Star Trek All Access To Roll Out Weekly + CBS On Track for January Premiere Date

CBS’s new live action Star Trek series will roll out one episode per week, CBS CEO Les Moonves told reporters today in his quaterly earnings call. He also confirmed that the studio is on track for its originally planned premiere date of January, 2017.

With CBS’s move to put its new as yet unnamed Star Trek television series on their streaming only platform, CBS All Access, fans have been wondering: what exactly will Star Trek All Access be like?

Following the traditional model of network television, Les Moonves said today that the new Star Trek show will roll out one episode per week. This is unlike many other shows purpose built for over-the-top streaming platforms, such as those on Netflix, which release entire seasons in one fell swoop.

Moonves also confirmed that Trek, on track to premiere in January of next year, will be the first of 3 or 4 more original shows for the All Access platform, but that doesn’t mean we won’t be able to watch CBS shows elsewhere, too.

As Deadline reports: Moonves says he would “absolutely” consider offering CBS on Hulu’s planned skinny bundle service “if they offer us the right pricing for our subs.” That’s consistent with his view that new services will be “a huge positive” for CBS because they’ll need the network and will pay rates “even higher than from our current partners.”

That said, Moonves isn’t worried about other online competitors eating into CBS’s profits. “Questions are now arising about the effectiveness of certain digital media platforms,” said Moonves, noting that marketers “get their best returns” from broadcast television.

Sort by:   newest | oldest

I’m glad its coming out weekly. Otherwise, I would not be able to stop myself from bingewatching the entere season as soon as it comes out, and then being out of new Trek until the following season.

Yes. WEAKLY. Meaning half hour episodes.

With the news that it will air weekly I ask myself if it is possible that we could get the 24+ episodes per season we were used to. Otherwise there would be big gaps between the episodes if there were only 10-13 episodes per year.

The other side of that is hopefully a 10-12 episode season would mean less filler episodes.

Part of me understands this and completely agrees: less quantity, more quality– but another part of me still enjoys the filler episodes and would settle for B- quality over more episodes…

There are no “filler episodes” of “Star Trek”, Sir.
Some episodes may not be as engrossing as others,
but there are no deliberate “just put it there for the hell of it” shows.


In reply to your comment uniquely identified by the following URL:

Hmmm….I think it is very clear that the intent behind THE MENAGERIE was to “fill” two episode slots with minimal traditional production expenditures such that it would cost less than one episode would normally.

“It [STAR TREK] was made under Desilu, which was a low budget studio. I was running out of money making Star Trek episodes, and they Desilu asked me if it was possible to work in the first pilot with [Kirk] and the new crew. If it could be done, we could have two episodes for the price of one. And maybe make it through the year.” — Gene Roddenberry

If CBS intends to use Star Trek to get people to sign up for its online streaming platform they may want more episodes per year, just to keep people subscribed. More episodes don’t necessarily have to mean more filler episodes. If they really go for some kind of anthology format (as the rumors suggested) that means they don’t have to stretch out their story over several years. Basically, it would give them the chance to tell a complex story over the course of 20-25 episodes and then move to a new setting and start a completely new story.

Well if its successful, its possible they will have more than one Trek series at a time.

I don’t know about others but no way in hell am I paying multiple months for the apart from Trek worthless CBS all Access. Right now my plan is to wait for the season to end then catch the entire season in one month. Wait to see if that season gets released to Netflix later in the year. If so, then that is the end of me paying CBS anything. I’ll just watch the season a year late like I do with Game of Thrones.

@ML31 – that sounds like a plan that will work for you. CBS is banking on more people wanting to pay to see the series when it airs and not a year later.

Its the same with films. Do you watch movies in the theatre? Why? You can just wait til its on DVD a few months later.


Personally, as the really good theaters in my area started closing in favor of the puny living room sized 20 screen complexes I have become VERY picky about what movies I go to. Combine that with the Netflix account and it adds up to me going to fewer and fewer movies in theaters. I have no problem waiting another 3-6 months for a movie that will loose very little from the tiny theater to my home theater.

I find it very difficult to believe that theaters were closing solely because the entire movie going public in your area chose to watch movies months later on their TV’s. Theaters are big business.

However, you might be interested in Sean Parker’s (of Facebook & Napster fame) new project to release films into home’s the same day as theaters.

I think you need to re-read what I wrote. What I said was the GOOD theaters in my area have closed. As a result, I, me, myself, have gone to fewer movies. Never mentioned WHY they closed. Only offered what I have done AFTER they closed.

Something tells me there will not the traditional 20+ episodes in a season. More likely like the other cable or streaming shows with 10-12 episodes in one season.

Movies are FAR more expensive too, in terms of dollars-to-entertainment-time. $12 a ticket, 2 hours of entertainment. Factor inmultiple tickets for the family, snacks and drinks? I can spend $80 easy when i take my family to see a movie. And again– 2 hours of entertainment, so even at best if I don’t spend a TON on food we’re talking $30 an hour!

But for $5 all three of us can enjoy 4 episodes per month? Sounds fine to me! Even factoring in $10 a viewing for some snacks– that’s still just $45 for 4 hours of entertainment: 4.50/hour. A *fraction* of the cost.


Except that TV has ALWAYS been a fraction of the cost of going to a movie. Now all those other services are starting to dollar us to death. Thus, making staying at home to watch cost more than ever. It also used to be that the movie going experience was worth a little something extra too. But with the tiny theaters around even that really isn’t a thing anymore.

I’ve said before: I don’t have cable. Do you?

I am guessing you do if you refuse to tack on $5 a month. I have Netflix, Hulu Plus and Amazon Prime, and could add CBS All Access, Fox Now, HBO Go, NBC Pop, ABC Drive, SyFy Zap and all other stupidly named services for less than what I used to pay for cable.

You’re dollaring YOURSELF to death. That’s nobody’s fault but your own.

No Torch,

I’m not dollaring myself to death because I choose NOT to. You are the one doing that with all those services you subscribe to that you do not need to when you could get it all for less with one service. And BETTER service at that.

Yes you are, ML31. Being in denial doesn’t make it not true. I am not dollaring myself to death first of all because i’m paying a fraction of what you are and enjoying it far more! You pay how much a month for cable, and then complain about 5 friggin’ dollars?! lmao.

You are making a LOT of assumptions with nothing to base them on. I am not dollaring myself to death because I do not do what you claimed to do, which is subscribe to a bunch of streaming services. Which is, by definition, dollaring yourself to death. You may enjoy that but I do not enjoy low quality images that constantly pause and stutter and not being able to easily forward or go back or any of the other features that are missed due to the technology not being as it probably will be at some point in the future. I also enjoy not having to make a bunch of different payments to a bunch of different providers and I enjoy getting content that would not be available from streaming. I wouldn’t say I’m enjoying what I get more than you but I would say I am getting the far better deal. Netflix is the only extra service I pay for and apart from their annoying desire to release some of their original content on to streaming I get plenty from them. Plus, their disc library is still much much larger than their streaming library.

Okay, really– you JUST said “they’re starting to dollar us to death”– meaning the additional services are too much for you (which implies EITHER that you cannot actually afford them all or you do not want to pay that much for all of them).

My point is that without cable you’d be paying less even if you got them all.

So, i’m using logic and reason to form my arguments. You’re just rambling inconsistently.

No, Torch, the meaning of “dollaring to death” is the concept of a lot of small charges that when put together = a large one. And it sneaks up on you because the individual charges are small and people tend to not expect the sum. It does NOT mean additional services are too much. That is a very poor assumption on your part. Again.

And no, you do not know what you are talking about. If I turned to the internet for all that I get from cable the cost would be 3 times as much as I already pay AND I would not get the same service I get from cable. Your logic is pretty flowers in a field that smell bad.

Not that I’m hoping for 26 episodes per season like in the good old TNG days, but 12 episodes a year at around 40 minutes per episode (probably?), that would not be a lot of content… I also don’t follow the “filler episodes” argument. There are probably going to be better episodes and less good ones no matter what the total number per season I think.

And I would also guess they will be closer to 60 min, if they are not intended to air on TV. Look at Netflix shows– they can vary anywhere from 50 min to 70 minutes per episode. That’s the beauty of streaming– when you’re not tied down to air-time slots, you can just tell the story you want to tell, and don’t have to be dictated by standard commercial breaks and hour long time slots.

As for filler episodes, sometimes those can be very good. Trek has always had “bottle episodes” designed to save budget, and those often proved to be quite memorable: Clues, The Drumhead, Lower Decks– one could call those “filler”. Even comedic episodes like “Fist Full of Datas”, “Business as Usual” and others proved quite enjoyable, even if they weren’t the series’ best.

So if I get 10 “A” episodes and 13 lesser quality episodes, i’d rather have that than just 10 “A” episodes alone.

The only way i’d choose no filler is if the compromise was fewer quality episodes, but that’s never really been the case in the past. Of course, this is all our personal opinions, everyone has a different feeling on the matter. That’s mine.

@Torchwood – keep in mind, they have said their international deals are accounting for the bulk of financing this series so I’d imagine they’d keep the length of episode to a traditional time (what is it now, 43 minutes?) to account for international networks adding commercials.

Edit to add: But I would love a 60 minute commercial free episode that doesnt care about dumbing down content for a PG world. Since CBS has commercials on CBSAA, I’d again guess the episodes will be traditional length

@Tup good point. Hadn’t recognized the connection between those two things.

Wow, people are downvoting my post where I say I like comedic and/or filler episodes? So now opinions of what I like about Trek are downvoted? Interesting!

There’s a very good reason to release the new series on a weekly basis: More $$$

A show like House of Cards, or Marvel’s Daredevil on Netflix, with entire seasons released all at one time, allows people to binge-watch the season, and then promptly cancel subscriptions. Releasing the episodes 1 per week, forces people to subscribe longer duration.

In short: This will just lead to further piracy. Congrats Mr Moonves.

Let’s also not forget the “international revenue” he kept citing as what will pay for the series. I’m guessing that in order to satisfy those distribution deals overseas, CBS will have to stick to this archaic release timing for the online streaming service.

People have been saying for decades that “this” or “that” will lead to more piracy. And that piracy will lead to less profits. But so far there has been very little data to suggest that piracy really hurts the bottom line. Quite the contrary, some of the most popular pirated entertainment correlate pretty well to the most popular and successful films and television programs.

The top 5 most pirated films of 2015 in fact were, in order: Interstellar, Fast 7, Avengers: Age of Ultron, Jurassic World, and Mad Max: Fury Road.

It has been proven time and again that illegal downloaders are easily converted into paying customers, as most people PREFER to do things the right way.

Likewise, the top 5 most pirated TV shows are (no surprise) genre shows that appeal to the demo most likely to engage in illegal download, and are, in order:

1. Game of Thrones 2. The Walking Dead 3. Big Bang Theory 4. Arrow 5. The Flash.

Point is, if this new Trek series is really good– good enough to garner a top piracy rating, it will also very likely be pulling in a lot of subscribers for CBS.

So nerds are thieves and criminals.

Most people want to watch the right way. Anyone can steal music online but iTunes is incredibly popular. There will always be people who steal but most people don’t want to. And there will always be some that convince themselves its not stealing when it is.

And there will always be people who think giving is the same thing as stealing it seems….

If you give away something that isnt yours to give away, then the person knowingly taking it is stealing.

That is a rare correct comment from you. Yes, if the account wasn’t hers or she was giving away access without the permission of whoever owned it I would not accept.

And there will always be people who think giving is the same thing as stealing it seems…

Game of Thrones is the most pirated show in existence, and it is massively successful. I live in Russia, and the show is available here via pay-TV but almost no-one knows about it/has access to it, and the vast majority get quickly dubbed versions of the eps streamed locally and illegally. It can be seen in a way as viral marketing; the brand recognition is high, and when the season sets are released on disc, they sell briskly. A local bank is doing a Visa card promotion using GoT characters. As Kayla wrote above, many of these All-Access shows get super revenue out of broadcast television, just as older cable shows do (Sopranos, Sex in the City, etc) and the CBS model will be simply one revenue stream. If it fails as a medium, the show may still be a success going forward.

It makes sense that GoT would be heavilly pirated because it is aired on HBO. An overly expensive pay service. People want to see it but don’t want to pay for HBO. Trek All Access has the potential to be right up there because people just don’t want to pay for the service.

GoT is highly pirated because it’s incredibly popular. While those people pirating it dont want to pay, its also indicative of a popularity level that means HBO is doing pretty okay in subscriptions with GoT fans.

Dont mistake you’re unhappiness with paying for HBO or CBSAA as being the widely held opinion. People pay for HBO. People will pay for CBSAA.

There are popular shows pirated but not nearly to the extent GoT is. The difference is the pay part of the service.

Who binge watches and then cancels? And if they did, then Netflix wouldnt do it.

I will. Why pay for months of something that is utterly worthless apart from the one thing you are looking for when you can pay for only one?

@ML31 – yes while Im sure there are some people that do it, the desire on the part of the provider would be to keep customers. So CBS intends to create other original series so you dont cancel after the one you like is finished.


There are other services that have content I would be interested in checking out. But I already pay for Netflix. I refuse to pay for more. They will easily start to add up. The line must be drawn somewhere.

Yes, they will add up. But that’s the place we’re heading. I would much rather pay $10 a month for 10 different services than $120 a month for cable.

If 10 different services cost $10 a month there would be no problem beyond the limitations and the low quality streaming currently offers. But it doesn’t. Your 10 services could easily add up to over $100 a month. If that is how you wish to play it knock yourself out. But if the total cost is similar I’d rather pay one provider that gives me higher quality and quantity.

And I’d rather pay the 10 services that provide higher quality programming than one provider that shoves a bunch of crap at me. Hey, if you like the garbage that cable is shoveling at you, more power to you!

There is quite a bit of very high quality programming out there that is not limited to streaming services. So much so that even with my service there is still plenty of high end quality content I’d like to check out but do not get to. Why pay more for something I probably wont see anyway? Further, there is very little high quality stuff exclusive to streaming. VERY little. Not saying there is NO quality out there. Just that there is not enough to warrant paying extra for. And to watch the little quality product there is on a picture quality that is so low and so unreliable that the viewer will be frustrated just trying to view it. So yes, I prefer higher quality content and image and a reliable DVR and more options. Wake me when the streaming providers get even 1/100th the quality content I already get and give it to me without buffering and the other issues when streaming.

If you call the dreck that fills 90% of cable “high quality programming” then there’s no helping you. And frankly, if that’s what you like, I can’t imagine anything CBSAA churns out will disappoint!

As for waking you up when streaming services get “1/100th the quality content”– well, i’ve been trying to splash water on your face and slap you into consciousness for the past 2 days and you’re not rising, so maybe you’re just brain-dead.

@ML31 – is streaming is a bad experience for you (buffing, poor image) that is not because of a limitation with streaming services. It is either the internet package you subscribe to or a limitation of the service provider that provides your internet. Many of us stream Netflix in full Blu Ray quality HD. And others watch it in 4K (I dont have a 4K TV yet so I dont but I could if I had one).

If you subscribed to HBO GO and Netflix, just those two, you’d get a lot of high quality original content (not to mention the back catalogs contained on each) and in picture perfect High Definition.

I suggest you discuss your image issues with your service provider.

TUP, My internet service MIGHT be the cause. But would that explain why the controls are delayed action and why streaming does not have the same features and the discs? Would that also explain why streaming works fine on my phone but not my TV? Would that mean I would have to pay MORE for my internet service? Why? Everything else works just fine. I should pay more for my internet so I can pay for streaming services to get what I already get from cable and Netflix?

Sure if you want special features you have to buy the disc. I have a vast Blu Ray collection. I buy them. I enjoy collecting them. But all of that is beside the point. CBS is under no obligation to make discs available for rent your favourite method of renting. And besides, why not pay $5 to watch them live then whatever you pay per month to borrow the Discs for a few days months later?

Not necessarily. Keeping the bonus features off the disc has only been a recent phenomenon, sadly. They are taking away what used to be standard. Oh well… Not the first time a business has done so. But quite a few still have them. Seasonal TV discs still have the features far more than the movies do. But bonus features aren’t the only features discs have that streaming does not. BTW.. You sure you don’t have a vast “optical disc” collection? (lol) Once again, I know CBS is under no obligation to make their product more widely available. Never said they should. I merely said I HOPE they do. Are you asking me why I should pay $5 for frustrating low quality rather than for a higher quality? Because I don’t know if I want to view it over and over again. If the movie was that good I would buy it outright. Otherwise, I am happy viewing it once and being done with it. So the fact that I can watch a mediocre movie over and over again on an inferior platform really isn’t a selling point with me. I’m curious… Why is it so important to you that you convince me that streaming is the way I should go? I mean, the way things are going I probably will get there eventually… When the technology improves. And even if the tech were viable, why not just accept that for my purposes going to streaming would give me less content… Read more »


FWIW, copyright in U.S. law supports the concept of First Sale which means that as long as the copyright holder makes copies available for purchase, he or she can not control what the purchaser does with possession of the physical copy after said consumer legally purchases it. The U.S. courts have long held that purchasers of published copyrighted works can sell, rent, or loan their legally acquired physical copies without interference from the copyright holder. This part of the law is what allows public libraries to loan books and discs without incurring additional costs from authors, publishers, etc.

Yes, First Sale Doctrine.

If you can see past your own snobbery (and childish put downs) you would realize there is a lot of good stuff out there. Is there more garbage than great? Of course. But that is typical. There are far more good movies than bad and there is WAY more dreck on the streaming services than good stuff too. As far as CBSAA not disappoint, you are the one who sounds like you are going to add yet another pay service into your bank account so you ought to be the one hoping it doesn’t disappoint.

If you have been trying to splash water on my face you need to do better than just the water content of the air I breathe. You saying you are happy with the quality doesn’t make that quality good enough for me. All I want is streaming to not buffer, for the controls to be instantaneous and for features on discs to be available on the streaming version. And the picture doesn’t even HAVE to be of blu ray quality. Just give me those other things and streaming will become a viable option. Until then… ZZZZZZ

“If 10 different services cost $10 a month there would be no problem beyond the limitations and the low quality streaming currently offers”

Im not sure if you’re stuck in a worm hole and communicating from 1999 but streaming quality isnt low. Netflix streams in 4K. I watch crystal clear 1080P on my TV. That is Blu Ray quality, not the HD that broadcast TV offers (not real HD).

Its your internet, not the streaming provider.

I’m sorry to be the one to break it to you, but streaming video is far, far from being blu-ray quality, there are more factors than vertical resolution, most important, bitrate. The bitrate of a streaming service can be up to a tenth of that of a blu-ray. It is in other words in fact more like the HD that broadcast TV offers.

Sorry to break it to you but I watch Netflix with a higher definition than broadcast HD. Proof is in the pudding.

Here is some info for you folks who think streaming quality is better than disc quality… Streaming-only customers may not realize it, but they’re actually missing out on the best video quality that Netflix has to offer. The company offers Blu-ray discs, and the video and audio quality of a Blu-ray is higher than what users are able to stream. As Home Theater Review explains, most streaming services, Netflix included, enable you to watch movies and TV show episodes at 1080p resolution, but resolution is only part of the story. While you can stream a movie at the same resolution you’d get watching it on a Blu-ray that Netflix takes a day to mail to your home, the streaming service needs to use much more compression to deliver the movie to you than the Blu-ray disc because it has to compress the file enough to send it at a bit rate that’s equal to or lower than your broadband speed. Because Internet speeds vary wildly, Netflix has to aim for “the lowest common denominator,” and even Netflix’s Super HD 1080p service aims for a recommended target of just 7 Mbps for the best quality. Even if your network’s speed surpasses the recommended standards, during times of heavy traffic, the speed and therefore the video quality can fall. Compression artifacts, like banding and softness, negatively impact picture quality. Additionally, Blu-rays offer better audio quality. Even when you’re getting excellent video quality by streaming, you aren’t getting the uncompressed multichannel audio that… Read more »

Good point, Raffie.
And there is yet another reason. I have noticed the BD quality is way better than streaming. My brother in law, who works in the TV electronic biz, (high ranking official with one of the name brand manufacturers) agrees that streaming is still not as high a quality as disc.

While a September 2015 story indicates that Blu Ray *can* produce a better image than Streaming, it relies on the Blu Ray having the highest bitrate (not all do) and the differences are subtle. Whereas 4K streaming is higher quality than Blu Ray.

Either way, you wont even pay for Netflix let alone CBSAA so arguing subtle differences in image quality with you is rather moot. If you have the equipment to notice the difference I find it difficult to believe you’d be so argumentative about paying $5 fr CBSAA or admitting you steal Netflix from a friend.

A 4K disc will still be better than 4K streaming. And 4K streaming (I’m guessing here but it seems reasonable) will likely require the highest and most expensive end internet to even work.

And again, (this is a broken record) I DO indeed pay for and have a Netflix account. Not once have I ever admitted to stealing it because I do not. My friend willingly GAVE me her user name and PW and I am one of her allowed 4 accounts that Netflix allows, by contract. You need to learn the difference between theft and sharing.
But then, you cannot tell the difference between DVD and BD. So it stands to reason that your opinion of a quality picture ought be questioned.

Yes if I share my friend’s car with you without his permission, it’s ok because its his fault he lent me the keys.

This is what the Chief Product Manager of Netflix said about this just this year:

“”We expect that Netflix is a household level purchase, and that sharing with members of the household is a reasonable thing to do,” he said.

“When the kids go off to college, are they going to use that login?

“Well, that’s probably OK, but when the kids go off and form their own household, they want the control of having their own account, so eventually that turns into a new revenue stream for us there as well.”

“The terms of use is sharing within the household and that’s our expectation,” he added”

Do you understand now? Ill repeat the most important part:

“The terms of use is sharing within the household and that’s our expectation,”

No, it’s not OK unless your friend understands that you might do that. That said, most reasonable people would get permission because it was not their car to begin with. However, in Netflix’s case, the account belongs to the subscribers. Netflix has made it clear they are free to do with that account whatever they wish. And they all but said so in those quotes you gave. I’m sure the folks at Crafsman expect you to use their screwdrivers as screwdrivers and not as chisels or hammers. But they aren’t naive enough to know that a certain % of their customers use them for that purpose. What I do with the screwdriver after I’ve bought it is my business. What the streaming customers do with their 4 accounts is their business. Even though it may be Netflix’s HOPE they keep it in the household. They are not naive enough to think the sharing isn’t going on. In fact, the reason they limited it to 4 devices was BECAUSE people were sharing too much in their view. So when the restaurant down the street sells you a plate of ravioli, they expect that you, or a member of your party will be consuming it. If you opt to give it to some guy on the street corner, the restaurant owner cannot accuse you of theft. You BOUGHT that food from them and it is yours to do with what you wish. Nor can that guy on the street be accused of… Read more »

Thats a lousy example since many restaurants do have restrictions. All you can eat buffet? Sorry, can’t just fill your plate and then give your friend half. Use your common sense. You’re stealing Netflix.

True… They do not want you to give your plate to others in your party. Except… Netflix has no problems with you doing what you want with your 4 accounts. Yet under your logic if you allow your neighbor to borrow your rake, your neighbor is stealing because he didn’t buy that rake. You said something about common sense… About time for you to display some.

Do you not know why NEtflix does that? Its not because they only want 1 in every 4 users to pay for Netflix. Use your brain.

I’ve told you exactly why Netflix limits it to 4 but you continue to ignore it. But, here it is again for you to ignore… In the early days of streaming Netflix customers would share accounts. Netflix knew this was happening and debated how to deal with it. Their decision was to limit each account to 4 devices. As you pointed out their HOPE was that people would use it across devices in the same household but as I pointed out, they knew there would be a number of people who would share their account with others. Netflix seems to be content with the 4 devices be them in the same households or across state lines. You speak of using your brain… please take your own advice. The above is VERY common sense.

Sorry Ml31, you’re opinion does not jive with Netflix opinion. I’ve already shown you that. But you dont care. You just want it for free. Its your decision to steal but please dont try to justify it as “Netflix hasnt caught me yet”. When you drive over the speed limit but dont get pulled over, does that mean the speed limit doesnt exist?

What opinion are you talking about? That Netflix seems to be OK with people sharing 4 accounts? That is not so much my opinion but a conclusion I drew based on the actions Netflix took to try and curb the unlimited sharing that was going on. Your own posts even confirmed what their hope was. But their actions supported that they were OK with people sharing their accounts too. I would like Netflix and cable and gas and all sorts of things for free. I’m sure you would too. But that is not the case. I pay for Netflix and gas and the like. I am fortunate that a good friend has an extra account to share. I share things with her too. It’s what friends do.

For the record, Netflix isn’t going to “catch” anyone sharing their accounts. They already allow them to do it and they know it goes on. Using your own analogy I am staying right at the posted speed limit as is my friend. If my friend cracked the codes and got more than the allowed 4 accounts THEN she would be speeding and hoping to not get caught.

Again, either you are just messing with me for your personal entertainment or you are jealous people have friends who are willing to share with them.

No Netflix isnt okay with it. I showed you that already. The 4 accounts are for households. Even when discussing family members who go off to school (often a temporary situation) they said it was okay “I guess” – strong indication they wouldnt even publicly endorse doing that.

They dont crack down in a heavy-handed way because they dont have to (they make lots of money), stealing isnt wide-spread and they find that people who steal eventually convert into paying customers. You just wont admit whats right in front of your face.

They didn’t publicly endorse sharing back when people could share unlimited either. But it was perfectly within their subscribers rights at the time. There is nothing in the contract you make with Netflix regarding what you do with your accounts. Because of this, the concept of people sharing their accounts with others not in their own household is NOT stealing. I’m sure they would prefer that each person in a household buy their own account too.

Not only are they not cracking down in a heavy handed way against people sharing their accounts, they aren’t cracking down at all. Why? Because they allow people to do it! They know it happens a lot and they let it happen. So long as it’s limited to the number of accounts bought. Consider this… Netflix would rather the 3rd and 4th account be used by people in different cities than someone cracking their code to get a 5th account in the same household. Why, you ask? Because the 5th account would be STEALING!!

One more thing… At this year’s Consumer Electronic Show in Vegas, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings addressed sharing of passwords and user names by saying, “We love people sharing Netflix. That’s a positive thing, not a negative thing.”

Mic dropped.

Good for them streaming in 4K. That just means it will take longer.
But all that is moot when looking at the facts. I get BD quality from BluRay. AND I do not need to worry about internet issues or stoppages in buffering or delayed action controls and I get the features on the disc (extras and subtitles and whatnot) that I do not get from streaming. And it’s CHEAPER! So again, please remind me what advantage you get from streaming?

Great ML31 – so what’s your point? That you dont want to pay for CBSAA because its a cash grab even though you dont pay for Netflix. And you use it but wont pay because the technology isnt good enough to enjoy it in HD, even though it is You dont want to buy the series on “Optical Disc” unless you know you like it..

So…dont watch the new series then. No skin off CBS’ nose.

You have gotten lost enough that you need to ask the point? I can understand that because you are constantly getting what I said wrong. Don’t know if that is intentionally or unintentionally. But again… I never said I wasn’t paying CBSAA because it was a “cash grab”. You did. If you think that, why are you doing it? I do indeed have a Netflix account that I pay for. Said this many times and you love to ignore it. You did get that I won’t pay for streaming (very important distinction that you continue to ignore) because the tech isn’t good enough. But that is only partially correct. I also will not pay because the discs are cheaper and the library is larger. You also wrote a contradiction. You said I think the streaming tech is not good enough to enjoy it, even though it is good enough for me to enjoy it. How can that even be possible? Maybe it is for someone who does not see the quality difference between DVD and blu.

It will be enough skin off CBS’s nose when not enough people actually subscribe to their service for more than one month. Then all us Trek fans will be without Trek on TV for quite some time again.

Stop saying you have a Netflix account. That’s like saying “I dont like CBSAA because I have a blockbuster card”. Its different. You dont have a Netflix Streaming account. Apples and oranges. If you dont want to watch the damn show on CBSAA, then dont. But dont try to convince everyone else that they dont understand. CBS doesnt owe you free Star Trek. Pay for it on CBSAA. Or buy it on Disc. Or rent it on Disc. Who gives a rat’s ass.

It sounds like you want me to lie and say I don’t have a Netflix account. Why does me having Netflix bother you so much? Do I ask you to stop making bad analogies that don’t fit the situation? I don’t stream with Netflix. That doesn’t change the FACT that I do indeed have a Netflix account. I’m not trying to convince everyone they don’t understand. I’m only correcting your misconceptions because you are not understanding what is being said here. You have constantly attributed comments to me that I never said or inferred and you have jumped to unsubstantiated conclusions. I am merely correcting your mistakes.

Like right here… “CBS doesnt owe you free Star Trek.” I, nor anyone but you, has ever said they did.

Getting things right in your responses would be greatly appreciated and no need to get all emotional. I’m sorry I have pointed out your misreads and misunderstandings of my posts.

“But I already pay for Netflix” – ML31

No you dont.

I don’t?
Then I must be the victim of the strangest scam in the world. Someone under the guise of Netflix gets my money every month. And somehow I am getting my discs from Netflix for free!

You said you piggyback off someone else’s account for streaming. We arent talking about CBS DVD Rental Service so thats a moot point. Its about streaming services. You dont want to pay for CBSAA and you dont pay for Netflix streaming either. So you’re not the target demo. But in time, everything you have will be connected to the internet so get used to it!

True. I did say I stream from a friend’s account. That doesn’t mean I don’t have a Netflix account. Back in the day, Netflix used to give you discs AND streaming. Then they split it. Since the streaming tech sucked and the disc library was (and still is) way bigger than their streaming library AND it was cheaper, I opted to keep the discs and blow off streaming. I stream every now and then something from my friends account to see if the quality has improved. It hasn’t. The idea that the overwhelming majority if content has found its way to Netflix is the point and it is not moot. I was never speaking about CBS disc service. They don’t have one. I might consider renting the season from them on disc if they offered. And yes, in the future the streaming tech will get better. But right now, it sucks.

The streaming tech doesnt suck. You’re internet does. Call your service provider. Perhaps you’re on the wrong package.

I don’t have any internet problems or hiccups with anything else. It’s streaming that still sucks. And again, even if the buffering issue were solved there are still plenty of other factors that lead me to blow off streaming in favor of BD.

So the buffering issues are on Netflix’s side but mine is in 4K and cyrstal clear with no issues? Come on… its your internet or wi fi or bandwidth package. And if its cost prohibitive in your area to upgrade internet to enjoy HD streaming, so be it, that’s fair. But it’s not that “streaming sucks”, its your internet sucks.

I didn’t say it was on Netflix’s side. You did. I just said the tech isn’t good enough yet to rival discs. Because the discs are still WAY better than streaming.

@ML31 – except that isn’t true. I mean sure, buying a Blu Ray will always be inherently more reliable then streaming content. Although they have their own issues such as packaging, scratches etc. But you’re continued assertion that streaming technology isnt good enough yet for you to enjoy Netflix without buffering or in HD is simply untrue. It just is.


Except it IS true. You even admitted part of it when you agreed the disc is more reliable than streaming. I will admit that on RARE occasion I have gotten a BD from Netflix that was unplayable. But that is a VERY rare thing and Netflix is customer savvy enough to immediately replace it and give me the next disc in my cue as well to help make up for it. But there is nothing wrong with the packaging. In fact, the packaging it could be argued is another virtue of having the disc!
But this… “you’re continued assertion that streaming technology isnt good enough yet for you to enjoy Netflix without buffering or in HD is simply untrue.” Is truly laughable. It has either got to be a mistake or is the latest example that you are not really understanding what is being said here. You really are saying that you know what I should be enjoying more than I would? Wow…. Just… Wow.

Disc arent WAY better than high quality streaming. In most cases any differences are difficult for most people to see. In other cases, it depends on how the file has been stored on the Blu Ray. It also depends on your TV, your ISP the streaming package you order etc.

The best quality I watch on Netflix rivals what I see on my Blu Ray player. Do I hunt for differences? No. But I see a difference between HD and SD. I see a difference between Netflix UltraHD and Broadcast HD. I see no difference between Netflix UltraHD and the vast majority of Blu Ray films.

I do not have a 4K TV. Ask me in a few months when I intend and we can pick up this debate.

“Disc arent WAY better than high quality streaming. ”

I really cannot address this as I have yet to see high quality streaming with my own eye. I imagine if the tech has improved it might. But then it is very likely you need the most expensive and widest bandwidth humanly possible to get it. At this point not sure if it is worth it. I have considered going 4K but there just is not yet enough content out there to justify it.

But as of this writing, for normal internet speeds and bandwidth and your standard HD 1080P TV’s… Discs are still vastly superior to streaming. There just is no getting around it. That, combined with the lack of content and higher cost, justifies me NOT going to streaming only. Nor for you, and that’s fine. But for me, it’s not worth it.

The amount of original programming coming out of Netflix now goes beyond even English-language broadcasting. The new political drama Marseille stars Gerard Depardieu, Atelier comes from Japan. The subscription model works with Netflix anticipating a constant ‘churn rate,’ alongside the presumption that many people are lazy and can’t be bothered to unsubscribe from something so cheap. I haven’t watched much on Netflix beyond Daredevil in the last month, but can’t be bothered to bin the service either (I’m watching the complete Dark Shadows for the first time on DVD, so that’s keeping me occupied!)

I’m disappointed at the decision to ‘dripfeed’ shows on streaming services. The whole idea of a streaming service, to my mind, is that the viewer has control, not the schedulers. It’s also why I hate the automated ‘jump’ of end titles of a TV show to the top left of the screen when I watch Netflix. It feels like interference with how I watch a show,

As it stands, I don’t bother with ‘dripfed’ shows until they’re 100 per cent available, at which point I’ll watch as few or as many a day as I choose. My choice.

I’m looking forward to the new Star Trek, wherever it shows up in the UK. If it goes to a regular network, I’ll probably just get an iTunes season pass. Hopefully Netflix will secure international distribution.

If the credits “jump” you refer to is what the TV networks do on their shows end and they “condense” the final credits over some voiceover or some other promo… I personally HATE that.
When I watch a TV show from Netflix not ONCE has the credits ever jumped to the top left. Is that a streaming thing? If so that’s another reason to avoid streaming.

Disc quality will always be better than streaming– that I will not argue.

But if you have a really good internet service provider with super awesome speed, the differences will be marginal.

TUP is right that if you have issues, it’s with your ISP, not Netflix. But in this case, I side with you, ML31– regardless of where the fault is, the quality your getting now is not good enough for you. Fair enough.

I was never blaming Netflix for the limitations of current streaming technology. They and the other streaming providers are at the mercy of the level of current tech. I just said that limitation is one of many legitimate reasons why I prefer to NOT stream if I do not have to.

And actually it could be the Netflix membership you have too. I didnt realise they offered a strip down version that does not include their best HD. Perhaps ML’s friend who’s Netflix he is “borrowing” doesnt have the best tier membership.

Personally, Im a moviephile. I buy loads of Blu Ray’s. I dont rent. If I like a movie I buy it. If I like a TV show, I buy it. Thats just me. For me, Netflix is two things – 1) access to their original content such as Orange, House of Cards, Documentaries (such as the superb Making a Murderer) and movies I wouldnt have otherwise bought that I can watch when Im bored.

If I had a choice, I’d have wanted Trek on Netflix too because I PAY for a high quality streaming service already. As Im sure others would prefer it on Hulu or Amazon or Local Cable Access. Or whatever their buddy has that they can steal.

I suppose that is possible.. I have no idea what level of account my friend, who SHARES one of her accounts with me, has. She has often told me she is unhappy with the quality of the stream too.

This post explains a great deal. You may have a larger disposable income than most. So getting service after service after service is not a big deal to you. But believe me, it IS a big deal to most who are not as fortunate as you are. I’m a bit of a moviephile as well and have a few shelves of discs. Not nearly as many as some but more than others. And ONLY buy movies that I will enjoy on repeated viewings. Which really aren’t that many, to be honest.

My personal preference would be CBS lit Netflix make the new Trek. But since that is not happening my HOPE is they will make the discs available to Netflix at some point after season 1 is out there. And I mean the DISCS. My preference would be to see the show in the best quality possible. Time will tell….

Good thing you have a friend with no moral qualms about letting you steal her netflix. Its a nice day here today, I think I will run a cable to all my neighbours and let them watch my HBO for free. In the spirit of sharing.

You are just envious you do not have any friends willing to share. Or maybe they would but they fear you would think you were stealing from them…. I’m amazed you do not know the difference between sharing and stealing.

“I’m amazed you do not know the difference between sharing and stealing.”

I couldnt agree with you more. What’s your friend’s log in name and password? Im sure we’d all like to share.

” What’s your friend’s log in name and password? Im sure we’d all like to share.”

A: It’s not my account and would be a bit of a betrayal to dish that info out.
B: Even if I did it’s worthless as all 4 of her accounts are being used at this time. (Only two of which are her devices in her own household, btw)
C: Don’t you have friends of your own willing to share?

I wouldnt use my friend’s log in. That would be stealing. If my friend took a movie camera into Captain America and recorded it and then asked me if I wanted to watch it, I would decline. That’s stealing, even if my friend bought a ticket. You’d do it though. You dont see anything wrong…

It would only be stealing if you used their log in without their permission. Just as if you used their car without their permission. If they gave you the keys/log in that is called sharing. Most people understand the difference.

ML31. It’s something that started when I got the Apple TV 4. The 3 didn’t have it. Netflix’s interface on the 4 is awful. The credit ‘jump’ is utterly infuriating. I want streaming because I want control, unlike when I watch a network.

I have yet to see it. And the last time I streamed Netflix I didn’t get it. In fact, the only place I ever see it is on my DVR recording of a network or cable broadcast. And I, too, find it infuriating.

I hear this but I am unsure about what kind of control you are seeking. I have cable and have complete control. What am I not getting when people say that?

‘Control’ in the sense that I’m given a complete season to watch when I choose to, not being dripfed from week to week, not having my programme preempted because of sports events or news stories. I want direct access, without any interference from schedulers, parenting groups, or any other ‘insufferables’ who cancel shows after a few episodes.

OK. I get some of that. But you can get control if you just record the entire season and wait for the end. It would be as if the season was released at the same time. I will give you the sports pre-emptions and such. I have been the victim of that on rare occasions. Fortunately the pre-emption is either moved to another time slot or another channel and my DVR is smart enough to keep track of that. Schedulers I suppose are still a problem as you are at the mercy of when your original content is released from that provider just as much as networks schedule when their programs air. Parenting groups really are only a problem to the over-the-air networks. Technically, cable networks aren’t beholden to the FCC standards and practices and tend to police themselves. Just as the streaming content producers pretty much police themselves.
Canceling poorly performing shows can be an issue only in the rare instance the show is actually good. It has happened but far more often than not the early cancellation is well earned.

OK. I get some of that. But you can get control if you just record the entire season and wait for the end. It would be as if the season was released at the same time. I will give you the sports pre-emptions and such. I have been the victim of that on rare occasions. Fortunately the pre-emption is either moved to another time slot or another channel and my DVR is smart enough to keep track of that. Schedulers I suppose are still a problem as you are at the mercy of when your original content is released from that provider just as much as networks schedule when their programs air. Parenting groups really are only a problem to the over-the-air networks. Technically, cable networks aren’t beholden to the FCC standards and practices and tend to police themselves. Just as the streaming content producers pretty much police themselves.

Canceling poorly performing shows can be an issue only in the rare instance the show is actually good. It has happened but far more often than not the early cancellation is well earned.

Are you kidding? Are you really making the argument that recording weekly TV and saving them up to watch together 12 weeks later is the same as being able to watch any episode whenever you want on Day One?

A better argument is, release the series all at once and those that need to have it drip-fed to them can choose to watch it once a week.

I sure am. In the end it is exactly the same thing. You get all episodes on a certain date. The day the network decides to release the season. You are then free to watch them whenever you wish from Day One. Day One being the day all episodes of the season are available.

“A better argument is, ”
That is not a better argument. In fact, it’s not an argument for or against what I said at all. That is merely a different way to deliver the product. I was saying that you CAN watch the entire season at your leisure without having the provider give it to you all at once. Things are not as black and white as you make them out to be.

If they release one episode a week starting on June 12th and ending on August 12th, then watching all the episodes on August 12th is not the same as being able to watch all episodes on June 12th. Good grief man, are you for real?

I never said it was the same. But it is the same as if they released all episodes on August 12th. There is nothing magical or special about when they start releasing the episodes. If you want to binge them all, just wait till all are available. It’s really that big a deal.

So you admit its not the same and then try to argue it is. Good grief. Go back to school.

Try to keep up. This concept seems a bit too much for you. Releasing episodes on a weekly basis is not the same as releasing them on the same date. But… If you just wait until all the episodes are released over time, then it would be, to the person waiting, exactly the same as the studio releasing all the episodes at the same time. I guess it’s a tad complex but not all that much.

you think cbs will allow for a season pass on itunes? i’d rather pay $15-30 and own the show rather than shell out $11 a month to stream

you think its gonna be a 12 episode a season show or a 20-22 episode season show?

That would be awesome, but doubtful. After the season ends, probably, you could buy it on itunes or Amazon as a full season digital download.

My guess is in-between. 15-20 episodes.

I’m just hoping CBS will keep older episodes available to stream long after they “aired”. If they don’t, I’m just going to have to miss the series. I’m NOT going to pay multiple months for just ONE show. No way.

I thought you weren’t getting CBSAA at all, because you can’t afford another service, or because “the line must be drawn somewhere”? Now you will pass if they don’t stream older episodes?

The line seems to be moving a bit…

Torch, you aren’t understanding. In another post I said I will pay for one month only. But if they are not going to make the older episodes available then I won’t even pay for that one month. Sure, I can afford $10 right now but it’s the principle of the thing. The hope is they will make the episodes available on disc within a year and said discs will be available on Netflix. Which I already pay for and pretty much get my money’s worth.

So, worse case scenario is I don’t watch the show at all. Next worse case is I pay $10 for one month each year the show is on. And only then if I deem the first season is worth investing in the next.

I’m not understanding? Maybe you just don’t make yourself clear.

I was perfectly clear. For example, I never said I couldn’t afford another service. You jumped to that conclusion. I also said for the first season, if the shows are still available upon season conclusion I would pay for one month, watch the show then cancel. Then I will hope the season is made available to Netflix. If it is, no more paying CBSAA. If that happens it will be a drag waiting a year for each season but better than paying every month for a crappy service just for ONE show.

Not sure how that could possibly be unclear.

Where’s the block user button? This guy is something else!

Don’t blame the messenger….

You realise Netflix and CBSAA are two different competing services, right? If you mean made available as in, when the season is released Netflix will be able to rent the DVD to you, I would not know anything about that as I dont rent DVD’s But if the DVD is available to rent, then Netflix would be as able to rent it out as Blockbuster (if Blockbuster was still around).

Of course they are. I never said or implied they were one in the same. I thought it was pretty clear. CBS, I hope will make TrekAA available to Netflix if they ever put the discs out there. There is no guarantee they will.

BTW… I have been assuming that when you say “DVD” you really mean “BD”. I trust that is the correct assumption to make…

I say DVD because a wide number of people use DVD’s and the term encompasses both traditional DVD and Blu Ray.

How many people still use Netflix’s DVD rental service? I didnt even know it still existed? Like why watch a movie on DVD that you have to order rather than just streaming it?


The term DVD most certainly does NOT encompass both DVD and BD. If you want to include both then just say “disc”. BD is HD, DVD is not. It’s like saying analog TV is the same as HD TV.

Ask Netflix how may get DVD’s from them. I don’t get DVD’s from them myself. I can tell you that their disc library is STILL much larger than their streaming library. So it’s still got to be quite large. My question is why watch a movie streaming as opposed to disc when the quality is lower (even DVD quality is better, let alone BD), the controls are worse and you don’t get the features that are on disc?

@ML31 – you’re very frustrating. I will refer to “Optical Discs” in the future so you dont get confused.

So you dont receive “Optical Discs” from Netflix? You said you paid for a subscription and received discs…

I’m frustrating? Must be because I keep reminding you of relevant points you like to ignore. No, you do not need to say “optical”. Again, just saying “disc” is fine. That references both DVD’s and BD’s. Even though BD’s are superior to DVD.

I never said I don’t receive “optical discs” from Netflix. I said I don’t get DVD’s. Although that is not entirely true… On very rare occasions Netflix does not have the bluray disc and sends a DVD. But that is so rare that I’m not sure it was even worth mentioning. But in the interest of full disclosure, there you go.
And, here is the fact again (not sure why I am saying this again, you have ignored it every single time so I do not expect this time to be different). I have an account from Netflix. It is to get discs from them. Many years ago streaming and discs were one in the same. But they separated the two. It cost more to get both than just one. I picked discs because the quality was superior and the available content was much much larger and it cost less. Wasn’t a difficult choice at all.

Surprising that people still use the Netflix DVD business. But Netflix seems disinterested in it, spending no money marketing it.

I would be surprised if people still only got DVD’s myself. But I get BD’s. I’d imagine they have a lot more people getting BD’s than DVD’s, however. I am aware the Netflix has wanted to get people to move to streaming. It’s why they split the two years ago. But if they really wanted to get people to stream they would have charged less for the streaming side than the disc side. They should also have a larger streaming library than disc library. This is true even to this day.

I would be surprised if people still only got DVD’s myself. But I get BD’s and I’d imagine they have a lot more people getting BD’s rather than DVD’s, Its the newer and better tech. That being said, I am aware the Netflix has wanted to get people to move to streaming. It’s why they split the two years ago. But if they really wanted to get people to stream they would have charged less for the streaming side than the disc side. They should also have a larger streaming library than disc library. This is true even to this day.

You’re right. They should charge less. Because its certainly not working at the current price. *rolls eyes*. This coming from someone who steals the service.

Did I say Netflix streaming was a failure? Not at all. Once again, you are not understanding what is written right in front of you. I said if they wanted people to migrate more from disc to streaming they would charge less for the streaming than for the discs AND their available content from streaming would be greater than the content from discs. (Their disc library is STILL far greater than their streaming availability)

“This coming from someone who steals the service.”

You steal Netflix? For shame.

Apologies for the double post. Seems there was an internet hiccup somewhere….

@ML31 – you said you dont pay for Netflix, that you use someone’s log in credentials. Do you mean, Netflix’ rental service? Does Netflix still do that??

Tup, I have a Netflix account. It does not include streaming. If I want to frustrate myself with buffering and delayed action controls I will use a friends account. I have a disc only account. It is cheaper than streaming, has a much larger library and is of much better quality.

@ML31 – so if you want to stream, you use someone else’s account? That’s stealing. If you have buffering issues, that’s not Netflix’s issue, thats your issue (or your service providers). Netflix streams in as much as 4K quality. My Netflix is crystal clear. Great service. The gf has watched shows on the computer and I even watched a movie on my phone while sitting at the beach. No buffering. High Def.

It’s not stealing. She GAVE me her PW. Netflix allows up to 4 different users on one account. I suppose you think it’s breaking and entering if you get invited inside someone’s house too.
I’m glad you like watching on your tiny laptop or even tinier phone. Knock yourself out. I like to watch TV on (gasp) TV! Perhaps my screen is just too big for it to work well. Even if the buffering issue was solved the controls work in a delayed action format and there are a lot of features on the discs that just aren’t available from streaming. It’s just a frustrating experience. I have streamed to my phone and haven’t had an issue. But who want’s to watch movies on their phone? Tiny picture, terrible sound… Further, I find it odd that one would go out to the beach and watch a movie on their phone. But hey, different strokes.

” I suppose you think it’s breaking and entering if you get invited inside someone’s house too.”

No but if I rent my buddies cottage for the weekend and I then give you the key and you go there to party with your friends, its certainly violating the spirit of the agreement my buddy made with me.

How about if your neighbor splices your cable and runs it across the yard to his house. Is that okay?

As for my viewing habits, my gf watched a few episodes of a documentary on the desk top computer because I was watching something else on TV and size of the screen doesnt matter to her. I enjoy my 52″ TV and surround sound and love the quality Netflix produces.

By beach I meant at the cottage where we did not have wi-fi. I watched Netflix on my phone while I was tiring myself out in bed.

It is certainly OK if you both understood that there would be a party before hand. Again, Netflix knows and accepts that ANYONE can use one of the allowed extensions of their service. If my neighbor slices my cable for anything and runs it into his house, they yes. That is indeed stealing and nothing at all like me using my friends Netflix account by any means. Sorry, when you said “beach” I thought you meant a sandy place where a body of water meets the land. Not a secluded cottage. Unless hat cottage was on a beach. Nice that you use it for that. When I watch something I want to actually watch it. Not fall asleep to it. When I travel I tend to not watch TV or movies anyway. I’m either working or out having fun. But some people do like to watch and I get that. I’ve streamed onto both my 50″ and the 55″ HD screen. Sometimes there was buffering. Sometimes not. Sometimes the picture got pixel-y. Then would iron itself out. If I wanted to rewind it took time for the function to start. I would think the command didn’t take so I would keep hitting the button. Then it would suddenly start scrolling back a high rate of speed. I keep hitting play but it keeps rewinding. I then have to do the same thing to go forward. The entire process is a major drag. My disc will automatically jump back 10 seconds.… Read more »

Ofcourse what you’re doing is stealing. You are enjoying content at no charge. Its exactly the same as letting your neighbor splice your cable. Your defense would be “its not stealing, I GAVE him the cable”. It’s not yours to give.

Dude, then you are stealing when your host offers you a drink. You are enjoying that drink at no charge. You should be in jail for all the theft you have likely committed.

It is NOT the same. The difference is, if you splice your cable (which your cable company specifically does NOT allow you to do) and run a line for your neighbor you would keep it secret from the cable company. Why? Because it is specifically AGAINST the deal you made. With Netflix accounts, no one is keeping it secret that people share accounts. Netflix has known people have done this for ages. All they did was limit it to 4 devices. What their customers do with those 4 is completely up to them. Be it tablets, laptops, TV’s or friends in other cities. I’m stunned you are having such a hard time with this concept.

The producer of the drink cant sell the same bottle of booze to two people. Once your friend buys it, it is theirs to do with as they please. Not the same with Netflix which relies on subscribers as their business model.

I assume you’re very young. When you’re older you will understand why piracy and theft is wrong.

“The producer of the drink cant sell the same bottle of booze to two people. Once your friend buys it, it is theirs to do with as they please. Not the same with Netflix which relies on subscribers as their business model.”

This is too funny. It is EXACTLY the same with Netflix. ROTFLMAO! You even wrote it yourself! When you subscribe to the premium service, you get 4 accounts. Once you buy your account/bottle of booze the accounts/liquid in the bottle is yours to do with as you wish. If you choose to give let your friend enjoy some booze/streaming account, you are fee to do so.

It seems like if you bought a rake and your good friend and neighbor did not, you would NEVER lend him that rake for him to use as you would see that as stealing. But, while I’m sure the store that sold you that rake would prefer your neighbor buy his own rake from them that store is not in control how you use that rake. You are free to lend it to your neighbor and under no legal or sane person’s definition is that stealing.

Look, I’m sorry you do not know anyone well enough to share things with you. That is a pity.


Your assumption, like all your other assumptions, is 100% wrong. My kids are in High School. But you go right on thinking you know everything about everyone you’ve never met based on a few posts on an internet thread. It’s too entertaining for you to stop.

@ML31 – if you think buying a commensurable is the same as subscribing to a streaming service then you are so far removed from reality, there is no discussing this with you.

And if your kids are in high school, I would hope you’d model better behavior to them then showing them its okay to steal. Shameful really. Hopefully they have a stronger moral center than you. And hopefully Netflix eventually cracks down on people stealing their service. Those that pay for it are happy to do so.

I imagine you wont watch the Trek series if you cant find a way to steal the service.

It is not exactly the same but it is extremely similar. You buy one bottle of booze a month (for the sake of argument) and you pay a streaming service every month. Each month you pay for a consumable item. How you use that item you bought is completely up to you.

My kids are doing just fine without your warped definitions. They have friends and share things just like their old man.

You seem to forget, you gave me the thought to ask my friends if they want to share CBSAA for one month so we can watch Trek. Haven’t had a chance to broach the subject yet but they very well could be open to it if CBSAA allows for multiple devices like Netflix does. They weren’t interested in buying AA before but they might be if we share it. And of course this will only work if they also make all episodes available after they all “air”. This is a wait and see kind of thing.

Terms of use are different. Are you that dense?

No. Terms of use are the same. You were saying something about density?

I hope for something along the lines of Fargo: 10-12 episodes, one decent storyline, no filler, where every line of dialogue counts. No cruddy comedy one-offs, no ‘character’ (contractual actor vanity) episodes. We’ve had 28 seasons of regular network/syndication-style Trek, loaded with filler. Frankly, that’s enough for a lifetime.

This is an opportunity to do something big: something like ten seasons telling ten centuries’ worth of humans exploring the universe. Set a story in the Star Trek: Enterprise era, by all means, but also set one 1,000 years later on a giant Starship Enterprise with a population of millions exploring a far-off galaxy. Deal with the modern world and extrapolate potential developments we have now as everyday things rather than horror stories. Portray cybernetically-augmented humans as average people, not Borg – the Borg are fun, but pulpy and immature sci-fi. Deal with transhumanism: maybe Kirk or Picard are restored from a digital backup in a new body in a 27th century story. Maybe a character from one season of the new show crosses into another season that way. This is an opportunity to do something mature and amazing and different with the concept of Star Trek.

To turn around and do a modern version of what we’ve seen before holds no interest for me whatsoever.

I just hope they try something different. Instead of 20+ mediocre episodes a season, I would prefer they work on 12-15 high quality episodes. Quality beats quantity every time; as some of the best shows on tv have proven (The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, House of Cards, etc.)

As long as they’re relying on commercial-ad-sales as part of the revenue it will be quantity over quality. More episodes equals more ad-time. If they don’t offere a commercial-free option on their streaming service LIKE every other streaming service that exists – then it will be a huge fail in my opinion. Especially since you can’t even FFWD through the ads, like you could with a DVR.

The only issue with going the HBO-standard 12-ish epiasodes would be the usual model of selling a series into syndication. And I assume Star Trek does well as a syndicated series. 12 episodes per year will take them a lot longer to get to the magic number for syndication.

Is syndication even THAT important in today’s world? A lot of post show revenue comes from disc sales and even now, selling to streaming services.

@ML31 – someone smarter than me will come along and provide a better answer but I suspect its still pretty lucrative. And in the event of selling to a streaming service, you still want to have enough episodes to make it worth it. Content is king.

However, producers like Netflix, HBO etc are providing their own content so its probably not as important. Although, HBO still syndicated The Sopranos.


The only HBO show I was aware of going to syndication was Sex in the City. Which didn’t seem to stay in syndication very long. Maybe it was that it was cut for language and content, maybe it was because it wasn’t popular enough for repeated viewings… I don’t know. I just know that given the content of most of HBO’s original programming I didn’t think syndication was a realistic option. Trek might be different but I’d still like to know how lucrative syndication is in today’s world.

Sopranos is syndicated. Had a huge deal with A&E to air it. Also TLN aired it. Boardwalk Empire is syndicated too, I believe. Im sure there are others, like you said, Sex And The City.

Good to see the voting etiquette is being adhered to. Im going to take the time to run through every post and up.down vote the people I like/dislike regardless of content.

And there you go making assumptions again. I’m sure there are some bozos who do that. But I’d say that most very likely vote BASED on content as I seriously doubt anyone here knows the others who post.

@ML31 – not sure why you’re coming across so angry. My post was more sarcastic as I dont care about voting but I made a post noting Sopranos was syndicated and it got down voted. That’s absurd.

Not my intent. Although your “brain dead” comment doesn’t help. Made it seem like you were getting far too emotional over this. Because of that, I took your comment as in insinuation that I was doing such a thing. I care not for up or down votes if you must know.

Excuse me, I believe it was ME who called you “brain-dead.” Please please, credit where it’s due. I was proud of that comment!

If so then my mistake. If you are proud of acting like a defeated child then by all means…. Continue.

Don’t forget The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis.

Commercial-free options please!!! Les are you reading this?
I pay for Hulu, Netflix, Showtime, HBONow, Amazon Prime -all because there are no ads. Couldn’t sit through one week of Late Show with Colbert with all those commercials that you can’t even FFWD through. Just sayin’…

I will never let some else’s opinion about entertainment quality be a factor as to whether or not I should like it. Especially when it pertains to Star Trek, Star Wars or Bond.

Will there be commercials? If so, I AM OUT.

Will there be a big, fancy, colorful, animated ‘CBS ALL ACESS’ ‘bug’ (logo) in the corner?

If so, I AM OUT.

This is not negotiable. PERIOD. I will not pay to watch commercials or a show whose visual design and picture is spoiled by one of those Goddamn logo bugs.

I have not paid for cable or satellite in 13 years. NOT. NEGOTIABLE.

To be honest, if I was forced to subscribe to All Access (I probably wont have to as Im in Canada), I’d probably do so to watch the first season. But if its a 12-ish episode run and I didnt want to pay All Access (for example, if it contained commercials etc), I could probably wait for the DVD release.

Three things. One, I think that the new show should be called STAR TREK: ALL ACCESS (given the fact that this show will be an anthology series). Two, I think a season will be thirteen episodes because it will be an anthology that will jump around every decade. And, three…I wonder how “adult” the series will be? I could imagine that there will be some nudity and violence being featured, if the script calls for it, in the right context.

What? That’s a silly title for a TV show.

“will be an anthology series”
“will be an anthology”

Has this been confirmed anywhere? All I’ve read in this regard, are RUMORS and SPECULATION.

Can’t edit, replying to myself:

“I could imagine that there will be some nudity and violence”

When, in the 50 year history of Trek have there been explicit nude scenes? I mean EXPLICIT, as in seeing a woman’s T&A. By my memory, we’ve seen exactly TWO scenes of implied nudity (T’Pols rear end in 1 episode of ENT, and Seven of Nine’s backside in 1 episode of VOY). Why would you make the assumption that there would be nudity in a show that historically has had very little nudity?

I stated SOME nudity and violence. Also, being a cable subscription series would give writers the opportunity to explore more themes IF there is proper context. I am not saying that I would want something like that, but I would not be surprised by the inclusion of more adult themes on the show. Can you imagine a season featuring a Games of Throne-esque season featuring the Klingons? I can.

Id be fine with nudity and violence if its organic to the story. but I dount there will be much of either. CBS surely sees the future benefit to syndication. Perhaps more along the lines of TWD which is cable and has violence and more cable-ish language but no nudity (unfortunately).


In reply to your comment:

Prevailing community standards lacking in a consistent metric, it depends on whether one’s community regards an “unmistakeable nude” as explicit enough to count:



Where we SEE, behind the translucent stall door, what
is unmistakably the form of the NUDE FEMALE. …” — GENE RODDENBERRY & HAROLD LIVINGSTONE

7 of 9 wasn’t in the pilot episode of Voyager.

Exactly. ;-)

Not confirmed as anthology and Im not sure that even makes much sense. From a cost perspective, they are going to build new sets, create new digital models every season? It doesnt seem conducive to what Trek is at it’s best. If the series is to be truly episodic (which is also rumored), breaking that down every season and starting over seems counter-productive.

Would The Walking Dead or Game of Thrones be as popular if they re-booted every season? Part of the appeal is the journey of the characters.

Fargo just had to EXCELLENT seasons with entirely different story lines and casts. It CAN be done.

I think seasonal anthologies are attractive, and could be what we see, but episodic anthology is probably far too costly. Season-to-season though it would not be that difficult to repurpose/redress or rebuild new sets for 10-15 episode runs.

TUP,nd a

While THE WALKING DEAD, didn’t “re-boot” per se, they certainly actually moved their location based shooting around a lot from season to season and certainly built totally new sets to reflect that. For example, I know for a fact that by the time the series had settled on the Alexandria setting, the following season they built three additional residential building code compliant standard houses, NOT FACADES but 3 complete houses, to use as “stages” for filming in the actual housing tract they had decided to base the show’s next couple of seasons’ episodes. The plan being to turn them over to the tract developer in a condition that they could be legally sold for actual residential use once the show, again, moved on. I mention THAT because that’s just unheard of. Those three particular “sets” had to be some of the most expensive ones ever built for a TV show with their being built to pass actual residential building code standards.

@Brian Drew

I recently read a business article about Netflix that discussed their practice of releasing entire seasons of a series at once, rather than weekly in order to milk it for buzz. Netflix’s rationale: that’s what our subscribers want.

Putting customers first. Imagine that.


Is this the same Netflix that has modest margins and over $2 billion in debt?

I stand by my feelings on this. I think it’s better to release in installments. Keeps a show in the national conversation for more than a week and raises awareness. Also reduces customer churn, which is a concern for streaming services whose cost of doing business is going up as competition increases:

Netflix is a great service, and I respect that they wanted to try a new way of presenting content. I think eventually they’ll at least experiment with the more traditional format.

Brian Drew Today 8:03 pm Well, it’s important to point out that Netflix’s debt is the result of their fast-growing, global strategy, which has every indication of being successful. They’re currently in something like 130 countries, and the ONLY game in town in many of those countries. That’s first-to-market brand leadership advantage right there, which will pay dividends far into the future. Netflix’s P&L over the past 2-3 years has been good, and they’ve been outpacing Hulu in every important metric. I wish I still had the articles, to give you specific numbers. I think that releasing a series all at once is more likely to mitigate churn than stringing customers along week-by-week, especially when your market research shows they want the former. Speaking for myself—and I know I’m not alone on this—with regard to Netflix original series like House of Cards, they’re more fun and satisfying to watch at your own pace, which is typically more binge-watching, than to have to wait week to week after episodes that aren’t, in and of themselves, dramatically satisfying. HOC is creatively formatted as a serial, so having to wait a week in between episodes is rather like going to the movie theater, having the movie stop after 30 minutes, and being told to come back the following week for the next 30-minute installment. If those first 30 minutes weren’t all that satisfying, you might not return for the rest. Likewise with HOC. Individual episodes aren’t always satisfying, but knowing that they’re parts… Read more »

Im not sure anyone should be concerned with Netflix’s debt considering their revenue and assets.

While Im sure there are *some* people that go to the trouble of bingewatching and cancelling, it would hardly be the majority. Netflix is something you subscribe to and keep. The price is in that sweet spot of keeping it even if you go a month or two without watching much. They know that.

Apparently 70% of Netflix subscribers binge watch to some degree. And they have a high satisfaction rating too. They are spending a lot on new content. The idea is to have something worth watching every month. So binge watching wont lead to cancelling.

Also, people probably dont understand what binge watching means. it sounds like “watch an entire series in one sitting” but in reality its watching 2-3 episodes in one sitting. And its the way most people prefer to watch. There are stats showing people will save up an entire series and stream it later.

I’ll be honest here: I don’t know how I feel regarding binge release vs. installment. There are benefits to fan on both avenues, and benefits/drawbacks to business as well. But I appreciate the actual research you put into your response– very important in a discussion like this. Let’s not be rules simply by our emotional gut and say that “Netflix cares about the fans” — and realize they likely have a very good business reason for doing it too.

@Cygnus – well put. Netflix’ audience has shown they want to watch at their own pace which is a more accurate way of putting it then “binge watching” which implies burning through a series in one sitting. Even for a series like House of Card, I think it still took me a week or so to get through. If you have enough quality content to offer, people wont watch and cancel. On the contrary, Im far more likely to stop watching a series on network television (akin to cancelling) when it is serialized but rolled out weekly with breaks throughout the season. its the “losing interest” factor. Or the “too busy to watch when they tell me to” factor. We’ve seen different trends in how network TV is broadcast. When I was younger, i was a handful of episodes, repeats, handful of new episodes, repeats etc. Now it seems more structured in that a new series premieres for X amount of episodes and often stops airing during the “repeat” phase and then makes a big deal about it’s Return to new episodes. Or looking at TWD, split into first half and second half. Its all about gaining traction with a busy audience with a lot of options. There are so many good reasons to launch a series all at once. There have been shows I never heard of or were interested in and based on word of mouth I went back to watch – when I want, at my leisure.… Read more »

I’ve been a Netflix customer for 16 years. Straight, no interruptions.

@Bob – I didnt “get” what Netflix was so I was a late adopter. Then I was blown away by the concept and ease of use. In fact, when I had to buy a new Smart Blu Ray player (sadly my HDTV is not smart), the fact one came with a dedicated Netflix button made a difference in my purchasing decision.

I recommend the book “Netflixed”. It tells the story of the creation and rise of Netflix and the decline of Blockbuster and is truly a great story. I wish I could go back in time and buy Netflix stock.

“What the customers want” only seems to go so far. I want them to release their shows on disc at the same time they release them to streaming. They used to do that with House of Cards. But I’m STILL waiting to see their first season of Daredevil. I hate streaming because the quality is still crap. Much prefer disc. Which is why I am hoping CBS will let Netflix ship out discs of the Trek season within a year after it appears on their crappy streaming service.

@ML31 – why is your Netflix stream crap? Its 1080P for me (and that’s true 1080 blu ray quality not cable HD). And Netflix is beginning to stream 4K as well.

Why would CBS let Netflix sell DVD’s of this series? Netflix has nothing to do with it. CBS Home Entertainment would produce and sell the DVD’s. And if you’re buying a DVD, you’re watching poorer quality than what it will probably stream at.

Again, as a business why would they release a series on DVD the same day it launches on the service (in your Netflix example)? They want you to subscribe. That’s how they make money.

There is a hotdog cart near my house that sells great tasting hotdogs. If I want one, I buy it. I dont lament that the jerk who runs the cart wont give me free hotdogs in the spirit of customer service.


The quality is crap because I get a better picture from blu ray and the controls are delayed action and difficult to maneuver. There are features on discs that simply are not available from streaming. Also, I constantly get pauses in playback due to “buffering”. It’s a giant pain so I rarely, if ever, do it. I don’t even pay for Netflix streaming. I have a friend’s pw and piggy back on her account.

CBS would let Netflix ship out blu rays because they, and all the other content providers do it already. There MUST be profit in it for them to do it to begin with. BTW, even at DVD quality it’s STILL superior to streaming.

You made a monumentally poor analogy. No one is asking anyone to provide anything for free.

@Ml31 – you’re not the target audience. You “steal” Netflix and dont want to pay for CBSAA. Okay. So dont watch. Maybe you can piggy back off your friend’s CBSAA or perhaps run a cord down the street to your house. The disc rental business is protected by law. I cannot remember what its called off hand but there was an effort by studio’s to disallow the renting of discs (Netflix’ original model) but court sided against the studio so basically if I buy a DVD, I can then rent it out because its mine and I own it. When it comes to streaming, Netflix licenses content from studios. So yes, there is money when Netflix pays CBS to air old TNG episodes. Netflix has already said Trek is very popular. The reason there is a new Full House is because the original was popular on Netflix. CBS doesnt want “some” of the money from NEtflix, they want “all” the money from airing/owning the show themselves. If they didnt want to push CBSAA, I suspect they would have licensed Netflix to produce a new Trek series. But its about leveraging the loyal fanbase of Star Trek into juicing subs for their own streaming service and knowing they can recoup most of their costs of production from over-seas licensing fees. Its really quite ingenious. Disney owns Marvel and ABC but licenses Netflix to produce tv shows. Why? Because it makes sense for them. If CBSAA flops but the trek show is… Read more »

I do not “steal” Netflix. I have an account. If want to stream, Netflix allows subscribers to add others to their accounts. Nothing nefarious at all and perfectly OK with Netflix that my friend does this.
So if what you are saying about the discs is true, then we will NEVER see discs of TrekAA. Not sure that is a good way to go as disc sales have proved to be a rather large financial windfall to studios. CBS is no exception. CBS is forgoing profits of disc sales in order to lure people into buying AA. I honestly do not see that working out too well for them. They may see a bump in subscribers but I’d wager most will be like me, buy just one month. Not sure that is what they were looking for. I’d guess they would want more permanent subscribers. Their current business plan does not allow for that.

@ML31 – Perhaps Im wrong (perhaps its different in the US) but I dont believe Netflix’s intent with allowing different log-ins is for your friend to pay for it and you to watch it for free. And while I know people who have done the same it was solely so that two people in different house holds could watch Netflix and only one pay for it. That is not in keeping with the spirit of paying for Netflix. You might have an account but its not yours so you’re not contributing to Netflix’ bottom line. You’re basically pirating.

I would be shocked if the series isnt released on DVD. CBS has a good rep with these things. They will release it, probably with a DVD that comes out shortly before Season Two launched and it will likely contain extras and maybe a “making of” documentary or two.

Trek fans eat that stuff up so CBS will feed us.

TUP, you are wrong. Netflix had been aware that a lot of people were sharing passwords for some time. They were wondering what to do about it without ticking off their customers. So they opted to allow for accounts on up to 4 (Yes, I think 4) devices. They did not seem to care if it were 4 devices in the same households or 4 friends in 4 different cities. They have been quite open in the press about this. So, no. I am not pirating any more than when your host gives you a drink you re stealing their liqueur. No, I am not watching for free. I pay for my own Netflix account. I’ve said this over and over and yet you seem to keep ignoring that.

I wouldn’t be shocked if there is no disc release. Such a dick move would be right up with putting the show on a streaming only service as well as Paramount’s retail specific discs of the movies. Plus, Amazon doesn’t even sell discs of their streaming content. Which gives me enough pause to think there is no reason CBS wont do the same with TrekAA. I hope you are right and the discs come out and further, are available on the Netflix like GoT is a month before the next season comes out. But I wouldn’t be too sure.

@ML31 – the point of allowing up to 4 devices is for synergy between devices owned by the same customer. For example, your TV, iPad, Smartphone, Laptop. Netflix doesnt mind people in the same house hold sharing an account feeling that as kids age, they end up getting their own Netflix account because they are hooked and loyal. The point was not to allow you to let your buddies watch Netflix for free. That is stealing, my friend. Essentially, your opinion is moot because you’re not actually a Netflix streaming customer. Your friend is. It is not remotely the same as drinking your friend’s booze because the end producer has sold the bottle. It is then your friend’s to do with as they see fit. Except they cant sell it…thats regulated. If you’re at your friend’s home watching their Netflix that is one thing. Using their credentials to log in is using a service you havent paid for. You repeatedly said you do not pay for Netflix Streaming. I dont own shares in Netflix so I dont really care if you steal it, but the argument is relevant that you’re opinion of CBSAA is rather moot. You dont want to pay. And you dont pay already for streaming services. So be it. Why is CBS airing Star Trek on their streaming service a dick move but Netflix airing House of Cards or Orange is the New Black not a dick move? Is HBO airing Game of Thrones on their subscription… Read more »
TUP, First, you are wrong when you are assuming the point of the 4 device thing. Netflix knew people were sharing logons and tried to come up with a way to limit it without turning off their customers. If one person wanted to pay for the whole thing and allowed 3 friends to use the account, that was up to them and was not in violation of any agreement or any spirit of the deal with Netflix. It is not stealing by any means as Netflix has no control or say over how their customers distribute the account privileges. If you were correct, the hardware store that sold you a screwdriver could accuse you of stealing if you use that screwdriver as a chisel or hammer or anything other than as a mechanism to tighten or loosen screws. It is not moot. I am a Netflix customer. Why do you keep ignoring that? I send them money every month. And even if I wasn’t, my using my friend’s account, WITH HER PERMISSION makes me, by extension, a Netflix customer. You seem to care a great deal as you have gone out of your way to accuse me of stealing every chance you get when you and I both know there no theft involved. It is a dick move because Netflix makes the content available through other means. I said if they keep TrekAA to themselves (meaning, not allowing for any other way to see it) THEN it would be a… Read more »

@ML31 – a CNET story from this year reported this:

“We love people sharing Netflix,” CEO Reed Hastings said Wednesday at the Consumer Electronics Show here in Las Vegas. “That’s a positive thing, not a negative thing.”

However, it also stated the following (which would seem to imply the above referred to this):

Hastings, who earlier in the day also revealed Netflix was now in 130 countries, didn’t address broad password swapping, but did say a household sharing an account was fine. A lot of the time, he said, household sharing leads to new customers because kids subscribe on their own as they start to earn income.


Netflix, of course, does try to curb how widely passwords are shared. A standard account that costs $9.99 a month allows users to watch videos on two screens simultaneously. For an additional $2 a month, you can upgrade to four screens.

So, if you think Netflix is happy that you watch their service without paying for it, I think you’re wrong.

The law that allows rental that I couldnt remember is called First Sale Doctrine, FYI.

I didn’t say they were “happy”. You did. That seems to be an M.O. of yours. I just said that they allow for it to happen. They curbed it quite a bit when they limited the sharing to 4 accounts. Which even in my opinion I thought was probably a little high. But good for people like me who have good friends who share!

@ML31 – so…you agree they would not be happy and took steps to curb it but you’re arguing that its perfectly okay for you to do it? Lots of people do it Im sure (I even know some) but it doesnt make it right. And again, the point is not to morally judge you, its to demonstrate that your opposition to paying for CBSAA is inherent with you…you’re not their target demo. You want it on Netflix because you could watch it for free. You’re objections are moot.

TUP, “you agree they would not be happy and took steps to curb it but you’re arguing that its perfectly okay for you to do it? ” What??? How did you make THAT leap? That’s absurd. I never mentioned nor agreed or disagreed with anyone’s happiness. I just pointed out that they wanted to curb their subscribers dishing out their account info so they limited it to 4. And that I was surprised it was that high. But they set the number and I’m sure they had their reasons. Therefore, people sharing their 4 accounts is not illegal, nor is it against Netflix policy or any part of the contract you make with Netflix when you sign up. Therefore, it is not stealing. If you personally find sharing morally wrong, that is your prerogative, however. I do not want it on Netflix so I could watch it for free. I want it on Netflix so I can watch it on DISC! In fact, I COULD watch Daredevil on my friends account. But I don’t. I want to watch it on disc so I can get the higher quality and all the other good things that make discs better. Once again, you are making weird assumptions without understanding what is being said. When the time comes I think we will find that CBSAA will not get the boost they are hoping for. Believe it or not, there are more people who are not willing to spend money on more and more… Read more »

The four log ins is not so you can give it away to your friends. its so members of the same household can watch different programs at the same time. Thats why it is (or was) called the Family Plan. Its not called the “give it away to your cheap friends” plan.

When I have cable, I can watch it on multiple TV’s. That doesnt mean I can stretch a cable across the yard and give my neighbor free cable.

Why do you need anything to be on Netflix to watch on disc? Go to Best Buy and buy it. Go to Amazon and order it.

There aren’t 4 logins. There is one login. My friend shared me hers because she is a good friend who doesn’t mind sharing. She only uses it for two devices in her household and had no problem letting me on board. The plan that includes 4 devices is called the “premioum” plan. And it includes HD and Ultra HD streaming. Of course, that probably depends on what level of internet service one gets. So again, I would appreciate it if you got your facts correct. Cable is NOT a streaming service. Cable companies will charge you for even extra lines in your own house, let along letting others down the street in. It’s specified in the contracts you sign. Just as Netflix specifies on the premium and standard plans you get to use 2 or 4 screens or devices. They don’t say the devices must belong to you or members of your household. They do not demand the screen be at the address of your billing credit card. They are yours do use as you please. Really… The way you are harping on this feels like you are envious I have a friend that would do this and you don’t. I’m on Netflix because I don’t WANT to buy movies every week. That becomes amazingly costly. Perhaps not for you, you seem to have a HUGE disposable income. But for most of the world, that is not a realistic option. I would do that if money weren’t an option, to… Read more »

Exactly. One log in. I hope Netflix eventually cracks down on the theft. They are being very patient. And the example of cable charing you for a line is because they have to. If you needed a Netflix person to come to the house to set up there “four” screens, they wouldn’t be setting one up at someone else’s house. You’re stealing netflix. That’s your business but at least own up to it.

Yep. One login that allows for 4 different devices. This was Netflix’s response to people sharing their logins to scores of people. It was unlimited. They opted to limit it to 4. This was them cracking down not on theft, (they knew the users doing that were totally within their rights to based on the contracts they had) but an attempt to keep the action from getting out of hand. It has been years since they did this and it is looking like 4 is where they are sticking.

In the cable example, if one wants to steal cable, they wait until AFTER it has been installed and they they splice the line. And hope they don’t need a tech to come by again. It’s really quite simple. But in doing so they are violating the agreement with the provider. On the flip side, if some Netflix user found a way to crack codes or whatnot and found a way to dish out more than 4 accounts to friends and family, even if they were all in the same household they would be in violation of their agreement with Netflix. Four is the limit.

Has anyone ever bought you dinner? Has anyone ever had you over for a meal or a drink? And you accepted it? Thief!!!

Yep. One login that allows for 4 different devices. This was Netflix’s response to people sharing their logins to scores of people. It was unlimited. They opted to limit it to 4. This was them cracking down not on theft, (they knew the users doing that were totally within their rights to based on the contracts they had) but an attempt to keep the action from getting out of hand. It has been years since they did this and it is looking like 4 is where they are sticking.

In the cable example, if one wants to steal cable, they wait until AFTER it has been installed and they they split the line. And hope they don’t need a tech to come by again but if they know the tech is coming I suppose they would just remove the split. It’s really quite simple. But in doing so they are violating the agreement with the provider. On the flip side, if some Netflix user found a way to crack codes or whatnot and found a way to dish out more than 4 accounts to friends and family, even if they were all in the same household they would be in violation of their agreement with Netflix. Four is the limit.

Has anyone ever bought you dinner? Has anyone ever had you over for a meal or a drink? And you accepted it? Thief!!!

Are you that dense? If someone buys me dinner, they are paying for the food and service. The person providing the food and service isnt being robbed. In your example, your friend bought herself dinner and then took an extra entree and gave it to you. Have you ever been to a buffet? Do they let you and your 4 friends pay for ONE meal and share it? No. They dont.

You’d have to be awfully stupid to be making these arguments. Netflix doesnt crack down on theft because they dont see yet see it as a huge problem and being “nice” is part of their deal…they find that people who share eventually want their own and convert into full fledged Netflix subs. None of that changes the fact you are stealing their service. You watch it. Without paying. You are stealing.

The person buying dinner is paying. But you aren’t. By your own definition that makes you a thief. In my example, my friend bought a VERY large pot of food and shared some with me. The reason the buffet won’t let you share among your group is because it is stated when you enter the establishment. They very well could put of specials allowing “two for one” or even make it a permanent thing if they wish. It’s up to the business. Netflix allows 4 accounts per subscription. Which is JUST like “two for one” only in this case it’s “four for one”. That is how they want to do business. “You’d have to be awfully stupid to be making these arguments. ” I’ve used this before but it still works… Pot, meet kettle. Netflix already cracked down on the sharing. That is why they limit it to 4. They were losing out before they did that. They HOPE that people who get shared eventually get their own accounts. Just like the hardware store I’m sure HOPES that someone won’t share the rake they just sold so they can sell to that person instead. In your world children are nothing but common thieves. In your world anyone who lends anyone anything is an accessory to theft. In no one’s world but yours is sharing the same as stealing. I can only conclude based on your draconian and cynical way of looking at things that you are not close enough to… Read more »

This is good news. Now when will Moonves announce an ad free subscriber plan for All Access, if ever?

My guess? It will be announced just before release, with a $3 hike in price from the commercial plan (just like Hulu)

I honestly would not at all mind paying the 3 extra bucks. There are other shows on there that I watch as well.

I happily pay the extra $3 for Hulu Plus. It was the only way I was ever going to get their service!

When people talk about the greatness of Star Trek, they usually refer to the futuristic vision and social commentary of the show. It’s not recognized as often that one of the strongest suits (for me at least) of the best series, Original and TNG, are stand alone episodes. It was so cool to get lost in a whole different dilemma every week. It would be cool to see more of that but I don’t think the binge watching culture really caters to that.

I love standalone episodes.

The show should be serialized but that doesnt eliminate stand alone episodes at all. DS9 was serialized and still had stand alone episodes. Voyager was the opposite in that the ship could be practically destroyed one week and everyone was happy and everything was perfect the next. Hard to care about characters or consequences in that environment.

Standalone episodes and a demilitarized approach would be well worth watching. More exploring the unknown and far fewer space battles, please.

I think CBS wants Trek to be a new House Of Cards or Transparent. Critical acclaim, new media hype, awards show darling.

But like a three legged stool, if one fails to materialize, I doubt CBS has the stones to stick with it. If they can’t generate buzz, their money dries up faster than water in the Sahara.

I hope I’m wrong.

The good thing about it being on their streaming service is they are less impacted by individual ratings and more likely to stick with it longer than if it was a Network show.

This entire CBS streaming only thing is a double edge sword for me. I do not and will not pay for just ONE show. If I did, I would buy HBO every month just for Game of Thrones. So I am hoping this show and entire concept just crashes and burns. But the problem with that is I’m certain CBS would blame Star Trek for that and NOT the way they presented it. It’s a damned if you do damned if you don’t kind of situation.

What if the new series was on a traditional channel but it was a cable channel you dont already get? You’d have to pay for it. That’s the point. Drop a package you barely watch and buy CBS All Access. Or wait til the finale airs, subscribe, binge watch and then cancel. Wait til season 2 launched, subscribe, binge watch season 1 while season 2 rolls out.

Ultimately, every single TV show costs you money to watch. CBSAA is just like a channel you dont already get. And sure, it’s $10/month or whatever it is. Sure it sucks for people who cant afford that but there are people who cant afford TV at all so what’s CBS to do, give it away?

There are indeed channels I would like to have that are on a higher tier that I opt to not buy just for that one thing they give me. It’s just not worth it. In the amazingly unlikely event CBS put trek on some obscure high tier (which makes no sense as they would likely want to give it as high an audience as possible) I simply wouldn’t subscribe. I’d just have Netflix ship me the discs when they inevitably become available. Sucks to wait but better than overpaying for extremely limited content.

Again, you are missing the point. I nor anyone else is suggesting CBS “give” anything away. What we are wanting is for CBS to use a more traditional or widely used delivery format. That does not mean CBS does it for free. It just means they make it available to a wider audience. Besides, as you say everything on TV costs money to watch in some form or another…

This new delivery method is what is making a new series possible. They’ve made it plenty clear they would not air a new Trek series on broadcast or cable.

No, CBS is trying to get on board the streaming bandwagon. Their service currently is nearly worthless so they are trying to artificially inflate the value by making Trek exclusive content on their terrible platform. They could easily find a much more widely and readily accepted platform to distribute Trek in a way they could make a profit. They just chose not to.


@ML31 – as Torchwood said, the reason CBS seems so invested in this series is because its the cornerstone of their streaming service. So ratings wont matter. Even initial subscriptions wont matter. Critical reception wont matter. It could be the worst Trek series ever and it wont really matter. What will matter is if CBSAA shows any sort of growth that executives feel is a positive. If it does, then they will keep investing in the series. If CBSAA crashes and burns, then Trek will be gone.

Of course Trek will be gone. Because the idiots that run things will blame Trek for the failure and not the real culprit, placing the show on an exclusive streaming service very few want. If it crashes and burns watch them abandon Trek, but do everything they can to keep their silly streaming thing going.
I already know they want to make Trek the cornerstone of CBSAA. But remember, UPN did the same thing for their network. Didn’t help. Trek needs to find a place where fans can actually see it and survive. There are other options out there. CBS is doing to Trek fans what Paramount did with their 3 different retail specific discs. It’s weak.

@ML31 – I cant agree with that yet. If CBSAA is difficult for people to get and thus, viewership is very low, and the whole thing collapses, so be it. But the point of using Star Trek as the cornerstone is the believe that a fervent fanbase will go out of their way to seek out the show.

And if international deals (where the show is more likely to air on terrestrial channels) is covering the bulk of costs without even factoring in DVD sales and increased merchandising, then CBS can afford to be really patient with the show and the service.

FOX was called the house that Married With Children built. It didnt have to have huge ratings, just enough that people sought it out and the network could grow. If CBSAA shows growth, then it will be considered a success.

So you are saying that American Trek fans get screwed while international ones will be able to see it through normal means? That’s a HUGE slap in the face to the region where the bulk of the audience is. Be that as it may it is still setting a very bad precedent to the consumer. The best we can really hope for is that the first show that will air on the CBS over the air network will be huge but the subsequent season on AA brings in next to nothing in new subscribers. This might show CBS that there is still an audience for Trek but NOT for paying for yet another service. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they decided Trek was dead after that. Even though that conclusion be wrong.

@ML31 – its business, man. They want to use Star Trek to push their streaming service. If they insisted on Trek being an Over The Top only series then many international markets wouldnt get it at all.

WWE launched an Over The Top service, very similar to Netflix. But in Canada, it’s not streaming. They sold the rights to Roger’s and they created a dedicated channel. Still cost $12 a month but delivered terrestrially.

You do not need to remind me. I know it is a business. Sometimes there are business models where you do not need to be in the business to know it is flawed. Like the DVIX/DVD fight back in the 90’s. This one rings of failure. The fact is, there just aren’t enough trek fans to lift AA to the point where CBS would likely want it to be. There weren’t enough to keep UPN going when it was “free”. There certainly won’t be enough for this service. I think it obvious that if CBS wanted Trek to thrive they need to get it somewhere where the most people could get at it. And that is NOT CBSAA.
There is no reason why international markets could not get new Trek TV if CBS made it “over the top” (nice use of the current jargon, btw).



Hmm… Compelling reasoning. That’s it. I’m convinced.

Well reasoning doesn’t work with you, so i’ve given up. You’re just plain wrong even on basic common facts. I could tell you 2+2 is 4 and you’d tell me i’m wrong. So what’s the point?

Except, you THINK you were saying 2+2=4 but in reality you I said 2+2=4 and your response was “but 1+1=4”. I’ve explained where you have claimed I said things I didn’t and drawn poor conclusions from those things I never said. But that has been ignored. Sorry.

You have a LOT more apologizing to do than one “sorry”. Keep going!

Pot, meet kettle.

M31, i’m kind of surprised to hear a Trek “fan” hope for the series to crash and burn. You realize how far that would set back the franchise right?

I guess a compromise from your perspective would be if the show was critically acclaimed, won awards, etc garnered a healthy following, but failed to meet financial expectations.

In that scenario MAYBE another service like Amazon or Netflix might absorb it for future seasons. MAYBE.

Like I said, it’s a double edge sword. If it works out then that is the end of seeing TV Trek on an acceptable platform and we Trek fans can look forward to adding yet another streaming service to our ever growing services we pay for. At least until we eventually end up with internet cable like I described in another post. I find that unacceptable. Or…
The show doesn’t work out, CBS will undoubtedly blame Trek for the streaming failure and Trek will be radioactive to CBS for years. Also unacceptable.

It’s a lose-lose situation for Trek and the followers. I actually am considering the possibility that it may be better in the long run to lose TV Trek for a while. At lease until a means to do it can be found without screwing the customers.

Weekly i feel is the best way to go,look at game of thronges ,if that had drop all in one go,would we still be talking about it? Dose anyone know who will get the veiwing rights in the uk? I am hoping for either sky,amazon prime or the bbc

If you have two groups, one wants it released all at once, one wants it weekly. Well, if you satisfy the weekly group, you are not satisfying the binge group. If you satisfy the binge group, you are still satisfying the weekly group because they can choose to watch it weekly.

Its all about choice. Release it all at once.

The fact they are going weekly would lead me to believe they arent comfortable that people will keep the service after watching the season. Which is not an unfair concern. They need to build up the service where people always have something they want to see on a monthly basis and thus, wont bother dropping.

HBO (and Netflix) have a strategy in how they release new TV shows to ensure no one says “well, it’s 5 months until the next show I like so Ill just cancel until then”.

I am so not impressed with CBSAA.

Example: So I discovered this Halle Berry SF show that I never heard about before called Extant and CBSAA has S1. It’s a decent show but it was cancelled, and I thought it never went past S1, because that’s all that’s available on CBSAA.

Then, on Amazon I discover there was a S2, but it was only available on Amazon Prime!

So CBS ALL Access only has S1, while Amazon had S2.

Doesn’t sound ALL access to me. Sounds like PARTIAL access when I have to get the rest of a CBS show from another platform.

So you’re going to get caught up in the name of the service? Netflix only has seasons 1,2,3 and 5 of Twilight Zone. Stuff like that happens, for a variety of reasons. Extant’s production company likely signed an exclusive deal with Amazon Prime for the “current” season, and only gives other streaming services access to past seasons.

If you like a series that much, buy the DVD and then you can watch the entire thing whenever you feel like it.

For me, I do not want to own a series unless it is good enough to watch more than once. I will not know that unless I see the show FIRST.


Or how about this one… Netflix has 1985’s excellent Twilight Zone revival and all the discs for the season are available EXCEPT disc 1!!

Pfft. I’m “getting caught up in” the expectations that CBS’ marketing for AA created, i.e., access to the full catalog of CBS shows, which BOTH seasons of Extant are. Instead they give you S1 but not S2.

CBSAA is not Netflix. This is CBS’ own content we’re talking about.

dmduncan May 3, 2016 10:42 pm

If it’s a CBS-produced show, that’s a raw deal. If it’s produced by Amazon, it’s more understandable, but obviously still disappointing.

The reply hierarchy in this format is terrible. I reply directly to a subcomment and it drops to the bottom so a reader has to GUESS who one is replying to.


In reply to your comment uniquely identified by this URL:

I agree with you about the hierarchical treeing of the comment replies being atrocious.

However, the GUESSing can be somewhat ameliorated by including the unique URL each comment is given upon hitting the “Post Comment” button, as I have done here in my reply to you.

Anyone reading this comment of mine and wishing to know which comment of yours to which it is in reply, only has to click on the URL that I have provided and their web browser should spin your comment up to the top of its web viewing window.

It’s plodding and not an ideal way of doing it, but it can be managed. I recommend right clicking on such reply URLs that my comments provide so that the message to which my replies are being made can be opened in a separate tab or window to the one you are using to read this or other chains, and thus, they can be easily resumed by simply returning to the undisturbed tab or window used for viewing a chain you wish to resume reading.

.Here’s the bottom line for me: I cannot afford to pay CBS for their online streaming service, even if it features the new Star Trek series. The show should be on one of the existing streaming platforms. I don’t understand why Netflix or Amazon couldnt charge $1 extra for each new Star Trek episode. CBS would still make money and the public wouldn’t get ripped off.

“I don’t understand why Netflix or Amazon couldnt charge $1 extra for each new Star Trek episode.”

You’d probably end up paying MORE doing that.

Well, its a business. Netflix wanted Star Trek. And that helped inform CBS that they should make it the cornerstone of their own streaming service. This is the way most content will eventually be delivered. The cord cutters of today will be the people who have 10 streaming service subscriptions in the future and possibly dont save much money over cable today.

I dont blame CBS for doing this at all. I WISH Netflix was producing the series because I trust Netflix and love their delivery method. But its a business.

TUP Today 8:24 am

It would be ideal if Netflix was the distributor. This slow drip, death-by-a-thousand-cuts of every network, production company and/or independent distributor (like Amazon and Neflix) pitching content by subscription to their own, proprietary SVOD site has got to reach market saturation at some point in the not-too-distant future. As you said, with the prospect that cord-cutters now face of finding themselves once again with excessive monthly bills for TV/movie content, things are going to come to a head. Either consolidation of SVODs will occur, or monthly subscription rates will drop, or cord-cutters will once again drop out of the system in favor of a better alternative, be it torrenting or something else. And all of the aforesaid soon rather than later if f*cking commercials become a regular part of the deal.


Absolutely. I actually can easily see all something like some outside provider giving you all the streaming services for a fee (like a cable provider giving you all those channels for a fee) so you only have to pay one provider in bulk rather than a handful of individual providers that total a larger fee. Those individual providers will negotiate a fee to have their service with that provider. And we essentially end up with internet cable. Everything old is new again.

ML31 Today 2:34 pm


I agree. It started with people cord cutting and going with just Netflix and saving themselves $100 a month and keeping basic cable for the network shows. I know people that have Netflix (well everyone has Netflix) and then add Amazon or Crave etc. I think HBO is releasing their streaming service as a stand alone, meaning you wont need their cable channel.

At some point you will end up needing 10 streaming services to get all the shows you want, especially if networks/studios invest in higher quality television as a result.

I could see certain networks cooperating on a streaming service rather than having 10 different ones. ideally, they’d just license to Netflix and let Netflix be the master and ruler of the streaming world. But I guess *some* competition is good.

I work for a telecom that obviously got into the TV business and delivers everything via the internet. They are big on this “Internet of Things” concept and everything is going to be Over The Top delivered in the future. All our devices, appliances etc will communicate. Hell, my parents new washing machine is “smart” for some reason.

That’s definitely how it started, but it goes a little deeper: when I dropped cable initially it was not because I wanted a cheaper monthly bill, it was because I realized how much of what was on all those channels was just utter garbage. I found I was watching more TV than I really wanted to “just to have the TV on” as it were. When I dropped it, it was before streaming Netflix was around, and while there some things I missed, like watching TNG reruns on Spike, or baseball on the local sports network, after a time I didn’t feel that tug any longer.

My wife and I talked every so often about getting cable again over the next few years, but once netflix streaming came around, it sealed it for me. NEVER AGAIN!

And it wasn’t about the money– not entirely. If our list of streaming services ever winds up totally what I paid (or more) for cable, I would not lament. Far from it. Because I would rather pay for what I like than for what I don’t. I like not having to watch commercials. I like having the content at my fingertips– I don’t have to alter my life to watch whatever, or set DVRs or generally plan my life around television.

TV has become what it should be: something I don’t think about, and can enjoy in my leisure time.

I have cable and I have all that. I do not feel compelled to watch anything. I pay for what I like, not what I don’t. I don’t watch commercials because anything that is not a live sporting event I record and watch at my leisure, my schedule, whenever I like or have time to. I have content right at my fingertips. My life does not revolve around what time any network decides what is on. AND I still can catch the Stanley Cup playoffs or baseball game and only pay ONE monthly fee AND the quality remains superior. If I got all the services from streaming I get from cable my bill would probably be 3 times as much as I pay for cable and I would be frustrated by the lack of quality picture.

But why complain about CBSAA and their (minimal) $5/mo charge? Why should they be forced to put their catalog on Netflix? I think it’s great for them to start up their own service, just as Fox, HBO, and others are doing. Don’t like it? Fine– don’t subscribe. but don’t complain because “they should have gone to Netflix.” I mean, really now… entertainment has never been cheaper than today, when you can pay $10 a month and have instant access to thousands of TV shows and movies (when in the past a movie would be $3-5 a night to RENT!).

It’s your problem that you’re still hooked on cable– not mine, and not CBS’. This may not be a success for them on this platform, but not because people can’t afford $5. I think the one barrier is going to be the REST of the service: right now there’s really not much there. They need a much bigger catalog of old AND new content before their subscriber base really balloons and the service becomes a true success.

A critically acclaimed Trek series is a great way to begin their ascent, however.

The charge is minimal. But so is adding Netflix streaming. And Hulu, and all the other streaming services out there. That adds up. One is minimal. I already subscribe to Netflix. I don’t want to keep adding more and more and more. Nor have I ever demanded CBS be “forced” to put their stuff on Netflix. I was saying I “HOPED” they would. Quite a different thing. Although I haven’t done it someone complaining that Trek is not on Netflix rather than CBSAA is quite a legitimate complaint. And understandable. It is also quite obvious we both have different opinions on what “cheap” is. Since such views are subjective let’s just leave it at that. I have no problem with cable. It is still the best quality and value you can get regarding home TV entertainment. It seems to be your problem there are still a lot of people who feel that way. Not mine. I never claimed the $5 fee was really the issue either. When you say that you are probably not seeing the forest for the trees. The barrier is not even the rest of the service. The barrier is they are asking streamers to add YET ANOTHER streaming service. At some point (perhaps not you) streamers are eventually going to say “no more services”. And I think we are getting pretty close. A critically acclaimed Trek series is what they think will get them going but in all likelihood they have overestimated the zeal of Trek… Read more »

Well said Torchwood. It’s a smart move on CBS’ part because Star Trek fans are more likely to try out a new technology or option to get content if its good. And that’s the key…making it good. And the plan to premiere on CBS is brilliant…they are letting every Trek fan in America watch it for free and then decide if its worth paying $5 for. So it certainly is in their best interests to be really good (and likely a great cliff hanger).

Funny that people that dont pay for Netflix want Star Trek on Netflix. If I was stealing my neighbor’s HBO, I’d want all my favorite shows on HBO!

What evidence do you have that people who don’t pay for Netflix want Trek on Netflix? Torch said he would like it on Netflix, does he not pay for Netflix?

For someone with the disposable income you claim to have (deduced on my part based on your disregard for the cost of things) it is odd that you are envious of people with good friends.

@ML31 – you don’t pay for it and you want it there.

I have disposable income but am not wealthy. Keep in mind, that, as I’ve shown, what you’re doing is not in the spirit of what Netflix intended. Then again, if I can’t afford to watch films, do you think its okay if I watch pirated versions online? That’s what you’re doing. Sorry…but patting yourself on the back for stealing a service shouldn’t be something to be proud of around here. We want Trek to be successful – we want everyone to pay for it.


You seem to forget that I DO pay for Netflix. And yes, that is a big reason why I want it there because I pay for Netflix already and don’t want to be forced to pay for other services just for one thing. Even if that thing is new Trek.

You need to keep in mind that Netflix KNOWS people share their accounts and would do something about it if they didn’t want their subscribers doing it. Personally I don’t care if you watch pirated movies or not. That’s your decision. I’m not pirating anything no matter what warped definition of sharing you wish to use.

Why don’ you admit that anytime someone has offered you a drink in your mind you are stealing? If you think I am stealing netflix from my friend you are stealing anytime someone does anything for you without asking for anything in return. You can’t have it both ways.


You seem to forget that I DO pay for Netflix. And yes, that is a big reason why I want it there because I pay for Netflix already and don’t want to be forced to pay for other services just for one thing. Even if that thing is new Trek.

You need to keep in mind that Netflix KNOWS people share their accounts and would do something about it if they didn’t want their subscribers doing it. Personally I don’t care if you watch pirated movies or not. That’s your decision. I’m not pirating anything no matter what warped definition of sharing you wish to use.

Why don’t you admit that anytime someone has offered you a drink in your mind you are stealing? If you think I am stealing netflix from my friend you are stealing anytime someone does anything for you without asking for anything in return. You can’t have it both ways.

So you’re argument is, since you subscribe to Netflix’ DVD service that it somehow gives you the moral right to steal their streaming service without paying for it? If we applied that moral argument to many things, we’d all be able to have our cake and eat it too. Let’s lobby HBO to move all their shows to Netflix so you can watch them for free.

No, my argument that I am not stealing Netflix from my friend is that Netflix allows for multiple accounts and I am merely one of them. I would not be stealing even if I DIDN’T have my own account. Those are two separate issues. BTW.. All of HBO’s shows ARE on Netflix. I’ve got season 5 of Game of Thrones lined up in my cue and will be seeing it in a short while.

Dude…. You are just messing with me, right? You HAVE to be….

PS… I subscribe to the DISC service. I get blurays. Not DVD’s. Does anyone even still use or get DVD’s? Perhaps you do, you keep bring up DVD’s….

@ ML31 and TUP: Guys, you have spent what feels like at least 50 comments over several days now arguing about stealing or sharing Netflix accounts. It’s obvious by now that you have a different view, and it’s also obvious that none of you is going to change his mind. So please consider the comment guidelines: agree to disagree and move on. Nobody is going to “win” this discussion.

@Digimon – I hear ya. Its just such a mind numbing perspective, its difficult not to reply…lol


You are correct. And I have to tell you that I am merely playing along at this point as I think it is quite obvious this guy is being belligerent on purpose just to mess with someone on the internet. I indulge such things from time to time as it can be entertaining.

Unfortunately, I dont find your ignorance or belligerence entertaining. I just think it’s sad and your behavior shameful. As long as you continue to argue your incorrect perspective, I feel no obligation to stop pointing out how wrong you are. Some sites actually have policy against discussing pirating movies and TV and you simply admit to it here with no shame. So sad.

Yet again, you demonstrate a failure (intentional?) to understand what is being said here. I said, “…I think it is quite obvious this guy is being belligerent on purpose…”. Please note the context. Feel free to keep playing. (and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here, hard to believe an grown adult would confuse sharing with stealing).

Please cite the post where I admitted to pirating anything. You can’t. Because your entire premise relies on defining sharing as stealing.

So even though I’ve shown you that Netflix’s intention was that ONE account would be shared within a household, you still feel justified in stealing since they havent caught you yet? Do you shoplift as well? I mean, hey, if they dont catch you, its not stealing right?

No, you have shown me their HOPE was people wouldn’t share outside their household. Just like hardware stores HOPE people don’t share the tools they bought. But both businesses know that is just not realistic. People share things. Netflix limits the sharing to 4. I am justified because what my friend is doing is 100% allowed to happen by the company she is buying from. She, nor I, have to fear being caught because we aren’t doing anything against the contract that was signed.

Again, I’m sorry you aren’t close enough with anyone that they are willing to share with you. But if you were, they would probably refuse from you as they would not want you to think they were “stealing” from you. But this is a moot point.

Stop being an jerk for the sake of being a jerk. Again, if you dont know the difference between buying a product you now own and stealing a streaming service, then you’re a lost cause. I hope these are not the morals you’ve instilled in your children. “But dad, I didnt steal the car…the owner didnt know I took it but they werent using it at the time so how can it be stealing”. uh huh

No need to get nasty. The streaming service is a license agreement. Like when you by a license for 6 users of a program. Where the users are is up to the person who bought the license. The software company has no right to tell the licensee who can use the license. It’s up to them. Just as it’s up to the subscriber how they wish to use their accounts. But hardware example still works. You own your account each month you pay. You own your tools. The only difference is one is a one time fee the other is ongoing. The end result is the item/service is yours to do with what you wish. There is even no requirement uses use all 4 accounts too. It’s up to the user.

” “But dad, I didnt steal the car…the owner didnt know I took it but they werent using it at the time so how can it be stealing” ” Quite typical from you. Not only is that nowhere near analogous to my friend offering me use of one of her accounts, but my kids would NEVER use that logic for ANYTHING. Such an action would indeed be theft. But theft disappears the moment the owner gives permission to use.

That is simply not true.

If your comment is that sharing of legitimate Netflix accounts is stealing and not allowed by Netflix is not true then yes. You got that right.

Eventually, you’re right: it will reach market saturation. I just don’t think we’re there yet.

The interesting thing will be – how many episodes will they produce. With only 10 episodes, this would be over in 2 1/2 months. What are you going to do with your subscription then?

Contra the recent rumors that the show would be “intensely serialized,” I actually suspect that Fuller is going full-retro here and will deliver a season of intensely idiosyncratic stand-alones with little connective tissue (or at least what feels to modern viewers like little connective tissue) between them. It used to be that each episode could be the polar opposite of the one that preceded it, story-wise… though they all looked and felt basically the same because of production resources. All Access presumably has the budget to make that REALLY true for the first time ever. Imagine a show as sumptuously designed and styled as Fuller’s Hannibal – but where each episode could be radically different in the look/feel department from the one before. I think that’s the show they intend to make – and out of all the various rumors and possibilities for what All Access could be, this is the show I most want to see, too.


It’s starting to sound like it might be easier for you to see it in the UK than it will be for people in the US!

I’m so excited….

And I just can’t hide it….

I’m about to lose control and I think I like it!


Interesting… marked down for being excited about something Trek. It’s the first time since Star Trek 2009 came out that I’ve been excited about anything Trek. So, down vote me for it. Goodness gracious!

Someone on Trekcore raised an interesting idea. In Canada, Bell seems to have rights to the Star Trek Tv Series and air them on their own streaming service Crave TV. Might Bell make a deal with CBS for exclusive Canadian rights and use the new series to push Crave?

I like that my comment was down voted. Are there Canadians here who are just not fans of Crave? lol

Star trek is available on shomi as well

The real question… Will the season be available on Netflix sometime after it is complete? If you buy a month of All Access AFTER the entire season has been rolled out will you be able to catch the early episodes and therefore, avoid paying the fee over multiple months in favor of only one?

I really HATE this concept.

@ML31 – unlikely to be on Netflix that soon after release or it defeats the purpose of CBS using it to juice their own streaming service. I’d suspect you’d be able to watch the entire series on-demand after the final airs though. That would become a marketing tool as they advertise the service POST season 1. ie. Get the entire first season of Star Trek On Demand.

TUP Today 12:15 pm

I’d suspect you’d be able to watch the entire series on-demand after the final airs though.

I’d expect that as well. If you’re paying a subscription fee (plus having to sit through f*cking COMMERCIALS!), you should have access to all of the episodes of the shows, especially if the service is called ALL ACCESS. And, as has been mentioned by many people here in the past, that is how people on a budget can game the system. Wait for the entire season to be released, block out as much of the spoilers as possible, and then sign up for a month and binge-watch it. If all you’re interested in is that one show—as, I suspect many, if not most, people here are—then paying $6 plus enduring commercials to watch that one show seems reasonable.

@Cygnus – I agree. Better not be commercials. Or Im just as likely to watch the premiere and then wait the 12+ weeks for the series to be complete and watch it On Demand.

However, Im in Canada so odds are Ill have it on a terrestrial channel so Ill DVR it and watch at my leisure anyway.


What do you mean “that soon”? I just said “sometime”. Didn’t give an exact date. Was hoping it would be within 12 months, however.

I also wouldn’t assume CBS will keep the season archives alive for very long. I do not know what their current CBSAA subscriber size is but I cannot think that adding Trek will increase it much beyond the Trek fans. And I suspect if you do not have AA already and want to see Trek most will just get it for one month, watch and cancel. If they wish to max out subscriptions they would make previous episodes available for perhaps only about 3 weeks after they “air” it. Thus making viewing the entire season in one month impossible.
The point is, it is difficult to make assumptions about how they are going to handle it. I’m just hoping they will A: Make all episodes available long after the final episode of the season is streamed and B: They make the discs available to Netflix within one year after they “air” like CBS already does with the rest of their original content.

I could be wrong but I’d bet it wont be available to Netflix since CBS All Access will be sort of a competing Over The Top service. So it would be in CBS’ best interests to horde Star Trek. If you want to see it, have to subscribe to CBSAA (or buy the DVD).

I am not aware of Netflix getting discs of any streaming only program content from Hulu or Amazon or whoever else is doing it. So I am forced to agree probably not. But I am still holding out hope because I really don’t want to think the the best way to view TrekAA is to just buy the discs. But even that is no guarantee as Amazon doesn’t even have discs from their own streaming content available to buy from their own site!

This is looking REALLY bad for Trek fans.

Lookout, the sky is falling! This is going to be a loooong year of whining…

Once again… Leaping to an unsubstantiated conclusion. Seems to be the MO of some.

I would be surprised if CBS didnt release the series on DVD. Very surprised.

Many streaming series’ ARE available on DVD after a time. Orange is the New Black, House of Cards… but some are not (yet that we know of). Trek however, has a long track record of collectors like us, and DVD releases (and re-releases) so I would be somewhat surprised if they were not made available later on.

I for one, though, have not bought a physical DVD in more than 5 years, have not watched one in almost 3… so I doubt I would get it anyway.

True, but Netflix used to release disc of House of Cards and streaming at the same time. That has been true right up to the current season. Which is available for streaming but not on disc. Season 2 of Daredevil is out I believe but they STILL do not have season 1 on disc. Trek has a record of fans buying the stuff but that doesn’t mean CBS will continue that. Especially if it could lead to fewer subscriptions to their precious streaming site.

I haven’t bought a DVD in almost a decade. If I want to own a movie or series I have bought the BluRay. That way no matter what happens to the provider I still have my disc.

Maybe you would, but given what has happened thus far I would not be. But you never know. I have learned not to be surprised by anything they do. I noticed Amazon doesn’t sell discs of their own streaming content but DO sell discs (and streaming!) of some of Netflix’s home made content. Hopefully CBS will make the discs available to Netflix. Again, it would suck being a year behind all the time but better than paying for a worthless service that provides a low delivery method.

I’m not convinced that drip-feeding the show onto an online service is necessarily any better than releasing it all at once. If someone isn’t too concerned about spoilers it’s just as easy to wait for the whole series to be available and only then sign up for the service to binge-watch (cancelling again once they finish) as it is if the show had been made available en-masse in the first place.

I’ve seen both release approaches used on Amazon Prime – e.g. both Black Sails and Turn were released as weekly instalments – and honestly, even as an existing/continuing service subscriber I just waited until the whole thing was available before watching. But I wasn’t bothered about spoilers for either of those, where I am bothered a simultaneous whole season release is more attractive.

I agree.

I think the DVR era we live in now has made us more likely to watch what we want when we want. How many people watch live programming consistently? How many watch it at least somewhat delayed to avoid commercials? How many watch it sometimes with a significant delay so you can “binge”?

I’ve probably given more shows a try because of having a DVR then if I didnt. Ill save up some shows until I am bored and give them a try.

The Netflix model is the best. Even then, like I said somewhere else, its not like Im sitting there at midnight waiting for House of Cards to drop. The most recent season was out for a couple weeks before I had the chance to watch it. I watch it when I want to, when I have time and I watch sometimes 2 episodes, sometimes 4 episodes. What I want, when I want. That’s the best model.

Regarding the DVR era and time shifting and such, you might be surprised to learn as I was that even with the DVR a surprisingly low number of people actually time shift. I would have thought more than 3/4 would but that has not been the case. The gloom and doom advertisers had when it came to VCR’s and then DVR’s never happened to the extent they feared. Not even close. Your streaming and my DVR-ing aside, most people still tend to watch TV the old fashioned way. When it is aired, with the ads.
Yes, you nor I know how much longer it will last but I thought it would change much much faster than it has.

There has been and continues to be a steep decline in ratings for live television. This has been attributed to people watching TV in different ways (streaming services, DVR’s).

I believe Nielson recently began including DVR viewers in their ratings. The problem is, people watching on DVR arent watching the commercials (usually) and that impacts ad revenue.

The reason sports properties were able to get huge rights fees increases recently is because sports is seen as DVR-proof and more often watched live.

Again, it doesn’t look like you really understood what was said. Yes, ratings have been in decline. But that started ages ago when people started to get more than 5 channels to watch. It’s more the availability of more channels (and in recent years, that would include streaming services but the issue goes well before that).

Neilson has indeed started giving ratings for time shifted programs. (Enterprise was always among the top 5 on that list, btw) But, as I said in my post that you seem to completely ignore, the majority of TV viewers surprisingly still watch TV the old fashioned way. The fears advertisers had when VCR’s and then DVR’s came out never really materialized. I, myself, was surprised but people don’t time shift like you or I do. The numbers show they don’t.

I never said anything about sports in that post but yes, they are DVR proof.

Actually the decline has been far more drastic recently and attributed to DVR’s and streaming services. People choosing to watch the way they want to watch. Networks and studios delivering content in a way the viewer wants, giving them options, is the way to go.

For CBSAA, its wise to go the weekly route because they are counting on the Trek fans to increase subs. But they don’t want the increase in subs to be people who come in, watch Trek, and get out. When CBSAA has a larger base of original programs to go with their archives, they can follow the Netflix route.

It’s possible Amazon has some sort of deal with AMC regarding Turn. But since I still have cable I just record Turn on my DVR and watch at my leisure.

I think some other commenter here TrekMovie once noted that Les Moonves is simply incapable of speaking a sentence without referring to money, revenues, profit, etc. It’s true! He would never dream of saying, “This is gonna be a great show!” The most he’ll say is, “This is a show people will pay through the nose to see!”

Well, I am not his fan, but to be fair: that is his job – he is not an artist, he is a businessman. Who do you think he is talking to?


I hope the seasons are 20 or more episodes. I don’t mind filler episodes at all. I’m a true trek fan. I like watching trek regardless. Also I’m not one of these new age mutts with the attention span of a fly. The amount of classic trek episodes that would of never been made or seen if this type of thinking was prevalent in past decades is frightening to think about.

I half agree. I prefer quality, obviously, but if there’s ALWAYS going to be ~10 great episodes of Trek a year, I certainly would not say no to 10 more of varying lesser quality. It’s like a bonus, in a way.

I don’t remember which thread we were talking about the STB vs. All access Trek series poll here, but I just had a look at it and I have to say that it seems amiss. There have been like 100 new votes since yesterday, and the percentage hasn’t changed—it’s still 65% to 35%, just as it was yesterday. Does that seem odd to anyone else, or am I imagining things? Of course, it’s possible that the most recent 100 votes just happened to occur in the exact same proportion as the poll’s ratio of yesterday—65% to 35%—but it seems awfully unlikely. You’d expect the poll tally to have changed at least a bit, one or two points in either direction. I’m not accusing anyone of anything, just pointing out something that seems amiss.

Actually, I may be mistaken about the number of votes over the past day. What say we forget about this little incident and enjoy this cat video. kmart I think should especially appreciate this. Poor thing really wanted out:

I voted 100 times and it didnt seem to make a difference.

Just kidding.

@ TUP. Actually, voting 100 times would not make much of a difference by now. It’s because of the high total number of votes cast already. By now, the ratio of new votes would have to shift fundamentally to affect the total vote in a meaningful way. It’s simple statistics.

Yeah, they sure picked the wrong pussy for that shot. (that’s a veiled reference to DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER for those willing to sit through it.)

I replied to this three days ago and the comment never showed up. It was a play on the joke from DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER about how they must have gotten the wrong pussy for this shot.

Does Anyone know if STAR TREK 2017 will be released for Australia?

CBS hasn’t released any details about international distribution as far as I know. But Les Moonves has talked about international sales covering a good chunk of the costs of producing the show. So I guess they will release it in as many countries as possible. Since Australia is English-speaking it won’t even cost them extra for translations. So the question is probaby not whether it will be released at all, but rather whether it will be released the “classic” way as a TV broadcast or on some kind of streaming service.

Last I heard, outside of the US it is likely to air on television, via a more standard syndication model, where channels simply purchase the rights to air the show in those territories.

Though thinking about it, there’s nothing stopping Netflix or Amazon from purchasing streaming rights for their platforms outside the US…

I’m hearing here in LA they’re going to have to produce the equivalent of two seasons to amortize the cost of sets and that the ‘Undiscovered Country’ clue about the series means that the initial two season production will be about the alliance between the Federation and the Klingons. Kurtzman is apparently not involved in any meaningful way.

That would be good news Jefferies.

That’s ALL really really good news, especially the Kurtzman.

I concur with kmart and TUP. All good news.

Normally I would just send this to trekmovie’s tips email, but since the site has been ignoring Star Trek Online for over a year now I thought I’d go ahead and put it in a comment so at least some of you guys can see it.

Today Cryptic Studios and PWE, makers of Star Trek Online, announced the upcoming third expansion for the game, an Original Series Era expansion being called “Agents of Yesterday” where players will take on the role of Temporal Agents in the TOS era. Also announced as a part of this expansion is the newest veteran Trek actors to join STO, Walter Koenig as Chekov and for the first time ever in an officially licensed Trek product Chris Doohan voicing his father’s character Lt. Cmdr. Scott.

Here is a link.

Follow up information, the expansion trailer has a modified intro monologue which is reportedly by Vic Mignogna, speaking as James Kirk, no idea if this is true or not as I don’t know Vic’s voice that well.

I still contend that not putting the re-launch of Star Trek on “TV” in front of the maximum amount of eyeballs is a huge mistake.

The relaunch WILL be on TV, as a hook, to make people order the CBS service for the rest of the eps. They are betting a LOT on the first ep delivering, doubt it will be a mess like FARPOINT.

Yes exactly. Airing on the main CBS network will ensure it gets a ton of press, promotion and eyeballs. And it wouldn’t surprise me if they periodically air on the main network to juice All Access subscriptions.

Yep. The is the exact plan. I predict that first episode will get HUGE ratings but the subsequent streaming service will not get the bump in subscribers CBS is hoping for.

I would wager CBSAA certainly gets a bump in subs. How much of a bump is the question. If it doesnt get a bump at all it means either all Trek fans are already subscribers or no Trek fans were willing to subscribe. Neither of those is going to be true.

Normally I would not reply here but given your tendency to not grasp what is actually being said I feel I need to clarify because it’s possible you might have misinterpreted my comment as me saying they wouldn’t get any kind of bump at all… I did indeed claim that CBS would get a bump in subscribers. But I predicted the bump will not be what they would like.

@ML31 – its a beautiful Friday. Take a deep breath and relax.

It’s raining…. But please… Take your own advice and just accept that I have a good friend who shares. Don’t be envious that my friend does this. Be happy you have the disposable income you have.

@ML31 – Im not envious. And Im not being critical of people without the income to spend on things like streaming services. Im certainly not rich. The argument isn’t about your method of watching Netflix, its your position on CBSAA. If your friend had a CBSAA account that you “shared”, you’d be thrilled with this development.

If you aren’t envious you are hiding it VERY well. You are jumping on the fact that my friend shares one of her 4 accounts with me every chance you get. So you can understand that your envy was a reasonable conclusion.

Yes, it would be great if CBSAA allows for multiple accounts like Netflix does. The down side though is I talked to the other Trek fan friends of mine (about 5 of them) and not one wants to spend the money on CBSAA for this. Maybe I will put forth the idea of us pooling the account together. Thanks for the idea!

Envious that you steal a $10 service? I pay for it because I use it. If I didnt use it or didnt like it, I wouldnt pay for it. The fact you’ve already asked your friends if anyone is interested in stealing CBSAA is hilarious. If you’re over the age of 14, you should know better. Shame on you.

“Envious that you steal a $10 service?”

No. Envious that I have a friend willing to share things and you don’t. Furthermore, not only have I not asked friends if they are interested in stealing something with me but I haven’t even asked them if they would like to share an account yet.

Please…. You have the ability to open browsers and type. You cannot be THAT oblivious.

I have many friends willing to share many things. But the type of people I am friends with dont engage in theft. Im sorry your friend do. and Im sorry you feel it’s okay. Next time you watch one of those blu rays, pay attention to the FBI warning about piracy and think about how, when you use your friend’s Netflix account, you’re watching films that you didnt pay for.

If your friends do indeed share things then, by your own definition, YOU are engaging is theft. Not your friends. You aren’t even getting your own logic right.

BTW… If I really wanted to I could lend one of my Netflix discs to a friend and let them watch it too. Then they give it back and I return it. That is not stealing. Netflix allows me to do this if I so wanted to. I can return the disc whenever I like.

Its not stealing to share something you own. Your friend doesnt own Netflix. Please stop. My face cant handle this many palm strikes.

As long as I pay, I own my account and my friend owns hers we may do what we wish with them. So long as we abide by the agreed limitations, we are free to do so and it is not stealing according to any legitimate definition. You know this already but seems you decided to play your internet game some more. (this is me giving you the benefit of the doubt in that, I severely doubt anyone is that ignorant towards what constitutes theft)

If you aren’t envious you are hiding it VERY well. You are jumping on the fact that my friend shares one of her 4 accounts with me every chance you get. So you can understand that your envy was a reasonable conclusion. We can all only guess why friends who share bother you so very much.

Yes, it would be great if CBSAA allows for multiple accounts like Netflix does. The down side though is I talked to the other Trek fan friends of mine (about 5 of them) and not one wants to spend the money on CBSAA for this. Maybe I will put forth the idea of us pooling the account together. Thanks for the idea!

@ML31 – I have many friends with Netflix accounts. In fact, before I was a Netflix subscriber, I had friends offer me their password to try it out. Seeing as Netflix allows you to try it before buying it, I saw no reason to. I tried the free offer, liked it and kept it. When I like something, I dont mind paying for it. If I was providing a service and people stole it rather than paid for it, I’d be pretty unhappy.

Your friend isnt sharing. She is allowing you to steal a service that you should be paying for. At least own it.

If your friends offered you up their username and pw that meant they had at least one extra device available. Netflix does offer free trials but that is through THEM. Not your friend. If your friend offered theirs that was not Netflix giving you a “free trial”. That was your friend letting you use their service. Making you a thief according to your own definition. When I like something I don’t mind paying for it either. I don’t like streaming. So I don’t pay for it. Sure I will use it from time to time. But mainly to see if the streaming tech has gotten better. And even if my friend didn’t have an extra account for me to use, I still wouldn’t pay for that service. So not only am I not stealing by no sane person’s moral definition or legal one but Netflix is not losing anything because my friend is sharing. So, if you let someone use your car, you are not sharing your car? You are allowing that person to steal a car that they should be paying for. Your warped logic. Not mine. Please learn the difference between stealing and sharing. Will it be necessary to copy and paste the m-w definitions for you? Or would you just warp those definitions too? Again, I’m sorry you do not know anyone who is willing to share with you. Perhaps it would help if you stopped thinking of sharing as stealing…

@ML31 – go back and re-read my post. I DID NOT use friends’ log ins. Because that would be STEALING, like what you’re doing. Since Netflix offers a free trial, I signed up with my own account and tried it, and kept it.

If I like something, I pay for it. If I like a steak at the Keg, I dont run out on my bill. I pay for it,.

OK. That makes more sense. Given your odd attitude no way would anyone want to share anything of theirs with you. They’d be accused of stealing.

If you own something and have the right to share it, then sharing is great. When you dont, then its called stealing. Why do you still have a problem with this? I’ve shown you what Netflix says about this. Your defense is “they havent caught me” and “They havent stopped me”. You’re a grown adult, dont you see why its wrong? I assume you pirate films before they are released too…

“If you own something and have the right to share it, then sharing is great. When you dont, then its called stealing. Why do you still have a problem with this?”

I do not have a problem with that. You do. Netflix users own their service (each month they pay) and have a right to share it. You have shown me that Netflix HOPES people will not share their accounts. You have NOT shown me that they forbid people from sharing their accounts. I do not have a defense. You are the one who has said “they haven’t caught me”. I never have. I would not say something like that because I am not doing anything illegal to begin with. The reason they don’t stop people from sharing is because they are OK with it. If they weren’t, they would at least put language in the contract you sign explaining so. Even if there were no mechanisms in place to stop it, it would still be against the agreement. But guess what? They DON’T!! Therefore, they seem to OK with 4 shared accounts.

And I have never pirated any movie in my life. Although I can’t imagine you have ever borrowed anything from anyone. No one would play ball with you. Who would want you to accuse them of being accessories to stealing?

No, that is wrong. Your assertion is wrong. I’ve shown you this already. Netflix has specifically stated what they consider reasonable, what they consider grey area and what they dont consider reasonable. You fall into the latter. Your friend doesnt own Netflix. You agree Netflix does not want users sharing their account but because the CEO hasnt come to your home and expressly forbid it, that you consider it okay? So if I say I really hope you dont steal my paper your response would be “but you didnt expressly forbid me to, so I assumed it was ok. Good grief. Here are a few items you will ignore: – Your Netflix membership may start with a free trial. Free trials are for new and certain former members only ***In other words, Netflix’s intent is not that YOU get to watch Netflix for free every month. – The Netflix service, and any content viewed through our service, are for your personal and non-commercial use only. During your Netflix membership, we grant you a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, license to access the Netflix service and view movies and TV shows through the service on a streaming-only basis for that purpose. Except for the foregoing limited license, no right, title or interest shall be transferred to you. ***In other words, you do not own anything in regards to Netflix. Also notice the words “NON TRANSFERABLE”. – THE NUMBER OF DEVICES ON WHICH YOU MAY SIMULTANEOUSLY WATCH IS LIMITED ***Ill point out, the capitalization… Read more »
“I’ve shown you this already. Netflix has specifically stated what they consider reasonable, what they consider grey area and what they dont consider reasonable.” And what my friend does is what they consider reasonable. Their CEO even said so at this year’s CES. “You agree Netflix does not want users sharing their account” No, I agreed that they HOPE people won’t share. But their CEO publicly said they are good with the sharing. “but because the CEO hasnt come to your home and expressly forbid it, that you consider it okay?” No, there is no language in the contract that forbids it. Exaggerate much? What am I saying… Of course you do. “So if I say I really hope you dont steal my paper your response would be “but you didnt expressly forbid me to, so I assumed it was ok.” No, but if you subscribe to the paper and let me read it too that is your prerogative. You have yet to come up with an analogy that actually works, chief. “– Your Netflix membership may start with a free trial. Free trials are for new and certain former members only ***In other words, Netflix’s intent is not that YOU get to watch Netflix for free every month.” I didn’t ignore it. You brought it up but it was a moot point. “– The Netflix service, and any content viewed through our service, are for your personal and non-commercial use only. During your Netflix membership, we grant you a… Read more »

Lost cause. If you dont like Netflix enough to pay for it so be it. But this is ludicrous. Goodness, I hope your kids get their moral compass from their mother.

I can see how someone who cannot convince someone that sharing is the same as stealing would think it is a lost cause.

TUP Today 6:54 am

I agree. Better not be commercials. Or Im just as likely to watch the premiere and then wait the 12+ weeks for the series to be complete and watch it On Demand. However, Im in Canada so odds are Ill have it on a terrestrial channel so Ill DVR it and watch at my leisure anyway.

All Access is actually a much better deal for people outside the US than for Americans, for the reason that you mentioned—you get it via TV broadcast and, as such, have an easy way of avoiding the commercials. Whereas in the US, we’d have to pay $6 per month and endure the commercials. Plus, as dmduncan pointed out, All Access isn’t actually “all access,” in terms of CBS’s own content. That’s a problem for the brand reputation of this new service. It gives the impression of being a rip-off for subscribers in two separate regards: having to endure commercials when you’re already paying a subscription fee, and then not even getting all of the content that one would reasonably expect to have “access” to.

I assume (and have no real idea) that if Star Trek aired Thursday at 7PM, that you could open CBSAA at 8PM and watch the episode commercial free (or at least be able to FF through the Commercials).

That is not what I have read about it. CBS has said it will have commercials so it is safe to assume there will still be commercials if you stream it hours or days after if first “airs”. Even if you watch a networks show on line it still has commercials and you cannot FF through them. Try moving that dot on the progress bar and you get more commercials first.

Most networks who’s On Demand library I have used air the shows without commercials.

CBS, NBC, ABC and FOX ALL stream their content on line….. WITH commercials even weeks after they aired. (So does AMC and FX) If you doubt me, go online and stream some current show from any of them right now. ABC doesn’t make their most recent content available but the two week old stuff is. And it still has ads.

Over 120 new votes have been cast over the past day in the STB vs. All Access poll, and the tally hasn’t budged from 65% to 35%. I distinctly remember that the vote total was below 5,000 last night.

Can anybody remember the last time that the tally was not 65% to 35%? Hasn’t it been like that all week? Is that a remarkable consistency in the ratio that people are voting in, or what?

As long as the ratio of new votes doesn’t change fundamentally, the total tally will stay more or less the same.
Just for fun, I did a quick calculation: I assumed a 65%/35% ratio at 5000 total votes. Now I assumed that ALL 164 new votes (the total is 5164 as I post this) were for the movie. This would only change the total ratio to 66%/34%.
Assuming ALL the 164 new votes would have been cast for the TV series, this would only have changed to total ratio to 63%/37%. Assuming a 50/50 split of the new votes, the total ratio would still stay at 65%/35%.
You see that the total ratio is quite stable by now, unless voting behaviour changes completely.

Stats was my least enjoyable University course.

@ TUP:
LOL, right, there’s definitely more enjoyable stuff. After finishing one of my data analysis classes at Uni the professor basically told me: “Judging by your exam I would not have guessed that you took part in this class.”
Seems it was good enough to explain our poll situation :-)

Also, I wonder if there will be some cursing on the show. If so, they would most likely use fake words, i.e. like “frak” or “fraking” from BATTLESTAR GALACTICA (2003).


Not really. There’s some indication in this article from ICG Magazine on JJ’s experiments with real 3-D cameras for STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS:

that there’s “lost” footage of real 3-D from his efforts there.

I hope your speculation turns out to be the case.

Ironic, given that I’m covering BEYOND for ICG (not sure why the guy who covered 09 and ID isn’t doing it, but a paycheck is a paycheck, and I chose this over GHOSTBUSTERS.)

I actually had the lady who heads up Paramount’s preservation efforts on the phone 10 days ago, but it was with the proviso we ‘only’ to talk about her separate not-for-profit effort in that areas. Was VERY tough not to veer into TMP territory, especially since I’ve seen a statement recently (made back around 2002 by the TMP DE DVD team) that conflicts with the stories I head about most of the TMP VFX elements being thrown out by Apogee and Trumbull in the early to mid 80s.

It’s one thing to be forever wishin&ahopin for a seriously restored TMP if those elements don’t exist, but another thing entirely if they do, as we COULD possibly get an equivalent to the BLADE RUNNER disks from less than a decade back.

This series is going to be dead on arrival as most people aren’t going to pay to watch Star Tre on some obscure streaming platform…Do tptb remember when the last couple of Star Trek programs were on tv and nobody watched for free?

This is not the best way to re-launch Star Trek. The platform simply isn’t big enough.

That has been my thinking as well. I can understand why CBS would use Trek as a tie in to get people to watch. But I just don’t see all that many fans paying year round for this obscure service. It’s sort of like ages ago when the NHL left ESPN for Sportschannel. They left for more money but it sure didn’t help the sport grow. Sportschannel was only available on a small % of cable systems nationwide. Sportschannel felt if they got a growing commodity like the NHL (and it was indeed growing) they would get on more systems. Never materialized. They did get added to some but they still remained an obscure cable outlet. Unless CBS can get by with just a small bump in added subscribers I really think this will be a bust. And the saddest part… CBS will undoubtedly blame Trek for the failure rather than the poor delivery method.

…you couldnt be more wrong. It’s 2016, times, they are a-changing.

It’s a stretch to call CBSAA an “obscure” platform. CBS has a deep portfolio of good shows. And I think you are underestimating the draw the new ST show will have to the platform if the show is good. If it’s not good, then all bets are off. So I think there’s some false consensus bias going on here with the expectation of failure.

On the other hand, as I’ve mentioned above, I’m not terribly impressed with CBSAA. The interface is like Netflix V1, just a cookie cutter template, and the offerings are inconsistent as I mentioned with the inclusion of S1 of Extant, but not S2. Inexcusable.


OK, but I disagree. I think calling CBSAA obscure is completely appropriate. Just go to the CBS web page and see what they have available. Precious little. About the only thing being a member of CBSAA allows you at the moment is access to shows that are more than a month or so old. I cannot imagine this perk is worth all that much. Adding Trek will get some over. But I just do not see it over a mild bump. If the show is good, that bump may stay consistent. But if the fans who want to see didn’t subscribe before they found out it was good I doubt they would after.

Time will tell…..


OK, but I disagree. I think calling CBSAA obscure is completely appropriate. Just go to the CBS web page and see what they have available. Precious little. About the only thing being a member of CBSAA allows you at the moment is access to shows that are more than a month or so old. I cannot imagine this perk is worth all that much. Adding Trek will get some over. But I just do not see it over a mild bump. If the show is good, that bump may stay consistent. But if the fans who want to see didn’t subscribe before they found out it was good I doubt they would after.

Time will tell…..

CBSAA DOES have flaws; it has a tab for LIVE programming but this does not work everywhere — I can attest to that. Presumably this would give me access to CBS’ regularly scheduled programming if I lived in an area where that feature was available, but I am not, so the product offering is nationally inconsistent.

So they have work to do. If they make the experience identical to watching the network on cable or broadcast with the added benefit of mobile access, it will be a fine platform.

“If they make the experience identical to watching the network on cable or broadcast with the added benefit of mobile access, it will be a fine platform.”

Forgive me if I am wrong but it seems like that is exactly what CBSAA is right now. You can stream recent shows and live shows for free, with ads. Just like the broadcast. The thing is, at least with the broadcast you have the option to DVR the show, watch at your convenience and skip the ads. At least, except for that thing you said that doesn’t work everywhere. That is the first I’ve heard of that. Weird….

I am tired of only VOD. I like what is live, access to what the entire country is tuning in to on any given day. As I said, there IS a tab for that in CBSAA, but it does NOT lead to content everywhere; in my case, it says live content is not available in my area, probably because that feature tries to link to a local AFFILIATE who is streaming content, and I am outside the area where local affiliates stream.

Of course, being the internet, there is no good REASON why this has to be the model; CBSAA can offer the same live national broadcast over the internet WITHOUT local affiliates, but they are not there yet.

It’s a goofy system right now. Obviously in transition.

I rarely, if ever, use VOD. Granted, the breaks are minimal but all FF and REW do not work. They even tell you this up front. I have found the best way is either directly from disc or to record and watch later. There have been the occasional program where I was so jazzed to watch that I wanted to catch it right when it airs. So with the DVR I start recording it. I start the recording about 18-20 minutes in. And by the time the show ends I have caught up.

Never having streamed something from the network live I have no idea what ads they put up with the live stream. I have watched the occasional network show on line and they still have ads, but not quite as many as the live broadcast. But enough to make watching it annoying.

I agree this new platform is in it’s infancy. Still developing and what we end up with I suspect will ultimately be VERY different than what is being provided now.

They should have release the series in blocks. You can have 5 episode release on one day of the month and another 5 episode the the following month. Streaming and bingwatching is the new thing. People are not going back network quality viewing when you are presenting a new streaming service for the masses that use to the binge watching of Netflix

I can’t believe I’m getting a serialized live-action ‘Star Trek’ again!

I’ll never forget watching episodes of ‘Enterprise’ in high school, and being exposed to really cool ideas and points of views and then going to class the next day, only to hear that what everyone was talking about was what gross things folks ate on ‘Fear Factor’ the night before.

Thank the Great Bird of the Galaxy for ‘Star Trek’.

That is the positive side. It’s unfortunate that it is being used to anchor some cruddy streaming service no one would otherwise want.

@ year ago, CBSAA had 100,000 subs. So I guess you’re wrong.

That’s not all that much at all. It sounds big but in the business, it’s monumentally minuscule.

” some cruddy streaming service no one would otherwise want.”
“CBSAA had 100,000 subs”

I rest my case.

Case dismissed.

“That’s not all that much at all. It sounds big but in the business, it’s monumentally minuscule.”

As anal as you’re being out of a lack of pride, “No one would want” and “100,000 subs” are not the same. I accept your apology. Now go loot a store or something.

“As anal as you’re being out of a lack of pride, ”

Nowhere have I displayed being anal over a lack of pride. That really came out of left field. Odd, but such has been your M.O.

I guess I need to explain the concept of exaggerating to make a point. You see, people often will say, “nobody was at the game last night”. That is not meant to be literal. What it means is there was an unusually low turnout. Now take that same concept and apply it to “no one would want”. Obviously somebody wants it. Their subscriber base is likely not zero. But the figure is particularly low for a nationwide service.

Happy now, Mr Nit-pick?

@ML31 – the fact you’re often made statements that are clearly false, I felt it was important to clarify that you were wrong about CBSAA. If you had demonstrated a general fairness and open-mindedness about things, I would have assumed your remark was an exaggeration to make a point. But as is your MO, very difficult to tell.

Your main point in this entire thread has been to crap on CBSAA because you want to watch Star Trek for free. So it was a fair point

TUP, you are incorrect yet again. Apart from the innocent mistake of one time attributing a comment to you that you did not make, there have been no false statements from me. You, on the other hand, have made a number of them. They have been either outright lies based on nothing or false conclusions based on your own warped definitions of sharing. So, no. I was not wrong about the popularity of CBSAA and if you are so very unfamiliar with normal everyday idioms and usages of the language there is not much I can do to correct that. No matter what I say you will see it in your own uncommon view.

The main point is that streaming quality sucks and it would be nice if CBS would provide new TV Trek in a format that doesn’t suck and that is available to the bulk of the fans. Your incorrect assertion that my main beef is the fee is, and this is quite common, incorrect.

So you’re saying “No one” and “100,000” are equal? So if you had $100,000 you would claim you had “no money”? Is that correct? I mean, we see people here all the time that keep pushing their nonsense because they dont have the courage to simply admit when they’re wrong but this is hilarious!

“So you’re saying “No one” and “100,000” are equal?”

No. You just did. Typical of you to attribute something you said as something I said. Does that tactic ever work?


This should settle it:

From Marketwatch:

“The problem with cord cheating is that many of the perpetrators of the crime don’t know they are doing something wrong. Neither Netflix nor Sling forbid sharing passwords among people who live in the same household. A married couple can share an account as can their children (as long as they still live at home).

Where it becomes illegal is when people start sharing their accounts with friends and family who don’t live in their homes.

Both Netflix and HBO GO say their streaming services are designed to be used within “one household” and limit the number of concurrent streams (three for HBO GO and one, two or four concurrent streams for Netflix, depending on the plan)”

The reason Netflix doesnt crack down is because their internal data shows them password sharing is a big enough issue to crack down on. They also introduced the Family Plan knowing that people like your friend would pay $4 more to ensure they could always watch even while you didnt pay at all.

Bringing this back to the original Star Trek discussion, streaming is a business plan. CBS is making the right decision to feature Star Trek on All Access *IF* the series is good. It will force cheapskates to either buy the service or have to wait for the DVD…ahem Blu Ray.

No it doesn’t settle it. What DOES settle it is what the Netflix CEO himself actually says about the matter. CNet actually wrote an article where the author writes, “Netflix is cool with you sharing your account. Don’t worry about lending your Netflix password. CEO Reed Hastings says sharing entertainment is a good thing.” ” Suffering a guilty conscience for borrowing someone’s Netflix account? The streaming-video giant says don’t worry about it. “We love people sharing Netflix,” CEO Reed Hastings said Wednesday at the Consumer Electronics Show here in Las Vegas. “That’s a positive thing, not a negative thing.”” “They also introduced the Family Plan knowing that people like your friend would pay $4 more to ensure they could always watch even while you didnt pay at all. ” That is not why they did that. They did it because they wanted to curb the near limitless sharing that was going on. A FACT you are completely ignoring. Further, you have no idea what my friend is willing to pay for. Bringing this back to the original Star Trek discussion, streaming is a business plan. CBS is making the right decision to feature Star Trek on All Access *IF* the series is good.” Wrong. The business plan is good or bad regardless if the series itself is good or bad. People who do not wish to pay for YET another streaming service will not subscribe. And that limit is pretty much being reached. Especially if they can get the material… Read more »

You cherry pick quotes and ignore others. The fact is, you’re a thief and most sites like this one do not allow glorification of piracy.

Maybe get a job and you’ll be able to afford your own Netflix account AND wont have to whine about paying $5 for CBSAA. Or dont. I really dont care. You’re a thief with no conscience so nothing I say will matter.

But it has been entertaining debating with you! I am amused that people like you exist so thank you! :-)

Says the expert on ignoring the facts. Let’s count up the errors you made in this post… “You cherry pick quotes and ignore others.” That is your M.O. I’ve pointed that out to you before. “The fact is, you’re a thief ” That is not a fact. That is your opinion. An opinion not based on any fact but your own warped view that sharing = stealing. “Maybe get a job ” You have no idea what job I may or may not have. Yet another conclusion based on nothing but what you wish were true rather that what IS true. “and you’ll be able to afford your own Netflix account AND wont have to whine about paying $5 for CBSAA.” You have no idea what I can or cannot afford apart from what I told you. In this case, I flat out told you it wasn’t the $5 by itself. So not only are you wrong to begin with, but I corrected your mistake and you still cling to the fantasy. Two errors in that one. “Or dont. I really dont care. ” Obvious lie. Something you might tell yourself but if you didn’t care you wouldn’t waste so much time and effort trying to convince someone on the internet of something that is simply not the case. “You’re a thief with no conscience so nothing I say will matter.” Two more errors. Not a thief, as proved by the definition itself and the meager evidence I supplied regarding… Read more »

In fact you have complained about spending $5 for CBSAA and lamented how much things cost. You’ve expressed that I must be wealthy which isnt true at all.

You are using a service that you do not pay for when Netflix has clearly stated their intent is for households to share passwords not friends at different homes. In fact, their Terms of Use specifically advise against sharing of passwords.

You’re a cheapskate who steals a service. Live with it.

“In fact you have complained about spending $5 for CBSAA and lamented how much things cost.”

No. Again, that was you attributing to me something I never said or even inferred.

“You’ve expressed that I must be wealthy which isnt true at all.”

I did make that conclusion. But right or wrong based on what you said it was not an unreasonable conclusion.

“You are using a service that you do not pay for when Netflix has clearly stated their intent is for households to share passwords not friends at different homes. In fact, their Terms of Use specifically advise against sharing of passwords.”

I do not pay for it because I have a friend who is nice enough to share. And that just infuriates you, doesn’t it? Have you forgotten that not only has the CEO of Netflix endorsed the sharing of accounts but if you were to follow to the letter of what you wrote earlier then NO ONE in the same household is allowed to use the service apart from the one subscriber? What am I saying? Of course you did. I am not stealing service. How “cheap” I may or may not be is something you have no clue about (but that doesn’t stop you from making grand baseless assumptions!) You and I both know it. Just admit you are forgetting all the facts presented and that your own “facts” are contradictory. I bet you sleep better.

If assuming Im wealthy because I pay for Netflix is not unreasonable, its another laughable reach for you

It doesnt infuriate me that you steal Netflix. I dont own Netflix stock. And they are doing just fine despite people like you stealing their service. I just find it rather absurd that you’d keep trying to justify that you’re allowed to steal even when I’ve quoted you Netflix management and their TOS that indicate otherwise. You’re a petty thief. that doesnt make me angry but I do find it sad, more so for your children. But that’s not my problem.

Hopefully one day you will realise stealing is wrong and accept that. And ofcourse we know you’re cheap. You steal Netflix and complained about CBSAA. So either really cheap or unemployed.

But I am thankful for this thread which is keeping you distracted from ruining other threads. So you just keep posting here.

You paying for Netflix is not the reason why I was drawn to the conclusion that you were wealthy. If you need a reminder then go back and find the post where I said it. It’s not relevant to this one. “It doesnt infuriate me that you steal Netflix.” That’s not what I said infuriates you, however. You said it. (that tactic still doesn’t work, btw). It infuriates you that I have a friend who is good enough to share. That just irks you and you can’t let it go. ” I just find it rather absurd that you’d keep trying to justify that you’re allowed to steal even when I’ve quoted you Netflix management and their TOS that indicate otherwise. ” Yet, I just quoted you the CEO of Netflix and you completely ignore it. The TOS you claim you quoted are questionable as they are contradictory to what your point is. Another annoying fact you choose to ignore. Where have I ever told you that I felt stealing is right? Nowhere. Here is an example of what you are doing here… Tell me, have you stopped beating your wife yet? Have you realized that beating on women is horridly wrong? You are nothing but a gutter trash wife beater. “You steal Netflix and complained about CBSAA. So either really cheap or unemployed.” Your logic is atrocious. I do not steal Netflix. You repeating the lie doesn’t make it true. I never complained about the cost of CSAA. I… Read more »

PS… I know TUP will love this…

Not only do I have a friend who shares Netflix, but both my kids have had offers from friends to do the same and they do it too. They have good friends. Sorry you don’t…. I really am.,

Advertisment ad adsense adlogger