TVision Shutting Down

Discussion in 'Internet Streaming Services' started by lparsons21, Mar 29, 2021.

  1. evotz

    evotz Active Member

    240
    58
    Jan 23, 2014
    But you're thinking like a linear TV executive. Subscriber does not mean viewer.

    Just because someone's subscribing to a service, doesn't mean they are actually using it (or fully using it) or viewing it.

    Sure... linear cable has a lot more subscribers... it's been around a lot longer. I bet if you do a survey of cars on the road, you'll find a lot more cars made between 1980 and 2010 on the road than 2021 models.

    The point isn't so much looking at subscriber numbers. It's taking a look at those 74M linear TV subscribers, how many of those could drop that subscription and use video on-demand streaming services?

    There's a reason that streaming service numbers are trending upward and linear TV subscriptions are in a downward spiral.

    Again... there's going to be outliers in all of this. There's going to be some that have to hang on to the past and have to have a TV subscription service where they can flip through channels at will. I'm not saying that that is going to go away completely. But the point of this thread is that TVision shut down because there's just not a huge market for linear/live streaming MVPD.

    There's just not enough differences between YouTubeTV, Hulu Live TV, and what TVision offered. As someone else said FuboTV is probably next on the chopping block. AT&T's TV service has differentiated itself as being a more expensive - more premium offering (see Bally Sports), although one has to question how long it will survive at that price point. Sling too has differentiated itself as being a cheaper option. I have Sling, essentially for ESPN - and I suspect there's a lot of Sling subscribers that fall into this boat. Philo TV also fits in the cheap category - although I kind of wonder what it offers that can't be accessed through separate OTT streaming platforms - still it's cheap enough that it may be attractive to some individuals.

    The only other market (that I can think of) that has yet to be explored is a streaming service that focuses solely on local TV streaming. Locast is the only service I can think of, but unfortunately they don't service every DMA. Getting retransmission contracts with every TV station in the United States is going to be difficult, no doubt - but it is a market that I could see attracting customers, as long as it's priced accordingly.
     
  2. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    23,160
    488
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    Subscribers vote with their wallets. Nobody watches everything but they don't want to be summarily denied anything that they do want to watch or be forced to watch it in a very specific way.
     
    SledgeHammer likes this.
  3. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    23,160
    488
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    Locast doesn't have conventional retrans contracts with TV stations. They're (ab)using their non-profit status to bypass the conventional carriage rules.
     
  4. evotz

    evotz Active Member

    240
    58
    Jan 23, 2014
    I agree. That's why I say a MVPD that focuses more on conventional re-transmission might be appealing. Although, as with anything proper research has to be done. At what price point do would-be customers balk at the idea? $20/mo to get all of my "local" stations isn't all that appealing to me. $5/mo? Sure, I'd go for that. But can a streaming MVPD negotiate to that price point?
     
  5. evotz

    evotz Active Member

    240
    58
    Jan 23, 2014
    I just think there's a lot of those 74M linear TV subscribers that sit down every night and watch NetFlix. They could probably drop their cable subscription and not miss anything. Enough to bring OTT only subscribers over traditional cable subscribers? Probably not, but would continue the upward trend of OTT and downward trend of traditional cable.

    Let us not also forget, we're talking about streaming MVPDs here. The purpose of the thread is why TVision went out of business. TVision was competing with AT&T TV, YouTubeTV, Hulu Live TV, Fubo, Sling, Philo - not necessarily DirecTV, Dish Network, Spectrum, Comcast, etc. Someone that had decided to go with TVision had obviously decided to enter into the realm of streaming MVPD, for whatever reason. Why choose TVision over AT&T TV, YouTubeTV, Hulu Live TV, Fubo, Sling, or Philo?
     
  6. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    23,160
    488
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    You have to realize how silly this sounds even if you're a dedicated MVPD cutter.
    As NashGuy pointed out, TVision's biggest problem is that service provider, MobiTV, is undergoing Chapter 11 reorganization. It isn't a clear referendum on TMobile, TVision or the concept of linear TV.

    Others who are partnering with MobiTV perhaps haven't cancelled plans/contracts but they're surely considering their options.
     
  7. NashGuy

    NashGuy Well-Known Member

    1,811
    445
    Jan 30, 2014
    Nashville, TN
    What you're referring to here as "OTT" are simply OTT cable TV services, i.e. vMPVDs. You're comparing subscriber levels for vMVPDs vs. traditional MVPDs (e.g. Comcast, Charter, DirecTV, Dish, etc.). And you're right that MVPDs still dwarf vMVPDs. And that may always be the case.

    But the more interesting comparison, and the one that gets at what I think evotz was originally talking about when he questioned the need for "live TV," is between all forms of traditional channel-based TV (MVPDs/vMVPDs/OTA) and the various direct-to-consumer OTT streaming services that are mostly on-demand-based: Netflix, Prime Video, Hulu (base tier), HBO Max, Disney+, Peacock, Paramount+, ESPN+, discovery+, Tubi, etc.

    As of late 2019, more Americans were paying for an OTT streaming service than were paying for cable TV. And I'm sure that the disparity has since grown further and will continue to do so as the overall number of MVPD+vMVPD subscriptions continues to decline while the number of direct-to-consumer streaming subscriptions continues to rise. And then there's also the growth in free ad-supported streaming apps like Tubi, Pluto TV, Roku Channel, IMDB tv, Vudu, etc.

    The new NFL deal is particularly telling with regard to the shift away from traditional channel-based TV, in that for the first time, they're giving an OTT on-demand service (Prime Video) exclusive access to one of their big primetime games, Thursday Night Football. Wanna watch it on DirecTV, or YouTube TV, or Verizon FiOS TV, or on any channel in your cable package from Comcast, Charter, Cox or Altice? Sorry, you won't be able to. You'll have to launch the Prime Video app.

    And beyond that, all those other live NFL games (regular Sunday afternoon games, and games on Sunday and Monday nights) which will remain on traditional TV channels will also be available on (or at least the NFL will permit them to be available on) those channels' related direct-to-consumer OTT services. Catch CBS games on Paramount+. Catch NBC games on Peacock. Catch ESPN games on ESPN+. Catch Fox games on Tubi. (It remains to be seen for sure how ESPN and Fox will or won't stream their games, although live NFL on Paramount+ and Peacock have been confirmed by those services.)

    So it looks like, within a couple years, NFL fans may not need either a cable TV service or even fool with an OTA antenna to watch all their live NFL games. And that can't help but encourage yet more cord-cutting as consumers trade a fat bundle of channels for a handful of streaming apps that costs them half as much or less.

    Deeper Diveā€”Did the NFL deal a death blow to the MVPD bundle?
     
  8. NashGuy

    NashGuy Well-Known Member

    1,811
    445
    Jan 30, 2014
    Nashville, TN
    The question of whether the $10/mo discount on YTTV is ongoing or only lasts 12 months is addressed on another forum here. Following is what the poster there says was written to him from T-Mobile via Twitter direct message:

    With our transition to our partnership for YouTube TV, you're able to get $10 off as long as you're a T-Mobile/Sprint customer on an eligible rate plan (a few things like prepaid, tablets, and smart watch lines aren't eligible). To make the transition quickly we're offering that unique code which will allow for 12 months. At some point we're going to be moving the billing portion to T-Mobile so it will be charged through us rather than needing to pay Google, so once that happens we'll let you know when it's ready. But as long as you do that once it's available, you'll continue to receive that discount even after 12 months!
     
  9. James Long

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

    52,618
    2,795
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    If they are addicted (or "can't live without") content that is only available on a linear provider then that makes perfect sense. The same as people who primarily watch their linear subscription but also pay for a streamer because of unique content that they have become addicted to (or "strongly attracted to').

    TVision made the mistake of entering the streaming market with a high cost product. The same mistake that AT&T TV made (although they had a lower cost product before they matched prices with DIRECTV). The reason why AT&T TV is still around and TVision isn't is DIRECTV. Millions of profitable subscribers propping up the streaming company.

    TVision might have done better if they would have sold packages at rates competitive with streamers other than AT&T TV.
     
  10. Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,715
    183
    Sep 16, 2006
    $102 for entertainment, $7 per room X 2, ~$23 for dvr and multiroom and HD = $139 plus tax.
    ATT TV = $69.99 for 20 rooms, no dvr fee, no multiroom fee, no HD fee = $69.99 tax included.
    Thank you DirecTv subs. Keep on covering for half my bill.
     
    espaeth, mjwagner and compnurd like this.
  11. SledgeHammer

    SledgeHammer Icon

    3,748
    624
    Dec 28, 2007
    I have DirecTV and I bum off my parents Netflix. I probably watch 2 - 3 hours per MONTH of Netflix because there simply isn't anything on there. I'm not interested in watching a foreign movie with subtitles or one that has been poorly dubbed which is par for the course with Netflix these days since they lost most of the mainstream content.

    Tvision went out of business because the PQ sucked, it required a proprietary box and was the same price as traditional.

    Why *I* chose to try TVision over YouTubeTV, etc? Because:

    1) YouTubeTV is missing a lot of channels that I want
    2) The YouTubeTV DVR makes you "record" every episode of a series when you may just want to watch one. I've had people on here actually suggest that I jot down the season and episode number, so I can easily find it later. LMAO. Come on, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It's supposed to be MORE convenient, not LESS.
    3) If I added another service to fill in the channel gaps, I'm paying for a bunch of channels twice and have to juggle 2 apps, 2 UIs, 2 bills, 2 providers, 2 DVRs. Again... LESS convenient.

    Oh, one other reason I didn't want to switch to Tvision or Cox was because they give me local PST feeds of the nationals whereas DirecTV gives me EST feeds of the nationals, so my shows are on at times that better suite me vs. in the middle of the night.
     
  12. SledgeHammer

    SledgeHammer Icon

    3,748
    624
    Dec 28, 2007
    Isn't that the teaser price? Isn't the regular price almost double?

    Btw, you just didn't negotiate your deal very well. I get Preferred Xtra which is a much higher package + HR54 for a measly $103 out the door. Adding a 2nd TV would only bump it up to $110. A far cry from the $139 you were paying for the entry level package.
     
  13. compnurd

    compnurd Hall Of Fame

    4,567
    950
    Apr 23, 2007
    Evans City PA
    No 59 is the teaser
     
  14. SledgeHammer

    SledgeHammer Icon

    3,748
    624
    Dec 28, 2007
    Ok, so $69 for 65 channels vs. $103 for 230+. So he's paying $1.06 a channel vs. me paying $0.45 a channel. If I added a 2nd TV, it'd still be only $0.47 a channel.

    And that's of course leaving out that pesky little detail of data caps. Cox has 1TB data caps. I currently use ~300GB to ~400GB with zero streaming. Right now I'm getting unlimited for free, but at some point it would be $50/month. If I did that, that really makes streaming $69 + $50 / mo since I wouldn't need unlimited for any other purpose. So that's a mind boggling $1.83 a channel.

    So his argument would probably be that he doesn't need 230 channels and its just a bunch of crap. True. I made a list of the channels I watch and entertainment is missing some stuff like DIY and Science and where's WB and PBS :)?

    And either way, AT&T Now has just as much crap channels.

    $69 + $50 is $119/mo vs. the $103 I'm paying now for DirecTV and not needing unlimited :D.
     
  15. Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,715
    183
    Sep 16, 2006
    You are correct. I dont watch any of the channels that are not already in the Entertainment package, nor do I want to pay the additional mandatory fee for my local RSN which I also never watch, hence Entertainment. One of my favorite channels, however, is in HD on ATT TV, but only SD on Directv. That was a big plus. I don't have data caps with ATT Fiber, but have never gone over the 1.2TB cap Xfinity has should I have decided to stay with them. Not knocking DirecTv at all. Just not worth all the extra charges I can avoid by streaming...since I would have internet either way. If DirecTv called me tomorrow and said I could turn on both my HR24's and two H24s with no HD, multiroom, extra $7 per box fee for $69.99 tax included, I would probably take them up on it, just so I could subscribe to Sunday Ticket this fall. WB? You mean CW? I get PBS, CW and about 40 more on my Tivo with an antenna on my tower, so no problem there. They are free. If they offered the $12 discount like DISH, I would opt out of those too
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2021
  16. compnurd

    compnurd Hall Of Fame

    4,567
    950
    Apr 23, 2007
    Evans City PA
    So the closest comparison would be the Ultimate package. 94 vs 151
     
  17. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,222
    1,631
    Nov 13, 2006
    In a couple years when you realize you are paying as much for each individual streamer combined as it costs to just get a package from DIRECTV or whoever and that they also allow you to stream everything you might change your mind.

    That is exactly where we are headed, unless you are willing to rotate monthly through every provider and only have one streamer at a time.

    And someday, they will figure out a way to slow that way down too.
     
  18. rnbmusicfan

    rnbmusicfan Legend

    202
    10
    Jul 19, 2005
    I don't think T-Vision ending, necessarily means anything for fubo, or that fubo will be shutting down anytime in the next couple of years. As a former customer, I thought fubo's pricing was on the expensive side - but I think that of other carriers as well.

    They likely have a growing niche and according to news reports, they seem to be doing well financially. I thought their service was solid as well, superior to Sling. Their channel selection is different than YouTube TV or Hulu Live as well to be a differentiator. I realize they dropped the Turner channels, but wonder why they don't try to add AXS TV, HD Net Movies, Heroes & Icons, and maybe a few smaller networks to round out their package to further distinguish from YouTube TV and Hulu Live.

    There is another local streaming service than Locast. It's Local BTV. It's available only in select markets (NYC, Philly, Phoenix, LA, SF, Fresno and Monterey CA). It doesn't have feeds from NBC, ABC, CBS or Fox, but it does have Cozi from NBC but no DVR recording is permitted just on that network based on the arrangement from the station. They carry the local Cozi in Philly which pre-empts an hour of The Office on Sunday afternoons for Meet the Press re-broadcast. Local BTV also does carry the PBS stations and Nexstar independent stations. (It actually goes well with Hulu Live or YouTube in that it offers a number of missing local TV stations). It's totally free but it's that's more of it being on a trial basis and they originally wanted to strike deals with all the major networks in the markets and officially launch as a service. I actually don't know what their plan is anymore. But, it did recently add service to Monterey, CA as new streaming market. But the interface is actually pretty decent and was better than frndlyTV's interface (which is a subscription service).

    There is still a market for linear channels. A lot of old people love channels like INSP. Shows like Bonanza with all its seasons, aren't fully available on any non linear streaming service.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2021
  19. Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,715
    183
    Sep 16, 2006
    So if you live in an area with high speed internet, surly most would be able to get all their locals for free with an antenna. Why are more people not doing that? DVR options from HDHomerun to Tivo (cheap to expensive) are available too. It really bugs me to have to pay for free TV. Why is DISH the only provider that allows you to opt out?
     
  20. James Long

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

    52,618
    2,795
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Not difficult ... just introduce compelling new content every month (stop premiering entire seasons as a binge watch dump! spread it out) and expire content as needed.
    From a pricing standpoint raise prices for monthly subscribers and give a discount (the existing price) to people who pay for 12 months at a time.
    Reward commitment instead of requiring it.
     
    NashGuy likes this.

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements