We May Be Seeing the Beginning of the End of the TV Business

[GaryPen]

Then you need to join the 21st century and get a tablet.
Instant on, tap newspaper or news app and starting skimming, reading whatever.

I have a tablet. I prefer watching most video content on my 60" plasma. I'd prefer it even bigger, and plan on making it so for the next TV purchase.

But, yes, just like my PC, it is a great substitute for newspapers, magazines, and other print news.

 

[Bobby]

My tablet is 9", my computer monitor is 27", my TV screen is 70". I prefer the 70......

 

[osu1991]

I have video for the tablet but it's only for times like sitting in between my nephews baseball games or the few times I have to be the passenger in a car. Bigger is always better. Projectors are nice for getting that movie theater or stadium experience.

 

[osu1991]

My tablet is 9", my computer monitor is 27", my TV screen is 70". I prefer the 70......

10" tablet, 37" monitor and 50" plasma in my office, 2 60" and a 65" throughout the house. No squinting in my house.
I am thinking of going to a projector, for football and movies, if I go ahead and make this house a rental in a few months. Depends on what deals I can find on a new property in a few months. Been pinching pennies for the last year trying to get in a good position before the housing market decides to rebound.

 

[GaryPen]

A PJ is great for movies. I had one for a while. If you have the space, go for it.

 

[DBS Commando]

As baby boomers die off and the "sports" issue is settled, I think you'll see traditional TV as we know it die off very quickly.

The sports leagues are going to hold onto the traditional model for as long as they possibly can, however, because the way the current model is setup is that EVERY subscriber pays for the RSNs/Networks, even if they don't watch. Subscribing to sports by league would significantly shrink their revenue stream.

As a young adult - I will tell you that I plan on not subscribing to any sort of TV service once I'm out of college. I can easily get the content from other places for much, much less.

Watch Apple and Google - they will revolutionize the way we pick and watch content with their competing products on our TVs.

 

[Claude Greiner]

The internet is going to force stations to be offered in smaller packages, or A La Carte.

The issue is that once you offer customers a choice, they are only going to subscribe to the channels that they want to watch, as a result we will see alot of stations go out of business.

The only thing keeping alot of these stations afloat is the fact they are bundled in packages with other channels.

Take ESPN for example, it is not worth $5 per month and if customers had a choice they would drop ESPN and other sports networks in a heartbeat.

Now you start dropping sports networks, now they end up paying less to carry sporting events, which means that the days of multi-million dollar sports contracts are over.

 

[mike1977]

These channels keep showing the same few shows all day long, instead of having show A at 10:00, show B at 11:00, show C at noon, etc. 99% of the time it's either NCIS or L&O:SVU I see on USA, it makes me wonder why I pay for no variety and the same old crap over and over and over again with the same old episodes over and over again. I know they are popular shows, but geez...enough is enough. It'd be nice to see the return of a M-F schedule with variety back. Besides high prices, no wonder people want to cut the cord and choose what they want to see through the internet, cause the cable channels are so limited with their 2-3 shows they only air.

 

[mike123abc]

HBO Still Fighting Standalone HBO Go Product - Fear of Evolution Isn't a Business Model | DSLReports.com, ISP Information

An article on how HBOGO is fighting calls to be a free standing product. Time Warner does not want to give up the current business model even though they have a ready internet product. HBO still has more subs than Netflix. One has to wonder what the cost to a provider of HBO is? I would speculate in volume HBO runs $5-$6/month/sub. At $10/month direct they would probably have a lot more subs.

There is something seriously wrong when many households can buy all the "cable" shows (assuming they can get OTA for free) they watch in a month from iTunes or Amazon and come out paying less money, even at $3/episode for HD. 20 hours of original programming a year is $60 or $5/month buying them. It is not just the cost of the programming package that has to be considered, but all the fees (and taxes) that can really raise the cable bill.

 

[odbrv]

Until internet tv has TV Guide to make what is available and program selection very simpleminded, the majority of tv viewers will not leave cable companies and Satellite distributors of video content. Now I use my Dish guide to select what and when I program. To use the internet you need to visit too many sites and to learn which ones you want. To record the programs you need an internet based DVR. The writer who wrote the demise of tv article didn't even know there are P2P sources of every professional sport in the world. I didn't need to leave Dish when they couldn't get NFL like Directv. I simply found a P2P site and watched whatever team I wanted. The average tv viewer is not also an internet expert. Just searching through HULU, GOHBO, GOMAX, NETFLIX, Blockbuster, VUDU, 50+ tv channel sites to find a program you want to watch is just to complex for the average tv watcher. Roku is try at this. However it is not all inclusive and requires an equipment purchase. A recent pole showed less than 10 % of US households have tablets. Only 20% have smartphones. Only 20% of those with smartphones or tablets can connect them to large screen tvs. I do have a laptop which I can connect to my large screen tvs.However, the difficulty in finding progamming limits my internet watching.

 

[lparsons21]

HBO Still Fighting Standalone HBO Go Product - Fear of Evolution Isn't a Business Model | DSLReports.com, ISP Information

An article on how HBOGO is fighting calls to be a free standing product. Time Warner does not want to give up the current business model even though they have a ready internet product. HBO still has more subs than Netflix. One has to wonder what the cost to a provider of HBO is? I would speculate in volume HBO runs $5-$6/month/sub. At $10/month direct they would probably have a lot more subs.

There is something seriously wrong when many households can buy all the "cable" shows (assuming they can get OTA for free) they watch in a month from iTunes or Amazon and come out paying less money, even at $3/episode for HD. 20 hours of original programming a year is $60 or $5/month buying them. It is not just the cost of the programming package that has to be considered, but all the fees (and taxes) that can really raise the cable bill.

While I do use HBOGO and MaxGo for many things, I still need the HBO sub for the boxing, but that's just me.

As to the cost of the good shows if you buy them. Figure $30/series a year, I watch about 30 series for sure every year. That's $900/year just for those, or $75/month. Add in Netflix for a year @$8/month, so the $75/month is now $83 per month. Now I need a source for live or nearly live Boxing and Golf that is LEGAL. Where other than cable/sat do I get that? And then there is the occasional movie that is much more current than what Netflix offers.

Doesn't take much to see that to do all of it legally, the cost to go to internet only isn't all that far away from what I'm paying D* right now.

 

[eurosport]

These channels keep showing the same few shows all day long, instead of having show A at 10:00, show B at 11:00, show C at noon, etc. 99% of the time it's either NCIS or L&O:SVU I see on USA, it makes me wonder why I pay for no variety and the same old crap over and over and over again with the same old episodes over and over again. I know they are popular shows, but geez...enough is enough. It'd be nice to see the return of a M-F schedule with variety back. Besides high prices, no wonder people want to cut the cord and choose what they want to see through the internet, cause the cable channels are so limited with their 2-3 shows they only air.

What's funnier yet is most of this stuff like SVU, NCIS etc. on USA and other paid cable-type channels is it's old re-runs of the stuff that originally aired on the free broadcast channels! If it wasn't part of the package, I'd never pay for most of this crap.

Sent from my DROIDX using SatelliteGuys

 

[DBS Commando]

Until internet tv has TV Guide to make what is available and program selection very simpleminded, the majority of tv viewers will not leave cable companies and Satellite distributors of video content. Now I use my Dish guide to select what and when I program. To use the internet you need to visit too many sites and to learn which ones you want. To record the programs you need an internet based DVR. The writer who wrote the demise of tv article didn't even know there are P2P sources of every professional sport in the world. I didn't need to leave Dish when they couldn't get NFL like Directv. I simply found a P2P site and watched whatever team I wanted. The average tv viewer is not also an internet expert. Just searching through HULU, GOHBO, GOMAX, NETFLIX, Blockbuster, VUDU, 50+ tv channel sites to find a program you want to watch is just to complex for the average tv watcher. Roku is try at this. However it is not all inclusive and requires an equipment purchase. A recent pole showed less than 10 % of US households have tablets. Only 20% have smartphones. Only 20% of those with smartphones or tablets can connect them to large screen tvs. I do have a laptop which I can connect to my large screen tvs.However, the difficulty in finding progamming limits my internet watching.

You don't need an "internet based DVR" when everything online is On-Demand.

As per the rest of the post - watch Apple and Google. They will develop a way to centralize all this content through their mobile platforms in an OS for TV's. It's the next part of the "mobile" revolution.

 

[mike123abc]

Doesn't take much to see that to do all of it legally, the cost to go to internet only isn't all that far away from what I'm paying D* right now.

It all depends on viewing habits. My main argument is that it is starting to be cheaper for a percentage of people to just buy HD commercial free without pop up things running across the screen half the show episodes. Each year as there are price increases the percentage of people that can save money increases. As people drop out of the "cable system", the networks will need to do something to raise more revenue... Higher rates or more commercials, again increasing the percentage, a vicious circle.

I only really watch sports on network TV which I can receive OTA. Yes I know there is also a percentage that cannot receive OTA.

In the long run people who love sports and cannot get OTA programming are the ones that will end up with huge bills. But, I bet even rabid sports fans have a breaking point and the system will collapse ad mentioned in the article. Once it starts to happen it will happen fast and then networks will have to go a la carte or be lost.

 

[lparsons21]

It does depend on viewing habits, that is for sure. If I only watched a little TV, and almost no sports, then internet TV would be tolerable. As it is, internet TV is in addition to what I watch with sat/cable, or something I want to record on a hard drive that I CAN copy files off of that will work.

But the $$$ are also part of the equation for me too. Currently I get some nice 1st year rebates from D*, so I have all the premiums lit up as the bill is around the $100/month mark. When those rebates expire, I'll most likely rethink what is most important and kill off some of the premiums to keep the bill at or around that figure. When it becomes impossible to keep the bill there, then I'll make some other choices.

Of course, when all this happens, I may just be so damned old by then I won't care at all about TV!

 

[jimdandyvi]

The internet is not the most traumatic event that happened to the networks and their affiliates.

In 1948 the first CATV (Community Antenna Television ) launched in the mountains of PA. At that time until the late 1970s CATV extended the reach of the broadcast stations. In the late 1970 and early 1980s CATV renamed itself cable television.

In order to sell itself in urban markets where most viewers could receive 8 -14 over the air channels the industry needed com-elling programming to sell itself to viewers. The must haves were HBO, CNN, ESPN and the super stations from NYC, Atlanta and Chicago. All of a sudden as cable's penetration soared the the big three networks found their viewing audience fragmented as the number of channels available to watch continued to expand and the big three lost significant audience to these other channels.

Now with cable and satellite subscription prices soaring people are looking to cut the cord. The consensus seems to be that to make this work you have the OTA channels for sports, news and other network programming. Then using the internet you can pick up some of the things you are missing.

If the networks program their sub channels their isn't any reason they can't pick up a significant viewer ship. If Netflix and Amazon can have past seasons of Myth Busters, etc. there isn't any reason NBC or Fox can't buy them and put them on add supported channels.

I think networks will become stronger and the long term losers will be the satellite TV providers as people cut the cord and receive their entertainment programming using a combination of OTA and the internet. The large MSOs such as Comcast have other sources of revenue in addition to selling video subscriptions. Selling internet services is much more profitable than CATV subscriptions. Comcast also has programming to sell as well as a broadcast network.

OTA networks will have higher viewership and satellite TV will have few subscribers.

 

[Brodieb]

I just today bought a Sony media streamer to watch Internet video content on my TV, and I am pretty impressed with it. Between Amazon Prime Instant Videos, Vudu, Netflix, and YouTube channels (with real shows not just cat videos) I could see someone getting by without paying for cable or Dish.

I am not ready to give up on traditional TV just yet, but as free and low cost Internet services get better and better my view may change. HBO is a great example, I love their programming but cannot justify spending $15+ per month to subscribe with Dish, so I go without or watch in other ways. If I could buy HBO Go for a low price (say $5 per month) I would do it in a heartbeat.

Sent from my iPad using SatelliteGuys

 

[dan188]

With more isps having data caps it be hard to do streming only at times. If you watch to much netflix your isp might cut you off or slow you down or make you pay more

 

[dlsnyder]

There have been a number of studies done about the ways in which people watch TV. For most, TV watching is a passive activity. I can say from personal experience that my wife watches a great deal of live TV, simply to have something on while she is engaged in other activities. I now rarely watch live TV, preferring to watch DVR recordings or Netflix. My kids watch a mix of live TV, DVR recordings, and Netflix. If it were only me, I would be a cord cutter. I can receive network TV just fine with the antenna on my roof or in the clear channels on cable (not blocked by TWC even though I subscribe to internet only). I can record all the network shows I want on my PC and watch them on the XBOX 360 in the living room. My wife would find that unacceptable, since she watches a lot of Bravo and TruTV shows. From my perspective, until live TV viewing is replicated on the internet, cable and satellite TV will remain pretty much as they are today.

Something like the Apple TV could take the current viewing experience to a whole new level, without disrupting the current cable business model (sorry satellite TV viewers, you are probably out of luck). Slap the new PlayReady DRM technology in it, offer it as part of an internet/TV bundle, and cable companies have the TV equivalent of the iPhone. Everyone is going to want one.

edit: On second thought, maybe satellite TV subs aren't out of luck. There could be some sort of a deal possible to make such a unit compatible with Dish Network, make it work sort of like a Joey on a Hopper system. Not likely, but possible.

 

[bigwillieb]

See to me watching tv on my computer is more hassle then its worth. Got to hook up my laptop to the tv, then got to get the mouse and keyboard, then find the show, sometimes it takes a while for it to buffer if it is the busiest time for internet traffic. When I get home I just want to sit down and turn the tv on and just find my fav show and relax.