This would be problematic for league networks--especially B1G | Page 7 | Syracusefan.com

This would be problematic for league networks--especially B1G

Google has been testing wireless internet in a few cities where it has fiber networks. Way easier than getting approval from every town and municipality to lay cable.

In some way, shape or form in 10-15 years the cable industry will be changed by a new competitor with new ideas and a new way to tackle issues we have now. Looking forward to it. Separating cable for a price and internet for a separate cost is ridiculous. Both are data coming over the same cable.
 
Google has been testing wireless internet in a few cities where it has fiber networks. Way easier than getting approval from every town and municipality to lay cable.

In some way, shape or form in 10-15 years the cable industry will be changed by a new competitor with new ideas and a new way to tackle issues we have now. Looking forward to it. Separating cable for a price and internet for a separate cost is ridiculous. Both are data coming over the same cable.

Yep. And as soon as you talk to someone from another country you can see how crappy our deal really is.
 
McCain is an idiot and people are just so gullible. This a la cart model is a value destroyer it is not a panacea. You will end up getting 1/2 or 1/3 of the channels you do now for the same price you pay now. Mark it down. Companies are not in business to make less revenue. If a new business model is devised that is wildly more popular with consumers and delivers sufficient revenue/profit, cable/ media companies will adopt it because it succeeds in a free market.
 
McCain is an idiot and people are just so gullible. This a la cart model is a value destroyer it is not a panacea. You will end up getting 1/2 or 1/3 of the channels you do now for the same price you pay now. Mark it down. Companies are not in business to make less revenue. If a new business model is devised that is wildly more popular with consumers and delivers sufficient revenue/profit, cable/ media companies will adopt it because it succeeds in a free market.
I would be happy with 1/3 fewer channels if I could choose which ones.
 
I don't think it's good for business to be honest! The cable and satellite companies will still charge you the same if not more in my opinion, they need to maintain their profit margins. Okay, you can opt out of espn but the cable companies are making money by advertising on espn, where's that money coming from now? Cable companies are in business to make money, if they don't get the money from ad space they will just charge people more for their services.

It will change price elasticities. Yes, individual channels will become more expensive, but that increased price will be less than the current price of cable tiers for most customers. Obviously some customers will lose, but such a bill would be a win for the average Joe.
 
McCain is an idiot and people are just so gullible. This a la cart model is a value destroyer it is not a panacea. You will end up getting 1/2 or 1/3 of the channels you do now for the same price you pay now. Mark it down. Companies are not in business to make less revenue. If a new business model is devised that is wildly more popular with consumers and delivers sufficient revenue/profit, cable/ media companies will adopt it because it succeeds in a free market.

If grouping is done correctly, it makes channels less price elastic. That allows cable companies to charge higher prices for tiers than they could for a group of channels if they were sold individually. There are business mode that re more popular with customers. They are just less efficient at extracting value from those customers, making them less popular with Wall Street (who is ultimately calling the shots).
 
If anyone thinks that somebody like TWC or Comcast isn't going to have certain things go their way so they actually make more money on this I have a few bridges to sell you. The only thing that could hurt them is if there is another group with more lobbing money that is behind this bundling bill. Things like this don't just happen for consumers benefit so there is ALWAYS a catch.
 
The problem with bundling isn't price. It's a lack of perceived freedom in relation to price.

It's a psychological problem and the cable companies are up against the internet (complete freedom, low cost).

The actual business model is largely irrelevant to consumer perception. Cable companies need to rebrand bundling or explain it better, come down in price, or adopt elements of what people want. Or another solution will come and push them out.
 
The problem with bundling isn't price. It's a lack of perceived freedom in relation to price.

It's a psychological problem and the cable companies are up against the internet (complete freedom, low cost).

The actual business model is largely irrelevant to consumer perception. Cable companies need to rebrand bundling or explain it better, come down in price, or adopt elements of what people want. Or another solution will come and push them out.
i don't know what any of that means.
 
i don't know what any of that means.

I think you do.

But I'll make it simpler:

  • The problem that cable customers feel is that they are paying for a bunch of crap and just watching a few channels (low freedom, high cost).
  • The internet offers a wide variety of things to watch and do for a relatively cheap price (high freedom, low cost)

No one cares about how bundling works. It's how it feels to the consumer that matters most. That's why the onus isn't on the consumer - it's on the cable companies to figure it out.
 
HBO Go without Needing Cable? Welcome to the Future of Television

HBO’s on-demand service could float free of cable’s clutches. What, beyond ‘Game of Thrones’ binges for all, will this mean?

The talk these days in cable television is all about “cord cutters”, those people who are willing to get their TV fix by watching shows on a channel’s website, downloading them from iTunes, or even waiting for them to show up on streaming services like Netflix and Hulu and then binging every episode at once.

HBO Go is the cord cutter’s holy grail. It allows HBO subscribers access to all of HBO’s movies and original programs, on demand. Now it looks like HBO Go might be available to those without cable. Welcome to the future.

At a Goldman Sachs conference on Wednesday, Time Warner chief executive Jeff Bewkes said the company has had some success with a program offering cable customers who pay for broadband internet access a cheaper cable package that includes a handful of channels and access to HBO and HBO Go. Time Warner owns both the cable network and the premium channel, so it makes it easy for it to do this, but the practice has gained in popularity in recent months among other cable providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T.

Bewkes also hinted that in the future, consumers who pay for high-speed internet will be able to buy subscriptions to HBO Go without having cable at all, just as many already do with Netflix and Hulu Plus.

“[It] is becoming more viable, more interesting,” Bewkes said, according to the Huffinton Post. “We’re seriously considering what is the best way to deal with online distribution.”

This is a smart move for HBO, because the future is about platforms, not cable channels. If you let me put on my sci-fi futurist hat for a moment, in the far future we will consume our “content” in an all on-demand marketplace. We won’t turn on HGTV hoping House Hunters will be on – we’ll go to one of the subscription services we pay for and watch however many episodes we want, or we’ll download them from somewhere bit by bit, like we do now with songs from the new Ariana Grande album. (If, you know, we actually listened to Ariana Grande.)

Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, YouTube, Amazon and, potentially, HBO Go are the channels of the future, the platforms that will give us access to our shows. TV channels will just be producers, creating content that is distributed via platforms available wherever and whenever the customer wants. HGTV (or MTV or even NBC) won’t place their shows into linear time slots. They’ll just have a store on iTunes.

HBO was the original platform. Since its inception, in the 70s, it has allowed people to watch movies any time they want, in their homes. Sure, back then you couldn’t choose what movie you wanted to watch and you probably had to sit through Chariots of Fire about 17 million times, but nonetheless it was the original Netflix.

Now it’s the only platform mature enough to offer something like HBO Go, which is packed entirely with its own original creations, everything from sports shows to sitcoms to soft-core pornography (hello, Cathouse). This could be the first channel of the future, a platform stuffed with things you can’t get anywhere else, available for a True Detective binge whenever you like. But that future rests on it being able to wrench itself away from being only on cable, something Bewkes hints is soon to happen.

Now, don’t get all excited that you might finally be able to watch Game of Thrones without pirating it from some shady bit-torrent site. There are still a lot of things that have to happen before you can cut the cord entirely. The biggest obstacle is the cable companies, which handle the billing for HBO and its customers and provide its major source of revenue. If HBO gave customers another reason not to have cable there would be a serious backlash from the very people it needs to survive.

But as Bewkes points out, the survival of cable companies doesn’t lie in television, but in the internet. People can cut the cord all they want, but having Netflix and no broadband is sort of like buying a bike without any pedals. HBO Go could become something that convinces people to go with a certain internet provider (much as millions are still trapped on AT&T because they wanted the first iPhone) or, as Time Warner is using it, something that will convince people to pay more for their internet service.

In order for that to happen, the cord cutters need to reach a critical mass, at which point providing a steady stream of data will be more lucrative than providing thousands of channels, most of which no-one watches. That is still very far away. A study released on Thursday said that only 2.9% of people who pay for cable plan on cutting the cord in the next year, slightly up from 2.7% last year. In the grand scheme of things, that’s next to nothing.

However, what’s really worrisome is that 49% of subscribers aged 25 to 34 say they are “very likely” to ditch cable. Much of that might be because cable can be prohibitively expensive for young people, but once a generation raised in an instant-gratification universe become of age, it is going to demand the shows it wants when it wants them, which will make cable seem more and more obsolete.

HBO Go is already wildly successful – so much so that demand often crashes it. Once that popularity can be turned into dollars – and not just people freeloading off of their mom’s co-worker’s neighbor’s plan – we’ll really be living in the future.


http://www.psfk.com/2014/09/hbo-go-without-needing-cable-welcome-future-television.html
 
TheCusian said:
I think you do. But I'll make it simpler: [*]The problem that cable customers feel is that they are paying for a bunch of crap and just watching a few channels (low freedom, high cost). [*]The internet offers a wide variety of things to watch and do for a relatively cheap price (high freedom, low cost) No one cares about how bundling works. It's how it feels to the consumer that matters most. That's why the onus isn't on the consumer - it's on the cable companies to figure it out.
Good programming costs money to produce. If they don't get paid for it, they don't make it. 10,000,000 cat videos notwithstanding.
 
Millhouse said:
Good programming costs money to produce. If they don't get paid for it, they don't make it. 10,000,000 cat videos notwithstanding.

Netflix seems to be doing fine creating content that I want to watch, for a relatively small subscription.

But that's despite my point - if consumers feel they are paying for something they don't want they will continue to apply pressure to the cable companies. The more services that meet this perceived need and deliver value, the more pressure on bundling.
 
Netflix seems to be doing fine creating content that I want to watch, for a relatively small subscription.

But that's despite my point - if consumers feel they are paying for something they don't want they will continue to apply pressure to the cable companies. The more services that meet this perceived need and deliver value, the more pressure on bundling.
when you subscribe to netflix, people pay a flat fee for a lot of shows and movies, most of which they don't watch. sound familiar?

I don't want to pay $10 a month when all I watch is house of cards waaah! unbundle!
 
I've always seen the problem with cable being the lack of options as a consumer, not the bundling of channels. I like having a ton of options to watch TV. I usually can choose between 10 or 15 NCAA football games any Saturday afternoon, I never miss Cuse football or hoops games because I don't have the local 'My 9' or whatever other channel the ACC Network is hosted on, and there's always something stupid to watch if I feel like having a lazy weekend afternoon watching TV.

What I hate is that I live in a beautiful NYC suburb and I can still only choose between 1 cable provider or Verizon if I want a cable, phone, and high-speed internet package. I have more options for Thai food within 3 miles of my home than I do for services that everyone in my community pays $150 - $200/mo. for. It's crazy that our gov't has decided to squash competition in such a huge industry.
 
Netflix seems to be doing fine creating content that I want to watch, for a relatively small subscription.

But that's despite my point - if consumers feel they are paying for something they don't want they will continue to apply pressure to the cable companies. The more services that meet this perceived need and deliver value, the more pressure on bundling.

1. Actually, Netflix is in an amazing position to make content. They have MUCH better viewership information than pretty much anyone else. So, all they have to do is run some regressions of existing data and act on the results. It's literally that easy.

2. No rational consumer in the world feels that they are paying for something that they don't want. They might feel that they are paying more under the current model than another model. However, nobody is buying anything that they don't want, and nobody is paying more than they think it's worth. That said, you have a point. The average consumer probably isn't rational, and almost certainly isn't a deep thinker (especially on economic matters).
 
nzm136 said:
1. Actually, Netflix is in an amazing position to make content. They have MUCH better viewership information than pretty much anyone else. So, all they have to do is run some regressions of existing data and act on the results. It's literally that easy. 2. No rational consumer in the world feels that they are paying for something that they don't want. They might feel that they are paying more under the current model than another model. However, nobody is buying anything that they don't want, and nobody is paying more than they think it's worth. That said, you have a point. The average consumer probably isn't rational, and almost certainly isn't a deep thinker (especially on economic matters).

That's the point I'm making honestly. It's like asking why people vote against their own interests when they are voting out the incumbent because their take home pay is lower. It makes no sense - but political science majors know it exists.

Millhouse is convinced I championing unbundling or am blind to the realities of the situation. I'm not. My point is that the perception is everything. And the bundling model is losing the perception battle facts and figures be damned.
 
Millhouse said:
when you subscribe to netflix, people pay a flat fee for a lot of shows and movies, most of which they don't watch. sound familiar? I don't want to pay $10 a month when all I watch is house of cards waaah! unbundle!

That's not how people view it. The see Netflix as a channel that costs tons less and is commercial free - that you can get without the cruft and BS they perceive that comes with their cable company.

Most would gladly pay for ESPN's content and don't give a crap about some sports. They just don't want to have to buy basic cable + the sports package + xyz to watch it on their iPad. I know it breaks down semantically and the business model of bundling is not horrible. But that's again, my point: perception is the issue.
 
That's the point I'm making honestly. It's like asking why people vote against their own interests when they are voting out the incumbent because their take home pay is lower. It makes no sense - but political science majors know it exists.

Millhouse is convinced I championing unbundling or am blind to the realities of the situation. I'm not. My point is that the perception is everything. And the bundling model is losing the perception battle facts and figures be damned.
you can perceive it however you want, that doesn't mean you're going to get good programming for nothing. when the perceivers get their way, reality will set them straight

this show is on amazon, that show is on netflix, hey i want to watch espn, hey some su games are on TW sports, my wife likes bravo i guess i'll subscribe to hulu, hey wait i thought this cord cutting was supposed to be cheaper according to my perception
 
Millhouse said:
you can perceive it however you want, that doesn't mean you're going to get good programming for nothing

Yep. Not my argument.

There is pressure on the existing system at specific pain points. The facts as you describe are valid - but don't change the perception at all.
 
Millhouse said:
you can perceive it however you want, that doesn't mean you're going to get good programming for nothing. when the perceivers get their way, reality will set them straight this show is on amazon, that show is on netflix, hey i want to watch espn, hey some su games are on TW sports, my wife likes bravo i guess i'll subscribe to hulu, hey wait i thought this cord cutting was supposed to be cheaper according to my perception

You just described an unbundled system involving choice. It's moving that way. It probably won't be cheaper. But it won't matter.
 
You just described an unbundled system involving choice. It's moving that way. It probably won't be cheaper. But it won't matter.
of course i did. the point is it's going to be a big hassle and cost just as much
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,678
Messages
4,720,456
Members
5,915
Latest member
vegasnick

Online statistics

Members online
218
Guests online
2,079
Total visitors
2,297


Top Bottom