Streaming Is The New Cable

[Bruce]

The true "greed" that has propelled TV costs has come not so much from providers as from content. You have local stations demanding exorbitant amounts from sat/cable for what is otherwise free, over-the-air ad-supported content.

If local stations/ affiliates did not have per sub fees, they would be out of business, advertising rates is up to 3/4 down , as Advertisers have moved to streaming for the cheaper rates and a more accurate count of who is watching.

Does not help when Cable/Satellite are down to 55 Million Households from 100 Million 7 years ago, more people now stream then have a Traditional Paid Live TV Service.

This year, there will be more revenue from advertising thanks to the election, next year will be a another drastic drop.

The biggest cost driver of course is sports, which if that's your thing may be well worth it, but if not you're still paying for it and subsidizing that industry.

And why RSNs are near collapse, again, just 7 years ago, all 100 Million Households were paying for the RSNs, today, about 45 Million, largely only DirecTV, Comcast and Charter subscribers receive them ( a few smaller companies do also, but Dish/Sling does not).

At this rate, they have 2-3 years left at the most.

Cable/sat are contractually barred from selling content a-la-carte, which again is the stranglehold of the content cartel.

a-la-carte no, but less expensive packages are popping up, Charter/Spectrum just introduced a everything but sports/locals package, only $40, a step in the right direction.

My problem with paid live TV is the lack of new content, most cable channels are nothing but reruns and I hate paying for that, especially since reruns are available for free on Pluto and other services.

Little wonder that cord-cutting & streaming have become so popular. People will pay; it just needs to be reasonable to what they consume.

Less expensive is not the only reason I stream, it is also the much better quality, at least a 1080P Picture, now more and more network/cable shows are in 4K.

Cable/Satellite is not just losing on the price front, but on the quality front, I remember when I had DirecTV, so much better then Cable, yet in their almost 30 years, they stayed stagnant on video quality.

 

[AZ.]

The true "greed" that has propelled TV costs has come not so much from providers as from content. You have local stations demanding exorbitant amounts from sat/cable for what is otherwise free, over-the-air ad-supported content. The biggest cost driver of course is sports, which if that's your thing may be well worth it, but if not you're still paying for it and subsidizing that industry. Cable/sat are contractually barred from selling content a-la-carte, which again is the stranglehold of the content cartel. Little wonder that cord-cutting & streaming have become so popular. People will pay; it just needs to be reasonable to what they consume.

Funny everyone wants to blame the sports. Yet it is the local channels that are just as big as a hit, with very little sports.

 

[Bruce]

Funny everyone wants to blame the sports. Yet it is the local channels that are just as big as a hit, with very little sports.

Locals have sports, all networks and their affiliates have sports.

But the point is, ratings have been dropping every year for those channels the last 7 years.

But cable channels ratings have dropped also, for obvious reasons.

 

[ncted]

If local stations/ affiliates did not have per sub fees, they would be out of business, advertising rates is up to 3/4 down , as Advertisers have moved to streaming for the cheaper rates and a more accurate count of who is watching.

Please remind me, didn't local stations have to start paying per-sub fees to the networks at some point? I have a vague recollection of that being when the locals starting playing hardball with the cable/satellite companies.

 

[telstar_1]

Please remind me, didn't local stations have to start paying per-sub fees to the networks at some point? I have a vague recollection of that being when the locals starting playing hardball with the cable/satellite companies.

I haven't heard of that, except I do know that PBS affils have to remit (from 'viewers like you') based on what shows they want to run.

Locals began extorting providers after legislation passed switching them from a cable "must carry" status to a self-declaratory status of either "must carry" or (providers) "must negotiate." Low viewership stations such as religious largely stuck with "must carry" to guarantee they would stay on, while big-net affils of course picked being paid. All the legislation said was that they had to negotiate with providers without any upper limits, so you see why that's gone where it has.

This was a mistake, imo, in that these stations were given free bandwidth on condition of serving in the public interest. I don't find their charging for previously (and currently, over-air) no-charge, ad-supported content to be public serving. Quite the contrary, actually. And if they are remitting back to nets for content, then they're doing their own money-grab from people who don't watch sports, as you have to know that's the nets' biggest expense.

 

[Yespage]

I'd say the DVR killed ads rates which made life harder for locals.

 

[Bruce]

I'd say the DVR killed ads rates which made life harder for locals.

Yep, DVRs was what started everything, taught people they no longer needed to watch Live TV, which advertisers preferred.

 

[MikeD-C05]

My first dvr was the WebTV/Dish player 7100 model in August of 1999. Loved it and it was also my first experience with the web and getting on the internet. I even refinanced my house over the web tv feature. It worked great till the Microsoft DISH fight started and then it was nothing but sending it back for a replacement at $15.00 a pop. After the 4th or 5th time I told DISH give me a regular receiver again that I could use with my old VCR. Then I got the 501 Pvr when DISH came out with it and it was like a digital VCR. Name-based recording timers came some where in 2005. I loved the 942 dvrs and the 921 was a nightmare. The Hopper 3 has been the best of course. Since I left DISH , I use the Air TV Anywhere ota dvr with 4 tuners that works with Sling TV and I have a Tablo ota dvr that records 4 things at a time. So ota is taken care of. Don't want to be without a dvr of some kind.

 

[Bruce]

Don't want to be without a dvr of some kind.

Do not use one anymore, picture quality on streaming services is so much better, even vs OTA.

I do not regret dropping Traditional Paid Live TV at all, get the same content, get the extra content, all at 1080P/4K for under $70 a month.

 

[KAB]

Do not use one anymore, picture quality on streaming services is so much better, even vs OTA.

I do not regret dropping Traditional Paid Live TV at all, get the same content, get the extra content, all at 1080P/4K for under $70 a month.

I'm with Mike on DVR...don't care about PQ over convenience and access,

 

[telstar_1]

Is PPV still a thing?

 

[Bruce]

I'm with Mike on DVR...don't care about PQ over convenience and access,

I have convenience and access, all the shows are on next day as of 6am, for example, I watch Tracker on CBS, I can watch live on Sunday, or wait til Monday (or later) to watch it in 4K on Paramount+.

How is that different then a DVR?

 

[ncted]

I have convenience and access, all the shows are on next day as of 6am, for example, I watch Tracker on CBS, I can watch live on Sunday, or wait til Monday (or later) to watch it in 4K on Paramount+.

How is that different then a DVR?

You can't start watching something 20 minutes after it started, skipping commercials as you catch up to the live broadcast, but other than that, nothing I can think of.

 

[Bruce]

You can't start watching something 20 minutes after it started, skipping commercials as you catch up to the live broadcast, but other than that, nothing I can think of.

I never do that anyways, since I prefer to binge, watch multiple episodes at a time.

And you can do that with Streaming Live TV Providers like YTTV.

It is just I find paying for Live TV with less and less new content to be a waste.

Based on the numbers released this week, where , with only 3 companies reporting, already close to a million left in the first 3 months of the year, looks like many more feels that way.

All year, I have been trying to catch up on streaming shows and movies, I will start watching network/cable shows the end of May.

For example, looking forward to watching Shogun from FX for example, since it is in 4K.

Around Prime Day, usually they have 3 months specials on streaming services for like $1.99 a month, I will then sub to AMC+ to catch up, then drop again.

But picture/sound quality is a big deal for myself, ever since the laserdiscs days vs VHS.

 

[MikeD-C05]

I have convenience and access, all the shows are on next day as of 6am, for example, I watch Tracker on CBS, I can watch live on Sunday, or wait til Monday (or later) to watch it in 4K on Paramount+.

How is that different then a DVR?

You are just using the programs that are already recorded by Paramount on their app but you have a days worth of delay for the better p/q . I like watching when it is live or slightly delayed at home. I can't really see much difference between 4k and HD anyway. Just like I don't see any reason at all for 8k. If they human eye can't see difference between HD and 4k then 8k is no different. It is just a selling gimmick to get people to buy new TVs.

As for my ota recording it cost me nothing. Only the device and ota antenna I added and since it is free programming on the 4 tuner Tablo and the Sling tv - 4 tuner Air tv Anywhere device.

 

[Bruce]

You are just using the programs that are already recorded by Paramount on their app but you have a days worth of delay for the better p/q .

One day, but just like if I still had a DVR, it would be weeks or even months before I get to it.

I like watching when it is live or slightly delayed at home. I can't really see much difference between 4k and HD anyway. Just like I don't see any reason at all for 8k. If the human eye can't see difference between HD and 4k then 8k is no different. It is just a selling gimmick to get people to buy new TVs.

I can tell the difference, my Sony Z9K up-converts everything to 8K, so I rather feed it the best signal possible, 4K Blu-rays look amazing on it.

As for my ota recording it cost me nothing. Only the device and ota antenna I added and since it is free programming on the 4 tuner Tablo and the Sling tv - 4 tuner Air tv Anywhere device.

My tablo is in a closet right now, never use it for reasons I have already explained.

 

[ncted]

I haven't heard of that, except I do know that PBS affils have to remit (from 'viewers like you') based on what shows they want to run.

Locals began extorting providers after legislation passed switching them from a cable "must carry" status to a self-declaratory status of either "must carry" or (providers) "must negotiate." Low viewership stations such as religious largely stuck with "must carry" to guarantee they would stay on, while big-net affils of course picked being paid. All the legislation said was that they had to negotiate with providers without any upper limits, so you see why that's gone where it has.

This was a mistake, imo, in that these stations were given free bandwidth on condition of serving in the public interest. I don't find their charging for previously (and currently, over-air) no-charge, ad-supported content to be public serving. Quite the contrary, actually. And if they are remitting back to nets for content, then they're doing their own money-grab from people who don't watch sports, as you have to know that's the nets' biggest expense.

Finally took the time to do an internet search on the topic and found this:

Here's How The TV Business Actually Works (And Why It's Going To Take Longer Than You Think To Disrupt It)

www.businessinsider.com

Specifically:

For the longest time, the major networks were not part of the affiliate fee gravy train. In fact, due to “must carry” laws, most networks never considered intentionally restricting their own distribution. They were simply pleased to get redistributed over cable and satellite. As these fees have grown in size and importance, the networks have changed their position and have come to the table asking for affiliate fees also.

From some other reading I've done, it sounds like the per-sub reverse-compensation model is fairly new though, and most local TV stations are still paying a fixed amount to the networks, so my recollection that it was part of the reason retransmission fees had gone up was incorrect.

 

[NashGuy]

Please remind me, didn't local stations have to start paying per-sub fees to the networks at some point? I have a vague recollection of that being when the locals starting playing hardball with the cable/satellite companies.

Yes. In the industry it's called "reverse comp," whereby the networks take about 50% of the retransmission fee revenue that their local affiliates collect from MVPDs. (And of course in those major markets where the affiliate is a network O&O, they're getting all of it.)

That whole gravy train is going to break down at some point in the latter half of this decade. Local stations have been riding the coattails of the national networks, who actually own the high-value content (e.g. NFL and other live sports, popular primetime shows, breaking national news and election coverage). But in a direct-to-consumer streaming world, the local affiliates are just unnecessary middle-men waiting to be cut out.

This is why the big local station groups have been trying to get into the content games themselves. The largest, Nexstar, is now the majority owner of The CW, which is edging more into live sports. They also own the NewsNation cable channel. Another one, E.W. Scripps, owns ION (which is also getting into sports now with the WNBA and women's soccer), Court TV, Scripps News, and retro diginets like Bounce, Grit and Laff. Pretty much all these guys are offering their local newscasts, live and/or on-demand, for free on multiple platforms to increase ad revenue and reach younger audiences (who will never start watching local news if it remains siloed away on cable and OTA).

I do fear that there will be a huge shakeout in local news providers down the road when retrans revenue dries up. Not sure how many will be able to survive on ad revenue alone. Maybe the strongest will be able to adopt some kind of subscription model. Perhaps we'll see local PBS member stations step into the void with quality local news funded through viewer donations and local philanthropy.

 

[ncted]

I keep seeing reports like this:

Streaming is cable now

It’s even got live sports!

www.theverge.com

While bundles are now available and ads are pervasive if you don't want to pay to avoid them, there is are significant differences:

1. You don't have to bundle streaming services if you don't want to, unlike cable.
2. You don't have to watch ads if you don't want to, unlike cable without a DVR that isn't hamstrung by your provider.

 

[Bruce]

I keep seeing reports like this:

Streaming is cable now

It’s even got live sports!

www.theverge.com

While bundles are now available and ads are pervasive if you don't want to pay to avoid them, there is are significant differences:

1. You don't have to bundle streaming services if you don't want to, unlike cable.
2. You don't have to watch ads if you don't want to, unlike cable without a DVR that isn't hamstrung by your provider.

The Verge is owned by Vox Media, who is one of the owners of Vox Media, Comcast.

Once again, I get the vast majority of content from Paid Live TV, HBO, Showtime, streaming shows, Netflix, Apple TV and I spend about $70 a month, all of the services at the highest tier ( except Peacock) so no commercials , 4K, etc.