dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
27
share rss forum feed


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

reply to aciddrink

Re: Lets face it

said by aciddrink:

TV is too expensive and too littered with commercials. Who still wants to pay for that garbage?

But will the total monthly cost to obtain content for the home really drop with these changes? I don't think so. Streaming may replace QAM cable feeds, but internet access costs will rise. You may be able to drop Cable TV, but you will be paying subscription fees to streaming providers. Mobile streaming may replace some fixed wire access but those costs will be even higher. And the content companies will STILL get their cut one way or another. The changes may be coming, but the costs won't go down, though who gets what % of the pie between content and delivery may shift around some.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/



tuliplover18

@cox.net
yes, it will drop significinally, unless you want to subscribe to every venue out there. For most, they will "pay" for a lot of channels they never even watch. For instance, most cable/satellite lowest packages, make you pay for ESPN, or other sports --- the non-sports customer subsidizes the sports viewers, keeping the expensive prices low by spreading the cost. Once folks catch on to this, and pick and choose a-la-cart packages they want, the costs will go down (unless you're a sports watcher of course--- but those costs are already high)


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

2 recommendations

The problem with this argument is that you're assuming Disney will allow ESPN to be broken out of a package so that you can get other channels at a lower cost.

There is a reason that channel packages from every pay TV provider look nearly identical -- it's the content producers who are forcing the bundling of channels.

ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by aciddrink:

TV is too expensive and too littered with commercials. Who still wants to pay for that garbage?

But will the total monthly cost to obtain content for the home really drop with these changes? I don't think so. Streaming may replace QAM cable feeds, but internet access costs will rise. You may be able to drop Cable TV, but you will be paying subscription fees to streaming providers. Mobile streaming may replace some fixed wire access but those costs will be even higher. And the content companies will STILL get their cut one way or another. The changes may be coming, but the costs won't go down, though who gets what % of the pie between content and delivery may shift around some.

You're assuming that the people who are cutting the cord still want the same TV but from another source. Yes, some do, but I think that others are turning away from TV as their primary entertainment medium. Honestly, I don't need 250 channels; I just need one channel that shows stuff I want to see. I know that's an oversimplification, but the reality is that many people consider the number of channels they're getting as irrelevant when all they show is junk. I can be happy with far fewer if they actually had quality programming. I know that many folks have complained that Netflix streaming leaves a lot to be desired, but, at around $8/month, is it really that much worse than what's on cable at 10 times the price?

travelguy

join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM
said by ISurfTooMuch:

Honestly, I don't need 250 channels; I just need one channel that shows stuff I want to see.

Exactly... The cable industry is built around the idea that more choice is better. The fact is that most people have a certain number of hours per week allocated to TV. Adding more channels does not increase that number, so the price hikes just raise the cost per hour.

amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
reply to espaeth
There was an article here awhile back about Cox having a package without ESPN, and it was ~$35/mo. IIRC, though it was in a limited set of markets.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to ISurfTooMuch
said by ISurfTooMuch:

said by FFH5:

said by aciddrink:

TV is too expensive and too littered with commercials. Who still wants to pay for that garbage?

But will the total monthly cost to obtain content for the home really drop with these changes? I don't think so. Streaming may replace QAM cable feeds, but internet access costs will rise. You may be able to drop Cable TV, but you will be paying subscription fees to streaming providers. Mobile streaming may replace some fixed wire access but those costs will be even higher. And the content companies will STILL get their cut one way or another. The changes may be coming, but the costs won't go down, though who gets what % of the pie between content and delivery may shift around some.

You're assuming that the people who are cutting the cord still want the same TV but from another source. Yes, some do, but I think that others are turning away from TV as their primary entertainment medium. Honestly, I don't need 250 channels; I just need one channel that shows stuff I want to see. I know that's an oversimplification, but the reality is that many people consider the number of channels they're getting as irrelevant when all they show is junk. I can be happy with far fewer if they actually had quality programming. I know that many folks have complained that Netflix streaming leaves a lot to be desired, but, at around $8/month, is it really that much worse than what's on cable at 10 times the price?

But you are assuming internet fees will remain around the same. My expectation is that as users stop buying cable TV, the fees for high speed broadband internet will go up significantly to make up the difference.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/


ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
Oh, I don't doubt that they will, but I don't see them going up to the same levels that are now being charged for Internet and cable. They could, but there's a danger in the cable companies raising them too much: at a high enough price, it becomes profitable for someone to come in and lay their own cable and offer competing service. If companies keep the price low enough, then it isn't as attractive for someone else to invest the capital to enter the market.

I'm still waiting for broadband from the sewer. Actually, a company proposed doing just that a few years ago, and it makes lots of sense. You've got a pre-built series of conduits that reach every location in a city, often with shorter routes than utility poles. All you need is the equipment to pull the fiber through the pipes.


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

1 recommendation

said by ISurfTooMuch:

Oh, I don't doubt that they will, but I don't see them going up to the same levels that are now being charged for Internet and cable.

Changing from broadcast TV to unicast delivery over IP will vastly increase the costs. The only way to get this done in any kind of efficient manner with IP is to leverage multicast, and that requires engineering by the ISPs to accomplish that. It could be something simple like making encrypted multicast feeds available from all the various channel providers, but again -- that's going to be realtime video (no timeshifting), and by the time you work out all the agreements with the content producers to handle the distribution it's going to be back to the same setup you have now with channelized video services... only you will have invested billions of dollars just to arrive at the same point.

said by ISurfTooMuch:

I'm still waiting for broadband from the sewer. Actually, a company proposed doing just that a few years ago, and it makes lots of sense. You've got a pre-built series of conduits that reach every location in a city, often with shorter routes than utility poles. All you need is the equipment to pull the fiber through the pipes.

You know that was an April Fools site from Google, right? »www.google.com/onceuponatime/tis···all.html

krazyfiend

join:2011-02-15

1 edit
reply to espaeth
Comcast's Digital Economy pkg is sans the ESPN channel lineup...keeps it at the 29.95 mark (I believe it was increased at the first of the year though)

However, it is limited to particular areas as well... you travel across Indianapolis into a different township/area...they will act as clueless and like you are the stupid one if you call them up to inquire about it--lol


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

1 edit

1 recommendation

said by krazyfiend:

Comcast's Digital Economy pkg is sans ESPN channel lineup...keeps it at the 29.95 mark

However, it is limited to particular areas as well... you travel across Indianapolis into a different township/area...they will act as clueless and like you are the stupid one if you call them up to inquire about it--lol

This is exactly my point though. Every cable, satellite, and TelcoTV provider has tried to do this in some form or another and it gets shutdown or limited pretty quickly.

A few years back when channels were still in the process of launching HD broadcasts, Dish Network offered a "HD Only" package that was $29.99. It was an awesome deal at the time because all of the marquee channels were the first to have an HD channel, so you could get a bunch of great programming for $30/mo. That lasted a couple years until the agreements that allowed them to create that package expired, and they were forced to move everyone onto $50+ channel packages for the same channels.

If companies using millions of subscribers as leverage at the negotiating table can't get this done, what makes people think this is going to work with consumers vs the media companies directly?

ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
reply to espaeth
Yes, but there was a real company that proposed it as well. I can't remember the name.

I do understand your point about the cost of outfitting networks for multicast video. Still, I wonder if a mix of OTA and Internet video may still work. TV stations are rolling out digital subchannels, and they seem to offer some interesting choices. Also, many areas have several unbuilt construction permits for LPTV or Class A digital stations, and, if OTA viewership continues to rise, I could see those being profitable enough to build. Many stations are running an HD feed and maybe one or two SD subchannels, so, if you dropped HD, I think you might be able to fit in three or four SD channels total. If they offered what people wanted to see, I think maybe you could see OTA being attractive enough for more people to switch. Cable came in promising more choice, but it's recently turned out to be a false promise, since 250 channels of crap isn't really that much choice.


Cjones

@rogers.com
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

will the total monthly cost to obtain content for the home really drop with these changes? I don't think so. Streaming may replace QAM cable feeds, but internet access costs will rise. You may be able to drop Cable TV, but you will be paying subscription fees to streaming providers... the content companies will STILL get their cut one way or another.

Respectfully, I would agree with you. The problem here, at the core, is that many people have lost the ability to entertain themselves. The only way the costs are going down, going down in fact, rather than simply being shifted around, is if people stop consuming the content and start entertaining themselves, not requiring someone else to entertain them for x number of hours a week. I don't see that happening anytime soon, so yes, people will cut the cable. Some will pay a bit less, others will pay almost nothing, and still others may pay a bit more, but the content and delivery industry wwill still have a huge pie to split.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:

If companies using millions of subscribers as leverage at the negotiating table can't get this done, what makes people think this is going to work with consumers vs the media companies directly?

I'm not sure how you make this argument. Consumers have the ultimate say and eventually we consumers and the programmers will come to realize this. The fact they have people like you coming here and claiming otherwise shows just how distorted this entire industry has become.

Provided the trend continues programmers will be killing off channels and trying to keep their core channels relevant. A la carte, regardless of what all of the anti a la carte people claim, will lower a vast majority of the prices for people and the good will quickly get separated from the bad and wasted channels and air time will quickly disappear.


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

1 recommendation

said by Skippy25:

I'm not sure how you make this argument. Consumers have the ultimate say and eventually we consumers and the programmers will come to realize this.

You can't buy a product a company is unwilling to sell. Under the current arrangement ESPN is making nearly $4/mo in subscriber fees from 110 million pay TV subscribers. Do you honestly think Disney is going to rock that boat?

said by Skippy25:

The fact they have people like you coming here and claiming otherwise shows just how distorted this entire industry has become.

Yes, clearly because I think that companies will want to continue making money I must be working for the media industry.

said by Skippy25:

Provided the trend continues programmers will be killing off channels and trying to keep their core channels relevant.

Please name any number of channel reductions in the last decade that would lead you to believe this to be true.

said by Skippy25:

A la carte, regardless of what all of the anti a la carte people claim, will lower a vast majority of the prices for people and the good will quickly get separated from the bad and wasted channels and air time will quickly disappear.

Which wasted channels are you talking about? Channels like the home shopping network and QVC that PAY to have their channel carried, and hence result in subscriber bills actually being lower?

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
Obviously I was speaking of changes to come, not the past. But of course in your blind defense of how things are and how they should remain the same you missed that.

rocafellanrd

join:2009-05-04
kudos:1
reply to FFH5

New rule, Force cord cutters to buy TV service. Lower rates

said by FFH5:

said by aciddrink:

TV is too expensive and too littered with commercials. Who still wants to pay for that garbage?

But will the total monthly cost to obtain content for the home really drop with these changes? I don't think so. Streaming may replace QAM cable feeds, but internet access costs will rise. You may be able to drop Cable TV, but you will be paying subscription fees to streaming providers. Mobile streaming may replace some fixed wire access but those costs will be even higher. And the content companies will STILL get their cut one way or another. The changes may be coming, but the costs won't go down, though who gets what % of the pie between content and delivery may shift around some.

Facetious is right. You cord cutters are ruining it for everyone. Stop being cheap. All you cord cutters are doing is contributing to our increase in wireline internet and wireless internet rates. Thanks a lot Aciddrink.

Stop screwing us over and pay for TV. And watch TV with the commericials. Do it right now dammit or else we will create a law to force you to buy TV service. LOL

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA
reply to FFH5

Re: Lets face it

Yea, with caps...

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA
reply to espaeth
Agreed. This is a pretty well understood problem. The technology may be there to do this, but the business processes and multi-company agreements are NOT.

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA
reply to espaeth
You know, this whole thing kinda reminds me of buying a car versus buying all the parts to make a car. Buying each part separately is much more expensive than just getting the whole danged thing!