1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to the new DBSTalk community platform. We have recently migrated to a community platform called Xenfono and hope you will find this change to your liking. There are some differences, but for the most part, if you just post and read, that will all be the same. If you have questions, please post them in the Forum Support area. Thanks!

Portland telco delivers local DTV stations via IPTV to Roku box

Discussion in 'IPTV Hardware' started by Athlon646464, May 25, 2013.

  1. Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,045
    66
    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    Portland telco delivers local DTV stations via IPTV to Roku box

    "To date, these IP-based, OTT services have not offered local channels, but that’s now changing."

    "A trend has begun to emerge among multichannel video programming distributors (MVPD) to stem the tide of “cord cutters” that continue to cancel their subscriptions in favor of on-demand services like those from Apple, Netflix, Roku and others. The solution, many feel, is to give customers what they want: a lower monthly TV service bill that allows them to pick and choose the programs they want to watch, and live broadcasts from local TV stations."

    Full Story Here

    Is this the future of TV?

    Look at these shrinking sub stats:

    [​IMG]
     
  2. SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,255
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    Not sure those numbers make sense. If those cable companies also offer internet (as most do), why would their number be falling? Or are those numbers only for TV subscriptions and don't include internet subscriptions?

    Certainly people aren't going to drop cable with internet for satellite. If they do, they still have to get internet from somewhere. Verizon and AT&T don't offer hardwired services everywhere and wireless services aren't unrestricted even if they can handle the traffic.
     
  3. Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,045
    66
    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    The numbers refer to video subs only.

    "The top nine cable companies lost about 264,000 video subscribers in the first quarter of 2013 alone."

    http://broadcastengineering.com/ott/cord-cutters-are-hurting-pay-television

    "The new figures confirm a definite trend of cord cutters having an impact on pay television as viewers move to watching more inexpensive television over the Internet."

    "The U.S. pay television industry has suffered a net loss of about 80,000 subscribers over the past year — its first-ever annual net subscriber loss. This was compared to a net gain of about 380,000 over the prior year."
     
  4. west99999

    west99999 Icon

    1,348
    45
    May 11, 2007
    These numbers don't mean anything. There are hundreds of thousands that are "broke" and can't afford any TV service. I bet almost everyone who is "cord cutting" if they were asked if they had the money flowing in would they have a pay tv subscription they would almost all say yes. For most TV is a luxury item and some can't afford it. I also see families on a daily basis that are moving in together due to economics so that would take away from the count of households that normally would both have a subscription. Until things get better economically then these numbers don't mean much as to where TV will end up. In the future if "streaming services get easier and more content (sooner like same day) then maybe everything will go that way but I see it a long time off.
     
  5. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,812
    180
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    The BIG story here is locals over IP.

    I would love to be able to get locals from certain other DMAs (ATL, SAV, NYC, WDC).

    Screw the NAB!
     
    1 person likes this.
  6. Gloria_Chavez

    Gloria_Chavez Godfather

    499
    17
    Aug 11, 2008
    Not necessarily true. I know quite a few recent Stanford grads who refuse to become a pay tv subscribers.

    Game of Thrones? family/friend HBO Go account.
    Colbert Report/Daily Show? Hulu
    Netflix offers so much as well.
    And Aereo will soon offer a cloud-based DVR for broadcast Tv, for 8 dollars a month.

    Of course, if you're a sports fan, you have no choice. You need to sign up for Pay Tv.
     
  7. west99999

    west99999 Icon

    1,348
    45
    May 11, 2007
    Stanford grads? That just means they are debt up to their ears in student loans! Trust me if they had the funds they would have a pay TV account . By the time you pay for Netflix, Hulu, Aereo, etc.... then you are at $30+ so you spend a few more and have everything without the hassle of waiting for a show to be put on any of those other options. Ask anyone who has "cut the cord" they will tell you it was due to money$$$$!!!! So that tells me if they had the money to spend then they would not have done it.
     
  8. SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,255
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    I imagine the lawyers and suits will have their way here also.
     
  9. Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,045
    66
    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    @ west99999

    It's about perceived value. Most of us don't buy anything unless we think the item's value is greater than what we are pulling out of our wallet.

    The only exceptions would be when you rationalize a 'foolish' purchase to please your brain, or when you are forced to pay for something by law or because you can't literally live without it (food and medicine for example).

    I know some very wealthy people who will not buy things just because they can afford it, as you say. They can be as tight with their money as any recent college grad with loans up the wazoo needs to be.

    Everyone's value perception is different. In my opinion, what is actually happening is that people's perception of what programming should cost is changing. Yes, partly because of the economy, but I think mostly because of competition and choice, which have always lowered the consumer's cost. (+1 for capitalism!) We have many more choices for delivery now than ever before, and more every day. That is really what we are seeing here.

    It's not always based on what you can or can't afford. None of us really 'need' TV. Most of us want it, but to varying degrees. Therefore each of our value perceptions of what it should cost is very different. And those perceptions are changing rapidly.

    Remember, until about 1970 TV was always free. Can you imagine paying for it before then? We decided to start paying for it when there was more choice. However, for most of the time since we've had 'pay TV' we've been dealing essentially with monopolies. Not any more. And the competition will be good for us.

    By the way, a lot of those recent college grads are not watching nearly as much TV anyway. They're on Facebook, Twitter, gaming and doing other things with their devices than watching traditional TV. Those things and more are also competing for people's time, and they didn't even exist 10 years ago!

    My niece doesn't have a land line phone, for example. She could well afford it at 29 years old with a great job in Boston. Her value perception is 'why pay for it if I won't use it much or even need it at all'. For her it has nothing to do with the economy. It's how she looks at it.

    My wife on the other hand will never give up our land line. We both have cell phones, but her perception is that we would be out of touch without that damn land line and the phone number we've had for 30 years.

    Again, it's rarely about the economy - it's perceived value. One more example - we're the only nation on earth where most of our poor have flat screen TV's. Perceived value at it's most obvious (and not the economy for someone in that situation).

    My 2 cents.
     
  10. Diana C

    Diana C Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    2,117
    293
    Mar 30, 2007
    New Jersey
    If you add the growth of Verizon, AT&T, DirecTV and Dish together you get 1,479,000 subscribers, compared to the cable loss of 1,559,459. So, there are actually only about 80,000 fewer subscribers to traditional pay-tv service than a year ago. That's less than 1% of the total. Hardly a groundswell of cord cutters.
     
  11. Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,045
    66
    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    Agreed, but without growth businesses eventually go away. The survivors will figure out a way to increase their revenue streams, and the others will disappear.

    It's an interesting time for sure - the landscape is changing.
     
  12. Diana C

    Diana C Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    2,117
    293
    Mar 30, 2007
    New Jersey
    We also need to consider the larger demographics. Many young people are moving back home after school, or in living situations where they have little disposable income. As a result, we are missing a large crop of people that would otherwise be new pay TV subscribers. If the downtrend in total subscribed households persists once unemployment gets down to the 6% range then we may be seeing a real shift. But for now, I think the jury is still very much out on whether we are seeing a real shift away from traditional linear broadcasting.
     
  13. sregener

    sregener Godfather

    630
    26
    Apr 17, 2012
    Read "The Millionaire Next Door". You've fallen into the typical trap of thinking that wealthy people consume their income.

    The reality is that cord-cutting is becoming popular because people see Internet-delivered television as a cheaper way to get their entertainment. It is true that sports subscriptions have driven up the cost, but it is not true that all devoted sports fans must have pay-tv. If you're an NFL fan of your local team, every single game is broadcast, even the ones carried by ESPN and the NFL Network. If you're an MLB fan, you can buy a streaming package for all the out-of-market games for a Roku. And there's a ton of broadcast sports on weekends and holidays. Do you have the same choices as with pay-TV? Obviously not, but for many, the cost difference is enough to justify the difference.

    There is also the "Kill your TV" crowd, of which I was a member for a while. It's educational to completely stop watching video for a while (say, at least six months) and see what it does to you and your lifestyle. My viewing habits will never be the same again.

    Honestly, if it wasn't for tennis, NASCAR and football, I wouldn't have pay-TV anymore. An antenna gets me all the locals, and streaming provides me with more than enough viewing options on Amazon Prime for the rest of the time. I could easily buy a bunch of programs and movies for the $90/month pay-TV costs me. I'm sure there are many people who don't like to waste their money who have reached the same conclusion.
     
  14. west99999

    west99999 Icon

    1,348
    45
    May 11, 2007
    Cell phones are easier and more convenient than land line phones and if you have a cell phone you don't need a land line so why pay for both. Now when streaming services get to that same level of cell phones (easy & convenient) then pay tv industry will have some problems but by that time I assume the broadcasters with all the rights will be charging just as much for rights to Netflix as they would any other provider.
     
  15. SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,255
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    This is where speaking in generalities fails.

    For one thing, with a landline, you can have multiple devices attached to one phone number. Most houses still have several phones connected, an answering machine (whether or not they also have voicemail), possibly a Fax machine and maybe even something like a Dish receiver box. And, yeah, some even still have modems for dial-up connections. Can't do all that with a cell phone (though I've heard of some specialty adapters).

    For me, I have to have a landline for the DSL connection.
     
  16. mpaquette

    mpaquette AllStar

    97
    0
    Sep 25, 2007
    @ Athlon646464

    I completely agree with your perceived value comment. I can easily afford to subscribe to cable or satellite, but when my Directv bill hit $120 earlier this year, it no longer was worth it to me. I enjoyed and was happy with my Directv service, but at $120 a month it was becoming the equivalent of a $50k luxury car. Just because I could afford it, doesn't mean I would ever pay that much for a car. TV at $120 is not worth it to me.
     
  17. ferndown

    ferndown New Member

    1
    0
    May 28, 2013
    I 2nd that notion.... I pay $110 a month and watch maybe 15 channels. The rest is a complete waste of $$$. If Microsoft were wise, they would make an ala carte system where one would pay 2 bucks a month per channel and incorporate it into xbox live. Make the unit a complete entertainment and folks would leave traditional pay tv in droves.

    I mean really, do I need all the shopping and religious channels? Kids channels if I don't have kids? I'd be glad to pay 45 a month for what I want to watch then 110 for loads of crap. Hell, I'd even pay AMC and such directly... do something like Hulu..you activate it on your console and then you can watch it.

    Just because you can afford something doesnt mean you should pay it.
     
  18. Christopher Gould

    Christopher Gould Icon

    979
    16
    Jan 14, 2007
    1. you are never going to get most of your channels for $2
    2. you dont pay for the shopping channels they pay to be on Directv
    3. most of the religious channels are probably part of the requirement to carry public interest channels
     
  19. bonscott87

    bonscott87 Cutting Edge: ECHELON '07

    9,809
    2
    Jan 21, 2003
    I can afford cable but I choose not to pay $100+ a month for 4 channels I don't otherwise get for free OTA. 3 of those channels I can watch their shows on Hulu + (with a delay at times). The other channel chooses not to make their shows available online anywhere unless you log in with a cable sub. Their loss, I can watch something else.

    My total monthly outlay about $10 a month for Hulu Plus and a couple movies from RedBox. And I don't miss a thing. Even sports as I have ways of getting what I want to watch live...even if it's a wild stream from Russia or something. :)
     
  20. gjrhine

    gjrhine Legend

    248
    0
    May 15, 2002
    I'd rather have ESPN.
     

Share This Page