Forbes: Broadcast TV is on "Death Watch," Citing Apple TV, Chromecast and Aereo - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 65 Old 09-28-2013, 02:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Toknowshita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 41
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 online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 65 Old 09-28-2013, 04:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sacramento delta N. Cal. usa
Posts: 1,904
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 269
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 Soviet people feared the KGB was watching them through their TV's ........or listening to them through their radios, so they kept them turned off often when they wanted privacy .

Now the NSA/ DHS are in fact watching us with our computers cell phones surveillance cameras drones,satellites etc !
...
tubetwister is online now  
post #63 of 65 Old 09-28-2013, 04:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,404
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 345
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 65 Old 09-28-2013, 04:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sacramento delta N. Cal. usa
Posts: 1,904
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 269
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 Soviet people feared the KGB was watching them through their TV's ........or listening to them through their radios, so they kept them turned off often when they wanted privacy .

Now the NSA/ DHS are in fact watching us with our computers cell phones surveillance cameras drones,satellites etc !
...
tubetwister is online now  
post #65 of 65 Old 09-29-2013, 08:32 AM
Member
 
theatredaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 11
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  
Reply Latest Industry News

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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