Pay TV is changing rapidly

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

  1. Dec 2, 2016 #61 of 178
    Bedford11

    Bedford11 Member

    251
    7
    Aug 21, 2015
    In my fantasy world, in my small town I used to pay 32 bucks for a pair of pants, Walmart moved in, Amazon started up, many other online sale sights came olnine, now 15 years later that same pair of pants are 22 bucks. And to think Walmart is considering adding TV packages to their VUDU online video service, well here comes Target etc. etc., maybe them pants can be had for 18 bucks in the future?

    Competition is good for the consumer. and there is plenty coming in my fantasy streaming world.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2016
  2. Dec 2, 2016 #62 of 178
    peds48

    peds48 Genius.

    20,073
    1,075
    Jan 10, 2008
    NY
    Well 15 years ago those pants were made by hand, now the process is automated. Now a good comparison but good try.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    AZ. likes this.
  3. Dec 2, 2016 #63 of 178
    Bedford11

    Bedford11 Member

    251
    7
    Aug 21, 2015
    15 years ago
    there was just copper wires for slow internet
    You had to have a person and costing 800 bucks to set you up for sat. tv.
    Cable guy would promise to show up at 12 and be there the next evening.

    Now the process is totally automated with DirectTV Now, just click a button and have immediate streaming TV. Try it, we have entered the TV revolution.
     
  4. Dec 3, 2016 #64 of 178
    chances14

    chances14 Member

    92
    14
    Nov 7, 2014
    of course competition is good for the consumer.

    problem is there isn't any competition for the isp that you need to access these streaming services. you also seem to be completely obvious to the fact that the tv distributors are also the internet providers you need to access these streaming services.
     
  5. Dec 3, 2016 #65 of 178
    Bedford11

    Bedford11 Member

    251
    7
    Aug 21, 2015
    Pull back the blinds, competition is there and will boom in 2017.
    Competition is growing daily. Where do you think all those subscribers that the sat/cable companies are losing are going to?
    DirectTV Now will be showing up on a lot o these new ISP's.

    AT&T is moving into area's where they have never been, even outside their footprint.

    Fixed wireless from a myriad of companies are racing to get the rural customers that have never had anything except crappy satellite internet and rotting copper pipes.

    Google has just bought a fixed wireless service and will start providing fixed wireless service.
    Link
    Google Fiber’s wireless plans take shape with purchase of a gigabit ISP

    Windstream and others are planning to deploy fixed wireless broadband in the US.

    Verizon is right in the thick of it also, T mobile etc. etc. will be providing wireless internet also.
    There's still a lot we don't know about Verizon and AT&T's fixed wireless plans, but what's clear is that they intend to take on traditional cable Internet in an entirely new way -- which could give home Internet consumers more choices than ever before.

    C Spire to install Fixed Wireless

    Starry with their 5G fixed wireless is coming.

    Dish with their massive amount of spectrum will be coming also.

    Many communities/cities have installed their own fiber and now coming up they will be/are installing fixed wireless.

    City after City and Counties are installing their own Fiber/Wireless networks with pricing around 50 bucks for unlimited 100 meg. and up service

    Many Rural Electric coops are installing fiber and will be installing fixed wireless.
    Subscribers are members of the coop, they will have to vote to raise the prices which are excellent.
    Basic will offer up to 100 megabits per second (Mbps), upload and download speed, with no data caps, for $49.95 per month. The Gigabit offering will offer up to 1,000 Mbps, upload and download speed, with no data caps, for $79.95 per month.

    This one blows my mind, of all places, the rugged ozark mountains will be getting cheap fiber to their rural customers.
    Link
    Ozarks Electric To Start Providing Internet, TV & Telephone Services
    Link
    OzarksGo
    OzarksGo

    Take a look here, this will start sweeping the nation.
    Colorado Voters Choose Local Control In 26 Communities | community broadband networks

    community broadband networks | Helping Communities Achieve True Self-Determination

    2017 is going to be a rip roaring year for entrants into new areas,just 6 months needed to install a large area fixed wireless system.
    Competition providing consumers with choices will keep the prices competitive.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2016
  6. Dec 3, 2016 #66 of 178
    James Long

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

    52,278
    2,657
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Failure to read is not helping your argument. My statement was "content owners are king". Which part of the quoted headline at the end of your post agrees with:
    OWNING CONTENT - CONTROLLING DISTRIBUTION ... that is the kingdom that I speak of when I say "Content owners are king."

    I agree. Right now streaming is the new frontier. Companies are willing to lose a little money while exploring the new frontier. But they cannot lose money forever. Streaming prices WILL catch up with non streaming delivery. If we are lucky the new streaming content distributors will be $15 less than via satellite (so we can apply that $15 per month toward the $30+ per month ISP service needed to receive the service). I do not expect to be that lucky.

    Cable companies are not in the business to lose money. The more the loss of video customers affects the bottom line the more they will adjust their fees to cover the cost of staying in business. And no, it isn't just the cost of the cable company's connection to the Internet that will need to be adjusted. All of the infrastructure costs that are currently spread out across video customers will need to be shifted to data only customers.

    I have been around long enough to know that cheap and free is (at best) worth every penny one pays for service. At worst one ends up with an inferior product that costs more per "unit" (whatever unit applies). I could buy a $32 pair of pants that would last two or three years ... now I can buy a $22 pair of pants that lasts six months. Which is the better bargain?

    How many simultaneous streams can be viewed or recorded by a via satellite customer? DISH's newest receiver sets the bar for "conflict free" TV at 16 satellite tuners on a single whole home box (effectively 20 with PTAT and OTA ... see DISH forum for discussion). DIRECTV can be configured for as many if not more simultaneous streams. Will any streaming service allow 16 streams? All HD or better? Or will they be an inferior product that offers less than the current distribution? Four simultaneous streams? How many in HD?

    Make sure you're not buying four cheap pair of pants for $88 and bragging that you're saving money over a better $32 pair that would last as long as the four.
     
  7. Dec 3, 2016 #67 of 178
    James Long

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

    52,278
    2,657
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    If you have content that you want to deliver to the maximum number of people the best way to deliver it is to find a distribution partner that already reaches millions of people. DIRECTV (and DISH and the cable companies) are partners who can deliver to the most number of homes for the least amount of money.

    It would be difficult to start a third satellite based service in the US ... 20 years ago we had multiple companies entering the satellite business. Only five ended up launching a satellite distribution company (the rest sold their space to DISH or DIRECTV). Only three companies ever launched a DBS satellite (USSB leased from DIRECTV, Dominion leased from DISH). The lesser three sold out to the two big companies.

    There isn't a need for a third DBS company. It is easy enough to get carriage (and delivery to tens of millions of homes) on the existing systems. Just set a decent price for your service or pay a low monthly cost for the satellite bandwidth.

    Even in the digital world one would be better off partnering with an existing distribution system (Netflix, Amazon, Roku, YouTube, etc) than trying to start yet another streaming service. Unless one has deep pockets like DISH and AT&T|DIRECTV and can afford the start up costs for a standalone service.
     
  8. Dec 3, 2016 #68 of 178
    James Long

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

    52,278
    2,657
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Click and go only works if one already has the network and required equipment in place.

    I can order next day installation of DISH or DIRECTV ... it would work with my existing televisions (multiple) and I could build a system as large as needed to serve my home. It would not cost ME $800 for the installation (a subscriber acquisition cost that includes marketing) but I would be expected to keep the service for two years to pay off the satellite company's investment in me.

    I obviously have an Internet connection (better than dialup) and I occasionally stream content but my home is not instantly ready for DIRECTV Now or any other streaming service. I would need to buy a new TV with data connectivity or some sort of box that would receive content from the Internet and display it on my TV (my BluRay player has some Internet functions ... but would it work with DIRECTV Now?). The only devices guaranteed to be able to get DIRECTV Now are my computer (which interferes with my actual computer usage) and my cell phone (which eats my data plan). More work for me to get that to display on the big screen.

    No ... my house isn't DIRECTV Now ready and I am not naive enough to believe in "click and go" for everyone. There is no such thing as cutting the cord unless one stops watching content. All one is doing is exchanging one cord for another. If I were to decide today to drop satellite for streaming I would need to buy more bandwidth first ... and that would mean waiting for the cable company to install a drop to my house or scheduling an install with a WISP. Any money I would save on a satellite subscription would be lost on improving my Internet. (Even your $50-$80 estimates are more than I would save.) And the streaming delivery industry still has not caught up with the content available via satellite.

    More money ... less content availability. Fiction and fantasy cannot match the reality of the industry.
     
  9. Dec 3, 2016 #69 of 178
    Bedford11

    Bedford11 Member

    251
    7
    Aug 21, 2015
    LOL, yes the pants are the same brand/material and lasting just as long.
    You are making this out to be way more complicated than it is.
    What form of internet service do you currently subscribe to DSL? Wireless?
    You are going to pay for that 800 dollar acquisition cost thru your high subscription fees.
    DirectTV Now will give you a Free Apple TV box..
    Sling TV will give you a free Roku Box.
    Just plug into HDMI port on the TV and off you go.
    GoogleCast dongle is what 30 bucks max? Sure Googles new TV service will give you one for free.
    People must have internet in todays world anyway, that internet cost you are including is not realistic for the typical home.
    Just click to purchase any of the new streaming services plug in the Free box and off you go, NO pesky contracts that lock you in, With the simple click of the mouse you can quit the service anytime and try the next greatest service that are sure to be coming. No expensive call center Human employees involved.
    With High Speed internet reaching new customers everyday it won't be long before the traditional forms of getting TV service will be heavily eroded.
    Looking like the typical 25 meg unlimited internet service is going to be around 50 bucks a month, this will satisfy the majority.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2016
  10. Dec 3, 2016 #70 of 178
    James Long

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

    52,278
    2,657
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Unfortunately DIRECTV Now is not the same material as DIRECTV satellite (or UVerse). SlingTV is not the same material as DISH Network.

    So click ... wait for delivery, self install, upgrade Internet to new requirements, configure and go?
    Minimizing the "ease of setup" does not eliminate the challenge.
     
  11. Dec 3, 2016 #71 of 178
    Bedford11

    Bedford11 Member

    251
    7
    Aug 21, 2015
    My experience streaming movies/TV prove to be the same material as DirectTV/Cable.
    Click on and enjoy hick up free 1080,surround sound video, I think the picture is better than sat. TV. Looking forward to a couple of clicks to cancel current streaming service and trying DirectTV Now. Try that with your cable provider.
     
  12. Dec 3, 2016 #72 of 178
    James Long

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

    52,278
    2,657
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    So you are absolutely guaranteeing that every piece of content available via DIRECTV satellite is available via DIRECTV Now?

    I do not believe you can honestly make that claim. And even if one includes other streaming options one would still come up short on content. (I hope you are not including illegal streaming options.)

    Perhaps everything YOU have looked for is available via some streaming ... but certainly not everything that is available via satellite subscription.
     
  13. Dec 3, 2016 #73 of 178
    Bedford11

    Bedford11 Member

    251
    7
    Aug 21, 2015
    Another claim I did not make.
    What I am claiming is the content that I get from streaming is just as, if not better quality than cable/sat.
    I do not want all the bloated content in the cable/sat packages.
    Majority of people do not want it either. Remember research shows that people only watch 19 are fewer channels.
     
  14. Dec 3, 2016 #74 of 178
    James Long

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

    52,278
    2,657
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I did not question the quality in my previous posts ... I questioned the AVAILABILITY of said content. Quality is 0% if the content is not available.

    You may not want ALL of the content in a cable/sat package ... but there are compromises made when leaving cable/sat for streaming. The issue of "ok, I can't get ____ without a cable/sat style subscription" is a compromise. Let cognitive dissonance kick in and tell you that the content you can't get isn't worth getting ("sour grapes" for those that don't know the bigger words). But you can't watch what isn't there.

    Availability is where content (and content owners) remain king.
     
  15. Dec 3, 2016 #75 of 178
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,650
    401
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Another pebble to throw into this discussion... Don't make the mistake a lot of people do... don't equate company savings to consumer savings. As James notes, streaming companies are selling low right now because they can and because they want to attract customers. IF that shifts to being the norm, then content creators are going to expect more from those avenues, consumers will have less choice not to use those streaming options, and streaming will cost more to the consumer.

    Meanwhile... companies look to save money wherever they can. Whenever they save money, you save money... just not directly. IF DirecTV's cost of business goes up 5%, you can bet your bill goes up at least 5%! BUT if DirecTV can keep that down to a 2% increase, then you've saved a little bit maybe. They aren't going to automatically "pass the savings along to you" but you can bet they will ALWAYS pass the cost increases along to you.

    So... companies saving money increases their profit, which is always their goal... it's just hard to say if that ever saves consumers, because there's no mechanism to force that EXCEPT competition and consumer apathy.

    You also have companies like Dish and DirecTV beginning to hedge their bets right now... just in case streaming becomes the thing... making sure they are ready to go with a footprint there.
     
  16. Dec 3, 2016 #76 of 178
    Bedford11

    Bedford11 Member

    251
    7
    Aug 21, 2015
    By the time Google, Verizon, Netflix and all the others introduce their skinny bundles, there will be low cost packages that millions of people will accept and drop their cable/sat subscriptions for. now doubt about it.
    We just seen DirectTV raise their prices again, bet next year there will be another price hike, all the while a dwindling subscriber base must pay more and more to keep it profitable. Well known fact that the sat. TV market has matured and will be declining. While the streaming services will be gaining subscibers, AT&T hopes to get 20 million subs for DirectTV Now. Dish is hoping to get 20 million for SlingTV, Google going after xxxx amount of subscribers, Verizon aiming for multi million subscribers, all these new streaming services have to get their subscribers from somewhere and we know there is only a set amount of young cord nevers to go around. There will be Full Blown packages that will replicate cable/sat bundles offered by most of the players as this tech matures. Take the entrants like Google and the others that do not have to protect a declining TV service and you will see more varied bundles arriving, also there are new content creators coming out that will add to this TV revolution.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2016
  17. Dec 3, 2016 #77 of 178
    James Long

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

    52,278
    2,657
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Assuming that the content owners are being paid the same for a subscription via streaming as they are being paid for a subscription via satellite (as the WSJ article used for calculation) it is the distributor (AT&T|DIRECTV) who is offering a product at penny profits or a loss. Which works as long as there is a bigger service keeping the company in business.

    At the end of the day content providers want money. They are not greedy, they just want to be paid. And they will follow a path to payment that is most beneficial to their company. Part of the risk of streaming is the "no commitment" nature ... but they may assume that they will get their $1 from the customer subscribing to the content whether they subscribe via satellite, cable or any other service. The content owner doesn't care what end distributor or delivery method is used as long as they get paid and the content is secured so everybody pays. (They may prefer that a customer subscribes through a distributor that pays more per subscriber ... UVERSE was paying more per subscriber than DIRECTV ... but a subscriber is a subscriber.)

    The primary threat to the content owners is not the delivery method but the a la carte nature of streaming. They want subscribers to their channels whether or not those subscribers watch. (Viewers help ratings which helps ad sales and signing contracts to be in better bundles, but just being delivered to a home is a primary goal. Content channels want to be delivered to the maximum amount of homes.)

    So what we are seeing ... in real life ... is the continuance of packages. Perhaps "skinny bundles" that are smaller and appear to be cheaper but the content owners are king - and they continue to support the package model, not the pick your favorite 19 channels model.

    It is a smart move. The content owners are supporting it and being able to leverage 13-24 million subscribers via satellite/cable gives DISH and DIRECTV a better deal than a smaller company. (A primary reason AT&T bought DIRECTV was to raise their customer count to make negotiating for the OTT service easier.)

    It gives the package oriented content providers a good place to go to remain in packages. And the best chance of staying in (eventually) millions of homes.

    DISH and DIRECTV are not going to throw away billions of dollars worth of satellites and abandon satellite delivery. But they certainly can keep their foot in the door for those who want something different. Skinny bundles via satellite is a nice side effect to the deals DISH made for SlingTV. Although anyone who thinks that the consumer will save money needs to look at the prices and what is not available.
     
  18. Dec 4, 2016 #78 of 178
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    11,085
    1,682
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa

    The majority of Directv's customer acquisition cost is advertising. How much do you think it costs to run all those national ads they have all the time with well known personalities in them? They add (and lose) about 3 million subscribers a year, so if they spend $1.5 billion a year on advertising then marketing is $500 per subscriber in customer acquisition costs!

    Do you think that somehow Directv Now will just sell itself, and they won't need to advertise? Do you think that Apple is giving Directv free Apple TV boxes? Of course not, they are paying for them, and that cost is part of the new customer acquisition cost - as surely as providing you a free Genie is - except they will always be giving you a brand new Apple TV, not a refurbished one, and they are able to amortize the cost of the Genie as a tax deduction, which they cannot do with the Apple TV since it isn't carried on their books.

    Its too bad Directv isn't still an independent company, as about every other quarterly earnings call they would report the small shifts in their customer acquisition cost. Probably AT&T will never bother unless an analyst specifically asks them. If they do ever report it for Directv Now, it will be 50-75% of 'traditional' Directv's CAC because they will likely market it as heavily if not more heavily than their satellite product once they have the kinks worked out, and assuming they continue offering the free Apple TV that's $100+ that's not offset by any tax benefits.

    You seem to live in this fantasy world where the equipment and installation of Directv costs $800, and Directv Now has $0 because they aren't sending someone to your house. Nothing could be further from the truth.
     
  19. Dec 5, 2016 #79 of 178
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,186
    1,606
    Nov 13, 2006

    I doubt it really is once the satelites are already up there. The amount of money it costs to keep a massive network running all around the country isn't cheap. Why do you think Netflix is paying for better access from providers? And how much do you think it's cost to wire fiber to everyone home in say Los Angeles vs launching a satellite that hits the entire country? Backend similar probably...
     
  20. Dec 5, 2016 #80 of 178
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,650
    401
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    But of course the only company with satellites up there are companies like Dish and DirecTV. And they have satellites that have been up there long enough to need replacing, which means new investments in new satellites to replace those... so new companies don't have the cash to invest in the satellite biz... and existing companies could save money by not having to keep building and launching new ones. Their cost doesn't drop to zero, nobody suggests that... only that delivering online might be a cheaper option for them.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements