# "Cord-cutting"="Package-dumping"; not DirecTVNow, PSVue, SlingTV



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Those of us who years ago started fighting for à la carte channel subscriptions instead of channel packages and who in the early part of this decade thought we were winning the fight are now confronted with the possibility of losing.

Meanwhile beginning mid-decade international media conglomerates working with international corporate channel packagers (cable/satellite TV companies) are scrambling to get the upper hand. Because Americans are easily blinded by shiny new objects, the vast majority who have not been attracted to package-dumping are now being confused.

While in 2015 we had Playstation Vue and Sling TV come into being offering packages to small subscriber bases, the most effective conglomerate joined the fray this year, ATT, working with Disney Corp. (owner of the ESPN and Disney channels, as well as the ABC broadcast and cable channels), Time Warner Inc. (owner of Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.), and a few others to create DirecTV Now.

The fact is the media conglomerates are fighting back against à la carte channel subscriptions

We need to be clear about what TV was like in 1999 before most people had access to the the internet bandwidth necessary to stream TV at 720p or higher.

You had a wire - the "cord" - connected to your home provided by the cable TV company. At the head end, the cable TV company sent out electronic streams of data from numerous TV "channels." Those channel streams provided entertainment shows and/or news and/or movie content.

The objection to the system that many of us voiced was that the channels were owned by a relatively few media companies that refused to make any of their channels available to the cable company except as all-or-none to be sold to cable customers as all-or-none.

Sure, in the earlier period of cable channels, it gave new channels a chance and new media companies like the Turner Broadcasting System or HBO or Discovery Communications or BET did evolve. Today, however, they're owned by media conglomerates.

So many of us started advocating for channels to be available for purchase à la carte like they were in the early days of C-band satellite TV. We were pretty much tilting at windmills.

Then along came "cord-cutting" which Wikipedia defines as follows:



> In broadcast television, cord-cutting refers to the pattern of viewers (referred to as cord cutters) cancelling their subscriptions to multichannel subscription television services available over cable, dropping expensive pay television channels or reducing the number of hours of subscription TV viewed in response to competition from rival media available over the Internet, from Amazon.com, Hulu, iTunes, Netflix, and YouTube, as well as BitTorrent.


I always thought the terms "cutting the cord", "cord cutter" or "cord never" were misnomers.

There is still a cord, which is how you get internet service from you Internet Service Provider (ISP). When Netflix and others started streaming, people were streaming it through wires connected to the internet rather than connected to the local cable TV service or to a satellite dish. (Yeah, sure, there are wifi devices, but in most customers' homes there is a cord leading to a wifi router.) And instead of a cable TV box, you use a box like a Roku or Apple TV or Amazon Fire TV.

But until the first quarter of 2015, there were no packages readily available on the internet. Most customers paid for what are, for all intents and purposes, channels which on my Roku screen are described as "channels" though offered individually as "apps":










Our à la carte fight has moved to the internet. For clarity, we need to understand the difference as "package dumping individuals" versus "corporate package lackeys."

A subscription to individual streaming channels has been month-to-month subscriptions much like premiums on cable (HBO, Showtime, Starz). In 2015 when Playstation Vue and Sling TV came into being, they too had to be month-to-month package subscriptions.

Right now AT&T's DirecTV Now is also month-to-month. But they are offering it via AT&T's wireless streams as data streaming outside any data cap. The Gen-X'ers will be the initial target. But once they get the Millenials (sorry kids, but that's who they will be targeting) hooked, you can bet there will be rate increases and discounted multiple month commitments.

It's clear to me that we à la carte advocates won a battle but are facing long odds in the war. Up to now the FCC has fought against ISP favoritism within monthly data caps. AT&T plus other corporations intend to fight this over the next four years and likely will win as the FCC membership changes.


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

This is truly going to get interesting, and I for one can live with OTA, Netflix and prime.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Perhaps "commitment dumping" would be a better term. The introduction of DirecTV Now has brought the conversation forward in recent weeks, but I agree that too many who talk of "cutting the cord" are just looking for commitment free TV. Or free TV.

If one is fortunate enough to receive OTA signals the path to "free" TV is easier. Getting the broadcast channels is important if one wants to watch the most popular content. Ratings on broadcast networks continue to make most cable channels look unwatched. Finding a way to receive broadcast TV is an important first step to walking away from commitment television.

The next step is figuring out what other content will be lost.

Content owners are not stupid. They know how the marketplace works. Refusing to sell individual channels outside of packages is their choice. They have looked at the situation and found that they can maximize revenue by bundling. And they don't care how their content is received as long as it is paid for. Even a single channel can leverage their content if their content is popular enough.

Spreading content across channels is another method of maximizing revenue. For example, NBC has the rights for the second half of the season of NASCAR. A few races show up on local NBC affiliates, most show up on NBC Sports Network. When neither of those networks are available races can show up on other NBC channels. (ESPN did the same thing when they owned the second half of the season.) Fox owns the rights to the first half of the season and places a few races on FOX affiliates, most show up on Fox Sports 1 but they can show up on Fox Sports 2. Which cord do I cut where I can still get every race live? And if you find a solution for NASCAR, will that solution work for other programming?

We are still at a point where most a la carte offerings are less popular programming. There are exceptions, but most content owners are looking to reach 100+ million homes ... and while technically that can be done over the Internet getting people to subscribe is a challenge. It is much easier to put that content on a broadcast network TV channel - that will reach 100+ million. And if the content is not popular enough or does not meet broadcast TV standards for content (violence, language, etc) look for a cable channel that is in 100+ million homes ... and work your way down until you find a distributor with the most number of homes. Distributed to 80+ million? Sure it is not 100+ million but it is better than 5 million streamers.

And it is better for the content owner if they can get paid for 80+ or 100+ million homes who may or may not be watching the content than 5 million streamers. Especially if their payment is "a la carte" and they only get paid when someone watches their show.


----------



## makaiguy (Sep 24, 2007)

"Commitment TV" -- I like that.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> Perhaps "commitment dumping" would be a better term. The introduction of DirecTV Now has brought the conversation forward in recent weeks, but I agree that too many who talk of "cutting the cord" are just looking for commitment free TV. Or free TV.
> 
> ...But most content owners are looking to reach 100+ million homes ... and while technically that can be done over the Internet getting people to subscribe is a challenge. It is much easier to put that content on a broadcast network TV channel - that will reach 100+ million. And if the content is not popular enough or does not meet broadcast TV standards for content (violence, language, etc) look for a cable channel that is in 100+ million homes ... and work your way down until you find a distributor with the most number of homes. Distributed to 80+ million? Sure it is not 100+ million but it is better than 5 million streamers.
> 
> And it is better for the content owner if they can get paid for 80+ or 100+ million homes who may or may not be watching the content than 5 million streamers. Especially if their payment is "a la carte" and they only get paid when someone watches their show.


Hmmm. Well, "commitment dumping" isn't quite the way I'd put it. I'd prefer a "no minimum commitment" but I hate packages albeit the package choices are getting better because of streaming and without commitments.

It's kind of a one-way commitment when I look at the networks. They offer a show I like and then it disappears. If I could sign up for a full season of a show which I don't pay for if I don't get a full season, that would be a fair two-way commitment.

But getting 100+ million homes to pay for a channel only 20 million or 5 million homes have someone who watches seems more like a tax. But I've said that before.

I'm happy with the packages that have evolved in recent months because I do have a "no Disney Inc. channel" option. Yeah, I do hold a grudge about paying for ESPN all these years.

When I do end my long relationship with Charlie's satellite companies in May, I probably will just be switching to a Sling TV package.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

phrelin said:


> I'm happy with the packages that have evolved in recent months because I do have a "no Disney Inc. channel" option. Yeah, I do hold a grudge about paying for ESPN all these years.
> 
> When I do end my long relationship with Charlie's satellite companies in May, I probably will just be switching to a Sling TV package.


The minimum package (Sling Orange $20) includes ESPN and Disney. Charlie and the ABC companies will thank you for your continued support.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> The minimum package (Sling Orange $20) includes ESPN and Disney. Charlie and the ABC companies will thank you for your continued support.


Ah, but the Blue $25 package is a miracle. Watch what happens when you don't have to pay for the Disney channels:










When you lose the ESPN, Disney, Freeform, ESPN2 and ESPN3 and give Sling $5 a month more, you get the NBCU channel group and the Fox channel group including their broadcast channels, with some important sports channels.

Oh, and I picked up your term suggestion on another thread and it has my vote:



> Cord swapping.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

Hmm. What I call cutting the cord is getting rid of cable style channels and locals - basically anything with commercials. Wifey and I have been cord cutters for a number of years, and *there is no going back*. We tried to watch the Thanksgiving parade on CBSN (streaming), but the commercials made it intolerable.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Wilf said:


> Hmm. What I call cutting the cord is getting rid of cable style channels and locals - basically anything with commercials. Wifey and I have been cord cutters for a number of years, and *there is no going back*. We tried to watch the Thanksgiving parade on CBSN (streaming), but the commercials made it intolerable.


I share your viewpoint. The "cord" or "cable" is irrelevant. To me it's "ad-free TV" which I pay for. To date the only OTA network that has embraced it is CBS with its All Access. To varying degrees ABC, Fox, and NBC have given some timely programming to HULU. Cable channel programming is the least available ad-free.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Comcast Launches Streaming App for Xfinity Users

This is interesting from Comcast / Xfinity.


----------

