[Steveknj]

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.

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.

 

[SledgeHammer]

Maybe 1000-lb Sisters is your cup of tea? 🤣

Depends. Are they 500 each? or 1000 each?

 

[SledgeHammer]

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?

 

[SledgeHammer]

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.

 

[b4pjoe]

Depends. Are they 500 each? or 1000 each?

From the photos it looks about like a 700/300 split.

 

[Steveknj]

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.

Are there any good 3 cam sitcoms left on regular TV either? The best sitcom (IMO) is Young Sheldon and that's not a 3 cam sitcom. Even most of the better sitcoms have moved to streaming. Hacks, Only Murders in the Building, Barry (Ok, that's on linear HBO too) are streaming, not to mention Kim's Convenice and Workin' Moms (Netflix) and some others. I'm just saying most of the better quality shows are now streaming. What's left on regular TV is what appeals to older folks (4,000 versions of NCIS and L&O and reality and news/true crime stuff).

 

[SledgeHammer]

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.

 

[James Long]

Just look at the Emmy noms. OTA TV is barely recognized.

Emmys don't pay the bills. Look at the ratings for the shows.

 

[codespy]

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.

Yea I’m not not on board with it. I was on board with the original series starring Markie Post. She helped produce ratings. 😀

 

[SledgeHammer]

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.

 

[slice1900]

[QUOTE="Steveknj, post: 3614501, member: 444449"But look at their current advertising. There's almost no mention of satellite
[/QUOTE]


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.

 

[SledgeHammer]

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.

 

[compnurd]

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.

I dont see how it costs more to operate streaming vs satellite

 

[SledgeHammer]

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.

 

[Steveknj]

Emmys don't pay the bills. Look at the ratings for the shows.

This is true. The point being, that quality writing has moved to streaming due to all the factors mentioned previously.

 

[Steveknj]

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.

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.

 

[compnurd]

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.

Fairly certain it costs a good penny for Directv to operate there Broadcast centers

 

[Steveknj]

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.

True to some extent, but also consider the cost of maintaining a Sat customer is much higher than a streaming customer. With Sat, you have to maintain and replenish hardware, you may need to do dish maintenance and other things that may require a home visit. You have NONE of that with streaming and the vast majority of issues are probably internet related and thus have little to do with DirecTV. So from a cost standpoint the sooner they move customers to streaming the better.

 

[harsh]

Fairly certain it costs a good penny for Directv to operate there Broadcast centers

That cost is fixed regardless of the size of the customer base. Streaming is traffic sensitive.

 

[Steveknj]

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.

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.