DBSTalk Forum banner
1 - 20 of 56 Posts

·
Icon
Joined
·
4,331 Posts
if they've gotten "the word" from Discovery/TW, Paramount, etc. that the linear options for HBO, Showtime and so forth are eventually going away
How does that work when the vast majority of consumers still get their TV from traditional providers or antenna? TV fanatic boards such as DbsTalk is hardly reflective of gen pop.

Per Wikipedia, as of 2021 (sorry, latest "easy" summary I could find with minimal effort") - Xfinity, Spectrum, DirecTV & Dish are about 57M. Add in Cox, Altice, Uverse, MediaCom and a few other small traditional providers and that's another 12M = 69M. Same list shows Hulu & YTTV live TV to be only 7M combined. The Wikipedia page is from Q1 2021, so no doubt Hulu & YTTV have gained market share since then, but hardly closing the almost 60M gap.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
4,331 Posts
I agree, we aren't there yet. But we are closing in. Here's an example:

If the trend continues, why wouldn't DTW, CBS/Paramount and others start to transition to streaming only (or streaming centric)? If your cable/sat box can bring in streaming content, then what is the need for linear channels in some respects? What do you need 9 HBO channels when you can click on the streaming app on the same box and watch On Demand? (not to mention for some of the streamers, there's the possibility of non-skippable ads). Older folks (like me) are not traditionally what the TV market goes after. It's the younger demos, and they are moving toward streaming.
Poor article tbh since she split up cable & broadcast in the fancy visual, but then lumps them together in the text. Then she mixes in Netflix & Amazon in with Live TV. And what's the 9.2% in Other? Sat? Torrenting? Smoke Signals? Carrier Pigeons? Cave Drawings?

Yup, totally agree though that young kids don't watch linear TV.

She does say later on:

Yes, but: Traditional TV, which includes both cable and broadcast consumption, still collectively makes up the majority of TV viewing in the U.S., for now.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
4,331 Posts
That was one link, there are dozens of articles on the same topic:



But yes, we aren't quite there yet, but that's where we are heading. Those of us old school viewers are not what these companies are planning for. They need to look to the future (which admittedly American Corporation are terrible at). At this point those of us on cable or sat are hangers on. For some of us there are financial reasons it works, for others it's fear of new tech, and still others, the content that we are used to is not there, or internet is not viable or some other reason, but a lot of these issues will be resolved over time (or we will die off!).
They're still lumping all types of streaming together. VOD and Live are 2 different categories. VOD is dominated by streaming although apparently DirecTV has enough customers for the $15/hr porn to keep it running, so who knows? Live is dominated by traditional.

Also all networks are on summer hiatus, so using summer numbers is misleading. Another issue which is skewing the numbers is that networks haven't generated new hits in years. The last big hit show went off the air 2 or 3 years ago.

I don't think that's a factor of people moving to streaming, I think that's more of a factor of the networks being too focused on wokeness and not creating quality content. Certainly streaming services are also engaged in over the top wokeness which has turned off viewers by the droves. Not saying that American audiences would buy a wholesome all American show like Leave It To Beaver these days, but there is a middle ground between that and supposedly every social circle & family in the country ticking every wokeness category under the sun.

At the end of the day, people will go where the quality / popular content is, where ever that is.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
4,331 Posts
I think wokeness has VERY little to do with streaming. Not to get too political but just consider the BS that's going on around the new LOTR series on AP. Plenty of "wokeness" to go around, TV, Movies, streaming and everywhere else. But lack of quality TV has been the mantra for as long as I can remember, even back when there were 3 networks and nothing else (it wasn't called the "boob tube" for nothing). Lack of quality is subjective. if YOU don't like it, it's not quality to YOU. But Network linear TV is hindered by outdated morals and standards, mostly because it's over the public airwaves. You can do a lot more with streaming (and cable/sat channels FWIW) because it's an open book. Nudity, language, violence and controversial topics can all be done without those constraints, but again, that's been the same for at least 30 years if not more. What's killing linear TV is the fact that you are no longer tethered to a timeslot, to a channel, and you have literally 1000s of choices at your fingertips. Something that has never been the case. Add that to the fact that the kids no longer care about watching content on a "big screen" and are content to watch on their phones and tablets (something I'd never understand, but whatever) and that's something that's cumbersome to do when you are tethered to a channel or timeslot. Blame it on wokeness all you want, but that's definitely not the issue.
Hehe... well, network tv has always been more restrictive then cable & pay services. Yes, quality is the defining factor. Just going by imdb reviews and people I speak to (which is a tiny sample size lol) its a turn off and eye roll. But the "young hollywood" that is woke are writing those shows. So you could say its the young hollywood writers that suck...
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
4,331 Posts
Young Hollywood don't want to write TV shows for old folks like me. They are writing Euphoria, they are writhing Atlanta, they are writing Hacks (my niece is one of the writers for the new season, and she's a 20 something young writer). Those are all streaming or cable, not linear TV. The shows on linear TV are geared to older folks like me who don't want to stream or don't even know how. They are watching linear TV because that's what they know. I'll stop here because I'll get booted for being too political. Wokeness is a word this is both revered and ostracized depending on your political leanings and who's talking points you listen to and I'll leave it at that.
lol... ok, I'll leave that out.

I'm middle aged and I'm fully aware of how to stream and I would have nothing against streaming if the cost / channels / functionality was all there. FOR ME, it's not because I can get DirecTV cheaper. But we're talking live tv here. If we're talking VOD shows, I've watched multiple of those. My favorite shows tend to be sitcoms and they don't make those any more unfortunately.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
4,331 Posts
once ST goes away, there will be even less need to keep Sat around
What % of the 14M DirecTV subs only use it for ST and/or sports? Do all the ST subs cancel their service during the off season? I don't use it for ST or sports.

Streaming already owns VOD. Not so much for live TV.

Which came first? The chicken or the egg? Or in the context of this thread, all the big hit shows aging out and not being replenished? Or people stopping to watch big hit shows for VOD only content?

As an older person (your words :D), you'll probably remember that network TV has gone through periods of dry spells where all the big hits aged out and they had trouble replenishing them "for a while".

Will the networks recover this time around? Or are they even trying? TBD. They'll need hit shows either way and I'd probably guess that "today", the big money is still for a hit show on network TV.

You'll know the sky is falling when the networks only have their big hit shows on VOD. Long time away I'd wager.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
4,331 Posts
I think the day of hit TV comedies is gone forever. You can't be funny without offending someone. And how many more cop shows can they come up with? Everything is moving to unscripted Reality TV so they don't have to pay writers and actors the big bucks.
Probably. Thus I mentioned the "W" word earlier. Could you imagine the uproar if Two And A Half Men or Married With Children was put on the air today? Friends would get bashed for being white washed. Cheers would get bashed for promoting alcoholism. Even poor Steve Urkel would get bashed for poor portrayal of smart people lol. Happy Days, Threes Company, Charlies Angels would all get bashed for their portrayals of women.

There are a few interesting sitcoms in development. I'm looking forward to the Night Court reboot. Has a good cast w/ John Larroquette coming back, but I'm betting they'll "W" out a lot of the gimmicks that made that show funny and it'll just be another one and done. Dunno if there was a lot to offend people with The Big Bang Theory was there? Unless you're talking about the unfair portrayal of smart people again lol.

Is reality TV still "a thing"? Seemed like they cancelled a lot of the Jersey Shore type shows because all the cast members tend to get into all sorts of trouble off screen. They're certainly down from their peak. Only ones I watch are AGT and Pawn Stars and Gold Rush. AGT, you can tell they are getting hard up for talent. Pawn Stars ratings are way down, etc.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
4,331 Posts
I'm sure it's a small percentage who have ST. What I'm saying is that ST is a reason some have stuck around with DirecTV and not moved on to OTT like DirecTV Stream or YouTube TV. Without ST, that incentive is no longer there. It's not the determining factor for the demise of Sat, but it adds to it.

Sure OTA has had down cycles where classic shows are ending. What they have NEVER had was the type of On Demand viewing that has completely changed the landscape of TV viewing NOR have they had a generation of TV viewers who care little about linear TV (those pesky channel numbers for example) and are used to just watching stuff whenever they want. The DVR changed the landscape somewhat and had networks scrambling but On Demand viewing to the extent the streamers offer means that you don't even have to record something, you just click on it and watch, either as soon as it drops or whenever you feel like it, and, you are not even tethered to your TV, you can watch when you want, where you want and on whatever device you want (I don't get wanting to watch on a phone, but whatever). In fact, you don't even have to watch "professional TV" if you don't want, you can watch amateur video on YouTube or Tik Tok or whatever medium you want. OTA and or Linear TV has never had that kind of challenge. It's a permanent downslide, compatible to automobiles replacing horses, or electric lights replacing oil lamps. Sorry, you and I are just used to the old way of doing things, but ask a teen or 20 something if they care about watching linear TV. Are they going to sit and watch Blue Bloods or even Dancing With the Stars? No, they appeal to folks like me. My 20 something daughter spends much more time on TIk Tok than she does watching ABC or even HBO. Advertising dollars will go to the new mediums. This is not a sky is falling situation, this is a change in scope situation. No sky is falling, it's just a change in the weather.
No doubt young kids/teens aren't watching network TV, but again, I'd have to say that there aren't any hit shows on nowadays, those are all on HBO/Showtime and the VOD services. I can't even name a sitcom on the air now. The ones I watched are all gone.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
4,331 Posts
It also has The Big Bang Theory’s Melissa Rauch as Judge Abby Stone, daughter of Harry Anderson’s Judge Harry Stone. These reboots rarely are as good as they sound.
Well, one of the funnier running gags was Dan's approach to woman. He won a ton of emmys. No way they bring that back. But all the sight gags are PC enough. The How I Met Your Mother reboot had the same issue. Barney was the breakout character. You can't do that anymore. In the reboot, it's all just normal people. Who wants to watch normal people?
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
4,331 Posts
You are correct. Now ask yourself why that is? You'll see very few of the types of hit shows you got in the 1980s and 1990s on network TV any more. Just look at the Emmy noms. OTA TV is barely recognized. You answered your own question. It's not a lull in quality on OTA (or even cable) TV, it's all moved somewhere else, and nobody is requiring you watch it at the time scheduled or on the linear channel either. That day is gone. You'll get an occasional blip on OTA TV, but those will be few and far between.
Your argument is slightly flawed since they don't have those shows on streaming/vod either. Are there any good 3 cam sit coms on any of them? Hulu has How I Met Your Father, but I wouldn't rate that as good as the original by a long shot. Streaming has the more "stylistic" shows, I guess I'd call them and I do watch some of them, well, nothing right now. Only show I'm watching is a BBC drama import on govt use of deep fakes. Also not what I'd call a great show, but good enough to fill the summer gap. Some better ones will be the upcoming seasons of Your Honor and Departure. Your Honor is on Showtime, not streaming. And Departure I think is a Canada import that Peacock picked up.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
4,331 Posts
Are there any good 3 cam sitcoms left on regular TV either?
Nope. That was the point :). None of those types of shows on either linear OR streaming.

I tried watching Young Sheldon and Murders, didn't like them lol. The Cleaning Lady on Fox is pretty good. Other then that I watch a few shows on ID, Discovery, History, PBS, WB, Science and NBC and a few obscure shows on OTA.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
4,331 Posts
Yea I’m not not on board with it. I was on board with the original series starring Markie Post. She helped produce ratings. 😀
She'll always be Bernadette, but its not like she's cracking your TV screen either haha. I don't think Markie added a lot to the show beyond looks though. Harry was Harry, Dan was lecherous, Bull & Mac had some running gags that were popular. Roz was kept in the background. The big 3 stars were clearly Harry, Dan & the sight gags.

Remember the ep where the evil jokester judge froze harrys bench with liquid No2 so it would shatter when he gaveled? If you aren't bringing that kind of stuff back, you shouldn't call it Night Court, that was the heart of the show.

On the other hand, I loved SNLs reboot of Family Matters haha. That was great.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
4,331 Posts
That makes sense for them, because acquiring new Directv Stream customers is cheaper. Because 1) it doesn't require an installer visit or an HS17, just the clients that are required either way and 2) it is an easier sell to potential new customers in 2022 to offer something delivered over the internet than something that requires sticking a dish on your roof.

Everyone who would consider signing up for satellite services or live where they can't get good internet knows Directv is a satellite company, so it isn't like they are losing out on potential customers by promoting Directv Stream and downplaying satellite.

Preferentially signing up customers on Stream instead of satellite isn't the same thing as transitioning existing customers, which they don't need to do and won't want to do until the end of the decade. It isn't like people need five years of advance notice to plan for it if Directv someday announces an end to satellite service.
Except it costs DirecTV more to operate streaming and almost all streaming services are losing money and need to raise rates by double digits percentages every year. One thing I think we can all agree on is that a total of LESS THAN 0% of people factor in the cost of acquiring/operating to the company in their service choosing decisions lol.

I pick & stay with DirecTV sat because they offer me a superior service at a lower price then streaming. I really couldn't care less whether the bits going in my TV come in over the internet or whether they float down from the sky on little pillows. Well, actually, that's not entirely true, because Cox has a 1.25TB data cap and charge an outrageous $50/mo more if you want to get unlimited.

And while it'll (today) be cheaper to go streaming vs sat if you have more then 2 TVs (and you'll likely be able to get a better deal on sat for 1-2 TVs), as I've been saying for years, the low teaser prices to suck in eye balls are not going to last for long. They were that low to build a customer base. We've seen pretty consistent 25% hikes per year.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
4,331 Posts
I dont see how it costs more to operate streaming vs satellite
Lots of ongoing AWS fees for EC2, K8s, API gateway, S3 buckets, CDNs, ingress/egress, databases, bandwidth, etc, a slew of expensive software engineers and content operators & managers. And you have to scale all that up as you add content & customers. With Sat you just toss a $500M sat into the clouds and call it a day. No scaling needed and minimal ongoing operating costs. Well, beyond running out of transponders, but not in the same sense as with cloud scaling.

Why do you think most streamers are bleeding money when they have all these customers?

Mind you, I'm not saying that Sat is here to stay :). They supposedly aren't launching any new sats, so the last one will eventually fall out of the sky.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
4,331 Posts
You think there's ZERO costs maintaining a Sat infrastructure? What planet are you living on? Forget even maintaining everything on the DirecTV side of things (Satellites, and everything that goes with it), but what about all the equipment in the wild? Cabling, Sat Receivers, the dish, the staff to make home visits (which is VERY expensive comparatively. There is NONE of that with streaming. Customer can use their own device which is not DirecTV's responsibility, or use an Osprey which again, the customer purchases and has a limited warranty that and after that their responsibility ends unless the customer pays. So I'd say the cost is a wash most likely. As for the cost to the customer, it depends on the customer and situation, which we've discussed over and over here. For some with limited number of TVs Sat is still cheaper, for others who need multiple viewing options, streaming is cheaper. I agree, the prices will go up, but they will for Sat too.
Maintaining all the customer equipment likely costs DirecTV nothing and is probably a very lucrative side hustle for them.

1) all the suckers paying into PP and end up never/rarely using it -- if you're paying into PP for 12 months out of the year and you need a service call once in 5 yrs, you're extremely deep in the red
2) if you don't have PP, YOU pay for a truck roll, not for DirecTV -- if you whine, they may comp it...
3) tech savvy people will just pay/fix themselves -- replace hard drives, or wiring, etc. I had a SWM go bad, not gonna call DirecTV for that unless it was on the roof. Cheaper and faster to buy & replace the SWM myself and less hassle then waiting around all day for a sweaty dude to show up 3 hrs late.

Never said there was "ZERO" cost with Sat. I said streaming costs more.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
4,331 Posts
So it could potentially be lower that Sat? Sure more customers will increase cost, but it will also increase revenue, so that's a wash. That's how most businesses on the planet work. More customers mean more widgets need to be purchased, a bigger venue for manufacturing and customers, and that's how you grow.
No. 4K and 20 streams requires a lot of infrastructure that costs a lot of AWS $$$. You should check out the AWS cost estimators. They nickel & dime you on EVERYTHING.

How does (theoretically) adding 20 HR54s to your account cost DirecTV ANYTHING? Not like you are sucking more bits out of the air and they need to throw up another bird to accommodate. A sat doesn't care if 1 person is using it or 100M people are using it. Streaming does. And not mentioned yet, but cable also cares since you put additional drain on the infrastructure.

Sat is very cost efficient that way...
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
4,331 Posts
You needed Markie's character to be Dan's foil. But I agree, there's a reason why they had 3-4 different Public Defenders and that's because any of them work in that role.
The one in the pilot got replace, the first season one girl got fired due to creative differences. The second black one I think quit or got pushed out. I believe the producers always wanted Markie, but she wasn't available at first. I think Fall Guy if I recall? Yeah, she's everyones favorite though.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
4,331 Posts
With Sat, you have to maintain and replenish hardware.
As mentioned in another thread the other stuff you mentioned is all covered and profitable for them. You need a box for their streaming service... or, per this forum, that's the recommended approach.

DirecTV hasn't released new hardware in years. This thread is the first inkling of anything new in a long, long time.

They also haven't added any features to the DVRs in years, its just in maintenance mode and likely covered by a few developers that are probably only working on it part time.

I am a software engineer and I can tell you that's how it works on a maintenance mode project. Management gets into the if it ain't broke, don't fix it mode and do as little as possible on it. But they keep 1 or 2 devs on it to babysit it. I used to work at a company where the project went from 8 devs to just me baby sitting it part time. Very part time. I literally spent about 1 - 2 minutes on it per day.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
4,331 Posts
OK, it's a waste of my time arguing this. It costs nothing, sure, sending people to people's homes to install or fix (often in deal that make it at the company's expense costs nothing. Recycling old equipment costs nothing. Having banks and banks of CSRs available costs nothing. EVERY infrastructure has some costs, some are fixed costs, some are dependent on other factors. The beancounters figure all of that out. I don't know what the costs of both are, but I can only go by what the CEOs (both AT&T and the new management have been saying) and they both have said that the model where you have to have line pulls and Sat installations and multiple instances of DirecTV supported hardware is not a cost effective solution. It's expensive to maintain fleets of contracted workers to do these installation, it's expensive to keep hardware inventory on hand, it's expensive to keep fixing bugs in software and it's expensive to keep a staff of CSRs and train them, and, it's expensive to have a customer base who often expects a ton of freebies to stay. While there is infrastructure costs for streaming too, there's NO home visits, hardware is offered by not required and is OWNED by the customer, most issues are caused by internet issues, or router issues that are not DirecTV's responsibility. And for consumers the cost may or may not be less for streaming, depending on their own situations. Thus, what works for you, doesn't work for me. If this wasn't the case, why require customers to be on a two year contract? Because the cost of bringing that customer onboard requires they stay for two years. Heck even if you quit, there's a cost to DirecTV to send all your crap back to them, where streaming is one call, and it's done.

But yeah, you love sat and don't want to change. I get that, and you'll defend it as long as it works for you. I get that too. I also never believed that a streaming OTT service would ever work for me. It worked fine. It's not the reason I went back. It was just missing a couple of key channels. Once those are there, I'll go back to streaming (once my contract is up).
Same ol' Steve ;). Somebody disagrees with you and you start flailing around making ridiculous, inaccurate comments.

You're still missing the big picture and the costs of things and how other things pay for yet other things.

If they roll a sweaty dude to your house to show up 3 hours late, does he get paid? Yes, by his employer who happens to be DirecTV.

Does DirecTV roll a sweaty dude to your house to show up 3 hours late for free? No. You've either paid the sweaty dude to show up at your house 3 late through PP many times over or through a one time fee.

Does a one time fee pay for the sweaty dude's entire salary? Duh. No. Do all the people who pay in to the PP and never use it pay for the sweaty dude's entire salary? Probably.

Does DirecTV give you hardware for free? No. You pay a $199 fee and then $7/mo for it. I've had DirecTV for 20 yrs. That means I've paid $199 + 12 x 20 = $1872 (first box free). Do you really think it costs them $1872 for a box?

Then you bring up the recycling of returned boxes? Come on now Steve, now you're flailing again. They don't do anything with them. They blow the dust off and test the box quickly. If it works, they ship it out to a another customer for yet ANOTHER $199 fee plus $7/mo. If they don't work, they might replace the HD. If that doesn't work, they likely toss them.

Lease fees and the $199 fee have paid for every box in existence many, many times over. That's well known. If they've been paid for many, many times over, wouldn't it mean that after paying for them 2 or 3 times, its all gravy?

You're talking about bean counters, but you still haven't explained why most streaming services are in the deep red.

Seems like the issue is that you don't understand how cloud costs work and scale to the user base where as Sat doesn't.
 
1 - 20 of 56 Posts
Top