• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

HBO to offer streaming on demand!!!!

As long as it comes with Cinemax, I'm in. I do enjoy those late night movies they play.

You know there's this thing called the internet which has a LOT better stu in that department. :lol:
 
As long as it comes with Cinemax, I'm in. I do enjoy those late night movies they play.

No need.

Whereas satellite/cable leaves you at the whim of their tastes the internet allows for you to pick any movie or show you want without having to wait for it to possibly be scheduled to show.

Everything is instant, the list of shows/movies is greater, and once again (most importantly) it is much much cheaper (our family got rid of satellite TV completely).
 
No need.

Whereas satellite/cable leaves you at the whim of their tastes the internet allows for you to pick any movie or show you want without having to wait for it to possibly be scheduled to show.

Everything is instant, the possibilities in shows/movies are greater, and once again (most importantly) it is much much cheaper (our family got rid of satellite TV completely).

I still have a satellite contract for another 6 months or so, I think, so I am stuck in the dinosaur ages until then. But what about new shows, like when they premiere - do you have to wait a day or two or something like that?
 
Netflix Sports anyone?
 
No matter how expensive it is, one thing is pretty much guaranteed.

It will be cheaper than satellite/cable.

but how much cheaper, if I have to pay $50 for 3 channels (HBO, ESPN and AMC) then its not hard to justify paying $65 for 300 channels
 
but how much cheaper, if I have to pay $50 for 3 channels (HBO, ESPN and AMC) then its not hard to justify paying $65 for 300 channels

Assuming that you watch all 300 channels and also assuming that the cost is going to be just under that of satellite/cable (pretty big assumption there) then yes it is not hard to justify that.

The reality is however, the internet doesn't have "channels" so you can't compare it to cable/satellite in that sense but in terms of raw content size (the amount of shows and movies available on the internet as compared to cable/satellite), the internet is easily over 50X bigger than cable/Satellite.

There is literally nothing you can argue to prove that satellite/cable is better than internet other than maybe "I grew up with satellite so I'm more familiar with its inferior capabilities/interface than I am familiar with the internet's superior capabilities/interface."
 
I am thinking no matter the format, internet or dedicated cable channel,
there will still be a need for a high bandwidth connection to the home.
I suspect the same players will be providing that, unless someone comes up
with a good wireless solution.
 
Assuming that you watch all 300 channels and also assuming that the cost is going to be just under that of satellite/cable (pretty big assumption there) then yes it is not hard to justify that.

The reality is however, the internet doesn't have "channels" so you can't compare it to cable/satellite in that sense but in terms of raw content size (the amount of shows and movies available on the internet as compared to cable/satellite), the internet is easily over 50X bigger than cable/Satellite.

There is literally nothing you can argue to prove that satellite/cable is better than internet other than maybe "I grew up with satellite so I'm more familiar with its inferior capabilities/interface than I am familiar with the internet's superior capabilities/interface."

But that doesn't make any sense. HBO streaming is only going to give you what's shown on HBO. They aren't going to provide you with what's shown on any other network. So if you watch 20 different networks, you'd have to subscribe to 20 different streaming services to get that content. That's going to be a lot more than the current cable/satellite model that gives you 300+ channels that you can watch any time you want to.

This isn't HBO giving you everything, this is just HBO's tiny slice of the whole. If you want the whole, you have to pay for it.
 
Assuming that you watch all 300 channels and also assuming that the cost is going to be just under that of satellite/cable (pretty big assumption there) then yes it is not hard to justify that.

The reality is however, the internet doesn't have "channels" so you can't compare it to cable/satellite in that sense but in terms of raw content size (the amount of shows and movies available on the internet as compared to cable/satellite), the internet is easily over 50X bigger than cable/Satellite.

There is literally nothing you can argue to prove that satellite/cable is better than internet other than maybe "I grew up with satellite so I'm more familiar with its inferior capabilities/interface than I am familiar with the internet's superior capabilities/interface."

What exactly are you considering the "internet"? HBO online is going to give you the same amount of content you get on HBO cable now. I might not watch all 300 channels but I might watch enough of them to justify the extra $15 and yes cable does have an easier interface as far as searching programming and DVR. There is also bandwidth to consider, right now I can watch TV while someone else is playing online games or downloading something that wont be as easy if my entertainment, especially live sports, are also run on my internet connection.

Dont get me wrong HBO offering an online service is a big deal but its hardly the panacea for cable you have proclaimed it to be.
 
To be honest, most people with cable or fiber already have all of their bandwidth going over the same wire, it's just artificially split between Internet and TV. You probably don't have a separate cable going into your house for TV and for Internet. All you have to do is put it all together, get rid of the artificial split and you're not any worse off than you were before, almost certainly you'll be better.
 
HBO to offer streaming-only online option in 2015 - Business - CBC News

If/when ESPN follows suit, it will be the kiss of death to satellite/cable providers.

This makes me happy. :2razz:

I just read an article saying that cable providers are for the first time losing TV business. With more internet services offering TV shows and movies on demand, with live sports the cable providers will struggle to survive as we know. Once Google fiber and other faster service appears in a few years, it's the end of cable TV. I'm paying for almost 1/3 of my service to show me commercials as is.
 
What exactly are you considering the "internet"? HBO online is going to give you the same amount of content you get on HBO cable now. I might not watch all 300 channels but I might watch enough of them to justify the extra $15 and yes cable does have an easier interface as far as searching programming and DVR. There is also bandwidth to consider, right now I can watch TV while someone else is playing online games or downloading something that wont be as easy if my entertainment, especially live sports, are also run on my internet connection.

Dont get me wrong HBO offering an online service is a big deal but its hardly the panacea for cable you have proclaimed it to be.

There will continue to be people who want to subscribe to cable and see value in what cable offers, however a service such as HBO starting the process of breaking away from cable is IMO huge, others will follow.
 
Assuming that you watch all 300 channels and also assuming that the cost is going to be just under that of satellite/cable (pretty big assumption there) then yes it is not hard to justify that.

The reality is however, the internet doesn't have "channels" so you can't compare it to cable/satellite in that sense but in terms of raw content size (the amount of shows and movies available on the internet as compared to cable/satellite), the internet is easily over 50X bigger than cable/Satellite.

There is literally nothing you can argue to prove that satellite/cable is better than internet other than maybe "I grew up with satellite so I'm more familiar with its inferior capabilities/interface than I am familiar with the internet's superior capabilities/interface."

Yes but you also have to factor into the cost equation the fact that many people get their Internet service via cable.
 
But that doesn't make any sense. HBO streaming is only going to give you what's shown on HBO. They aren't going to provide you with what's shown on any other network. So if you watch 20 different networks, you'd have to subscribe to 20 different streaming services to get that content. That's going to be a lot more than the current cable/satellite model that gives you 300+ channels that you can watch any time you want to.

This isn't HBO giving you everything, this is just HBO's tiny slice of the whole. If you want the whole, you have to pay for it.

Not quite that difficult to see what one wants. Hulu for a lot of current shows, Neflix and Amazon Prime for older shows, and free apps for streaming devices for such stations as Lifetime/History channel. For those shows not covered by those one can always buy a season pass on Amazon Video for commercial free viewing new shows such as American Horror Story: Freak Show
 
HBO to offer streaming-only online option in 2015 - Business - CBC News

If/when ESPN follows suit, it will be the kiss of death to satellite/cable providers

This makes me happy. :2razz:

Satellite will die probably, (Latency issues. Great for one way commo, bad for two way.) cable will not. They just wont supply TV anymore the way they are now. They already supply internet so they will just lose the TV portion of their revenue. HBO and the like are going to run into issues with the Cable providers extorting them on their traffic like is being done with Netflix, that will make net neutrality a much more interesting fight. (That's how the cable companies want to make up revenue for loss of the TV market.) If I was satellite the way I would keep from dying would be to reduce my latency issues by moving to perpetual drones or low orbit microsats and use my bandwidth to provide cellular type service with better coverage and piggyback my broadband to that. If they are smart they can wedge both the phone companies and the cable providers and get a nice bite out of both their actions.
 
I thought they already did this if you had a valid cable subscription
 
Not quite that difficult to see what one wants. Hulu for a lot of current shows, Neflix and Amazon Prime for older shows, and free apps for streaming devices for such stations as Lifetime/History channel. For those shows not covered by those one can always buy a season pass on Amazon Video for commercial free viewing new shows such as American Horror Story: Freak Show

That assumes that all of the shows you want are available in those formats, which isn't necessarily the case. Plus, it can get pretty pricey when you start paying for all of those services, Amazon Prime is nearly $100 a year by itself.
 
Yeah but I prefer an old fashioned movie with horrible acting. Plus I don't get no viruses on my TV. ;)

Yeah, but you don't get to see the ***** licking and that's the whole reason we're there. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom