furry creature from Alpha Centauri that you've just started seeing does, and it being in the diversity of channels in your lineup will give you something to keep him/her/them on your couch while you try to hold hands/snog/whatever. It isn't all about you.

These separate, single network/content provider streaming services are going to make that worse.

That said, I think it may be inevitable. And I'm going to sign up for All Access about a week before DIS premieres. So I'll be part of the problem. Sigh.

 

[starmike]

Well, they also have a lot of news/political shows as well, if you're into that. Plus the occasional serious documentary.

Personally, I'm going to wait for the reviews. Not itching to pay money for the network that cancelled Limitless and Person of Interest.

I heard they cancelled Mary Tyler Moore too.

 

[starmike]

Be sorry, because you're very short sighted and not seeing the forest for the trees. That 50 dollars gets you content from dozens of networks/channels, premium movies, documentaries, kids and adult programming, and all at your fingertips and on-demand.

I think he's talking about quality, not quantity.

 

[Albinator]

A la carte would kill everything except the most popular.

No, it would simply change how they are made. But at worst, it means raising the quality of programming which is a good thing. The Golf Channel will survive if there's enough people to support it. If there aren't, it either will adapt and attract a bigger audience, or it will die out as it should. At best, your logic simply means a lower quality of programming for everyone.

But ultimately, I don't think your argument holds much water anyway since I'm not sure the cable "system" works the way you imply. Channels that don't get high viewership are routinely dropped by cable companies.

For another, maybe YOU don't like Food Network, but maybe the new guy/girl/small furry creature from Alpha Centauri that you've just started seeing does.

If that person is important to me, I'll purchase the channels they like.

These separate, single network/content provider streaming services are going to make that worse.

Disagree. It's already making things better.

 

[Albinator]

I think he's talking about quality, not quantity.

If he's talking quality, he's got even less of an argument. Streaming shows are of consistently higher quality than broadcast and (most) cable.

 

[USS Triumphant]

I'm not clear on the hate for CBS. I mean, yes, CBS does tend to run successful formulas into the ground. (CSI, anyone?) But they turn out a lot of good entertainment, too (and even CSI was before they ran too long with it). Maybe they very rarely hit with anything unique or very exciting. But they're solid. They're not a Lady Gaga or a Prince. They're Bon Jovi or Billy Joel.

 

[Albinator]

They were by a wide margin the biggest network in the mid/late 00s, but the last 5 years or so have ceded ground to NBC. Big Bang Theory has basically kept them in first place among all viewers, but they've been knocked down to #3 behind Fox in the key adult demos. Basically, they own older viewers, which is not a good thing.

Personally, I have not watched a single show on CBS since Frasier.

 

[PixelMagic]

Personally, I have not watched a single show on CBS since Frasier.

No one has ever watched Frasier on CBS.

 

[CorporalClegg]

NBC and FOX had a few shows jump high on the list for a few weeks, but in total cumulative viewership across the entire 2016-17 season, CBS was #1 by a significant margin. Take the NFL games out of the equation and its lead is even bigger.

 

[USS Triumphant]

No one has ever watched Frasier on CBS.

Star Trek: 30 Years and Beyond featured the Frasier cast, in character, aboard Voyager with Captain Janeway. It was on CBS. So, yes and no. But mostly, no.