Semi OT: Cable TV (long rant)

[kingottoiii]

At this point what does Cable TV really offer a consumer? Besides live programming there really isn't a need for TV. More and more people are watching shows online, which are mostly free. People download movies all the time in high quality HD. Won't TV programming move to this one day too? Plus people like watching a series all in one shot anyway.

For instance HBO could charge $3.99 per episode for a show like Boardwalk Empire to download. People buy music for that price all the time like it is tiny cost. It adds up but the consumer sees $3.99 and thinks it is nothing. However they see a $125 cable bill and get pissed. For BWE it ends up being $47.88 for the season if you charge per episode. If you have HBO through cable for just BWE and cancel when the show ends, then you pay the cable company $50.97. Which after the cable company takes a cut is less money for HBO. And/or HBO can have a subscription service for all the shows it produces. So why are we paying the cable company to deliver something we could easily get elsewhere? Shows take off because of word of mouth. That doesn't change if they are online. See viral videos.

However with live TV you need cable because streaming at this point sucks to watch. Which is what makes sports programming so valuable. Which brings up the point won't consumer's eventually demand a la carte cable? At some point the cost of cable will hit a ceiling. These companies can't keep upping the prices.

If I had the option I would only subscribe to ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, beIN Sport, and NFL Redzone. That is all I need as those are the only channels I watch live programming on. I have seriously contemplated canceling my cable but at this point ESPN3 isn't viable. There is no way that is all worth the $75 a month I pay. I think for people under 25 they feel similar. I know several people who don't even have cable and watch everything online already. There is a reason people now use online banking and ATMs for all transactions and no longer have passbook savings accounts. So if this is the trend and demand moves the market, isn't it only a matter of time until a la carte becomes a reality?

Cable companies can still offer bundles to consumers who like having every channel available. That makes sense for those consumers. It doesn't have to go away. But for the rest of us shouldn't there be an option to only pay for what we use? Why is a la carte not an option? Wouldn't a cable company that gets out in front of this, increase its subscribers? If the cable company wants to charge me $50 a month for delivery and then $0.99 per channel, I save $20 a month and the cable company evens out (or whatever that base number is, whether higher or lower). The losers are the channels who the cable company passes the charges onto the consumer. If that ends up killing off some channels then so be in. Supply and demand. If no one watches you shouldn't exist in the first place and I shouldn't be charged.

Which brings us to the B1G and conference networks. Do they not fear a la carte? Wouldn't that just make a school like RU totally worthless? Wouldn't they be losing $0.08 a Cable HH in non B1G markets? This would be a huge hit for them. Do they really think that continued expansion has an exponential growth? And that they will be making $ had over first for ever and ever? That to me seems very short sighted and makes the addition of MD a head scratcher.

 

[Marsh01]

I dont even want to tell you what I pay for cable.

I wish I could do an ala carte thing with cable. I would probably have only 20 channels. I will however NEVER give up my tv to watch stuff on a computer or laptop. I mean I need some joy in my life an holding a laptop on my fat stomach while I lie on the couch is not my idea of watching TV.

I'm old school. I dont own an Ipod and probably never will. I have never used netflix or red box. I always pay in cash and only use a CC for trips and big purchases. It drives me crazy when I am in line to get a sandwich or something like that and the douchebag in front of me pays for a $2.87 meal with a debit card.

 

[Bayside44]

If you're married with kids you want a lot of channels. 25 year olds eventually grow up.

In this case it's going to be hard to justify telling Maryland families they now have to pay more to watch the Terps, andNJ families to pay more to continue to ignore Rutgers.

 

[Cusee44]

I dont even want to tell you what I pay for cable.

I wish I could do an ala carte thing with cable. I would probably have only 20 channels. I will however NEVER give up my tv to watch stuff on a computer or laptop. I mean I need some joy in my life an holding a laptop on my fat stomach while I lie on the couch is not my idea of watching TV.

I'm old school. I dont own an Ipod and probably never will. I have never used netflix or red box. I always pay in cash and only use a CC for trips and big purchases. It drives me crazy when I am in line ot get a sandwich or something like that and the douchebag in front of me pays for a $2.87 meal with a debit card.

Completely disagree with everything you say. I can live without cable, pay ONLY with my CC, and watch shows on my laptop all the time. However, I just wanted to say I completely respect your preference.

 

[Marsh01]

Completely disagree with everything you say. I can live without cable, pay ONLY with my CC, and watch shows on my laptop all the time. However, I just wanted to say I completely respect your preference.

I'm also 42...married...thankfully successful in my profession and love my 55 inch HD TV. The only music I listen too is the 80's channel on Sirius or the metal station. I run about 25-30 mile a week with no music. My wife thinks I'm nuts.

I am not making fun of anyone and to each his own however. Want to be clear of that.

 

[kingottoiii]

I dont even want to tell you what I pay for cable.

I wish I could do an ala carte thing with cable. I would probably have only 20 channels. I will however NEVER give up my tv to watch stuff on a computer or laptop. I mean I need some joy in my life an holding a laptop on my fat stomach while I lie on the couch is not my idea of watching TV.

I'm old school. I dont own an Ipod and probably never will. I have never used netflix or red box. I always pay in cash and only use a CC for trips and big purchases. It drives me crazy when I am in line ot get a sandwich or something like that and the douchebag in front of me pays for a $2.87 meal with a debit card.

But you are an example of my point. New school is heading away from the traditional cable. Kids have no issue watching MTV on their XBox for free. People don't need to watch on their laptop. They can watch by downloading to their media box and then on their TV. When I had DirecTV I could download HD movies to the box and watch whenever I wanted. It wasn't streamed and was better quality than live TV. I have done the same with my Tivo and Netflix.The quality is just as good if not better and is no different than watching a DVR'd show. All on a TV not a laptop. So if something is not live why not just download it for watching later? Why stream it via cable?

 

[kingottoiii]

If you're married with kids you want a lot of channels. 25 year olds eventually grow up.

In this case it's going to be hard to justify telling Maryland families they now have to pay more to watch the Terps, andNJ families to pay more to continue to ignore Rutgers.

How many of your kid's shows are live? If they were downloaded how would it be different that watching it streamed via cable? There is no difference.

 

[Upstate]

My fios is worth the money and i wouldn't trade it for anything in the world. HBO Go, all the sports channels...it's all what you make of it.

 

[Marsh01]

All on a TV not a laptop. So if something is not live why not just download it for watching later? Why stream it via cable?

I dont know. I just assume pay for it. Its just easier to turn on the tube and go. I mean that is also a problem with youth generation (and by no means am I mocking or calling anyone out) but if you work hard and make enough money, it doesnt really matter. Just work harder and choose a profession where you can make money so you dont have to sweat a $150 cable bill. Kids today (and by kids I mean kids my kids age) want everything and dont want to do anything to get something.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I will however NEVER give up my tv to watch stuff on a computer or laptop. I mean I need some joy in my life an holding a laptop on my fat stomach while I lie on the couch is not my idea of watching TV.

Run an HDMI cable from the laptop to the TV. Boom. Problem solved.

My fat stomach thanks me every time.

 

[Marsh01]

Run an HDMI cable from the laptop to the TV. Boom. Problem solved.

My fat stomach thanks me every time.

Meh, I just assume push the buttons on the remote. Not a big laptop guy either. Much easier to type on a desktop. I do have an Ipad (which was a gift) and I cant stand the damn thing. Typing is a nightmare and there is no flash player.

 

[Noexcuse]

I dont even want to tell you what I pay for cable.

I wish I could do an ala carte thing with cable. I would probably have only 20 channels. I will however NEVER give up my tv to watch stuff on a computer or laptop. I mean I need some joy in my life an holding a laptop on my fat stomach while I lie on the couch is not my idea of watching TV.

I'm old school. I dont own an Ipod and probably never will. I have never used netflix or red box. I always pay in cash and only use a CC for trips and big purchases. It drives me crazy when I am in line to get a sandwich or something like that and the douchebag in front of me pays for a $2.87 meal with a debit card.

Not for nothing, but the 21st century happened
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/tech-tips-and-tricks/dave-taylor-hdmi-article.html

 

[Marsh01]

Not for nothing, but the 21st century happened
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/tech-tips-and-tricks/dave-taylor-hdmi-article.html

Well that would require me to actually have a laptop. Like I said to each his own. I just assume pay for cable.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

We got rid of our cable a while ago. It sucks stealing european feeds for sports and stuff, but otherwise it's been fine. We commit to a couple of shows and watch them on Hulu, and our library does a pretty good job of getting DVDs, so we mostly get our movies from there.

It's not as convenient but it works, and we've gone from spending a hundo or so a month to I think $12 on TV.

 

[kingottoiii]

I dont know. I just assume pay for it. Its just easier to turn on the tube and go. I mean that is also a problem with youth generation (and by no means am I mocking or calling anyone out) but if you work hard and make enough money, it doesnt really matter. Just work harder and choose a profession where you can make money so you dont have to sweat a $150 cable bill. Kids today (and by kids I mean kids my kids age) want everything and dont want to do anything to get something.

My point is as consumers we are paying for stuff we do not need all because that is how things have always been. Why pay $150 if you only use $100 worth of it? That is like paying for a supreme pizza and then taking off all the toppings. People who want a supreme pizza should have that option. People who want a plain pizza shouldn't have to buy a supreme.

I have Fios and a Tivo. For my channel guide list I took out about 75% of the channels so I only see what I actually use.

 

[kingottoiii]

I will only say this..

Ain't nothing for free.

Nothing.

Right now I can go to a bunch of cable channel websites and watch episodes for free. I can also get network TV for free. Those are both facts.

 

[Marsh01]

My point is as consumers we are paying for stuff we do not need all because that is how things have always been. Why pay $150 if you only use $100 worth of it? That is like paying for a supreme pizza and then taking off all the toppings. People who want a supreme pizza should have that option. People who want a plain pizza shouldn't have to buy a supreme.

I have Fios and a Tivo. For my channel guide list I took out about 75% of the channels so I only see what I actually use.

You are making me hungry.

Believe me I dont use half (more than half) the channels I have. My kids watch some and my wife watches some but for the most part many go unused. I would love an ala carte system.

Why do I? I dont know because I can afford the cable bill and am too lazy to change. I know I am getting screwed but we get screwed every day. $2.00 for a cup of coffee. $4 for a gallon of gas. $10 for a movie in the theater. $15 for the razor blades I use. I could go on and on. Again I work hard and make the money so it doesnt matter to me what I spend right now. I hope that doesnt sound douchebaggy because I am not bragging. I just work hard and earn a good living.

I wish Fios had internet in my area because I would make the move and save probably $150 a month between internet, tv and home phone.

 

[kingottoiii]

You are making me hungry.

Believe me I dont use half (more than half) the channels I have. My kids watch some and my wife watches some but for the most part many go unused. I would love an ala carte system.

Why do I? I dont know because I can afford the cable bill and am too lazy to change. I know I am getting screwed but we get screwed every day. $2.00 for a cup of coffee. $4 for a gallon of gas. $10 for a movie in the theater. $15 for the razor blades I use. I could go on and on. Again I work hard and make the money so it doesnt matter to me what I spend right now. I hope that doesnt sound douchebaggy because I am not bragging. I just work hard and earn a good living.

I wish Fios had internet in my area because I would make the move and save probably $150 a month between internet, tv and home phone.

All consumers have preferences. All I am saying is options should be available and IMO there will be more in the future when it comes to TV. When you buy gas, you are buying gas. You don't have to pay for gas and then be forced to pay $20 for a wet t-shirt car wash. If you want the car wash you can and should get it but you shouldn't be forced to pay for it in order to get your gas. If guys in daisy dukes is not your thing then you should only be charged for the gas and then drive off. Instead of being charged and driving off without getting that hot car wash.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

All consumers have preferences. All I am saying is options should be available and IMO there will be more in the future when it comes to TV. When you buy gas, you are buying gas. You don't have to pay for gas and then be forced to pay $20 for a wet t-shirt car wash. If you want the car wash you can and should get it but you shouldn't be forced to pay for it in order to get your gas. If guys in daisy dukes is not your thing then you should only be charged for the gas and then drive off. Instead of being charged and driving off without getting that hot car wash.

I... this...

I think your metaphor broke down.

 

[kingottoiii]

You're too smart to not understand. Someone is always paying.

You want to disrupt the revenue model for TV? Things won't stay the same. There will be no free.

I'm not going to argue this, it's not worth it.

But someone is always paying.

Network TV makes money on ads. I get it for free. Watching a show online is paid for by ads. I get it for free. Yes money is being made but not from my pocket. The revenue model for TV is Ad $. The revenue model for cable if fees. My point is cable is a dinosaur. You are so far stuck in the old way of thinking it is funny.

Why does MTV pay a middle man (which is all the cable company really is) to deliver content if they can deliver that content directly to me and make the same if not more money? If MTV gets $1.00 a subscriber from Verizon why can't they charge that $1.00 to download the content from MTV.com? What is the difference for MTV? Cable companies are only useful for LIVE content. 90% of Cable TV is not live. This is why sports TV is booming. You really should know this.

 

[Scooch]

Network TV makes money on ads. I get it for free. Watching a show online is paid for by ads. I get it for free. Yes money is being made but not from my pocket. The revenue model for TV is Ad $. The revenue model for cable if fees. My point is cable is a dinosaur. You are so far stuck in the old way of thinking it is funny.

Don't friggin' tell me how I'm stuck. Grow the hell up. I'm telling you about business reality.

Maybe you should make your 15 millionth outline of how a conference can divide up into pods.

Done.

 

[CuseTroop]

The way this thread is going its prolly going to get deleted, but I'll put in my .02. If I could get Internet up on the mountains, I could live off Netflix. Yea, your a season or too behind, but we don't mind much. I pretty much go to the bar for games, so I prolly spend any money I would save on cable there. My dish package has like 250 channels, I prolly watch 8

 

[kingottoiii]

The way this thread is going its prolly going to get deleted, but I'll put in my .02. If I could get Internet up on the mountains, I could live off Netflix. Yea, your a season or too behind, but we don't mind much. I pretty much go to the bar for games, so I prolly spend any money I would save on cable there. My dish package has like 250 channels, I prolly watch 8

Which is the point. I know some people are bad at math so lets use simply numbers to follow along. Let's say MTV wants to make $1M a month from Time Warner, who has 10M customers. So they suggest a $0.10 per customer rate because TW bundles all channels for consumers. But let's say that only 1M customers actually want MTV. If they are the only one's who are charged they would have to pay $1.00 per month to get MTV. So MTV breaks even. The cable company breaks even. 9M customers save $0.10 a month and 1M pay an extra $0.90 a month. Again to use simply math let's say that there are 200 cable networks available on TW. If a person watches a dozen of those then they would be saving $0.10 x 188 (200-12) = $18.80 a month on those networks. However they would be paying more for the 12 they do watch, $0.90 x 12 = $10.80. So that person would be saving $8.00 a month for a la carte.

Now I am not saying get rid of bundling entirely but a la carte should be an option. If another person watches 36 networks then they would only be saving $16.40 while paying an extra $32.40. That person would lose $16 a month. So someone who needs a lot of networks wants to bundle. Someone who needs a few networks wants a la carte. One premise I have is that the only thing worth actually paying for is LIVE content. How many cable networks run the same content that you can get from Hulu, Netflix, etc? They really are useless networks that are subsidized by the system. HBO has survived for years as a subscription based cable network. A la carte just makes everyone use the HBO model. Will that mean a ton of networks will die off if they are forced to use that model? Yes of course, but those networks would die because they do not offer content worth paying for. Why do they exist if they offer nothing in the first place? And why do we pay for their survival?

My other premise is that people under 25 are less likely to have use for traditional cable and that will not change as they get older. They are using a different medium for content. As technology improves I do not see that changing. A downloaded show to a media box is no different than a recorded show on a DVR. Same content, same quality. Why would today's 25 year old, when they turn 40, want to pay for cable and DVR Teletubbies when they can download it? What is the difference? Same show. Why not pay $9.99 for 20 downloaded shows instead of paying $100 a month for a cable bill?

Orange All Access is $10 a month. People pay it because they want the content. If OAA was a cable TV network it would be a lot cheaper because of bundling. Would I like that as a user? Sure. Would I like that if I were a Pitt fan? Hell no. I would not want to subsidize an SU fan's enjoyment. Cable networks use a socialist model. If most consumers have a need for lots and lots of channels, then that model is awesome. If most consumers use only a few channels than that system sucks. Personally I think the future demand for having lots of lots of channels will be small. The old way worked and worked well. But IMO the consumer trend is changing and will eventually bring about a la carte. I would not be surprised to see someone try and enter the market offering a la carte live TV and a media box for downloading non live content from a library (kinda like ITunes).

 

[Moontan]

Some channels may actually pay providers to be distributed (think shopping channels).
You don't want them, fine... but your bill will likely go up.

You want all your content over the top? Fine. Current Internet providers tend to be the same ones that offer video services. They don't mind providing bandwidth to allow you to stream their content (or their partner's content), but they're less than thrilled to provide bandwidth for you to stream content from other providers. "But, but, but, the Internet if free and open, man" your protest. Yeah right. It could be "freeer" and "more open", but the associated price would be "higher".

I'm still surprised that other USian utilities haven't gotten into the Internet provider business. The gas and electric providers have right of way access. In theory, nothing should prevent them from laying fiber along their existing lines and providing Internet services. I'm sure there are local restrictions, but those smell of monopoly protection.

The major difference maker in all of this is live sports. For other content, DRM could be utilized that would allow content to be (slow) downloaded a day or two prior to a program's "release". DRM would ensure that nobody could see it prior to the distributor's first authorized showing time. That model doesn't work with live sporting events. Over the top delivery of live sporting events at high quality levels is still problematic. Getting a decent quality SU-USF image on ESPN3 via 4-12Mbps connectivity can be a challenge while Junior's playing an online game and the Mrs. decides to fire up Netflix.

While the industry in moving to an all-IP distribution model, I'm still a skeptic (for the immediate and near terms). Current US Internet access is inadequate to deliver the necessary bandwidth to handle the real per-household demand of suburban America, assuming unaltered, uncompressed HD signals. If you're lucky, using those requirements, you're down to 3 concurrent channels (ATSC MPEG2@19.2 Mbps * 3 = 47.6 Mbps <approaching the FiOS and U-Verse max). H.264 and other codecs will/do provide some additional capability. We'll need to get to 6-10 concurrent HD streams/household that are unaffected by other IP traffic before the the model can truly be supported. We'll get there (better codecs and, more importantly, more bandwidth), but it'll take a while longer. In the mean time, OTA, dish and good old coax do provide the necessary bandwidth to carry all of the required content.

For me, OTA locals, dish/cable for ESPN*, out-of-town regional sports networks, news channels, and the Science/Discovery family would be an interesting combo.

One other interesting tid-bit is that the cable model is different in different parts of world. In some places the channels actually pay the providers based on the number of subscribers.

 

[kingottoiii]

Getting a decent quality SU-USF image on ESPN3 via 4-12Mbps connectivity can be a challenge while Junior's playing an online game and the Mrs. decides to fire up Netflix.

Streaming cannot be done which is why cable is needed for live content.