The Great Cable unbundling continues....

[HobeSoundDarryl]

HBO is going to be around $15/mo.
http://www.cnet.com/news/hbo-may-price-online-only-subscription-service-at-15-a-month/

First, note who's coming up with that price- not HBO. It's someone's guess- what looks like a blogger. Why don't you or I post here (or on a blog) that all al-a-carte channels will cost 1 cent each? Now go quote in a thread like this as if it's fact. And even if you want to give that blogger some credibility, his suggestion is that it will fail at even the same price as it's bundled into cable. His first line: "HBO’s broadband service looks doomed even before it starts." Why does he think that? Because he also thinks it has to be priced really low to work. So why does HBO want to swap about $15/month revenues for something less than $8 or $4/month revenues?

Second, note how it says "start at", so even if this apparent guess has some validity, we all know what "start at" means. iPhone 6 can "start at" $0 but that doesn't mean iPhone 6 costs nothing.

Third, getting past both of those, what that would mean to me is that they are going to roll out something much less than what we might expect relative to the HBO offering that comes with cable/satt and/or even HBO Go. If it's watered down enough, I can easily see $15 or $8 or $2 or a nickel.

My guess at a much higher price revolves around a concept of cutting the cord and pretty much replacing that cord's version of HBO. If they roll out HBO Go Jr Jr Jr for a nickel, (at least) I wouldn't see that as a solid cord-cutting alternative.

----------

Its going to cost the same as with cable. The reason is that HBO is totally different from CBS or ESPN. HBO doesn't have commercials, and isn't part of basic cable. People buy HBO solely for the content. The partnership with Cable gives HBO more exposure and subscribers while the cable company gets part of the profit from HBO. HBO is already al a carte within cable. They are just going to expand it outside of cable.

OK. So put yourself in their cable partner's shoes. You provide the vast majority of money that flows to HBO now. If HBO comes out at the same price that it's available within your service, it helps motivate the "cord cutter" mentality which is a strategic threat to your business. So do you just let that happen? Or do you put some pressure on HBO (again, you're giving them most of the revenue they make right now)?

Every post I make about this concept encourages people to think beyond themselves- get out of the consumer point-of-view and see it from the other player's points-of-view. You and I would love to be able to get our favorite cable TV channels for no more than what we pay within a cable bundle now. GREAT! I'd like to get everything I like for $20 or $10 or $5 or a quarter each month.

But why does the cable provider allow that to happen when that option depends on flowing through the cable provider's broadband pipes?

It will be amazing if we get a full replacement for cable's version of HBO for the exact same price as what it costs within a cable bundle now. But I just can't possibly see that happening when I put myself in Comcasts and similar shoes. Like any business- including Apple- one of their goals will be to protect their turf. In this scenario, ANY alternative that requires a broadband pipe has to flow through THEIR broadband pipe.

That said though, I'll hope right with you (both).

 

[orestes1984]

At least you're posting a more realistic pricing idea. However again, if you look at CBS at $6 as a kind of base bar of pricing, $30/$6 = 5 channels. $40/6 = 6 channels. Can your picking & choosing of channels work with only 5 or 6 channels?

If they made my pick and choose I'd only have to choose 5 or 6 channels ESPN would probably be one of them. At least it would be more reasonable than signing up for 50 channels I don't want to get the two that I actually want from comcrap or any other provider...

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Then it sounds like some kind of al-a-carte system could work for you if those 5 or 6 channels are priced low enough. I know that ESPN is one of the most expensive channels within cable services. So I would expect retail pricing on an unbundled, streaming ESPN to be quite high (my guess would be about $25/month). Whether I'm high or low on that, I would strongly doubt an ESPN al-a-carte price less than about $15/month (again WWE gets $9-$12 now).

So if we took that low-ball guess of $15 for that one and we made your other 5 all cost what CBS says it wants to charge, 5 times $6 = $30 + $15 for ESPN. You had shared a goal of $30 to $40, so this would exceed that by $5. You'd have 6 channels for $45.

Again, that $6/per estimate is probably conservative as CBS is often thought of as a "free" channel (just put up an antenna). So if it is going to be sold at $6, the other 3 of the big 4 will almost certainly follow that lead and thus 4 channels we typically think of as "free" now could be $24 for just those 4. Other channels on cable with higher perceived value than the big 4 would probably be priced at higher prices. But even if $6 became some kind of standard, anyone can think about their real list of most desired channels and multiply that by $6. In my case, that yields an al-a-carte price well above what the "as is" system costs me now.

At prices like that, I think al-a-carte can only work for guys like you (who want just a very few channels). National average for cableTV is about $70/month. $70/$6 = 11 channels. Anyone's favorite list that exceeds 11 channels would be paying more if all channels rolled out at $6/each (which is unlikely). If WWE sets the average at about $10.50 per channel, anyone with a list of more than 6 channels would do better with the "as is".

 

[macUser2007]

...

But why does the cable provider allow that to happen when that option depends on flowing through the cable provider's broadband pipes?
...
Like any business- including Apple- one of their goals will be to protect their turf. In this scenario, ANY alternative that requires a broadband pipe has to flow through THEIR broadband pipe.
...

I think you just made the argument why content should be separated from pipeline 😀

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Yes, but then the question becomes how? And even if we can come up with that answer, next is by when?

The only somewhat fast scenario I could see would be Apple buying out DISH and repurposing that as a "bypass the middleman" (cable company) solution to link Apple consumers directly to iCloud. However, 2 issues there: 1) Would there be enough bandwidth to make that work? and 2) What about the rest of the world?

If it would become a scenario of some non-Cable party having to lay wire everywhere, I'd see that as 20-50 years before completion. I don't think there is enough wireless (LTE) spectrum to make this kind of thing go even if there was great motivation.

So the last option is kind of like the battery breakthrough innovation that always gets talked about but never seems to go anywhere: some kind of brand new way to move large amounts of data, probably wirelessly, with a global reach.

All of that is easy to write down but difficult to realize. Nevertheless, I think a big catalyst for some variation of the typical al-a-carte dream is tied to solving the problem of the TV subscription sellers owning the ONE pipe on which some TV Subscription service replacement would entirely depend. As soon as THAT problem gets resolved, then I start believing a real chance at some kind of "new model" could actually come together.

 

[2010mini]

Yes, but then the question becomes how? And even if we can come up with that answer, next is by when?

The only somewhat fast scenario I could see would be Apple buying out DISH and repurposing that as a "bypass the middleman" (cable company) solution to link Apple consumers directly to iCloud. However, 2 issues there: 1) Would there be enough bandwidth to make that work? and 2) What about the rest of the world?

If it would become a scenario of some non-Cable party having to lay wire everywhere, I'd see that as 20-50 years before completion. I don't think there is enough wireless (LTE) spectrum to make this kind of thing go even if there was great motivation.

So the last option is kind of like the battery breakthrough innovation that always gets talked about but never seems to go anywhere: some kind of brand new way to move large amounts of data, probably wirelessly, with a global reach.

All of that is easy to write down but difficult to realize. Nevertheless, I think a big catalyst for some variation of the typical al-a-carte dream is tied to solving the problem of the TV subscription sellers owning the ONE pipe on which some TV Subscription service replacement would entirely depend. As soon as THAT problem gets resolved, then I start believing a real chance at some kind of "new model" could actually come together.

Funny thing is, there are miles of unused fibre optic cable all across the US right now. Too bad no one wants to lay out the cash to repurpose them.

 

[StinDaWg]

First, note who's coming up with that price- not HBO. It's someone's guess- what looks like a blogger. Why don't you or I post here (or on a blog) that all al-a-carte channels will cost 1 cent each? Now go quote in a thread like this as if it's fact.

Actually, it's not a guess. The Information is quoting an anonymous source within HBO. It doesn't make it 100% true but that site has been known to get scoops before.

It's much more likely HBO launches at $15-20. At $35-$40 the service is DOA.

 

[orestes1984]

Yes, but then the question becomes how? And even if we can come up with that answer, next is by when?

The only somewhat fast scenario I could see would be Apple buying out DISH and repurposing that as a "bypass the middleman" (cable company) solution to link Apple consumers directly to iCloud. However, 2 issues there: 1) Would there be enough bandwidth to make that work? and 2) What about the rest of the world?

If it would become a scenario of some non-Cable party having to lay wire everywhere, I'd see that as 20-50 years before completion. I don't think there is enough wireless (LTE) spectrum to make this kind of thing go even if there was great motivation.

So the last option is kind of like the battery breakthrough innovation that always gets talked about but never seems to go anywhere: some kind of brand new way to move large amounts of data, probably wirelessly, with a global reach.

All of that is easy to write down but difficult to realize. Nevertheless, I think a big catalyst for some variation of the typical al-a-carte dream is tied to solving the problem of the TV subscription sellers owning the ONE pipe on which some TV Subscription service replacement would entirely depend. As soon as THAT problem gets resolved, then I start believing a real chance at some kind of "new model" could actually come together.

The content just has to be aggregated by Apple, the rest happens over the magic of IPTV. It's really not revolutionary at all. From the consumers end the only limitation is their connection speed and the amount of bandwidth they have to stream HD content, that's the biggest stumbling block.

You're looking at 1500kb/s streams for content anywhere resembling SD, and then 3 to 4mbit for HD streams.

Meanwhile, the average internet speed in Australia, as with many other places in the world is still less than 8mbit/s.

 

[LethalWolfe]

It's much more likely HBO launches at $15-20. At $35-$40 the service is DOA.

I would be surprised if it's much more than $20, but I also would be surprised if the 'cable free' version of HBOGO is as feature rich as the 'cable subscription' version of HBOGO.

The content just has to be aggregated by Apple, the rest happens over the magic of IPTV. It's really not revolutionary at all.

Revolutionary in concept? No. Revolutionary in practice? Yes.

Basically what many cord cutters are demanding is that an industry that, since its inception in the mid 1940s, has been based on business-to-business deals and advertising revenue suddenly do a 180 and switch to an ad free, direct-to-consumer business model. No exactly a small step to take. Especially when you consider that the only reason TV shows exist is to get viewers to watch a certain channel at a certain time so advertisers can hock their wares.

In another thread I posted that in 2013 in the U.S., advertisers spent 66 billion dollars on airing TV commercials. That is the magnitude of just one facet of the revenue stream that some cord cutters are saying content creators should leave behind for a $2 per month user subscription.

 

[StinDaWg]

I remember there was a time when paying for "cable" meant you didn't get commercials. lol

Now you pay a ton and get 18 minutes of commercials per 60 minute show, even more for sports.

 

[orestes1984]

No exactly a small step to take. Especially when you consider that the only reason TV shows exist is to get viewers to watch a certain channel at a certain time so advertisers can hock their wares.

In another thread I posted that in 2013 in the U.S., advertisers spent 66 billion dollars on airing TV commercials. That is the magnitude of just one facet of the revenue stream that some cord cutters are saying content creators should leave behind for a $2 per month user subscription.

I'm surprised advertisers spend so much money when I can't really think of a single product I've ever bought because of advertising or product placement.

It's not so revolutionary here in Australia, cable TV came first ads came later, I still remember when they used to sell cable with the premise being that you didn't have to watch ads and that it would be covered in the costs. Either way though, even if you're going to go with an IPTV model, it doesn't mean you can't do ads just the same.

While some of us would like a model that is on demand, you can still run a traditional TV broadcasting model over IPTV, in fact most providers do something of the sort, Verizon and Comcrap, etc.... This is how you get your cable bundled with your internet already with it going over the same cord. Here in Australia Foxtel with Telstra.

An IPTV model with ads would either mean that Apple as it were was willing to become some sort of cable company though rather than just an on demand rental/purchase service, or that ads would be preloaded in the "trailers" before you watched your show.

 

[2010mini]

I'm surprised advertisers spend so much money when I can't really think of a single product I've ever bought because of advertising or product placement....

You might think so, but research says otherwise. We are all indeed influenced by ads and subtle product placements in shows. Even when we feel it does not.

Advertisers spend that kind of money because it works.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

In another thread I posted that in 2013 in the U.S., advertisers spent 66 billion dollars on airing TV commercials. That is the magnitude of just one facet of the revenue stream that some cord cutters are saying content creators should leave behind for a $2 per month user subscription.

Now divide that number by the number of U.S. Households per: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

$66B divided by 116M households = about $570/yr. $570/12 = $47.50 PER HOUSEHOLD per month. In other words, to get rid of all commercials but replace that OPM out of our al-a-carte, commercial-free-wanting pockets, every single household in the U.S. would have a commercial free cable replacement bill starting at $47.50. That would be with 0 channels. And that assume every single household in America wants or has television services. Not all do.

So often this al-a-carte dream is spun with the idea of getting 10-20 channels, commercial-free, for $5 to $20 or so. But anyone can do the math on just that part alone and see that the commercial-free part of it would start at $47.50/month with zero channels. We al-a-carters often forget that the programming we want (and don't want) exists in hopes that we'll see the commercials and thus we tend to just leave that part (currently paid in full by other people- the commercial buyers) out of our thinking about what our favorite channels should cost. Almost all broadcast television exists not for the shows but for the commercials. And we want to kill off those commercials (a large monthly subsidy paid for by other people) AND pay a fraction of what we pay now.

 

[LethalWolfe]

It's not so revolutionary here in Australia, cable TV came first ads came later, I still remember when they used to sell cable with the premise being that you didn't have to watch ads and that it would be covered in the costs. Either way though, even if you're going to go with an IPTV model, it doesn't mean you can't do ads just the same.

Those days were also when there were significantly few cable channels. Plus, once people got hooked on cable then the need for incentives to get people to sign up became less important. Hence why cable prices keep going up but very few people cancel their service in response.

While some of us would like a model that is on demand, you can still run a traditional TV broadcasting model over IPTV, in fact most providers do something of the sort, Verizon and Comcrap, etc.... This is how you get your cable bundled with your internet already with it going over the same cord. Here in Australia Foxtel with Telstra.

An IPTV model with ads would either mean that Apple as it were was willing to become some sort of cable company though rather than just an on demand rental/purchase service, or that ads would be preloaded in the "trailers" before you watched your show.

No one is questioning if it's possible given the current state of technology, because it is. The sticking point is the existing business model which is based on advertising and business to business revenue (contracts between content creators and networks, contracts between networks and cable companies, contracts between networks and local TV stations, etc.,.).

Apple, or anyone w/deep enough pockets, can launch their own IPTV service but where is the content going to come from? From companies that already make a lot of money from 'traditional' distribution methods so have little motivation right now to do something drastic and rock the boat. And how are consumers going to access Apple's IPTV/VOD service? Via ISPs like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc., that are also trying to launch their own IPTV/VOD services.

Only having licensed content is risky in and of itself because Apple (keeping with the current example) has no control over it. They are beholden to the terms of the license agreement. There's also less incentive to choose Apple over the competition (lack of a 'killer app' if you will). This is why Amazon, Hulu, Netflix and even YouTube are pursuing high quality, original content. It sets them apart from the pack and gives them high value content that they can control and better monetize.

You might think so, but research says otherwise. We are all indeed influenced by ads and subtle product placements in shows. Even when we feel it does not.

Advertisers spend that kind of money because it works.

Agreed. A major function of advertising is not getting people to buy what they normally wouldn't buy, but letting people know what's out there. I mean, honestly without any form of advertising how many people would when a new iPhone, movie or car is coming out or that the grocery store down the street is having a double-coupon weekend?

We are so bombarded with ads that we don't even acknowledge them all on a conscious level any more. It's like background noise that seeps into our brains via visual and audible osmosis. Heck, even things we think of as traditions (like having turkey on Thanksgiving in America) are the result of successful marketing campaigns.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Now divide that number by the number of U.S. Households per: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

$66B divided by 116M households = about $570/yr. $570/12 = $47.50 PER HOUSEHOLD per month. In other words, to get rid of all commercials but replace that OPM out of our al-a-carte, commercial-free-wanting pockets, every single household in the U.S. would have a commercial free cable replacement bill starting at $47.50. That would be with 0 channels. And that assume every single household in America wants or has television services. Not all do.

So often this al-a-carte dream is spun with the idea of getting 10-20 channels, commercial-free, for $5 to $20 or so. But anyone can do the math on just that part alone and see that the commercial-free part of it would start at $47.50/month with zero channels. We al-a-carters often forget that the programming we want (and don't want) exists in hopes that we'll see the commercials and thus we tend to just leave that part (currently paid in full by other people- the commercial buyers) out of our thinking about what our favorite channels should cost. Almost all broadcast television exists not for the shows but for the commercials. And we want to kill off those commercials (a large monthly subsidy paid for by other people) AND pay a fraction of what we pay now.

Nobody is forced to buy cable tv, and watch commercials. It is possible to watch almost all of that content without commercials today, just on a delay. Either through Netflix, Amazon video (both store and prime), or iTunes store, pretty much every movie or tv show is available. If you set yourself a budget of $60/month to spend on media in those places, its pretty easy to get nearly everything anyone can reasonably watch without commercials (except sports).

 

[DaveN]

You still get the national commercials, at least for current season offerings. But you do get on-demand access to a good chunk of the CBS library, both current and past - just be aware which shows are actually owned by CBS and which ones are owned by someone else even though they air on CBS (Big Bang Theory, for example). For the latter shows, they'll only be available for the current season, as someone else has the distribution rights beyond that.

$6 a month would be worth it in election years. I'm tired of all the political advertisements.

 

[AppleHater]

Yes and no. Many people can get CBS with a local antenna if they live close enough to CBS broadcast towers. That's why I reference it as being seen as a "free" channel. However, apparently this CBS streaming option will also include on-demand "in the can" programming (series and shows from past years too) in a Netflix-like way. So, there is some value in there vs. the concept of solely comparing it to the idea of getting CBS for free with an antenna.

That said though, the reason I reference it is to point out how the content owners view their properties and how they'll see pricing it in some kind of al-a-carte "new model". Is all of CBS (new programming + old series) equivalent to Netflix at $8-$9/month. Some might argue yes while others might argue no. But relative to $8-$9/month, CBS is thinking $6... cheaper than Netflix in spite of producing much more (new) original programming and having a >50-year library of classic series, shows & specials. Is CBS at $6 a better value than WWE at $9-$12/month? Again, people might argue it both ways (personally, I'd probably argue that 50+ years of CBS programming is easily worth more than the very nichey slice of entertainment that is WWE but then that would imply that CBS should price theres at least on par with WWE at $9-$12).

Now, if CBS can get $6, where does ABC, NBC and FOX price their version of the same? I would guess at least $6. Thus, the big 4 may hit at $24/month. These are 4 channels that many people think of as "free" or that are typically included in basic cable packages with a number of other channels for <$20 or so per month.

What does a Starz or HBO package cost in cable "as is"? Usually about $15/month. So if basic cable is about $15/month and it includes the "big 4" and Starz doubles that price to add it in, how does Starz and HBO get priced when the big 4 streaming is priced at $24? I think at least $35-$50/month but maybe they'll get very aggressive (relatively) down toward $29/month. Big 4 at $24 plus a Starz or HBO at $30 = $54 for just that set of channels. What about ESPN? What about TNT? What about USA, Food, Comedy Channel, TBS, WGN, CNN, FOX, VH1, your neighbors favorite, their neighbors favorite and so on?

And there you see the business math problem of this al-a-carte dream clashing with the oft-spun want by us consumers of "everything we want, whenever we want it, commercial-free" for about $5/month... or $10/month... or $20 or $29. In all of these al-a-carte threads, I just about NEVER see anyone talking about wanting to pay more than about $29. Most are dreaming at <$10 or <$20/month. And this begins to show why the actual math is so incompatible with the dream.

I don't see much point in a theory that's mostly base on what ifs. Business owners are very well aware of market reality and not dumb enough to come up with a product that no one is going to pay money for.

Nobody is talking about the end of traditional cable programs and those who see the value in the current system will stick with it, which is nothing wrong. It's just about more choice for consumers instead of being forced into buying more and more garbage channels that I don't want to watch while my cable bill goes up every year for that.

 

[JAT]

every single household in the U.S. would have a commercial free cable replacement bill starting at $47.50. That would be with 0 channels. And that assume every single household in America wants or has television services. Not all do.

Why 0 channels at that point? That's not what your math said. If that number was the sum total of TV advertising spent, that is over ALL channels that currently exist, showing ads. Including the OTA "free" ones. If nothing else, you should say 4 or so.

But here's the real trick. Ads are paid for by us already, in prices of products we buy. If there was some magical way to completely stop all advertising and just charge us this TV subsidy directly, the magic would also include price drops to compensate and we would probably mostly be better off in the wallet, anyway.

So often this al-a-carte dream is spun with the idea of getting 10-20 channels, commercial-free, for $5 to $20 or so.

These days, you post before anyone has a chance to spin such yarns. You are bordering on FUD. These actual news stories are about the channels that don't even have ads right now, HBO and Starz. Or about CBS, which has ads OTA, also charges for IP delivery, and STILL has ads. So, I don't know why ads even matter to the discussion of these stories.

If all our assumptions of HBO's IP packages starting below $20 are accurate, that would be around 8-12 channels (I presume) for $20, with larger packages for more dollars, no doubt. Which is exactly what you are ranting will never happen. I don't know what gets you so up in arms over what other people want from TV, but you might want an Advil and a scotch before your next post.

And, I didn't quote the comments, but you've forgotten that NBC/Fox/ABC already have an IP content delivery system in place, for $8 for all 3 networks. Hulu Plus. Also not commercial free.

 

[phuocsandiego]

There's no way in hell HobeSoundDarryl's predition of Starz or HBO will be $35-$40 a month as a separate streaming service from cable is even close. For all the long winded arguments, he's making a whole lot of assumptions that just doesn't logically follow through. We'll know soon enough who's right but by the tone of his arguments, I'm inclined to think he's a shill for the cable companies trying to scare us on why a la carte pricing of these services will be bad for us all. My prediction would be that HBO would cost about the same as what the cable companies charge (and yes, I did think about it from the all the other players' view points and not just my own).

 

[Lord Hamsa]

I'm not sure I see the problem. Certainly $100 is not "pure profit"; it's revenue. If an Apple eats $100 per customer in revenue by delivering a "new model", the Cable company will want to make up for that $100 loss (in revenue) with $100 in revenue from somewhere else.

See, that's a bad assumption on your part. On the whole, revenue is irrelevant. Profit is what matters. If that $100 in revenue has a cost of $85 to the cable company, they're far more interested in replacing the $15 of profit than replacing the revenue. If they can figure out how to increase broadband rates by an average of $15 without incurring additional cost (or regulatory issues), then they break even, even at $85 less revenue. And, in fact, at a higher rate of return on investment, which makes their shareholders/investors even happier.

This kind of bad assumption resounds through your analysis on this subject. You assume that every dollar spent throughout the existing process has to be replaced at a 1-for-1 basis for the major players to come out even, and that isn't even close to true.

----------

There's no way in hell HobeSoundDarryl's predition of Starz or HBO will be $35-$40 a month as a separate streaming service from cable is even close.

As mentioned by someone else upthread, Netflix has set the bar at $10/month. That's the benchmark price for a streaming service for movies and TV. To go over it, you'll need to make the case that what you're offering is worth that much more per month. HBO, for example, could claim that $20 is reasonable because they have more current movies and original programming. But $40? Highly unlikely that that claim will resonate with buyers.

And, at least on my cable system, the HBO package on cable is $30/month if you get it undiscounted. That includes Verizon's cut (which is why they can offer it for less as part of premium bundles). If HBO is even getting $15/month/subscriber I'd be surprised, so they should have no problem offering the same exact thing apart from a cable/satellite package for $15/month. They'd probably make even more money on it, honestly, even after accounting for the overhead of providing these services directly (which they have most of in place already anyway).

Let's look at the publishing industry as an example. The publisher typically gets 30-40% (depending on a number of factors) of the cover price as their revenue. The remainder of the book's price goes to the distributor (total for publisher and distributor is roughly 60%) and as mark-up to the retailer (40%). Now, take that same publication to electronic (i.e., direct to consumer) distribution: the rule of thumb is to charge 50% of the print cover price, and the publisher gets 70% of the sales price, with the distributor getting the remaining 30%. Guess what? 70% of 50% is 35%, or right in the middle of the range the publisher would normally get. And without any of the costs of physical printing. And the consumer pays half the original price. This is what happens when you cut out middlemen and archaic delivery systems.

 

[rluvbeach]

i really think that the key to this becoming something the average person buys into is going to be the availability of sports, and by that I mean ESPN and the NFL streaming.

Americans aren't going to buy into any service that doesn't have access to college and pro football.

 

[JackieInCo]

i really think that the key to this becoming something the average person buys into is going to be the availability of sports, and by that I mean ESPN and the NFL streaming.

Americans aren't going to buy into any service that doesn't have access to college and pro football.

Many many will though. I was cable free for nearly three years. I downloaded the Broncos games over usenet the day after the game in HD. Yesterdays game is already there.

I only subscribed to cable last August to watch the games live but I haven't even turned on my box in the last three weeks and just downloaded the games because I can watch it through without commercial or halftime. I'm thinking of canceling my service once again.

 

[StinDaWg]

Watching football is great without commercials! A 3.5 hour game becomes 2. Kickoff, commercial. Timeout, commercial. Injury, commercial. It's ridiculous. I thought I would miss live sports too but I actually enjoy it more watching a few hours after the game ends commercial free. Every sport is available if you know where to look.

 

[JackieInCo]

Watching football is great without commercials! A 3.5 hour game becomes 2. Kickoff, commercial. Timeout, commercial. Injury, commercial. It's ridiculous. I thought I would miss live sports too but I actually enjoy it more watching a few hours after the game ends commercial free. Every sport is available if you know where to look.

Best thing ever.

I download the game, run it through iFlicks and then watch it on my TV with my Apple TV. So that it has artwork, I have chosen NFL all access in iFlicks.

 

[Lord Hamsa]

Watching football is great without commercials! A 3.5 hour game becomes 2. Kickoff, commercial. Timeout, commercial. Injury, commercial. It's ridiculous.

It becomes even more glaring when you've been watching soccer for a while, with no commercial breaks except at halftime.