AT&T Just Donated $500,000 to Locast

[NYDutch]

The reality of the situation for the broadcast networks is this: "Free OTA distribution is a legacy system that's always been there and it's not something we can easily walk away from. Ideally, no one would watch our content for free via OTA but instead they'd subscribe to us via a multichannel pay TV (i.e. "cable TV") package, or through our own direct-to-consumer streaming service. Because that way, we're getting some amount of subscription fee passed onto us from viewers, in addition to the ad revenue we make. Yes, if you're not going to PAY to watch our channel, then we'd rather have you watch us for free via OTA because you're at least bumping up our ad revenue that way."

Now think about that situation and decide if you believe it's in ABC, CBS and NBC's best interests (from a profit-maximization perspective) to expand free access to their live broadcasts. ABC has Hulu. CBS has CBS All Access. NBC has Xfinity TV plus an OTT competitor to Hulu launching in 2020. And all of them still gets LOTS of reverse retrans comp paid to them from their local affiliates (the largest of which they actually own outright).

So OF COURSE those networks don't like the idea of folks conveniently launching the Locast app to watch their broadcasts for free. If cord-cutters want to conveniently stream that stuff at home or on-the-go, they should get Hulu, CBS AA, YouTube TV, PS Vue, etc. and actually PAY for it! If they insist on free, well then, they're going to have to deal with the hassle of an antenna and iffy reception (thanks, ATSC 1.0) and watch on their living room TV! And if they want to watch that stuff when they want, they'll have to fool with the expense and bother of an OTA DVR (which, let's be honest, is and always will be for a certain niche breed of consumer).

So what does this portend for the next-gen OTA standard, ATSC 3.0, which promises not only better picture and sound quality, but also easier, more reliable reception, including in cars and even perhaps on phones? It's not surprising, is it, that the biggest cheerleaders for ATSC 3.0 are the owners of local broadcast stations -- Sinclair, Nexstar, etc. -- who do not own any significant content (just local news, really). We hear very little at all from the big 4 networks about ATSC 3.0. Yes, they've made small indications that they may support it but you can understand why they're not enthusiastic about it. Why encourage more FREE consumption of the popular content which they expect to get PAID for?

I'm not surprised at all that neither the networks nor the broadcasters are in favor of expanding the OTA reach by whatever means. What does amaze me though, is that with all the high priced lawyers they have at their command they have not yet found a legal basis for taking SFCNY/Locast to court in an attempt to shut them down. With Locast already available to almost a third of the viewing public, if they had anything they thought was winnable ammunition, I expect they'd have lit the fuse by now...

 

[NashGuy]

I'm not surprised at all that neither the networks nor the broadcasters are in favor of expanding the OTA reach by whatever means. What does amaze me though, is that with all the high priced lawyers they have at their command they have not yet found a legal basis for taking SFCNY/Locast to court in an attempt to shut them down. With Locast already available to almost a third of the viewing public, if they had anything they thought was winnable ammunition, I expect they'd have lit the fuse by now...

You know about Locast. I know about Locast. The kind of folks who read CordCutterNews know about Locast. The vast, vast majority of normal Americans do not know about Locast.

You know what would be a great way to give Locast free publicity and make them better known and more widely used among the public? If major broadcasters and networks launched a huge lawsuit against them that would get reported on by mainstream news sources. "Broadcast Goliaths Aim to Stomp Streaming David."

Yes, at some point, if Locast continues to grow in actual usage, the broadcasters will be forced to act and try to stop it. Until then, they're keeping their powder dry.

 

[NashGuy]

If I have to watch a commercial to see content, it is absolutely not free to me. Every time I watch a commercial, I get that much closer to death, and another brain cell (at least one) dies. That is a very high cost in my estimation. I am all for paying for what I view, but price is often too high to justify when ads are involved based on the actual entertainment value of the content.

And this is why Hulu (which I have for years been saying is what the future of TV will look like) lets you have it both ways: pay less and get fed unavoidable targeted ads. Pay more and have all the ads removed, without even having to bother to FF/skip past them. (Another way that Hulu is the future: it presents a unified UI that is oriented toward on-demand consumption but also incorporates various live sources too.)

The NBCU SVOD launching next year will be a two-tier service too: one price with ads, higher price without ads. The WarnerMedia SVOD ("HBO Max") will launch ad-free but they're saying that next year they'll likely offer a lower-cost plan with ads on at least some of the content.

And there's a growing chorus of media analysts who believe that Netflix will inevitably, at some point, have to offer a plan that includes ads at a lower price. The cost of cranking out content is too great, they're hitting a saturation point among US subscribers with their current model, and they're leaving too much money on the table by NOT offering a cheaper (or even free) content tier with ads.

Will there still be a place for completely ad-free services? Yes, maybe for those services branded as and thought of as "premium" or "boutique" additions to broader, more popular, mainstream services. Such premium services would have snob appeal. It would be apparent to subscribers that they're getting fewer hours of content per dollar spent on the subscription price but they'll be OK with that. This is the space that HBO and Showtime have always played in. But now HBO is expanding their brand and content umbrella via HBO Max, to become a mainstream competitor to Netflix (but one still enjoying some snob cred thanks to the HBO brand).

I can imagine Disney+ with its premium brand, boutique curated smaller catalog, and semi-focus on kids (a population that parents often don't want exposed to ads) always remaining ad-free. Apple TV+? We don't know WHAT Apple's pricing strategy will be there but we do know that it won't have a back catalog of content and will instead focus on launching one or two seasons of high-quality original series each month, ad-free in 4K Dolby Vision. So I can imagine it always remaining ad-free. Prime Video? Hard to say. That service really just exists as a sweetener to get folks to cough up $119 each year for an Amazon Prime subscription so that Amazon can sell them more stuff. I could imagine Amazon maybe rolling one ad at the start of each streaming session for a product sold by Amazon, with the ability to click your remote to immediately purchase it or add it to your wish list for further review later.

And let's say that CBS acquires both Viacom and Lionsgate, as expected. I can see a much enlarged CBS All Access being their broad, mainstream service, continuing to be offered with and without ads. Meanwhile, I think they would take Starz (part of Lionsgate) and merge it into Showtime, to make it the #1 standalone always ad-free premium service aimed to adults. In this scenario, Showtime would become what HBO used to be.

 

[whitewolf8214]

And this is why Hulu (which I have for years been saying is what the future of TV will look like) lets you have it both ways: pay less and get fed unavoidable targeted ads. Pay more and have all the ads removed, without even having to bother to FF/skip past them. (Another way that Hulu is the future: it presents a unified UI that is oriented toward on-demand consumption but also incorporates various live sources too.)

The NBCU SVOD launching next year will be a two-tier service too: one price with ads, higher price without ads. The WarnerMedia SVOD ("HBO Max") will launch ad-free but they're saying that next year they'll likely offer a lower-cost plan with ads on at least some of the content.

And there's a growing chorus of media analysts who believe that Netflix will inevitably, at some point, have to offer a plan that includes ads at a lower price. The cost of cranking out content is too great, they're hitting a saturation point among US subscribers with their current model, and they're leaving too much money on the table by NOT offering a cheaper (or even free) content tier with ads.

Will there still be a place for completely ad-free services? Yes, maybe for those services branded as and thought of as "premium" or "boutique" additions to broader, more popular, mainstream services. Such premium services would have snob appeal. It would be apparent to subscribers that they're getting fewer hours of content per dollar spent on the subscription price but they'll be OK with that. This is the space that HBO and Showtime have always played in. But now HBO is expanding their brand and content umbrella via HBO Max, to become a mainstream competitor to Netflix (but one still enjoying some snob cred thanks to the HBO brand).

I can imagine Disney+ with its premium brand, boutique curated smaller catalog, and semi-focus on kids (a population that parents often don't want exposed to ads) always remaining ad-free. Apple TV+? We don't know WHAT Apple's pricing strategy will be there but we do know that it won't have a back catalog of content and will instead focus on launching one or two seasons of high-quality original series each month, ad-free in 4K Dolby Vision. So I can imagine it always remaining ad-free. Prime Video? Hard to say. That service really just exists as a sweetener to get folks to cough up $119 each year for an Amazon Prime subscription so that Amazon can sell them more stuff. I could imagine Amazon maybe rolling one ad at the start of each streaming session for a product sold by Amazon, with the ability to click your remote to immediately purchase it or add it to your wish list for further review later.

And let's say that CBS acquires both Viacom and Lionsgate, as expected. I can see a much enlarged CBS All Access being their broad, mainstream service, continuing to be offered with and without ads. Meanwhile, I think they would take Starz (part of Lionsgate) and merge it into Showtime, to make it the #1 standalone always ad-free premium service aimed to adults. In this scenario, Showtime would become what HBO used to be.

Very possibly could happen but sit back enjoy the ride

 

[Juan]

They do when its added as an ap on the hopper...which it has been

You know about Locast. I know about Locast. The kind of folks who read CordCutterNews know about Locast. The vast, vast majority of normal Americans do not know about Locast.

You know what would be a great way to give Locast free publicity and make them better known and more widely used among the public? If major broadcasters and networks launched a huge lawsuit against them that would get reported on by mainstream news sources. "Broadcast Goliaths Aim to Stomp Streaming David."

Yes, at some point, if Locast continues to grow in actual usage, the broadcasters will be forced to act and try to stop it. Until then, they're keeping their powder dry.

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[whitewolf8214]

I don’t see them going anywhere till get to more markets and cities ASAP then they will be gone after by the network’s imo

 

[NYDutch]

They do when its added as an ap on the hopper...which it has been

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

Yes, it's on the Hopper and also on DTV's receivers.

 

[NYDutch]

I don’t see them going anywhere till get to more markets and cities ASAP then they will be gone after by the network’s

Locast covers almost a third of the nation's viewing public in 13 cities already, including most of the major cities. How big do they need to get before the network lawyers think they've found a way to shut them down that will stand up in court?

 

[NashGuy]

They do when its added as an ap on the hopper...which it has been

Yes, it's on the Hopper and also on DTV's receivers.

DISH has under 12 million subs now. Let's say that 2/3 of them are using the Hopper and therefore can see the Locast app. That's 8 million US households.

Meanwhile, DTV has about 18.5 million subs. Heck, let's assume 90% of them have an internet-connected receiver with the Locast app on it. So that's 16.65 million US households.

Totaled together, that's 24.65 million households out of about 128 million total. So 19%. Not an insignificant chunk, but nowhere near a majority.

Also, given how absolutely crap-tastic the app platform is on the DTV receivers, my guess is that the vast majority of DTV customers never bother to click over to it in the menu system, so they don't even know that the Locast app has been added there. And if they did happen to see it next to Pandora and iHeartRadio, they'd probably just assume it was another music app.

But valiant effort, boys! Whee, math is fun!

 

[whitewolf8214]

Locast covers almost a third of the nation's viewing public in 13 cities already, including most of the major cities. How big do they need to get before the network lawyers think they've found a way to shut them down that will stand up in court?

Imo

 

[Juan]

Dont forget...att donated too

DISH has under 12 million subs now. Let's say that 2/3 of them are using the Hopper and therefore can see the Locast app. That's 8 million US households.

Meanwhile, DTV has about 18.5 million subs. Heck, let's assume 90% of them have an internet-connected receiver with the Locast app on it. So that's 16.65 million US households.

Totaled together, that's 24.65 million households out of about 128 million total. So 19%. Not an insignificant chunk, but nowhere near a majority.

Also, given how absolutely crap-tastic the app platform is on the DTV receivers, my guess is that the vast majority of DTV customers never bother to click over to it in the menu system, so they don't even know that the Locast app has been added there. And if they did happen to see it next to Pandora and iHeartRadio, they'd probably just assume it was another music app.

But valiant effort, boys! Whee, math is fun!

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[NashGuy]

Dont forget...att donated too

Yeah, I think AT&T absolutely DOES want to give Locast some growth and media attention because AT&T wants to see whether or not Locast can survive. Only way to know that is for it to get to the point where the broadcasters feel they can no longer ignore it and must take legal (or legislative) action against it.

But I doubt that AT&T *really* sees Locast as ever being an ideal substitute for them, freeing them of the need to include and charge for locals as part of their packages. Does AT&T want to put their reputation and their customers' satisfaction in the hands of a third-party non-profit over which they have no control? Remember that the big 4 broadcast nets account for a huge slice of traditional TV viewing.

I think AT&T would just love Locast to be able to stick around as a resource for their customers in case of a local channel blackout during retrans renegotiations, as that gives AT&T greater negotiating leverage to pay lower retrans fees. Also, I do think we're going to see AT&T market an entry-level TV package -- "Starter" or "Select" -- that does not contain expensive locals or sports channels. Actually, they already do, it's called AT&T Watch TV and sells for $15. I think those channels will be combined with the upcoming $16 HBO Max service and sold as a $30 Starter package in the new AT&T TV service, with the Plus and Max packages from DTVN selling in it at $50 and $70. All nice and logical, isn't it?

 

[NYDutch]

I think Dish and AT&T both want to see Locast thrive as an alternative for their customers. I wouldn't be surprised to see AT&T start offering their locals as an option like Dish does, and for the same reason, to help reign in the rising retrans costs. I don't think either one will integrate Locast into their program guide, but I wouldn't rule it out either. Cable companies have also taken notice of Locast as a retrans blackout alternative. Here's one article from last January regarding the Charter-Tribune dispute:

Charter-Tribune Raises Broadcast Streaming Option

 

[slice1900]

DISH has under 12 million subs now. Let's say that 2/3 of them are using the Hopper and therefore can see the Locast app. That's 8 million US households.

Meanwhile, DTV has about 18.5 million subs. Heck, let's assume 90% of them have an internet-connected receiver with the Locast app on it. So that's 16.65 million US households.

Totaled together, that's 24.65 million households out of about 128 million total. So 19%. Not an insignificant chunk, but nowhere near a majority.

Also, given how absolutely crap-tastic the app platform is on the DTV receivers, my guess is that the vast majority of DTV customers never bother to click over to it in the menu system, so they don't even know that the Locast app has been added there. And if they did happen to see it next to Pandora and iHeartRadio, they'd probably just assume it was another music app.

But valiant effort, boys! Whee, math is fun!

Dish has fewer than 10 million satellite subscribers. Your number is including Sling subscribers for Dish but not Directv Now subscribers for Directv.

Nothing stops Dish and Directv from building Locast into their app for Sling / Directv Now which would add some people. Ditto for Youtube TV and other minor players.

 

[NashGuy]

Dish has fewer than 10 million satellite subscribers. Your number is including Sling subscribers for Dish but not Directv Now subscribers for Directv.

Nothing stops Dish and Directv from building Locast into their app for Sling / Directv Now which would add some people. Ditto for Youtube TV and other minor players.

Ah, thanks for the correction on the sub numbers (which enhances my case there).

As for incorporating Locast streams into their own native apps, I can't see either DISH or AT&T taking that business risk right now until the legal viability of Locast has been affirmed, including whether or not that legal protection would extend to the use of those streams by a for-profit MVPD inside their own service/app. (Again, I highly doubt it as this would totally undermine STELA/the entire retrans comp system.)

 

[Juan]

Charlie has taken a multitude of risks in the past...give him a chance

Ah, thanks for the correction on the sub numbers (which enhances my case there).

As for incorporating Locast streams into their own native apps, I can't see either DISH or AT&T taking that business risk right now until the legal viability of Locast has been affirmed, including whether or not that legal protection would extend to the use of those streams by a for-profit MVPD inside their own service/app. (Again, I highly doubt it as this would totally undermine STELA/the entire retrans comp system.)

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[NashGuy]

Charlie has taken a multitude of risks in the past...give him a chance

A chance to get his pants sued off and seriously piss off Disney, Comcast/NBCU and CBS? Charlie is pugnacious but knows he has to pick his fights.

 

[Juan]

A chance to get his pants sued off and seriously piss off Disney, Comcast/NBCU and CBS? Charlie is pugnacious but knows he has to pick his fights.

he's been sued by the best....get in line

 

[slice1900]

From AT&T and Dish's point of view, what's the point of having a service like Locast out there if you're afraid to make it useful? Having it locked away in an "app" means hardly anyone will ever use it. You have to start up an app and you're forced to watch LIVE? Screw that, that's hardly better than not having the channel at all as far as I'm concerned.

Its like you had a machine to turn lead into gold but you're afraid the government make your machine illegal and take it away, so you decide you will only convert one ounce of lead into gold a year. Might as well not have it at all then. Convert a ton of lead and then you'll know where you really stand.

 

[The Fat Man]

From AT&T and Dish's point of view, what's the point of having a service like Locast out there if you're afraid to make it useful? Having it locked away in an "app" means hardly anyone will ever use it. You have to start up an app and you're forced to watch LIVE? Screw that, that's hardly better than not having the channel at all as far as I'm concerned.

Its like you had a machine to turn lead into gold but you're afraid the government make your machine illegal and take it away, so you decide you will only convert one ounce of lead into gold a year. Might as well not have it at all then. Convert a ton of lead and then you'll know where you really stand.

I think it's a means to stick it to the owners of the local channels, as retransmission fees are climbing. Its perhaps leverage to keep customers happy who complain of their bills going up. As it is, Dish has the option for customers to drop the locals and save $12 a month. That's the funny part, locals cost nearly as much as Showtime costs, just to have channels that we get for free via OTA.