Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 256 posts

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#51

Post by scarface74 »

Thriptic wrote: post #31
rayiner wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you’re proposing would lead to a terrible market structure. It would eliminate the most important differentiating factor: content. Subscribing to multiple streaming services might be somewhat less convenient, but it also allows competition based on producing and distributing quality content.

That would be true if each of these services had enough unique content to stand on it's own. Netflix does, Amazon does, and HBO does if you take their entire historical cannon into account. The rest of the services (Starz, Cinemax, Hulu, Showtime et al) have 1-2 great exclusives and a bunch of old so-so content. I shouldn't have to pay for 5 additional instances of Netflix to get one instance of Netflix worth of qual…

Hulu’s biggest appeal for a cable cutter is day after content with no commercials from the major networks and their back catalog of TV is not bad.

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#52

Post by YokoZar »

tzs wrote: post #47
MisterTea wrote: post #3

These companies are obsessed with fragmenting the market for the sake of owning content from production to delivery. I have bad news for them: you're going to lose. People don't want to go back to paying $100/month for a dozen streaming "channels" with one or two good shows and a the same crap the rest of the other "channels" have. We want an on-demand nexus. A single hub. Just the other day I had the urge to watch g…

> Just the other day I had the urge to watch ghost in the shell. Not available on any of the major streaming sites (Netflix, Hulu, Prime) but available on stars via prime ... Off to a torrent site or asking around to see if someone has rips or a box set. I have better things to do with $7 like buy dinner Or you could have rented the Blu-ray at Redbox for $2 (or streamed it from Redbox for $5).

Or streamed it from Google Play for $2

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#53

Post by scarface74 »

shmerl wrote: post #29
rayiner wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you’re proposing would lead to a terrible market structure. It would eliminate the most important differentiating factor: content. Subscribing to multiple streaming services might be somewhat less convenient, but it also allows competition based on producing and distributing quality content.

Subscribing to many services because each offers some exclusive stuff is inconvenient and taxes the user with the overhead of each service. People want to find more in their favorite stores. If creators would have been independent of distributors, this wouldn't have been a problem to begin with. Each creator would distribute in each store. But all this integration causes exclusivity that only inconveniences the end u…

The whole spiel about DRM is that you don’t truly own the content you buy and the inconvenience of not being able to use the content on the device of your choice.

When you subscribe to streaming services you aren’t paying for ownership, you are paying for access. As far as convenience, the major streaming services are all on the web for computers and they all have apps for everything imaginable. Netflix, Hulu, et. al. are much more convenient that piracy. Besides they said the same thing about iTunes back in 2003. I stopped pirating music when the iTunes Misic Store was introduced. I definitely wouldn’t worry about pirating now over paying $15/month for the family Apple Music plan.

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#54

Post by tzs »

yebyen wrote: post #16
skinnymuch wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lionsgate Starz isn’t a big company with a lot of products so paying extra to watch things for that channel will be a challenge no matter what. On the other hand, HBO seems to be doing well enough with their not so cheap stand alone offering. Disney with Fox’s media would be a pretty big streaming provider and many people would likely get onto it. Good chance of it becoming a standard streaming service. So I don’t se…

If you're talking about HBO Go, I don't know how you gauge success, but if it's subscriber numbers I would take that with a grain of salt. I am a Comcast subscriber, and like many Comcast subscribers I'm sure, I have one of their boxes in my house, with the most basic Cable TV package, because if I don't take it my cost goes up (I mean the overall price of the monthly billed amount from Comcast/Xfinity). We get crapp…

> I am a Comcast subscriber, and like many Comcast subscribers I'm sure, I have one of their boxes in my house, with the most basic Cable TV package, because if I don't take it my cost goes up (I mean the overall price of the monthly billed amount from Comcast/Xfinity)

This seems to vary region to region. Where I am (western Washington, west of Seattle) all the internet-only packages are cheaper than all the internet + TV packages at the same internet speed, as far as I can tell.

When comparing the price with and without TV, are your taking into account the fees and equipment charges that go away if you don't have TV? Although here internet only is cheaper than internet + TV, it isn't much cheaper. I've got 400 Mb/s internet, Preferred TV (220+ channels + Starz), and Phone, and dropping down to just 400 Mb/s internet would only knock $20 off the base price. That's a small enough change that it is probably less than I'd end up spending on streaming subscription and rental services to make up for the lost TV.

However, dropping TV and phone would also drop $11/month for the DVR service, $8/month for the broadcast TV fee, $6.30/month for the regional sports fee, and $4.60 for the franchise fee (and maybe some sales tax, if any of those fees are taxable). That's another $30/month, so we are talking $50/month less on my total bill. Now I would come out ahead even if I have to subscribe to multiple streaming services for my TV.

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#55

Post by petra »

JetSpiegel wrote: post #45
waffle_ss wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody in here seems to appreciate the networking complexity that Netflix deals with - they are 37% of North America's internet traffic! At that point the network isn't an abstraction that "just works" like most web apps; you have to be aware of physical and business realities that dictate traffic (e.g. negotiate peering agreements, deploy caching/CDN boxes to network POPs, etc.).

Or you can buy the CDN service from a myriad of companies in the world. It only takes money to get servers and bandwidth in many places.

True. But depending on what's you guess on how much it costs for netflix to get a content hour watched by a user(maybe ~$0.1-0.2), streaming costs may become meaningful, and higher streaming costs becomes a strategic disadvantage.

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#56

Post by [deleted] »

MisterTea wrote: post #3

These companies are obsessed with fragmenting the market for the sake of owning content from production to delivery. I have bad news for them: you're going to lose. People don't want to go back to paying $100/month for a dozen streaming "channels" with one or two good shows and a the same crap the rest of the other "channels" have. We want an on-demand nexus. A single hub. Just the other day I had the urge to watch g…

[deleted]

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#57

Post by bertjk »

drngdds wrote: post #13
rhino369 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We want an on-demand nexus. A single hub. So you want one company to control all media? Seems like a poor plan longterm.

There could be many such hubs. They don't have to control the content, just buy the (non-exclusive) right to distribute it.

And how would you suggest that these many hubs differentiate themselves to compete for your business? If your answer is "they can compete on price," then I think you've just answered the question of why they don't want to do it that way.

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#58

Post by shmerl »

scarface74 wrote: post #53
shmerl wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subscribing to many services because each offers some exclusive stuff is inconvenient and taxes the user with the overhead of each service. People want to find more in their favorite stores. If creators would have been independent of distributors, this wouldn't have been a problem to begin with. Each creator would distribute in each store. But all this integration causes exclusivity that only inconveniences the end u…

The whole spiel about DRM is that you don’t truly own the content you buy and the inconvenience of not being able to use the content on the device of your choice. When you subscribe to streaming services you aren’t paying for ownership, you are paying for access. As far as convenience, the major streaming services are all on the web for computers and they all have apps for everything imaginable. Netflix, Hulu, et. al…

> When you subscribe to streaming services you aren’t paying for ownership, you are paying for access.

I personally prefer to avoid DRMed services and buy DRM-free. It's reasonably good with music and games for example, but with films you barely can find anything that way.

The reason for renting digital goods is usually presented as an option to get it for lower prices, even though there is no scarcity like with physical goods. That's fine, people might want to rent something and pay less. But why does it mean there should be no option to buy (for higher price)? That is already not right, i.e. forcing renting only approach. That's why I quite dislike DRM attached to renting services as well.

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#59

Post by friedman23 »

Thriptic wrote: post #46
rayiner wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don’t want to subscribe, then don’t. But these services are cheap compared to what they’re replacing. The average cable bill is over $100. These streaming services are the a la carte channels everyone was always saying they wanted in the bad old days when content was bundled together in cable packages.

Most of these services are the same a la carte premium channels that already existed 10 years ago for roughly the same price (HBO, Starz, Cinemax, and Showtime). Little has changed except the content delivery mechanism and availability of content on demand.

> Little has changed except the content delivery mechanism and availability of content on demand.

What? You don't need to pay $100 for cable anymore, how is it that nothing has changed? Anyway, I think arguing with you is pointless, pirates will always find a way to justify their behavior.

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#60

Post by lovich »

YokoZar wrote: post #52
tzs wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just the other day I had the urge to watch ghost in the shell. Not available on any of the major streaming sites (Netflix, Hulu, Prime) but available on stars via prime ... Off to a torrent site or asking around to see if someone has rips or a box set. I have better things to do with $7 like buy dinner Or you could have rented the Blu-ray at Redbox for $2 (or streamed it from Redbox for $5).

Or streamed it from Google Play for $2

How does any of this change the OP's point about fragmentation of the market? It does nothing to benefit the consumer, the competition is not lowering prices, so why would consumers not go back to piracy when it results in a superior product?
Post reply on HN