Who Killed the Great American Cable-TV Bundle?

[pattykay]

I guess we did get off topic. One thing that has killed the great American cable packages, that since the programmers want so much more per channel, the $100+ bill per sub is killing the big package. Some still bite the bullet to get most, but it is so expensive. Now that the OTA channels want even more, it is killing cable & satellite. Streaming is a lot less, as people discover they do not need all of the channels they get. There has to be a limit and I think we are there. I know of several that used to get AT250. Now they get AT120.

The other side of the coin is that those same programmers who want so much more per channel, also want better package placement for their channels. Thus, as channels keep moving down to lower packages, many viewers find that they can lower their subscription level, and still watch most (or all) of the channels that they enjoy.

 

[nelson61]

Money is killing the bundle.

And the "packaged" delivery systems (Directv.Dish, Cable are going to continue to get whacked by Netflix and over the air reception.

Twenty percent of homes in the U.S. use a digital antenna to access live TV, up from 16 percent just two years ago, according to Parks Associates market research in Texas.

Antenna sales are rising, in another sign of churn in TV watching

 

[ncted]

Money is killing the bundle.

And the "packaged" delivery systems (Directv.Dish, Cable are going to continue to get whacked by Netflix and over the air reception.

Twenty percent of homes in the U.S. use a digital antenna to access live TV, up from 16 percent just two years ago, according to Parks Associates market research in Texas.

Antenna sales are rising, in another sign of churn in TV watching

I wonder how many of those people are going to go buy a new antenna as the repacks happen and channels move down into VHF. And then how many are going to buy a ATSC 3 tuner when the time (eventually) comes.

 

[comfortably_numb]

I wonder how many of those people are going to go buy a new antenna as the repacks happen and channels move down into VHF. And then how many are going to buy a ATSC 3 tuner when the time (eventually) comes.

No VHF channels are coming to this market. It’s mostly the biggest DMA’s that will have VHF and VHF-Lo.

 

[ncted]

No VHF channels are coming to this market. It’s mostly the biggest DMA’s that will have VHF and VHF-Lo.

I am sure it will vary. My DMA is 24th largest will end up with ABC and CBS channels in VHF. A bunch of other channels will move down to UHF 20 and below. I expect a number of people who were getting by with Mohu Leaf antennas will start losing channels when our repack happens in a year.

 

[mwdxer1]

No need for a new antenna. The antennas you currently use will be find with 3.0. The only thing needed will be the 3.0 tuner and it may something as simple as a HDMI dongle that runs from the TV. TV stations are already looking at it for more revenue as they can add more sub channels and get better quality.

 

[pattykay]

No need for a new antenna. The antennas you currently use will be find with 3.0. The only thing needed will be the 3.0 tuner and it may something as simple as a HDMI dongle that runs from the TV. TV stations are already looking at it for more revenue as they can add more sub channels and get better quality.

It is not about 3.0 vs. 1.0. It is about UHF vs. VHF. Many people can get by with UHF-only antennas now, but after the re-pack, they will need antennas that are also capable of VHF, or they will not get all of the channels.

 

[comfortably_numb]

It is not about 3.0 vs. 1.0. It is about UHF vs. VHF. Many people can get by with UHF-only antennas now, but after the re-pack, they will need antennas that are also capable of VHF, or they will not get all of the channels.

Supposedly, ATSC 3.0 signals penetrate buildings more effectively and have better range than 1.0 signals. Since very few (if any) consumers have access to 3.0 tuners in Phoenix, which is the only test market at this point, it's hard to say with any degree of accuracy if those claims are true yet.

 

[Claude Greiner]

What is ironic to me is the telecoms always say they don't just want to be a dumb pipe to the Internet, but they are essentially giving away video services (or in some cases, losing money on it), just to be the preferred pipe to the Internet for as many as possible. In cities, there will be competition at least. In the rural areas, you get what you get unless LEO satellite internet services really start to take off.

Yeah but keep in mind if the internet provider provides the video, the customer is streaming less and they make more money because the customer is using less data.

I don’t think Leo satellites are ever coming.

 

[Claude Greiner]

Keep in mind 20 years ago the 2 bills customers had to deal with where television and a home phone.

The home phone bill went away and was replaced with a cell phone bill and Your Tv service is replaced with internet and a handful of streaming services.

People are still spending the money but in different places.

As far as cellular bills, even though the cost has gone down for the service, most people finance their cell phones these days which in some cases is 50% of the bill.

When you factor other things, people don’t have the money and that’s why we have cord cutters

 

[comfortably_numb]

Yeah but keep in mind if the internet provider provides the video, the customer is streaming less and they make more money because the customer is using less data.

I don’t think Leo satellites are ever coming.

Mobile carriers also throttle video back to 480p on most plans. They might be an "unlimited pipe" and offering zero-rated video services, but so often the quality is garbage.

 

[navychop]

If watching on a phone or tablet, 480 is fine. IMHO.


Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[Claude Greiner]

Mobile carriers also throttle video back to 480p on most plans. They might be an "unlimited pipe" and offering zero-rated video services, but so often the quality is garbage.

That’s a bunch of bull$hit. Unlimited should be unlimited, not 22 gig or based on network congestion or a reduced video quality.

The carriers need to stop calling it unlimited.

The fact of the matter is people don’t care if it’s unlimited or not. The problem is that most customers don’t understand data usage, and the term unlimited means they don’t have to watch their data usage or get hit with overages.

On my Verizon account I get 82 gigs of data shared with 25 lines on a business account.

Data is $200, each line is $10-$15 depending if its an iPad or smart phone.

Way better than doing unlimited.

 

[comfortably_numb]

That’s a bunch of bull$hit. Unlimited should be unlimited, not 22 gig or based on network congestion or a reduced video quality.

The carriers need to stop calling it unlimited.

The fact of the matter is people don’t care if it’s unlimited or not. The problem is that most customers don’t understand data usage, and the term unlimited means they don’t have to watch their data usage or get hit with overages.

On my Verizon account I get 82 gigs of data shared with 25 lines on a business account.

Data is $200, each line is $10-$15 depending if its an iPad or smart phone.

Way better than doing unlimited.

I agree, and I'm fortunate that I'm on a grandfathered legacy unlimited plan with Verizon. I get 1080p video streams (if available). I do have the soft cap at 22gb, but I blow right past that most months with no issue. My daughter used 80gb on her line last month and was never congestion-throttled.

 

[ncted]

Yeah but keep in mind if the internet provider provides the video, the customer is streaming less and they make more money because the customer is using less data.

That is a good point I had not considered. It definitely would reduce traffic at peering points if everything stays on-net for a given vertically-integrated provider.

 

[rvvaquero]

On my Verizon account I get 82 gigs of data shared with 25 lines on a business account.

Data is $200, each line is $10-$15 depending if its an iPad or smart phone.

Way better than doing unlimited.

Yeah, but 25 people sharing 82 gigs won't do much streaming, which is where your conversation began.

 

[comfortably_numb]

if everything stays on-net for a given vertically-integrated provider.

That's not really how video hosting works. These companies work with backends like AWS (Amazon) to push video to clients. They have HUGE data centers in several parts of the country to serve video. ATT isn't hosting DirectvNOW on its own.

 

[comfortably_numb]

If watching on a phone or tablet, 480 is fine. IMHO.


Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!

Yes, but screen mirroring looks awful. I do a lot of screen mirroring with my phone and tablet to my TV

 

[Claude Greiner]

Yeah, but 25 people sharing 82 gigs won't do much streaming, which is where your conversation began.

Yeah but we all use WiFi at home and in the office.

Most people have an iPhone and iPad.

Some users like my mom use 1 gig, while on average each user uses between 2-5 gig.

I got a few like my girlfriend who uses 9 some months, but generally we use about 50-60 gig.

 

[comfortably_numb]

That’s a bunch of bull$hit. Unlimited should be unlimited, not 22 gig or based on network congestion or a reduced video quality.

The carriers need to stop calling it unlimited.

The truth is, none of the mobile carriers really have the capacity to do a truly unlimited service. That's why Verizon yanked "The New Verizon Plan Unlimited" after 3 months and replaced it with tiered unlimited services, all of which throttle video. I used to get 65mbps off the Verizon tower in my back yard, now it's down to 4mbps during peak time (8-9 PM).

The market is currently awash with unlimited plans and people want them, so the carriers are doing what they can to make them available, but they can't afford to offer truly unlimited plans. They don't have the network capacity quite frankly.

If everybody had truly unlimited mobile plans and a bunch of people streamed 1080p video at the same time, the networks would choke.