Prepared to pay for TV on the web?

[FordGT90Concept]

From CNN...
Cable departs from Hulu model with 'TV Everywhere'

Two cable powerhouses have announced an ambitious pilot program that aims to convince their customers that, actually, TV on the web should not be free.

With a service called TV Everywhere, Comcast and Time Warner will give cable subscribers access to "premium" television content via broadband, and later cellphone connections.

To begin with, 5,000 Comcast subscribers will begin testing the system next month, giving them access to Time Warner's TBS and TNT channels on their computers, and the same channels' video-on-demand catalogs on their cable boxes.

If you made peace long ago with the idea of paying a monthly cable bill, this probably sounds great. It means watching your existing subscription on new screens without paying additional fees or buying more hardware. (Of course, as consumers adopt TV Everywhere, they can probably expect price increases.)

But if you prefer to watch your television for free on ad-supported sites like Hulu while paying only for the internet connection that delivers it, you could be in for a rude awakening. TV Everywhere represents an alternative -- and possible threat -- to the popular Hulu model.

CONTINUED (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/biztech/06/26/wired.tv.everywhere/index.html)

[WhiteLotus]

Same in the UK, going to be around £6 a licence for a year. Watch that figure climb to £10 then £15... then £25. And all because TV, at least in the UK, is being crushed by the internet and things like pirating, BBC iPlayer, there is no reason now to fork out £140 for a TV licence.

One question: How much (if anything) do you guys (in the states) HAVE to pay to watch TV?

[twilyth]

I'm not worried. As long as usenet is around it won't be an issue. For example, now that SciFi has stopped showing Dr. Who, I can get them off usenet from BBC rips. In fact, that's what I've always done since SciFi doesn't air episodes until a couple months after they're shown in the UK. Same for Torchwood, which I don't think the SciFi channel would even touch.

The problem is that nobody wants to go through the learning curve involved - parity files, news readers, retention periods, etc. Plus there is the additional expense of a premium subscription if you expect to get complete archives, good retention periods and decent bandwidth.

[FordGT90Concept]

One question: How much (if anything) do you guys (in the states) HAVE to pay to watch TV?
Right now, nothing. Everything is ad-supported. You have to pay for Internet service and you have to pay for cable or satellite service but, because of the ads, almost everything is free to view. The only thing that isn't is pay per view channels like movies. There is no commerical interruption in those.

[Steevo]

Booo.


I refuse to pay for the same old crap and re-runs. Youtube currently has a minor vidoe selection of studio films with ads, decent quality when you employ GPU acceleration. I would rather watch slightly less quality for many movies than to have to pay for the shit service.

Some movies deserve to be watched in HD. And those I will buy or rent.

[Deusxmachina]

One question: How much (if anything) do you guys (in the states) HAVE to pay to watch TV?

Over-The-Air broadcasts are free. Hook an antenna to your TV and there you are. That's mainly the big broadcasters like CBS, NBC, etc. You won't get ESPN that way.

Of course, "free" can also mean it's already paid for by taxes no one sees, but there is no straight-up fee you pay for it out of pocket.

Was talking to a UK guy last week. He went to "TV Court" because he missed a payment for his TV watching. Lame.

I do fear for the upcoming internet charges ISPs will try to push through. 1gb a month for $15. 5gb a month for $25. What you pay now for unlimited may cost you $150 per month. If they restrict bandwidth like that, I want a refund on my bandwidth all the internet ads use.

[DaMulta]

Well I can now steam line torrents on the net for free. Top that :p