[ChuckMcM]

Yes, CBS has this weird notion that you will pay $5.99 a month AND watch commercials that you can't skip.

I get that they "think" its like this now, they get paid by the cable company for their channel (the $5.99) and they send them content with commercials (which they have sold), but the new world is NetFlix which charges monthly, but has now commercials.

[maxerickson]

The broadcast networks have been in the process of expanding that fee:

http://www.thestreet.com/story/13181362/1/cbss-tough-stance-...

Given the quality of digital broadcast and tendency for it to overlap cable service areas, it's pretty ridiculous that they manage to get anything. It wouldn't be so hard for a consumer friendly TV to transparently switch between sources (well, except for the cable companies making sure not to put consumer friendly features in their now required boxes).

[ocdtrekkie]

People love to make the Netflix comparison, but it's generally silly. First-run, current-season material is vastly more expensive than the backlogs and cheap movies Netflix buys.

You couldn't/wouldn't want to pay for how much current TV shows would cost in commercial free. Netflix works because they only buy cheap content.

[maxerickson]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_dist...

[ocdtrekkie]

Largely irrelevant. Netflix shows are at a budget Netflix controls, rather than the pricing maze of licensing content from major networks. Many more shows, often with higher budgets. And with a price premium because Netflix would be competing with their own services if Netflix was given earlier access to them.

[maxerickson]

My point was that they are actually producing "First-run, current-season material". They have several shows that have gotten attention for their quality.

You say "you couldn't/wouldn't want to pay for how much current TV shows would cost in commercial free.", but a show with a 10 million dollar budget and a million viewers would cost $10, not a lot more than Google Play for current season stuff (per episode), so apparently people are paying about what it would take.

[ocdtrekkie]

For just that show. And when you look at the hundreds of shows these streaming services offer, at a potential cost of $10 a pop per user, per show, you start to understand why you still see ads when you pay to subscribe. ;)

[ChuckMcM]

I think you are mistaken, the cost per episode of the shows that NetFlix has produced are on a par with anything on Network Television or Cable. What changes is the number of people with fingers in the pie. Certainly the production values of Daredevil were as good as anything on TV at the time. The combination of better CGI (lowering location costs and the costs of set dressing) and streamlining the number of people who want to make a nickel, changes the game with respect to getting new shows on to the viewer's screen.

[toxican]

It's not a weird notion, considering it works fairly well for Hulu. Even their "commercial-free" tier features commercials on select episodes because "reasons"

[ChuckMcM]

Perhaps 'weird' is the wrong word, I think ultimately it is an unsupportable position. It seems irrational to me in the face of alternatives (Amazon, NetFlix) with higher customer satisfaction.

[serge2k]

Reasons like they couldn't get out of it, would be my guess. They are up front with that limitation, and I expect they will push to get rid of the rest of the ads.

[toxican]

I wouldn't say they're very upfront about it. If it's not truly ad-free, they shouldn't be marketing it as such. Including it in tiny text nobody reads isn't being upfront.

[enlightenedfool]

I would just wait for it on putlocker