1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Would you subscribe to content streamed over the Internet?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by Mike Greer, Dec 9, 2010.

Would it work for you?

  1. No way - streaming over the Internet is no good for me.

    0 vote(s)
  2. Maybe - if the price was right.

  3. Most likely - if the picture/sound quality and experience is at least as good as my current provider

  4. Sign me up now - take my satellite dish please!

  1. Dec 9, 2010 #1 of 51
    Mike Greer

    Mike Greer Hall Of Fame

    Jan 20, 2004
    Salt Lake...

    “HBO could one day be offered as a standalone service rather than be tied to any specific level of pay-TV subscription, the New York Post reported Tuesday, quoting Time Warner chairman Jeff Bewkes.

    Since it started 38 years ago, the channel has been part of various cable packages, but with platforms such as Netflix, Google TV and Apple TV gaining in popularity, Bewkes suggested Monday at a UBS media conference in New York that there were other options.”

    Wow – this would be great. If I could get HBO, Showtime, Discovery, Syfy and maybe a few others – along with over-the-air networks I’d be set. It’s hard to believe that I pay so much for DVRs and a few channels. Can’t imagine that it would cost nearly as much if I could subscribe directly to the channels I want over the Internet. Add Sunday Ticket games and Blu-Ray from NetFlix and who needs Dish Network, DirecTV or cable?

    I’m sure this is the way things are going – I just wish it would happen sooner rather than later!
  2. Dec 9, 2010 #2 of 51

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    Dec 9, 2006
    "yeah sure", once I have fiber to my home.
    Try watching two HD channels on my DSL. !rolling
  3. Dec 9, 2010 #3 of 51
    Mike Greer

    Mike Greer Hall Of Fame

    Jan 20, 2004
    Salt Lake...
    Bandwidth would most certainly be a problem for live TV but I think many, including myself, watch very little live TV. In fact if I could just have certain programs from the providers I subscribe to download slowly over a few days so that I can watch them when they are live on cable/satellite I'd be happy.

    For example - I subscribe to Showtime just so I can watch Dexter and Weeds. My new DVR could just start downloading those programs from Showtime and not allow me to view them until the day a particular episode goes 'live'.

    I think that setup would work for 99% of what I watch.
  4. Dec 9, 2010 #4 of 51
    Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    Jan 24, 2007
    I don't know for sure. I'd never give up a service provider but if my internet connection were faster I might use a streaming service for movies and such...maybe.

  5. Dec 9, 2010 #5 of 51

    dettxw MRVing

    Nov 21, 2007
    Choctaw, OK
    If I could stream as much as I wanted (like I can watch as much HBO as I want via the satellite dish) and do so for a set reasonable price then that would be neat, if the video quality was there.

    I pay for the fastest local cable internet so streaming could work at my house.
    Or should I say it could work until Cox starts putting caps on service.
    That's the problem with all of these streaming services, none of it will work very well after the internet providers get done screwing us.
  6. Dec 9, 2010 #6 of 51

    fluffybear Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    Jun 19, 2004
    I would be willing to consider it providing the cost is right and the ISP did not cap our bandwidth.
  7. Dec 9, 2010 #7 of 51

    Darcaine Legend

    Aug 31, 2009
    I definitely would pay a subscription for a hulu like service if it was compatible with Windows Media Center, I don't want to have to leave WMC and goto Firefox to watch certain shows, and go back to WMC for Netflix, local programming, all my other media needs. I want everything accessible under one box and one program.

    Btw I realize that WMC does offer IPTV options, but they aren't nearly as diverse or up to date as Hulu or Fancast is. Give me Hulu in WMC and I'll sign up today and dump D* tomorrow since I'm no longer under contract.

    I agree, I haven't watched live TV in years.
  8. Dec 9, 2010 #8 of 51

    Hutchinshouse Hall Of Fame

    Sep 27, 2006
    Heck yeah! I kind of already did with The Travel Channel. I used to watch Travel Channel HD shows via Netflix. I no longer do now that DIRECTV has this fine channel in stunning breathtaking HD. :D
  9. Dec 9, 2010 #9 of 51

    scuba_tim Godfather

    Sep 23, 2006
    Streaming options like this seem like an easier way to transition to ala carte. Pay for what you watch... yes, with all of it's problems, it's still an interesting idea.
  10. sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    Until ISPs start capping usage.
  11. carl6

    carl6 Moderator Staff Member DBSTalk Club

    Nov 15, 2005
    Seattle, WA
    I said maybe, but in all likelihood I would not.
  12. Mike Greer

    Mike Greer Hall Of Fame

    Jan 20, 2004
    Salt Lake...
    It is like ala carte but without the DirecTV/Dish Network/Cable co in the middle.

    I'm sure Showtime would be happy to get ALL the money I pay DirecTV for Showtime - hell, I'd pay more if they could make it work!
  13. Mike Greer

    Mike Greer Hall Of Fame

    Jan 20, 2004
    Salt Lake...
    That's going to be trouble no matter how you look at it. DirecTV is going to keep raising their prices... ISPs are likely going to start charging for bandwidth - if Comcast gets their way we're all in trouble.

    I suspect that at least in the near future even paying for bandwith would still cost me less than I pay DirecTV for 800 channels of crap I don't watch.

    Maybe even the possibility of cutting out the middleman is enough to make DirecTV and Dish Network 'improve' on things they can get away with ignoring now.
  14. BattleZone

    BattleZone Hall Of Fame

    Nov 13, 2007
    They won't cap usage... they'll simply create a tiered pay system so that the more you use, the more you'll pay. And folks who use the Internet as their delivery mechanism for TV to "save money" will quickly realize that they're just shifting the money from their TV provider to their Internet provider.

    Don't think the phone and cable companies haven't been planning this all along...
  15. Scott Kocourek

    Scott Kocourek Well-Known Member

    Jun 13, 2009
    I voted maybe but in all reality I probably wouldn't. A good value for me includes quality, cost and convenience. This would be hard for any internet based provider to give me what I can get through DIRECTV, obviously others may have different views on what constitutes a good value but until I see another option with the same or better options for a better price I'm staying put.
  16. hasan

    hasan Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2006
    Ogden, IA
    Would you subscribe to content streamed over the Internet?

    When I first read this, I kinda chucked.

    ...I already do. I've had NetFlix for quite a while and am very satisfied with it. I haven't done a PPV movie from D* for many, many years.

    Do I want to subscribe to another internet service? No, NetFlix does what I need at a reasonable price. Blu-Rays by mail, internet in the mean time. They have far more content than I have time to watch.

    I don't care about HBO and other premiums service as stand-alones.

    So, in answer to the question, "would I", no. Do I? Yes.:)
  17. MonyMony

    MonyMony Legend

    Dec 14, 2006
    The fact that my internet provider (Comcast) caps the amount of data you can download per month makes this a no-go option for me.
  18. bonscott87

    bonscott87 Cutting Edge: ECHELON '07

    Jan 21, 2003
    Yea, I have for a while and for the past year it's the only thing I have...Internet and OTA only and I actually use less and less of OTA as my antenna starts to die.

    And who needs to pay? I can stream *everything* already for free from either Netflix, Hulu or directly from the channel's website. (Well, Netflix is a charge but I'm paying that anyway for the discs so it's "free" to me). For example Leverage starts up on TNT again this weekend. No problem, I'll stream it right on their web site in HD to my big screen.

    Seriously folks, paying $100 a month for TV is so last decade. ;)
  19. RBTO

    RBTO Legend

    Apr 11, 2009
    The price might be right but the quality (especially for full HD) just isn't there, and unlike satellite HD, the more users, the poorer the quality will become until the internet gets its next upgrading, and has the needed bandwidth. Bandwidth for the internet is its real bottleneck which can fill up. Satellite can have an almost unlimited number of users (not internet satellite) without those issues.

    Secondly, a reason I wouldn't buy in, there are a lot of locations that just don't get high speed internet (or any internet for that matter). People that travel and want to get HD service anywhere won't turn to the internet as their primary provider.

    Lastly, at some point in time, the internet will have a major outage (or outages) and all internet based tech will go down with it (even power outages can affect the internet). Satellites are much more immune to such outages (provided uplinks aren't affected by the internet when it goes down). The same reasoning applies to telephone landlines which is a reason the military still uses them (not exclusively, however).

    That said, services like Netflix and the like, are frosting on the cake, and for those that use them, they're great (although I can't say that I've seen any HD content streamed to a home theater screen). It's just that I won't accept streaming internet as my primary HD provider.
  20. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    Sep 3, 2007
    No because both the PQ and AQ are inadequate.

Share This Page