# Pay TV is changing rapidly



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

> It's important to pay attention to the innovative leaders in every industry -- the companies with new ideas that are transforming old technologies. It's not so long ago that Blockbuster was the leader in the video rental space. Not that much time has passed since Kodak was the leader in the camera space. Many of us have experienced the shift in music listening media from vinyl records to cassette tapes, CDs, and then downloadable digital files. Things often change very quickly. Pay TV is changing rapidly as well.





> They talked about creating three bundles of services using DirecTV -- for low, medium and heavy users.


Three bundles? What/How would this work?

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/84104.html?google_editors_picks=true


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

Bedford11 said:


> Three bundles? What/How would this work?
> 
> http://www.technewsworld.com/story/84104.html?google_editors_picks=true


First Bundle: Would Include ONLY the Regular Channels.
"Three Packages", Basic, (20 Channels) $ 20.00 - Medium, (50 Channels) $ 30.00 - Full, (ALL Regular Channels). $ 40.00
ALL Packages would Include the NETWORKS, and some additional Channels. - ALL in HD. - NO Extra Charge for HD
Second Bundle: Would be ONLY SPORTS Channels. These could be Added to any ONE of the First Bundle Packages.
Example: A Sports Fan could order "ONLY the BASIC Package" (20 Channels) $ 20.00 and then ADD Any or ALL Sports Channels.
Third Bundle: The MOVIE CHANNELS, Same rules as Sports. A First Bundle Package, then ONE or More Movie Packages.
To Subscribe to a Pay TV Service, you would need at Least the "BASIC" Package. $ 20.00


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

ragweed10 said:


> First Bundle: Would Include ONLY the Regular Channels.
> "Three Packages", Basic, (20 Channels) $ 20.00 - Medium, (50 Channels) $ 30.00 - Full, (ALL Regular Channels). $ 40.00
> ALL Packages would Include the NETWORKS, and some additional Channels. - ALL in HD. - NO Extra Charge for HD
> Second Bundle: Would be ONLY SPORTS Channels. These could be Added to any ONE of the First Bundle Packages.
> ...


Why have a high base fee to add HBO when you can get HBO on it's own for about $15 /mo


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

JoeTheDragon said:


> Why have a high base fee to add HBO when you can get HBO on it's own for about $15 /mo


You don't need any Base if you ONLY want to watch HBO Movies.
Do they have anything besides Movies ?


----------



## n3vino (Oct 2, 2011)

It doesn't seem like Sling or VUE will work with a smart tv operating system. Would that be correct?


----------



## thyname (May 10, 2015)

ragweed10 said:


> You don't need any Base if you ONLY want to watch HBO Movies.
> Do they have anything besides Movies ?


Yes! HBO original shows. Lots of them. And some of them are great

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

thyname said:


> Yes! HBO original shows. Lots of them. And some of them are great
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I meant anything besides Movies.
Any News, Weather, Regular Channels, etc.


----------



## thyname (May 10, 2015)

ragweed10 said:


> I meant anything besides Movies.
> Any News, Weather, Regular Channels, etc.


Yes! Ditto. Vice News tonight every weekday at 7:30 PM for about 20 minutes.

Plus talk shows (such as Bill Maher, john Oliver), sports talk, etc

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

2.99 for 150 plus channels, combine this with AT&T's coming fixed wireless service, you got to admit, Pay TV is changing rapidly.

http://selecttv.com/home/


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Yeah, uh you might want to actually READ the details on that.

You're not getting actual channels for that $2.99 a month, you're just getting channels that already stream online for free like CBSSN, QVC and Bloomberg while channels like MSNBC, Animal Planet and Fox News Channel are not the live linear feed you get on cable and just clips curated from their player. The VOD is just links to those stations TV Everywhere players like FX Now and Watch Disney where you only get a limited selection without logging in with an actual provider like DirecTV, Dish or a cable provider.

The locals are from an antenna marketed as "HDTV" that they'll ship to you, even though there's no such thing as a "HDTV" antenna, when in reality it's one of those crappy vanity antennas that you need to be close to the towers to get reception and has very poor reception of the VHF band, and you can probably pick up more channels from a classic VHF/UHF loop from the dollar store in the same area, while most other areas more than 30 miles from the towers will need an actual VHF/UHF antenna in the attic or roof to get reliable reception where the signal doesn't breakup by someone walking in front of the antenna, turning on a vacumn or a gust of wind. They're kind of setting themselves up for trouble claiming 100+ channels OTA, that's usually limited to within major cities where in addition to the full powered networks and independents, there's a bunch of low power digitals with signals that don't make it outside of the city limits, the majority of which carry subchannels that are nothing but infomercials, shopping channels and multiple ethnic channels that only appeal to expats from those countries. In the suburbs of those same markets you'll be lucky to get more than 50, in areas where you just have the Big 6, PBS and possibly Ion, you'll be lucky to get more than 30 channels OTA, and in smaller markets where you just have the Big 4 and PBS, you'll be lucky to get more than 20.

The "Premium" stuff is things you can already get now without them or any other provider like CBS All Access, WWE Network, HBO Now, MLB.tv, Netflix, etc.

In reality you're just paying $2.99 to be lazy and have someone collect content on your behalf that you can already get now just by going to those station's websites and clicking on "Video" or downloading their apps.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

> In reality you're just paying $2.99 to be lazy and have someone collect content on your behalf that you can already get now just by going to those station's websites and clicking on "Video"


You are correct, only difference some are paying up to 150 dollars plus for the current/past subscription services that we currently subscirbe to. With the new services such as DirectTV Now , SelectTV and the myriad of others to come, Most if not all channels will be a la cart very soon. Pay TV is changing rapidly.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Bedford11 said:


> You are correct, only difference some are paying up to 150 dollars plus for the current/past subscription services that we currently subscirbe to.


The difference is that $150 subscription is giving you a lot more things that bogus services like SelectTV and Rabbit TV won't get you. The only actual channels you're getting are stuff that already streams online for free like shopping channels, religious channels, government channels and stuff that tend to pay providers for their place on a lineup instead of providers paying for them (i.e. Newsmax). You're not going to get live streams of the most popular channels and next day episodes of most network and cable programming, that requires provider authentication, or for network programming a subscription to Hulu or CBS All Access. Even with Hulu, their next day episodes of Monday Night Raw, one of the highest rated shows on cable, is a 90 minute edit of a show that usually runs well over 2 hours when you take out commercials. While to protect their TV deals, WWE Network doesn't post full episodes of Raw, SmackDown and Main Event until a month after they air.



> With the new services such as DirectTV Now , SelectTV and the myriad of others to come,
> 
> Most if not all channels will be a la cart very soon. Pay TV is changing rapidly.


Yeah...you keep believing that, I got a bridge to sell you. Actual legit OTT Services like Sling TV, DirecTV Now and PS Vue are NOT offering A La Cart services at all. (I already saw the details about DirecTV Now, and nearly every statement you made about the service in other threads is flat out wrong, for one thing only mobile phone streaming will be cap exempt on AT&T wireless for postpaid subscribers, it's not cap exempt from U-Verse internet or the future fixed wireless internet you keep on overhyping as something more than what it will actually be, and many articles took a statement about the starting price of their lowest tier and how many channels they'll offer overall to assume that you get that many channels at that price) They're just offering slightly cheaper versions of tiers you can get with regular providers, cheaper because they don't have to maintain a supply of settop boxes, an installer network or pay regulatory fees, and are missing a lot of content and come with a lot of restrictions on what you can watch and where. (i.e. certain channels are in home only, some content like NFL cannot be viewed on mobile phones, other channels have replacement programming because someone else has the streaming rights to 3rd party shows and movies that they or their parent company didn't produce, etc) PS Vue has a cloud DVR that only keeps content for 30 days, while DirecTV Now won't be offering any DVR features at all and instead will be relying on VOD and 72 hour rewind. Heck, with Sling TV you need to subscribe to both their Orange and Blue services if you want ESPN and FS1, and many popular channels aren't offered at all, even though their more niche sister channels are. The only reason why so many niche channels are less than 50 cents is because they are being subsidized by their more popular sister stations. As stand-alone, they won't keep that low price, the operation costs will just be spread out to all of them.

You want to know how "good" a-la-carte is going up in Canada? The moment they announced it every channel immediately filed to have their license modified to define them as general entertainment channels so they can survive, even with the protection that the CRTC has where certain stations must be carried by all providers, something channnels in the USA don't have. (So if what you like is a more niche channel, you might not have the option to subscribe to it at all, provided that the niche channel even keeps their programming format) Multiple niche channels either folded or drastically changed their formats to appeal to wider audiences, and no, the programming that was on those niche channels didn't get consolidated to their more popular sister stations, those programs are just not available at all anymore. (i.e. the food channel Gusto is using the license of what was MuchMoreMusic, the french language La Chaine Disney is using the license of the classic cartoon channel Teletoon Retro, and Cartoon Network took the license of the English Teletoon Retro, etc) Now they're just paying more for less content, and the majority who stuck with the tiers lost much of the content they used to enjoy because the networks now have to target the widest audience possible to keep their ad revenue. Some really niche channels took the step of intentionally limiting their distribution to the highest tiers so they can stay under the subscriber threshold and operate as a non-licensed exempt service, so if you still want to watch those channels, you need to switch to the highest tier possible, or switch to cable since some of them also removed themselves from satellite to stay under the threshold. Most people also found out the hard way that they won't be saving anything because most channels are about $5 each a la carte.

People who think a-la-carte would be good should take a lesson from the mess in Canada and pay attention to cable ratings, since that's what will survive and other channels will try to emulate to keep their ad revenue. It's the reality shows on TLC, Bravo and MTV, Walking Dead on AMC, Spongebob reruns on Nickelodeon, Big Bang Theory reruns on TBS, Snoop and Martha's Potluck on VH1, Lip-sync battle on Spike, Family Guy reruns on Adult Swim, Monday Night Raw on USA and sports like Monday Night Football on ESPN and NBA on TNT that regularly get the highest ratings on cable. Those popular shows are also what let the networks take a chance with more critically acclaimed and award nominated stuff on their more niche sister channels where ad revenue and ratings aren't everything. (It also lets them run stunts on them like the non-stop 90s videos on MTV Classic this weekend, or The Splat on TeenNick overnight)


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Don't build that railroad!



> FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, serving as a reminder that industry incumbents whose businesses were threatened would try hard to impede progress.


http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/fcc-chairman-on-leadership-and-guarding-technologys-future/



> The competition for cable-like online services is suddenly fierce. YouTube has been working for months on the paid live-TV streaming service, called Unplugged. Hulu LLC, which is co-owned by Fox, Disney, Comcast Corp. and Time Warner, will introduce its own service in the coming months, and Amazon.com Inc. and Apple Inc. have explored the idea.





> the company may experiment with "a la carte" programming, giving customers choice on what channels they pay to watch.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-25/at-t-to-offer-online-tv-service-for-35-a-month-test-a-la-carte



> That 100-plus channel selection won't have "the junk nobody wants" and will touch some of the "third rails" of pay TV, *like a la carte pricing,* AT&T Chief Executive Officer Randall Stephenson said at a conference last month.





> If they lose at this, they can only blame themselves," he said. "The market is still wide open. You have to get up in people's purchase considerations. You are selling a $20 service to people paying $80. If you lose, shame on you."


https://www.dailyherald.com/article/20161112/business/161119797/


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Again, I already know the details about DirecTV Now, and those details counterdict that entire out of context statement you just quoted. I don't know how to make this any clearer to you, DirecTV Now is NOT going to be a-la-carte... (Also a quote from a FCC Commissioner who will be out of a job less than 2 months from now is meaningless)

Bloomberg is also the same site who posted an article claiming DirecTV Now will replace the satellite service based on another out of context quote. Considering the two session limit and the lack of an actual DVR service, that couldn't be any further from the truth.

And as for not having the "junk nobody wants", here's the latest announcement of what will be part of DirecTV Now:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/byron-allens-entertainment-studios-networks-to-launch-on-new-streaming-service---directv-now-300367093.html


> Entertainment Studios, Inc., (www.es.tv) is proud to announce that its cable television networks COMEDY.TV and JUSTICECENTRAL.TV will be available on the new streaming service, DIRECTV NOW, when it launches later this month.


You want to know what will not be part of DirecTV Now? The P/I channels. Like them or not, some of those P/I channels get more viewers than the two channels listed above combined. (Two channels that were only picked up by DirecTV as part of a lawsuit settlement brought by the station's owner) One person's "junk" is another person's treasure.

All that was is just things to hype up investors and the media to get free publicity, google "forward looking statements", and you should know how valid they actually are. I'll give you the most famous one that obviously hasn't come true and everyone knew it was bogus the moment it was said
http://advanced-television.com/2012/10/01/37560/



> Philip J. Goswitz, DirecTV's SVP for space and communications, told delegates at the recent Euroconsult conference in Paris that DirecTV were "huge proponents of [U-HDTV)". He explained that DirecTV expected to convert its current standard-definition Ku-band signals to U-HDTV by 2016.
> 
> He added that by 2016 all of its standard-def transmissions would have converted to HDTV, and using its local-into-local Ka-Band capacity. He said with standard-definition broadcasting ceasing the broadcaster would have 1 gigahertz of freed-up satellite spectrum available for use by U-HDTV, to a potential 20 million homes.


Unless they plan to announce tommorow that every pre-HD receiver will be replaced by a HD model and every 18 inch, Phase II and Phase III dish will be replaced by a slimline within the next month, it's not happening in 2016.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Just a short time before ESPN goes a la carte, the a la carte is coming from the channels/networks themselves. When ESPN goes it will bring down the house.

http://www.thesimpledollar.com/a-la-carte-cable-is-here/

What people are failing to see/accept is the average viewer only watches 19 channels out of the 200 channel mega pack, we don't need the mega packages

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/2016/10/11/cutting-cord-200-channels-but-only-20-worth-watching/91132396/

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2016/choice-cuts-consumers-have-nearly-unlimited-content-options-but-how-many-do-they-use.html

http://www.streamingobserver.com/least-popular-cable-channels-even-less-popular-think/


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Do you read ANYTHING you quote? That's not going to be a full blown ESPN over the top. It's just going to be ESPN3 content, the stuff they don't want to even air on ESPN8 "The Ocho".

It's not anything new either, since 2004 that content has been available on the ISP level as ESPN 360 which became ESPN3 and on the mobile TV level as the now defunct ESPN Mobile TV. Outside of some stubborn ISPs like Optimum, you can still get that now without a cable subscription.


And again, you say that as if those 19 channels will still be the same price in the a-la-carte world. Or that everyone watches the same 19 channels. Give them all the gritty details instead of linking them to current pricing and saying "hey do you want to only pay for the channels you watch" the survey would have very different results. Those channels are only that cheap because the operation costs like paying the people who work at the master control and the offices are mainly with their most popular channels. No longer make the most popular channels a requirement, those operation costs get spread out amongst all the networks, and those niche sister channels are no longer less than 50 cents, change their format or fold. Unless your favorite programming is among the list of highly rated programming and channels, you'll be in for a huge disappointment. Oh you want to escape sports? But guess what, if ESPN, FS1 and NBCSN dip below a certain threshold, the leagues get to shop their games to other channels that still have more subscribers and then you'll have NFL on USA, NCAA on TBS, NASCAR on Spike, and NHL on Discovery. (i.e. Fox was planning to give providers like DirecTV, Dish, Time Warner Cable and a few others a barebones version of Speed if they didn't sign a new deal for FS1 until the last minute where they had to cave in because they would have lost the NASCAR rights without their subscribers on board)

Just look north and see how well that's going. Channels that were only 10 cents for providers are now $5 each if you want them outside of a tier. Multiple niche channels like MuchMoreMusic, GolTV Canada, Teletoon Retro, BPMTV, Pet Network, ichannel, Bite, Argent, Bold and Musiqueplus either folded or drastically changed their format, while the bulk of the others like Family, VRAK, E!, Bravo, Much, Comedy, Slice, W, Showcase, Space and Comedy Gold adopted more general programming. And that's with the protection the CRTC gave them that guarantees all providers have to offer them, something US networks don't have.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Remember the crash of the music industry? Industry guys kept saying everyone wants to buy the full album, look what you have now, Single songs purchased at .99 cents over the internet. It's swim or drown time for industry players, keep watching and you will see how this plays out. Out of all the players jumping on the online TV market, some of them will put together just the right channels to suit a majority of the pay TV customers, AT&T's DirectTV Now packages are just the beginning, stay tuned, more to come.



> Among all major business models, the cable conglomerate is the only one that dictates what a customer must accept if they want to complete a transaction. The entire practice is madness.


Oh, You're Getting Fries with That. And an Apple Pie, too.
http://www.streamingobserver.com/least-popular-cable-channels-even-less-popular-think/



> Perhaps the best part of SelectTV comes down to ease of use. Thanks to the organization offered by SelectTV, content is easy to find. Content filters include genre, rating, year, network, recently added, and popularity. You can also choose between finding only free movies and shows or adding in premium services like Hulu, Sling TV, and Netflix.
> 
> Basically you're getting convenience from SelectTV. Rather than having to hunt down everything you can want to watch, it's placed in a guide for you to find and watch in one place. SelectTV boasts that they offer over 300,000 TV shows, 200,000 movies, and 5,000 live channels that offer sporting events and other television. This does not include viral videos, pay-per-view, games, and video-on-demand options, which are also available. Finally, they offer more than 50,000 radio stations, as well. All in one place. In a neat and tidy guide for your perusal.


This is one of ( if not THE key) the key features that will make or break the coming onslaught of Internet TV companies.

You can bet that AT&T's DirectTV Now and all the others will be heading in this direction.

They all want to be a portal such as Google, Yahoo, etc., the winners in this TV war will be just that.

http://www.streamingobserver.com/selecttv-review/


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Now you're just comparing apples to oranges... Can you make any point without linking to an out of context article that has nothing to do with the topic?

I guess you want all the people behind the scenes to work for free, and networks to invest in new unproven shows out of the kindness of their heart and bump proven and high rated reruns off the schedule of the main channel so they can fail miserably in the ratings and ad sales, instead of safely scheduling them on a more niche sister channel that doesn't have the same threshold for success. (i.e. Doctor Who, while popular, doesn't get anywhere near the ratings to justify its placement on a mainstream channel outside of a season premiere mass simulcast to get more people to watch the regular channel, like the AMC simulcast was full of promos for other shows that air on BBC America) Google "pilot season". For every Mr. Robot there's 20 other shows that never made it past a pilot and shows that actually got some episodes produced and never made it to air. The cast and crew of those pilots still get paid for the time, and that gets paid by the network who commissioned the pilot, even if that network doesn't pick up the show, and that includes Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime. (i.e. Unbreakable Kimmie Schmidt was originally prododuced as a mid-season replacement for NBC and in the early episodes it was full of cameos by WNBC reporters and other NBC actors since those episodes were produced before NBC passed on the show) There's a reason why Netflix just raised their prices even though their movie library is a fraction of what it was less than 5 years ago. Kevin Spacey doesn't work for free. I guess the guy in the master control should take a pay cut even though his job is the same if it's a flagship channel with 100 million subscribers or it's a niche sister digital tier only channel with only 40 million subscribers.

Do you think sequels/new seasons of Arrested Development, The Mindy Project, Degrassi, Twin Peaks, Girl Meets World, That's So Raven, Fuller House and Gilmore Girls would have happened if it wasn't for the continued popularity those shows found in reruns on cable channels? (Disney's throwback block got so popular, they moved it off the non ad supported Disney Channel to the ad supported Freeform so they can sell ads that target the 20-30 year olds who were watching it, and was one of the big reasons why they gave That's So Raven a sequel, Viacom did the same thing with The Splat and moved those 90s cartoons off of Nicktoons) Heck Doctor Who wouldn't have returned in 2005 if it wasn't for the huge cult following it got during the 90s and early 2000s with reruns on PBS, especially after the disaster that was the attempted revival in 1998.



Bedford11 said:


> You can bet that AT&T's DirectTV Now and all the others will be heading in this direction.


Again, I already know the details of DirecTV Now, every article you quoted, especially the ones from Bloomberg, got it wrong, along with all the false conclusions you made about it when it comes to how it applies to AT&T's own internet services. All those "leaks" coming out in recent days like the 2 session limit were things I posted in other threads here about DirecTV Now over a month ago.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Don't mean to throw you for another loop, but if you look out 4,5 6 years from now.

ALL TV will be VOD, Channels will be obsolete for the most part.
A lot of the programming will come directly from producers, bypassing the middle man ( this is why the race is on for these guys to become the GO TO portal and cheap aggregator for entertainment)

I don't see satellite service as speedy enough to keep up. (although there may be room for a premium service from sats)

Google is about to release their new TV service (man, do they knowa thing or two about portals) this is only going to get more competitive and bring lower margins and lower cost TV to the masses.

I say, bring it on.

Tomorrows DirectTV Now release will bring more details hopefully.

"


> The video entertainment marketplace is ripe for disruptive change that benefits consumers, not incumbent cable companies," wroteRobert Quinn, AT&T's policy chief, in a letter to the agency


.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/as-at-ts-directv-now-streaming-service-is-unveiled-watch-the-details-1480161603

*The million dollar question*
https://deadline.com/2016/11/att-directv-now-help-save-pay-tv-speed-fall-1201859215/


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Bedford11 said:


> Don't mean to throw you for another loop, but if you look out 4,5 6 years from now.
> 
> ALL TV will be VOD, Channels will be obsolete for the most part.


I would love to take you up on this...

I'm sure people will love the Super Bowl, March Madness, the New Years Eve countdown, things that have huge real time social media presences like awards shows and shows like Walking Dead as VOD so no one is watching at the same time... I'm sure people will love the latency on New Years Eve when they countdown to see the ball drop at midnight and it's already 12:02 because of the time it takes to encode and stream it online... I'm sure people will love getting spoiled by that last minute touchdown because by the end of the game their stream is now lagging 5 minutes behind the actual game.



> A lot of the programming will come directly from producers, bypassing the middle man ( this is why the race is on for these guys to become the GO TO portal and cheap aggregator for entertainment)


The middle man (i.e. the network) is the one who pays for the freaking productions. There's a reason why Kickstarter changed their policy to allow forced refunds directly from your account if you do not deliver. Nothing is for free. That's where they may go to FIND new talent, but that's NOT where they go to produce the content. i.e. Fred was found on YouTube, but his Nickelodeon show and movies were not produced at his home for free, it was produced in a studio in California. Even services like Pluto TV with fake channels have to make deals with "middle men" like Shout Factory for the bulk of the content they carry.



> I don't see satellite service as speedy enough to keep up. (although there may be room for a premium service from sats)


This line alone...

Satellite is the BEST way to reach to the masses. You get the same content in New York City as you do in Cheyenne Wyoming at the same time and at the same quality.
You're not out of reach of someone who lives in an area where the cable system hasn't upgraded their plant since the 90s, or a telco who refuses to invest in their copper network and offer anything beyond 3 Mbps, uses garbage bags for "repairs" and no plans to expand their fiber network. You're not affected by reduced bitrates because of slower connections speeds and congestion from others in your house being online at the same or affecting people trying to use more time sensitive things at the same time like gaming or video conferencing. (And no do NOT bring up the constant out of context quotes you post in the Fixed Wireless thread, that service is NOT going to be what you constantly claim it to be, actual official information about it flat out contradicts everything you have posted)



> Google is about to release their new TV service (man, do they knowa thing or two about portals) this is only going to get more competitive and bring lower margins and lower cost TV to the masses.


Everything official that has come out about Google's potential TV Service says it's going to be another PS Vue, Sling, DirecTV Now or Hulu's upcoming service, it's not going to be some game changer that's going to offer a-la-carte.



> I say, bring it on.


Yes, bring on a world where instead of all you can eat from one place, you now need to pay $15+ each for services like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, WWE Network, HBO Now, Crunchyroll, Seeso, Acorn and whatever else is next, and not even come close to the content you can get now since they can no longer rely on having other networks commission programs and have to cover the cost on their own and can no longer rely on back libraries of shows from other networks for the rest of their content. Instead of getting 200+ channels for $100, you now have to pay $10 each for 20 channels that were less than $1 when it was part of a tier, and all your favorite niche programming and channels are gone because it is no longer profitable to sell ads on anything but reality programming that airs on channels like TLC, MTV and Bravo and live sports.



Bedford11 said:


> Tomorrows DirectTV Now release will bring more details hopefully.


Is this thing on? I already gave you details. It's not a-la-carte, and with a 2 session limit and no DVR it's not going to be a disrupter or replacement like Bloomberg's bogus articles claimed it to be. It's just going to be yet another alternative to PS Vue and Sling and something that might appeal to college dorm users who want something more than locals, a few cable channels and a bunch of instructional channels that most campus cable systems carry. Or someone renting a room as their first apartment with no say in the actual TV service they can get since the lease isn't in their name and are stuck with whatever the cable company has on clear QAM because the roomate doesn't want to pay for more than one box. It's just going to be a stepping stone to hopefully convince them to get a full blown DirecTV system for the full experience like the early information always said it would be.

I repeat it is NOT going to be a-la-carte, NO DVR, 2 session limit. It is NOT going to replace DirecTV or "cannibilize" their subscribers like several clueless articles claim. From the beginning they ALWAYS said it was going to be a stepping stone to convert people to actual DirecTV subscribers for a full experience. You can post as many rediculous out of context quotes from articles written by people who didn't see the details of the service you want, it's not going to change this... (They even updated the section where I got this information to reiterate this once those articles started coming out with incorrect assumptions and claims about the service)

Since I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall or a rss feed at this point I'm out. See you all tommorow when the details counterdict every single article linked here and confirm everything I've been saying for over a month now...


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

When Sling TV was first introduced, it was bare bones, then came the add ons, then multistream, all bets say a DVR or all VOD are coming,
Just look at the subscribers to their sat service has been in a steady down trend most quarters.

Watch DirectTV/AT&T go down this same road, industry has made it clear that sat subscribers have peaked, only downward from here.



> In terms of pay-TV bundles, DirecTV Now might become the Toyota Camry of the industry - while the legacy satellite service looks more like a BMW.





> *Getting in front of cord-cutting:* By using a big knife and fork to carve up pay TV, AT&T wants to make sure it's at the head of the table to nab consumers who want a better price/value equation - before its traditional video businesses start to contract. Yes, DirecTV Now will peel away higher-value satellite subscribers, but AT&T would rather cannibalize itself than let someone else do it.





> The implications are huge for all players in the sector. That includes DirecTV and its parent company, AT&T, which will likely see their combined 25.3 million video subscriber base cannibalized to some extent by practically tempting its own subs to shift to the cheaper package. The strategy demonstrates that the telco is willing to suffer short-term pain to establish a pole position in the rapidly changing over-the-top marketplace.


https://variety.com/2016/tv/features/att-directv-now-pay-tv-1201918857/


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Numbers don't lie, just look at the last quarters for Dish and you will see whats happening.



> The advent of Internet streaming reduces the cost of entry for competition in pay-TV. As such, it's important for traditional companies such as DISH Network and Comcast to launch pre-emptive strikes with services such as Sling TV and Stream.





> Overall, replacing a $100-per-month customer with a $20-per-month customer isn't as terrible as it looks. It's certainly better than completely losing subscribers to competition, whether that's an old cable company or a new tech start-up.


https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Dish-Lost-Another-116000-TV-Subscribers-Last-Quarter-138294

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/29/sling-tv-is-cannibalizing-dish-network.aspx


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Bedford11 said:


> Numbers don't lie, just look at the last quarters for Dish and you will see whats happening.
> 
> https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Dish-Lost-Another-116000-TV-Subscribers-Last-Quarter-138294
> 
> http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/29/sling-tv-is-cannibalizing-dish-network.aspx


Copied from your link:
Dish also lost a net 20,000 satellite broadband subscribers during the third quarter, reducing the company's overall broadband subscriber base to approximately 593,000. That said, *Dish still managed to see a profit of $307.4 million, up from $196.5 million one year ago*. That's because most of its customers are *paying more for TV than ever, the average Dish customer now paying $89.44 -- up from $86.33 the quarter before*.

Losing customers and making 50% more And that is why they are leaving.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Your assumption is not necessarily correct. While the cost of sat/cable is a bit higher than many would like, the younger folks aren't sitting in front of the TV at home, instead choosing to watch on various devices if they watch at all. So even lower rates might not attract them to cable/sat.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Anyone who is asking for a la cart is asking to pay 120 a month for their 17 stations instead of 100 a month for 200. 

The option for both will continue to be there for many years to come and data caps and other forces will never allow everyone to simply go streaming and Video On Demand. 

And because of how it is today, all streaming is subsidized by linear cable and satellite. I think people don't get that when they think those methods of delivery are about to die. 

It's not even remotely likely in the next decade. Heck Netflix is becoming more and more like
HBO. Not the other way around!

And anyone comparing what happened in the music industry to what is happening to tv is not paying any attention to what is actually happening or the market forces that are causing either to change or who owns and distributes the contents and how the industry is forming all this. 

It's kind of like staring at a tree and thinking you are in a forest even though it's the only tree for 300 miles in any direction in the middle of a desert and it's only there because you just planted it there.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

the current pay tv model will eventually die. How quick that happens nobody really knows

However, the content producers and distributors will make that lost money up somehow. My guess is the price of al la carte channels and streaming packages will start to go up significantly. Sites like netflix, amazon,hulu, etc will have be hit with increased rates by the content producers.

Netflix is already seeing the writing on the wall. that's why they are shrinking their library and instead producing their own shows. they are slowly becoming another HBO channel

We are living in the golden age of streaming right now. the current pay tv model is still profitable enough that they haven't fully targeted cord cutters yet. once they see that pay tv model is no longer profitable, they will start targeting the streamers with increased prices for internet and punitive data caps.

before you know it we will all be complaining about how we pay too much for tv again


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

wow. inkhauts, those were my thoughts exactly. we even used the same hbo and netflix comparison LOL


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> Your assumption is not necessarily correct. While the cost of sat/cable is a bit higher than many would like, the younger folks aren't sitting in front of the TV at home, instead choosing to watch on various devices if they watch at all. So even lower rates might not attract them to cable/sat.


By the time streaming actually becomes truly popular and dominant (it's not even close yet contrary to what some will have you believe) its costs will be the same as cable or satellite and then people will see the old way as more bang for the buck since you'll get streaming and traditional for the same price.


----------



## camo (Apr 15, 2010)

inkahauts said:


> By the time streaming actually becomes truly popular and dominant (it's not even close yet contrary to what some will have you believe) its costs will be the same as cable or satellite and then people will see the old way as more bang for the buck since you'll get streaming and traditional for the same price.


I have to disagree again, streaming is even growing with many cable companies converting over to IPTV technology because its cheaper with less overhead than traditional systems. Nationwide streaming is also becoming more popular and will be equal to if not pass traditional transmission within a few short years.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

camo said:


> I have to disagree again, streaming is even growing with many cable companies converting over to IPTV technology because its cheaper with less overhead than traditional systems. Nationwide streaming is also becoming more popular and will be equal to if not pass traditional transmission within a few short years.


For the context of this thread "streaming" is paying for your tv to be watched over the internet only. Like HBO now or Netflix.

That has nothing to do with cable companies converting to ip technology. That should sweep through in a few years depending on how fast they want to upgrade their infrastructure. Big cities fast where there is lots of competition... middle of nowhere it could be a money waster in some areas.. either way has nothing to do with the intent of what I was talking about.

Check out how many subscribers have sling tv and vue. Not even a million. And there's 118 million homes with a tv.

Streaming as your main source of tv is nowhere near popular at this point as a standalone option.

Netflix has big subscribers because it's more of an add on like HBO. It's not your entire service. Maybe for a few people but that's not its goal and direction.

And how many people who stream a lot of tv shows from services other than Netflix and HBO now are simply using a log in from a cable company? Almost all of them. Literally more than 100 times those who pay (or only watch ota) only for streaming tv. And most of them are probably using their parents logins. And guess what, the companies are fine with that! Because they are getting paid via traditional cable and can sell more targeted ads.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Here come the DVR's.

AT&T just a matter of time.

http://www.adweek.com/lostremote/sling-tv-presents-cloud-dvr-att-unveils-its-streaming-plan/57895


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

lparsons21 said:


> Your assumption is not necessarily correct. While the cost of sat/cable is a bit higher than many would like, the younger folks aren't sitting in front of the TV at home, instead choosing to watch on various devices if they watch at all. So even lower rates might not attract them to cable/sat.


You are getting CLOSE.
Younger folks don't have time for TV or even know what it is.
Toooooooooooooooo BUSY TEXTING.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Bedford11 said:


> Here come the DVR's.
> 
> AT&T just a matter of time.
> 
> http://www.adweek.com/lostremote/sling-tv-presents-cloud-dvr-att-unveils-its-streaming-plan/57895


And it doesn't appear those will be nearly as versatile as ones in your homes because they will have much stricter limits on durations and amounts. I'll keep my home DVR for now.


----------



## Aridon (Mar 13, 2007)

The big difference IP providers will make is expanding competition in areas that would traditionally see one cable company and the satellite offerings. There are many that have no interest in having a dish on their house leaving the local cable co. The entire market is going to get turned on it's head here much like the music industry did when the first streaming options came about. 

The days of $140 Directv bill seeming fairly normal (after taxes and equipment, fees) are going to come to an end as will the high margins that go with it. It may take 15 years for the landscape to fully change but it will change. There is plenty of fat to trim once competition starts to heat up. Just wait until Netflix, Amazon, Apple, Verizon, Google etc all start jumping into the mix. We are still in baby steps compared to what is coming.

Sling's DVR is useless to me unless they have ALL channels included with the capability. Since that isn't the case Vue is the only service I'm interested in if my situation with D* ever changes.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Where we are headed. All these entrants into the market all want to be your "go to" portal.
Link below wraps it up.
DirectTV Now, Sling TV, Google, Amazon,Netflix, Apple, Tmobile, Verizon Sony, Even Walmart with their online VuDu service and many, many more to come.
It only cost a provider 1/2 cent, .5 to deliver 1 hours worth of video over the internet.
If the average person watches 5 hours a day, that would cost the provider only 2.5 cents a day.
Compare that to satellite cost and it's a no brainer.
Where do you guys/girls stand on AT&T's and the many other coming entrants controlling the gates?
Google is going to suprise with their TV package and Fixed Wireless/spectrum buys/rent.



> The big difference IP providers will make is expanding competition in areas that would traditionally see one cable company and the satellite offerings





> Just wait until Netflix, Amazon, Apple, Verizon, Google etc all start jumping into the mix.


AT&T's among others to come fixed wireless offerings will bring a BIG change to the TV/Internet market.


> They are literally turning internet packages into cable bundles


http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/29/13774648/fcc-att-zero-rating-directv-net-neutrality-vs-tmobile

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/16/john-malone-thinks-cable-and-wireless-networks-are-destined-to-consolidate.html

https://consumerist.com/2016/11/29/giddy-investors-already-shipping-comcast-verizon-sprint-t-mobile-mergers-under-trump-administration/


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Bedford11 said:


> Where we are headed. All these entrants into the market all want to be your "go to" portal.
> Link below wraps it up.
> DirectTV Now, Sling TV, Google, Amazon,Netflix, Apple, Tmobile, Verizon Sony, Even Walmart with their online VuDu service and many, many more to come.
> It only cost a provider 1/2 cent, .5 to deliver 1 hours worth of video over the internet.
> ...


You are kidding right? You don't actually believe that's what it costs to deliver a station online? That's not at all even close to true. Heck free stations cost more than that! Where did you even get that idea?


----------



## Aridon (Mar 13, 2007)

I think he is referring to the bandwidth costs only, not carriage fees. Point is, as I read it, that costs to provide service are much lower this way and he is correct. 

Bandwidth is so cheap it is ridiculous. Much cheaper without truck rolls, receivers, dishes, swm, LNB etc...


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Sure, bandwidth is cheap. Let's say it is true that it costs 1/2 cent to deliver an hour of video. If the average customer watches 50 hours a week (counting everyone in the household who watches something different) that would be 25 cents/week or about $12/year. Directv has 20 million customers, so that's a quarter billion dollars a year. Still think the comparison with satellite delivery is a "no brainer"? That cost will drop over time, but it will be years before it is less than the cost of maintaining (and replacing as needed) Directv's satellite fleet.

Obviously there are big savings not having installers or providing hardware like DVRs, but the tradeoff is that support is much more expensive. Assuming it is properly installed, a satellite setup will generally keep working for years without any trouble (other than rain fade) until you have a hardware failure like a drive going out on a DVR. That's definitely not true for streaming - servers can get overloaded, there can be issues along the internet path from Directv to your ISP, your ISP can have issues, your home network can have problems or interference if it is wireless, and so forth. People will be calling a streaming provider ALL THE TIME for issues that they have no control over, and their ability to diagnose problems will be extremely limited. I wouldn't be surprised if Directv needs 10x as many CSRs per streaming customer as they do per satellite customer, because of how much more often there will be problems affecting streaming. That cost must be balanced against the savings in equipment.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Chiming in randomly, because of checking out things after the forum upgrade...

My take on his cost post was the same as Aridon's... I can't speak to the monetary values... but it has to be LOTS cheaper to transmit via IP than to have to maintain satellites and uplink sites. So while other costs of creating/transmitting programming would be the same... there would be a substantial savings for a company to transmit the same content via streaming vs a satellite service. So I can see that being a thing that might drive development in that direction. I think there are other hurdles, though, not the least of which being lack of availability nationwide of quality/reliable high-speed Internet access within the US that will stall this being an immediate threat to satellite services.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

"The pay-TV ecosystem could be "chopped up" into a paradigm that is "truly an à la carte experience."

"The barriers to entry are not great, so pretty much anybody could enter into the marketplace,"

" I've always been concerned that the content creators are going to end up in a place that's maybe not so good for them. But it should be good for consumers. So the business will definitely grow."

Link
Dish Network's Ergen: OTT will 'chop up' the pay-TV ecosystem | FierceCable

* "OTT could be bigger than satellite but carries risks for content"
Link
Ergen: OTT could be bigger than satellite but carries risks for content » Digital TV Europe*


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

*AT&T*'s new* fixed *and mobile* internet portal* was expected to launch this quarter but has been delayed until some time in early 2017, according to AT&T's multiscreen authentication partner *Synacor.* The ad-supported multiplatform portal will provide content with a user driven functionality. Synacor CEO Himesh Bhise defended the delay by saying, "given the size and expanded scope of this project and after our recent joint planning we've pushed back the official launch date."
Link
OTT Video News, Deals, Launches and Products - Rethink

CDN costs are around half a penny.
"It's not immaterial, but it is not a cost that we worry about because the costs have continued to come down so significantly
Link
Analyst: 'If Sling wasn't owned by Dish, it'd be out of business' | FierceCable


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

Bedford11 said:


> *AT&T*'s new* fixed *and mobile* internet portal* was expected to launch this quarter but has been delayed until some time in early 2017, according to AT&T's multiscreen authentication partner *Synacor.* The ad-supported multiplatform portal will provide content with a user driven functionality. Synacor CEO Himesh Bhise defended the delay by saying, "given the size and expanded scope of this project and after our recent joint planning we've pushed back the official launch date."
> Link
> OTT Video News, Deals, Launches and Products - Rethink
> 
> ...


delayed? say it ain't so 

so we've gone from end of 2015 to now early 2017


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

it may be cheaper to deliver content over IP. but do you folks honestly believe that these companies will pass these savings on to us in the long run? another factor is that most of the companies that currently deliver the content via tradiional means are also your ISP. you really think they will let streaming services affect their profits once the current pay tv model finally dies? Better get ready for jacked up internet prices and punitive data caps


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

chances14 said:


> it may be cheaper to deliver content over IP.


I don't accept that premise. Despite the cost of uplinks, backhauls and customer equipment, traditional broadcast delivery (satellite and cable are broadcast) is fairly cheap.

Perhaps the "Millennials" will be more DIY tech savvy ... Home satellite has moved from large dishes that were self installed or installed by a local dealer to "pizza size dishes" self installed or installed by what is now two companies (others have come and gone). The current state of satellite has gone to primarily professional install (DISH and DIRECTV want the systems to work and installs are not as easy as single satellite dishes).

Streaming TV requires the user to do their own installation (similar to the early days of big dish satellite or OTA reception). Customers need to provide their own equipment, networks and internet connectivity. Add that to the cost of service.

For the device crowd that has figured out how to stream to their 80" 4K TV (probably through an app on the TV or a third party device) adding additional streaming services is just a matter of finding services that are available and then paying for them. There are free services ... and they are probably worth every penny that people pay for them. The better content will not be free.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> I don't accept that premise. Despite the cost of uplinks, backhauls and customer equipment, traditional broadcast delivery (satellite and cable are broadcast) is fairly cheap.


Don't forget the construction and launching of satellites. That cost goes away too, and the infrastructure to support multiple high-speed streams is still WAY cheaper than that I have to think.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Don't forget the construction and launching of satellites. That cost goes away too, and the infrastructure to support multiple high-speed streams is still WAY cheaper than that I have to think.


But they aren't that expensive, given that they last 15-20 years and the cost is amortized over 20 million (and growing) customers. I'm not sure if we can get reliable information about what it costs Directv to build and launch satellites, but IridiumNEXT will launch 72 satellites for the Iridium network with the build and launch costs estimated at $2.9 billion. One dollar per month per customer over the 15 year design lifetime (they actually last longer) of Directv's satellites adds up to nearly $4 billion - so the actual cost is probably well under a quarter a month!

Yeah, obviously there are some costs to maintain them but there are costs to maintain the servers running a streaming network etc. that aren't captured in the bandwidth costs so for simplicity we'll assume those costs cancel each other out. At 1/2 cent per hour and 25 cents per month for the satellites, Directv's satellites would cost only 50 hours worth of streaming a month. Still think they cost more?


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

You're comparing 66 LEO satellites that only transmit data and voice to Geo satellites transmitting video. Can you accurately use Iridium's numbers to calculate how much the sats cost DIRECTV?


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

"DirecTV has the equivalent of four satellites under construction that will cost a total of $1.729 billion including launch and insurance, plus $74 million paid already in 2011, the company said in its SEC filing."

With an approx. cost of 800 bucks just to set up a sat customer verses just the click of a button to signup for immediate online TV service thru DirectTV Now.

My, how times have changed. Notice the article is from 2011.
"DirecTV Chief Executive Michael D. White said during the call that the company is open to partnering with anyone - including rival Dish Network and its EchoStar hardware supplier - to provide a wireless broadband service in the United States. But he said the wireless broadband market situation remains difficult to read."
Link
Astrium Picked To Build DirecTV 15 Telecom Satellite - SpaceNews.com


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

> Today it costs about $200 million to build and $100 million to launch a DirecTV satellite, said a DirecTV spokesman. The company owns 11 satellites and leases one, according to a financial filing earlier this year.
> Dallas Morning News


So $3.3 billion in satellites (assuming their lease covers all of the lessor's cost) with a 15 year life span ... $220 million per year. Spread across 20 million subscribers is $11 per subscriber or about $1 per month. At .5 cents per hour $1 would cover 200 hours of viewing. Less than seven hours per day.

Even at .5 cents per hour I do not believe one can beat the efficiency of satellite transmission.

The down side is that there is no savings when customers are not watching ... all the satellites need to be up and working 24/365 regardless of how many viewers there are. But the up side is that each feed can reach from zero to all subscribers without adding bandwidth per subscriber. And the customer does not have to buy their own bandwidth in addition to what they are paying their TV provider.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

chances14 said:


> it may be cheaper to deliver content over IP. but do you folks honestly believe that these companies will pass these savings on to us in the long run? another factor is that most of the companies that currently deliver the content via tradiional means are also your ISP. you really think they will let streaming services affect their profits once the current pay tv model finally dies? Better get ready for jacked up internet prices and punitive data caps


Due to the massive amount of competition coming into the streaming market, including the new Fixed Wireless providing fast connectivity that rural customers have never had access to,providers are being forced to go to the basement bottom pricing just to stay relevant.
Competition is good for the consumer.

"MoffettNathanson puts those at $3 per subscriber per month for the internet service and $18 per subscriber per month for satellite."
Link
AT&T May Not Rejoice at $35-a-Month Plan, Though Tightwads Can


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bedford11 said:


> Due to the massive amount of competition coming into the streaming market, including the new Fixed Wireless providing fast connectivity that rural customers have never had access to,providers are being forced to go to the basement bottom pricing just to stay relevant.
> Competition is good for the consumer.
> 
> "MoffettNathanson puts those at $3 per subscriber per month for the internet service and $18 per subscriber per month for satellite."
> ...


Linked to a paywalled site ... what costs are you referring to here? Content or delivery?


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

Bedford11 said:


> Due to the massive amount of competition coming into the streaming market, including the new Fixed Wireless providing fast connectivity that rural customers have never had access to,providers are being forced to go to the basement bottom pricing just to stay relevant.
> Competition is good for the consumer.
> 
> "MoffettNathanson puts those at $3 per subscriber per month for the internet service and $18 per subscriber per month for satellite."
> ...


You are forgetting that the pay tv provider you are leaving is in most cases the very same provider that you will use to access the competition via the internet. you don't think they will increase your internet rates if you decide to leave for their competition? Once the current pay tv model officially dies, internet rates will start to increase on the same level that pay tv does every year. Before you know it, we will be back to paying the same exorbitant prices for tv as we do now.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

*Google the below headline, should be able to read article.*

*AT&T May Not Rejoice at $35-a-Month Plan, Though Tightwads Can*


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

A better quote would have been:


> Those don't account for costs such as marketing, customer service, data transport and storage or set-top box installation for satellite service. MoffettNathanson puts those at $3 per subscriber per month for the internet service and $18 per subscriber per month for satellite. That leaves satellite margins at $42 and pushes DirecTV Now margins to slim, or even negative.


Then we would have known what you were talking about.

So according to his calculation satellite costs $15 more per month to deliver but DIRECTV is charging $42 more for the service (and making near zero or negative on streaming). Satellite subsidizing the start up streaming service cannot last forever ... AT&T|DIRECTV need to make it profitable on its own.

For reference, the last time I did the math DIRECTV was making $20 per subscriber per month in profit. Cut rate pricing will work for the introduction ... but the stockholders won't let AT&T|DIRECTV lose money on DIRECTV Now forever. Expect the prices to increase.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Go back thru this thread and read the links on AT&T and all the other coming services wanting to be your "GO TO" Portal.
How do you think Google has become the 800 pound gorilla? (with Billions and Billions in Profit) in the Portal market.
Advertising, that's how.
AT&T can subsidize their TV service thru advertising dollars they make when someone goes thru their portal and clicks on links.
This is the Holy Grail for these coming services and the future of your low cost TV.
And to think Google itself is readying a low cost streaming TV package.

Go back on this thread and read about the research that shows the average viewer only watches 19 channels or less, The days of the bloated/expensive TV packages are over for the average viewer. There will be a multitude of low cost varied skinny bundles coming from the onslaught of providers entering the market.
Competition is Good, This is a revolution and prices will stay low.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Content owners are king. There is NO streaming provider offering or expected to offer the customers choice of any 19 channels out of the hundreds of channels available via satellite. One might get lucky if one does not watch ANY of the major channels ... but the content providers with the best content know how to market their content - in packages where people are forced to pay for more than they watch. Packages such as DISH's SlingTV and DIRECTV Now.

Out of context quoting and irrelevant links will not change the marketplace.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

*"No, Content Isn't King"*
*"The distributors like Comcast, AT&T and whatever replaces them have won. Distribution -- not content -- is the new king."
Link*
*No, Content Isn't King*


"Content is king" is no longer the major factor with the upcoming mass competition in the market. When you just had four or so providers it was true.
Now whoever owns the last mile pipe (upcoming fixed wireless for millions) and the Portal owners will share the kingdom if not be the outright Kings.

There will be sooo many cheap and varied skinny packages out there that many will hit the sweet spot for the average consumer.

*"Time Warner Sale To AT&T Shows Distribution, Not Content, Is King"*

*The old adage is, "Content is king." But owning all three is the king's empire.*
Link
Time Warner Sale To AT&T Shows Distribution, Not Content, Is King

Link
If 'content is king,' owning content, distribution, and data is the king's empire


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Keep in mind when you're talking about the affordability of building/launching satellites and amortizing that over 20 years and 20 million DirecTV subscribers... that the math you're using would only work for DirecTV.

For another company to start from scratch and offer their own satellite service, it is a daunting thing indeed to come up with billions in cash up front to build/launch those satellites and hope to get that money back over those 20 years OR get someone to lend you that kind of credit given the marketplace today.

VS.

Starting up a new streaming service that doesn't have all of those costs up front and doesn't require 20 million subscribers instantaneously (which won't happen) to help amortize that cost down to a manageable level.

So... there's the cost of the satellites... and how a company like DirecTV can afford it vs how almost anyone else (besides Dish) can't.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

As mentioned in earlier post in this thread that the music industry went to the internet, the video industry will follow the same. 
Look at all the NEW content creators out there that have already captured the young viewers eyeballs. The current major content creators know this and are forced to play ball.

"Streaming services may have started out as technological trends, but we can't ignore that the actual release of music has become synonymous with the music industry as a whole. Labels may still have the monopoly on the recording industry, *but it is the distribution that holds sway"*
*
"In a very real sense, streaming services could well be moving towards the usurping of the record label's traditional place in the industry. Competing across so many areas, their position as the point of contact with the consumer is incredibly powerful"
Link
Are Streaming Services The New Record Labels? • Howl & Echoes*


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

sorry bedford but you are living in a fantasy world that is never going to become reality.

ultimately, streaming services and the internet needed to access them will become just as expensive as current pay tv packages are now in one way or another. stockholders will make sure of that

comparing streaming services to what happen with music industry is moot. labels do not own the medium that people used to download music. whereas the major tv distributors also own the medium used to access streaming services


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

In my fantasy world, in my small town I used to pay 32 bucks for a pair of pants, Walmart moved in, Amazon started up, many other online sale sights came olnine, now 15 years later that same pair of pants are 22 bucks. And to think Walmart is considering adding TV packages to their VUDU online video service, well here comes Target etc. etc., maybe them pants can be had for 18 bucks in the future?

Competition is good for the consumer. and there is plenty coming in my fantasy streaming world.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Well 15 years ago those pants were made by hand, now the process is automated. Now a good comparison but good try. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

15 years ago
there was just copper wires for slow internet
You had to have a person and costing 800 bucks to set you up for sat. tv.
Cable guy would promise to show up at 12 and be there the next evening.

Now the process is totally automated with DirectTV Now, just click a button and have immediate streaming TV. Try it, we have entered the TV revolution.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

Bedford11 said:


> In my fantasy world, in my small town I used to pay 32 bucks for a pair of pants, Walmart moved in, Amazon started up, many other online sale sights came olnine, now 15 years later that same pair of pants are 22 bucks. And to think Walmart is considering adding TV packages to their VUDU online video service, well here comes Target etc. etc., maybe them pants can be had for 18 bucks in the future?
> 
> Competition is good for the consumer. and there is plenty coming in my fantasy streaming world.


of course competition is good for the consumer.

problem is there isn't any competition for the isp that you need to access these streaming services. you also seem to be completely obvious to the fact that the tv distributors are also the internet providers you need to access these streaming services.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Pull back the blinds, competition is there and will boom in 2017.
Competition is growing daily. Where do you think all those subscribers that the sat/cable companies are losing are going to?
DirectTV Now will be showing up on a lot o these new ISP's.

AT&T is moving into area's where they have never been, even outside their footprint.

Fixed wireless from a myriad of companies are racing to get the rural customers that have never had anything except crappy satellite internet and rotting copper pipes.

Google has just bought a fixed wireless service and will start providing fixed wireless service.
Link
Google Fiber's wireless plans take shape with purchase of a gigabit ISP

Windstream and others are planning to deploy fixed wireless broadband in the US.

Verizon is right in the thick of it also, T mobile etc. etc. will be providing wireless internet also.
There's still a lot we don't know about Verizon and AT&T's fixed wireless plans, but what's clear is that they intend to take on traditional cable Internet in an entirely new way -- which could give home Internet consumers more choices than ever before.

C Spire to install Fixed Wireless

Starry with their 5G fixed wireless is coming.

Dish with their massive amount of spectrum will be coming also.

Many communities/cities have installed their own fiber and now coming up they will be/are installing fixed wireless.

City after City and Counties are installing their own Fiber/Wireless networks with pricing around 50 bucks for unlimited 100 meg. and up service

Many Rural Electric coops are installing fiber and will be installing fixed wireless.
Subscribers are members of the coop, they will have to vote to raise the prices which are excellent.
Basic will offer up to 100 megabits per second (Mbps), upload and download speed, *with no data caps,* for *$49.95 per month.* The Gigabit offering will offer up to 1,000 Mbps, upload and download speed, with no data caps, for *$79.95 per month.*

This one blows my mind, of all places, the rugged ozark mountains will be getting cheap fiber to their rural customers.
Link
Ozarks Electric To Start Providing Internet, TV & Telephone Services
Link
OzarksGo
OzarksGo

Take a look here, this will start sweeping the nation.
Colorado Voters Choose Local Control In 26 Communities | community broadband networks

community broadband networks | Helping Communities Achieve True Self-Determination

2017 is going to be a rip roaring year for entrants into new areas,just 6 months needed to install a large area fixed wireless system.
Competition providing consumers with choices will keep the prices competitive.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bedford11 said:


> "Content is king" is no longer the major factor with the upcoming mass competition in the market.


Failure to read is not helping your argument. My statement was "content owners are king". Which part of the quoted headline at the end of your post agrees with:


Bedford11 said:


> If 'content is king,' owning content, distribution, and data is the king's empire


OWNING CONTENT - CONTROLLING DISTRIBUTION ... that is the kingdom that I speak of when I say "Content owners are king."



chances14 said:


> sorry bedford but you are living in a fantasy world that is never going to become reality.
> 
> ultimately, streaming services and the internet needed to access them will become just as expensive as current pay tv packages are now in one way or another. stockholders will make sure of that


I agree. Right now streaming is the new frontier. Companies are willing to lose a little money while exploring the new frontier. But they cannot lose money forever. Streaming prices WILL catch up with non streaming delivery. If we are lucky the new streaming content distributors will be $15 less than via satellite (so we can apply that $15 per month toward the $30+ per month ISP service needed to receive the service). I do not expect to be that lucky.

Cable companies are not in the business to lose money. The more the loss of video customers affects the bottom line the more they will adjust their fees to cover the cost of staying in business. And no, it isn't just the cost of the cable company's connection to the Internet that will need to be adjusted. All of the infrastructure costs that are currently spread out across video customers will need to be shifted to data only customers.

I have been around long enough to know that cheap and free is (at best) worth every penny one pays for service. At worst one ends up with an inferior product that costs more per "unit" (whatever unit applies). I could buy a $32 pair of pants that would last two or three years ... now I can buy a $22 pair of pants that lasts six months. Which is the better bargain?

How many simultaneous streams can be viewed or recorded by a via satellite customer? DISH's newest receiver sets the bar for "conflict free" TV at 16 satellite tuners on a single whole home box (effectively 20 with PTAT and OTA ... see DISH forum for discussion). DIRECTV can be configured for as many if not more simultaneous streams. Will any streaming service allow 16 streams? All HD or better? Or will they be an inferior product that offers less than the current distribution? Four simultaneous streams? How many in HD?

Make sure you're not buying four cheap pair of pants for $88 and bragging that you're saving money over a better $32 pair that would last as long as the four.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Keep in mind when you're talking about the affordability of building/launching satellites and amortizing that over 20 years and 20 million DirecTV subscribers... that the math you're using would only work for DirecTV.





Stewart Vernon said:


> Starting up a new streaming service that doesn't have all of those costs up front and doesn't require 20 million subscribers instantaneously (which won't happen) to help amortize that cost down to a manageable level.


If you have content that you want to deliver to the maximum number of people the best way to deliver it is to find a distribution partner that already reaches millions of people. DIRECTV (and DISH and the cable companies) are partners who can deliver to the most number of homes for the least amount of money.

It would be difficult to start a third satellite based service in the US ... 20 years ago we had multiple companies entering the satellite business. Only five ended up launching a satellite distribution company (the rest sold their space to DISH or DIRECTV). Only three companies ever launched a DBS satellite (USSB leased from DIRECTV, Dominion leased from DISH). The lesser three sold out to the two big companies.

There isn't a need for a third DBS company. It is easy enough to get carriage (and delivery to tens of millions of homes) on the existing systems. Just set a decent price for your service or pay a low monthly cost for the satellite bandwidth.

Even in the digital world one would be better off partnering with an existing distribution system (Netflix, Amazon, Roku, YouTube, etc) than trying to start yet another streaming service. Unless one has deep pockets like DISH and AT&T|DIRECTV and can afford the start up costs for a standalone service.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bedford11 said:


> Now the process is totally automated with DirectTV Now, just click a button and have immediate streaming TV. Try it, we have entered the TV revolution.


Click and go only works if one already has the network and required equipment in place.

I can order next day installation of DISH or DIRECTV ... it would work with my existing televisions (multiple) and I could build a system as large as needed to serve my home. It would not cost ME $800 for the installation (a subscriber acquisition cost that includes marketing) but I would be expected to keep the service for two years to pay off the satellite company's investment in me.

I obviously have an Internet connection (better than dialup) and I occasionally stream content but my home is not instantly ready for DIRECTV Now or any other streaming service. I would need to buy a new TV with data connectivity or some sort of box that would receive content from the Internet and display it on my TV (my BluRay player has some Internet functions ... but would it work with DIRECTV Now?). The only devices guaranteed to be able to get DIRECTV Now are my computer (which interferes with my actual computer usage) and my cell phone (which eats my data plan). More work for me to get that to display on the big screen.

No ... my house isn't DIRECTV Now ready and I am not naive enough to believe in "click and go" for everyone. There is no such thing as cutting the cord unless one stops watching content. All one is doing is exchanging one cord for another. If I were to decide today to drop satellite for streaming I would need to buy more bandwidth first ... and that would mean waiting for the cable company to install a drop to my house or scheduling an install with a WISP. Any money I would save on a satellite subscription would be lost on improving my Internet. (Even your $50-$80 estimates are more than I would save.) And the streaming delivery industry still has not caught up with the content available via satellite.

More money ... less content availability. Fiction and fantasy cannot match the reality of the industry.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

LOL, yes the pants are the same brand/material and lasting just as long.
You are making this out to be way more complicated than it is.
What form of internet service do you currently subscribe to DSL? Wireless?
You are going to pay for that 800 dollar acquisition cost thru your high subscription fees.
DirectTV Now will give you a Free Apple TV box..
Sling TV will give you a free Roku Box.
Just plug into HDMI port on the TV and off you go.
GoogleCast dongle is what 30 bucks max? Sure Googles new TV service will give you one for free.
People must have internet in todays world anyway, that internet cost you are including is not realistic for the typical home.
Just click to purchase any of the new streaming services plug in the Free box and off you go, NO pesky contracts that lock you in, With the simple click of the mouse you can quit the service anytime and try the next greatest service that are sure to be coming. No expensive call center Human employees involved.
With High Speed internet reaching new customers everyday it won't be long before the traditional forms of getting TV service will be heavily eroded.
Looking like the typical 25 meg unlimited internet service is going to be around 50 bucks a month, this will satisfy the majority.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bedford11 said:


> LOL, yes the pants are the same brand/material and lasting just as long.


Unfortunately DIRECTV Now is not the same material as DIRECTV satellite (or UVerse). SlingTV is not the same material as DISH Network.



Bedford11 said:


> DirectTV Now will give you a Free Apple TV box..
> Sling TV will give you a free Roku Box.
> Just plug into HDMI port on the TV and off you go.


So click ... wait for delivery, self install, upgrade Internet to new requirements, configure and go?
Minimizing the "ease of setup" does not eliminate the challenge.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

My experience streaming movies/TV prove to be the same material as DirectTV/Cable.
Click on and enjoy hick up free 1080,surround sound video, I think the picture is better than sat. TV. Looking forward to a couple of clicks to cancel current streaming service and trying DirectTV Now. Try that with your cable provider.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bedford11 said:


> My experience streaming movies/TV prove to be the same material as DirectTV/Cable.


So you are absolutely guaranteeing that every piece of content available via DIRECTV satellite is available via DIRECTV Now?

I do not believe you can honestly make that claim. And even if one includes other streaming options one would still come up short on content. (I hope you are not including illegal streaming options.)

Perhaps everything YOU have looked for is available via some streaming ... but certainly not everything that is available via satellite subscription.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Another claim I did not make.
What I am claiming is the content that I get from streaming is just as, if not better quality than cable/sat.
I do not want all the bloated content in the cable/sat packages.
Majority of people do not want it either. Remember research shows that people only watch 19 are fewer channels.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I did not question the quality in my previous posts ... I questioned the AVAILABILITY of said content. Quality is 0% if the content is not available.

You may not want ALL of the content in a cable/sat package ... but there are compromises made when leaving cable/sat for streaming. The issue of "ok, I can't get ____ without a cable/sat style subscription" is a compromise. Let cognitive dissonance kick in and tell you that the content you can't get isn't worth getting ("sour grapes" for those that don't know the bigger words). But you can't watch what isn't there.

Availability is where content (and content owners) remain king.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Another pebble to throw into this discussion... Don't make the mistake a lot of people do... don't equate company savings to consumer savings. As James notes, streaming companies are selling low right now because they can and because they want to attract customers. IF that shifts to being the norm, then content creators are going to expect more from those avenues, consumers will have less choice not to use those streaming options, and streaming will cost more to the consumer.

Meanwhile... companies look to save money wherever they can. Whenever they save money, you save money... just not directly. IF DirecTV's cost of business goes up 5%, you can bet your bill goes up at least 5%! BUT if DirecTV can keep that down to a 2% increase, then you've saved a little bit maybe. They aren't going to automatically "pass the savings along to you" but you can bet they will ALWAYS pass the cost increases along to you.

So... companies saving money increases their profit, which is always their goal... it's just hard to say if that ever saves consumers, because there's no mechanism to force that EXCEPT competition and consumer apathy.

You also have companies like Dish and DirecTV beginning to hedge their bets right now... just in case streaming becomes the thing... making sure they are ready to go with a footprint there.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

By the time Google, Verizon, Netflix and all the others introduce their skinny bundles, there will be low cost packages that millions of people will accept and drop their cable/sat subscriptions for. now doubt about it.
We just seen DirectTV raise their prices again, bet next year there will be another price hike, all the while a dwindling subscriber base must pay more and more to keep it profitable. Well known fact that the sat. TV market has matured and will be declining. While the streaming services will be gaining subscibers, AT&T hopes to get 20 million subs for DirectTV Now. Dish is hoping to get 20 million for SlingTV, Google going after xxxx amount of subscribers, Verizon aiming for multi million subscribers, all these new streaming services have to get their subscribers from somewhere and we know there is only a set amount of young cord nevers to go around. There will be Full Blown packages that will replicate cable/sat bundles offered by most of the players as this tech matures. Take the entrants like Google and the others that do not have to protect a declining TV service and you will see more varied bundles arriving, also there are new content creators coming out that will add to this TV revolution.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Another pebble to throw into this discussion... Don't make the mistake a lot of people do... don't equate company savings to consumer savings. As James notes, streaming companies are selling low right now because they can and because they want to attract customers. IF that shifts to being the norm, then content creators are going to expect more from those avenues, consumers will have less choice not to use those streaming options, and streaming will cost more to the consumer.


Assuming that the content owners are being paid the same for a subscription via streaming as they are being paid for a subscription via satellite (as the WSJ article used for calculation) it is the distributor (AT&T|DIRECTV) who is offering a product at penny profits or a loss. Which works as long as there is a bigger service keeping the company in business.

At the end of the day content providers want money. They are not greedy, they just want to be paid. And they will follow a path to payment that is most beneficial to their company. Part of the risk of streaming is the "no commitment" nature ... but they may assume that they will get their $1 from the customer subscribing to the content whether they subscribe via satellite, cable or any other service. The content owner doesn't care what end distributor or delivery method is used as long as they get paid and the content is secured so everybody pays. (They may prefer that a customer subscribes through a distributor that pays more per subscriber ... UVERSE was paying more per subscriber than DIRECTV ... but a subscriber is a subscriber.)

The primary threat to the content owners is not the delivery method but the a la carte nature of streaming. They want subscribers to their channels whether or not those subscribers watch. (Viewers help ratings which helps ad sales and signing contracts to be in better bundles, but just being delivered to a home is a primary goal. Content channels want to be delivered to the maximum amount of homes.)

So what we are seeing ... in real life ... is the continuance of packages. Perhaps "skinny bundles" that are smaller and appear to be cheaper but the content owners are king - and they continue to support the package model, not the pick your favorite 19 channels model.



Stewart Vernon said:


> You also have companies like Dish and DirecTV beginning to hedge their bets right now... just in case streaming becomes the thing... making sure they are ready to go with a footprint there.


It is a smart move. The content owners are supporting it and being able to leverage 13-24 million subscribers via satellite/cable gives DISH and DIRECTV a better deal than a smaller company. (A primary reason AT&T bought DIRECTV was to raise their customer count to make negotiating for the OTT service easier.)

It gives the package oriented content providers a good place to go to remain in packages. And the best chance of staying in (eventually) millions of homes.

DISH and DIRECTV are not going to throw away billions of dollars worth of satellites and abandon satellite delivery. But they certainly can keep their foot in the door for those who want something different. Skinny bundles via satellite is a nice side effect to the deals DISH made for SlingTV. Although anyone who thinks that the consumer will save money needs to look at the prices and what is not available.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Bedford11 said:


> You are going to pay for that 800 dollar acquisition cost thru your high subscription fees.
> DirectTV Now will give you a Free Apple TV box..
> Sling TV will give you a free Roku Box.


The majority of Directv's customer acquisition cost is advertising. How much do you think it costs to run all those national ads they have all the time with well known personalities in them? They add (and lose) about 3 million subscribers a year, so if they spend $1.5 billion a year on advertising then marketing is $500 per subscriber in customer acquisition costs!

Do you think that somehow Directv Now will just sell itself, and they won't need to advertise? Do you think that Apple is giving Directv free Apple TV boxes? Of course not, they are paying for them, and that cost is part of the new customer acquisition cost - as surely as providing you a free Genie is - except they will always be giving you a brand new Apple TV, not a refurbished one, and they are able to amortize the cost of the Genie as a tax deduction, which they cannot do with the Apple TV since it isn't carried on their books.

Its too bad Directv isn't still an independent company, as about every other quarterly earnings call they would report the small shifts in their customer acquisition cost. Probably AT&T will never bother unless an analyst specifically asks them. If they do ever report it for Directv Now, it will be 50-75% of 'traditional' Directv's CAC because they will likely market it as heavily if not more heavily than their satellite product once they have the kinks worked out, and assuming they continue offering the free Apple TV that's $100+ that's not offset by any tax benefits.

You seem to live in this fantasy world where the equipment and installation of Directv costs $800, and Directv Now has $0 because they aren't sending someone to your house. Nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Chiming in randomly, because of checking out things after the forum upgrade...
> 
> My take on his cost post was the same as Aridon's... I can't speak to the monetary values... but it has to be LOTS cheaper to transmit via IP than to have to maintain satellites and uplink sites. So while other costs of creating/transmitting programming would be the same... there would be a substantial savings for a company to transmit the same content via streaming vs a satellite service. So I can see that being a thing that might drive development in that direction. I think there are other hurdles, though, not the least of which being lack of availability nationwide of quality/reliable high-speed Internet access within the US that will stall this being an immediate threat to satellite services.


I doubt it really is once the satelites are already up there. The amount of money it costs to keep a massive network running all around the country isn't cheap. Why do you think Netflix is paying for better access from providers? And how much do you think it's cost to wire fiber to everyone home in say Los Angeles vs launching a satellite that hits the entire country? Backend similar probably...


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> I doubt it really is once the satelites are already up there. The amount of money it costs to keep a massive network running all around the country isn't cheap. Why do you think Netflix is paying for better access from providers? And how much do you think it's cost to wire fiber to everyone home in say Los Angeles vs launching a satellite that hits the entire country? Backend similar probably...


But of course the only company with satellites up there are companies like Dish and DirecTV. And they have satellites that have been up there long enough to need replacing, which means new investments in new satellites to replace those... so new companies don't have the cash to invest in the satellite biz... and existing companies could save money by not having to keep building and launching new ones. Their cost doesn't drop to zero, nobody suggests that... only that delivering online might be a cheaper option for them.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> But of course the only company with satellites up there are companies like Dish and DirecTV. And they have satellites that have been up there long enough to need replacing, which means new investments in new satellites to replace those... so new companies don't have the cash to invest in the satellite biz... and existing companies could save money by not having to keep building and launching new ones. Their cost doesn't drop to zero, nobody suggests that... only that delivering online might be a cheaper option for them.


The biggest roadblock to new satellite is space. Nearly all of the decent licenses are used by DISH and DIRECTV. To get additional space both companies have gone outside of DBS licenses (DIRECTV using Ka and reverse band, DISH formerly using BSS Ku) and outside of US licensing (DISH leasing space from Canada and Mexico licensed slots). So even if one has the wherewithall to construct and launch a satellite there is practically no place to put it. (At least, no good place.)

I am sure there will still be satellite service "direct to home" in 15 years ... and both DIRECTV and DISH will continue to update their satellite fleets. The market for 20 or 30 years out will be determined as time progresses.

It all depends on what kind of company one is discussing. If you are talking about a content owner or creator trying to get their content into homes setting up a satellite system would not be the best way. But arranging for satellite carriage of linear channels remains a viable option. No new entrant content owner/creator is going to install their own satellite or cable system - it is a ridiculous suggestion. But they could use existing systems in place.

If you are talking about a new distributor for other company's content (on the level of DIRECTV, Netflix, Comcast, etc.) real estate is the big hurdle. The skies are full (as discussed above), cable companies have franchises for the peak populated areas. Adding one's own infrastructure via fiber is not cheap. (And no, WISPS are not going to be able to serve everyone infinite bandwidth.)

Satellite isn't dead. It has probably reached it's peak in subscriber numbers but it isn't dead or dying.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> But of course the only company with satellites up there are companies like Dish and DirecTV. And they have satellites that have been up there long enough to need replacing, which means new investments in new satellites to replace those... so new companies don't have the cash to invest in the satellite biz... and existing companies could save money by not having to keep building and launching new ones. Their cost doesn't drop to zero, nobody suggests that... only that delivering online might be a cheaper option for them.


Not really after their last couple of launches. They should be good for more than another decade overall. If not longer. And launching a new satellite is still cheaper that the costs of upgrading a network around the country and getting it into people's homes. And even less expensive if looked at on a cost per subscriber. Same reason everyone ones to create fixed wireless networks instead of running lines to houses in the middle of nowhere.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

initial costs of upgrading the network may be more expensive, but if done right with fiber you would be set for decades.

long term it would be cheaper than launching new satellites


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

But to start a streaming company you don't have to build that fiber network... you just have to connect to the existing infrastructure. The ISPs have to do that build-out. Of course, that is lacking in a lot of the US right now... but streaming isn't going to take off for anyone until that becomes the norm... and once it is the norm, the ISPs will be maintaining that, not the content providers of the streaming services.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

Stewart Vernon said:


> But to start a streaming company you don't have to build that fiber network... you just have to connect to the existing infrastructure. The ISPs have to do that build-out. Of course, that is lacking in a lot of the US right now... but streaming isn't going to take off for anyone until that becomes the norm... and once it is the norm, the ISPs will be maintaining that, not the content providers of the streaming services.


what i could see happening is the big guys build out the network and they jack the prices of bandwidth up so much that the cost of barrier is too high for the majority of streaming companies to enter the market


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

chances14 said:


> what i could see happening is the big guys build out the network and they jack the prices of bandwidth up so much that the cost of barrier is too high for the majority of streaming companies to enter the market


Especially the ISPs that are losing money due to losing video subscriptions.

New ISPs that never sold video services won't miss the income. They will be bandwidth only and not care what consumes the bandwidth as long as the bandwidth is paid for. But old ISPs (cable and fiber) who sold video services and factored those sales into the cost of maintaining their infrastructure are going to need to raise prices to break even.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

And if that happens... and it possibly could... that, along with increased cost of content to streaming providers will mean we will very soon not be saving money over the current payTV model... which is, essentially, what many of us have predicted. That cheap-streaming gravy train is only going to stay cheap while it is the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th options for viewers... IF it ever becomes the primary "stream" then it will cost accordingly.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

i think this article pretty much sums up the mindset of internet providers
WOW: Broadband Caps, Not 'If' but 'When' | Light Reading

with zero rating and data caps becoming the norm among fixed line broadband providers, any streaming site that doesn't have their own network will have an even tougher time.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

There really isn't any high speed internet for large areas of the country - I live in Maine and a great deal (area wise) of the state doesn't even have cell phone service and only has land line because the government forces it. I'm sure there are plenty other areas of the country that are similar. Satellite is really the great solution and I'm sure will continue to be great for years.

20 years out - who can tell what technology will be and do by then - something we all don't even conceive of yet.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> Especially the ISPs that are losing money due to losing video subscriptions.
> 
> New ISPs that never sold video services won't miss the income. They will be bandwidth only and not care what consumes the bandwidth as long as the bandwidth is paid for. But old ISPs (cable and fiber) who sold video services and factored those sales into the cost of maintaining their infrastructure are going to need to raise prices to break even.


Yep, this is the same thing that happened with data services for telcos. ISDN was always priced sky high because it not only provided 128 kb (better than the dial up modems of the day) but two phone lines. So they priced it about on par with two business lines, making a non-option for most residential customers (which made the equipment cost really high as well)

When I first had DSL back in 1997, I had read an article about how someone was ordering 'alarm circuits' from their telco for DSL. Assuming the end to end run from ISP to home was short enough it would work and didn't require any help from the telco, you just needed DSL modems on either end. I showed it to a couple friends who owned an ISP that just happened to be across the street from the central office, and they were off and running getting samples from vendors and testing them at my house since I was about a 9000 ft run end to end. One of the guys even climbed the pole behind my pose to snip the bridge tap on my line he was able to see with his oscilloscope! 

So I got free DSL for years, and they were able to offer it as a product about five years before Qwest offered it here. But once they did, they stopped letting him order those dry pair / LADS / alarm circuits because they didn't like the competition. They only allowed them to be ordered by companies that were actually offering burglar / fire alarms that needed it. Eventually Qwest was able to convince the state regulators to let them cut off all those circuits not being used for their intended purpose, so I had to start paying for my DSL 

The reason Comcast and other cable companies have started rolling out caps is because they know the cord cutters will come eventually. They can't be seen as adding the caps in reaction to that, so they have put them in place in plenty of time. Mostly they aren't enforced, but when it becomes necessary they'll enforce them to protect their juicy TV revenue. Another way they can protect it is to make the price of internet service higher while making TV cheap to add in a double play package - something they've been doing for years but will probably double down on.

Some will claim that fixed wireless broadband will come to the rescue, but not really. There isn't enough bandwidth to offer this in more densely populated areas like in cities. Sure, it'll work great out in rural areas where customer density is low, but it'll never work in the suburbs where everyone is crowded together on 1/4 acre lots so you have a couple thousand houses per square mile. If they offer it in such areas at all, they give it a low enough cap it won't be useful for watching much TV.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

i don't think fixed wireless will be the answer in most rural areas either. The truly independent WISP's are extremely localized and performance by those companies vary. Some are great and some are terrible

Sure AT&T and some of the other big companies might start offering it, but that will just allow them to jack the prices up to make up their tv revenue


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

chances14 said:


> initial costs of upgrading the network may be more expensive, but if done right with fiber you would be set for decades.
> 
> long term it would be cheaper than launching new satellites


There is constant upkeep on a fiber network just as their is a sat based network.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> But to start a streaming company you don't have to build that fiber network... you just have to connect to the existing infrastructure. The ISPs have to do that build-out. Of course, that is lacking in a lot of the US right now... but streaming isn't going to take off for anyone until that becomes the norm... and once it is the norm, the ISPs will be maintaining that, not the content providers of the streaming services.


You have to pay a ton to get your network setup and also build connections to all the channels feeds and such as well. Why do you think DIrectv owns a massive fiber network that rings this entire country? Because you have to have proper connections to everything, as well as backups..


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Need to see what's coming down the Pike.
5G is going to bring lower costs per bit.
Multiple Players entering Fixed Wireless Market (competition keeps price low, High/unlimited download caps)
Infrastructure spending out the roof, communication companies will be spending Billions and Billions.
Verizon says it will pursue a commercial 5G rollout city-by-city in 2018 and 2019
Do Not forget about the IOT (will be 40 times the size of the Human Internet) these synergies/volume will help keep internet affordable and everywhere and keep streaming TV subscriptions cheap.
AT&T going after 15 million 4.5G Fixed Wireless Customers
All of the Fiber and Fixed Wireless rollouts by CoOps, cities, regions mentioned earlier in this thread will greatly accelerate.
Hold on tight in 2017 and beyond, going to be fun watching it all play out.
TV subscription market will have many companies able to provide service to the rural customer where satellite has been the only means till now. 5G will provide competition in the Larger cities to compete with the cable companies.
Remember the "Portal" mentioned earlier in this thread.
Here is a clue.
"gives some idea of why AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T) would want Time Warner Inc. (NYSE: TWX), the sites of which are broken into pieces. Turner Digital, the largest of them, had unique visitors of 132 million."
Google Tops Web Traffic List, Followed by Yahoo and Facebook

Ergen: Dish not doing M&A deal would be 'malpractice' in the wake of AT&T-Time Warner merger | FierceCable

Dish Network's Ergen: OTT will 'chop up' the pay-TV ecosystem | FierceCable

Top 3 US Carriers Still Interested in DISH's Spectrum | Androidheadlines.com

Softbank owner of Sprint

Trump Announces Japanese Telecom Co. Will Invest $50 Billion to Create 50,000 Jobs in U.S. - Breitbart

Google wants to test in 3.5 GHz band in up to 24 markets | FierceWireless

Cheap, Fast, compete with cable.
SpaceX plans worldwide satellite Internet with low latency, gigabit speed

The Road to Mars is Paved with Internet Gold • /r/spacex


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Booming, should reach a lot of Rural Customers.

"Two major telcos expressed interest today in possibly reselling AT&T over-the-top (OTT) video offerings launched last week. In separate question-and-answer sessions, company executives outlined current Frontier and CenturyLink OTT video plans, but also said they might be interested in a wholesale relationship with AT&T involving the AT&T OTT video offerings."

CenturyLink and Frontier Weigh OTT Options, Float DIRECTV NOW Resale Option - Telecompetitor

AT&T already has hit the December target the company had set for its DIRECTV NOW sales figures
CEO on AT&T DIRECTV NOW Sales: December Sales Target Reached Already - Telecompetitor

Frontier Freedom TV is Latest Hybrid Video Model, Favors OTT and Local - Telecompetitor


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Huge Spending soon to be announced by Comm. companies across the board. Will take massive amounts of investment to meet demand, get ready.
*
Internet video to TV grew 50 percent in 2015*. This traffic will continue to grow at a rapid pace, increasing 3.6-fold by 2020. Internet video to TV will be 26 percent of fixed consumer Internet video traffic in 2020.
See why the prices have dropped to .5 cents for 1 hour of video. 5G will drop this even further.
*Content delivery networks (CDNs) will carry nearly two-thirds of Internet traffic by 2020*. Sixty-four percent of all Internet traffic will cross CDNs by 2020 globally, up from 45 percent in 2015.

Gearing up for data volume explosion, Amazing!
*"It would take more than 5 million years to watch the amount of video that will cross global IP networks each month in 2020*. Every second, a million minutes of video content will cross the network by 2020"
The Zettabyte Era-Trends and Analysis

The total volume of data generated by IoT will reach 600 ZB per year by 2020, 275 times higher than projected traffic going from data centers to end users/devices (2.2 ZB); 39 times higher than total projected data center traffic (15.3 ZB).

The Zettabyte Era-Trends and Analysis

With Internet Of Things And Big Data, 92% Of Everything We Do Will Be In The Cloud


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Here comes Maine, a lot quicker than most want to believe.

RedZone plans to provide coverage to 90% of Maine's population by 2018.



CTJon said:


> There really isn't any high speed internet for large areas of the country - I live in Maine and a great deal (area wise) of the state doesn't even have cell phone service and only has land line because the government forces it. I'm sure there are plenty other areas of the country that are similar. Satellite is really the great solution and I'm sure will continue to be great for years.
> 
> 20 years out - who can tell what technology will be and do by then - something we all don't even conceive of yet.


AT&T ready to roll.
Link
Redzone, Maine Fiber team up to expand 'last mile' internet service

With industry deregulation, slashing corp. tax rate, bringing back Trillions of offshore (tax shelter) money back into the American Economy, that combined with the urgent demand for upgrading networks plus newer available technology, we are going to see a boom like Never before.

The technology sector represents 55 per cent of Moody's projected $1.3 trillion in foreign-held corporate cash for the end of 2016

Unlike other developed nations, the U.S. taxes corporate income globally, but it allows companies to defer paying tax on offshore earnings until they decide to repatriate that income. As a result, U.S. companies have avoided U.S. taxes by stashing roughly *$2.6 trillion offshore*, a figure cited by Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation. The top five in order of overseas cash holdings as of Sept. 30, are Apple ($216 billion), Microsoft ($111 Billion), Cisco ($60 billion), Oracle Corp. ($51 billion) and Alphabet Inc. ($48 billion).

Trump's Economic Plan Cuts Corp Tax to 15%, Redoes Trade Deals - Breitbart

Trump Team's Memo Hints at Broad Shake-Up of U.S. Energy Policy

U.S. tech giants poised to benefit most from Trump's cash repatriation plan: Moody's


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Sure, a majority of the money held overseas is held by tech companies. But they are companies like Apple, Microsoft and Facebook, not AT&T and Verizon. Apple isn't going to bring cash back and build networks. In fact, I doubt much of that money would get invested by companies - it will most likely be used for debt retirement, share buybacks and dividends.

The fantasy the money would be used for investing in the US was the reason behind the foolhardy repatriation done under Bush. That repatriation is the direct cause of why so much money is left overseas now - companies like Apple are willing to wait however many years it takes for the US to either have another repatriation holiday (TERRIBLE idea) or making a permanent change that provides more incentive to bring money back (how it should be done)

Lowering the US tax rate will help, since so long as money has been taxed at or near the rate in the US, there is no reason not to bring it home. But if it is has been taxed much more lightly (some overseas schemes allow money to be taxed as low as 2%, depending on the type of income and where it was earned) so even if you lower the rate to say 15% companies will start piling up that 2% taxed money by the billions waiting for another foolish repatriation holiday.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Bedford11 said:


> Huge Spending soon to be announced by Comm. companies across the board. Will take massive amounts of investment to meet demand, get ready.
> *
> Internet video to TV grew 50 percent in 2015*. This traffic will continue to grow at a rapid pace, increasing 3.6-fold by 2020. Internet video to TV will be 26 percent of fixed consumer Internet video traffic in 2020.
> See why the prices have dropped to .5 cents for 1 hour of video. 5G will drop this even further.
> ...


I always love things that talk in % and give you no proper scale.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Great that someone wants to carry service to rural places in Maine - most of the state doesn't even have any AT&T service today.

I really wonder about how they will make money when they may only have 1 customer in a 10 sq mile area.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

CTJon said:


> Great that someone wants to carry service to rural places in Maine - most of the state doesn't even have any AT&T service today.
> 
> I really wonder about how they will make money when they may only have 1 customer in a 10 sq mile area.


they will most likely cherry pick areas where they will deploy it, just like AT&T will do


----------



## Aridon (Mar 13, 2007)

Let's be real here. The vast majority of people live in Cell phone coverage and even have broadband access. While it is true the Rural folks get left out they are a fairly tiny sub group. Directv and Dish will be around for a long time and if they aren't and you still don't have Internet well that is what happens when you live in the sticks. That is why you don't have other services. You choose

2016 Broadband Progress Report

10% lack access to 25mbs. That means 90% have access. In addition you don't need 25mbs for streaming. 8mbs cricket unlimited does just fine and is $55 a month for a good chunk of that 10% and WISP or other types of wireless will be deployed. You were never going to get a fiber line to your house regardless and even city folk aren't going to see fiber because just about everyone knows that the future has little to do with running wires to every house in the USA.

Anyway, progress isn't going to stop because some people choose to live in the sticks. You'll still have access to satellite for the foreseeable future and if that should ever no longer be profitable to deliver you TV service you just won't get it. Just like water, sewer and other services.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

CTJon said:


> I really wonder about how they will make money when they may only have 1 customer in a 10 sq mile area.


They won't attempt to serve those areas ...


Bedford11 said:


> RedZone plans to provide coverage to 90% of Maine's population by 2018.


90% of population is not 90% of geography.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

It's NOT just the "sticks' and "rural" areas that are stuck without broadband. There's many suburbs where the only option is 3 Mbps DSL or less and cable isn't an option. Heck, BOSTON of all cities doesn't have FiOS. Verizon wanted to force DSL only areas to expensive capped wireless after Sandy destroyed some of their copper network on areas on Long Island where they had ZERO plans to deploy FiOS. There's STILL areas on Long Island beyond Optimum's fiber network where they're stuck on a 500 MHz network with 60 analog channels and no HD.

Cable companies reporting entire areas where they have a franchise instead of only reporting the streets actually wired for their service also pollute the results. Telcos do the same thing by reporting places where their fiber network "passes", but not which buildings are actually wired for the service. (Which kind of matters in major cities since many people are renting in apartment buildings and not houses they own) For DSL they report the highest speed available in an area, even though only people close to the CO get those speeds. (Especially Verizon, where not only have they stopped expanding their fiber network, they also limit areas on RTs to 3 Mbps or less, even though there's nothing technical limiting their fiber fed RTs to deliver the same speeds as people connected directly to the CO get)

Not everyone "chooses" to live in the sticks either, some have to for work related reasons, others were priced out of other areas and it's the only place they could afford to live comfortably and start a family, instead of spending 90% of their paycheck on rent for a one room apartment in a city.

Also, yeah you don't need 25 mbps, if only 2 or 3 people are watching at the same time. But you need a lot more than that if you want to replicate a 5 room installation and use the internet for something besides watching TV at the same time. Or you don't want the TV to start buffering like crazy and dipping to a resolution lower than SD because someone else turned on their PS4 or XBone and have 20 GB+ worth of updates start downloading, at the same time someone else is binge watching House of Cards or Orange is the New Black in 4K on Netflix.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

CTJon said:


> Great that someone wants to carry service to rural places in Maine - most of the state doesn't even have any AT&T service today.
> 
> I really wonder about how they will make money when they may only have 1 customer in a 10 sq mile area.


Providers will be there for sure, remember the coming IOT ,Smart Electric Grid, Pipelines, connected cars,(AT&T already has 8 million) Farmers, Oil, Gas, Renewable Energy producers, Rural manufacturers, Infrastructure, Forestry, etc,. etc will be needing service.
*Just one autonomous car will use 4,000 GB of data/day*
*Self-driving cars will soon create significantly more data than people-3 billion people's worth of data, according to Intel*
*At some point within the next two to three years, consumers will come to expect car connectivity to be standard*
Links
One autonomous car will use 4,000 GB of data per day

How connected cars are turning into revenue-generating machines

AT&T, Verizon,TMobile ready with 4.5G LTE (nothing to wait on 4.5G technology is here already.).
Rural spectrum already in pocket.
Watch 2017,
Link
Mobile Broadband Forum: 4.5G WTTH Helping Accelerate Next Generation Fixed Wireless - Telecompetitor


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

if the fcc's broadband map is any indication, they don't have a clue how many people actually lack broadband access. example, Their map shows my entire township as being able to get 25mbps cable from charter, when in reality there isn't a single household that is served by charter in our township.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Lets not forget the synergies this will create for AT&T.

Overnight reports from the US suggest that AT&T will win a multi-billion dollar contract to build a nationwide first-responder network that will also provide the company with 20MHz of mobile spectrum.

If AT&T does win the contract the decision is likely to give the company substantial spectrum that it can use for other mobile services, so long as they can be reallocated to emergency services when and where needed.

AT&T tipped to win 25-year US emergency network deal


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Bedford11 said:


> Lets not forget the synergies this will create for AT&T.
> 
> Overnight reports from the US suggest that AT&T will win a multi-billion dollar contract to build a nationwide first-responder network that will also provide the company with 20MHz of mobile spectrum.
> 
> ...


I'm skeptical of their claim that AT&T will be able to use 'unused' capacity in the area reserved for emergency services for their own purposes. Since it is government owned, local governments will come up with their own ideas for how the unused capacity can be used.

How it will benefit AT&T is in tower locations. In order to cover an area for emergency services they may need additional towers. They might get permission to build towers on government property, like highway easements, parks etc. where permission normally isn't granted if it is necessary to fill in a dead spot. I'm sure they'd be allowed to put cellular or fixed wireless antennas on those towers in addition to what's needed for emergency services, so in the long run they may end up the best cellular coverage. Plus the cost of running fiber to rural towers would be subsidized by the need to do so for the emergency services contract.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

*Free and Fast
A broke preacher on the poor side of town can muster 20,000 people on his Free network.
In the new upcoming era of deregulation where 5, 6 of the Big providers are able to provide wireless/wired internet to consumers, even if they wanted to collude on high pricing, the free markets have an answer. Let the deregulation begin! Open free/cheap with no throttle, DirectTV Now and all the others services flow right in, Competition is good for the consumer. Who knows what new technology will provide for the consumer in the next few years, things are happening very rapidly.

Terabit-per-second network targets Houston launch

Pittsburgh startup to 'democratize' broadband with free wireless Internet | FierceTelecom

Meta Mesh | Wireless Networking for All.

PittMesh | Pittsburgh Community Wireless

AT&T CEO Confident Regulatory Problems Will Melt Away

Why AT&T Is So Excited For President Trump

AT&T has set a timeline to phase out satellites and set-top boxes

AT&T wants to be the CIO of your life.

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/b...ort-at-t-has-set-a-timeline-to-phase-out.html*


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

More journalists recycling already discredited stories from other journalists about AT&T phasing out satellite in 3 to 5 years. What a load of horse****.


----------



## Jason Nipp (Jun 10, 2004)

That's why I have no faith in journalism at this time in my life.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

I love the free stuff - nothing is free - it might not be detailed out in a bill but you would pay in your tax bill and knowing how efficient government is - probably actually cost you twice as much as it would from a private competitor. But it sounds good as election issue.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

I agree, Journalism is Dead.
A good journalist would have poked around behind the scenes and seek out people in the know. People like Ergen, the big man at Dish who said that the bulk of TV would be internet based within 5 years, people like Bezos the big man at Amazon who said it is better to cannibalize your own products than wait for a competitor to do it.

The Big Players (non traditional) are entering the TV market, mucho more tech savy in the internet sector. AT&T is going to have to do what they have to do in order to thrive in this brave new market.

Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. etc. do not have a legacy TV service they have to protect. It is going to get bloody for some providers/sectors as they battle for king of streaming TV.

Here's Why AT&T's DirecTV Now Service Isn't as Good as It Could Be


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

CEO's say all kinds of things to satisfy shareholders and investors. Doesn't mean it will actually happen


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

You got that right!


----------



## Aridon (Mar 13, 2007)

chances14 said:


> CEO's say all kinds of things to satisfy shareholders and investors. Doesn't mean it will actually happen


Seems right to me. I mean Directv certainly doesn't NEED now right this second. They are still the king of pay tv but the writing is on the wall. They know full and well they will cannibalize their pay tv with an online offering. At first it won't be much but it is pretty clear TV is changing considerably long term. So it seems the "better to cannibalize your own service than have a competitor do it" is exactly what D* is doing right now.

As for satellites getting phased out in 5 years. That is just stupid and agreed.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

DirectTV Now is now Free of charge. Talk about an evolving competitive market, just heating up, wait till the other giants enter, going to be fun to watch.

T-Mobile trolls AT&T, says it'll pick up tab for rival's new TV streaming service | Technology | Dallas News

Another entrant into the streaming TV market.
Streaming Service fuboTV Pacts with Fox, NBCU, A+E & Others - TVUSA

Don't look at this
Comcast CFO Says Company's Cooking Up Streaming TV Service

It's happening right in front of our eyes.
Crain's Detroit Business : Subscription Center
Streaming TV Will Put Pressure on Content Providers -- The Motley Fool

Will be great to get all these international channels via streaming, won't be long till it hits the U.S.
Sky, Cisco launch streaming OTT platform - Broadband TV News

This is so true, whoever can create the easy to navigate interface will be a winner.
"The company that creates the most user-friendly and personalized service will have a vital edge in the race to win millions of viewers who are dropping cable and satellite packages and their often clunky channel guides, analysts said."
"Given the amount of choice you have today, it is amazing that no one has built a better recommendation engine for (traditional) TV," said Michael Nathanson, an analyst with MoffettNathanson.

The stakes are high. Over the past six years, the amount of time people aged 18 to 24, part of advertisers' most coveted demographic, spent watching traditional TV declined 42 percent, according to a presentation earlier this month by Business Insider Chief Executive Henry Blodget at the Ignition 2016 Conference.

Live TV streaming providers tap into viewer's tastes


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Did you bother to see what is actually free? It's not the exact same thing as DIRECTV now that you pay for. Not even in the same realm.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Get out of the way and let the free markets decide, the perfect storm combined with emerging tech. DirectTV Now will do very well under this new environment.

"He applauded President-elect Trump's call for the elimination of two regulations for every new one created.

Among the broad changes O'Rielly outlined in his speech included a move to undo certain policies; the clearing away of regulatory underbrush; the move to develop a pro-growth, pro-innovation agenda; and the overhauling the older commission processes.

O'Rielly called for the updating of existing media ownership rules, which he called "relics of the nascent media world of a bygone era," and he reiterated his call for the elimination for broadcasters to keep paper correspondence files."

O'Rielly: Pro-Growth, Pro-Innovation Agenda on FCC Horizon


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bedford11 said:


> Get out of the way and let the free markets decide, the perfect storm combined with emerging tech.


Do you really expect the "free market" to decide in your favor?

It is not the FCC that is preventing all of the fantasies you promote. It is the industry. As already outlined, making your dreams come to pass would require MORE government overreach and interference - not less regulations.

Left entirely up to the industry and "free market" forces we could end up with a worse situation than we have today. Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Politicians championing reduction in regulations are not doing it to benefit consumers, but to benefit the industry. Obviously there are and always will be regulations that are outdated, were written incorrectly or with unnecessary complexity, or were bought and paid for by industry lobbyists to protect the profits they feel they're entitled to. Those should go, but it is wishful thinking to believe that politicians will correctly identify all of those and leave regulations that exist to benefit consumers in place.

Regulations are necessary to correct market failures, both for the public good and for the benefit of individual consumers. Like food safety laws so you don't have to check review sites to see if people get sick eating the meat from your local grocery store or restaurant. They also fix 'tragedies of the commons': for instance, it is free to dump waste in the river behind your factory, so clean water regulations were required to make doing that cost more than disposing of it properly. They're also necessary in an industry that has high barriers to entry and limited resources, like DTH satellite broadcasting. Both because you don't want someone else launching a satellite in the same location and frequency as Directv and broadcasting at higher power to drown them out, and because in exchange for allowing them to use scarce resources like satellite frequencies they can be required to serve as many customers as possible by i.e. offering them their local stations.

But what regulations should not try to do, and what a lot of "deregulate everything!" people will point to as examples for why 'all regulation is bad', is regulations that try to interfere with contract law where there is no market failure. Getting involved in the way Bedford11 seems to want would be exactly that - the government would have to create new regulations preventing networks from refusing to sell streaming rights to the local stations, and preventing the NFL from refusing to allow streaming of their games on those local stations, just so he can realize his dream of streaming completely replacing traditional broadcast TV.

If the networks were forced to sell those rights, after they threw a hissy fit and fought it in court for years, they'd offer it at a very high price. As would the NFL. And suddenly those cheap streaming packages would be even more expensive than the cable and satellite subscriptions they replaced! Now they may and probably will choose (i.e. their choice, not forced on them by the government) to sell them in some fashion - either like CBS as a standalone streaming package of their network's programming (minus the NFL) or like the others make it available on their O&O stations for now, see how that goes, and later when they have a better idea as to their value sell the rights to their local affiliates who could then sell them to Directv, Sling and other streaming providers. But since the local stations will have to pay the networks more to get those rights, they'll charge more to providers for them. So your bill keeps going up...


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

slice1900 said:


> Politicians championing reduction in regulations are not doing it to benefit consumers, but to benefit the industry. Obviously there are and always will be regulations that are outdated, were written incorrectly or with unnecessary complexity, or were bought and paid for by industry lobbyists to protect the profits they feel they're entitled to. Those should go, but it is wishful thinking to believe that politicians will correctly identify all of those and leave regulations that exist to benefit consumers in place.
> 
> Regulations are necessary to correct market failures, both for the public good and for the benefit of individual consumers. Like food safety laws so you don't have to check review sites to see if people get sick eating the meat from your local grocery store or restaurant. They also fix 'tragedies of the commons': for instance, it is free to dump waste in the river behind your factory, so clean water regulations were required to make doing that cost more than disposing of it properly. They're also necessary in an industry that has high barriers to entry and limited resources, like DTH satellite broadcasting. Both because you don't want someone else launching a satellite in the same location and frequency as Directv and broadcasting at higher power to drown them out, and because in exchange for allowing them to use scarce resources like satellite frequencies they can be required to serve as many customers as possible by i.e. offering them their local stations.
> 
> ...


Very well stated......Just follow the money.......For those who live under rocks.....Google "K" street....and see how everything even our democracy is up for sale!


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

You guys have a front row seat. I used to think like you. I know where you are coming from. Pay TV will change more rapidly with less regulation. AT&T is all for it. Cut the regs. and red tape already. Funny how all the money has congregated in Washington D.C., Three of the richest counties in America surround D.C. where there is little to no manufacturing, just paper shuffeling and power grabbing has made it that way. Out in the rest of the country where products and actual services, like the telcom and other industries actually produce something.

It's not that money controls Washington. Washington controls the money. They have an industrial logic to this business model just like any other business model. And that is to extract power from the rest of the country in money into centralized location which is Washington.
Watch and learn in 2017 and beyond. Going to be fun watching the Comm. and tech sectors boom.

It Is Time To Unshackle The Communications Sector

It's Not That Money Controls Washington. Washington Controls the Money

Just look at this red tape nightmare, has been years and years trying to cut thru to get a simple task done.

DISH certification brings La Plata County closer to Denver TV

Is Denver TV coming to Durango?

FCC Gives Officials More Time to Respond to Broadcaster Petitions | Broadcasting & Cable

Commissioners pursuing Clarksburg channels on satellite


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Over time the market might correct for the consumer, but pull those regulations and the prices will most likely rise more than they do currently. And if they do, the decline of pay tv subscriptions will increase which should push the prices back down. Or at least that is the theory the totally free market types want us to believe.

Those companies don't pay all that money for all those lobbyists to help us the consumer. Of course if you still believe in the tooth fairy, you could believe that i suppose.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Too much competition (a very good thing for the consumer) is coming into the market, a few short years ago we never would have thought that a phone co., internet co., online marketing co would be providing TV services, just a few short years ago you just had what, maybe 4 major providers and soaring prices, now you see lower prices coming due to good ol competition. Be very thankful that technology (not regulation) has gotten us here. I am all for smart regs from the FCC.


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

Ok....I followed the links...a few are kinda out there and another is an opinion piece!
This is about ideology and not improving it......Just complaints.....The magic (phoney) Free Market....
This is about political discourse not problem solving....
We saw deregulation and it has messed up the electrical grid, and old Judge Green breaking up ATT many decades ago.....Never lowered one thing....Just made a bill for local and long distance separate...
Why people think any company gives a hoot about us, its all about proffits they make off us.....

We all see where this conversation is going......Im outa here!


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Bedford11 said:


> Watch and learn in 2017 and beyond. Going to be fun watching the Comm. and tech sectors boom.


Wow, you've really swallowed the spiel you're being fed hook, line and sinker, haven't you? You remind me of all the democrats who thought Obama's election was going to change the world. Now it is conservatives who see a revolution coming. Reality is going to hit them in the face, just like it hit the liberals in the face when they realized that control of the white house and congress does NOT give you control of Washington. The people with the money are still in charge, as they have always been.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Pay TV is changing, take a look at few pages here

Tag: streaming | TVNewsCheck.com

For today's social and video networks, the human network - you and me - is changing the entire business models of publishers, TV and radio broadcasters and even cable TV companies as well as content providers in entertainment, news and sports. The real question, then, is not whether broadcasters, advertisers and content providers will be disrupted by the power of us and what we produce and distribute - but how quickly?

How Platforms Will Disrupt the Future of Media and Entertainment - [email protected]


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

I used to pay .56 cents a minute for long distance telephone service. Once competition entered, Now I pay .01 cent a minute.

Same will happen with pay TV.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Bedford11 said:


> I used to pay .56 cents a minute for long distance telephone service. Once competition entered, Now I pay .01 cent a minute.
> 
> Same will happen with pay TV.


Wow. That's such a different world. That fact that you are trying to compare those two is frightening. Tv has never had a regulation like the old pots phone lines that are half the reason they cost so much. Pay tv will increase in price per minute available, it'll never fall. Not over the long haul. To suggest otherwise is to ignore how it all operates in the first place. And I don't just mean the old ways. I mean especially streaming.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bedford11 said:


> Pay TV will change more rapidly with less regulation. AT&T is all for it.


Big companies do not support ideas because they are good for consumers. Big companies support ideas because they are good for big companies.

Less regulation will not make sure ATTWS is giving fair access to other streaming providers over their network. Less regulation will not require new entrants to be given a fair chance to compete.

If an idea that helps a big company also happens to help a consumer that is great ... but never forget that the priority of any viable commercial company is to make money for themselves. And that means supporting ideas that help the company.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

*A reminder ... this is not a place for political discourse. Stay out of the weeds of Republican vs Democrat, etc.*


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

The whole thing kinda reminds me of the scam called Net Neutrality....Sounds so good to the average Joe....But its just a word smiths way of playing and pulling the wool over the public's eye!


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Bedford11 said:


> I used to pay .56 cents a minute for long distance telephone service. Once competition entered, Now I pay .01 cent a minute.
> 
> Same will happen with pay TV.


Are you really so dense you don't see the difference? The bill you pay the cable or satellite company isn't for the delivery, it is for the content. Directv doesn't have a lot of cost to shed by dumping its satellites - in another post a while back I made a rough calculation that it probably costs them around a quarter a month per subscriber to maintain and upgrade their satellite fleet. Even if delivery via streaming was totally free it wouldn't change your bill, unless you think they would pass that quarter in savings along to you, because the vast majority of their cost is paying content providers.

Competition isn't going to make sports rights cost less, unless you are willing to substitute MLS soccer for the NFL and bowling for college football. It isn't going to make prime time programming cost less, unless you are willing to substitute Hee Haw reruns for Big Bang Theory. Sure, maybe you don't watch that stuff, or cable shows like Walking Dead - if so you are a perfect candidate for cord cutting and can already realize that savings. But people who do that _aren't saving money because streaming is cheaper for delivery_, they are saving money because they prefer or are willing to substitute inexpensive content.

People who like football and HBO and so forth are going to have to pay a lot whether they get it delivered to a satellite dish, or a cable, via a gigabit fiber connection to their home, 5G wireless or ESP. Streaming doesn't lower content costs AT ALL, and no amount of competition imagined by someone who obviously has clue how economics even works will change that.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Content Providers will be Feeling the pain also.
This is truly a revolution.
Splintering and lots of M&A all at the same time, amazing to watch.
The cost to enter the streaming market is sooo much cheaper than satellite thus bringing in even more top flight and lower end competition

You are going to be amazed at the content coming from the little guys, if a cat video can hold their attention, well, the sky's the limit. lol

It's time to change the core beliefs - or mental models - of media and entertainment companies if they want to survive,
It is not whether broadcasters, advertisers and content providers will be disrupted by the power of us and what we produce and distribute - but how quickly?

We, the people, are about to be direct competitors to the likes of ABC, NBC and CBS.
Look what me and you are doing right now, we are creating our own content, we could be watching reruns of Happy Days but we choose the much more brain stimulating form of interactive media, just imagine the stimulation kids are getting thru interactive social media. Much more engaging than a non interactive cartoon.
Hollywood wants to fight back with interactive content, we need fast internet connections for that, satellite can't deliver, fastest way there is the quick install of wireless fiber better known as Fixed wireless, here they come, Google, AT&T, Dish with their spectrum, Verizon, CoOps, cities, etc,. etc..
Competition in Content and Delivery is good for the consumer and we know what it does for pricing.
TV and Internet will be cheaper due to this.
Link
How Platforms Will Disrupt the Future of Media and Entertainment - [email protected]

Summarizing the pros and cons for OTT distribution, Dish Network Chairman and CEO Charlie Ergen said there is a danger that the pay-TV ecosystem could be "chopped up" into a paradigm that is "truly an à la carte experience."

"The barriers to entry are not great, so pretty much anybody could enter into the marketplace," Ergen said Wednesday during Dish's third-quarter earnings call with investment analysts and media. "So, there's a lot of technical things you've got to do and there's some capital and so forth. But there's certainly big guys, big companies that could enter the business."

Streaming TV Will Put Pressure on Content Providers

Many more Giants to enter the fray, end to end, from content to delevery.
Mr. Ergen appears unconcerned-and it seems with good reason. He said that foreign carriers, cable operators and internet companies could also be interested in Dish's spectrum. And he is clearly prepared to wait for the right buyer to emerge. A lot could happen before 2020-the earliest deadline for Dish to put its spectrum to use in a network.

*Ergen: Dish not doing M&A deal would be 'malpractice' in the wake of AT&T-Time Warner merger*

Ergen: Dish not doing M&A deal would be 'malpractice' in the wake of AT&T-Time Warner merger | FierceCable

Dish: Ergen's Vision Is Worth More Than the Market Thinks


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

Bedford11 said:


> Content Providers will be Feeling the pain also.
> This is truly a revolution.
> Splintering and lots of M&A all at the same time, amazing to watch.
> The cost to enter the streaming market is sooo much cheaper than satellite thus bringing in even more top flight and lower end competition
> ...


Why do you keep posting advertisements and opinion pieces?....You sources are getting to be troll like?

Im seeing a pattern more like an agenda?


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

This all reminds me of the land line telephone and data network discussion of decades ago. Other than via Satellite someone controls the last mile of wire to your house. So AT&T or ?? may own the big fiber pipes to your town but who owns the wire between that fiber and your house. They will really control the costs. The fiber providers may own the big pipe and do the contracts to the local phone/ cable/? company. It isn't going to get cheaper in total. Your TV contract may go down but then your internet bill will go up. We may have choices in the future but those will still be limited at some point by one provider.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

And to think the myriad of 5G wireless fiber providers have not arrived yet in the cities.
Verizon says they will be there in 2017 ready to mix it up. Sprint owner just released they will be spending 50 Billion to up their game.

AT&T going out of their footprint and competing with the local providers to gain millions of customers.

The IOT demands wireless to be everywhere.

Cable/AT&T/Google plus the coming 5G wireless players.

Almost forgot about SpaceX coming with their LEO based internet service.

There will be many TV providers to switch between,, no contract to hold you in, click your mouse and you have a new provider.

Internet provider gets greedy?, with the options for high speed internet available just make the switch.

Just looking at some of the pricing, Looks like a nice 50 meg. unlimited service will average about 40-50 bucks around the country once the buildout gets going/concluded.

Competition is good.

AT&T announces it will match Google Fiber's price and speed in Kansas City

AT&T's newest fiber customers to pay $40 more than Google Fiber users

AT&T drops fiber prices to Google Fiber levels

Japanese Telecom Co. Will Invest $50 Billion to Create 50,000 Jobs in U.S. - 

SpaceX plans worldwide satellite Internet with low latency, gigabit speed

AT&T: Mining the MDU Market | Light Reading


----------



## Aridon (Mar 13, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Wow. That's such a different world. That fact that you are trying to compare those two is frightening. Tv has never had a regulation like the old pots phone lines that are half the reason they cost so much. Pay tv will increase in price per minute available, it'll never fall. Not over the long haul. To suggest otherwise is to ignore how it all operates in the first place. And I don't just mean the old ways. I mean especially streaming.


They were expensive because there was zero competition. Then they were forced to open their lines to resellers and suddenly prices started to tumble. Then the internet became main stream and VOIP took over. I haven't paid for my home phone in 8 years and have free calls to USA and Canada. Unlimited. Thank you Google Voice via Obi.

Similar will happen with TV and Internet. New market entrants are going to force competition in a market where there was virtually none. Many people, simply refused to use satellite for one reason or another and many simply refused to use cable on the other side. Same with internet. DSL is a joke in most of America. One real provider. In areas with many providers, prices area always less.

As new wireless options expand over the next 10 years the Internet, how you connect and how much you pay are going to change rapidly. Same with Pay TV. New entrants are cutting packages that would cost $135 with D* to $35 or $45 and giving you 5 streams. People pay for internet regardless so it is a sunk cost.

You know the hilarious thing. You could Stack D* with 2 other house holds and still pay more for TV than you would just getting it through Vue or Sling or NOW. That is pretty ridiculous pricing and it may take a decade for people to slowly do something about it but that era is quickly coming to an end.

People love to talk about "free markets" and other buzz words but seem to forget that the markets we have in Pay TV / Internet space are hardly free and competition has been stifled for decades. Quite frankly, these providers have had enough Welfare and it is time for the consumer to get some love.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Aridon said:


> New entrants are cutting packages that would cost $135 with D* to $35 or $45 and giving you 5 streams.


You're dreaming if you think content providers are going to accept making far less money. Streaming is cheaper now because a lot of stuff like the NFL is missing, or streaming is such a minor component (i.e. ESPN) that they are OK with making it free for now. That won't continue as streaming gains traction.

Certain people here seem to think that people watching cat videos on Youtube means that people will happily substitute that for what they're watching on TV now. Whatever!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

You cannot get everything that is receivable through a DIRECTV satellite subscription via legal streaming sites.
You cannot get everything that is receivable through a DISH Network satellite subscription via legal streaming sites.
You cannot get everything that is receivable through a AT&T UVerse satellite subscription via legal streaming sites.

You may be able to get alternative programming via streaming (lower quality, less popular).
You may be able to get higher quality programming via streaming WITH a DIRECTV or other satellite/cable subscription.
But you cannot get everything receivable through a satellite/cable subscription via legal streaming.

And if you believe that the market will magically change and EVERYTHING that is available via a traditional subscription service will become available via legal streaming then you probably have not been paying attention to the actual marketplace. Not fantasies but realities.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> You cannot get everything that is receivable through a DIRECTV satellite subscription via legal streaming sites.
> You cannot get everything that is receivable through a DISH Network satellite subscription via legal streaming sites.
> You cannot get everything that is receivable through a AT&T UVerse satellite subscription via legal streaming sites.
> 
> ...


I'd change one thing there. If it does become available it will cost more than what it costs today on traditional feeds.

I can easily see the day where streaming services will have the same feel as traditional in terms of offerings of channels. Where they carry most things but not all. Because there's no service that has everything today. But I suspect only ones like DIRECTV and dish will have that feel. Everyone else will probably be a lot more fragmented.

I'm honestly surprised we haven't seen a Comcast over the top offering yet. Charter too... I expect them in the next couple years though. Verizon too.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> I'm honestly surprised we haven't seen a Comcast over the top offering yet. Charter too... I expect them in the next couple years though. Verizon too.


Verizon is in the game, is called Go90. Is just that they failed miserably with their implementation.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

People are mixing apples and oranges. Telephone costs went down because Internet became more attractive. People were using the Internet to communicate more than telephone... and the telephone companies had to adjust downward.

Internet service has gone up. Performance has increased too... but price to consumer keeps going up as the services improve. BUT

The programming... the content you watch via satellite or streaming on the Internet... that's like your phone call content. It will cost increasingly less to transmit that programming content to you... but if you want that content, you'll have to pay for it. Content, as they say, is king!


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

Stewart Vernon said:


> People are mixing apples and oranges. Telephone costs went down because Internet became more attractive. People were using the Internet to communicate more than telephone... and the telephone companies had to adjust downward.
> 
> Internet service has gone up. Performance has increased too... but price to consumer keeps going up as the services improve. BUT
> 
> The programming... the content you watch via satellite or streaming on the Internet... that's like your phone call content. It will cost increasingly less to transmit that programming content to you... but if you want that content, you'll have to pay for it. Content, as they say, is king!


I think it is a perfect example of how deregulation is suppose to help and save the consumer money!
The price of phone calls went up overall....This was 30 years before VOIP's.
They said the same crap with the energy sector....All it helps is corporations bottom line and does zero for the consumer!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The goal of most companies is to make as much money as profitable. They try to make more profit each year ... or at least the same as the year before if they cannot increase profits.

If you take away a profitable part of a company they will seek to make that money elsewhere on their invoices. Some savings can come from not needing to support the lost business ... but if they lose a part of the business that was subsidizing the rest of their operations they need to find a way to maintain their profits. Which generally comes at the expense of their customers.

New entrants who never had the profits still want to make money ... but they do not have to explain to shareholders why they are making less money in the same business than they were 10, 20 or 30 years ago. If an older company can shift their business to new business that helps in the explanation - and avoids it (to a certain extent). If the company is making more money each year there is less explaining to do.

Bell Telephone and General Telephone started out as rivals ... to the point where Bell refused to connect GTE communities (and other independents) to the Bell network. That problem was worked out and the various phone companies worked together as monopolies in their own territories (with the occasional border dispute over who should serve a specific area). It took decades for the "cost savings" of breaking up AT&T to be seen. Cheap local service and expensive long distance was replaced with more expensive local service and cheaper long distance. Incumbent companies were forced to provide access and provide service to resellers. Only within recent years has wireless and Internet provided real competition instead of a slight discount.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Competition is the key word.

Look at all the players getting into the streaming TV and Broadband markets.
Like AT&T says "The Future of TV is Now". DirectTV Now. When the DVR hits the market in the upcoming year you will see migration to streaming en masse.

The choices (competition) for delivering these streaming services is booming.

OneWeb will begin providing low-latency broadband access to rural areas in the United States, and to emerging markets worldwide by 2019.

The company also will offer its networks to mobile operators and ISPs, so they can extend their coverage at low cost.

In addition, it plans to target cellular backhaul, the Internet of Things and connected cars.

The public/private partnerships looks interesting, no problem with utility pole placement.

as well as leasing small cell antennas on connected utility poles to wireless carriers

Softbank Pumps $1B Into Global Web Access Race | Deals | TechNewsWorld

Atlanta Wraps Up RFIs for Fiber, Wireless | Light Reading


----------



## Aridon (Mar 13, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> People are mixing apples and oranges. Telephone costs went down because Internet became more attractive. People were using the Internet to communicate more than telephone... and the telephone companies had to adjust downward.


Cost went down when third party resellers were allowed on networks. They could resell Bellsouth, Nynex etc on their same lines but at a much lower rate. This was before the internet VOIP was even a thing. In fact I remember connecting to dial up at the time and well into the movement. This is kind of similar to the MVNO movement, which is also considerably cheaper than post paid.

In addition, long distance prices dropped considerably when more competition entered the market. Companies like OPEX, Sprint and a myriad of others turned long distance costs on a massive downtrend. Long before VOIP was ever a thing.

SO the idea that POTS only got cheap when VOIP came around is BS. VOIP was the final nail the coffin but hardly the first.

Even if content cost are exactly the same or rise the fact that streaming can remove the HD fee, Advanced receiver fee or not charge me $6 or 8 a month for my boxes while still offering 5 streams is appealing enough. So once content evens out there will be little reason to stick with traditional service for many. Although I expect that many eventually aren't going to be bothered paying an extra $80 or more per month for a few channels. I can buy entire seasons for far less than that of the shows I miss.

Also, the idea that ESPN can continue to charge what it charges when viewership is in serious decline will turn out to be false.

Same with the other channels. We should see some channel consolidation in the future (over the next 10 years) and it wouldn't surprise me to see ESPN get spun off from Disney.


----------



## Aridon (Mar 13, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> You're dreaming if you think content providers are going to accept making far less money. Streaming is cheaper now because a lot of stuff like the NFL is missing, or streaming is such a minor component (i.e. ESPN) that they are OK with making it free for now. That won't continue as streaming gains traction.


How is NFL missing? If I sign up for Vue I can watch the exact same games as is on Directv. Not everyone has access to local channels but the same could be said for D* at one point as well. Locals aren't breaking the bank either. Only $10 a month over regular package prices. So I'm curious where you get the idea that NFL isn't on streaming? It is in my area all on Vue and there is also OTA.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

As for content (Hollywood) they are feeling it too.

ESPN begging to be placed in the new low tier (cheap) streaming bundles.

A cinema business that is facing rapid changes in a period of digital upheaval.

Higher costs of making and marketing big movies, as well as plummeting home video revenue, have dragged down studio profits. Once-bankable home entertainment sales - including DVDs and video on demand - have dropped more than 30% since 2010, according to Digital Entertainment Group.

New Content coming from everywhere, Hollywood, Sports, and News was all we had a few short years ago, that game has changed.

Profits among the seven biggest studios fell 17% during the first nine months of the year to about $3 billion, according to a recent research report by investment firm Cowen & Co. More than half those profits went to just one studio - Disney - the report by analyst Doug Creutz indicated.

Big flops. Waning studio profits. What Hollywood's record box office doesn't tell you


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

They just keep coming, and there's more to come from this one and Amazon, amazing way to subsidize TV,
Anybody remember the Blue Light Specials at K-Mart? Imagine this on a grand scale with millions of viewers, breaking down the doors like Black Friday everyday.
You bet, the Walmarts, Targets, Amazons will be glad to give you free/cheap streaming TV.

Walmart launches a free streaming service, Vudu Movies on Us


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

And if the profits keep coming down... expect less new content to be made... and expect them to ask for more money for what they do make. It's a pipe dream to think streaming will stay cheaper if it becomes the main revenue stream for content providers.

Mark my, and other people's words, you will rue the day you wished satellite/cable TV bundles to go away when you have to pay $5-$10 for each channel you want to watch something on OR worse, end up having to pay $2-$5 per program/episode you want to watch of something... Content will cost something, no matter how you consume it. You get it cheaper today via streaming because that's the 2nd or third option from the content provider. Once streaming becomes a necessary primary revenue stream, that cost will go up.

Think about music... We went from free radio to paid radio. Still have free radio, but paid radio (satellite or streaming) has some things you can't get otherwise. And people complained about $20 CDs for music, but now you pay several dollars a song for a digital copy, which is much higher per song than buying an album/CD was. IF you want to keep having content, it will cost you something... somehow... or the content will go away.

And, yeah... amateur stuff and Youtube is an option... but are you going to pay big money for that content? IF not, then never expect it to be of the quality you've come to expect from TV and movies. People balk at paying for stuff, but then complain if the quality goes down or shows they like go off the air.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Tell the artist they are making much more per song nowadays. It is exactly the opposite. Songs are not "several dollars" per song, they are $1.29 on iTunes. A full "CD" on iTunes about $10. When I was buying CDs 10 years ago, they were about $10.

Free radio exists and is more ubiquitous than ever. My free station, now has multiple free digital substations.

Additionally, through various providers (Apple, Google, Amazon) for $10 a month, I can now have access to literally millions of songs. Songs I would never have given a second thought about purchasing before.

In short, music is substantially cheaper in the digital age.

My guess is the average age of those thinking the TV provider industry is not going to change radically in the next 5 years is fairly high. Those in their 20s, and even more so in their teens are simply not watching TV the way we did. This industry is going to change.



Stewart Vernon said:


> Think about music... We went from free radio to paid radio. Still have free radio, but paid radio (satellite or streaming) has some things you can't get otherwise. And people complained about $20 CDs for music, but now you pay several dollars a song for a digital copy, which is much higher per song than buying an album/CD was. IF you want to keep having content, it will cost you something... somehow... or the content will go away.


----------



## Aridon (Mar 13, 2007)

I mostly agree but 5 years is far too short.

Streaming at minimum needs the two big boys to get in the ring and that is still at least a year or three away. Once Google and Apple enter, that will be the start of things getting real. It will take at least 5 years for that to happen and get everything perfected.

Vue is probably the best service right now but could still use some DVR tweaks and could use a couple of channels. Also more locals. Sling is getting their DVR up and running and who the hell knows what AT*T will do with NOW but I imagine all of these companies will eventually offer either full on demand libraries for 30+ days or some kind of DVR option.

Once you see Google and Apple come into the mix, the entire phone eco system which has sucked people in will then drive those folks out of traditional TV and into streaming. As good as Vue is, people just don't see Sony or the Playstation brand as much of anything. Outside of gamer folk that is. Sling has had its ups and downs from the start.

Also you can expect Amazon to enter the arena at some point. Probably Microsoft and Verizon as well.

The space is really just starting to bud. It is going to take at least 5 years for it to mature and get some of the bigger players involved and solid.

Then in another 10 years or so we can expect wireless to make a larger impact on home broadband. We should see new technologies that begin to diversify options for folks. That should force prices to go down some and keep caps reasonable. Hell even now, 1tb is plenty for most folks streaming unless you live in front of the TV but as costs to deliver bandwidth continue to fall and as new technologies expand competition we should see prices fall and caps rise.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Music doesn't require the same overhead or investment that a TV show or movie does to produce either... so it's not quite apples to apples... but my larger point was that cost to buy music didn't just continue to drop. IF you don't think your TV is worth much to pay to watch... then it's hard to complain about missing anything... so I guess if people want to go that way, the industry can implode and we'll have far less content to choose from in the future. If that's what the market wants, then that's what the market will get.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Googles Unplugged TV service will reportedly launch in the first quarter of 2017 and include all CBS broadcast network content, including NFL football. _WSJ _pegs the price in the $25-$40 range per month, while Reuters has it at $30-$40.

*"We acquired DirecTV for mobile. We're not in love with satellite technology,"* he said, adding that the values for consumers is that they can pay for the content and watch it any time on any device on they choose. He cited, in particular, consumers' ability to stream DirecTV from their mobile device to bigger screens via tools like Amazon Fire Stick or Apple TV.

YouTube signs on CBS, in advanced talks with Fox and Viacom for 'Unplugged' pay-TV service | FierceCable

Why We'll Soon Be Watching 9 Hours of Video a Day

We will have more quality content and pay less for it. Lot's of fat to render in the industry.
DirectTV Now in for a battle.


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

Right now everyone is trying to jump on the streaming bandwagon, I suspect most of these streaming services will fall by the wayside as the situation develops. Most people don't have the time to go to two or three different services to get the programming they want, so it's the ones with most content at a reasonable price are going to succeed. And a large part of the population is still stuck with internet speeds that simply won't support the services, and delivering high-bandwidth internet to everyone is simply not commercially viable.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Aridon said:


> Cost went down when third party resellers were allowed on networks. They could resell Bellsouth, Nynex etc on their same lines but at a much lower rate. This was before the internet VOIP was even a thing. In fact I remember connecting to dial up at the time and well into the movement. This is kind of similar to the MVNO movement, which is also considerably cheaper than post paid.
> 
> In addition, long distance prices dropped considerably when more competition entered the market. Companies like OPEX, Sprint and a myriad of others turned long distance costs on a massive downtrend. Long before VOIP was ever a thing.
> 
> ...


No offense but where do you live? I'm thinking a small town somewhere because prices never dropped here in California. They sky rocketed and everyone here started dumping their landlines for cell phones in masse because they where so much cheaper.

Reality is a lot of people live in small areas where costs never change much but in the bigger areas like Californian (Los Angeles and San Fran and San Diego etc) prices reflect much higher prices which is more the actual norm overall for a company.

Same thing with every utility out here. I think we may make up for a lot of the country because they figure they can always just charge us more and get away with it.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Bedford11 said:


> As for content (Hollywood) they are feeling it too.
> 
> ESPN begging to be placed in the new low tier (cheap) streaming bundles.
> 
> ...


Maybe you missed the part where I said Amazon and Netflix etc are the new version of Hollywood video and blockbuster for strait to home video movies etc and that's why Hollywood is helping all these companies make these programs on these channels. It's the same people as it's always been behind these companies productions. Thinking they aren't backed by the people of Hollywood is not paying attention.

And look through history. There's a reason so many fusions have come and gone and come back. It's how Hollywood works.

And how long before Disney buys Amazon? That's more realistic than most your takeaways from these articles you keep posting and claiming things they don't actually point too.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

raott said:


> Tell the artist they are making much more per song nowadays. It is exactly the opposite. Songs are not "several dollars" per song, they are $1.29 on iTunes. A full "CD" on iTunes about $10. When I was buying CDs 10 years ago, they were about $10.
> 
> Free radio exists and is more ubiquitous than ever. My free station, now has multiple free digital substations.
> 
> ...


Once again music just isn't even on the same planet as Hollywood and tv in any way, especially structurally.

With that said, it used to be people bought copies of the music. Today the digital people pay monthly or listen to more commercials than ever for their music. They probably pay more per time they listen to each song they like today than what they did before. Sure the artists aren't seeing as much, because they are locked into flat rates now monthly. But don't kid yourself if the industry hasn't figured out how to make money again. And in the end it's all about how much it costs us, isn't it? Isn't all this debate about how much it's going to cost us to watch tv not how much it'll cost studios?

And tv won't ever have to go through the drop that music had.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Bedford11 said:


> Googles Unplugged TV service will reportedly launch in the first quarter of 2017 and include all CBS broadcast network content, including NFL football. _WSJ _pegs the price in the $25-$40 range per month, while Reuters has it at $30-$40.


Maybe CBS sells them those rights, but it won't give you the NFL on your phone, because the NFL sold exclusive mobile rights to Verizon. It won't give you any NFL game you want on CBS, just the game on your "local" station (I guess the address on the credit card you used to subscribe, not sure how they will determine that) since the NFL sold exclusive rights to out of market games to Directv for NFL Sunday Ticket.

As usual the writers of those sensational "next big thing" articles don't have the full story. Just like they said Directv would offer 100 channels for $35, but it turns out that's only the introductory pricing, but the real price will be $55, and is missing local stations in most markets at that price. They were all hyping Directv Now as the next big thing a couple months ago, but it turned out to be the revolutionary product they said it would so they've moved on to the next one. DirecTV Now still struggling with NFL blackout issue | FierceCable

When this one turns out to not be all they're promising they'll move to hyping the Apple streaming product they've been rumor mongering about for years but maybe Apple has never even been working on, or maybe Comcast will be ready to launch some sort of streaming TV product and they'll talk about how this will be big because Comcast is going to be cannibalizing their own market until it launches and they find the gotchas.

If the Youtube Unplugged service gets the rights to carry CBS, but they can't reach agreement with ABC or NBC (because Disney and Comcast may see Google as a threat) and Directv Now is missing locals in most markets that aren't O&O, and Sling is selling you an OTA adapter to cure that deficiency in their product, and Vue has shortcomings of its own and so on then what? You can save money by streaming, but you have to compromise because there's some stuff you won't have access to. That's pretty much like the situation you already had, where you can get a cheap package from a lot of providers like Directv's Choice but it is missing a few channels you really would have wanted.


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

This should throw a lot of cold water on the discussion:

FCC Republicans vow to gut net neutrality rules "as soon as possible"

FCC Republicans confirm they'll act to topple net neutrality as quickly as possible - ExtremeTech


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Googles Unplugged TV service coming out of the gate with Google Home is going to be very interesting.

Their voice recognition is tops, TV viewing,Home control, even in cars, just amazing.

AT&T is a little behind in this area, will need to play catch up.

Order Pizza,
Stream video content to your cast TV. Play.Pause,Resume

Netflix Casting From Google Home Should be Up and Running Now | Droid Life

Google Home gets a ton of new actions for news, health, and ordering pizza

Made by Google

Google Home Gets New Tricks And You Can Even Order Pizza Now

AT&T is getting there.
Atticus for practice.
Apple has siri, Microsoft/Cortana, Amazon/Alexa.

Meet Atticus: the Entertainment Chatbot from AT&T

Welcome - AT&T Live

AT&T made a chatbot for lonely TV binge watchers

AT&T Live 2.0 - Android Apps on Google Play

AT&T pushing launch of internet portal to early 2017, tech vendor Synacor says | FierceCable

Report: AT&T Gearing Up Its Music Business (T)

Verizon/Yahoo efforts
Yahoo View: Watch TV Free Online
Yahoo launches a TV-watching site, Yahoo View, in partnership with Hulu


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Wow ... another way to order pizza. That is why I pay for TV.

We are seeing segmentation in the marketplace. It is good to see CBS partner with someone else ... but perhaps that should be read as a sign that "go it alone" is not working for them. But we are seeing a marketplace develop where one needs a different streaming provider for each channel or channel group. To replicate what one can get with a single satellite or cable subscription one would need to subscribe to multiple streaming platforms.

With any luck the streamers will be supported on one device ... otherwise one would need several boxes to receive all services.

And no, "casting" from a desktop computer is not desirable. Watching on a computer screen is not desirable. Ending up with a system where it is easier to get content on my cell phone than on my home HDTV is not desirable.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

You can get beer and smokes delivered too. lol

Drizly - Alcohol Delivery - Android Apps on Google Play

What do you all think?
The future interface for content discovery will be a voice interface or just standard text and click like we have now?

With TV being just another part of the web now, going to need a robust/easy to use content discovery engine.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

The money will be in advertising, when you have the customers in your portal. Tv bundles will be subsidized (cheap) by this and also pick up revenue from owning the delivery platform.

Verizon CEO, McAdam told the UBS conference that Verizon would in 2017 launch a service offer combining fast 5G wireless broadband service with a skinny streaming TV bundle in smaller towns as a test.

Wonder if DirectTV Now will be a few dollars cheaper than the already rock bottom pricing if you bundle it with AT&T's fixed wireless service?

2017 is going to be really interesting.
Verizon CEO Talks AT&T-Time Warner, Content Strategy


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

It is good to see CBS finally joining with someone else, hopefully that means the other streaming services can strike a deal. I think CBS found that $6/month standalone pricing doesn't work for the consumer, especially since it has ads. BTW, noticed that CBS streaming will have an original show not on their broadcast channels, some Good Wife follow on I think.

For me I could live with streaming and save money too. If CBS goes to PSVue that would then give me most of what I want to see. My other locals are visible OTA. Something like a TiVo OTA box would be nice. As it sits today it is a PITA to have to change sources for the various streamers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

CBS is already on PS Vue, but like ABC, it's for their O&O markets only. They also have a few non-O&O Fox and NBC stations, but only those from station groups they have deals with. If you want your non-CBS owned station, you still have to go through CBS All Access where nearly all CBS affiliates are now on it.

And before anyone asks, no you can't get any local station you want. Playstation actually bans your account if you're caught lying about your location. (i.e. you claim to be in NYC when you sign up, but the entire time your IP resolves to St Louis and the GPS when you use the mobile apps also peg you in St Louis)

And yes, the same mobile device restrictions apply. No NFL games on CBS, Fox, NBC, NFL Network or ESPN if you're watching on a mobile phone. And ABC is even more restricted, they use the WatchABC streams, so many syndicated shows and movies are replaced with Live Well Network programming, along with WLS's Cubs games, and the video goes to a rolling scoreboard anytime the local news shows sports highlights.


DirecTV Now also has geodetection, if the zip code on the credit card or pay pal account you used to signup doesn't match the DMA of the current location of your device (either via GPS, Location Services, or GeoIP), you don't see any locals or RSNs.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

Bedford11 said:


> Wonder if DirectTV Now will be a few dollars cheaper than the already rock bottom pricing if you bundle it with AT&T's fixed wireless service?


i'm sure they will do bundle deals. they will obviously zero rate directv now data.

but my prediction is the data caps for everything else will be so low that you will essentially be paying for the fixed wireless service for the sole basis of streaming directv now


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

Too much competition for that, all the new LTE and fiber broadband coming online has been unlimited. With 5 or more new wireless services ready to swoon in and take customers, not to mention the IOT customers, the competition will keep things in check.


----------



## chances14 (Nov 8, 2014)

Bedford11 said:


> Too much competition for that, all the new LTE and fiber broadband coming online has been unlimited. With 5 or more new wireless services ready to swoon in and take customers, not to mention the IOT customers, the competition will keep things in check.


I just don't believe there is going to be all this competition you claim there will be. most people will be lucky if they have 2 "legitimate" providers to choose from.


----------



## Bedford11 (Aug 21, 2015)

I see Google, AT&T, Verizon, Dishes Spectrum, plus at least one of the new LEO sat. internet companies pushing nation wide, most of the regional carriers will jump in, Starry is in, Sprint, Tmobile wants some action, There are a lot of local/regional wisp that are going LTE with their services, some statewide and multi state. I think we see some good competition.

These companies want you on the web and using all the data you want, it simply translates into more advertising dollars for them as you will see below.

We need to understand the power of the targeted ads that are coming into play.
It has been against the FCC regs. for Phone companies to advertise. This will be deregulated quickly.
Silicon Valley players, Internet cos. (google, Amazon,Yahoo etc. etc.) has not had TV in their arsenal. Their coming hard with TV services now.

These two sectors are about to collide.

Credit /Debit card companies are now selling Your detailed purchasing data to these companies.
If you purchase some cookware on your card. The cookware companies will pay BIGLY to have their ad pushed directly to you. Google has made Billions and Billions thru internet advertising ALONE, and now they have TV!
This is not even counting the local companies that will be easily accessed (money) thru these companies portals, such as the ones on the Google Home unit mentioned a few post back.
All of these companies want to be your portal onto the internet and keep you there for as long as they can.(remember TV is just another part of the internet now )
It is a gold rush to get you into their web, combine that with the IOT (at least 40 times larger than the human internet), the connected cars (AT&T already has 8 million), and I think these companies want wherever they can get a foothold.

Luxury Carmakers' HERE Map Service Taps Sensors for Traffic Data

Verizon Acquisition of Telogis Expands Company's Connected Car Footprint


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

You are still posting links irrelevant to the topic ... Pay TV. It doesn't matter how much bandwidth one gets or how cheap some speculator claims it will be if one cannot get the content over that bandwidth.


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

James Long said:


> You are still posting links irrelevant to the topic ... Pay TV. It doesn't matter how much bandwidth one gets or how cheap some speculator claims it will be if one cannot get the content over that bandwidth.


He doesn't rebut anything?.....I think this guy must be paid per post and link?......I said troll before....who knows now....How many of the post are just for this agenda?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Bedford11 said:


> I see Google, AT&T, Verizon, Dishes Spectrum, plus at least one of the new LEO sat. internet companies pushing nation wide


Dish is doing NOTHING with their spectrum so far. Haven't filed with the FCC to do anything with it. This isn't something that can be done overnight, and it will cost billions to do if/when they finally decide to pull the trigger. As for LEO satellite internet, people like Musk talking about it does NOT equal it being competition. Again, this is something that will take years.

Anyway, you are still confused about the difference between an internet pipe and content costs. Actors aren't going to lower the rates they ask just because there are new delivery methods available. If anything, having a lot of streaming competition will make content MORE expensive, because the demand will go up for new scripted shows for all these providers to have 'exclusive' content. Hopefully you at least understand economics well enough to understand that when demand (for scripted shows) goes up that the price will increase. Sure, they can go cheap with unknown actors and writers, but it makes a bigger splash when you hire a Kevin Spacey for something like this. There are only so many top actors and actresses out there, if they are receiving more offers they will ask more money and content prices will go UP.


----------



## ZandarKoad (Oct 25, 2009)

Yeah, I don't think any IP based solutions are going to be threatening DBS. I predict they will continue to be offered as a hybrid model for the for at least the next 5 years. I don't care how awesome your internet is, some server somewhere has to SEND that data to JUST YOU. DBS doesn't have that problem. The effective distribution bandwidth is infinite - they could 10x their subscriber base, and distribution costs wouldn't budge.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

ZandarKoad said:


> Yeah, I don't think any IP based solutions are going to be threatening DBS. I predict they will continue to be offered as a hybrid model for the for at least the next 5 years. I don't care how awesome your internet is, some server somewhere has to SEND that data to JUST YOU. DBS doesn't have that problem. The effective distribution bandwidth is infinite - they could 10x their subscriber base, and distribution costs wouldn't budge.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.


Yeah, not so much. Satellite systems have a finite life. DirecTV10 was launched in 2007, with a mission of 15 years. Maybe they can squeeze out a few more years, maybe not. Replacements aren't cheap and have a long lead time. You can take a look at the DirecTV14 and 15 threads on the time from contracting to in-orbit delivery. It was years.

IP-based solutions are coming, but they are not mature, yet. Last month, there was a DNS attack using IoT devices. There is a story on Bleeping Computer about an LG TV that got infected with a ransomware virus.

Five years is a long time. I would expect significant changes in IP delivery, and DirecTV would be foolish not to be part of it.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I saw an article recently that stated the record for viewers of a live stream was around two million. There's a way to go before the ability exists to handle even an average prime time program if all viewership was streamed, let alone the Super Bowl. We won't be close to this in five years. Nor will we have those rural corners of the country covered with broadband in five years.

I did a bit of googling to find out how much Directv's satellite fleet costs and found an article (Astrium Picked To Build DirecTV 15 Telecom Satellite - SpaceNews.com) from 2011 that states Directv had four satellites under construction (D14, D15, DLA1 and DLA2) at a total cost of about $1.8 billion. Let's round that up to $500 million per satellite, and assume they only last 15 years they are designed for. That adds up to $33 million per year, which means that each satellite costs 13 cents per month per subscriber. If they dropped 110 & 119 they could go with a fleet of 6 (two each at 99 & 103, one at 101, one in orbit spare) for less than a buck a month.

Satellite TV delivery is NOT expensive, despite what people may think. The satellites themselves are almost free, compared to the installation of the dish and providing equipment, which is why Directv has always been so focused on driving down the cost of installations and equipment. If you assume a modern Genie type DVR costs $200 and has a five year life, that's over $3 per month per subscriber - about 4x the cost of the ENTIRE satellite fleet!


----------

