Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

Streaming Costs Discussion

7K views 36 replies 13 participants last post by  Dr.Dave 
#1 ·
#3 ·
Cutting the cord could cost as much as cable

I predicted that some time ago. As bev fan says and unlike conventional TV cable, it's not necessary to subscribe to every service at once or even sub to one continuously. It's easy to sub to one service, watch everything they offer and then switch to another. That's what I'm doing with Netflix. A month or two usually exhausts everything they have that's new from the previous time I activated it. Next up is CraveTV, probably in June. The one exception is Amazon Prime, which requires a yearly subscription. I'm waiting until their library expands significantly.
 
#4 ·
This article is inane.

For one, the author starts by including the cost of internet access in the equation. Then acknowledges that most people are already paying for internet access. Then continues to build his argument on the premise of the cost of internet access being included.

His argument is predicated on users paying for nearly every service available. The whole point of cord cutting to save money is to only pay for the things you actually want to watch. If you want to watch everything then I think everyone would concede that cable will probably be a better value for you.

He describes new streaming services as adding costs to the bundle, as though cord cutters would collect them all to build a comprehensive viewing experience.

He talks about the skinny bundle services like SlingTV as costing the same as cable when you add in Netflix and HBO, but that assumes that cable subscribers are not also paying for Netflix and HBO.

Throughout the article, he ignores the advantages of commercial free viewing, on demand access, access across many devices, or better user interfaces which many streaming services provide.

And then there's this:
And we all know how easy it is to sign up, but darn impossible to stop the charges when we want to cancel. You generally can’t e-mail the services, you have to call and wait on hold forever.
I have never had that experience with any streaming services I've used. They always have an option to cancel in the web interface. However, that does sound like my experience canceling cable!
 
#5 ·
Internet cost is a factor but not the full cost. Using the internet for TV will require unlimited internet or at least a very high data cap. It will often also require a speed increase. That will increase the cost of internet for many people by anywhere from $10 to $100 per month. I'm happy for anyone who already has a premium internet package with unlimited data but that is not the reality for most people.
 
#6 ·
It definitely does not require an unlimited internet package. I've been streaming all my TV for several years now, and I've never crossed 200 GB in a month, and I'm usually well under 150. In Toronto, Rogers' 30 Mbps plan, the first option above the ultrabasic 5 Mbps, includes 250 GB of bandwidth. Bell's Fibe 15, the first option above the ultrabasic 3 Mpbs plan, only includes 75 GB of data, but to upgrade to Fibe 50, which is unlimited, is only $20 more. Shaw and Telus seem to have similar options in the west. And all of these include speeds that are more than capable of handling HD streaming.

If you're the kind of person who would even consider getting your TV via the web, you probably already have a connection that can support cord cutting, or one that can be upgraded to that point for $20 or less. If you have a 3-5 Mbps connection and only really use it for basic web browsing as it is, the cost would be somewhere around $50 or less. The only way it's climbing as high as $100 is if you don't have internet access at all, in which case you're probably not the kind of person suited to figuring out how the different web services work anyway.

If you live in a part of the country where internet access is limited and bandwidth is expensive, then streaming services probably aren't the right choice for you. If your household watches so much TV that they would need an unlimited bandwidth plan, then you're probably getting good value from cable and should stick with it. The argument (at least from reasonable people) has never been that nobody should ever pay for cable, but rather that for many people it does not make sense.
 
#8 ·
I've been streaming all my TV for several years now, and I've never crossed 200 GB in a month, and I'm usually well under 150.
That all depends on the amount of TV watched. Some people leave their TV on all day and others have children or extended family members in the same household. That could easily blow through a 200 GB cap. We are up to 50 GB less than half way through the month and that's with using a standard TV package for over 90% of our TV viewing. We can easily use over 20GB/mo just listing to streamed music all day. IPTV uses about 100 times as much data.

Even if it's not unlimited data, many internet packages have generous caps (e.g. 1TB/month).
That's usually only the very high end packages in urban areas with fibre or cable upgrades. Low end plans here have a 20-25GB/mo limit. Switching to a streaming TV service will create a significant data use and price increase. A 500GB/mo plan would be a $40/mo increase over our current 200GB plan. The next step up is unlimited at $55 more. The top plan is a whopping $100 more. Unlimited data plans are available from competitors and start at about $20 more.
 
#9 ·
80% of Canadians live in urban areas. Yes, there will be plenty of people for whom switching to streaming is not even a viable option, but for the vast majority, the internet connection is already in place or a relatively inexpensive upgrade.

Again, if you're watching hundreds of hours of TV every month via networks that you could not get reliably OTA, then you're getting great value from your cable package and it makes sense for you. The people for whom streaming services make the most sense are the people who watch less, and don't want to pay for the things they're not interested in watching.
 
#10 ·
ExDilbert said:
That's usually only the very high end packages in urban areas with fibre or cable upgrades.
Sure, but if you look at Shaw's Internet price list, because they priced their 150Mbps package as they did, their other offerings don't make much sense.

In response, Telus adjusted their prices accordingly. While this is only applicable to the west, that's still quite a few people. Nationally, the trend line is that Internet packages are giving you more for your money. And because Internet is a necessity for many reasons, it's wrong to apply the entire cost of your Internet as a "cost of streaming video".

Put simply, @TorontoColin pointed out the fundamental flaws with this article. My sense is that we're just seeing the beginning of the great BDU collapse, and that there will soon be a significant exodus from traditional broadcast TV for two reasons:

1. From a technical perspective, broadcast TV is a inferior product.
2. You get less content for your money on broadcast TV.

Even when you have hundreds of channels, many of those are "clone" channels (same content with different regions, different resolutions, etc). The amount of content that is "on demand" is pathetic compared to the larger streaming players.

Many TV providers are trying to add on-demand services which they pair with their broadcast TV offerings, but heretofore those have just served to underscore how amazing services like Netflix are.
 
#11 ·
I agree with all of those points but there is a reason why ISP TV services remain so popular. It's because a lot of major first run programming is only available though regular and premium TV channels. There are many channels that only have 1 or 2 series a year that I watch. The rest is just a waste of money and a lot of noise. The PVR takes care of that and I've owned one for 13 years. There are other ways to obtain the programming in a timely manner but it would involve some questionable and less reliable practices that would be unacceptable to other household members. Another option would be to wait a year or two for the programming to be available on DVD or through streaming services but I find that undesirable as well. And yes, the on demand and streaming services offered by Canadian networks and BDUs suck in a major way when compared to Netflix. They are definitely a last resort.
 
#12 ·
I have to agree with TOCollin. My little town in Annapolis Valley gets no OTA service so cable TV and streaming are the viable media options.

We have scads of stations on our cable tv roster yet nothing worth watching. For years, moreover, I played with SlingTV boxes, Sage TV servers and so on, to get cable TV to each household screen, without the ugly clunky boxes connected to local coaxial outlets -- never where I wanted them.
.
But when gigabit speed -- luckily, Kings County is relatively densely populated and suburban-like -- became available, we cut the cable. It isn't cheap but there's no cap and it provides more than enough bandwidth for UHD. Granted, subscriptions do add up for HBO, Amazon VOD, Netflix, and Showtime, but we actually enjoy watching the content: no commercials or comskip fussing, convenience, and better programming, with high quality picture and sound on far fewer devices.

How simple is it? One of our TVs is a Roku TV plugged into a power outlet, connected to my US Roku account, wirelessly, tethered only to an existing high end sound system via HDMI cable (with CEC). Everything appears on the TV's home screen, requiring a click of the remote. If one isn't fussy about sound, all that's needed is a smart tv, with a wireless connection to modem, or router.

Moreover, streaming SlingTV isn't much more expensive than basic cable TV -- US dollar but no 15% HST. But the channels on Slingtv include some worth viewing, like TNT, USA, and FX, live and on demand.

The cable outlets, like the land line phone jacks, around our house today serve only as a nuisance, when a room gets painted. I guess they're historical artifacts to remind us of the 20th century.

Maintaining the system is simple: make sure the modem is on after a power outage -- maybe a reboot, sometimes. Turn on the TV, in the room where I'm going to watch. Sometimes, I need to go get a brew and some snacks, but I need the exercise, and I have lots of spare time, now that I'm not maintaining hardware and tripping over wires.
 
#13 ·
Streaming Costs On The Rise

I've always been an all or nothing guy and we currently subscribe to two satellite services. Because we divide our time almost evenly with Regina & Minot we keep both going at all times. With Bell I've cut it down to the basic package while keeping our U.S. Service at the everything pack. As I like to have all the channels or none of them. Also having the best internet service that Sasktel has to offer with no cap, we could easily stream all the time but I'd be the guy subscribing to more than one service like the article says. I like the idea of getting all my content from one simple source. The DVR(H3) is simply the best out there and I to can skip commercials on most channels with auto hop, the ones that don't skip automatically I simply skip ahead with the remote. I also binge watch just like streaming as I record at least 5-9 episodes(sometimes the whole season) before I start to watch. Then there is the BD Factor as certain shows I watch exclusively on BD, like Game Of Thrones since it has Dolby Atmos which I'm big into. Many people ask me why I don't have Netflix and I say that I have too much to watch now let alone with a streaming service. Then they say that I'm missing out on this show or that show, to which I say no I'm not as I still purchase shows like House Of Cards, Longmire, Daredevil etc, on BD when released.
 
#14 ·
But the channels on Slingtv include some worth viewing, like TNT, USA, and FX, live and on demand.
Most of their content is available through Canadian BDUs but can be difficult to find. It's sometimes scattered over many channels, often airs at different times and some is only available on premium channels but most of it does get aired. I have some reluctance over paying $10-$20/mo for a premium channel to see a show that airs on standard cable in the US but that's another issue.
 
#16 ·
Cheap streaming service prices are a marketing ploy to get wide adoption. The bottom line is that programming producers and distributors are not going to lower their prices and consumers will need to pay them what they need to provide content and services. When satellite was introduced it was $15/mo. Now it costs as much or more than cable and has fallen behind in content and services. Streaming will improve but consumers will need to pay a lot more if they want to watch shows like Game Of Thrones when they are released and not a year or more later as is the case with most currently available OTT shows. The proliferation of streaming services will work against consumers as well since they tend drive up costs in the same way that the proliferation of TV channels drove up cable and satellite TV prices.
 
#21 ·
#20 · (Edited)
Netflix at $10.50, how could that ever be more expensive than cable subscription. Remember on cable there is 13% tax, more than double that is recommended for Netflix.
It is only fair to Canadian streaming service Crave Tv that tax will be implemented on Netflix.

I will be cutting the cord next week at least for the summer months so my cost will be $40 for Carrytel 100 Mbps unlimited internet and $10 for Netflix and $0 for OTA, pretty good savings especially that in the summer months we watch very little live tv.
 
#22 ·
Netflix at $10.50, how could that ever be more expensive than cable subscription. Remember on cable there is 13% tax, more than double that is recommended for Netflix. It is only fair to Canadian streaming service Crave Tv that tax will be implemented on Netflix.
According to the article, the recommended tax wasn't a Netflix tax - it was an internet tax on all broadband users. You would pay the tax whether you subscribed to a streaming service or not.

BREAKING: Canadian government will reject Heritage Committee's recommendation of a 5% Internet tax.

https://twitter.com/BoyerMichel/status/875363793144074242
 
#24 ·
Don't we already pay GST/PST/HST on internet services that are already among the poorest performing and most expensive in the world? Adding another 5% will just push Canada further down the road to being a third world country. It's bad enough that all our best technology companies and their patents have been systematically sold off to overseas companies for the past 30 years. The fact that the Canadian dollar is tied to the price of oil pretty much reflects what Canada's stake in the modern world's economy is worth. So let's just add another 5% disadvantage to the other costs hampering Canadian entrepreneurs and small businesses. :/
 
#25 ·
I think streaming services are going to start charging a lot more in the future - I think we need to look at cable/satellite as an example.

I remember my cable bill (Full TV package except TMN and @Home internet) for Rogers crept up to $40 in 2001 when I switched to Bell Satellite/Sympatico the same year for a introductory $25 package that crept up over the years (I believe it was $40 regular anyways - went for the initial savings). By the time I cut the cord last year, the combined bill was $160 - however, $98 was TV alone - no box rentals or any other services than the channels I always got.

Right now, there is no "must watch immediately" programming on streaming services - however, I can see the day they start shelling out for sports programming, or find some show you have to watch, they will figure out how to start charging more.

I also remember a few years ago I had Netflix for a few months and it was $4.99 Canadian - it's almost double that or more now...
 
#26 ·
The difference is that it's always been more difficult to get a "TV" service going and keep it running. Online services cost a fraction of that. If the Netflix and Amazon of the world start to charge too much, there will be another reasonably priced service that will launch to take its place.
 
#28 ·
Netflix at $10.50, how could that ever be more expensive than cable subscription.
That's basically equivalent to one cable theme pack or premium network package. Those vary from $6 to $20 on a BDU so it's not really that different. Add an internet service with sufficient bandwidth for Netflix and other OTT services at about $45 to $80 and the cost goes up. The main difference with BDUs is that regulations require that they also sell a basic TV package that varies in price from about $25 to $50. Most people also need internet these days so BDU subscribers get hit with a double charge for the basic cord (or incoming wire) and it seems way overpriced. Add a home phone and BDU subscribers are paying 3 times for the same wire.

In that scenario, OTT services like Netflix and IP phone look like a good deal since consumers are only paying once for the wire and only the true competitive marketplace cost for the other services.

As a little history for the post millennium generation, telephone was once on twisted pair as a standalone service and TV was on a separate coax cable. You had to have two wires and the cost of the wire was included in the service cost. Internet either didn't exist or (when it became available about 30 years ago) was relegated to a few "techies" who used modems that tied up the phone line, making incoming and outgoing voice calls impossible. An even fewer number of hard core techies had two phone lines to simultaneously communicate using the computer and voice phone.

All 3 services are now basically being offered over just one wire but incumbent providers have not lowered costs on the services to match. With today's fibre and IP switching technology, costs to provide connections and services have plummeted while incumbent providers continue to raise rates at more than the cost of inflation. It's time for a drastic change in the way services and content are delivered but archaic regulations and market domination by a small number of incumbent companies are distorting the marketplace and hindering real competition.

One solution would be to separate the wire from the services it carries. That would increase competition since people would pay for the wire independently of any service they may also purchase. Service providers would compete for delivery of the service over any existing wire, not bundle both in one package. It could also lower costs and increase availability since, in theory, the wire could become a utility that only exists as a common carrier for other services. (It would become an essential service and be treated like electricity wires.)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top