DirecTV deal hinders a-la-carte HBO Offering

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by SomeRandomIdiot, Dec 4, 2014.

  1. raott

    raott Hall Of Fame

    2,684
    265
    Nov 23, 2005
    I agree to an extent, however the ability to get HBO will continue to drive some (especially the younger generation) to cutting the cord. The entire discussion started because some felt HBO would charge the cord cutters more for the service because they did not want to anger the delivery providers. That didn't happen and since then, there has been a lot of seemingly defensive spin trying to argue HBO Now is still more expensive.

    Essentially, unless you are the .01% of the country that is a boxing fan, they are the same.


     
    2 people like this.
  2. raott

    raott Hall Of Fame

    2,684
    265
    Nov 23, 2005
    Sorry,

    I don't receive free equipment from any provider.

    I don't receive free service from any provider.

    I don't work for any provider, nor do I post here with an aspiration to get a job with any provider.

    I don't own stock in any service or tech provider.

    I've been with Directv since 1997, but my identity isn't derived by my choice of provider or any other tech product.

    I have no reason to "spin", I call it like I see it.

     
    2 people like this.
  3. lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    5,918
    742
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    Given all the boxing on TV these days, I'd bet your .01% number is way out of whack!

    HBONow is slightly less than linear HBO, but you get less for less money. That said, many of us got HBO from our cable/sat providers for about $10/month for 6 to 12 months.
     
  4. peds48

    peds48 Genius.

    20,073
    1,075
    Jan 10, 2008
    NY
    That is the "key" everyone seems to be missing....
     
  5. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    52,295
    2,660
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    HBO Now is not the product I expected when the discussion began last year. I am not saying that HBO Now is more expensive ... but HBO via a linear provider offers more than HBO Now. The differences should be considered when doing a comparison.

    At the end of the day all that matters is what each individual subscriber wants ... If a person does not want live programming and have Internet and a device they like then HBO Now will work. If a person has a linear subscription their provider works fine to get HBO.


    For all the bluster about people cancelling HBO via their linear provider to subscribe to HBO Now has anyone in this thread done that? I see reports of people who threatened to cancel and got a better deal from their linear provider. But I do not see support for a claim that linear providers are losing a lot of customers to HBO Now. And as long as people do not cancel the linear providers will not have to worry about HBO Now.
     
  6. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    52,295
    2,660
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The "separate lane" seems to be a question of legality ... but if HBO (and others) do what Netflix is doing and install servers at the ISP it could pass muster and not be illegal. HBO buys hosting service from each ISP, uses Internet bandwidth to load their server space at each ISP, then each ISP's customer gets their content from servers on their ISP ... with data caps only applying it Internet traffic - not traffic on their ISP's network.

    As long as they are treating like traffic the same way (all external traffic the same, all internal traffic the same) they should be OK.
     
  7. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,187
    1,606
    Nov 13, 2006
    The way its going, everything will be available online linear wise and on demand wise as it is now basically via traditional means, but it will be more expensive by the time they are done and then everyone will go back to broadcasting and on demand, just like we have now. But switched video wont be used, it'll just be ip based...

    The advantage for cable is they may be able to make everything more efficient and squeeze higher internet speeds. For Directv, they will be able to broadcast to anyone just about anywhere without hogging up ANY bandwidth for regular internet (assuming ATT goes through.)

    And I don't think this is whats going to drive people to cut the cord. LOCALS and basic cable channels will be more likely to cause that kind of thing.
     
  8. Shades228

    Shades228 DaBears

    6,081
    46
    Mar 18, 2008
    The largest part of that whole article to me is that they know there are going to be bandwidth cap enforcement, and new ones, in the future. They're trying now to get early deals to not have them impacted so they can sell their service without a middle man. Ignore the fast lanes and interconnect fees. The real issue will be data caps. Most providers already have them and the choice to enforce them is varied by market. Comcast already uses the Xfinity portal which doesn't count bandwidth if you sign in to the service through that. However that requires a tv subscription for those sites. A cable companies wet dream right now is to have content providers sell direct to consumers and they just provide the bandwidth. They can ignore the contract negotiation side of the business and charge healthy premiums for more data which costs them pennies to the tens of dollars of profit.
     
  9. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,187
    1,606
    Nov 13, 2006
    I actually think this was one of the reasons they decided to allow companies to seek HBO now. They think it might help get their content to customers easier and avoid data caps
     
  10. SomeRandomIdiot

    SomeRandomIdiot Godfather

    1,348
    37
    Jan 6, 2009
    That would seem sensible if 55%-60% of MVPD revenue was not coming from Video.

    If you think it is MVPD's wet dream to lose almost 2/3rds of their revenue, then you do not understand business.

    Furthermore, hard costs are distributed across Video and Broadband fees (and hard costs are over half your bill).

    So if Video goes away, your Broaband bill would have to go up 50% just to pay for headend costs lost, fiber, distribution, et al.

    Better rethink that golden goose.
     
  11. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,187
    1,606
    Nov 13, 2006
    Well I wonder. If internet cost you 50 now and TV is say 100 and they run around 20% a margin you'd be looking at them needing to add just $20 to the internet bill to get back the costs lost in direct income from subs. Ad dollars is another question though... I'll have to ponder how that might be recouped other ways.
     
  12. SomeRandomIdiot

    SomeRandomIdiot Godfather

    1,348
    37
    Jan 6, 2009
    If you would bother to look at HBO revenue and divide by 30M subs x 12 months, you would see your number is wrong.

    But god forbid anyone here do something so simple.

    Besides, the number is widely known by financial analysts - who have long discussions with CFOs in order to issue buy or sell ratings on stocks.

    It does not take a math genius.
     
  13. SomeRandomIdiot

    SomeRandomIdiot Godfather

    1,348
    37
    Jan 6, 2009
    You missed the point.

    MVPDs are charging Netflix to install servers at their locations.

    If one understands how the internet works, one knows that the weak point is where the 2 Companies hand off the internet connection to each other.

    Depending on what backbone the MVPD used, the entire Netflix traffic is(was if server at MVPD) at one POP in the USA.

    Netflix has some much of the internet traffic (Over 30% of the USA internet traffic is usually around 15% is YouTube) the connection at the hand-off point was not big enough to handle all the Netflix bandwidth.

    Companies like Verizon, TWC, Comcast etc refused to pay more more to have greater bandwidth for the interconnection between backbones - as they did not care if Netflix subs suffered - especially as they saw it as a threat.

    Netflix could not make Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Charter, TWC et al to pay to upgrade their internet capabilities at these points where the data was handed off - and again - the MVPDs were in no mood to help Netflix out.

    So finally Netflix offered to pay ISPs to put their Servers on their backbone, bypassing the weakest link.

    Netflix is not happy about it - but it solved the problem.

    Netflix is hoping that with Title 2 that they can get away from this expense - and it will be on the ISP to pay to update their connections - where Netflix data cannot be throttled at the weakest point.
     
  14. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    52,295
    2,660
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    As they should in a "fee for service" world. They are getting a service from those partner ISPs ... hosting and on-network data delivery.

    Think about it this way: If all of Netflix's servers were in one place how big of a farm would they need? They would need to distribute the load between servers and pay some ISP for a connection to the world. Why not spread the servers out across the country? They are paying for servers and hosting anyways, they might as well pay for servers and hosting where the data is delivered instead of concentrating all of their servers in one city.

    It makes a lot more sense to distribute their servers. And if they have the ability to do such distribution where a smaller competitor cannot that works in their favor to give them a competitive advantage.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements