On Demand

[tomtella]

The current On-Demand selection is so weak that we will not renew with U-Verse at the end of the year.

[dwinth]

---

tomtella wrote:

The current On-Demand selection is so weak that we will not renew with U-Verse at the end of the year.

---

It is not necessary to give notice that you are leaving U-Verse on this forum. You need to call U-Verse at 1-800-288-2020 to let them know.

Since we are subscribers to U-Verse just like you, all we can provide is a going away card and a cake. Our budget does not allow for a going away gift.

---

Owning a computer and not having the internet is like buying a refrigerator and not stocking it with food.

[Computer-Joe]

---

dwinth wrote:

---

tomtella wrote:

The current On-Demand selection is so weak that we will not renew with U-Verse at the end of the year.

---

It is not necessary to give notice that you are leaving U-Verse on this forum. You need to call U-Verse at 1-800-288-2020 to let them know.

Since we are subscribers to U-Verse just like you, all we can provide is a going away card and a cake. Our budget does not allow for a going away gift.

---

Owning a computer and not having the internet is like buying a refrigerator and not stocking it with food.

---

So, who's paying for the cake?

__________________________________________________________
How can you be in two places at once, when your not anywhere at all?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really want to become a procrastinator, but I keep putting it off.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are three kinds of people, those that can count, and those that can't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Our great democracies still tend to think that a stupid man is more likely to be honest than a clever man, and our politicians take advantage of this prejudice by pretending to be even more stupid than nature has made them." :Bertrand Russell

[jhy1978]

Funny, they're ondemand puts Charter to shame.

[oufanindallas]

It beats what I had at Direct TV. Not sure about now, but 3 years ago on demand for Direct was terrible.

[sbriand]

One and done....

[oufanindallas]

---

sbriand wrote:

One and done....

---

Yep. It's funny. unless Comcast is in your neighborhood, UVerse on-demand is actually the best of the bunch.

[cgarness]

Sadly, bit torrent puts all VOD selections to shame.  I want to pay for content.  Why do these cable/satellite companies make it so difficult for me to do this? 

The genie is no going back into the bottle.  Nobody under ther age of 30 wants to deal with tv broadcast times or clunky DVR's.

[MicCheck]

It's quite easy to pay for content. Call the provider of your choice and arrange for service. If you really want to pay for content you will do so.

Likely, though, you'd rather you'd rather torrent your content. Your choice, but don't try to blame anyone else for you not paying for content.

[oufanindallas]

---

cgarness wrote:

Sadly, bit torrent puts all VOD selections to shame.  I want to pay for content.  Why do these cable/satellite companies make it so difficult for me to do this? 

The genie is no going back into the bottle.  Nobody under ther age of 30 wants to deal with tv broadcast times or clunky DVR's.

---

However, technically that is called pirating and if caught you could wind up with a large fine, internet privelges revoked and/or jail time.  Sorry, not worth it.

[cgarness]

Yes bit torrent is illegal.   But it is a also reality that the cable/telco industry can not afford to ignore.  And when its easier to use bot torrent to get something than do the right thing and pay, you have a real problem.   Just ask the music industry.   Piracy is a whole lot of potential customers tellign you something about your current offerings.   Make your experience simpler and better than bit torrent and people will pay.  Suing them or scolding them is not going to stop the tidal wave.

I don't use bit torrent (not because its illegal but because its a hassle.. I'd much prefer just to stream my TV content and will gloadly pay for that ability).  But with each passing month, Apple is getting more and more of my household's entertainment dollars (dollars that used to go to u-verse).  We've stripped our uverse plan down to basic with HBO and showtime and buy almost all our other shows on Apple TV (and in the process save about 500 dollars a year compared to what we would have to pay to get the same content on U-verse.   About the only thing cable still has going for it are Showtime and HBO.. and sadly HBO has shown that they can give us a much better experience than we get from our cable company or telco by giving us direct access with HBO Go.

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek]

Piracy/Bittorrent is indeed illegal, but he has a valid point.

In what other industry do companies attempt to increase their profits by:

• Make the product less available
• Restrict the end consumer from obtaining the product in the format or medium that they want
• Restrict distributors from carrying the product
• Prosecute consumers who would have bought your product but had to obtain it through other means because you refuse to sell it that way

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[cgarness]

EXACTLY my point SomaJoe7777.   

I'm not some bit torrent kiddie.   I'm a professional with a family who is fully willing to pay for content.   And when I do (pay uverse) all I seem to get is a bad interface and lots of content restrictions and excuses about why we can;t just buy only the things we want.

So, more and more Apple and Netflix is getting our money as we look for ways to trim back the uverse box we wish we never had to turn on again.

[cgarness]

I do pay for Uverse and frankly, its horrible. The VOD selection has gaping holes, the DVR has a clunky interface and is unreliable, the channel guide is a jumbled mess and we have to buy 150 dollars of garbage we don;t want a month to get the three or 4 channels that have shows we care about.

So its easy to pay for content... the way the Uverse wants you to watch it (the old fashioned way with intrusive content windowing restrictions, DVR's and actual broadcast schedules). But its not easy to pay for content the way modern customers want to view it (streamed from the cloud, on demand, a la carte, on the device of their choice at the time of their choice).

[JefferMC ACE - Wizard]

Gee, thanks for telling me how archaic and awful U-verse is.  Dang, I've been so blind.  I guess I just didn't realize how clunky the DVR UI was.  I suppose I'll cancel tomorrow.

You have some valid points, but all the vitriol I don't quite understand.

[cgarness]

Yes, I guess I am kind of irritated.   

It ticks me off that big cable and telcos like Comcast and U-verse use their deep pockets to bully the content producers like Showtime and HBO into exclusivity deals so that customers are forced to buy bundles they don't want in order to watch the few shows that they care about.   I’m tired of the industry’s excuses as to why we can’t have a la carte programming.   Forward thinking companies like Apple, Amazon, microsoft and Google are trying to offer an alternative but big cable is holding the premium channels hostage.

What we have here is an oligarchy, entrenched in its ways, unwilling to change, tone deaf to what its customers want,  abusing its power.   Cable service has consistently ranked low in customer satisfaction surveys for years (Comcast actually ranked lower the IRS one year).   What other industry can thrive by NOT giving customers what they want?

[oufanindallas]

---

cgarness wrote:

Yes, I guess I am kind of irritated.   

It ticks me off that big cable and telcos like Comcast and U-verse use their deep pockets to bully the content producers like Showtime and HBO into exclusivity deals so that customers are forced to buy bundles they don't want in order to watch the few shows that they care about.   I’m tired of the industry’s excuses as to why we can’t have a la carte programming.   Forward thinking companies like Apple, Amazon, microsoft and Google are trying to offer an alternative but big cable is holding the premium channels hostage.

What we have here is an oligarchy, entrenched in its ways, unwilling to change, tone deaf to what its customers want,  abusing its power.   Cable service has consistently ranked low in customer satisfaction surveys for years (Comcast actually ranked lower the IRS one year).   What other industry can thrive by NOT giving customers what they want?

---

You have it backwards.  The networks push their weight around and try and charge more per subscriber to get onto lower tiers. The only way it works is if the networks are on higher tiers.

[cgarness]

No sensible business leaves money on the table (http://takemymoneyhbo.com).  HBO is now selling HBO GO straight to consumers in Norway (where they have no strong carrier contracts which is proof that they would sell to us directly here if they could.  HBO GO outshines anything the cable companies have to offer so of course it makes them very, very nervous.   The NFL, NBA, etc are already selling streaming passes on the web   The only thing keeping people from cutting the cord completely are live events and premium channels like HBO and ESPN.

There is a huge audience of people who would be willing to pay good money for a season for HBO and Showtime's shows if they would just release them on Apple TV,  etc on the day and date of their cable broadcast.   The fact that you have to wait a year to either get them on Apple TV or on disc is the cable companies way of keeping you tied to their tether.  The Userse and Comcast's worst nightmare is that a la carte on demand content will turn them into dumb pipes and their revenues will be slashed.

So who has the bigger incentive to keep the old bundling business model in place?  HBO (who is locked, loaded and ready for the future with HBO GO)?  Or AT&T, Comcast etc who still have labyrinthine pricing schemes that nobody can understand and mediocre hardware you are forced to rent, and restrictions galore?  

[JefferMC ACE - Wizard]

You act like HBO didn't invent the business model that currently exists.  Norway is a completely different animal because HBO doesn't have the stranglehold on the distribution network that it has here.

Both sides benefit from the current arrangement.

[cgarness]

"Both sides benefit from the current arrangement."

How exactly does HBO benefit from NOT selling their content to a generation who has never had a TV, doesn't see the point in getting one, and has no interest paying for a cable TV subscription they won;t use just so they can watch Game of Thrones on their laptops or tablets?    I can totally see how Comcast or U-verse benefits (by delaying the inevitable move to over the top, on demand content delivery).  But I see no reason why HBO or Showtime would want to give young people another excuse to hit the torrent sites instead of taking their money.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

cgarness wrote:

It ticks me off that big cable and telcos like Comcast and U-verse use their deep pockets to bully the content producers like Showtime and HBO into exclusivity deals so that customers are forced to buy bundles they don't want in order to watch the few shows that they care about.   I’m tired of the industry’s excuses as to why we can’t have a la carte programming.   

---

You definitely have it backwards.  It's the content owners who force the TV providers to purchase bundled products as opposed to making content available on a a la carte basis.  You need to do some research to better be able to discuss this subject.

[cgarness]

By the way, Game of Thones was on track to be the most torrented show of 2012.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/9/3073610/game-of-thrones-most-pirated-show-season-2012

Again, how does restricting online access to your content for a year help your business?   These people are not going to get traditional cable subscription no matter how much you might want them to.  I see them every day in my office.  20 somethings who have grown up in a world where they get everything on the web.    These people constitute a completely untapped market.  Letting them be served by torrent sites while offering then no legal option to serve their needs is wrecklessness.

[JefferMC ACE - Wizard]

Dad gum.  I'm sure that's just never occurred to Time Warner.  If I were you, I'd get some Pay TV consultant business cards made up and get an appointment with their executives.  You could be the guy who gets rich on this idea.

[cgarness]

Snarky ad hominum attacks don't change the facts.  There are lots of people out there who don't want cable TV but do want to pay for content.   And the current contracts between premium channels and the little cabal of providers that own the pipes into our living rooms is to blame.    

Seeing that the providers have everything to lose by loosening their grip on this exclusivity arrangement and the conten creators have a whole lot to gain by expanding into other markets, its not hard to see who is driving this boat.  And nobody has provided any evidence that its actually the supposedly weak, downtrodden, cable comapnies who are the victims here.

[cgarness]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/08/forget-cord-cutters-cable-companies-should-worry-a...

[JefferMC ACE - Wizard]

---

cgarness wrote:

Snarky ad hominum attacks don't change the facts.  There are lots of people out there who don't want cable TV but do want to pay for content.   And the current contracts between premium channels and the little cabal of providers that own the pipes into our living rooms is to blame.    

Seeing that the providers have everything to lose by loosening their grip on this exclusivity arrangement and the conten creators have a whole lot to gain by expanding into other markets, its not hard to see who is driving this boat.  And nobody has provided any evidence that its actually the supposedly weak, downtrodden, cable comapnies who are the victims here.

---

Sorry about the snarkiness.

The providers like being able to make the money from the consumers without having to directly support the consumer.  Contrast what HBO's direct business model would look like vs, say... Netflix.

 Think HBO makes as much per sub as Netflix?

 Compare costs. (Include delivery, customer service, billing and Accounts Recievable/collections)

 Compare reliability of revenue stream vs a Pay-per-viewing model

[cgarness]

“The providers like being able to make the money from the consumers without having to directly support the consumer.”

I understand that premium channels like the free marketing they get from the Comcast, U-verse, etc as well as the ability to offload support and billing to them.  But that still doesn’t change the fact that a burgeoning market is not being served at all.  Consumers don’t care about inside baseball, they just want to watch their shows the way they want and pay a reasonable price.  They dont; want to hear about how hard it is to transition or how your internal billing works, etc.  

People understand that HBO shows is premium content and will pay a premium price for it (I’d gladly pay 20-30 dollars a month for HBO Go... how does that compare to the 12 or so bucks they get from me now?).  People know that good content from HBO costs a whole lot more than a bunch of b-list old movies, documentaries and last years TV from Netflix.  If Netflix ever gets serious about offering good first run content, they aren;t going to be able to do it for 9.99/month.  But if you don;t offer people the content they want in the form they prefer, they will find a way to get it that bypasses you completely.

Also. HBO is already ready taking on support and infrastructure costs with HBO GO.  So why not make some extra money off of the service by giving new over the top customers the opportunity to pay them money to watch it?  The only reason I can think of is because they are contractually forbidden from doing so… either by cable and telco partner threats or from fearful executives at parent company Time Warner who still think we are living in a world where you can control scarcity.  But  find it hard to believe that a company that is making money hand over fist (and by all accounts HBO is making lots of money) would get too much interference from corporate as long as the profits keep rolling in.   Which leads me to believe that this is mostly about Comcast, AT&T, etc trying to stay relavant as long as posssible.

HBO seems to have a plan.  The cable companies of the world don't.

[oufanindallas]

---

cgarness wrote:

“The providers like being able to make the money from the consumers without having to directly support the consumer.”

I understand that premium channels like the free marketing they get from the Comcast, U-verse, etc as well as the ability to offload support and billing to them.  But that still doesn’t change the fact that a burgeoning market is not being served at all.  Consumers don’t care about inside baseball, they just want to watch their shows the way they want and pay a reasonable price.  They dont; want to hear about how hard it is to transition or how your internal billing works, etc.  

People understand that HBO shows is premium content and will pay a premium price for it (I’d gladly pay 20-30 dollars a month for HBO Go... how does that compare to the 12 or so bucks they get from me now?).  People know that good content from HBO costs a whole lot more than a bunch of b-list old movies, documentaries and last years TV from Netflix.  If Netflix ever gets serious about offering good first run content, they aren;t going to be able to do it for 9.99/month.  But if you don;t offer people the content they want in the form they prefer, they will find a way to get it that bypasses you completely.

Also. HBO is already ready taking on support and infrastructure costs with HBO GO.  So why not make some extra money off of the service by giving new over the top customers the opportunity to pay them money to watch it?  The only reason I can think of is because they are contractually forbidden from doing so… either by cable and telco partner threats or from fearful executives at parent company Time Warner who still think we are living in a world where you can control scarcity.  But  find it hard to believe that a company that is making money hand over fist (and by all accounts HBO is making lots of money) would get too much interference from corporate as long as the profits keep rolling in.   Which leads me to believe that this is mostly about Comcast, AT&T, etc trying to stay relavant as long as posssible.

HBO seems to have a plan.  The cable companies of the world don't.

---

Because unlike you, many of their current subscribers wouldn't pay that much per month.  HBO/Showtime, etc make much more money by bundling their service with cable providers, they can charge a lower price per month because of the volume.  I enjoy watching HBO GO, but I wouldn't pay $20-30 per month to watch it.  Ala carte pricing will not work. You would wind up with programming from back in the 70's when a network would go off the air at midnight due to not being able to support having programming available.

[cgarness]

"Because unlike you, many of their current subscribers wouldn't pay that much per month."

So the answer is to do nothing and hope the pirating doesn get any worse?  That's not a strategy, that's denial.  And thinking you can stop it with legilsation is naive.   The piracy game is liek whack-a-mole.  For every site yo utake down 5 go back up.   What competes with free is a better experience, not a bunch of excuses as to why people just have to accept a bad one. 

We all saw how well denial and a wait-and-see attitude worked out for the music industry.  Not to mention what its doing to the newspaper industry.  The NYT doesn't make far less from digital advertising as they do from print and their digital only plans are priced accordingly (and yet even with the more expensive plans they still make more money from print).   But by all accounts the digital subscriptioons are selling well.   What the NYTimes is NOT doing is withholding the digital version hoping that tihis whole internet thing will just blow over and that everyone will just aquiesce and buy the more profitable dead paper edition because its all that's available.   Again, we no longer live in a world where forced scarcity will work.  

So say you are correct about what people will pay for HBO Go (and I don't think you are).   People have already proven what they will pay for HBO's content on digital services like Apple TV, Xbox and Amazon (40-45 bucks a season).   No hosting costs, no support, no bandwidth costs.   HBO takes home a healthy 28-32 dollars a season.  Or they could choose to ignoire the digital crowd and hope they will still be interested in paying them a year later after the shows air. 

"HBO/Showtime, etc make much more money by bundling their service with cable providers, they can charge a lower price per month because of the volume."

You know, I keep hearing exacuses as to why things can't be any different than the way they are now.  And in the meantime people are torrenting the heck out of this content when they could be paying for it ... if only they were allowed to.

[JefferMC ACE - Wizard]

Wait, what?

---

cgarness wrote:

... People have already proven what they will pay for HBO's content on digital services like Apple TV, Xbox and Amazon (40-45 bucks a season).   No hosting costs, no support, no bandwidth costs.   HBO takes home a healthy 28-32 dollars a season...

---

So it seems that HBO already found a way to provide their content digitally over the Internet, again without direct customer interaction.  So... what was your point again?