# Cable/Sat companys losing customers.



## CarolinaGuy79

I just wonder how many customers Dish/Directv/Cable Lose on avg cause people has switched to Netflix cause they can now watch it on their TVs and also their is a program called playon which is $40 a year and can watch shows that has aire don tv from like spike tv,Nick as well as other channels, also plug ins of others stuff you can download and add to Playon, so I was just wondering how many are leaving Sat/Cable companys for this kind of thing.


----------



## grog

So far two have. I expect we will see three more next quarter.


----------



## CarolinaGuy79

Well I was thinking about it lo , I pay Dish about $70 a month and I get Netflix on my wii for $8 a month I would save alot of money if I just cut out Dish.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

CarolinaGuy, impossible to know for sure. But I will say the following.

(i) During 2Q10, the PayTV industry lost net subscribers for the first time, ever.

(ii) Today, Comcast reported a larger than expected decrease in basic cable subscribers. 

(iii) PayTV price hikes continue to outpace inflation, which is running at 0.5% a year.

CarolinaGuy, Netflix reported earnings one week ago, and it revised upward its EOY subscriber total by about 1.5M, to about 19.5M.

Netflix, coupled with Hulu and an OTA antenna, is a very compelling piece of hardware.


----------



## DodgerKing

CarolinaGuy79 said:


> I just wonder how many customers Dish/Directv/Cable Lose on avg cause people has switched to Netflix cause they can now watch it on their TVs and also their is a program called playon which is $40 a year and can watch shows that has aire don tv from like spike tv,Nick as well as other channels, also plug ins of others stuff you can download and add to Playon, so I was just wondering how many are leaving Sat/Cable companys for this kind of thing.


Direct has had a net growth of subs every quarter and indications are they will have pretty good 3rd quarter this year (report due out soon) and a very very good 4th quarter (report due at the beginning of 2011)


----------



## DodgerKing

Here is something else you may want to consider:



Satelliteracer said:


> It actually comes out of the Advertising department....but the commercials have won some critical acclaim and have gone viral to some notoriety. I can't tell you the number of people that ask if the mini giraffe is real. I'm not kidding.
> 
> *Meanwhile, another very strong year at DIRECTV, net positive growth in subscribers quarter after quarter, stock price at it's highest in 10 years....*


----------



## sherriebythesea

CarolinaGuy79 said:


> Well I was thinking about it lo , I pay Dish about $70 a month and I get Netflix on my wii for $8 a month I would save alot of money if I just cut out Dish.


If all you watch is non-current movies and old tv shows then this might be a good comparison but if you want to watch current network shows then this doesn't even make sense.


----------



## HobbyTalk

The networks show most of their programming on their web site the day after it airs.


----------



## Codfishjoe

HobbyTalk said:


> The networks show most of their programming on their web site the day after it airs.


Probably not for much longer with the way things are going.


----------



## janeslogin

CarolinaGuy79 said:


> Well I was thinking about it lo , I pay Dish about $70 a month and I get Netflix on my wii for $8 a month I would save alot of money if I just cut out Dish.





sherriebythesea said:


> If all you watch is non-current movies and old tv shows then this might be a good comparison but if you want to watch current network shows then this doesn't even make sense.


Much _TV is already old movies and old TV shows_. Even much news is often rather stale stuff that was available via news.google earlier in the day.

If Netflix and their ilk had closed captioning and subtitles on any significant percentage of their streaming titles I might quit Dish now. If/when Netflix and their ilk get closed captioning and subtitles I will discontinue Dish.

My replay of recorded programs is getting rather jerky and Dish service is such a hassle I am considering just going with the internet and Netflix now.


----------



## HobbyTalk

I just got an email from Comcast that their Xfinity TV service is now on-line. Xfinity is their version of TV Everywhere. I have Comcast for internet but do not have Comcast for cable TV. I went to logged into Xfinity and I can watch almost any program that is on the major networks, including Fox. Many of the programs being offered were on today. While I don't have to worry about losing the Fox local channels on the 1st, with Xfinity who cares if they go off?


----------



## brant

sherriebythesea said:


> If all you watch is non-current movies and old tv shows then this might be a good comparison but if you want to watch current network shows then this doesn't even make sense.


we cut dish network for netflix, hulu, and OTA.

there are plenty of new movies on netflix. they just spent a billion dollars for more content.

and with OTA we see all the new network tv shows. with windows media center we get to record them and watch at our convenience.

there comes a point when you realize paying $100/mo for TV is asinine. you would be amazed at how satisfying life remains when you ditch that payment.


----------



## Hoosier205

HobbyTalk said:


> I just got an email from Comcast that their Xfinity TV service is now on-line. Xfinity is their version of TV Everywhere.


No it isn't. Xfinity is simply a re-brand of their triple-play offerings in areas that have been upgraded to allow for more bandwidth and changes to the way they utilize it. TV Everywhere just happens to be included, but is not Xfinity itself.


----------



## Hoosier205

brant said:


> there are plenty of new movies on netflix. they just spent a billion dollars for more content.


Yes, a deal they made with Epix...for SD-only content.


----------



## HobbyTalk

Hoosier205 said:


> No it isn't. Xfinity is simply a re-brand of their triple-play offerings in areas that have been upgraded to allow for more bandwidth and changes to the way they utilize it. TV Everywhere just happens to be included, but is not Xfinity itself.


Whatever, point is I can watch Fox programming and not need to have any type of TV subscription via Dish or Comcast.


----------



## Hoosier205

HobbyTalk said:


> Whatever, point is I can watch Fox programming and not need to have any type of TV subscription via Dish or Comcast.


Then when/if Comcast has a dispute with FOX or any other network, you'd lose access via your television and TV Everywhere.


----------



## sigma1914

HobbyTalk said:


> Whatever, point is I can watch Fox programming and not need to have any type of TV subscription via Dish or Comcast.


Why not sell your TVs? You can enjoy TV on your tiny screen anywhere.


----------



## HobbyTalk

sigma1914 said:


> Why not sell your TVs? You can enjoy TV on your tiny screen anywhere.


Ummmm..... I have a computer hooked to the TV so I can view it at 42".


----------



## HobbyTalk

Hoosier205 said:


> Then when/if Comcast has a dispute with FOX or any other network, you'd lose access via your television and TV Everywhere.


Then I can just use fox.com via a proxy to view the content.


----------



## Dave

In answer to part of the ops question. Comcast I believe has lost 660,000
subscribers so far this year. Remember this is for just the first quarters of the year.


----------



## jsk

Some Internet providers, like Comcast, limit the amount of bandwidth you can use in a month. Has anyone run into problems with downloading too many TV shows?


----------



## Paul Secic

brant said:


> we cut dish network for netflix, hulu, and OTA.
> 
> there are plenty of new movies on netflix. they just spent a billion dollars for more content.
> 
> and with OTA we see all the new network tv shows. with windows media center we get to record them and watch at our convenience.
> 
> there comes a point when you realize paying $100/mo for TV is asinine. you would be amazed at how satisfying life remains when you ditch that payment.


Why would I want to watch TV shows on a computer?


----------



## SaltiDawg

Paul Secic said:


> Why would I want to watch TV shows on a computer?


brant never mentioned a computer much less viewing it on a computer.


----------



## STEELERSRULE

brant said:


> we cut dish network for netflix, hulu, and OTA.
> 
> there are plenty of new movies on netflix. they just spent a billion dollars for more content.
> 
> and with OTA we see all the new network tv shows. with windows media center we get to record them and watch at our convenience.
> 
> there comes a point when you realize paying $100/mo for TV is asinine. you would be amazed at how satisfying life remains when you ditch that payment.


I can see "some" savings with this setup, but not alot. A little more info would be needed.

I mean Netflix, for now, at it's cheapest is $8.99/month(add $1.00 for Blu-Ray Access), so that will come to around $10 with tax/fees, give or take $.50 cents.

HULU is free on the computer, but HULU Plus(can someone explain the difference, if any, too me) is $9.99/month currently, so that comes to like $10.60 with tax(6%).

For the antenna, it will all depend on where you live. The content will be FREE, once the right one is properly installed. But everyone's situation is different. Some need outdoor no matter what. And depending on what you need(antenna/rotor/amp/etc...) you could be talking of a "start-up cost(proper instllation included)" of close to $200-$300 for what you need. Some will be less, and in some cases alot less, but that probably sounds about right. It depends on each individual basis obviously.

If you have a HTPC, the initial building of that is ALOT. I shouldn't show a cost here, but for a reliable/really good/and won't be outdated(this is a big one) within 5 years HTPC cost around $800-$1000? I need help with that.

Now, you need broadband streaming. Again, everyone is in a different situation/location, with a different set of prices, and if they are lucky, CHOICES, which helps lower cost. But for a NON-CABLE SUBSCRIBER, would you say that a "need" of at least 10MB download(maybe more?) for someone who streams(and is not doing anything else while streaming with NO buffering during show) only would cost about $50/$60 a month, depending on where you are, and what is offered.

If you live in a metropolitan area, with cable/FIOS/other alternatives, the cost per MB might be less. But if live in a rural part of the country, where there is ONLY the local cable provider available, it will cost around $50/$60 a month(out here in NW PA, this is what it is for NON CABLE SUBS for 7MB/10MB bursts from Time Warner Cable, the only show in town.)

So, being conservative:
1. Netflix/$10
2. Hulu plus/ $10.60
3. Broadband internet $50 to $60/month depending on level of service and location.

Eliminating all startup costs for people(HTPC/antenna/needed add ons for reliabilty/miscellaneous items which can include DVR's), it still comes to about $70(some more, some less) a month to do that.

A savings, yes indeed(about $330 or more/year for someone with a $100/month cable bill), but not a huge difference.

This is not to deter anyone from trying, but really the only way to truly save is to put up an antenna, and be happey with just the locals. That would be the biggest savings of all. No streaming. And just rent movies via a local store.

Start to stream, and costs "SIGNIFICANTLY" increase because you need a solid/steady broadband in order to do it, and do it right.


----------



## phrelin

brant said:


> we cut dish network for netflix, hulu, and OTA.
> 
> there are plenty of new movies on netflix. they just spent a billion dollars for more content.
> 
> and with OTA we see all the new network tv shows.


 Within 5 years Netflix and Hulu are going to be more costly than now. But the dilemma for the TV networks is that even then you are likely going to be paying only for the shows you watch and can set a budget for yourself. I've predicted that by 2020 OTA will be encrypted with a pay box. I could be wrong.


> with windows media center we get to record them and watch at our convenience.


Yeah, but I'm the guy in our house who has to fix or replace the hardware or software when our own computers glitch. There is a value to not having that irritation factor involved in our home entertainment.


> there comes a point when you realize paying $100/mo for TV is asinine. you would be amazed at how satisfying life remains when you ditch that payment.


Is $1,200 a year for home entertainment a significant part of your family budget or is it a reasonable value to place on what you get? Everyone has to answer that from the perspective of their personal situation. For us, we begin without having OTA available.


----------



## jerrylove56

DodgerKing said:


> Here is something else you may want to consider:





DodgerKing said:


> Direct has had a net growth of subs every quarter and indications are they will have pretty good 3rd quarter this year (report due out soon) and a very very good 4th quarter (report due at the beginning of 2011)


I wonder how many Dish or Directs customers are stuck in commitment hell and would love to drop their respective service carrier? Also, with Direct's customer satisfaction numbers worsening, I wonder how long their gravy train will run. It has not been the same company committed to its customers the last few years.


----------



## SaltiDawg

phrelin said:


> Within 5 years Netflix and Hulu are going to be more costly than now. ...


You and STEELERSRULE seem locked in to OTA to roof top antennas and paying $50-$60 per month for copper or fiber optic wires to the house in the future.

Years ago some of us said we'd not be getting our (movie) content on plastic disks in a few years. Well the time is approaching when that will likely be true. (Ask Netflix.) I don't know how our content will be delivered to the house in 5-10 years but I'm comfortable it will not be *limited* to Fios-like delivery systems nor by present OTA (generally) UHF systems. Maybe it will all be satellite delivered or some other method which you and I can not even conceive of presently as being practical.

The point is, "Who knows?"


----------



## DodgerKing

jerrylove56 said:


> I wonder how many Dish or Directs customers are stuck in commitment hell and would love to drop their respective service carrier? Also, with Direct's customer satisfaction numbers worsening, I wonder how long their gravy train will run. It has not been the same company committed to its customers the last few years.


Considering they have had net sub growth every quarter (unlike Dish), even with these so called low satisfaction ratings, and since this year appears to be their strongest ever, I don't think anytime soon


----------



## Jhon69

DodgerKing said:


> Considering they have had net sub growth every quarter (unlike Dish), even with these so called low satisfaction ratings, and since this year appears to be their strongest ever, I don't think anytime soon


And yet Dish Network still makes a profit.It is amazing.


----------



## Jhon69

jerrylove56 said:


> I wonder how many Dish or Directs customers are stuck in commitment hell and would love to drop their respective service carrier? Also, with Direct's customer satisfaction numbers worsening, I wonder how long their gravy train will run. It has not been the same company committed to its customers the last few years.


DirecTV's gravy train will run as long as commitments can be extended I would say.


----------



## Hoosier205

Jhon69 said:


> And yet Dish Network still makes a profit.It is amazing.


I could have sworn that someone said recently that they were a couple million in the red.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> I could have sworn that someone said recently that they were a couple million in the red.


Net worth and making a profit are different things. DISH remains a profitable business, sometimes more profitable in the quarters where subscriber growth is down (new subscribers are expensive!). 3Q will be reported Friday (a day after DirecTV reports 3Q).

Their income is greater than their costs. That's profit.


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> Net worth and making a profit are different things. DISH remains a profitable business, sometimes more profitable in the quarters where subscriber growth is down (new subscribers are expensive!). 3Q will be reported Friday (a day after DirecTV reports 3Q).
> 
> Their income is greater than their costs. That's profit.


Thanks. It's late/early and I couldn't remember the specifics.


----------



## cariera

Let's take this to the Nth degree - All cable/sat customers drop there subscriptions. Where does the lost revenue come from for the networks and content providers. It has to come from the internet available content that is now either free or priced very low. 

That means the industry will charge to delivery that content, which also means that they will have the ability to raise the rates for that content. Once that happens we will have a similiar content delivery model to what exists now, just the medium through which it is delivered will change.

So enjoy the perks of having content delivered over the internet now, but if that becomes the primary vehicle for delivery, you will pay for it down the road.


----------



## DodgerKing

Jhon69 said:


> And yet Dish Network still makes a profit.It is amazing.


What is so amazing about that? When you do not add many subs you actually reduce cost. Often the most profitable quarters by providers is when the add the fewest subs.

Besides, profits and value are different things. A company losing customers can still profit and also be worth less than their total assets (Heck I can make a profit selling lemonade on the street corner. That does not mean that my company has any value). In fact, I think Dish has negative value.


----------



## DodgerKing

James Long said:


> Net worth and making a profit are different things. DISH remains a profitable business, sometimes more profitable in the quarters where subscriber growth is down (new subscribers are expensive!). 3Q will be reported Friday (a day after DirecTV reports 3Q).
> 
> Their income is greater than their costs. That's profit.


Should have read this before I replied above


----------



## James Long

DodgerKing said:


> Should have read this before I replied above


Reading is a cool thing and often forgotten on the Internet, but at least you got the answer right. :lol:


----------



## harsh

As long as those who go the Netflix route don't expect too much, that's fine for them. If they're expecting to see anything other than major league sports programming, they will be largely shut out.

Out the window goes stuff like the Tour de France, MotoGP, F1, a good portion of NASCAR and other race events. Imagine trying to keep up with the Olympic Games without access to cable channels!

Being able to keep current with various serials for discussion at the water cooler is a dicey business when you're waiting for them to be released on disc or for download.

I'm not sure anyone is prepared to live in a world that is almost completely time shifted.


----------



## harsh

Hoosier205 said:


> Thanks. It's late/early and I couldn't remember the specifics.


DISH's net income in Q2 was just under 488 million.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

cariera said:


> Let's take this to the Nth degree - All cable/sat customers drop there subscriptions. Where does the lost revenue come from for the networks and content providers. It has to come from the internet available content that is now either free or priced very low.
> 
> That means the industry will charge to delivery that content, which also means that they will have the ability to raise the rates for that content. Once that happens we will have a similiar content delivery model to what exists now, just the medium through which it is delivered will change.
> 
> So enjoy the perks of having content delivered over the internet now, but if that becomes the primary vehicle for delivery, you will pay for it down the road.


Cariera, your premise is not necessarily correct.

Let's look at the music industry. In the US, music industry revenue has declined about 55% since 2001, yet, today, more people listen to more music than ever before.

My vision for the PayTV industry is as follows. Players like Sezmi and Netflix will be able to cherrypick many PayTV subscribers who don't want to continue subsidizing sports programming. Because the ESPNs will have a smaller subscriber base over which to spread their costs, they will be forced to ask for even larger annual price hikes, which will results in cable and DBS monthly bills increasing even more than they have over the past decade.

At that point, even a sports fan may balk at an average monthly bill of 120 dollars just to be able to watch ESPN and Fox Sports. And in large enough numbers, ESPN may need to do what the record industry has done over the past decade.

Tell the NFL, MLB and NBA that the money is not there for price hikes, and that price declines for their content are in the offing.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Cariera, your premise is not necessarily correct.
> 
> Let's look at the music industry. In the US, music industry revenue has declined about 55% since 2001, yet, today, more people listen to more music than ever before.
> 
> My vision for the PayTV industry is as follows. Players like Sezmi and Netflix will be able to cherrypick many PayTV subscribers who don't want to continue subsidizing sports programming. Because the ESPNs will have a smaller subscriber base over which to spread their costs, they will be forced to ask for even larger annual price hikes, which will results in cable and DBS monthly bills increasing even more than they have over the past decade.
> 
> At that point, even a sports fan may balk at an average monthly bill of 120 dollars just to be able to watch ESPN and Fox Sports. And in large enough numbers, ESPN may need to do what the record industry has done over the past decade.
> 
> Tell the NFL, MLB and NBA that the money is not there for price hikes, and that price declines for their content are in the offing.


You didn't refute any part of his message, though...

IF eventually most people (or all) abandon "pay TV" cable/satellite and go to "free TV" on the Internet... then all the content producers will have to either make up that lost revenue somewhere OR stop producing the content.

Meanwhile... I'm not sure how you are certain that "more people than ever" are listening to music. Maybe based on pure population numbers... but radio stations have been around for a LONG time and that's been a way to listen to music essentially for free for longer than my father has been around!

But IF everyone stopped buying music on CDs, albums, tapes, digital downloads... then there would be no reason for anyone to make music to play on the free radio...

The irony is always smacking me in the face... at how people don't want to pay anything for anything... BUT everyone wants to be paid for what they do! So, you don't want to pay for music or TV but if you were an actor or musician you'd want to be paid... how would that work?


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Stewart, in 2010, the #1 selling artist any given week sells about 20% as many CDs as the top selling artist in 2000. 

So, yes, I am saying that content providers will eventually have to accept less money for their craft.

Artists have had to offset the lost revenue by touring more than they have ever done so.

But the WSJ ran a cover story this summer indicating that the gross from top tours during 1H10 declined significantly from the same period last year, in large part because concertgoers have begun to resist steep price hikes.


----------



## cariera

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Let's look at the music industry. In the US, music industry revenue has declined about 55% since 2001, yet, today, more people listen to more music than ever before.


Sorry to respond this late, I am still in a funk over watching the Titans lose.

As your argument states, the music industry revenue has declined yet you contend that there consumer base has expanded (more people listening to music than ever before). So how are these people getting their music? Legal outlets like ITunes or the artist's label and paying money for it, or are they getting their music for free through sharing and some internet websites.

I would contend for your premise to be correct it is the latter. I also contend that if the music industry could effectively charge for every song that each consumer is downloading, their revenues would be up, not down.

Since, at this time, there is no fool-proof method in place to ensure this, the music industry is losing revenue and considering it an acceptable loss.

My argument was that if cable/sat subscribers disappeared, and the internet became the dominant medium through which televison programs are delivered, the content providers would still want to maximize their revenues. This would lead to a model in which pricing is driven by the consumers demand and still subject to increase as it does today with the cable/sat delivery model.

The one notable and potentially beneficial side effect could be true a la carte pricing structure for channels. Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## sigma1914

Comparing industries of music and TV is so ridiculous here. Streaming, CD/DVD sales, touring, etc are not comparable.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Stewart, in 2010, the #1 selling artist any given week sells about 20% as many CDs as the top selling artist in 2000.


You can't make that comparison without qualifying it.

The #1 rated TV show in 2010 is nowhere near the #1 rated TV show in 1980... because there were many less networks back then.

Similarly... there are a lot more music producers today than even 10 years ago. The advent of internet and digital delivery has allowed a whole new generation of musicians to much more easily get their music into fans' hands... and each new group that gains some popularity takes some dollars away from another.

I couldn't possibly buy every CD of ever song that I like today like I could 30 years ago... any more than I could buy every book or watch every TV show. There isn't enough money OR time to try and consume everything with all the choices we have today.

But people do need to be paid for work... so the more people shift away from the high-revenue methods to "free" internet delivery... the sooner that "free" internet delivery will become less free.


----------



## BobaBird

sigma1914 said:


> Comparing industries of music and TV is so ridiculous here. Streaming, CD/DVD sales, touring, etc are not comparable.


Broadcast premier, On Demand
DVD/BD sales (delayed)
Comic-con? 

The biggest difference would seem to be that the longer form of TV doesn't lend itself to repetitive viewing (those with young'uns may wearily disagree).


----------



## Glen_D

Stewart Vernon said:


> The #1 rated TV show in 2010 is nowhere near the #1 rated TV show in 1980... because there were many less networks back then.


Yeah, in 1980 there was no Cable TV service in my neighborhood. I can't think of more than five OTA channels that were available in my market back then.

Today, there are five pay-TV services available in the same neighborhood (two Cable services, Dish, Direct, & AT&T U-verse). Plus, there's FOX, MyNetwork, CW, Telemundo, and Azteca affiliates that weren't available or didn't exist in 1980, plus digital subchannels.


----------



## kenglish

I wonder how long it will be before the FCC requires Netflix to do Emergency Broadcast System alerts?


----------



## STEELERSRULE

Glen_D said:


> Yeah, in 1980 there was no Cable TV service in my neighborhood. I can't think of more than five OTA channels that were available in my market back then.
> 
> Today, there are five pay-TV services available in the same neighborhood (two Cable services, Dish, Direct, & AT&T U-verse). Plus, there's FOX, MyNetwork, CW, Telemundo, and Azteca affiliates that weren't available or didn't exist in 1980, plus digital subchannels.


And let's not forget those of us who time shift nearly everything. This has hugely impacted viewership as well.

For those who have TIVO, or a Cable DVR(or a cable box? are they sending info to providers as too who is watching what?/for how long?/when?), maybe they are somehow being "counted". But for those of us who have their own store bought DVR's(myself), or HTPC's for recording, they can't estimate/gather that information.

Personally, I have always felt since the rise of DVR's/VCR's/etc..., when people "recorded more and watched at a later time", that the Nielson ratings are TOTALLY INNACCURATE. Why people still seem to rely on them is beyond me.

There has got to be a better way to accurately count who is watching what/when. I don't know how the math would work, but I have always felt the Nielson ratings have become "ancient/outdated", and a new more accurate system needs to be put in it's place.

Is anyone posting here a part of the Nielson system, or knows someone who does this. In my 27 years(I am 37, so I am going from 10 on), I have NEVER known, or knew someone through someone else, who helps gather this info. Who are these people, and where are they?

But, in the end, who the hell cares. It's TV.


----------



## RobertE

I've met some Neilsen installers.

From what they were allowed to tell me, with a receiver, such as DirecTvs HR2x line, the put something inside of it. Don't know what or how it works, but anyway, they put the gizmo inside. It then reports what you are watching live, just like the viewer box with assigned buttons for household members. In addition, it also reports what gets recorded (regardless of viewed or not) for 1/2 credit, then if watched within 7 days, reported again for the remaining 1/2 credit.

I found it interesting. They also hook their spy gear to everything, vcrs, dvds, blu rays, all video games, everything.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

cariera said:


> Sorry to respond this late, I am still in a funk over watching the Titans lose.
> 
> As your argument states, the music industry revenue has declined yet you contend that there consumer base has expanded (more people listening to music than ever before). So how are these people getting their music? Legal outlets like ITunes or the artist's label and paying money for it, or are they getting their music for free through sharing and some internet websites.
> 
> I would contend for your premise to be correct it is the latter. I also contend that if the music industry could effectively charge for every song that each consumer is downloading, their revenues would be up, not down.
> 
> Since, at this time, there is no fool-proof method in place to ensure this, the music industry is losing revenue and considering it an acceptable loss.
> 
> My argument was that if cable/sat subscribers disappeared, and the internet became the dominant medium through which televison programs are delivered, the content providers would still want to maximize their revenues. This would lead to a model in which pricing is driven by the consumers demand and still subject to increase as it does today with the cable/sat delivery model.
> 
> The one notable and potentially beneficial side effect could be true a la carte pricing structure for channels. Be careful what you wish for.


Cariera, the content providers will seek to maximize revenues, but they may conclude that maximizing revenues in a digital environment will result in less aggregate sales.

In the music industry many consumers who once had to buy an album, even though they liked but one track, now buy that individual from itunes or amazon. Also, in Mexico City, the retail price of a CD was often 20 dollars (this was before the Web, and yes, many items are more expensive in Mexico than in the US). Today, in an attempt to fight piracy, many music labels are making their content legally available at newsstands for 4 dollars a CD.

With respect to video, not only do you have Netflix and Hulu, but also file sharing sites that many people frequent.


----------



## Shades228

At the moment with DirecTV's reporting the answer is not many are cutting the cord. 

I still don't think many people will cut the cord either. They may start to suppliment for years and then if nothing changes in a decade or so we might start to see true cord cutting. 10 years ago reports were saying that consumers would not have land based phone lines by now. They're still around even though cell dominates and the two largest cell companiers are the old phone companies.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Shades, DTV may be the exception.

Based on what Time Warner said today, I'd say that more and more are cutting the cord....

Comcast reported a larger than expeced decline in basic cable subs last week. And today, Time Warner reported a decrease in basic subs.

If aggregate 3Q10 PayTV subscribers have decreased from 2Q10, it's going to be harder to argue that technology, the economy, and ever higher prices, aren't inducing disconnects.

--------------------------------
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20021747-266.html

Coming soon: A lower-cost video service

During the company's conference call with analysts and investors, executives hinted at a new video package designed to address the low end of the market. CEO Glenn Britt said that Time Warner Cabel is readying a scaled-down video package that offers cash-strapped customers more flexibility.

"We recognize there is a segment of our population and economy under economic duress," he said. "And it's important for the broader industry to be responsive to that. So we have sought in our programming negotiations to get more flexibility [to offer lower cost packages.]"

Details of the new tier of service were scant, but Britt said it would cost less than services that are currently offered. On average, Time Warner Cable customers spend about $72 a month on video service.
--------------------------------


----------



## James Long

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Shades, DTV may be the exception.
> 
> Based on what Time Warner said today, I'd say that more and more are cutting the cord....


I cut the cord a few years ago. An unused 100ft cable from a pole to my house passing through one of my trees was unneeded. My cord is now under 50ft from dish to receiver. (As with cell phones, smaller is better.)

We will know more tomorrow (when DISH releases their 3Q numbers) but for the last four quarters DISH outperformed DirecTV on net subscriber adds. Add 3Q 09, 4Q 09, 1Q 10 and 2Q 10 together and you'll find 455k net adds for DirecTV and 708k net adds for DISH. With the good results DirecTV posted Thursday their rolling total (4Q 09 to present) 493k net adds. DISH has 467k net adds in the last three quarters. If DISH adds 26k net they will beat DirecTV on the rolling total (I'm not expecting that, but it is possible).

People are cutting the cord ... and installing satellite.


----------



## Glen_D

Gloria_Chavez said:


> --------------------------------
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20021747-266.html
> 
> Coming soon: A lower-cost video service
> 
> During the company's conference call with analysts and investors, executives hinted at a new video package designed to address the low end of the market. CEO Glenn Britt said that Time Warner Cabel is readying a scaled-down video package that offers cash-strapped customers more flexibility.
> 
> "We recognize there is a segment of our population and economy under economic duress," he said. "And it's important for the broader industry to be responsive to that. So we have sought in our programming negotiations to get more flexibility [to offer lower cost packages.]"
> 
> Details of the new tier of service were scant, but Britt said it would cost less than services that are currently offered. On average, Time Warner Cable customers spend about $72 a month on video service.
> --------------------------------


This is just what I figured pay TV services (especially Cable) would have to eventually do, if they don't want to hemorrhage subsrcibers. With "Standard" analog service in my market somewhere around $65/month (less taxes and fees), and plucking channels from the analog tier to put them on extra-cost digital-only tiers (set-top box required), with no reduction in analog pricing, I think some kind of lower cost alternative will have to be seriously considered.

And I noticed the article says TW expects to phase out set-top boxes. Really? Right now they're actually moving the opposite direction, by shifting more and more channels to digital tier. Even with a QAM tuner, about all they offer that you can't get with an old analog tuner are digital & HD locals, and Public Access. They are forcing more people to get the set-top boxes, at about $8-9/month each, if someone wants to get all the channels offered in a package.


----------



## gfrang

I have to do something my D* bill ia the most expensive of my bills well very close to the gas bill anyway. 

I have 3 Roku boxes now and love them. As far as Playon Roku has a Playon channel that is in bata witch i downloaded,what it does is gives the roku player some pnp and dlna Functionally using playon loaded on a networked computer.

I myself keep looking for a cheaper tv watching solution.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Kagan's 3Q10 numbers are in. PayTV lost 119K subs during the quarter, after losing 216K during 2Q10. Thing is, 3Q10 numbers are supposed to come in very strong, due to seasonality factors.

And as PayTV co's begin to pass through the price hikes that the government has forced them to accept as a result of not regulating OTA signals, look for more subs to leave.

--------------------------------

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.c...-cable-subscriptions-drop-again/?ref=business

Then it happened again in the third quarter, when 119,000 people canceled subscriptions.

The numbers sent a chill through the television industry, which depends in large part on the fees that are collected by television distributors.

When the second-quarter numbers were released in August, some wondered if they were an anomaly in the steady upward march of pay television, which has been supported by population growth and the popularity of TV. But with the third-quarter numbers also showing a decline, cord-cutting - which is a reference to people who cancel cable and cobble together a low-cost diet of TV via the Internet - is getting a closer look.
--------------------------------


----------



## sigma1914

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Kagan's 3Q10 numbers are in. PayTV lost 119K subs during the quarter, after losing 216K during 2Q10. Thing is, 3Q10 numbers are supposed to come in very strong, due to seasonality factors.
> 
> And as PayTV co's begin to pass through the price hikes that the government has forced them to accept as a result of not regulating OTA signals, look for more subs to leave.
> 
> --------------------------------
> 
> http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.c...-cable-subscriptions-drop-again/?ref=business
> 
> Then it happened again in the third quarter, when 119,000 people canceled subscriptions.
> 
> The numbers sent a chill through the television industry, which depends in large part on the fees that are collected by television distributors.
> 
> When the second-quarter numbers were released in August, some wondered if they were an anomaly in the steady upward march of pay television, which has been supported by population growth and the popularity of TV. But with the third-quarter numbers also showing a decline, cord-cutting - which is a reference to people who cancel cable and cobble together a low-cost diet of TV via the Internet - is getting a closer look.
> --------------------------------


Poorly done study...They include telecommunications subs in their numbers.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Time Warner's low-cost package....

--------------

* NOVEMBER 18, 2010, 2:34 P.M. ET

Time Warner Cable Offers Cheaper TV Package Without ESPN

By NAT WORDEN

Time Warner Cable Inc. is rolling out a lower-priced cable TV package called "TV Essentials" that excludes major cable networks like ESPN, Comedy Central, TNT, Fox News, MSNBC, Fox regional sports networks and MSG.

The offering will begin Monday on a test basis in New York City, where it will cost $39.95 per month, and northern Ohio, including Cleveland and Akron, where it will cost $29.95 per month. Those prices are 12-month promotions, and Time Warner Cable spokeswoman Maureen Huff said the retail value of the package is $49.99 per month.

---
---

The offering, however, has several limitations, aside from lacking a number of popular networks. It doesn't allow customers to access high-definition programming or use a digital video recorder.

It also bars customers from partaking in discounted bundled offerings for other Time Warner Cable services, like broadband and phone service, so it's aimed at customers that subscribe to TV service only. It also includes paid on-demand services, like newly released movies, but it doesn't include free on-demand options.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704104104575622812880760750.html#ixzz15gTZsqXV
-----------------

Question is, will ESPN sue Time Warner, arguing that its channel is no longer on the basic tier?


----------



## greatwhitenorth

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Kagan's 3Q10 numbers are in. PayTV lost 119K subs during the quarter, after losing 216K during 2Q10. Thing is, 3Q10 numbers are supposed to come in very strong, due to seasonality factors.
> 
> And as PayTV co's begin to pass through the price hikes that the government has forced them to accept as a result of not regulating OTA signals, look for more subs to leave.
> 
> --------------------------------
> 
> http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.c...-cable-subscriptions-drop-again/?ref=business
> 
> Then it happened again in the third quarter, when 119,000 people canceled subscriptions.
> 
> The numbers sent a chill through the television industry, which depends in large part on the fees that are collected by television distributors.
> 
> When the second-quarter numbers were released in August, some wondered if they were an anomaly in the steady upward march of pay television, which has been supported by population growth and the popularity of TV. But with the third-quarter numbers also showing a decline, cord-cutting - which is a reference to people who cancel cable and cobble together a low-cost diet of TV via the Internet - is getting a closer look.
> --------------------------------


Although everyone seems to believe "cord-cutting" to be the driver of Pay-TV sub losses, I haven't seen the sub losses compared to the number of households in the country. Population is rising, but there are a lot of homes sitting vacant, on the market, or in foreclosure. I believe that a lot of the total sub loss can be explained by the decline in the total number of households. Sure, some "cord-cutters", but I don't see that as being a huge factor (yet).


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

greatwhitenorth, perhaps you are right.

But the fact that Comcast has announced that it will introduce a low-cost package, and yesterday's news that Time Warner has introduced an "Essentials" packages, suggests that PayTv co's do believe it has become a problem.

Introducing a low-cost package is a HUGE risk, given the cannibalization that may take place in the same provider.


----------



## sigma1914

Gloria_Chavez said:


> greatwhitenorth, perhaps you are right.
> 
> But the fact that Comcast has announced that it will introduce a low-cost package, and yesterday's news that Time Warner has introduced an "Essentials" packages, suggests that PayTv co's do believe it has become a problem.
> 
> Introducing a low-cost package is a HUGE risk, given the cannibalization that may take place in the same provider.


$50/month after 12 months is "low-cost?"


----------



## sigma1914

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/content_display/news/cable-tv/e3id2a9a8ed9c4a58a931b2040b1949ddce



> Moffett noted that despite claims of a youth movement away from traditional cable TV service, there is in fact "an enormous body of evidence suggests that cord-cutting remains primarily a low-end phenomenon, more typically a result of poverty than of Internet choice and convenience. ... There can be no question that would-be online competitors are bolstered by the increasing disparity between video price and disposable income."


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

But the low-end sub pays the same for ESPN as the high-end one. What may happen is that, as more low-end subs leave, the remaining subs may be subject to even higher annual hikes than before, to compensate for the smaller pie.

Also, I would disagree with Moffet in that I also believe recent college grads are foregoing PayTv. Comedy Central is available at ComedyCentral.com, and you have Hulu/Netflix for the rest. Want to watch Mad Men, you pay 2 or 3 dollars an episode at Amazon.


----------



## lee635

First, I really like netflix and dropped a pay channel, dropped platinum and dropped down to Dish America to save on my dish bill. Here are a couple of points folks are forgetting:

Netflix is only providing the content, not the delivery system. Cable/D/E have to get the signal to your house, while with netflix, you must purchase high speed internet seperately and a a receiving appliance seperately. However, because internet is multipurpose, users get more out of it by buying internet access unbundled, so it's perceived as a better value than the "single use" cable delivery model. Anyway, the true cost of netflix streaming is the subscription price plus some percentage of your internet access fees as well. 

I am still scratching my head trying to figure out how E can charge $4 or more for a single pay-per-view movie. Good lord, rent 2 pay-per-views in a month and you could pay for a netflix subscription? 

Netflix is raising their prices effective Jan 1....


----------



## scooper

You haven't seen *This Story* http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Level3-Accuses-Comcast-Of-Net-Neutrality-Violation-111586 yet, then....


----------



## deweydm

Just scheduled suspension of our Directv service prior to the next billing cycle. Have had netflix, other IPTV for a long time now. Switched us over to OTA along with an HD DRV (DTVpal) for a few weeks now, to make sure it wasn't going to be an issue. And it's been fine. Will probably go months to be sure before canceling Directv out right though.

Not sure if we're potential early representatives of a broadening trend or not yet. Not driven by economic factors, though saving approximately $700 a year will be nice. Just been paying attention to what we watch, and how often for a while now. Mostly major networks available via antenna too and lots of netflix. We'll miss some things like Disney and ESPN. Will probably watch a little less TV. But I think OTA and IPTV offerings are good enough for us now. We'll see.


----------

