Cutting the cord

[EldrickOnIce]

Can get Crave on Bell as well, but yes - stupid. Just like Shomi only with with Rogers/Shaw. Stupid.
And why I have no qualms or issues with no longer being completely legit.
Yes I know, one can justify almost anything, but still.

[1_Flames_Fan]

Just switched over to a local rural internet company that offers unlimited bandwidth at 9 mbps. Does anyone know if that will be enough to stream HD video?

[Yellefan]

Originally Posted by 1_Flames_Fan

Just switched over to a local rural internet company that offers unlimited bandwidth at 9 mbps. Does anyone know if that will be enough to stream HD video?

From netflix these are there speed recommendations (https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306):

Below are the Internet download speed recommendations per stream for playing movies and TV shows through Netflix.

0.5 Megabits per second - Required broadband connection speed
1.5 Megabits per second - Recommended broadband connection speed
3.0 Megabits per second - Recommended for SD quality
5.0 Megabits per second - Recommended for HD quality
25 Megabits per second - Recommended for Ultra HD quality

So yeah, you should be ok.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Can get Crave on Bell as well, but yes - stupid. Just like Shomi only with with Rogers/Shaw. Stupid.

How is it stupid? Seems pretty smart to me. This thread is evidence that many people are getting away from cable and satellite TV in favour of streaming options. So they decide in an effort to keep their customers they offer a huge value add to their product.

[MickMcGeough]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Can get Crave on Bell as well, but yes - stupid. Just like Shomi only with with Rogers/Shaw. Stupid.

Annoying, yes, but that's why it's only $4/mo.

[EldrickOnIce]

Stupid not to offer as stand alone service.
If you are losing revenue/customer base to cord cutters and Netflix, why not compete directly with them as well.
Absolutely offer a bundling discount, but you are giving up a huge market opportunity by making it exclusive to subscribers.
Therefore not a smart business decision, in my opinion

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by ken0042

How is it stupid? Seems pretty smart to me. This thread is evidence that many people are getting away from cable and satellite TV in favour of streaming options. So they decide in an effort to keep their customers they offer a huge value add to their product.

Someone is challenging that strategy with the CRTC I believe because it is essentially "tied selling", which isn't permitted. This is the problem when the internet/cable/phone companies are vertically integrated like this. There is really no other reason that an internet-based streaming service needs to be tied to a cable package, except of course, protecting the unrelated cable side of their business.

A similar and related issue is internet data caps. It has nothing to do with anything about internet infrastructure, and everything to do with protecting their cable business.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Stupid not to offer as stand alone service.
If you are losing revenue/customer base to cord cutters and Netflix, why not compete directly with them as well.
Absolutely offer a bundling discount, but you are giving up a huge market opportunity by making it exclusive to subscribers.
Therefore not a smart business decision, in my opinion

I think that cable is too important of a revenue source to these companies to enable any further cord cutting, so they're trying to give people more reasons to keep their cable package. It is backwards in this internet age, absolutely, but they're desperate to hang onto those monthly cable subscriptions.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

A similar and related issue is internet data caps. It has nothing to do with anything about internet infrastructure, and everything to do with protecting their cable business.

I disagree. Businesses have always paid for bandwidth; or at least in this century. Now that residential customers are consuming 100s of GB per month (some people into the 1000s), it makes sense to charge the people who use the most.

More infrastructure is needed to provide more bandwidth, so make the people using it pay.

[MickMcGeough]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Stupid not to offer as stand alone service.
If you are losing revenue/customer base to cord cutters and Netflix, why not compete directly with them as well.
Absolutely offer a bundling discount, but you are giving up a huge market opportunity by making it exclusive to subscribers.
Therefore not a smart business decision, in my opinion

They're different businesses.

Shaw/Telus have a massive investment in infrastructure and extremely high burn rates, and they exist on the backs of monthly subscribers that use (and pay for) that infrastructure.

CraveTV offers nothing remarkable to compete with the incumbent Netflix in the independent content streaming space (or Amazon, or Hulu for that matter). This is why it costs less than half of any other service. Price is the only remarkable thing about it.

Shaw/Telus have no intent on competing in service provider-agnostic streaming, because they're a service provider! Shomi/CraveTV is 100% a customer retention play: a Netflix-like service that you can have at half the price, if you stay on as a paid subscriber using their infrastructure.

I actually think it's a pretty smart play. I think they've identified that cord cutting "evaluators" hesitate when faced with losing the live networks and local news, but are ok with special interest (HGTV, DIY, etc.) and premium (HBO, Showtime, AMC) content being time-shifted. You need internet regardless, so they're positioning basic cable + streaming (CraveTV) as an alternative to an all-streaming "cord cut" approach.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MickMcGeough

They're different businesses.

Shaw/Telus have a massive investment in infrastructure and extremely high burn rates, and they exist on the backs of monthly subscribers that use (and pay for) that infrastructure.

CraveTV offers nothing remarkable to compete with the incumbent Netflix in the independent content streaming space (or Amazon, or Hulu for that matter). This is why it costs less than half of any other service. Price is the only remarkable thing about it.

Shaw/Telus have no intent on competing in service provider-agnostic streaming, because they're a service provider! Shomi/CraveTV is 100% a customer retention play: a Netflix-like service that you can have at half the price, if you stay on as a paid subscriber using their infrastructure.

I actually think it's a pretty smart play. I think they've identified that cord cutting "evaluators" hesitate when faced with losing the live networks and local news, but are ok with special interest (HGTV, DIY, etc.) and premium (HBO, Showtime, AMC) content being time-shifted. You need internet regardless, so they're positioning basic cable + streaming (CraveTV) as an alternative to an all-streaming "cord cut" approach.

I was going to post this. I'm not interested in saving $4 a month on my streaming service, but I can see the play here. I think eventually the subscription becomes free with cable. Let's be honest, how we consume media is changing rapidly, so in order to continue to sell access to media, you need something to retain it.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I think eventually the subscription becomes free with cable.

I don't know of anybody who is paying for Crave. It is included in my Bell satellite bill because I have a lot of channels and/or the movie channels. (I'm not sure which.)

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by MickMcGeough

I think they've identified that cord cutting "evaluators" hesitate when faced with losing the live networks and local news, but are ok with special interest (HGTV, DIY, etc.) and premium (HBO, Showtime, AMC) content being time-shifted. You need internet regardless, so they're positioning basic cable + streaming (CraveTV) as an alternative to an all-streaming "cord cut" approach.

OK,fair enough. But it's clear you are not a cord cutter.
I understand I'm in a unique position (close to the US border), but I'm sure more than 80% of the population can easily pick up local CBC, CTV, CITY and Global networks OTA with basically rabbit ears. These are in outstanding HD quality. There is no concern with missing live local and network television.
What cord cutters face is the lack of 'special interest and premium' content that Crave potentially offers on demand. Netflix is no alternative for this content.
I maintain there is a significant market out there for exactly this type of service, outside of their regular subscriber base - like SlingTV is now providing in the US.
Shortsighted thinking, imo.

[kermitology]

I totally get why Big Cable is doing this, doesn't mean it's a sustainable plan for the next few years.

From the consumer point of view I think it's really frustrating. The best part about cable cutting is that you don't have to get all the other channels you're forced to have just so you can get sports or movies with your cable package.

If the CRTC or other government decide that cable must offer ala carte packages at reasonable rates, then I think the money will start to make sense with streaming packages.

The model of consumption is changing and these are protection measures for existing revenue streams, but this is defence and the first organization with the money to make a dent in the content gap will make a killing.

Netflix is primed to become that, especially with the investments they've made with their original content, which is becoming increasingly compelling.

Then the last vestige of the telecom companies will be enforcing caps, but that model will also fail eventually. It's just a matter of when.

[MickMcGeough]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I maintain there is a significant market out there for exactly this type of service, outside of their regular subscriber base - like SlingTV is now providing in the US.
Shortsighted thinking, imo.

Netflix had $5.5B in revenue last year. Nobody's arguing that there's not a market for VOD.

SlingTV and CraveTV aren't the same thing. Sling is live, Crave is VOD. Sling is positioned as a complementary addition to VOD for millennials. It's really a new product offering.

[MickMcGeough]

I'd be interested in knowing how many "almost cord cutters" finally take the leap on account of SlingTV.

With Big Cable I pay $18 for two bundles that have a total of 3 channels I'm interested in.

Instead, with SlingTV, I can pay $20 for 2 channels I'm interested in.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by MickMcGeough

I'd be interested in knowing how many "almost cord cutters" finally take the leap on account of SlingTV.

With Big Cable I pay $18 for two bundles that have a total of 3 channels I'm interested in.

Instead, with SlingTV, I can pay $20 for 2 channels I'm interested in.

Realistically, probably none - but maybe it's a move in the right direction. I don't want 20 channels either, I want 2 or 3.
If I could subscribe to individual live/on demand streaming specialty channels, I would.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by MickMcGeough

I'd be interested in knowing how many "almost cord cutters" finally take the leap on account of SlingTV.

With Big Cable I pay $18 for two bundles that have a total of 3 channels I'm interested in.

Instead, with SlingTV, I can pay $20 for 2 channels I'm interested in.

How is that better? I ask just because I'm trying to understand the reasoning. As you state, you are getting 3 channels you want for $18; as opposed to 2 channels you want for $20.

I guess I don't understand what the issue is with getting channels you don't want. If there are channels you don't want, don't watch them. Then at some point if there is something you want to watch, it is there. It's like your favourite pizza place now also selling fish. If you don't want fish, don't order it. However having that option in the future is a good thing. For example just recently a friend brought over her 3 year old. Even though I never watch the channel, I was able to throw on Treehouse to keep the kid entertained.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by ken0042

How is that better? I ask just because I'm trying to understand the reasoning. As you state, you are getting 3 channels you want for $18; as opposed to 2 channels you want for $20.

I guess I don't understand what the issue is with getting channels you don't want. If there are channels you don't want, don't watch them. Then at some point if there is something you want to watch, it is there. It's like your favourite pizza place now also selling fish. If you don't want fish, don't order it. However having that option in the future is a good thing. For example just recently a friend brought over her 3 year old. Even though I never watch the channel, I was able to throw on Treehouse to keep the kid entertained.

I think that's the big problem/misconception with the a la carte model. To subscribe to everything that you want, it might end up costing more than just having cable. The idea of picking and choosing your channels sounds great, but particularly for sports fans, Sportsnet won't and can't be the same price as "Cosmo" or some other specialty channel. I heard on a podcast once (Planet Money or similar) that sports channels make up the bulk of the cost of cable packages, even for those that don't watch them. Other subscribers are effectively subsidizing sports channels for us.

As soon as you unbundle everything (whether through online subscriptions or if the cable companies are forced to unbundle), the cost to get just the sports probably won't be any cheaper than just getting everything.

While I'm not a hardcore sports fan, I do enjoy a variety of sports on occasion. So for the time being it is just cheaper to keep cable than to get a subscription for each sport that I like. If I didn't enjoy watching hockey and soccer, I could easily cut the cord and rely on Netflix I think.

[Street Pharmacist]

At the end of the day, I don't see media consumption costs going down. People want more variety and the costs haven't changed