Traditional Providers Losses, the entire year of 2023 Edition

[Wobble]

Our Regional Sports fee is $16.00 with DTV. We watch basketball and baseball mostly. We have access to Chicago and Wisconsin with 3 channels. We are willing to pay the extra, just like we are the DTV Ultimate Package. Yes, prices are expected to go up and are the facts of life, people.

There are alternatives if DTV is to expensive for your budget. People are moving and is the fact of life, folks.

 

[Bobby]

I hope they do explode and take the sports with them. How many years did we pay for them when we didn't like or want sports in normal cable/satellite packs? Let those who want sports pay for them and the rest of us can opt out.

Being a sports fan, I am agreeeable to that. That can be a two way street though.

 

[savarese04]

I hope they do explode and take the sports with them. How many years did we pay for them when we didn't like or want sports in normal cable/satellite packs? Let those who want sports pay for them and the rest of us can opt out.

the problem with this logic is that is more than just "I dont like sports so give me a package without ESPN." Sports justifies the existence of a lot of other channels and props up the cable model in general. If removed, most cable channels will die. This is why the traditional providers are very afraid of the OTT ESPN+ and D/F/WB JV

 

[Mochuf]

the problem with this logic is that is more than just "I dont like sports so give me a package without ESPN." Sports justifies the existence of a lot of other channels and props up the cable model in general. If removed, most cable channels will die. This is why the traditional providers are very afraid of the OTT ESPN+ and D/F/WB JV

The loss of channels that are merely duplicates of other channels or devoid of new programming would actually benefit consumers. Most channels only broadcast three or four new series in a week filling most of the time with reruns. Combining three or four channels worth of new programming into one channel would be great. Do we really need 8 hours of Show X reruns before we see that nights new episode?

 

[MartyDe]

And ESPN has a plan.

How ESPN executives plan to survive the decline of cable TV

The company has a new two-part streaming plan to reinvigorate growth in hopes of reversing a decline brought on by cord cutting.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Yespage]

The loss of channels that are merely duplicates of other channels or devoid of new programming would actually benefit consumers. Most channels only broadcast three or four new series in a week filling most of the time with reruns. Combining three or four channels worth of new programming into one channel would be great. Do we really need 8 hours of Show X reruns before we see that nights new episode?

Channels used to have a niche. Now only Food Network/Cooking (kind of), Cartoon Network, ESPN, Comedy Central, and TCM remain in that niche. The History, Science, and Arts channels don't exist anymore. Anyone remember what TLC / Bravo used to be like? I think I might reuse that line in another thread.

So now it is repetitive programming, typically cheap realty stuff that apparently enough people in certain demographics liked.

Fiber optics, DVR, corporate conglomeration, and sports killed cable/sat. You can stream all of Adventure Time on demand after buying the whole series on sale for $20. The access to media on the Internet is science fiction crazy. I remember a Qwest commercial around 2000/01 talking about being able to watch any movie ever made whenever you wanted. Not quite there, but the general concept was achieved. DVRs likely crushed ad rates. Companies buying up all the channels so they could leverage higher rates and coverage kicked up the bill. And sports got really expensive because... it is the only thing that people HAVE to watch live, for the most part.

So ESPN didn't kill cable/sat, but they had a hand in it.

 

[MikeD-C05]

Being a sports fan, I am agreeeable to that. That can be a two way street though.

I don't have any problem paying for what I want to see. It is paying for someone else to watch sports that bugs me. All the years I paid for that piss me off. I mean going back to 1981 through 2020 I had either cable or satellite and it was built into the programming packs and you couldn't escape it till DISH came out with the Flex pack. Now Sling TV is also where you don't have to pay for sports if you don't want them. Can also add different special programming packs to your base package that you want or don't want remove them.

 

[Juan]

Channels used to have a niche. Now only Food Network/Cooking (kind of), Cartoon Network, ESPN, Comedy Central, and TCM remain in that niche. The History, Science, and Arts channels don't exist anymore. Anyone remember what TLC / Bravo used to be like? I think I might reuse that line in another thread.

So now it is repetitive programming, typically cheap realty stuff that apparently enough people in certain demographics liked.

Fiber optics, DVR, corporate conglomeration, and sports killed cable/sat. You can stream all of Adventure Time on demand after buying the whole series on sale for $20. The access to media on the Internet is science fiction crazy. I remember a Qwest commercial around 2000/01 talking about being able to watch any movie ever made whenever you wanted. Not quite there, but the general concept was achieved. DVRs likely crushed ad rates. Companies buying up all the channels so they could leverage higher rates and coverage kicked up the bill. And sports got really expensive because... it is the only thing that people HAVE to watch live, for the most part.

So ESPN didn't kill cable/sat, but they had a hand in it.

ESPN rates drove up programming costs because they were able to get in the lowest possible tier...but you are right..that was peanuts on a $200/month cable bill

 

[Bruce]

ESPN rates drove up programming costs because they were able to get in the lowest possible tier...but you are right..that was peanuts on a $200/month cable bill

So were other high per sub channels, RSNs, Disney Channel was a premium channel before it became part of the lowest tier.

ESPN was not a high per sub fee channel at first.

 

[Yespage]

I don't have any problem paying for what I want to see. It is paying for someone else to watch sports that bugs me. All the years I paid for that piss me off. I mean going back to 1981 through 2020 I had either cable or satellite and it was built into the programming packs and you couldn't escape it till DISH came out with the Flex pack. Now Sling TV is also where you don't have to pay for sports if you don't want them. Can also add different special programming packs to your base package that you want or don't want remove them.

One thing I hated about Sling was the ad insertions. I tried sub'ing to Willow on Sling because you need the live TV angle to get access to some of the things like the IPL. And when watching on demand, trying to fast forward, because some cricket requires that (!), it'd hang up on me and I had to restart the app. This seemed to happen on the ads Sling inserted into the programming, not the ads in the programming itself.

Otherwise, Sling was pretty good, while I was using it and Welcome Pack with Dish to save a few bucks. Can't do that anymore as Sling's prices have popped up, and Welcome Pack is ridiculously priced now.

 

[savarese04]

The loss of channels that are merely duplicates of other channels or devoid of new programming would actually benefit consumers. Most channels only broadcast three or four new series in a week filling most of the time with reruns. Combining three or four channels worth of new programming into one channel would be great. Do we really need 8 hours of Show X reruns before we see that nights new episode?

no, but isn't the whole model to charge basically nothing for those channels as part of a bundle and to make money on selling traditional linear ads? If you remove profitable filler channels, the provider doing the bundle would have to raise the cost of a slimmed down bundle to make up the difference, right? I could be wrong, but I think it's basically economies of scale.

 

[ncted]

I don't have any problem paying for what I want to see. It is paying for someone else to watch sports that bugs me. All the years I paid for that piss me off. I mean going back to 1981 through 2020 I had either cable or satellite and it was built into the programming packs and you couldn't escape it till DISH came out with the Flex pack. Now Sling TV is also where you don't have to pay for sports if you don't want them. Can also add different special programming packs to your base package that you want or don't want remove them.

I don't even mind paying a little for access to sports, but it effectively became a disproportionate amount of the cable bill by Disney et. al. requiring a huge bundle of channels at a higher rate in order to get the sports channels which cable companies knew they couldn't go without. There are a lot of factors that contributed to linear TV declining to this point, almost all of which involve charging the customer more and more until they stopped paying. There should be case studies and classes in business schools about this, so the next generation of MBAs learn not to to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

 

[Bruce]

no, but isn't the whole model to charge basically nothing for those channels as part of a bundle and to make money on selling traditional linear ads? If you remove profitable filler channels, the provider doing the bundle would have to raise the cost of a slimmed down bundle to make up the difference, right? I could be wrong, but I think it's basically economies of scale.

If Cable/Satellite has any hope, they need to get rid of all the filler/rerun channels, all the channels that just exists for the per sub fee they get from us, yet ratings shows barely anyone watches them.

When shows do not get good enough ratings, they get cancelled, why not channels then?

Since Cable/Satellite has lost 45 Million Subscribers in just 7 years and continues to do so ( lost over 6 million in 2023), should show that their business model no longer works.

Yet a service like YTTV , with not as many channels ( no RSNs for one example) is gaining, as reported every quarter, now at 8 Million.

 

[NashGuy]

Netflix pulled ahead by deciding to be a "world" provider. Along with supporting production from around the world.

Yeah, that's an important aspect in the history of Netflix that I failed to mention in my history of the company. They expanded globally and began producing locally-originated content from multiple foreign markets. They are, in effect, the first truly international TV network. The costs of creating and licensing content for a big, general entertainment service like Netflix are huge, and they understood the need to scale up globally to increase their subscriber base in order to reach profitability.

 

[NashGuy]

The access to media on the Internet is science fiction crazy. I remember a Qwest commercial around 2000/01 talking about being able to watch any movie ever made whenever you wanted. Not quite there, but the general concept was achieved.

Ha, yeah, I remember that ad!


View: https://youtu.be/K_sXmRae8Lk?si=HX8kxV8txZg8GSIj