Pay TV is changing rapidly

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by Bedford11, Nov 22, 2016.

  1. Nov 28, 2016 #21 of 178
    Bedford11

    Bedford11 Member

    251
    7
    Aug 21, 2015
    When Sling TV was first introduced, it was bare bones, then came the add ons, then multistream, all bets say a DVR or all VOD are coming,
    Just look at the subscribers to their sat service has been in a steady down trend most quarters.

    Watch DirectTV/AT&T go down this same road, industry has made it clear that sat subscribers have peaked, only downward from here.

    https://variety.com/2016/tv/features/att-directv-now-pay-tv-1201918857/
     
  2. Nov 28, 2016 #22 of 178
    Bedford11

    Bedford11 Member

    251
    7
    Aug 21, 2015
    Numbers don't lie, just look at the last quarters for Dish and you will see whats happening.

    https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Dish-Lost-Another-116000-TV-Subscribers-Last-Quarter-138294

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/29/sling-tv-is-cannibalizing-dish-network.aspx
     
  3. Nov 28, 2016 #23 of 178
    jimmie57

    jimmie57 Hall Of Fame

    10,085
    878
    Jun 26, 2010
    Texas City, TX
    Copied from your link:
    Dish also lost a net 20,000 satellite broadband subscribers during the third quarter, reducing the company's overall broadband subscriber base to approximately 593,000. That said, Dish still managed to see a profit of $307.4 million, up from $196.5 million one year ago. That's because most of its customers are paying more for TV than ever, the average Dish customer now paying $89.44 -- up from $86.33 the quarter before.

    Losing customers and making 50% more And that is why they are leaving.
     
  4. Nov 28, 2016 #24 of 178
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    5,899
    738
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    Your assumption is not necessarily correct. While the cost of sat/cable is a bit higher than many would like, the younger folks aren't sitting in front of the TV at home, instead choosing to watch on various devices if they watch at all. So even lower rates might not attract them to cable/sat.
     
  5. Nov 28, 2016 #25 of 178
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,168
    1,599
    Nov 13, 2006
    Anyone who is asking for a la cart is asking to pay 120 a month for their 17 stations instead of 100 a month for 200.

    The option for both will continue to be there for many years to come and data caps and other forces will never allow everyone to simply go streaming and Video On Demand.

    And because of how it is today, all streaming is subsidized by linear cable and satellite. I think people don't get that when they think those methods of delivery are about to die.

    It's not even remotely likely in the next decade. Heck Netflix is becoming more and more like
    HBO. Not the other way around!

    And anyone comparing what happened in the music industry to what is happening to tv is not paying any attention to what is actually happening or the market forces that are causing either to change or who owns and distributes the contents and how the industry is forming all this.

    It's kind of like staring at a tree and thinking you are in a forest even though it's the only tree for 300 miles in any direction in the middle of a desert and it's only there because you just planted it there.
     
    1 person likes this.
  6. Nov 28, 2016 #26 of 178
    chances14

    chances14 Member

    92
    14
    Nov 7, 2014
    the current pay tv model will eventually die. How quick that happens nobody really knows

    However, the content producers and distributors will make that lost money up somehow. My guess is the price of al la carte channels and streaming packages will start to go up significantly. Sites like netflix, amazon,hulu, etc will have be hit with increased rates by the content producers.

    Netflix is already seeing the writing on the wall. that's why they are shrinking their library and instead producing their own shows. they are slowly becoming another HBO channel

    We are living in the golden age of streaming right now. the current pay tv model is still profitable enough that they haven't fully targeted cord cutters yet. once they see that pay tv model is no longer profitable, they will start targeting the streamers with increased prices for internet and punitive data caps.

    before you know it we will all be complaining about how we pay too much for tv again
     
  7. Nov 28, 2016 #27 of 178
    chances14

    chances14 Member

    92
    14
    Nov 7, 2014
    wow. inkhauts, those were my thoughts exactly. we even used the same hbo and netflix comparison LOL
     
  8. Nov 28, 2016 #28 of 178
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,168
    1,599
    Nov 13, 2006
    By the time streaming actually becomes truly popular and dominant (it's not even close yet contrary to what some will have you believe) its costs will be the same as cable or satellite and then people will see the old way as more bang for the buck since you'll get streaming and traditional for the same price.
     
    1 person likes this.
  9. Nov 28, 2016 #29 of 178
    camo

    camo Godfather

    1,175
    98
    Apr 15, 2010
    I have to disagree again, streaming is even growing with many cable companies converting over to IPTV technology because its cheaper with less overhead than traditional systems. Nationwide streaming is also becoming more popular and will be equal to if not pass traditional transmission within a few short years.
     
  10. Nov 28, 2016 #30 of 178
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,168
    1,599
    Nov 13, 2006
    For the context of this thread "streaming" is paying for your tv to be watched over the internet only. Like HBO now or Netflix.

    That has nothing to do with cable companies converting to ip technology. That should sweep through in a few years depending on how fast they want to upgrade their infrastructure. Big cities fast where there is lots of competition... middle of nowhere it could be a money waster in some areas.. either way has nothing to do with the intent of what I was talking about.

    Check out how many subscribers have sling tv and vue. Not even a million. And there's 118 million homes with a tv.

    Streaming as your main source of tv is nowhere near popular at this point as a standalone option.

    Netflix has big subscribers because it's more of an add on like HBO. It's not your entire service. Maybe for a few people but that's not its goal and direction.

    And how many people who stream a lot of tv shows from services other than Netflix and HBO now are simply using a log in from a cable company? Almost all of them. Literally more than 100 times those who pay (or only watch ota) only for streaming tv. And most of them are probably using their parents logins. And guess what, the companies are fine with that! Because they are getting paid via traditional cable and can sell more targeted ads.
     
  11. Nov 28, 2016 #31 of 178
    Bedford11

    Bedford11 Member

    251
    7
    Aug 21, 2015
  12. Nov 28, 2016 #32 of 178
    ragweed10

    ragweed10 Member

    462
    24
    Jul 10, 2013
    San Diego
    You are getting CLOSE.
    Younger folks don't have time for TV or even know what it is.
    Toooooooooooooooo BUSY TEXTING.
     
    2 people like this.
  13. Dec 1, 2016 #33 of 178
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,168
    1,599
    Nov 13, 2006
  14. Dec 1, 2016 #34 of 178
    Aridon

    Aridon Mentor

    190
    25
    Mar 12, 2007
    The big difference IP providers will make is expanding competition in areas that would traditionally see one cable company and the satellite offerings. There are many that have no interest in having a dish on their house leaving the local cable co. The entire market is going to get turned on it's head here much like the music industry did when the first streaming options came about.

    The days of $140 Directv bill seeming fairly normal (after taxes and equipment, fees) are going to come to an end as will the high margins that go with it. It may take 15 years for the landscape to fully change but it will change. There is plenty of fat to trim once competition starts to heat up. Just wait until Netflix, Amazon, Apple, Verizon, Google etc all start jumping into the mix. We are still in baby steps compared to what is coming.

    Sling's DVR is useless to me unless they have ALL channels included with the capability. Since that isn't the case Vue is the only service I'm interested in if my situation with D* ever changes.
     
  15. Dec 1, 2016 #35 of 178
    Bedford11

    Bedford11 Member

    251
    7
    Aug 21, 2015
    Where we are headed. All these entrants into the market all want to be your "go to" portal.
    Link below wraps it up.
    DirectTV Now, Sling TV, Google, Amazon,Netflix, Apple, Tmobile, Verizon Sony, Even Walmart with their online VuDu service and many, many more to come.
    It only cost a provider 1/2 cent, .5 to deliver 1 hours worth of video over the internet.
    If the average person watches 5 hours a day, that would cost the provider only 2.5 cents a day.
    Compare that to satellite cost and it's a no brainer.
    Where do you guys/girls stand on AT&T's and the many other coming entrants controlling the gates?
    Google is going to suprise with their TV package and Fixed Wireless/spectrum buys/rent.

    AT&T's among others to come fixed wireless offerings will bring a BIG change to the TV/Internet market.
    http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/29/13774648/fcc-att-zero-rating-directv-net-neutrality-vs-tmobile

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/16/john-malone-thinks-cable-and-wireless-networks-are-destined-to-consolidate.html

    https://consumerist.com/2016/11/29/giddy-investors-already-shipping-comcast-verizon-sprint-t-mobile-mergers-under-trump-administration/
     
  16. Dec 2, 2016 #36 of 178
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,168
    1,599
    Nov 13, 2006

    You are kidding right? You don't actually believe that's what it costs to deliver a station online? That's not at all even close to true. Heck free stations cost more than that! Where did you even get that idea?
     
    KyL416 likes this.
  17. Dec 2, 2016 #37 of 178
    Aridon

    Aridon Mentor

    190
    25
    Mar 12, 2007
    I think he is referring to the bandwidth costs only, not carriage fees. Point is, as I read it, that costs to provide service are much lower this way and he is correct.

    Bandwidth is so cheap it is ridiculous. Much cheaper without truck rolls, receivers, dishes, swm, LNB etc...
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2016
  18. Dec 2, 2016 #38 of 178
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    11,059
    1,666
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Sure, bandwidth is cheap. Let's say it is true that it costs 1/2 cent to deliver an hour of video. If the average customer watches 50 hours a week (counting everyone in the household who watches something different) that would be 25 cents/week or about $12/year. Directv has 20 million customers, so that's a quarter billion dollars a year. Still think the comparison with satellite delivery is a "no brainer"? That cost will drop over time, but it will be years before it is less than the cost of maintaining (and replacing as needed) Directv's satellite fleet.

    Obviously there are big savings not having installers or providing hardware like DVRs, but the tradeoff is that support is much more expensive. Assuming it is properly installed, a satellite setup will generally keep working for years without any trouble (other than rain fade) until you have a hardware failure like a drive going out on a DVR. That's definitely not true for streaming - servers can get overloaded, there can be issues along the internet path from Directv to your ISP, your ISP can have issues, your home network can have problems or interference if it is wireless, and so forth. People will be calling a streaming provider ALL THE TIME for issues that they have no control over, and their ability to diagnose problems will be extremely limited. I wouldn't be surprised if Directv needs 10x as many CSRs per streaming customer as they do per satellite customer, because of how much more often there will be problems affecting streaming. That cost must be balanced against the savings in equipment.
     
  19. Dec 2, 2016 #39 of 178
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,650
    401
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Chiming in randomly, because of checking out things after the forum upgrade...

    My take on his cost post was the same as Aridon's... I can't speak to the monetary values... but it has to be LOTS cheaper to transmit via IP than to have to maintain satellites and uplink sites. So while other costs of creating/transmitting programming would be the same... there would be a substantial savings for a company to transmit the same content via streaming vs a satellite service. So I can see that being a thing that might drive development in that direction. I think there are other hurdles, though, not the least of which being lack of availability nationwide of quality/reliable high-speed Internet access within the US that will stall this being an immediate threat to satellite services.
     
  20. Dec 2, 2016 #40 of 178
    Bedford11

    Bedford11 Member

    251
    7
    Aug 21, 2015
    "The pay-TV ecosystem could be “chopped up” into a paradigm that is “truly an à la carte experience.”

    “The barriers to entry are not great, so pretty much anybody could enter into the marketplace,”

    " I've always been concerned that the content creators are going to end up in a place that's maybe not so good for them. But it should be good for consumers. So the business will definitely grow."

    Link
    Dish Network's Ergen: OTT will 'chop up' the pay-TV ecosystem | FierceCable

    "OTT could be bigger than satellite but carries risks for content"
    Link
    Ergen: OTT could be bigger than satellite but carries risks for content » Digital TV Europe
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements