Forbes: Broadcast TV is on "Death Watch," Citing Apple TV, Chromecast and Aereo - Page 3 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 8Likes
Reply
Thread Tools
post #61 of 72 Old 09-28-2013, 02:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Toknowshita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,238
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWhip View Post

Once HD streaming is reliable, then why have cable companies? The content providers can sell directly to the consumer and bypass the middleman. You can store the stuff on a home server and watch it where and when you want. You can pick what you want to buy or more importantly, what not the buy, the ultimate in ala carte. The content provider, whether it is CBS or any sports net can keep all the money. The NFL would love it. They get to control the announcers, how the games are produced and presented and get to keep all the advertizing revenue and all the subscription fees. That will dwarf what they earn now from CBS, NBC, Fox and directv combined. That is the future of television distribution and it is no more than 10 years away.

Um how do the majority of households get Internet service? Cable companies

Toknowshita is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 72 Old 09-28-2013, 04:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sacramento delta N. Cal. US Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 4,023
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 974 Post(s)
Liked: 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_bull View Post

Since I'm old enough to remember...
I'd say the remote control is the greatest thing to happen to TV (DVR 2nd).

ha ha thumbs up on that one!

"The wireless music box has no commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
- David Sarnoff's associates at RCA the 1920's -
tubetwister is offline  
post #63 of 72 Old 09-28-2013, 04:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 309 Post(s)
Liked: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by theatredaz View Post

That would change quickly if lets say NFL and direct Tv's conglomeration was disrupted by multiple new broadcasters entering the Cable scene> so...we would see 2-3 maybe even 4 new cable providers entering the Market, they would want to get NFL's product line...NFL says ok but you pay the same price as Direct TV does...fine...But ...the market that was once invlolved with only one provider decides that cable company 2 or 3 is to their liking- for what ever reasons, when they leave Direct TV...Direct TV's bottom line leaves as well...direct TV goes back to NFL and say's our bottom line quotas are not being met, even if they don't procur that information to the NFL , their abilities to carry that product at the requested licensing costs could prove unaffordable due to a decreased demand for it.
The problem is, D* pays what they do for the contract because they have the exclusive contract. No one will pay anything close to that for a shared contract. As more parties carry the package, the price per party goes down since it's no longer "special".

Even if multiple providers banded together to pay the same amount that D* does now, now the NFL has to deal with multiple parties instead of one single entity. Plus, if one provider drops out of the pool, what happens to the amount the others pay to keep it? What happens if both Comcast and FIOS in the same market want in on it when they are in direct competition? Do they each pay less than an MSO that has the exclusive for their individual market? Pools simply add compexity that the NFL might not want to deal with unless the money actually increases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWhip View Post

Once HD streaming is reliable, then why have cable companies? The content providers can sell directly to the consumer and bypass the middleman. You can store the stuff on a home server and watch it where and when you want. You can pick what you want to buy or more importantly, what not the buy, the ultimate in ala carte. The content provider, whether it is CBS or any sports net can keep all the money. The NFL would love it. They get to control the announcers, how the games are produced and presented and get to keep all the advertizing revenue and all the subscription fees. That will dwarf what they earn now from CBS, NBC, Fox and directv combined. That is the future of television distribution and it is no more than 10 years away.
Aside from the fact that most people get their internet service from companies that are also MSOs, I think true show by show ala carte would kill the ability of new shows to find an audience. If people have to pay be the show or series, they're going to be less likely to sample something unknown. Established shows leading in to new shows is how a lot of people learn about them. They aren't like us where we read the news about them and decide to check it out based on reviews. The majority of viewers still find and watch shows based on a lead in from a show they already watch. You only have to look at the ratings drop for Revolution to see the effect without a strong lead in.

Further, most shows on cable get made based on the total potential audience supporting the channel, not just those who watch the show. Simply put, Breaking Bad or Mad Men wouldn't get made if only the actual viewers financed it. There aren't enough there in the current system. There would be even fewer if the channel wasn't just there for people to tune in to it. You'd be lucky to get half the viewers if they specifically had to subscribe to an individual show.

Finally, while people generally accept that commercials on regular TV are a fact of life, the simply wouldn't tolerate them under a show by show subscription plan. There are a ton of people who think that Internet=Free and if it's paid content, it can't have commercials at all. Since, under your model, there would be no first run under regular TV to support the costs, the subscription model would have to be a lot more expensive to pay the costs of the show. Right now, streaming is in addition to the main broadcast, not in place of it.

Something has to pay for this stuff, and the audience isn't going to want to do it if they have to actually think about how much it costs. With a monthly all you can eat fee, they don't have to.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #64 of 72 Old 09-28-2013, 04:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sacramento delta N. Cal. US Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 4,023
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 974 Post(s)
Liked: 486
Wherever the money is to be made that is where the investors will be , sometimes they lead (venture capital ) some times they follow the herd (wall street) I wouldn't short broadcast or especially cable/sat TV just yet ! .

I think there are better investments out there .not getting a lot of press because they are not media darlings , tech or trendy for example Goodyear Tire has doubled in 12 months for instance with the domestic auto industry resurgence that's better than Apple has done trailing 12 months . It pays to watch those things I've been long on GT for while haven't lost a dime only made dollars ! Buffet just went long on GM in a big way he seldom looses . He went long on railroads long time ago waaay ahead of the curve . He's laughing all the way to the bank now that he probably owns.

.
Not sufficient broad band infrastructure in US yet (probably won't be anytime soon ) for massive migrations yet . OFC some have unplugged successfully that's fine also.

.

"The wireless music box has no commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
- David Sarnoff's associates at RCA the 1920's -
tubetwister is offline  
post #65 of 72 Old 09-29-2013, 08:32 AM
Member
 
theatredaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I don't see the content providers becoming distributers, they would need a bulk product in order to make it viable...unless you like to only watch NFL games on your TV, with no other subscriptions I'm sure it would be possible with a small market for it, but then Direct TV would be like, why are you selling direct to my customers?.
Quote:
The problem is, D* pays what they do for the contract because they have the exclusive contract. No one will pay anything close to that for a shared contract. As more parties carry the package, the price per party goes down since it's no longer "special".

Even if multiple providers banded together to pay the same amount that D* does now, now the NFL has to deal with multiple parties instead of one single entity. Plus, if one provider drops out of the pool, what happens to the amount the others pay to keep it? What happens if both Comcast and FIOS in the same market want in on it when they are in direct competition? Do they each pay less than an MSO that has the exclusive for their individual market? Pools simply add compexity that the NFL might not want to deal with unless the money actually increases.


*The NFL would have to calculate the market direction with multiple content providers, it would need to know if they will have a solid market base that extends well into the future, or if the multiple providers are just a limited market, whose values fluctuate.
theatredaz is offline  
post #66 of 72 Old 03-24-2015, 10:29 AM
Newbie
 
picard1963's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I see this topic has gotten a little stale......let me liven it up again.

The following link highlights just how incredibly fast the fees for broadcast television are growing in the subscription television industry. Everyone pays these, or something similar, unless you have an antenna.....that's still FREE!

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2015/0...show.html?rh=1

So how can this do anything but accelerate the demise of Broadcast Television? Money grab!!
picard1963 is offline  
post #67 of 72 Old 03-24-2015, 10:46 AM
Member
 
theatredaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 13
* Update.

The CRTC here in Canada that regulates what broadcasters provide just anounced new Rules regarding Basic Cable packages.

As of now $45 @ 150-190 Channels is Basic Cable package ( Rogers - Bell)

*New Prices ~ Basic Cable Package
@ $25

* New rules include the reduction of Canadian content at off hours between 11:00am -6:00pm ~which means more American Content is allowed for those hours. ~ American content is free> so they decided to use that in the off peak hours as Filler etc (News ~ shows) etc.

Peak Hours Still requires 60% Canadian made content between 6:00pm-12:00.

* As well Canada will now have Pay-Per-Channel Services> That means instead of Bundles- you pay $1-2 dollars for Single channels from that 10 channel Bundle and drop the rest.

It seems that the Cable industry is losing it's share in the Exepnsive Cable and Satelite Market. To other online service providers such as Netflix , Hulu, Apple TV.

Another reason is...low quality content.

They're trying to encourage World Class Movie productions so that Canadian content can grab World Market share instead of just in Canada> this means increasing budgets for shows that people will pay to watch.

* I don't watch TV much anymore, because the content is too repetetive or just bland shows.

The price reduction in basic cable coupled with pay per channel means Cable Bills could decrease 20-30% ~

This all equates to people cutting cable due to expensive rates, and for other available content that costs much less than cable.
Edllguy likes this.

Last edited by theatredaz; 03-25-2015 at 12:14 PM.
theatredaz is offline  
post #68 of 72 Old 04-12-2015, 10:03 AM
Newbie
 
nippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_bull View Post
Quote:Originally Posted by DeadEd 


Since I'm old enough to remember...
I'd say the remote control is the greatest thing to happen to TV (DVR 2nd).

nippit is offline  
post #69 of 72 Old Yesterday, 06:41 AM
Member
 
spectre08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 60
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 5
Farewell broadcast, you had a good run.

I cut the cord 6 months ago and haven't looked back.
spectre08 is offline  
post #70 of 72 Old Yesterday, 07:14 AM
Member
 
Rob-Houston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_bull
Quote:Originally Posted by DeadEd

Since I'm old enough to remember...
I'd say the remote control is the greatest thing to happen to TV (DVR 2nd).



Quote:
Originally Posted by nippit View Post
We had a Zenith black and white console TV in the 1950's. It had a Space Commander? remote. No batteries. No electronics. Just one up/down button to change channels (I still had to get up and turn the TV on for my parents). It had two tubes inside. When you push the button, it would operate an arm/hammer that would hit the tube and change channel up or down. The turret tuner had pins that you set for local VHF channels. We had 3, 6, and 12. No UHF. The remote worked for 4 or 5 years. The TV lasted to 1971 (when my parents finally went to color)!
Rob-Houston is offline  
post #71 of 72 Old Today, 10:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
akm3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Spokane WA USA
Posts: 1,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by dochollerin View Post
I buy all the television I watch on DVD or BluRay. I simply don't know how people can sit through 15 minutes of commercials every hour. It feels like slavery.
Wow.

It's hard to love Martin Logans and 2.35:1 CIH at the same time...
akm3 is online now  
post #72 of 72 Unread Today, 01:02 PM
Advanced Member
 
Mark12547's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Salem, Oregon, United States
Posts: 929
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 265 Post(s)
Liked: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by dochollerin View Post
I buy all the television I watch on DVD or BluRay. I simply don't know how people can sit through 15 minutes of commercials every hour. It feels like slavery.
Some of us used VCRs for recording shows and using a VCR to play back the shows at our convenience (instead of the station's broadcast schedule) and fast forwarded past the mounting bulk of commercials over the years. More recently the VCRs were replaced by DVRs.

In my case: 2 VCRs used for recording and a VCR (later a VCR/DVD combo) for playback, all obsoleted when analog was dropped by Comcast and that very day I switched to one HD DVR with two tuners. So far that has been enough, though I'll admit an occasional use of Video On Demand to catch a show when I ran out of tuners.

Also, there are some shows that I didn't watch when they were originally aired that I am now watching via streaming or disc from Netflix. Not only does this omit the commercials, but it also omits the on-screen distractions like animated during-show promos of other shows and the station's logo, interruptions for breaking news or weather warnings for some distant city, and mandated weekly EAS tests.

So, even with my TV program consumption, even when "watching" TV, the commercials model wasn't really working for the station or the advertisers.

My very humble setup:
Man Cave:Vizio E500i-A1 "Smart TV" (50-in 1080p 120Hz LED/LCD, has Netflix app.), Sony BDP-S3100 Blu-ray player, Roku N1000 (original model), PC (Windows 7), Comcast Internet (120Mbps/12Mbps).
Bedroom:LG 32LV3400-UA TV (32-in 768p 60Hz LED/LCD), HD DVR (Motorola RNG200N), Xfinity Comcast cable (Digital Preferred Plus), DVD/VHS player.

Last edited by Mark12547; Today at 01:08 PM.
Mark12547 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Latest Industry News



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off