1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

1 in 8 cable/sat subscribers will drop service. maybe they shouldn't charge 70 bucks

Discussion in 'General Satellite Discussion' started by FastNOC, Apr 30, 2010.

  1. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,579
    376
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Not quite as clear cut as that.

    Assuming for a moment that all the content you want to watch is available in high quality streaming/downloadable content online... you still have to pay for an unlimited broadband high-speed connection to get it... and while you're doing that downloading it takes away from your other internet speed usage... and you certainly can't have a multi-tuner scenario going on like you can with satellite/cable where you are simultaneously getting 4 or more simultaneous HD programs in real-time.

    I have an 18Mbps connection download that costs around $60 per month. I also have 3 Dish receivers, on each receiver I can record at least 3 programs at the same time (4 at once on my 922)... but at best I could get 2 simultaneous streams from my internet connection.
     
  2. fluffybear

    fluffybear Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    7,316
    38
    Jun 19, 2004
    Peachtree...
    Mrs. Fluffybear recently asked about cutting out a couple of receivers. We have 3 receivers that we could get rid of if we really wanted. At $5.00 per receiver, A $180 a year is nothing to sneeze at.
     
  3. Shades228

    Shades228 DaBears

    6,081
    45
    Mar 18, 2008
    ISP's are a huge profit margin and they will only continue to become more profitable until something really rocks the current business model. If you don't think that they're watching the impact of the mobile providers starting to have caps and overages with internet usage then you're either not paying attention or kidding yourself.

    Also once re-broadcasters lose revenue they will then start paying less for the product or no longer carry it. So far only online gaming has proven a viable and profitable business model as far as monthly costs go. We're still many years away from IPTV being equivalent, legally at least, to any provider now.
     
  4. lee635

    lee635 Hall Of Fame

    2,023
    1
    Apr 17, 2002
    I don't know about that Shades, with netflix streaming, I can get a whole library of movies, tv programming, etc. And netflix is still relatively new to the streaming scene. I think even if they went up to $1 per movie for recent releases, folks would still enjoy the convenience. Then, Netflix could still allow all-u-can-eat for older movies and shows.

    As for the potential bandwidth problems, lots of streaming likely won't be a problem for the backbone. Outfits like netflix can place a server with lots of bandwidth in every big city, so that the feeds aren't having to travel across country. That leaves the bottleneck at the dsl and cable headend. The small percentage of households with fiber won't be adversely impacted. Just my thoughts...
     
  5. Mark Holtz

    Mark Holtz Day Sleeper DBSTalk Club

    10,440
    77
    Mar 23, 2002
    Sacramento, CA
    See http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=183159 . Same thing.

    DirecTV has me until January, 2012. After that, I may end up cutting the service. The only reason why I'm keeping it now is because of my mother, and even she is watching less.

    It may take some mass unsubscriptions to convince the programmers to rethink their model of "everyone must subscribe, even if they don't give a...". Part of my bill includes the $ports networks. I don't watch $ports, either E$PN or the Regional $ports Networks. Yet, I still have to pay, along with the so-called music channels. Why am I singling out the $ports channels? Because they are the most expensive per-subscriber channels in the basic packages.
     
  6. bills976

    bills976 Godfather/Supporter

    513
    3
    Jun 30, 2002
    They will definitely start charging for online access, but I don't know how they are going to stop the piracy problem. "Wild" internet feeds with NFL games, broadcast networks, etc, are all commonplace on the web if you know where to look. And given that many of the people originating these feeds are in countries like Russia and Sweden, I don't know how they will legally be able to take them down. People are willing to pay for Netflix, etc because it's cheap. If it becomes more expensive... well, look for people to start to take advantage of piracy. It's an interesting shift in the model and it will be even more interesting to watch what companies decide to do about it.
     
  7. brant

    brant Icon

    755
    0
    Jul 6, 2008
    I would not be willing to pay $1 per movie or tv show.

    If we had to pay that in my house watching two programs a day, might as well go back to satellite or cable.
     
  8. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,579
    376
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Yeah, that's one aspect of the model no one really thinks about.

    It's fine to pay $1 every now and then for something... but if you actually had to pay $1 for every movie you watched or every TV show... you'd very quickly go past what you're paying now to have an "Everything" package on cable or satellite.

    Consider... if you're paying $100 per month for satellite, that would be about $3.28 per day for a buffet of viewing options 24 hours a day.
     
  9. Gloria_Chavez

    Gloria_Chavez Godfather

    499
    17
    Aug 11, 2008
    Stewart, consider this...

    Since 1995 the average cable bill has increased 122%

    http://www.multichannel.com/article/196364-Study_Average_Cable_TV_Bill_Is_71_Per_Month.php

    And the Average TV Viewing by Household has increased by 13%

    http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire...ewing-for-2008-09-tv-season-at-all-time-high/

    That's the problem.

    You're paying significantly more per hour of TV viewing.

    Frankly, I'm surprised that the DirecTV and Comcasts have given in so easily to the demands of ESPN and other sports channels.

    If they're not careful, they're going to lose everyone but the sports fanatic, who will be paying more and more to get their daily fix.
     
  10. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,579
    376
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    While that might be true... it still doesn't refute the points brought out above that the pay-per-view model isn't going to save anyone money.

    IF people truly had to pay per episode of TV watched... most people would find their bills skyrocket for less viewing options.

    People that just watch one or two TV shows a season and not many movies would save, of course, but those folks aren't paying for anything but basic packages anyway!

    The people who really love TV and movies are subscribing to higher tiers and paying more, to be sure... BUT they'd pay even more if they had to pay for each individual episode or movie they watched at $1 or more a pop.

    I don't disagree that TV is going up (always has) in price... and we all will have to make choices... but one choice that doesn't make sense is to adopt a pure pay-per-view model that would end up costing more.
     
  11. Gloria_Chavez

    Gloria_Chavez Godfather

    499
    17
    Aug 11, 2008
    Dave, I do believe it would save MANY people money. How many? Only the MSO and DTH providers know for sure. They know the habits of their customers, and I'm almost certain that 80% of the HHs watch but 20% of the channels. If those 20% of the channels were made available a-la-carte, and the customer's monthly bill fell by 50%, it is very possible they would do without the 80% of the channels that they only occasionally watch.

    Would some have to pay more? You bet. A sports fan would probably have to pay 30 dollars a month to watch ESPN.

    But the majority would pay less.
     
  12. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,579
    376
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Do you buy your bread by the slice? Only enough for the sandwich you are eating today?

    Or do you buy a loaf at a time?

    That's what we are talking about here with a la carte vs the tier model.

    Tiers are creeping up in price... but a la carte would have price increases yearly too. In fact, channels ask for more money every time their contract is up today.

    ESPN wouldn't be $30 a month either because it would be popular enough that the per-channel cost would be more like HBO numbers I'm sure.

    Do you want Syfy to cost $10 like HBO does? OR maybe you like Hallmark for $10?

    Lots of channels would go away with pure a la carte... and what would remain would have to charge more... so unless you just wanted literally 1 or 2 channels, your bill would likely be the same or higher for far fewer viewing options.

    It just gets worse if you had to pay-per-view each individual program.

    I'm also amazed when people like $1 per show or movie rentals/streaming purchase... but then think their SAT bill is overpriced without figuring out how many TV shows/movies they actually watch and seeing how expensive that would be on a per-view basis.
     
  13. Glen_D

    Glen_D Legend

    205
    1
    Oct 21, 2006
    I don't think so. I buy bread by the loaf, because I am going to consume the entire loaf over a period of days. I am using everything I paid for.

    With pay TV services, I have to buy a package that has a bunch of channels, but I only watch a few of those channels. I am paying for a lot of channels I never watch.

    Still, I'm not convinced a la carte is feasible. I think we would be more likely to see stripped-down packages, kind of like Dish Network's AT120, or DirecTV's "secret" Select package, if they want to reduce defections/grow the subscriber base.
     
  14. Gloria_Chavez

    Gloria_Chavez Godfather

    499
    17
    Aug 11, 2008
    Stewart, today, most people buy their music a-la-carte, instead of in album format, as they did prior to 2000. And people are happier with their music, and are spending far less than they did prior to 200.
     
  15. Mark Holtz

    Mark Holtz Day Sleeper DBSTalk Club

    10,440
    77
    Mar 23, 2002
    Sacramento, CA
    Since you are using the bread analogy....

    Would you like multigrain, wheat, white, sweet, sourdough, rye, kibbled, fruit, English muffin, hearth, French, flat, or bagels? Under the present cable system, I have to purchase all those breads for the month, even though I am only interest in sweet rolls and bagels.
     
  16. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,579
    376
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Only people who wanted just a couple of songs are saving money. Anyone who wants the entire album is paying more for less since the digital copies are not as high of quality as the CDs (or albums) were.

    If you only want one song... then 99 cents for a song is cheaper than $15 for a CD... but if you want most of the songs, then you aren't saving money.

    Like I said... if you only watch 1 or 2 TV shows and very few movies, then you might save money a la carte... but then you aren't watching much TV to begin with!

    I watch a couple of TV shows a night most nights and at $1 per episode that'd already be $60 a month if I didn't watch anything else and didn't watch any movies... so a la carte wouldn't save me any money at all.
     
  17. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,579
    376
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    The point was that a loaf of bread costs less than buying bread by the slice would cost. IF you only want a few slices then you're throwing away money buying the loaf... but if you want half or more of the loaf then you might as well buy the loaf and save money even if you end up not eating all of it.

    Some who want a la carte seem to think they'd get to watch all the stuff they want to watch for pennies a show/movie... but that's not going to happen. The price-per-episode is already easy math to show you how quickly you'd pay more for just a handful of episodes than you'd pay to have the whole package of channels you don't watch.

    A similar thing would happen if channels were a la carte too... People forget that we evolved to the tier model in part because in the past when customers were given the option to buy individual channels OR save money on a package deal, people were more often willing to pay for the package even if they didn't want all the channels in it.
     
  18. lee635

    lee635 Hall Of Fame

    2,023
    1
    Apr 17, 2002
    Just to clarify: My original point was a $1 charge to stream new releases, not "every movie or show" you download through netflix. I think the pay-one-price for all-you-can-eat on the older stuff will stay in place.

    For tv shows, there are usually about 5 or 6 episodes on each disc, so in that case, a newly released dvd of a tv series would not be $1 per show, but rather $1 per disc.

    In this sense the $1 fee is more of a competitor to pay channels like HBO, Showtime, etc. I don't know when was the last time I watched 12 new shows on HBO in one month...

    I wanted to clarify this point because some folks seem to have morphed that idea into $1 for every show you stream through netflix. I don't see that as a realistic scenario at all.
     

Share This Page