DBSTalk Forum banner
61 - 80 of 107 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,100 Posts
The network affiliation contracts offer their affiliates the right to first distribution in their market. That window has tightened up considerably with the "streaming the next day" offerings. If the networks went to same day streaming they would be worth less to their affiliates. I believe NBC / Peacock has done that on a limited basis. Saturday Night Live is live on NBC and Peacock. (I thought Fallon was also to be available same day but that apparently did not come to pass.)
Did they put SNL live on Peacock? I didn't even realize that, if so. And yeah, before it launched, the premium tier of Peacock was going to include early access to the weekday late shows from Fallon and Myers -- which are actually taped late afternoon. The idea was to place them on Peacock for streaming at maybe 8 PM for folks who don't like to stay up so late. But they scrapped that idea because they got such push back from their local NBC affiliates. Those stations valued the fact that NBC late show viewers would turn their TVs off each night set to their local NBC channel number, meaning that their same channel would be the first one they'd see when they turned their TVs back on in the morning when ready to watch the morning news (or in the evening after work when ready to watch the evening news).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,603 Posts
I was mainly talking about prime time shows on the major networks and I was only talking about them airing them on streaming at the same time they are airing on linear. Late Night and Sports yeah I can see them doing that. Yes CBS does it on their prime time shows because they have the local linear feed on Paramount+. You don't get the ad free version until around midnight. But hey I hope you are right. My dream is to get the 4 major networks linear feeds via streaming instead of through a Cable/Sat package.
 

·
Beware the Attack Basset
Joined
·
24,453 Posts
I think MVPDs lose this war. Not because I think ESPN is going to win… I think the MVPD business model is outdated and is losing to a bigger trend of streaming. ESPN (well Disney) will emerge successful in the end, because they have money to ride out the storm.
I think you're wrong. ESPN isn't swimming in revenues -- where's the much ballyhooed 4K? Even Netflix is starting to panic investors with their estimated 100 million non-paying households (as compared with 222 million paying accounts).

Unless you're willing to pay MVPD prices, it is hard to find a service that covers what the conventional MVPD's carry.

I'm waiting for both HBO and Disney+ to release enough new content to warrant a month's subscription and that could take six months or more.

As the OTT providers get more and more amalgamated and exclusive, the attraction isn't likely to improve.
 

·
Godfather
Joined
·
798 Posts
Unless you're willing to pay MVPD prices, it is hard to find a service that covers what the conventional MVPD's carry.
The assumption here is that people want what the conventional MVPDs provide.

Each of the OTA networks (ABS, CBS, Fox, NBC) have OTT services. These services can stream the local affiliates and send subscribers the correct station using geolocation. That’s what YouTube TV does, and the opposite of what out-of-market sports packages do.

I’ve proffered elsewhere that I could see cable cos. and telecos being happy to get out of the TV business with the revenue they can get for just selling bandwidth. There is almost on content cost. No need for an army of lawyers to negotiate carriage agreements.

All that prevent this are some legacy agreements that will eventually expire. Heck, given the right model, some of these contracts may be renegotiated.

Silly question… does Sinclair have stations where they have local sports rights (RSNs)? They could work with the network those stations are affiliated with to get the games streamed, assuming they have those rights, too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Beware the Attack Basset
Joined
·
24,453 Posts
The assumption here is that people want what the conventional MVPDs provide.
My assumption is that if you have to subscribe to six or more OTT services, it may actually be costing you more in terms of money. On top of that is suffering a variety of UIs. Some of the UIs are pretty stinky and it isn't just a poorly implemented app.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,100 Posts
My assumption is that if you have to subscribe to six or more OTT services, it may actually be costing you more in terms of money. On top of that is suffering a variety of UIs. Some of the UIs are pretty stinky and it isn't just a poorly implemented app.
I see this argument all the time but I don't really buy it.

Netflix (most popular tier -- HD, 2 screens): $15.50
Disney Bundle (all ad-free Disney+, Hulu, ESPN+): $20
HBO Max (ad-free): $15
Apple TV+: $5
total for 6 ad-free services: $55.50

That's a lot of content, all ad-free (except for sports), all with better HD or 4K HDR picture quality than cable, all on-demand, with even some live sports and news included. For $55.50. How much do Americans spend for the average mid-range cable channel bundle? The cheapest you're going to get that is $65, what YouTube TV charges. But all cable operators cost more than that, especially if you include box rentals and ample DVR service, plus broadcast TV fees, franchise fees, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,100 Posts
My dream is to get the 4 major networks linear feeds via streaming instead of through a Cable/Sat package.
As a normal Gen X American, I used to think of the big 4 broadcast networks as an absolutely necessary source for TV shows. All the shows I grew up watching were on those networks! (Well, maybe not so much Fox, which didn't exist when I was a little kid.) I'm old enough to remember the Cable ACE Awards, which existed to honor the mostly crappy shows no one watched on cable TV. (OK, some of those early HBO and Showtime original series from the 80s to early 90s were probably good, e.g. It's Gary Shandling's Show.) But the major broadcast networks were the real deal. That's what everyone was watching and it's also where the critically acclaimed culture-defining shows existed too, like MASH, All in the Family, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, The Cosby Show, In the Heat of the Night, etc.

But these days, is there anything much worth watching in primetime on ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox? There are still one or two scripted shows I find decent enough to watch but, generally speaking, scripted shows -- good ones -- have all shifted to streaming. The broadcast nets are for live sports, news, and non-scripted shows, e.g. true crime stuff like 48 Hours, competition shows like The Voice, game shows like To Tell the Truth, etc.

Anyhow, as for live linear feeds of local broadcast channels via DTC apps, as you know, CBS already does this in Paramount+ and I expect that Hulu/Disney+ will eventually do this with ABC locals and Peacock (if it exists long-term) will eventually do this with NBC locals. In fact, wouldn't surprise me to see Hulu include local ABC live feeds in its base package as early as this fall, to offset the blow of losing next-day access to NBC shows. Hulu already includes the ABC News Live linear channel and they obviously have the tech systems in place to carry local ABC stations around the country due to their separate Live TV add-on package. It's just a matter of Disney negotiating a mutually acceptable amount to pay all those ABC affiliates to bring their live stream to all Hulu subs, not just the ones on the $70/mo Hulu with Live TV package.
 

·
Godfather
Joined
·
798 Posts
total for 6 ad-free services: $55.50
You forgot Star Trek fans (Paramount+) and EPL fans (Peacock), so, another $11.

But the other thing is that these services don’t have contracts, and people can subscribe/unsubscribe at will, often with deals to sign back up.

So, if you are budget conscious, streaming can save quite a bit of money, particularly if you do t have to watch something on release day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,492 Posts
But these days, is there anything much worth watching in primetime on ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox?
That seems to be the root of the problem when discussing streaming. As long as the services you subscribe to can deliver the content each individual wants it is easy to dismiss all of the other content in the world. Cognitive dissonance sets in and the content that you can't get via your chosen services (or via any non MVPD) gets discounted. If the grapes are on one of your chosen services they are the best grapes ever if they are not on one of your chosen services they are sour and you didn't want them anyways.

I could make the same statement about the exclusive content on Netflix or Apple TV or Amazon or any other service. Do I really need Star Trek TV shows like Discovery, Below Decks and Picard? I have managed to live without seeing Better Call Saul, Bridgerton and Stranger Things. The Morning Show and Ted Lasso are reported to be good ... they also have never been on any of my screens. I'm not going to buy six services that do not include what I currently watch to add a few new shows I might like. "Not worth watching" is a matter of personal taste.

Sinclair as a DTC will not see a dime of my money, let alone $16-$20 per month. I am glad the services I subscribe to do not include their RSNs. If other people want Bally Sports then DTC seems like a good option.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,603 Posts
As a normal Gen X American, I used to think of the big 4 broadcast networks as an absolutely necessary source for TV shows. All the shows I grew up watching were on those networks! (Well, maybe not so much Fox, which didn't exist when I was a little kid.) I'm old enough to remember the Cable ACE Awards, which existed to honor the mostly crappy shows no one watched on cable TV. (OK, some of those early HBO and Showtime original series from the 80s to early 90s were probably good, e.g. It's Gary Shandling's Show.) But the major broadcast networks were the real deal. That's what everyone was watching and it's also where the critically acclaimed culture-defining shows existed too, like MASH, All in the Family, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, The Cosby Show, In the Heat of the Night, etc.

But these days, is there anything much worth watching in primetime on ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox? There are still one or two scripted shows I find decent enough to watch but, generally speaking, scripted shows -- good ones -- have all shifted to streaming. The broadcast nets are for live sports, news, and non-scripted shows, e.g. true crime stuff like 48 Hours, competition shows like The Voice, game shows like To Tell the Truth, etc.

Anyhow, as for live linear feeds of local broadcast channels via DTC apps, as you know, CBS already does this in Paramount+ and I expect that Hulu/Disney+ will eventually do this with ABC locals and Peacock (if it exists long-term) will eventually do this with NBC locals. In fact, wouldn't surprise me to see Hulu include local ABC live feeds in its base package as early as this fall, to offset the blow of losing next-day access to NBC shows. Hulu already includes the ABC News Live linear channel and they obviously have the tech systems in place to carry local ABC stations around the country due to their separate Live TV add-on package. It's just a matter of Disney negotiating a mutually acceptable amount to pay all those ABC affiliates to bring their live stream to all Hulu subs, not just the ones on the $70/mo Hulu with Live TV package.
Yeah if it was just me I'd probably just have the apps you mentioned above and no sat/cable package at all. You could change Netflix to the most expensive plan and ad free Paramount+ and Peacock and still only be at $80 per month. But I have other family members that are kind of stuck in their old fashion ways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,100 Posts
You forgot Star Trek fans (Paramount+) and EPL fans (Peacock), so, another $11.

But the other thing is that these services don’t have contracts, and people can subscribe/unsubscribe at will, often with deals to sign back up.

So, if you are budget conscious, streaming can save quite a bit of money, particularly if you do t have to watch something on release day.
I didn't forget anything. He said six OTT services. Maybe you want Paramount+ or Peacock in place of Apple TV+. Maybe you want both of them instead of HBO Max. Whatever. Let's not pretend that the standard cable bundle includes all content. When I priced the bundle -- starting at $65 and going up from there -- I wasn't including HBO ($15), Showtime ($11), Starz ($9) or Epix ($6). And then, of course, there's all the quality content that's exclusive to OTT SVODs and not on cable at all (just as, conversely, there's still content -- mainly sports and news/talk -- exclusive to cable and not on OTT SVODs).

And as you say, yes, for now at least, it's still very easy to drop and add these SVODs on a monthly basis. Churn is a real problem for them, though. Most likely scenario is that their monthly prices increase at a significantly steeper slope than their discounted annual prices, thereby making it that much better a value to pre-pay for an entire year at a time. But, who knows, maybe we even see some service switch from monthly to quarterly subscriptions.
 

·
Beware the Attack Basset
Joined
·
24,453 Posts
Netflix (most popular tier -- HD, 2 screens): $15.50
Disney Bundle (all ad-free Disney+, Hulu, ESPN+): $20
HBO Max (ad-free): $15
Apple TV+: $5
total for 6 ad-free services: $55.50

That's a lot of content, all ad-free (except for sports), all with better HD or 4K HDR picture quality than cable, all on-demand, with even some live sports and news included.
I used to marvel at the number of titles and the tentpoles that this services promised but I burned through Netflix in about four months, Disney in three months and I've had a couple of stabs at HBO. In the end, I think I spent more time watching sports (usually other than ESPN) and YouTube. I've not tried AppleTV+ as it doesn't seem to offer much of what I'm looking for even at the price. I'd say it is the only name brand that I haven't really felt compelled to bother with but I acknowledge that I may be missing something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dstout

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,100 Posts
Doesn't it seem like that scenario is the logical next step as the MVPD system evolves into the DTC system? The lines between linear and SVOD will increasingly blur, I think, as the latter swallows the former.
Just to further expound on the above, I'll re-post the following from a different thread. I think maybe what will happen is that traditional live pay TV ("cable TV") simply restructures and morphs into the SVOD system.

For the sake of simplicity, let's say that Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, NBCUniversal, Paramount, Fox, and AMC Networks all remain as-is in terms of the channels and SVODs they own. (They won't, there will be consolidations and deaths, but for simplicity's sake, let's just use the chess board as it currently exists.)

In time, I could see MVPDs restructuring their channel packages so that instead of choosing between small, medium and large bundles that commingle channels from multiple media groups, they'll just sell each media group's own bundle of channels plus their related SVOD. Consumers could buy any of these Packs alone or combined with others. Each Pack would have a different price. So the menu would look like:

Disney Pack:
linear channels -- ABC (local), ESPN, ESPN 2, SEC Network, ACC Network, FX, FXX, FXM, Disney Channel, Disney XD, Disney Jr., Freeform, Nat Geo, Nat Geo Wild, etc.
SVODs -- Disney+, Hulu, ESPN+ (i.e. the full Disney Bundle)

Paramount Pack:
linear channels -- CBS (local), Paramount Network, CBS News, CBS Sports Network, Nickelodeon, Nick Jr., TeenNick, MTV, VH1, CMT, BET, Comedy Central, TV Land, Smithsonian Channel, Logo, Flix
SVOD -- Paramount+

NBCUniversal Pack:
linear channels -- NBC (local), MSNBC, CNBC, USA, Bravo, SyFy, E!, Oxygen, Universal Kids, Golf Channel, Olympic Channel, Cozi TV, NBC News Now, Circle
SVOD -- Peacock

Warner Bros. Discovery Pack:
linear channels -- HBO, CNN, TBS, TNT, TruTV, Cartoon Network, OWN, Discovery, HGTV, Food, TLC, Magnolia, Trvl, ID, Animal Planet, Science, Motor Trend, etc.
SVOD -- HBO Max

AMC Pack:
linear channels -- AMC, IFC, BBC America, Sundance TV, WeTV
SVOD -- AMC+

Sports Pack:
linear channels -- local RSN(s), NFL Network, NBA Network, MLB Network, NHL Network, Tennis Channel, Stadium, Stadium College Sports, Pac-12 Network (maybe, and only in that region)
SVOD -- RSN DTC app

Variety Pack (i.e. the leftovers):
linear channels -- Fox (local), Fox News, Fox Business, Fox Weather, FS1, FS2, Big Ten Network, CW, NewsNation, Hallmark Channel, Hallmark Movies & Mysteries, Hallmark Drama, A&E, History, Lifetime, LMN, Vice, Game Show Network, Get TV, Sony Movie Channel, INSP, GAC Family, GAC Living, MeTV, H&I, Story Television, Start TV, Decades, MeTV+, ION, ION Mystery, Bounce, Court TV, Grit, Defy, Newsy, Laff, TrueReal, Brown Sugar, ION Plus, Charge!, Comet, TBD
SVOD -- none

The SVODs above would continue to be available direct-to-consumer on a standalone basis. But they would be non-optionally included when buying the linear-channel cable TV bundles above from an MVPD distributor (e.g. Comcast, Charter, YouTube TV, etc.)

MVPD's own VOD platforms would cease to exist, except to provide on-demand access to all shows from channels in the Variety Pack. Otherwise, MVPD customers would just use the related SVOD for on-demand access to shows featured on the related channels. And, of course, those SVODs would offer a lot of additional content still not available on those channels, e.g. Max Originals, Disney+ Originals, etc.

MVPDs' home screens (on their own STBs and apps) would still feature an aggregated live channel grid guide containing all the linear channels to which you subscribe. But it would also feature suggested on-demand content from across the various SVODs you buy through the MVPD. Click on the tile for the latest episode of SNL and it launches you into the Peacock app to watch there.

Cloud DVR becomes a thing of the past. The linear channels are only for watching live (with the ability to pause and rewind for a limited amount of time, e.g. 30 minutes). If you want to avoid unskippable ads when watching content on-demand in a given SVOD, you'll need to pay more for the Pack it's part of. Since channels in the Variety Pack and Sports Pack (except RSNs) have no associated SVODs, everything they've aired within the last X days is available on-demand in the MVPDs' native VOD platform with unskippable ads (which, in some cases, may be removed via a small upgrade fee).

Instead of a DVR list of recorded shows, you simply have a collection of saved titles to watch on-demand from across all the Packs you subscribe to. You could add a show or movie from within the linear channel grid guide to your on-demand queue or add it from elsewhere in the MVPD home screen. Also, when adding a title inside an SVOD app to that app's internal queue, it would flow through and also get added to your universal queue maintained in the MVPD home screen UI.

Of course, MVPDs (at least those with their own broadband service, such as Comcast and Charter) will also attempt to be resellers of other SVODs too, i.e. those not associated with traditional TV studios, such as Netflix, Prime Video, and Apple TV+. If they do, then those services' on-demand content would also be featured in the MVPD home screen UI and available to add to its universal on-demand queue. I suspect that this is the end-game for the Flex streaming platform that is now a part of the new Comcast/Charter joint venture.

If the above should come to pass, it would probably exist at major MVPDs as an alternate "Flex Pack" system alongside the current (traditional/commingled) type of cable channel packages they offer now. But after awhile, that older system of packages would be dropped, leaving them only for existing subs grandfathered in on them, while new subs would only be able to select the new-type Packs outlined above. And then, eventually, even grandfathered subs would see their old packages taken away, with just the new-type Packs available. But when that happens -- maybe around 2030? -- no one would even think of any of this as "cable TV" any more. The middle-men won't be thought of as MVPDs or "cable companies" any more, just aggregation platforms offering unified billing and a unified UI/home screen for third-party streaming TV services. And of course, Apple, Google, Amazon and Roku (and maybe Samsung, LG, Vizio and Microsoft) will be in the business of doing that as much as Comcast+Charter. Frankly, I'm not sure if there will be any other players left in that video middle-man/distributor game by then.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,492 Posts
For the most part I will agree with a couple of exceptions:
The SVODs above would continue to be available direct-to-consumer on a standalone basis. But they would be non-optionally included when buying the linear-channel cable TV bundles above from an MVPD distributor (e.g. Comcast, Charter, YouTube TV, etc.)
Major MVPDs would include the SVODs ... smaller systems would not. The SVODs would not want to deal with authorization from every tiny podunk cable system - especially those serving people who would receive no benefit from SVOD availability. (Think: Whatever saves the SVOD company money.)

MVPD's own VOD platforms would cease to exist, except to provide on-demand access to all shows from channels in the Variety Pack.
I expect major MVPDs to keep their platforms with integrated libraries. It is a major benefit of MVPDs to have a unified platform and until ALL of the MVPDs deployed receivers are capable of running standard apps. Forcing people outside of their MVPD receiver to view content is a bad thing. (Example: DISH receivers currently give access to a large portion of the HBO Max library via the standard DISH interface. DISH customers can use the full HBO Max app on another device or on the soon to be released Hopper Plus / Joey 4 receivers but for most content the unified experience is available.)

Cloud DVR becomes a thing of the past.
Yes ... but home DVR survives. If content can be received via a system's normal linear channels (non-streaming) it can be recorded. I expect content will be able to be downloaded and stored similar to Netflix's offering (storage on up to four devices per account).

Cloud DVR exists today for systems that do not have DVRs in home or do not have VOD agreements with all of the linear channels they carry. A personal DVR (per subscriber) is protected by federal copyright laws. Home DVR systems seem to be fading out of existence and may only survive long term as a third party offering.

Timeline: 10 years from now. I don't expect a major upheaval in the next five years that would lead to all of the above to pass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,100 Posts
For the most part I will agree with a couple of exceptions:
Major MVPDs would include the SVODs ... smaller systems would not. The SVODs would not want to deal with authorization from every tiny podunk cable system - especially those serving people who would receive no benefit from SVOD availability. (Think: Whatever saves the SVOD company money.)
Except a major player, HBO Max, already does this with every tiny podunk cable system that distributes HBO (which is all of them). They tend to do contractual stuff with all those little players through a national collective that represents them, the NCTC. I see no reason the others wouldn't do the same. (Also, there's the more fundamental issue that pretty much all those little MVPDs will cease to exist in the next several years.)

I expect major MVPDs to keep their platforms with integrated libraries. It is a major benefit of MVPDs to have a unified platform and until ALL of the MVPDs deployed receivers are capable of running standard apps. Forcing people outside of their MVPD receiver to view content is a bad thing. (Example: DISH receivers currently give access to a large portion of the HBO Max library via the standard DISH interface. DISH customers can use the full HBO Max app on another device or on the soon to be released Hopper Plus / Joey 4 receivers but for most content the unified experience is available.)
This new system of Packs (linear+SVOD) that I describe would only be available through MVPDs who offer their own STBs and/or apps for retail devices (e.g. Roku, iOS) that can accommodate/work with third-party SVOD apps. So Dish's new Android TV-based system could do it. The X1/Flex platform used by Comcast, Charter and Cox could do it. And obviously retail devices running Google/Android TV, Fire TV, Roku, Apple tvOS, and smart TV OSes by Samsung, LG, etc. could do it. Those are your next-gen gatekeepers. Verizon will try to make a go of it with their new +Play platform (which will be an app and probably a home screen for their Android TV Operator Tier box) but I'm skeptical that they've got the juice to pull it off.

Yes ... but home DVR survives.
Local DVR survives on those devices/MVPDs that are unable to do what I outlined above. Obviously, non-internet-connected satellite TV receivers will ALWAYS have to rely on local DVR. And they might be stuck with the current commingled-type channel packages (sans SVODs), except for their customers on next-gen internet-connected STBs/apps, like Dish's new Hopper Plus or the DirecTV Stream app (which could see its cloud DVR and on-demand platform just become deep links to those shows in the various SVOD apps).

Cloud DVR exists today for systems that do not have DVRs in home or do not have VOD agreements with all of the linear channels they carry. A personal DVR (per subscriber) is protected by federal copyright laws. Home DVR systems seem to be fading out of existence and may only survive long term as a third party offering.
Local DVR, cloud DVR and VOD would NOT be licensed by the media companies (e.g. Disney, WBD, etc.) in conjunction with the next-gen Packs (linear+SVOD) that I envision. All of that stuff would be a vestige of the current channel package system that would be gradually phased out over the latter half of this decade.

Timeline: 10 years from now. I don't expect a major upheaval in the next five years that would lead to all of the above to pass.
I think we'll see some significant changes to the way "cable TV" is packaged and sold within the next 5 years (i.e. by spring 2027). Its penetration and viewership among US households will have fallen too low to avoid some real changes. Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I see ESPN as both the glue that keeps the current channel bundle paradigm in place and the barrier that prevents the future of video from getting here sooner. What I sketch out above will give Disney/ESPN time to transition to a profitable product that will be sustainable in the a la carte DTC video world that will be fully in effect by 2030.
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
5,426 Posts
If the above should come to pass, it would probably exist at major MVPDs as an alternate "Flex Pack" system alongside the current (traditional/commingled) type of cable channel packages they offer now. But after awhile, that older system of packages would be dropped, leaving them only for existing subs grandfathered in on them, while new subs would only be able to select the new-type Packs outlined above. And then, eventually, even grandfathered subs would see their old packages taken away, with just the new-type Packs available. But when that happens -- maybe around 2030? -- no one would even think of any of this as "cable TV" any more. The middle-men won't be thought of as MVPDs or "cable companies" any more, just aggregation platforms offering unified billing and a unified UI/home screen for third-party streaming TV services. And of course, Apple, Google, Amazon and Roku (and maybe Samsung, LG, Vizio and Microsoft) will be in the business of doing that as much as Comcast+Charter. Frankly, I'm not sure if there will be any other players left in that video middle-man/distributor game by then.
if one thing they should push for unified multi stream rules with that unified billing.
Say $/5-$10/mo each added box (with base of say 2-3) one time fee for X streams across all of them.
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
5,426 Posts
I think we'll see some significant changes to the way "cable TV" is packaged and sold within the next 5 years (i.e. by spring 2027). Its penetration and viewership among US households will have fallen too low to avoid some real changes. Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I see ESPN as both the glue that keeps the current channel bundle paradigm in place and the barrier that prevents the future of video from getting here sooner. What I sketch out above will give Disney/ESPN time to transition to a profitable product that will be sustainable in the a la carte DTC video world that will be fully in effect by 2030.
now what if the laws change so that any OTA channel that that cable cable co's have to pay for can not be forced into an package with any other non OTA channel?
say Disney/ESPN can not take away an O&O abc channel on a system with out ESPN in basic?

What about with with ATSC 3.0 that O&O abc has ESPN as an PAY ATSC 3.0 channel?
 

·
Godfather
Joined
·
798 Posts
I think maybe what will happen is that traditional live pay TV ("cable TV") simply restructures and morphs into the SVOD system.
Aside from the MVPD acting as a sales agent, and taking a cut of the fee, what does the SVOD get out of this arrangement?

Timeline: 10 years from now. I don't expect a major upheaval in the next five years that would lead to all of the above to pass.
The industry has been in ‘major upheaval’ mode for the last 10 years, starting with authentication. Yet, I don’t expect the demise of MVPDs in the immediate future. Let’s just say their demise is imminent.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,100 Posts
now what if the laws change so that any OTA channel that that cable cable co's have to pay for can not be forced into an package with any other non OTA channel?
That would be an interesting development! I'm not holding my breath, though. But yeah, if the laws surrounding the paid distribution of OTA channels change, that could have a big impact on what the future looks like.

What about with with ATSC 3.0 that O&O abc has ESPN as an PAY ATSC 3.0 channel?
Yeah, I just don't really see the rationale for using ATSC 3.0 (OTA TV) to distribute paid subscription channels. Why wouldn't you just do it via internet streaming? Because increasingly, every screen is connected to the internet but relatively few are connected to an OTA antenna, and so far, only a sliver of those have a 3.0 tuner in them. I just don't see how selling, for example, ESPN via both pay OTA and streaming ends up netting them any more subscribers than if they just sell it via streaming alone. Anyone who owns an ATSC 3.0-capable TV and who is willing to pay for ESPN will almost certainly have internet service.
 
61 - 80 of 107 Posts
Top