# The Future of the Pay TV Industry



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

So cord cutting is here, and it's real. TiVo has one foot in the old world of pay tv, and one in the new world of cord-cutting.

What do you guys think the pay tv industry is going to look like in 10 years? How many channels? What will people be paying for or not paying for?


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

It should be called "Pay To Watch Endless Commercials TV Industry"


----------



## johnfasc (Dec 24, 2014)

As long as cable companies control the internet we will always pay. Tv or not. It looks like, as they lose customers to OTA, Netflix, Amazon etc they will just keep internet pricing high. And with hardly any competition ( we have none, either pay spectrum or go without) they can charge whatever until the FTC steps in. Also with the advent of Sling TV, and now mini cable packages, Hulu etc you will be paying more people for the same thing the cable companies should have done long ago. Personally I am happy with OTA and Amazon. How much tv can you watch?


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

Simple. Prices will stay the same, things will move to cloud DVR/VOD and non-fast forward-able commercials. Cord cutting isn't really happening, cord shaving is.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

johnfasc said:


> As long as cable companies control the internet we will always pay. Tv or not. It looks like, as they lose customers to OTA, Netflix, Amazon etc they will just keep internet pricing high. And with hardly any competition ( we have none, either pay spectrum or go without) they can charge whatever until the FTC steps in. Also with the advent of Sling TV, and now mini cable packages, Hulu etc you will be paying more people for the same thing the cable companies should have done long ago. Personally I am happy with OTA and Amazon. How much tv can you watch?


Definitely. I think what the cable companies are going to do is continue to use extortion rackets against the big video CDNs like Amazon, Google, and Netflix. Why pay for content when they can get paid to just be there as an ISP and not really do anything? They'll get paid twice to do the same thing, as they already do with many video providers and CDNs.



smark said:


> Simple. Prices will stay the same, things will move to cloud DVR/VOD and non-fast forward-able commercials. Cord cutting isn't really happening, cord shaving is.


Cord cutting really is happening. Cord shaving is also happening. Comcast and the cable companies are hiding millions of would-be cord cutters behind bundles that are not profitable (compared to internet-only) for the cable companies. When Wall Street realizes this and cable companies get rid of the cheap bundles, there will be several million MORE cord cutters.

So given that, what do you think will happen to the pay tv industry? How will channels fail or consolidate or go bankrupt?


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

We have moved from 80% commercial show viewing to 20% commercial viewing. Netflix, Amazon, HBO, Showtime, and Starz are leading the way. Shows like Greys Anatomy, some cooking shows, late night, and Hockey are all that’s left in the commercial arena.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

I'll give my predictions, since I'm asking everyone else. I think cord cutting will continue to accelerate, and over the course of the next few years, the super cheap bundles will disappear, causing several million more people to cut the cord.

I think within the next couple of years, we will see dozens, if not hundreds, of specialty, low-viewership cable channels failing and going out of business, along with some successful new entrants into the OTT SVOD space, mostly niche content, a few of them former cable tv channels, others entirely new.

I forsee that the end game will be MVPDs and vMVPDs competing on a pretty level field for much lower priced, and much smaller bundles than what we have today, partly because people just aren't willing to pay for the mega-bundles, but also partly because there just won't be as many channels. I think some of the major content owners, especially Viacom, will find that the prices they get for their content will be much lower, partially due to how much they are over-charging now, but partially due to the increased power and size of AT&T, Comcast, and Charter.

I predict that by 2030 at the latest, the market penetration of all pay-tv services, including vMVPDs, will be below 50%.


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

I'm not going to make any specific predictions, but the "trend is your friend." The trend will continue unabated.

It's fascinating to watch the shift in how we consume entertainment content.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

I just started a thread about how shocked I was to get such a great offer from my cable provider MINUTES AFTER CANCELLING TV! So they are making a lot of money, the ratios are huge. That will change. TV will be cheaper as long as it is bundled with internet. Better to make a little than none. Choices will be more varied and of better quality. You will be able to roll up your tv like a map and watch it anywhere.


----------



## steelersruleman (Aug 29, 2014)

Cord shaving is happening, not cord cutting. TRUE cord CUTTING would involve DUMPING your local cable company altogether. Meaning unless you have another way of obtaining High Speed Internet from another source right now, you are SOL, and are shaving, not cutting.

Therefore, I foresee ALL programming being sent through the incoming cable through the internet, therefore eliminating all cable boxes altogether, including TIVO. Would not invest in one right now. It will all be done on the cloud 

I have had my Roamio for 4 years now with lifetime. I am now on the plus side of things. Would not start a new lifetime now, even if my current one dropped dead(unless I got one SUPER CHEAP on EBay).

And since everything will be done over the Internet(called OTT, right? I think I may be screwing up the acronym), the destruction of the Net Neutrality Laws, as of right now, would help destroy competition. Not to mention the bigger threat to American Society(Censorship), but that is a political issue not to be discussed here.

The Cable companies could THROTTLE services like Netflix, HULU, Amazon PRIME, SLINGTV, YOUTUBETV, Playstation VUE, etc.. because it is not THEIR ONLINE SERVICE. 

Don't think Spectrum or Comcast would ever do such a thing,right? Uh huh


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Less subscription aggregation , content producers that are large will call the shots even more then they do now and stream their own things. Studios will call the shots more then internet/cable/satellite providers. people will curse out Disney way more than Comcast. Content providers (how dare these greedy companies actually charge for things) will be the new villains. The Interent will still be buggy, congested, and never be as cheap as people think it should. AND...People will still argue about OTA antennaes


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mrizzo80 said:


> I'm not going to make any specific predictions, but the "trend is your friend." The trend will continue unabated.


Great way to sum it up!



steelersruleman said:


> Cord shaving is happening, not cord cutting. TRUE cord CUTTING would involve DUMPING your local cable company altogether. Meaning unless you have another way of obtaining High Speed Internet from another source right now, you are SOL, and are shaving, not cutting.


That's literally not what cord shaving means. Cord shaving is keeping a TV package with locals only, or a minimal number of cable channels. Cancelling TV and keeping internet is cutting the cord.



> I have had my Roamio for 4 years now with lifetime. I am now on the plus side of things. Would not start a new lifetime now, even if my current one dropped dead(unless I got one SUPER CHEAP on EBay).


True. I love my Roamio OTA, but in a couple of years, I will have to replace it with an ATSC 3.0 model.



> The Cable companies could THROTTLE services like Netflix, HULU, Amazon PRIME, SLINGTV, YOUTUBETV, Playstation VUE, etc.. because it is not THEIR ONLINE SERVICE.
> 
> Don't think Spectrum or Comcast would ever do such a thing,right? Uh huh


I think this is a valid concern, but I find it more likely that Netflix, Amazon, and the like continue to pay "protection money" so that their bits don't have any "accidents" along the way, and that cost will be built into the streaming services, so the cable companies will be able to charge twice for the same exact service.


----------



## steelersruleman (Aug 29, 2014)

Don't want to get into an semantics fight into what "shaving" means, as opposed to "cutting", so I am going to just drop it from here. You say TOMATO, I say TOMATO(think you know what I mean). We both agree in the end though.

But the throttling thing will definitely happen, unless either Congress shoots down the FCC ruling, or each individual state starts creating new laws in order to go back to the old rules, or establish new rules that are even stricter. I think California is in the process of doing that right now. And, of course, the cable conglomerates are having conniption over it. Hope it passes, and other states follow suit with there own accords. 

I'll just take a wait and see approach from here. Nothing more I can do other than vote when the time comes either with my money, or my actual vote....


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I think cable companies are going to split. They're going to split their programming off into an OTT service like PSVue, Sling, etc... and use their physical infrastructure exclusively for internet access. They'll likely offer discounts, bundles and maybe even bandwidth cap waivers to use their video app rather then a competitor, but it'll essentially be two separate entities. (like AT&T and DirecTV are now) QAM is dead. And if you're going to go all IP anyway why not create an OTT service you can offer nationwide rather then only in the areasyou physically serve? I believe Verizon recently stopped their IP beta test specifically to do this. I suspect the other big cable companies will do the same.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

mrizzo80 said:


> I'm not going to make any specific predictions, but the "trend is your friend." The trend will continue unabated.
> 
> It's fascinating to watch the shift in how we consume entertainment content.


Younger people do not consume television the same way as their elders. This is a problem for the media conglomerates (especially those who pay for the right to air professional sports, as the demographic they want to sell ads to are not buying into the program - see ESPN), and not necessarily the cable companies. The cable companies know the future is in data, not in linear television.

For the pay-tv content generators? Trouble. (I don't feel sorry for abc-Disney, CBS, NBC, or FOX), but I might feel sorry for some athletes who won't get their pay-day when TV money runs out..

For the pay-tv content deliverers? Their revenue will move from one pile to the other. Entertainment means data transfers...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

steelersruleman said:


> But the throttling thing will definitely happen, unless either Congress shoots down the FCC ruling, or each individual state starts creating new laws in order to go back to the old rules, or establish new rules that are even stricter. I think California is in the process of doing that right now. And, of course, the cable conglomerates are having conniption over it. Hope it passes, and other states follow suit with there own accords.


The cable conglomerates are definitely have a conniption over it. However, I think that Netflix and the other CDNs will keep paying up, at least to a point, and avoiding throttling as a result. That's effectively what they are doing now with the paid peering. Comcast told them they need to pay protection money to avoid "accidents" and they paid the protection money. Classic mob shakedown.

The big CDNs players in video today do have a weirdly vested interest in being extorted, as any new start-up has to then either pay up themselves, or have to go through those few CDNs like Akamai, Limelight, Cachefly, and a few others, who pay the protection money to get good access to the ISP's networks, and act as gatekeepers in a way.



Dan203 said:


> And if you're going to go all IP anyway why not create an OTT service you can offer nationwide rather then only in the areasyou physically serve? I believe Verizon recently stopped their IP beta test specifically to do this. I suspect the other big cable companies will do the same.


I think this is an interesting idea, but it's going to force them to compete directly to OTT solutions, and it can't leverage IPTV multicast the same way that managed IPTV can. In the end, you may well be right though. They will have to offer some bundling, but it may end up delivered technically more like CoIP/vMVPD than as the MVPD that they are.



dstoffa said:


> For the pay-tv content generators? Trouble. (I don't feel sorry for abc-Disney, CBS, NBC, or FOX), but I might feel sorry for some athletes who won't get their pay-day when TV money runs out..


I'm not sure I really feel sorry for athletes. They're way overpaid for what they do. They work hard, but not tens of millions of dollars hard. Unfortunately, it may end up screwing the little guy too, even though in theory, it should come out of the big stars' pay the most, as they are the most overvalued in the industry.

What do you think is going to happen to the big media companies and broadcasters? Will Disney make their own streaming service and make it a success? Will others follow suit? How many streaming services can survive at once?



> For the pay-tv content deliverers? Their revenue will move from one pile to the other. Entertainment means data transfers...


Yeah, I think that's where it's already going as people cut the cord, and basic internet is now $75/mo in Comcast monopoly areas.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

Bigg said:


> I'm not sure I really feel sorry for athletes. They're way overpaid for what they do. They work hard, but not tens of millions of dollars hard. Unfortunately, it may end up screwing the little guy too, even though in theory, it should come out of the big stars' pay the most, as they are the most overvalued in the industry.


Hence my word, "some". I definitely won't be feeling sorry for all of them.



> What do you think is going to happen to the big media companies and broadcasters? Will Disney make their own streaming service and make it a success? Will others follow suit? How many streaming services can survive at once?


If revenue from streaming does not exceed revenue from linear cable on a per-subscriber basis, they are going to need to rethink their business model and adjust accordingly. I see the sunset of marginally viewed channels in the future. I see ESPN and their sports division being their biggest problem moving forward. I don't see anyone paying $9 per month to stream ESPN. It's not must-watch television anymore. Once uponi a time watching Keith and Dan do the big show was a must see. Now, I can get everything from my phone or computer. Sportscenter is hitting the skids. They only thing they have left is their professional sports. That leave a lot of day-parts to fill.

In summary - I see consolidation and a thinning of the herd in way of broadcasting.



> Yeah, I think that's where it's already going as people cut the cord, and basic internet is now $75/mo in Comcast monopoly areas.


Broadband internet was $30 per month 15 years ago.... Which would be $47 today, but since speeds are much higher, the prices aren't that high... You just can't get 5/1 from your cable company for $20.... (Well, there are exceptions, but few are far between).


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 27, 2006)

steelersruleman said:


> Cord shaving is happening, not cord cutting. TRUE cord CUTTING would involve DUMPING your local cable company altogether. Meaning unless you have another way of obtaining High Speed Internet from another source right now, you are SOL, and are shaving, not cutting.


When we moved in 4 years ago we had a one year cable contract but we already had two broadband companies to chose from. At the one year point we switched to the other broadband company cutting the cable. Around a year ago Google Fiber came through as an option.

Depending your local population density choice will eventually happen where you are.



> Therefore, I foresee ALL programming being sent through the incoming cable through the internet, therefore eliminating all cable boxes altogether, including TIVO. Would not invest in one right now. It will all be done on the cloud


We have a new UHD smart TV that is networked and has Roku. Eventually the OTA and DVR aspects of Tivo will be beat by on-line stream.



> And since everything will be done over the Internet(called OTT, right? I think I may be screwing up the acronym), the destruction of the Net Neutrality Laws, as of right now, would help destroy competition. Not to mention the bigger threat to American Society(Censorship), but that is a political issue not to be discussed here.


Just as choice among broadband vendors is supposed to improve quality, it's also supposed to handle Net Neutrality. We all know how that ends up.

The cable companies took on content creation at the influence of the broadcast networks faded. Now streaming providers are taking over content creation.

Using Tivo taught me that live is pointless for everything but news. Using streams taught me that I could locate streamed live news but as long as I have OTA it's not worth the additional effort.

Tivo using SSD inside a smart TV organizing stream vendors with a merged show database. The number of hours recorded can drop pretty low. Except for the Hulu problem. Hours recorded could become hours of stream cached in anticipation of what you're watching lately. That triggers the endless battle of avoiding commercials.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

dstoffa said:


> If revenue from streaming does not exceed revenue from linear cable on a per-subscriber basis, they are going to need to rethink their business model and adjust accordingly. I see the sunset of marginally viewed channels in the future. I see ESPN and their sports division being their biggest problem moving forward. I don't see anyone paying $9 per month to stream ESPN. It's not must-watch television anymore. Once uponi a time watching Keith and Dan do the big show was a must see. Now, I can get everything from my phone or computer. Sportscenter is hitting the skids. They only thing they have left is their professional sports. That leave a lot of day-parts to fill.


That's a good point about Sportscenter. I've never understood what the point of Sportscenter was in the first place, it always seemed like filler, but I know a lot of people watch it, or at least used to. I think you're spot on about ESPN, I would add some of the other major sports channels too, but ESPN is by far the biggest, and will have the biggest problems moving forward. I see a double threat to ESPN and other cable channels, in that people are subscribing to smaller, leaner CoIP/vMVPD packages that exclude many smaller channels, and that people who just want sports might sign up for DTV NOW at the beginning of "their" sport's season, and then unsubscribe after, leaving significantly fewer overall subscribers at any give point during the year for ESPN and the like.



> In summary - I see consolidation and a thinning of the herd in way of broadcasting.


I'd agree.



> Broadband internet was $30 per month 15 years ago.... Which would be $47 today, but since speeds are much higher, the prices aren't that high... You just can't get 5/1 from your cable company for $20.... (Well, there are exceptions, but few are far between).


We went from $57/mo to $75/mo, which is actually about at inflation, it just started ridiculously high, so it's still ridiculously high.



dfreybur said:


> Depending your local population density choice will eventually happen where you are.


I highly doubt it. There is little incentive to wire a lot of suburban/exurban areas that currently have one monopoly provider. If anything, I'd say there is more hope for some rural areas that don't have anything, as whoever builds infrastructure there will likely be a monopoly for a very long time.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> And if you're going to go all IP anyway why not create an OTT service you can offer nationwide rather then only in the areasyou physically serve? I believe Verizon recently stopped their IP beta test specifically to do this. I suspect the other big cable companies will do the same.





Bigg said:


> I think this is an interesting idea, but it's going to force them to compete directly to OTT solutions, and it can't leverage IPTV multicast the same way that managed IPTV can. In the end, you may well be right though. They will have to offer some bundling, but it may end up delivered technically more like CoIP/vMVPD than as the MVPD that they are.


Yup, Dan is right on here. It's at least part of the thinking behind AT&T dumping Uverse TV and replacing it with a forthcoming OTT service (AT&T TV or whatever they end up branding it). And as he says, it was likely a factor in Verizon's decision not to move forward with the managed IPTV service they were beta testing; instead, they're supposedly still working on a nationwide OTT vMVPD offering. Even Comcast may be changing their mind. Last year they rolled out their Xfinity Instant TV managed IPTV service, insisting that it didn't make economic sense to extend it out of footprint as an OTT vMPVD. But now, as they play footsie with Sky TV (which they hope to acquire), they say they may be changing their tune. "They're doing streaming out-of-market, which is something we're not doing today at Comcast," Roberts said, "so they'll bring some learnings there."

As far as multicast, I don't think it's that big of a deal. I would bet that techs can engineer it so that the most popular linear channels run in multicast IP across the provider's own network, thereby economizing the bandwidth necessary for their own OTT service. However, a provider can't put their own multicast IP on someone else's network (at least without an agreement). But so what? Let it run as unicast there; increased video traffic on a competitor's network is _their_ problem. So, for example, if I have AT&T TV and I'm on AT&T Internet, when I watch live ESPN, it would be through a multicast stream that travels exclusively across the AT&T network. But if instead I have AT&T TV via Comcast internet, AT&T's edge network will switch the ESPN multicast stream into a unicast stream to send out over non-AT&T networks, including the final leg on Comcast's network, to my home.

Interesting side note: Cloud tech already exists to monitor real-time channel usage within a network node and determine on-the-fly which channels to present in multicast and which to present in unicast to optimize network efficiency. See this article for that and other interesting stuff on the tech behind managed IPTV and its transition to OTT/all-HTTP.


----------



## ManeJon (Apr 14, 2018)

I know this is an expense issue but so is convenience and being able to watch as you want to watch. I will pay extra to be able to skip commercials. I don't want cloud DVR - I want a box in my home that i can control. I have occasional issues with internet (and cable) company that have lasted for days in bad weather. I had power and thus could watch my home dvr. I also hear things about being able to store for a limited time and no skip function. I haven't yet found a or several cord cutting or trimming solutions that offer better or at all what I want from a TV experience. It will all change but haven't found a better solution yet - cheaper yes but better?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> As far as multicast, I don't think it's that big of a deal. I would bet that techs can engineer it so that the most popular linear channels run in multicast IP across the provider's own network, thereby economizing the bandwidth necessary for their own OTT service. However, a provider can't put their own multicast IP on someone else's network (at least without an agreement). But so what? Let it run as unicast there; increased video traffic on a competitor's network is _their_ problem. So, for example, if I have AT&T TV and I'm on AT&T Internet, when I watch live ESPN, it would be through a multicast stream that travels exclusively across the AT&T network. But if instead I have AT&T TV via Comcast internet, AT&T's edge network will switch the ESPN multicast stream into a unicast stream to send out over non-AT&T networks, including the final leg on Comcast's network, to my home.


I don't think that an OTT-like system running on a Roku can use IP-multicast over DOCSIS. I think it needs to be a managed system at that point. It's not as big of a deal for AT&T, as their networks are VDSL or fiber, where you don't have as much bandwidth sharing between customers going on.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I don't think that an OTT-like system running on a Roku can use IP-multicast over DOCSIS. I think it needs to be a managed system at that point. It's not as big of a deal for AT&T, as their networks are VDSL or fiber, where you don't have as much bandwidth sharing between customers going on.


Retail streaming devices (Roku, Fire TV, Apple TV, mobile phones, tablets) typically cannot use multicast IP, especially in the way that a network operator would configure it to be reliable (i.e., not UDP). But in the scenario I'm talking about -- for AT&T TV -- the viewer would be accessing the service on STBs provided by AT&T and they would contain the necessary software to access AT&T's multicast IP streams if the viewer had AT&T home internet.

It's also simple enough for AT&T to update the firmware on their home internet gateways to support multicast-to-unicast conversion so that non-AT&T clients on the home network (e.g. their mobile app) could watch linear channels that way.

And any clients, in-home or out-of-home, that are connected to the internet by any company other than AT&T (e.g. Comcast, T-Mobile, etc.) would just get unicast streams.

Again, if you haven't already done so, read this article, as I think you would find it educational:
Multicast ABR and low-latency streaming are the starting gun for migration to an all-HTTP video future | Videonet


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> I don't think that an OTT-like system running on a Roku can use IP-multicast over DOCSIS. I think it needs to be a managed system at that point. It's not as big of a deal for AT&T, as their networks are VDSL or fiber, where you don't have as much bandwidth sharing between customers going on.


If you're on their network they could use a special modem/router to convert multi-cast to uni-cast for 3rd party devices. If you're not on their network then it's your problem.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Retail streaming devices (Roku, Fire TV, Apple TV, mobile phones, tablets) typically cannot use multicast IP, especially in the way that a network operator would configure it to be reliable (i.e., not UDP). But in the scenario I'm talking about -- for AT&T TV -- the viewer would be accessing the service on STBs provided by AT&T and they would contain the necessary software to access AT&T's multicast IP streams if the viewer had AT&T home internet.


I was thinking of Comcast's service on Comcast infrastructure.


----------



## bhoch99 (Jan 21, 2003)

The biggest thing I see coming is 5G. Imagine having a cable modem that doesn't plug in to a cable, it just operates over the cellular network. Speeds will be similar/better than existing cable/DSL. Cost of infrastructure will be lower, since cell companies don't need to maintain "the last mile" to the home. This now represents the 2nd (3rd?) choice for internet access over the local cable company. The question I have is whether cell companies would get involved with content providers and offer bundles or if users will simply be on their own to contract directly with Hulu/Netflix/etc. 

BTW, I'm one of those old fashioned people who just has cable. No Netflix, No HBO, No Hulu. No Pandora/Spotify (I use my trusty Roku M500 for streaming internet radio & I also listen to Music Choice channels via my cable co). Every time I price it out for one of these streaming providers like Sling or YouTube TV or DirecTV now or PlayStation Vue or Hulu, there's always something missing from the lineup, plus the cost doesn't make up for the inconvenience of commercials that I'm able to skip with the Tivo. With the exception of my crappy Tuning Adapter, Tivo works great and I'm not eager to change. My cable company makes me pay extra for a sports tier that contains BTN, so when I want to watch the occasional Rutgers football game, I borrow my in-laws FIOS credentials and stream it instead.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

bhoch99 said:


> The question I have is whether cell companies would get involved with content providers and offer bundles or if users will simply be on their own to contract directly with Hulu/Netflix/etc.


AT&T and Verizon are both in the cell business and the MVPD business, so they have a leg up in that area. My biggest issue with 5G is that most cell plans are metered and expensive. My Dad uses a local wireless internet system because he lives in the middle of nowhere. He pays like $150/mo for 30Mbps/1Mbps service and it's metered so there are overages if he uses too much data. I suspect 5G is going to be similar. So it's not really going to be a viable replacement for cable for most people. Unless I'm wrong and they can offer unlimited data for reasonable prices.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> AT&T and Verizon are both in the cell business and the MVPD business, so they have a leg up in that area. My biggest issue with 5G is that most cell plans are metered and expensive. My Dad uses a local wireless internet system because he lives in the middle of nowhere. He pays like $150/mo for 30Mbps/1Mbps service and it's metered so there are overages if he uses too much data. I suspect 5G is going to be similar. So it's not really going to be a viable replacement for cable for most people. Unless I'm wrong and they can offer unlimited data for reasonable prices.


Well, we're going to see two forms of 5G: fixed wireless 5G home internet service and, a bit later, mobile wireless 5G service. I imagine that both forms will follow the typical pricing models we're used to seeing, meaning that fixed 5G will either have no data cap or a high data cap like 1TB (which is what both Comcast and AT&T currently have on most of their home internet plans). Mobile 5G, on the other hand, will probably be bundled in with their most expensive mobile plans that offer unlimited data; after using a certain amount of 5G + LTE, maybe you'll be throttled down to a lower speed, just like now.

There's already a small company named Starry doing fixed wireless 5G home internet (founded by the same guy who founded the now-defunct Aereo TV start-up). Although it's referred to as 5G, it's really a pre-standard version of 5G. But it does millimeter wave wireless transmission. They smartly made the choice to focus on far cheaper unlicensed spectrum, though; that's a choice that the big mobile phone companies don't have. And they're partnering with chipmaker Marvell to use pre-standard chips for the next version of wifi (802.11ax) in the transmitters. But rather than transmitting the waves on the 5 GHz and 2.4 GHz frequencies used by wifi, they're transmitting in the much higher (i.e. shorter wavelength) 37-40 GHz range.

And, get this, they're offering 200 Mbps internet (same speed up and down) with no data caps, 100% net neutrality, all equipment (including their snazzy touch-screen wifi router), and no contracts for the *everyday price of $50/mo*. They don't offer to bundle anything else with it. They don't do voice or TV, just internet. As their website says "The best TV is already on the internet."

We're going to see Verizon offering something similar starting later this year in Sacramento, CA and a few other markets. (Atlanta is rumored to be among them.) AT&T will also be getting into the game, probably this year. But, unlike Starry, they will be aiming to bundle services with their home internet. Verizon won't be able to bundle their QAM-based FiOS TV with fixed 5G, which is why they're still scrambling to put together an OTT service. AT&T will of course offer to bundle their upcoming AT&T TV service (delivered over the same OTT tech platform as DTV Now).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

5G is very interesting, and I think we all hope it will change the internet business and turn up the heat on cable companies, but I'm skeptical. Maybe it will work in some parts of major urban areas, but I'm not convinced that it can scale out into the 'burbs. Once you get into even moderate density areas that are today dominated by cable, the cost of deploying 5G antennas ends up being as much or more than cable or fiber.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Bigg said:


> 5G is very interesting, and I think we all hope it will change the internet business and turn up the heat on cable companies, but I'm skeptical. Maybe it will work in some parts of major urban areas, but I'm not convinced that it can scale out into the 'burbs. Once you get into even moderate density areas that are today dominated by cable, the cost of deploying 5G antennas ends up being as much or more than cable or fiber.


True, and even in urban areas for 5G to work the multitude of stations (mini cell towers) are very dependent on fiber networks. And that means in some cities there isn't enough fiber to pull it off.


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

steelersruleman said:


> Don't want to get into an semantics fight into what "shaving" means, as opposed to "cutting", so I am going to just drop it from here. You say TOMATO, I say TOMATO(think you know what I mean). We both agree in the end though.
> 
> But the throttling thing will definitely happen, unless either Congress shoots down the FCC ruling, or each individual state starts creating new laws in order to go back to the old rules, or establish new rules that are even stricter. I think California is in the process of doing that right now. And, of course, the cable conglomerates are having conniption over it. Hope it passes, and other states follow suit with there own accords.
> 
> I'll just take a wait and see approach from here. Nothing more I can do other than vote when the time comes either with my money, or my actual vote....


You may be right that cable co's will attempt throttling but I think there may be market forces that can push back against it. If they mess with consumers ability to watch TV via the provider they want by throttling, that will create demand for alternative internet providers. And once that unserved demand gets large enough alternative cable options will come in to fill that need. Small markets will still be at a disadvantage, but in any market that offers enough population and demand there will be money to be made and free markets will allow potential competitors to create alternative options for Internet. I realize that is no easy task due to the high cost of build out. But many larger markets already have more than one choice for internet. If the existing cable operators stop serving the needs of their customers by throttling the content they desire it will create significant demand for alternatives. With 5G on its way that opens a new delivery method to spur competition. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

Bigg said:


> That's a good point about Sportscenter. I've never understood what the point of Sportscenter was in the first place, it always seemed like filler, but I know a lot of people watch it, or at least used to. I think you're spot on about ESPN, I would add some of the other major sports channels too, but ESPN is by far the biggest, and will have the biggest problems moving forward. I see a double threat to ESPN and other cable channels, in that people are subscribing to smaller, leaner CoIP/vMVPD packages that exclude many smaller channels, and that people who just want sports might sign up for DTV NOW at the beginning of "their" sport's season, and then unsubscribe after, leaving significantly fewer overall subscribers at any give point during the year for ESPN and the like.


20 years ago, the sports fan went to SportsCenter to get their news. There was no real alternative unless you consider hopping on your computer, firing up the modem, and visiting AOL. I see ESPN's problem being solved by leveraging their media partners: abc and Disney. Want abc? Pay for ESPN. Want Disney? Pay for ESPN. If you have enough different hands in the pot, you can exploit those hands to help you - your eggs aren't all in one basket.



> We went from $57/mo to $75/mo, which is actually about at inflation, it just started ridiculously high, so it's still ridiculously high.


Cable internet was cheap when you compare it to what existed before. What did you have? A 56 kbps modem that on good days connected over your newly installed second land-line at 38kbps? You paid $20 per month for AOL, plus whatever the cost was for that second land line. Cable internet was a bargain. And now, you likely don't have that land line. It wasn't expensive then. It's not expensive now (for the speeds offered), but we consumers can't get over price humps, which is why that 1 pound coffee can is 13 ounces, and the half-gallon of ice cream is 1.5 quarts -- we like the price to be the price, and more of us will pay the same for less instead of paying more for the same amount. The internet companies are straddling the curve. Offering more speed at higher total prices (increasing revenue), but reducing the unit cost of internet with technological improvements. Consumers cannot take advantage of those lower unit costs. The slowest speed I can get from my cable company is 100/6 for $65. (Actually I can get, and have 3/1 for $14.99, but that is a legacy TWC price point that only exists because NY State forced them to continue offering it as a condition of the Spectrum merger.)



> I highly doubt it. There is little incentive to wire a lot of suburban/exurban areas that currently have one monopoly provider. If anything, I'd say there is more hope for some rural areas that don't have anything, as whoever builds infrastructure there will likely be a monopoly for a very long time.


The ROI isn't there in geographical areas with low population density, especially if those areas already have an incumbent. The only hope for those without broadband access or for those with one cable company is for large scale disaster, so that the local telephone company's cooper infrastructure is wiped out and must be replaced by fiber...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tenthplanet said:


> True, and even in urban areas for 5G to work the multitude of stations (mini cell towers) are very dependent on fiber networks. And that means in some cities there isn't enough fiber to pull it off.


I think in the dense urban cores, it will work, because they are already deploying 4G DASes for mobile phones. Mobile phones will not be using mm wave stuff in the forseeable future due to space and power issues, but the same DAS could do mm wave and 4G LTE. Outside of those areas though, I just don't see how the infrastructure scales profitably. A lot of places I see Verizon small sites wouldn't be terribly useful with mm wave.



dstoffa said:


> 20 years ago, the sports fan went to SportsCenter to get their news. There was no real alternative unless you consider hopping on your computer, firing up the modem, and visiting AOL.


I guess what I don't get is why "sports news" is even a thing. They just sit there and talk about this player or that player. If I watch sports, I'm watching the sport, and the announcers will fill me in on what I need to know. But people watch this stuff, and that is an interesting point that they now get that same useless drivel on the internet that SportsCenter used to provide.



> I see ESPN's problem being solved by leveraging their media partners: abc and Disney. Want abc? Pay for ESPN. Want Disney? Pay for ESPN. If you have enough different hands in the pot, you can exploit those hands to help you - your eggs aren't all in one basket.


But at some point, people just get fed up and cut the cord, or never subscribe in the first place, as is the case with younger viewers today.



> Cable internet was cheap when you compare it to what existed before. What did you have? A 56 kbps modem that on good days connected over your newly installed second land-line at 38kbps? You paid $20 per month for AOL, plus whatever the cost was for that second land line.


We connected at 48000 on an 11kft loop, but true we paid $25/mo for AOL and about that for another phone line, so $45/mo for Comcast plus $15/mo to keep AOL emails (for a while) wasn't that bad in comparison.



> Cable internet was a bargain. And now, you likely don't have that land line. It wasn't expensive then. It's not expensive now (for the speeds offered), but we consumers can't get over price humps, which is why that 1 pound coffee can is 13 ounces, and the half-gallon of ice cream is 1.5 quarts -- we like the price to be the price, and more of us will pay the same for less instead of paying more for the same amount.


The problem is that in a competitive market, the prices come down, and internet is around $40/mo for reasonable speeds. Some MDU/HOA types of situations have negotiated rates similar to this as well for bulk deals, at the extreme other end of the spectrum.



> The ROI isn't there in geographical areas with low population density, especially if those areas already have an incumbent. The only hope for those without broadband access or for those with one cable company is for large scale disaster, so that the local telephone company's cooper infrastructure is wiped out and must be replaced by fiber...


Yeah, that's the problem. The ILECs have been negligent in upgrading their old copper networks, and it makes no sense for a new overbuilder to come in, as the incumbent will just lower their rates and put them out of business. Sadly here in CT, we lost SNET to SBC, AT&T, and eventually Frontier. Now Frontier is doing fiber, but very slowly, as they just don't have the money. SNET would have done fiber everywhere if they had survived, and AT&T should have done fiber everywhere, as they had the money. Finally they have realized this in other parts of the country, although they keep cherry picking here and there. Verizon is actually going to start retiring copper and making some wirecenters 100% fiber starting in 2020. This is what all ILECs should do.

Verizon and AT&T have the money, unfortunately the other ones don't. AT&T and Verizon should never have been allowed to sell off chunks of their territory, and government regulators should have forced them to offer symmetrical gigabit service to 100% of their customers. NJ effectively did this, forcing 100% coverage of 45mbps symmetrical connectivity to every household in NJ, but then lost their spine when Verizon took the money and ran, reneging on the deal.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

Bigg said:


> I guess what I don't get is why "sports news" is even a thing. They just sit there and talk about this player or that player. If I watch sports, I'm watching the sport, and the announcers will fill me in on what I need to know. But people watch this stuff, and that is an interesting point that they now get that same useless drivel on the internet that SportsCenter used to provide.


If you didn't see the game(s), or you needed to know what happened in other games, or you needed to know how your fantasy players did, you went to SportsCenter to catch up on all the day's scores, news, and highlights. Newer technologies have replaced what SportsCenter provided.

Now, ESPN needs to have "sports talk" shows to fill their dayparts instead of re-running SportsCenter or Baseball Tonight... I'd prefer to listen to my local sports-talk radio station that a national talk show, because I really don't care that much about out-of-town sports. So ESPN's video sports-talk shows fail here to serve the many many local markets.



> But at some point, people just get fed up and cut the cord, or never subscribe in the first place, as is the case with younger viewers today.


I agree. But how this train wrecks is something nobody can predict. Will death be gradual? Or will it be a bomb going off.



> The problem is that in a competitive market, the prices come down, and internet is around $40/mo for reasonable speeds. Some MDU/HOA types of situations have negotiated rates similar to this as well for bulk deals, at the extreme other end of the spectrum.


Prices should come down in a competitive market, but you assume that there are two players in the game at the start. That is not the case, and Verizon over-built only where they KNEW (no matter what they publicly said) where they could generate enough revenue to compete with the cable company to off-set installation costs. I phoned Verizon years ago to ask if/when FIOS or DSL would be available at my home in Sullivan County, NY. I was laughed off the phone. They flat out told me, "Never."



> Verizon and AT&T have the money, unfortunately the other ones don't. AT&T and Verizon should never have been allowed to sell off chunks of their territory, and government regulators should have forced them to offer symmetrical gigabit service to 100% of their customers. NJ effectively did this, forcing 100% coverage of 45mbps symmetrical connectivity to every household in NJ, but then lost their spine when Verizon took the money and ran, reneging on the deal.


They should have been forced to build where no service exists before overbuilding if they wanted public assistance with installation costs. But I am sure there were some back-room deals involved, and good PR people can put spin on anything.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I think in the dense urban cores, it will work, because they are already deploying 4G DASes for mobile phones. Mobile phones will not be using mm wave stuff in the forseeable future due to space and power issues, but the same DAS could do mm wave and 4G LTE. Outside of those areas though, I just don't see how the infrastructure scales profitably. A lot of places I see Verizon small sites wouldn't be terribly useful with mm wave.


We'll see at least a few high-end phones on the market in 2020 (if not late 2019) that support standard 5G. Fixed wireless 5G internet service will target urban cores as well as some suburban neighborhoods. As the density decreases, the less likely it is that 5G will be deployed (unless we're talking about 5G service over lower frequencies, not just mm wave, as I think T-Mobile is planning to do).

I think the decision that AT&T, Verizon and Charter (all of whom are testing fixed 5G) will make is: is it cheaper to extend our FTTH (or HFC) network to this address or is it cheaper to connect it via 5G? Generally speaking, fixed 5G should be cheaper. (Not to mention that the 5G cells could also be used to provide mobile service.) But of course, there are all those less dense exurban and rural areas where they aren't considering FTTH in the first place because it's too expensive. I would imagine that fixed 5G will allow them to extend high-speed connectivity out a little further from urban cores than FTTH alone would but probably not a LOT further.

Rural dwellers should pin their hopes more on low-earth orbit satellite internet from SpaceX and others, hopefully arriving early next decade. And possibly AT&T's AirGig tech that beams internet wirelessly above existing electrical power lines using cheap repeaters attached to the poles. Also worth keeping an eye on what T-Mobile (and DISH) plan to do with all that quality long-range spectrum they've acquired...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

dstoffa said:


> If you didn't see the game(s), or you needed to know what happened in other games, or you needed to know how your fantasy players did, you went to SportsCenter to catch up on all the day's scores, news, and highlights. Newer technologies have replaced what SportsCenter provided.


That's a good point about the technology, I just don't understand the culture behind sports news in the first place. I enjoy watching some basketball and baseball, but the whole sports news thing just baffles me. It seems so trivial and stupid.



> So ESPN's video sports-talk shows fail here to serve the many many local markets.


I've never understood sports-talk either, but the RSNs certainly have the ability to go much more local-focused with this type of content.



> I agree. But how this train wrecks is something nobody can predict. Will death be gradual? Or will it be a bomb going off.


That's a good question. We've seen the first wheel go off the rails with a couple of channels disappearing, but we haven't seen anything widespread yet. The train is still on the tracks, and even after all the warning the market is giving, it's still going full steam ahead.



> Prices should come down in a competitive market, but you assume that there are two players in the game at the start. That is not the case, and Verizon over-built only where they KNEW (no matter what they publicly said) where they could generate enough revenue to compete with the cable company to off-set installation costs. I phoned Verizon years ago to ask if/when FIOS or DSL would be available at my home in Sullivan County, NY. I was laughed off the phone. They flat out told me, "Never."


Yeah, they have been known to redline and cherry pick, but at least they have basically done a total build-out from a given wirecenter in most cases, whereas Google took it to a whole new level of wiring one street here and one there.



> They should have been forced to build where no service exists before overbuilding if they wanted public assistance with installation costs. But I am sure there were some back-room deals involved, and good PR people can put spin on anything.


Yeah, the ILECs have gotten all sorts of public benefits, and haven't given much in return. They should have been forced to offer 100% gigabit coverage to every location that has ever had copper phone service. True universal service for all, at least all that are on the grid.



NashGuy said:


> We'll see at least a few high-end phones on the market in 2020 (if not late 2019) that support standard 5G.


mmWave, or some sort of other "5G Evolution" spec? AT&T already has "5G Evolution", it's just 4G LTE, just like "Four G" was actually 3G. Other parts of 5G are IoT and some other stuff, but nothing that would be able to replace home broadband access like mmWave could, in theory, in some places.

I think we're headed for a 3-tier market where urban dwellers have choice and competition, suburban have limited or no competition but good speeds, and rural dwellers still have lousy or no broadband.



> I think the decision that AT&T, Verizon and Charter (all of whom are testing fixed 5G) will make is: is it cheaper to extend our FTTH (or HFC) network to this address or is it cheaper to connect it via 5G? Generally speaking, fixed 5G should be cheaper. (Not to mention that the 5G cells could also be used to provide mobile service.) But of course, there are all those less dense exurban and rural areas where they aren't considering FTTH in the first place because it's too expensive. I would imagine that fixed 5G will allow them to extend high-speed connectivity out a little further from urban cores than FTTH alone would but probably not a LOT further.


From Charter's point of view, they need to go along with what Comcast is doing with RFoG. Once you're decoupled from the power consumption and cost of laying hardline cable, you can extend the plant a lot farther out into east bumblefrack and you're basically guaranteed to be a monopoly for a very long time. I don't know why Comcast isn't more aggressive in this regards, that's the only way to grow organically.

Verizon and AT&T are both looking at ways to get into markets that they aren't currently in, like AT&T's foray into connecting MDUs and bundling DirecTV. I think 5G will work in areas that need a lot of small cell deployment for LTE, particularly for Verizon, but I'm not sure it scales out in areas that are coverage limited by macro sites anyway. I think FTTH actually goes more rural, based on what I've seen in places in South County Rhode Island that have gigabit Verizon fiber and fiber-deep HFC from Cox, but are way too rural for mmWave deployment.



> Rural dwellers should pin their hopes more on low-earth orbit satellite internet from SpaceX and others, hopefully arriving early next decade. And possibly AT&T's AirGig tech that beams internet wirelessly above existing electrical power lines using cheap repeaters attached to the poles. Also worth keeping an eye on what T-Mobile (and DISH) plan to do with all that quality long-range spectrum they've acquired...


T-Mobile and SpaceX are both credible providers, particularly T-Mobile. I think AirGig is a fantasy, I have seen little evidence that it would actually work at any scale, or how it even works in the first place. Unfortunately, telecom policy has failed. This is entirely a policy issue, not a technology issue. We have the technology to run GPON fiber to every house in the United States that's currently on the telephone network, what we lack is the political will to just do it. That's what we should have done 15 years ago when fiber was just starting out (BPON back then).

It still surprises me that areas in states like MA, NY, and NJ have no broadband because Verizon refuses to wire them, yet Verizon competes hard in suburbs where there are multiple other competitors. If they had wired some of those east bumblefrack places 12 years ago, they would still have a rock-solid monopoly, and could basically charge whatever they want with near 100% penetration, instead of fighting hard for 20-40% penetration in the 'burbs where there are competitors.

From a policy perspective, New York's reverse auction method for building out broadband makes a lot of sense, as it does it as cheaply as anyone is willing to do it, and is great business for the companies who bid to get government money to build physical plant out that they then get to charge people to use.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I think FTTH actually goes more rural, based on what I've seen in places in South County Rhode Island that have gigabit Verizon fiber and fiber-deep HFC from Cox, but are way too rural for mmWave deployment.


Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. The cost of running fiber from the street through the yard to the house should be less than the cost of setting up a 5G cell and attaching a receiver antenna to the house (or, even cheaper, having the customer place one in his window). And in cases where there are even 3 or 4 homes within range of a 5G cell tower (and mmwave signals can reliably travel anywhere from 500 to 1000 feet, maybe further depending on topography, etc.), it should be considerably cheaper to deploy 5G fixed wireless than to run the fiber that extra distance to each home.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. The cost of running fiber from the street through the yard to the house should be less than the cost of setting up a 5G cell and attaching a receiver antenna to the house (or, even cheaper, having the customer place one in his window). And in cases where there are even 3 or 4 homes within range of a 5G cell tower (and mmwave signals can reliably travel anywhere from 500 to 1000 feet, maybe further depending on topography, etc.), it should be considerably cheaper to deploy 5G fixed wireless than to run the fiber that extra distance to each home.


5G can work in places where there is a significant population density, with houses 10' apart, and lots of homes on every block. It works even better with small multifamily houses, which are common in many cities, particularly in the east. However, to suggest that it would work in a more rural environment is insane. Every 5G tower/site needs power, fiber, and thousands of dollars of equipment just to get going. You need lots of potential customers to make that scale out. There is no way that can scale to where you only have a few houses within range of a tower. In more rural areas, there is no need for even small sites for 4G, and the towers that have LTE on them often would serve exactly zero customer if they have mmWave antennas on them. Building out a small site that costs thousands and thousands of dollars to serve four customers is a complete loser of an idea. Cable nodes today typically serve 100 or more active subscribers (not homes passed), and often well more than that, and building a 5G site is more involved than a simple cable node.

Fiber scales out to even rural areas, as all you need is passive fiber cable to run a drop to a house, you don't need powered nodes or sites. Some of the areas in South County that have FiOS don't even have very good/uniform LTE coverage, but they have one FTTH provider and one fiber-deep HFC provider.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Fiber scales out to even rural areas, as all you need is passive fiber cable to run a drop to a house, you don't need powered nodes or sites. Some of the areas in South County that have FiOS don't even have very good/uniform LTE coverage, but they have one FTTH provider and one fiber-deep HFC provider.


It's expensive to run fiber across long distances where houses are few and far between. Unless there's a local co-op or government subsidization, don't expect to see very much of rural America getting FTTH.

But back to the main topic of this thread: the future of pay TV. Keep your eye on sports -- that's the lynchpin that's really holding the traditional pay TV ("cable TV") industry together. Related to that, keep your eye on Disney, the owner of ESPN. Disney just launched their direct-to-consumer OTT streaming app called ESPN+. That's their lifeboat if/when the whole structure of cable TV starts toppling over. Well, that's their lifeboat for sports. Meanwhile, next year they're launching a family-friendly mini-Netflix competitor. And once they acquire most of Fox's assets, they'll be the majority owner of Hulu. At what point does Disney decide they no longer need the MVPD middlemen? Or, for that matter, the movie theater middlemen? (Maybe they just buy a theater chain, or lease exclusive access to X number of movie screens nationwide, and throw in free big-screen showings as part of the monthly subscription to Disneyflix.)


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

I think we're going to an on-demand world like Netflix or even Youtube. The Tv guide won't exist. The whole idea of having to program time slots just isn't a thing in the on-demand world. It's legacy thinking. It was necessary for the way the broadcast tech worked. Now it isn't necessary.

ONly live programming needs to have a time slot. 

These streaming bundles aren't the future. They are the old way streamed.

I don't see these OTT streaming services surviving in their current form. To be fair they do also offer on-demand content. But that needs to be the focus and not the after thought. 

As far as commercials go some of these guys are offering commercial free options. CBS does this as does Hulu. 

I just see a company like Netflix putting a lot of these traditional media companies out of business or at least kicking them off the podium. I think Amazon has a chance to become one of the next-gen leaders in pay tv as well. I wouldn't put it past Apple nor Google to join them. They both know the tech underlying this transformation and have deep pockets and are rumored to be getting into the video content business. 

I think HBO is off to a good start but could be held back a bit by also being married to the old way. Showtime is there. 

At the same time content is king. Disney is going to launch a service. They are going to leverage their content. It seems like they own enough desirable content that it will be successful if they want it to be. But I also read about their ESPN streaming service and it sounds like more of a complement to ESPN cable. And that kind of thinking is not going to do them any favors although sports is live programming and thus might still have a place on old broadcast technology.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> It's expensive to run fiber across long distances where houses are few and far between. Unless there's a local co-op or government subsidization, don't expect to see very much of rural America getting FTTH.


That's the problem. The government hasn't been aggressive in mandating the major ILECs to do it, and the Co-ops and small carriers simply can't afford it. If the government had mandated it 10 years ago, and not let Verizon and AT&T spin off territory, at least those two companies could easily have afforded to do 100% fiber coverage in their own territory.



> But back to the main topic of this thread: the future of pay TV. Keep your eye on sports -- that's the lynchpin that's really holding the traditional pay TV ("cable TV") industry together. Related to that, keep your eye on Disney, the owner of ESPN. Disney just launched their direct-to-consumer OTT streaming app called ESPN+.


I would agree that sports are the lynchpin that is sort of holding pay tv together. However, ESPN+ doesn't have all the good stuff that people actually want, so that's going to be a niche service at best, a total flop at worst.



> At what point does Disney decide they no longer need the MVPD middlemen? Or, for that matter, the movie theater middlemen? (Maybe they just buy a theater chain, or lease exclusive access to X number of movie screens nationwide, and throw in free big-screen showings as part of the monthly subscription to Disneyflix.)


That's a really interesting angle. Do you think that they might overplay their cards and cause a lot of people to just pass on their content though? ESPN is in a really bad position with the expensive contracts that they signed on to that are clearly unsustainable.

I wonder if a lot of sports fans will use vMPVDs where they can cancel in the off-season, and that will cause a further loss of revenue to ESPN, and put them in an impossible situation where they try to tie up even more sports to be a year-round thing, costing more money in the face of declining revenues...



trip1eX said:


> I think we're going to an on-demand world like Netflix or even Youtube. The Tv guide won't exist. The whole idea of having to program time slots just isn't a thing in the on-demand world. It's legacy thinking. It was necessary for the way the broadcast tech worked. Now it isn't necessary.


This is a really good point. I would add that the whole concept of a "bundle", independent from the concept of live tv, was necessary from 1978-2011 (depending on the area) because of the way analog traps work, and have no relation to modern digital cable, satellite, or OTT streaming services, they just got baked into the business model because of those analog traps.



> I just see a company like Netflix putting a lot of these traditional media companies out of business or at least kicking them off the podium. I think Amazon has a chance to become one of the next-gen leaders in pay tv as well. I wouldn't put it past Apple nor Google to join them. They both know the tech underlying this transformation and have deep pockets and are rumored to be getting into the video content business.


They have the tech platforms, as well as the CDNs. Amazon's interface isn't quite as nice as Netflix's IMO, but they have some of the best actual streaming video tech on the market. Google has been learning longer than the others with YouTube, which now has the highest resolution video of any provider with 4320p60 content already available.



> I think HBO is off to a good start but could be held back a bit by also being married to the old way. Showtime is there.


HBO needs to do 4k already. It's a little ridiculous that they're not doing 4k in the year 2018. However, they have great content, and people will watch it anyway. Showtime has always been a distance second to HBO, but I think HBO has made the transition to streaming really well without a lot of fanfare after the initial launch of HBO Go. Now it's just accepted that HBO Go is a good service and lots of people subscribe. They could still use to fix their app though, their new app is almost as bad as the old one, and they're in the dark ages compared to Netflix and Amazon.



> And that kind of thinking is not going to do them any favors although sports is live programming and thus might still have a place on old broadcast technology.


Yeah, I think the fractured mess of a sports market might carve out a niche for vMVPDs. I wonder at some point though when Amazon Prime is basically free, Netflix is $14/mo, HBO Now is $15/mo, at what point do people just give up on some sports when it's a minimum of $40/mo for a vMVPD with the sports channels? I do think that YTTV is positioned really well as they launch in more markets to take a big chunk of this market, as they are extremely well targeted in their channel lineup for live sports and news, which are the two pillars of what is left of the live TV market. They can also scale up easily since they have Google's CDN behind them. Live TV viewing is probably a drop in the bucket compared to YouTube usage.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I would agree that sports are the lynchpin that is sort of holding pay tv together. However, ESPN+ doesn't have all the good stuff that people actually want, so that's going to be a niche service at best, a total flop at worst.


Yeah, you're right about ESPN+ in the way that it now exists. It features sports that are kind of the "leftovers" that aren't already carried on ESPN's cable channels. This is on purpose. For now anyway, ESPN is taking care to stress to MVPDs that ESPN+ is complementary to, not competition to, the traditional cable TV bundle.

But my point about ESPN+ is that they aren't building it just to have a place to feature their overflow content and squeeze out a few extra bucks a month from ESPN super-fans. No, they're building it to get their feet wet in the world of direct-to-consumer OTT subscription TV, to learn the game, and to have a platform that they can fully shift to in the future if need be. If things reach a tipping point in the traditional vs. OTT TV landscape, it would be super-easy for Disney to just add direct-to-consumer live streams of their main channels (ESPN, ESPN 2, SEC Network, etc.) to ESPN+ for an additional fee per month. And despite whatever soothing things that Disney is saying to the MVPDs now, they're smart enough to see that threat, which of course strengthens Disney's hand when it comes to carriage negotiations.

You may be thinking, "What would be the big deal if ESPN did that and made all their cable TV content also available OTT? Haven't HBO and Showtime already done that, straddling the worlds of traditional and OTT?" Yes, they have, but those have always been a la carte services that aren't ad-supported. ESPN, on the other hand, has always been part of the bundle and ad-supported, so the economics and the implications are much different if they ever fully embrace OTT.



Bigg said:


> I wonder if a lot of sports fans will use vMPVDs where they can cancel in the off-season, and that will cause a further loss of revenue to ESPN, and put them in an impossible situation where they try to tie up even more sports to be a year-round thing, costing more money in the face of declining revenues...


Yeah, good point. Part of the allure of these vMPVDs is that they're so easy to keep for a few months, then drop, then add back later, just like Netflix.

There are obviously a lot of moving parts, including the insane amounts of money the pro sports leagues make. Yes, ESPN is in a bad spot with the overpriced contracts they're in. Eventually, I think you're going to see the economics of US pro sports shift somewhat and the ultimate endpoint is probably for most sports to exist in a la carte subscription bundles, like MLB.TV. But as long as widely distributed ad-supported TV outlets exist (e.g. free OTA broadcast stations or whatever they morph into in the streaming age), we should still see high-profile games available to everyone that way. It's that in-between tier where ESPN, FS1 and others exist -- the basic cable bundle of sports + non-sports channels that is supported both from subscriber fees but also ratings-dependent advertising -- that I see eventually collapsing.



Bigg said:


> HBO needs to do 4k already. It's a little ridiculous that they're not doing 4k in the year 2018. However, they have great content, and people will watch it anyway. Showtime has always been a distance second to HBO, but I think HBO has made the transition to streaming really well without a lot of fanfare after the initial launch of HBO Go. Now it's just accepted that HBO Go is a good service and lots of people subscribe. They could still use to fix their app though, their new app is almost as bad as the old one, and they're in the dark ages compared to Netflix and Amazon.


Yes, the "premium" networks definitely should already be offering 4K HDR. HBO's HD picture quality is pretty bad in dimly lit or otherwise demanding scenes when you stream via HBO Go or HBO Now -- lots of nasty compression artifacts. Showtime is a little better, but still not as good as Netflix or Amazon or Hulu (at least for their originals). Showtime has generally been more aggressive with their OTT strategy than HBO; they were out front in making add-on distribution deals with Hulu, then Amazon Prime, and eventually just about all the vMPVDs. HBO took a good while to follow suit. I also like that Showtime includes live east and west feeds of their main linear channel in their apps, unlike HBO or Starz.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, you're right about ESPN+ in the way that it now exists. It features sports that are kind of the "leftovers" that aren't already carried on ESPN's cable channels. This is on purpose. For now anyway, ESPN is taking care to stress to MVPDs that ESPN+ is complementary to, not competition to, the traditional cable TV bundle.


And in the process, they are killing their ability to do their own service. I think they currently want vMVPDs like YTTV, Sling, and PS Vue to be their streaming presence, without having to do their own thing. I'm still not sure that they really get it. I think they're behind the ball on all of this stuff, but they're in a tough positions with the MVPDs that they have managed to squeeze so much cash out of, now they're hooked on it.



> You may be thinking, "What would be the big deal if ESPN did that and made all their cable TV content also available OTT? Haven't HBO and Showtime already done that, straddling the worlds of traditional and OTT?" Yes, they have, but those have always been a la carte services that aren't ad-supported. ESPN, on the other hand, has always been part of the bundle and ad-supported, so the economics and the implications are much different if they ever fully embrace OTT.


Agreed. ESPN was one of the OG cable channels. The challenge for ESPN is that they bloated their cost structure so badly, and have drive the downward spiral of the economics of pay tv, so they may be hit the hardest when the whole pay tv system crumbles. The flip side is, they may do fine with vMVPDs, as they are usually the first two channels that most vMVPDs want.



> Yeah, good point. Part of the allure of these vMPVDs is that they're so easy to keep for a few months, then drop, then add back later, just like Netflix.


Even more so than Netflix if you have a vMVPD just to watch say, basketball. Same logic applies for hockey fans, baseball fans, etc, who have their one favorite sport.



> There are obviously a lot of moving parts, including the insane amounts of money the pro sports leagues make. Yes, ESPN is in a bad spot with the overpriced contracts they're in. Eventually, I think you're going to see the economics of US pro sports shift somewhat and the ultimate endpoint is probably for most sports to exist in a la carte subscription bundles, like MLB.TV. But as long as widely distributed ad-supported TV outlets exist (e.g. free OTA broadcast stations or whatever they morph into in the streaming age), we should still see high-profile games available to everyone that way. It's that in-between tier where ESPN, FS1 and others exist -- the basic cable bundle of sports + non-sports channels that is supported both from subscriber fees but also ratings-dependent advertising -- that I see eventually collapsing.


The problem is that evolution, which I think you're mostly correct about, means that sports as a whole will shrink as an industry significantly. They have become too reliant on TV rights, and pay tv bundles that shovel huge amounts of money at the teams. They are simply going to have to figure out how to go back to spending less money, and the contracts are going to have to become less valuable. I think people who like sports will continue to pay for sports, but most people will just subscribe to the one sport they like, not a cable bundle that supports many sports.



> Yes, the "premium" networks definitely should already be offering 4K HDR. HBO's HD picture quality is pretty bad in dimly lit or otherwise demanding scenes when you stream via HBO Go or HBO Now -- lots of nasty compression artifacts. Showtime is a little better, but still not as good as Netflix or Amazon or Hulu (at least for their originals). Showtime has generally been more aggressive with their OTT strategy than HBO; they were out front in making add-on distribution deals with Hulu, then Amazon Prime, and eventually just about all the vMPVDs. HBO took a good while to follow suit. I also like that Showtime includes live east and west feeds of their main linear channel in their apps, unlike HBO or Starz.


I find HBO to be pretty good, but you are right about dark scenes and their quality compared to Netflix and Amazon. Netflix is competing with Google for being world leaders in video compression technology, and it shows. HBO still needs a better app. Their app is lousy for finding much of anything.

I'd also like someone to figure out a way to "subscribe" to shows across various apps, and provide a list of things to watch, like what TiVo does with local recordings, but with streaming. Although I don't miss having a bloated cable bundle, I do miss having everything on one DVR, at least network and HBO, now I have TiVo for broadcast, a bunch of shows on HBO, in addition to Netflix and Amazon, which have always been separate. Netflix and Amazon aren't bad, as it's documentaries and shows released to binge watch, but HBO Go/Now is a PITA, as there are weekly shows that I have to remember what I have watched, and when they start up.


----------



## ManeJon (Apr 14, 2018)

Although I don't disagree with many of the concepts and theories - one of the great things about "standard" cable is that everything is in one place. I don't have to figure out if I want on live TV or on another source or On-Demand, etc. Or my wife and I are both retired so we sometimes just have a day at home and want to watch TV - we don't know what to watch so just go through the guide and watch something that appeals.
Also currently there are a lot of legal issues about "who" owns local network TV and who owns regional sports. If local station "owns" a show or sports event getting that local station will be the only way to view it.
I also think a lot of this new stuff would confuse a lot of people and they just want the simple call the cable company and get TV. 
Many options will exist and things will evolve but I think regular "cable" TV will exist for a while.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ManeJon said:


> Although I don't disagree with many of the concepts and theories - one of the great things about "standard" cable is that everything is in one place. I don't have to figure out if I want on live TV or on another source or On-Demand, etc.


I'd agree to a certain extent, except that with the "traditional" cord, we already have Netflix/Amazon Prime/YouTube/etc, DVD/Blu-Ray/UHD BD, so it's not like everything is in one place, and there is already a big gulf between pay TV and OTT SVOD. I do the see the point about managing a single NPL of episodic shows from networks and premiums at the same time, and not having to jump around trying to figure out what is on when between two, three, or more different sources. It's also nice to have cable news content added in the mix with WH-DVR functionality.

I wrote most of this for Reddit, but this is how I see the pay tv landscape right now:

I've put together my theory on the relative value of various types of TV content, and broken them down into four categories, and I think it makes cord cutting so much clearer for others who might not get it, and it shows how out of whack the industry is.

I would break the digital cable lineup into three categories:

1. Local channels
2. The "in-between" channels
3. Premiums, mostly HBO and Showtime

Now, with the advent of cord-stacking, we have OTT SVOD services, primarily Netflix and Amazon, as well as Hulu, and now some specialty services. So we can add a fourth category to the digital cable lineup (not a crazy idea considering a lot of cable boxes now have Netflix as an app):

4. OTT SVOD

So, then we can break down by what they each cost, on a marginal basis. Of course there are a variety of pay TV packages, as well as internet bundles, but I'm considering a pretty fully featured DirecTV package here for my comparison, including 4 HD DVR boxes:

1. Free via OTA ($300 in capital invested for TiVo)
2. $120/mo
3. $15/mo (HBO)
4. $14/mo (Netflix, assume Prime is free after paying $99/yr for shipping)

Now, look at what percentage each of those categories is for someone's viewership. This could vary quite a bit, especially for big sports fans, and could change season to season. In my case, before cutting the cord, I would guesstimate:

1. 30%
2. 15%
3. 20%
4. 35%

Now, break down the relative costs of each, and you can see why cord cutting makes so much sense. Is 15% of my viewership worth more than quadruple the price of the other three combined? That's how I ended up cutting the cord. That was on top of the continued decline in good content over the past few years on those "in-between" channels. John Stewart. Stephen Colbert. Mythbusters. All gone.

This exercise might be useful in persuading people to cut the cord, or if people are trying to decide whether to cut the cord. I think the vast majority of people with pay tv would be shocked when you break their viewership down in this clear of a way, and look at the relative value of those "in-bewteen" channels.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> And in the process, they are killing their ability to do their own service. I think they currently want vMVPDs like YTTV, Sling, and PS Vue to be their streaming presence, without having to do their own thing. I'm still not sure that they really get it. I think they're behind the ball on all of this stuff, but they're in a tough positions with the MVPDs that they have managed to squeeze so much cash out of, now they're hooked on it.


Eh, I think they see the vMPVDs as just an extension of the existing traditional cable TV bundle model, which they pretty much are, except that we're starting to see more exploration of skinny sports-free bundles like Philo and the upcoming $15 AT&T Watch bundle (a development that ESPN can't be happy about). Having ESPN+ helps, not hurts, them adapt to the changing landscape. There's an embedded optionality in ESPN+; continue playing it as a complement to the traditional bundle (while gaining valuable user data and direct-consumer relationships) or, if need be, use it as their escape raft when the traditional bundle dam breaks.



Bigg said:


> I'd also like someone to figure out a way to "subscribe" to shows across various apps, and provide a list of things to watch, like what TiVo does with local recordings, but with streaming. Although I don't miss having a bloated cable bundle, I do miss having everything on one DVR, at least network and HBO, now I have TiVo for broadcast, a bunch of shows on HBO, in addition to Netflix and Amazon, which have always been separate. Netflix and Amazon aren't bad, as it's documentaries and shows released to binge watch, but HBO Go/Now is a PITA, as there are weekly shows that I have to remember what I have watched, and when they start up.


The best answer to this that I've seen so far is the TV app on Apple TV. It provides a unified watchlist at the top called "Up Next" that communicates back-and-forth with supported apps (all the major ones except Netflix). When new episodes become available, it auto-updates. You click on a show to go straight to the video within its app. (Well, usually -- sometimes it's flaky and just takes you to the landing page for that episode/movie and then you have to hit play.) When you watch something in a supported app, even if you launched the stream from within that app as opposed to the Up Next queue in the TV app, it will be reflected in the TV app. So you can always look at the Up Next queue to know where you are in a show. (Except, for some reason, it won't ever work for me for the show Baskets in Hulu. No idea why. It's the only real problem I've found with it in four months.)

And then, below the Up Next queue, you have an Apple-curated selection of new, trending and favorite shows and movies from your installed apps to browse through. It's very nice.

The only UI I've seen that sort of tries to do the same thing is the yet-to-be-used-anywhere latest version of Android TV (8.0 Oreo). But for it to get off the ground, the app developers are going to have to support it. (Not to mention that it would help if Google actually got behind Android TV by rolling out their own first-party hardware for it at a price point that can compete with higher-end Roku and Fire TV. Not a ton of takers for the Nvidia Shield TV at $180.)

The main thing that Apple's TV app is lacking, of course, is Netflix support. They're so stingy about sharing their data with others. But now that they're doing it with Comcast -- which offers full Netflix integration on X1 (with Netflix content discoverable and playable in the X1 UI without having to first open the Netflix app) -- perhaps they'll work out a deal with Apple to do the same on their TV app.

For app-based OTT TV to fully become the new TV watching paradigm, replacing the traditional cable bundle with channel grid guide, apps are going to have to play nice with others and allow their content to be discoverable, playable and trackable in shared UIs. And the natural developers/gatekeepers of those UIs would appear to be Apple, Google, Amazon and Roku, the companies that control the OSes of the devices everyone uses to stream video.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TiVo attempted to agregate OTT and cable into a single list, unfortunately that feature is completely data driven and their data sucks. Also the inconsistency of the apps hindered it as well. Each app has their own set of buttons/controls that can differ significantly from the way you control the TiVo itself. That can be confusing, and in some cases frustrating. (like why does pressing clear exit Netflix?) Also some apps allow you to jump strait into a show, while others might only take you to the episode, or even show, page and you have to start it yourself.

Had it been more seamless I think it would have been a major selling point for TiVo.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Eh, I think they see the vMPVDs as just an extension of the existing traditional cable TV bundle model, which they pretty much are, except that we're starting to see more exploration of skinny sports-free bundles like Philo and the upcoming $15 AT&T Watch bundle (a development that ESPN can't be happy about).


Yes, I agree that vMVPDs are not cord cutting, they are cord replacing, and they really should be called CoIP (Cable over IP). However, they have the potential to be disruptive, as they get rid of the whole fee structure of HD and box fees and all that crap. It's just an app, it's in the cloud, and you can subscribe and drop whenever you feel like it. That's YUGE, and potentially disruptive for the industry, particularly on sports. I don't think it matters for ESPN, very few people will subscribe to those super skinny bundles, as there's basically nothing in them.



> Having ESPN+ helps, not hurts, them adapt to the changing landscape. There's an embedded optionality in ESPN+; continue playing it as a complement to the traditional bundle (while gaining valuable user data and direct-consumer relationships) or, if need be, use it as their escape raft when the traditional bundle dam breaks.


I don't think it really affects them. I suppose it helps them to develop the technology to do their own streaming service for real down the road, but I'm not sure it even does that, as it won't scale anywhere close to where WatchESPN already is. They could focus on improving WatchESPN, which is pretty lousy instead, and that would better prepare them for an OTT future.



> The best answer to this that I've seen so far is the TV app on Apple TV. It provides a unified watchlist at the top called "Up Next" that communicates back-and-forth with supported apps (all the major ones except Netflix). When new episodes become available, it auto-updates.


Interesting. That sounds like it would be useful, and they're on the right track, except without buy-in from Netflix, it still ends up being siloed/balkanized, and Apple can't do anything about that.



> The only UI I've seen that sort of tries to do the same thing is the yet-to-be-used-anywhere latest version of Android TV (8.0 Oreo).


This is interesting. The two big smartphone makes seem to be ahead of everyone else in developing this type of functionality. The problem is that unless these list management solutions can tie in with something like the SiliconDust HD Homerun DVR software running on a NAS, then they can't get OTA TV integrated with streaming. If they can integrate with HD Homerun, then they are way ahead of the game.

They do need cheaper hardware, for some reason Google is in love with the Chromecast model, which is great for some thing, but not for kicking back and grabbing a remote to watch TV like Android TV is.



> For app-based OTT TV to fully become the new TV watching paradigm, replacing the traditional cable bundle with channel grid guide, apps are going to have to play nice with others and allow their content to be discoverable, playable and trackable in shared UIs. And the natural developers/gatekeepers of those UIs would appear to be Apple, Google, Amazon and Roku, the companies that control the OSes of the devices everyone uses to stream video.


That's a fair assessment. I think Amazon has some perverse incentives there since they are also a content platform with Prime, but they have been quite open with the Echo, so it remains to be seen where they go. Roku, Google, and Apple are the logical ones to be the platform (although Apple and Google are small players in the OTT PPV VOD and vMVPD (Google) markets). The key is going to be getting Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, HBO, Showtime, and SiliconDust at a minimum on the same platform so that you can get OTT SVOD and OTA content all together. Integrating cloud DVR on a vMVPD would be icing on the cake for that.



Dan203 said:


> TiVo attempted to agregate OTT and cable into a single list, unfortunately that feature is completely data driven and their data sucks. Also the inconsistency of the apps hindered it as well. Each app has their own set of buttons/controls that can differ significantly from the way you control the TiVo itself. That can be confusing, and in some cases frustrating. (like why does pressing clear exit Netflix?) Also some apps allow you to jump strait into a show, while others might only take you to the episode, or even show, page and you have to start it yourself.
> 
> Had it been more seamless I think it would have been a major selling point for TiVo.


I agree. I think TiVo could also have functioned as a nice frontend for some of the vMPVD services, although that's an awkward business relationship for a few different reasons. If TiVo could have gotten all that to work with a seamless NPL with direct play and controls that actually make sense (you are right that the Netflix controls on TiVo are nonsensical) with OTT SVOD, vMVPDs, and local OTA, it would have been incredible.

I don't think TiVo blew it though, I think they were at the mercy of the control of the various app developers, what data they would share, and how accurate it was, and I think this type of integration was an impossible task for TiVo from the get-go. They could at least make HBO Now work though for the OTA TiVos.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I don't think it really affects them. I suppose it helps them to develop the technology to do their own streaming service for real down the road, but I'm not sure it even does that, as it won't scale anywhere close to where WatchESPN already is. They could focus on improving WatchESPN, which is pretty lousy instead, and that would better prepare them for an OTT future.


Actually, they're replacing the WatchESPN app with a new app simply named ESPN, which will contain both their cable-authenticated content as well as the new ESPN+ content.



Bigg said:


> Interesting. That sounds like it would be useful, and they're on the right track, except without buy-in from Netflix, it still ends up being siloed/balkanized, and Apple can't do anything about that.


Apple's TV app has basically become my main portal for TV viewing. Other apps are secondary portals, with their own guides/watch lists: Netflix, Channels (live OTA TV from Silicon Dust network tuner), MythTV (network DVR OTA recordings).



Bigg said:


> This is interesting. The two big smartphone makes seem to be ahead of everyone else in developing this type of functionality. The problem is that unless these list management solutions can tie in with something like the SiliconDust HD Homerun DVR software running on a NAS, then they can't get OTA TV integrated with streaming. If they can integrate with HD Homerun, then they are way ahead of the game.
> 
> The key is going to be getting Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, HBO, Showtime, and SiliconDust at a minimum on the same platform so that you can get OTT SVOD and OTA content all together. Integrating cloud DVR on a vMVPD would be icing on the cake for that.


I don't think any of the major tech players care that much to try to integrate OTA content. It's still viewed as a sort of niche thing. Streaming is the big deal. Perhaps that will change with the advent of ATSC 3.0 if it takes off and offers more reliable, easier indoor reception, as promised. But generally speaking, OTA TV is viewed by the tech trend-setters as an outdated hassle. Hard to see Apple getting on board with that.

Now, an exception to this, I think is and will be customized Android TV STBs offered by vMPVDs that work with inexpensive OTA tuners. Android TV has OS-level support for certain OTA tuners. The Air TV Player from Sling TV lets users integrate free local OTA channels in with their OTT streaming channels right in the same guide. It wouldn't surprise me if we see AT&T offer something similar for AT&T Watch/DirecTV Now. Take their forthcoming $15 skinny bundle (no sports, no locals) and throw in free OTA locals, plug in a USB hard drive for local DVR service to complement the cloud DVR for the streaming channels, and you have a really nice low-cost package for cord-cutters who don't need sports.



Bigg said:


> I agree. I think TiVo could also have functioned as a nice frontend for some of the vMPVD services, although that's an awkward business relationship for a few different reasons. If TiVo could have gotten all that to work with a seamless NPL with direct play and controls that actually make sense (you are right that the Netflix controls on TiVo are nonsensical) with OTT SVOD, vMVPDs, and local OTA, it would have been incredible.


Yeah. Something along those lines is what I was hoping TiVo's One Pass would be or could grow into being back when I bought my Roamio OTA a few years ago. But that ship has sailed. The future for TiVo is probably just in licensing bits and pieces of their feature set, UI and technology patents to various MVPDs. They'll still serve as the actual overall UI for STBs from some small-to-midsize MVPDs for a few years but eventually that business will wither away as those operators either drop out of the TV business altogether, ceding TV to nationwide vMVPDs from AT&T, Hulu, Google, T-Mobile, etc., or instead opt to license and white label Comcast's X1 platform.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> I agree. I think TiVo could also have functioned as a nice frontend for some of the vMPVD services, although that's an awkward business relationship for a few different reasons. If TiVo could have gotten all that to work with a seamless NPL with direct play and controls that actually make sense (you are right that the Netflix controls on TiVo are nonsensical) with OTT SVOD, vMVPDs, and local OTA, it would have been incredible.
> 
> I don't think TiVo blew it though, I think they were at the mercy of the control of the various app developers, what data they would share, and how accurate it was, and I think this type of integration was an impossible task for TiVo from the get-go. They could at least make HBO Now work though for the OTA TiVos.


Now that they're owned by Rovi, one of two data aggregators in the business, you'd think they'd have a bit more pull on the data front.

As for the controls... I wonder if TiVo could build a bridge/map that would convert keys on the TiVo remote to functions in the app that are at least similar to the TiVo playback controls? Of if their agreement with the app developers prevents that?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Actually, they're replacing the WatchESPN app with a new app simply named ESPN, which will contain both their cable-authenticated content as well as the new ESPN+ content.


I hope it's better. WatchESPN has never been a particularly great app (nor particularly terrible either).



> Apple's TV app has basically become my main portal for TV viewing. Other apps are secondary portals, with their own guides/watch lists: Netflix, Channels (live OTA TV from Silicon Dust network tuner), MythTV (network DVR OTA recordings).


Interesting. Can the TV app handle the SiliconDust HD Homerun DVR software though?



> I don't think any of the major tech players care that much to try to integrate OTA content. It's still viewed as a sort of niche thing. Streaming is the big deal. Perhaps that will change with the advent of ATSC 3.0 if it takes off and offers more reliable, easier indoor reception, as promised. But generally speaking, OTA TV is viewed by the tech trend-setters as an outdated hassle. Hard to see Apple getting on board with that.


That's a huge missing link, as network content is still pretty essential. A lot of cord cutters are big into OTA, and more and more people are watching OTA than ever. However, OTA is underutilized, as it seems a lot of people who use OTA don't use it very often, or only use it for live events.



> Now, an exception to this, I think is and will be customized Android TV STBs offered by vMPVDs that work with inexpensive OTA tuners. Android TV has OS-level support for certain OTA tuners. The Air TV Player from Sling TV lets users integrate free local OTA channels in with their OTT streaming channels right in the same guide. It wouldn't surprise me if we see AT&T offer something similar for AT&T Watch/DirecTV Now. Take their forthcoming $15 skinny bundle (no sports, no locals) and throw in free OTA locals, plug in a USB hard drive for local DVR service to complement the cloud DVR for the streaming channels, and you have a really nice low-cost package for cord-cutters who don't need sports.


True. DVR is the missing link, but it shouldn't be hard to add a 1TB USB hard drive to a box and turn it into a rudimentary DVR. I like the SiliconDust model of using a NAS, but considering the how technologically impaired most of the country is, it would probably be too complicated for the average consumer, even though it's really a simple, easy to understand model for OTA reception and DVR. I have no experience with the software, so I'm not sure how well it actually works. I know HTPCs were a big promise for a long time, and continually failed over and over to deliver, including my own short experience with an MCE HTPC. Maybe NASes are the breakthrough the network/PC tuner model finally needed.



> Yeah. Something along those lines is what I was hoping TiVo's One Pass would be or could grow into being back when I bought my Roamio OTA a few years ago. But that ship has sailed. The future for TiVo is probably just in licensing bits and pieces of their feature set, UI and technology patents to various MVPDs. They'll still serve as the actual overall UI for STBs from some small-to-midsize MVPDs for a few years but eventually that business will wither away as those operators either drop out of the TV business altogether, ceding TV to nationwide vMVPDs from AT&T, Hulu, Google, T-Mobile, etc., or instead opt to license and white label Comcast's X1 platform.


That's true. Unfortunately, Rovi's business probably has a strong future licensing various technologies, but TiVo itself doesn't. I hope that various OEMs make TiVo boxes for retail, if only ATSC 3.0. The bigger issue for the small MSOs is not the DVR platform, like you say they can get TiVo or X1, it's getting the content, and when they are paying way more for channels than a vMPVD, they are going to lose. I think at the end of the day, the small MSOs are going to sign up with AT&T or Layer3 to provide managed IPTV over their networks, and just have a series of fiber hand-offs between the two, and then slap their label and logo on the boxes. That way, they can take advantage of the larger provider's leverage to get good prices on content in a shrinking pay tv market.

X1 is unfortunate, as Comcast, as the other MSOs that have licensed X1 could have just licensed TiVo, and ended up with a much better experience much sooner, but they wanted control instead of quality, so they ended up with X1, which is an unreliable mess, but Comcast has it exactly they want it, with live TV, XoD, and DVR on equal footings in the interface, unlike TiVo, which is a DVR-first interface that just happens to have menus for live TV and On Demand. Ironically, TiVo software runs on the XG1, which was developed as a reference spec for X1. Go figure.

I'm off on a tangent now, but it's interesting to see all the various platforms that TiVo has run their software on over the years, these are just a few:

https://mediacomcc.custhelp.com/euf...quip_user_guides/TiVo-Pace MG1 User Guide.pdf

The Comcast-Motorola-TiVo @ CES

Nero Liquid TV: TiVo for your PC



Dan203 said:


> Now that they're owned by Rovi, one of two data aggregators in the business, you'd think they'd have a bit more pull on the data front.


Except that Rovi's data isn't very good in the first place. I'm not sure if this would give them pull over Netflix though. Comcast seems to be the only one that Netflix has really gotten in bed with... what a weird relationship that must be.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Interesting. Can the TV app handle the SiliconDust HD Homerun DVR software though?


Ha! Nope. SiliconDust is, uh, not great at software development, to put it gently. But that said, Tablo, the leader in network DVRs, also doesn't work with the TV app on Apple TV. Given that everyone's Tablo/SiliconDust/other DVR app would contain a different set of constantly changing shows, I imagine it would be more difficult to coordinate such apps with the TV app than is the case for the major streaming apps, which contain the same set of shows nationwide for all users. I'm not saying it isn't possible but I would think trying to integrate a local DVR app into the TV app alongside all the streaming content would be a metadata mess. And beyond that, I would guess that Apple acts as a gatekeeper on the TV app and interaction with it is reliant on an invitation from Apple to do so.



Bigg said:


> That's a huge missing link, as network content is still pretty essential. A lot of cord cutters are big into OTA, and more and more people are watching OTA than ever. However, OTA is underutilized, as it seems a lot of people who use OTA don't use it very often, or only use it for live events.


Well, I can tell you in my case, I started subscribing to ad-free Hulu over a year ago. I got tired of drop-outs on recordings from my local ABC channel (despite the tower being 8 miles away). ATSC 1.0 is just a big sack of wet garbage, man. It's an unreliable pain. (And I also have occasional reception problems with other channels too. Trust me, I've tried all kinds of antennas in every spot around my house. It is what it is.)

Hulu is a much easier way to essentially have an OTA DVR for network content from ABC, NBC and Fox, plus it has a lot more stuff too (originals, movies, past seasons of cable series). So I think what Apple would envision cord-cutters who care about current network content doing is not setting up an OTA DVR to work with their Apple TV but rather just to use the Hulu, CBS All Access, PBS and CW apps, all of which work with the TV app. Don't you think that's a FAR more common use case than buying and setting up a Tablo or SiliconDust network tuner and DVR (Channels and/or Plex)?

Honestly, I don't use OTA DVR much any more but I still wanted to have it, mainly so that I could watch the just-aired evening newscast from NBC, CBS or ABC while having dinner. (NBC Nightly News is made available in its entirety in the NBC News app on Apple TV but not until after 9 PM Central, after it has aired live on the west coast.) I also like to be able to watch Meet the Press at my leisure on Sundays. I also use it to record an occasional show on CBS since I've never subscribed to CBS All Access (although I can fall back on the free CBS plug-in for Plex to stream their recent content). Lastly, I use it to record Nature and Nova from PBS. I could catch those shows through the free PBS app but the HD PQ is a little better OTA and after a couple weeks, back episodes of those shows typically become unavailable unless you're a PBS Passport member.

For live OTA TV, I use the Channels app, which is really great. Lovely UI and it allows you to pause and rewind live TV.



Bigg said:


> True. DVR is the missing link, but it shouldn't be hard to add a 1TB USB hard drive to a box and turn it into a rudimentary DVR. I like the SiliconDust model of using a NAS, but considering the how technologically impaired most of the country is, it would probably be too complicated for the average consumer, even though it's really a simple, easy to understand model for OTA reception and DVR. I have no experience with the software, so I'm not sure how well it actually works. I know HTPCs were a big promise for a long time, and continually failed over and over to deliver, including my own short experience with an MCE HTPC. Maybe NASes are the breakthrough the network/PC tuner model finally needed.


Oh my goodness, no, setting up a roll-your-own network DVR is WAY too confusing for the average consumer. Tablo is pretty simple to set up, though, with clear step-by-step directions, so I'd feel OK recommending that to someone.



Bigg said:


> That's true. Unfortunately, Rovi's business probably has a strong future licensing various technologies, but TiVo itself doesn't. I hope that various OEMs make TiVo boxes for retail, if only ATSC 3.0.


TiVo could jump in that market but if they do, it will need to be a Tablo-style network DVR. I'm doubtful there will ever be another "regular" OTA TiVo that connects to the TV via HDMI and comes with a TiVo peanut remote. The battle for the main consumer device/UI on TVs is between Roku, Apple, Amazon, Google and, to a lesser extent, Microsoft and Sony (game systems) and Samsung and LG (smart TV OSes). If TiVo wants to compete as a next-gen OTA DVR, they just need to make apps that work on those various OSes, communicating with a central tuner/hard drive combo.

The ONLY way I could see TiVo offering their own new OTA box (with HDMI out and TiVo peanut remote) would be to do what I was calling for them to do over a year ago: put out a box running a customized version of Android TV, that essentially runs the TiVo app as the main UI (i.e. auto-boots/wakes within the TiVo app). I don't see any other way for TiVo to get the kind of app support they would need to succeed. (Never mind that Android TV's app support, while way better than TiVo, still lags a little behind Apple, Roku and Amazon.)



Bigg said:


> The bigger issue for the small MSOs is not the DVR platform, like you say they can get TiVo or X1, it's getting the content, and when they are paying way more for channels than a vMPVD, they are going to lose. I think at the end of the day, the small MSOs are going to sign up with AT&T or Layer3 to provide managed IPTV over their networks, and just have a series of fiber hand-offs between the two, and then slap their label and logo on the boxes. That way, they can take advantage of the larger provider's leverage to get good prices on content in a shrinking pay tv market.


Nah, they're not going to fool with managed IPTV and still have to deal with inventories of STBs. They'll just strike a deal with an OTT vMPVD that allows them to offer bundled billing and get a small kickback for TV sign-ups. Then it'll be up to the customer to BYOD or get one directly from the vMPVD. And BTW, Layer3 is now owned by T-Mobile, who is using their technology and business relationships to establish their upcoming OTT service. I don't foresee more deals between small MSOs and Layer3; instead, T-Mobile may just offer to partner with those MSOs to offer their OTT service.

Managed IPTV is dying. OTT is the future.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Ha! Nope. SiliconDust is, uh, not great at software development, to put it gently. But that said, Tablo, the leader in network DVRs, also doesn't work with the TV app on Apple TV. Given that everyone's Tablo/SiliconDust/other DVR app would contain a different set of constantly changing shows, I imagine it would be more difficult to coordinate such apps with the TV app than is the case for the major streaming apps, which contain the same set of shows nationwide for all users. I'm not saying it isn't possible but I would think trying to integrate a local DVR app into the TV app alongside all the streaming content would be a metadata mess. And beyond that, I would guess that Apple acts as a gatekeeper on the TV app and interaction with it is reliant on an invitation from Apple to do so.


I have also heard that SiliconDust, to put it nicely, is going through a very steep learning curve on the software side of things. I believe Apple is the gatekeeper though, its not an open platform others can just plug into. It should be easy from a data perspective- just list whatever is on the DVR along with everything else.



> Well, I can tell you in my case, I started subscribing to ad-free Hulu over a year ago. I got tired of drop-outs on recordings from my local ABC channel (despite the tower being 8 miles away). ATSC 1.0 is just a big sack of wet garbage, man. It's an unreliable pain. (And I also have occasional reception problems with other channels too. Trust me, I've tried all kinds of antennas in every spot around my house. It is what it is.)


ATSC 1.0 suffers from some significant flaws, and 8VSB isn't a very good method of modulation, but it works for a lot of people in a lot of place.



> Hulu is a much easier way to essentially have an OTA DVR for network content from ABC, NBC and Fox, plus it has a lot more stuff too (originals, movies, past seasons of cable series). So I think what Apple would envision cord-cutters who care about current network content doing is not setting up an OTA DVR to work with their Apple TV but rather just to use the Hulu, CBS All Access, PBS and CW apps, all of which work with the TV app. Don't you think that's a FAR more common use case than buying and setting up a Tablo or SiliconDust network tuner and DVR (Channels and/or Plex)?


I disagree. I think having local OTA is worthwhile as you can record whatever is coming off of the antenna, local news, network shows, sports, etc, etc. A local DVR also has much better transport controls than a cloud-based streaming system. It's split. Some people are giving up live TV entirely, which I think it nuts considering that OTA TV is free, while others are switching to OTA for live stuff. However, a lot of OTA users haven't set DVRs up, which to me means they're either only watching sports, or they don't use it much.



> Honestly, I don't use OTA DVR much any more but I still wanted to have it, mainly so that I could watch the just-aired evening newscast from NBC, CBS or ABC while having dinner. (NBC Nightly News is made available in its entirety in the NBC News app on Apple TV but not until after 9 PM Central, after it has aired live on the west coast.) I also like to be able to watch Meet the Press at my leisure on Sundays. I also use it to record an occasional show on CBS since I've never subscribed to CBS All Access (although I can fall back on the free CBS plug-in for Plex to stream their recent content). Lastly, I use it to record Nature and Nova from PBS. I could catch those shows through the free PBS app but the HD PQ is a little better OTA and after a couple weeks, back episodes of those shows typically become unavailable unless you're a PBS Passport member.


PBS is my mainstay. Frontline, Nova, Nature, American Experience, This Old House. It's unrelated to this discussion, but I've found that having MTP, Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, and the PBS NewsHour as podcasts is great. I listen to MTP and Bill Maher without the video while driving, and occasionally reference TRMS or NewHouse if there's something big going on, all for free, and they offer in my opinion a better way to enjoy that content, as I can listen while I'm cruising along the road, so I don't spend even more time in front of my TV.



> Oh my goodness, no, setting up a roll-your-own network DVR is WAY too confusing for the average consumer. Tablo is pretty simple to set up, though, with clear step-by-step directions, so I'd feel OK recommending that to someone.


Yeah, unfortunately the average consumer is utterly clueless how anything works. Installing SiliconDust's software on a NAS and using that with network tuners is a pretty easy way to get a DVR, but people seem to get stuck on the conceptual part of how it's supposed to work, just like MoCA makes people's head explode, even though it's a dead simple networking technology.



> TiVo could jump in that market but if they do, it will need to be a Tablo-style network DVR. I'm doubtful there will ever be another "regular" OTA TiVo that connects to the TV via HDMI and comes with a TiVo peanut remote. The battle for the main consumer device/UI on TVs is between Roku, Apple, Amazon, Google and, to a lesser extent, Microsoft and Sony (game systems) and Samsung and LG (smart TV OSes). If TiVo wants to compete as a next-gen OTA DVR, they just need to make apps that work on those various OSes, communicating with a central tuner/hard drive combo.


I hope they keep TiVo hardware. Can't the Mini Vox do HEVC? If they do a headless server, it should still be able to connect with the Mini Vox, no? That would be an ideal solution, a headless server, and you pick your clients. It would be nice if they added hardware transcoding to H.264 to support old Minis, but I'd buy new ones if I had to. It's not like TiVo is screwing anybody there, that's just the technology moving to new codecs that the old hardware doesn't support.

I still want TiVo as software, whether it runs on a PC or a NAS, but that's never been TiVo's thing, and I don't think it ever will be. The software DVR/HTPC model has been so promising for so long, and it hasn't yet been able to put all the pieces together to make it all work well.



> The ONLY way I could see TiVo offering their own new OTA box (with HDMI out and TiVo peanut remote) would be to do what I was calling for them to do over a year ago: put out a box running a customized version of Android TV, that essentially runs the TiVo app as the main UI (i.e. auto-boots/wakes within the TiVo app). I don't see any other way for TiVo to get the kind of app support they would need to succeed. (Never mind that Android TV's app support, while way better than TiVo, still lags a little behind Apple, Roku and Amazon.)


That's an interesting idea. Android is FLOSS, so couldn't they make the entire GUI the TiVo interface, but have it actually running on Android, so that developers could simply re-use Android apps in the TiVo app store?



> Nah, they're not going to fool with managed IPTV and still have to deal with inventories of STBs. They'll just strike a deal with an OTT vMPVD that allows them to offer bundled billing and get a small kickback for TV sign-ups. Then it'll be up to the customer to BYOD or get one directly from the vMPVD. And BTW, Layer3 is now owned by T-Mobile, who is using their technology and business relationships to establish their upcoming OTT service. I don't foresee more deals between small MSOs and Layer3; instead, T-Mobile may just offer to partner with those MSOs to offer their OTT service.
> 
> Managed IPTV is dying. OTT is the future.


Good point, I forgot that T-Mobile bought Layer3 TV. I think there is still a market for STBs, although maybe there won't be in 10 years. You can do a lot of stuff with managed IPTV, like controlling the UX and using IP multicast that you can't do with OTT IPTV. I still don't think that OTT IPTV is ready to scale yet. Never say never, but I don't think OTT IPTV can replace QAM/broadcast/managed IPTV entirely for live viewing in the next 5 years. Beyond that is anyone's guess as bandwidth continues to get cheaper and more plentiful. Comcast is going to push managed IPTV in a big way, as they already are in a small way (for a few types of boxes and VOD to the X1 platform), as they want to stay in the TV business.

I just wonder how long the economies of scale are there for any MSO to be an MVPD as the whole market shrinks, and competition from vMVPD takes customers away anyway. I guess at some point, the whole thing collapses, and it's vMPVD or DBS, which will be around in one form or another for decades.

Do you think pay tv as a whole is going to continue to death spiral and eventually implode, or if vMPVDs are going to cause a core group of popular channels to concentrate viewership and be more successful than ever, while hundreds of smaller channels disappear entirely?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I have also heard that SiliconDust, to put it nicely, is going through a very steep learning curve on the software side of things. I believe Apple is the gatekeeper though, its not an open platform others can just plug into. It should be easy from a data perspective- just list whatever is on the DVR along with everything else.


But the thing is, the TV app coordinates metadata across apps. So content from each provider has to be matched against Apple's master database. For instance, if I search for the premiere episode of Homeland from several years back, the TV app will show me that I can watch it via four different apps I have installed: Showtime Anytime, Prime Video, Hulu and iTunes. Let's say I had somehow recorded that episode off of OTA TV and had it sitting on my local DVR. My DVR app -- let's say that's Tablo -- would have to report its contents to the TV app, which would have to be able to recognize exactly what that content was and match it against Apple's master database. It would almost certainly mean that Tablo would have to embed compatible metadata in their guide data. Probably not that big a deal IF both Tablo and Apple are using the same underlying data source, e.g. Gracenote or TiVo/Rovi.



Bigg said:


> ATSC 1.0 suffers from some significant flaws, and 8VSB isn't a very good method of modulation, but it works for a lot of people in a lot of place.


Yeah, 8VSB is the problem. Is there any way in which it's superior to OFDM, which is used in Europe's OTA system and will also be used in ATSC 3.0? IMO, the US really pooped the bed in choosing 8VSB over OFDM for ATSC 1.0.



Bigg said:


> I disagree. I think having local OTA is worthwhile as you can record whatever is coming off of the antenna, local news, network shows, sports, etc, etc. A local DVR also has much better transport controls than a cloud-based streaming system. It's split. Some people are giving up live TV entirely, which I think it nuts considering that OTA TV is free, while others are switching to OTA for live stuff. However, a lot of OTA users haven't set DVRs up, which to me means they're either only watching sports, or they don't use it much.


I honestly find the transport controls in major streaming apps on my Apple TV 4K to be *superior* to TiVo. It's typically more responsive when I "jump back" 10 seconds in Hulu, Netflix, etc. than the TiVo was with a local OTA recording. And using the Apple TV remote's touchpad to scrub through the thumbnail video timeline is a much better way, IMO, to locate a particular scene than using the super FF speed on a TiVo.

Aside from that, yeah, free TV is great. I'm not saying people shouldn't use it. I'm just saying that the reality is that less than 1 in 5 US homes want to bother with it/can reliably receive it/are aware of it. And there's nothing sexy or exciting about it really. It's a way for budget-conscious folks (and geeks who enjoy this sort of thing) to get free TV. Maybe ATSC 3.0 will change the perception and reality of OTA TV. We'll see.



Bigg said:


> I hope they keep TiVo hardware. Can't the Mini Vox do HEVC? If they do a headless server, it should still be able to connect with the Mini Vox, no? That would be an ideal solution, a headless server, and you pick your clients.


Yeah, I'm sure the Mini Vox can do HEVC since it supports 4K. I don't see any reason why TiVo wouldn't support their own existing hardware if they went with a headless server multi-client model.



Bigg said:


> That's an interesting idea. Android is FLOSS, so couldn't they make the entire GUI the TiVo interface, but have it actually running on Android, so that developers could simply re-use Android apps in the TiVo app store?


Yeah, that was my original argument: just take the core of Android and run the TiVo UI on top of it, basically what Amazon did with Fire TV OS. And then maintain their own TiVo App Store that could just run apps originally coded for Fire TV and/or Android TV with little-to-no code tweaking. But at this point, I think that would even be a bridge too far for TiVo because it would still take time and negotiations to get content providers to stick their apps on a TiVo App Store. They just need turnkey access to an existing popular app store and Google Play is the only real option. But to have access to Google Play, they'd need to license Google's Android TV OS rather than roll their own version of Android. This is exactly what Dish did with their Air TV Player. No idea if Google would play ball with TiVo in the same way though, given that TiVo isn't really a pay TV operator.



Bigg said:


> Never say never, but I don't think OTT IPTV can replace QAM/broadcast/managed IPTV entirely for live viewing in the next 5 years.


We'll see what happens when AT&T debuts AT&T TV (or whatever they ultimately brand it) a few months down the road. While it will technically be OTT, it's going to blur the lines between what we tend to typically think of as OTT vs. managed IPTV.



Bigg said:


> Beyond that is anyone's guess as bandwidth continues to get cheaper and more plentiful. Comcast is going to push managed IPTV in a big way, as they already are in a small way (for a few types of boxes and VOD to the X1 platform), as they want to stay in the TV business.


Yeah, I shouldn't say that managed IPTV is completely dead. Rather, I think it's dead (or dying) among US telcos. AT&T is going to kill off Uverse TV. Verizon's long gestating plans to migrate FiOS TV over from QAM to managed IPTV are stillborn. (They axed their IPTV beta last year and said the whole plan is dead.) CenturyLink has deprecated their managed IPTV product, Prism TV.

OTOH, managed IPTV does have a future among US cable companies. Altice (Optimum) is currently switching their plant in the greater NYC area over from HFC to FTTH and, based on the FTTH equipment that they have registered with the FCC, it almost certainly looks like they're ditching QAM TV for managed IPTV. And yes, as we've gone round and round about, Comcast will eventually switch their X1 platform over from hybrid QAM/IPTV to full-on managed IPTV eventually. The same is likely true of smaller cable co's, like Cox, who have licensed X1. Meanwhile, companies like TiVo and Evolution Digital are offering solutions to smaller cable co's to help them transition from QAM to managed IPTV.



Bigg said:


> I just wonder how long the economies of scale are there for any MSO to be an MVPD as the whole market shrinks, and competition from vMVPD takes customers away anyway. I guess at some point, the whole thing collapses, and it's vMPVD or DBS, which will be around in one form or another for decades.


I don't think AT&T sees their DBS business being around for decades. Check out the CEO's remarks from his last quarterly earnings call back in Jan. about how they see the satellite TV business. It will be positioned going forward as a rural-only product. In the cities and suburbs (where over 80% of Americans live), AT&T will be pushing AT&T TV and DirecTV Now/AT&T Watch.



Bigg said:


> Do you think pay tv as a whole is going to continue to death spiral and eventually implode, or if vMPVDs are going to cause a core group of popular channels to concentrate viewership and be more successful than ever, while hundreds of smaller channels disappear entirely?


Gosh, hard to say. I do think that the number of linear cable channels will continue to dwindle. Conceptually, I think channels are really just brands and only the strong brands that offer quality original content that they own will survive. Already, when we say HBO, we don't necessarily mean channel 700 or whatever it is on the cable box. We mean a brand that offers certain shows that can be accessed in various ways on many different devices. That's the future. We'll still want to be able to somehow bundle together content from various providers in a convenient way (aggregated UIs and aggregated billing) but I don't think those bundles will necessarily continue to be built around linear channels.

Frankly, I think the UI of the TV app on Apple TV points the way. It offers a unified watchlist, plus a curated selection of on-demand choices, all pulled together from multiple content providers. And it also features special areas for jumping to live news and sports content. In the future, I imagine that "live" linear channels will mainly only be watched when they're actually airing live stuff -- newscasts, sports, live reality/competition shows, etc. Other than that, they're really just airing long-form samples of their on-demand content.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> But the thing is, the TV app coordinates metadata across apps. So content from each provider has to be matched against Apple's master database. For instance, if I search for the premiere episode of Homeland from several years back, the TV app will show me that I can watch it via four different apps I have installed: Showtime Anytime, Prime Video, Hulu and iTunes. Let's say I had somehow recorded that episode off of OTA TV and had it sitting on my local DVR. My DVR app -- let's say that's Tablo -- would have to report its contents to the TV app, which would have to be able to recognize exactly what that content was and match it against Apple's master database. It would almost certainly mean that Tablo would have to embed compatible metadata in their guide data. Probably not that big a deal IF both Tablo and Apple are using the same underlying data source, e.g. Gracenote or TiVo/Rovi.


So I'm not sure if it would break the UI/UX convention, but it seems that they should just be able to offer a list of programs from the OTA DVR, as it's a fixed amount of stuff there, in addition to the subscriptions that they're pulling from other services. I'm not sure that it needs to be integrated with search, although that would be nice. What I'm thinking really needs to be done is an automatic merging of the lists, so that, for example, if I turn my TV on Monday night, I might see Big Bang Theory and Little Sheldon from my OTA DVR listed right below my subscriptions to VICE, Silicon Valley, and Last Week Tonight, even though the latter 3 are just streaming links to HBO Go. Then, I could also add in subscriptions to shows I like on Netflix, and when a new season came out, a folder of all the episodes would show up on my list. This would do what my CableCard TiVo did with local, cable, and premium content, but add in OTT SVOD to the mix.



> Yeah, 8VSB is the problem. Is there any way in which it's superior to OFDM, which is used in Europe's OTA system and will also be used in ATSC 3.0? IMO, the US really pooped the bed in choosing 8VSB over OFDM for ATSC 1.0.


I don't think there was a good reason. 8VSB is not ideal. It works most of the time, but it's way too fiddly and finicky. I wonder if the broadcasters actually wanted something that sucked so that more people would have to get cable?



> I honestly find the transport controls in major streaming apps on my Apple TV 4K to be *superior* to TiVo. It's typically more responsive when I "jump back" 10 seconds in Hulu, Netflix, etc. than the TiVo was with a local OTA recording. And using the Apple TV remote's touchpad to scrub through the thumbnail video timeline is a much better way, IMO, to locate a particular scene than using the super FF speed on a TiVo.


I don't know how that can be, even if you're comparing to a post-Haxe Premiere. My TiVo is as fast as anything could possibly be at mashing my way through commercials and replays of stuff. I don't imagine how anything could be much faster, especially something dependent on a far-away cloud.



> Aside from that, yeah, free TV is great. I'm not saying people shouldn't use it. I'm just saying that the reality is that less than 1 in 5 US homes want to bother with it/can reliably receive it/are aware of it. And there's nothing sexy or exciting about it really. It's a way for budget-conscious folks (and geeks who enjoy this sort of thing) to get free TV. Maybe ATSC 3.0 will change the perception and reality of OTA TV. We'll see.


I think that will change somewhat as more people look at the bottom line. I wouldn't say ATSC 1.0 is sexy, but it feels like freedom, and it's very liberating. No extra fees, I don't feel bad if I don't watch it for a while, as I'm not paying for it, there are no restrictions from the cable company, no CableCard pairing problems, it just works. And soon, it will be much higher quality than the cable company, as Comcast is now converting locals over to absurdly over-compressed 720p that look like trash. They've only done Chicago so far, but knowing that their cable MPEG-4 channels look like, it's not going to look pretty.



> Yeah, I'm sure the Mini Vox can do HEVC since it supports 4K. I don't see any reason why TiVo wouldn't support their own existing hardware if they went with a headless server multi-client model.


Yeah, that would be a great combo for a headless server system.



> Yeah, that was my original argument: just take the core of Android and run the TiVo UI on top of it, basically what Amazon did with Fire TV OS. And then maintain their own TiVo App Store that could just run apps originally coded for Fire TV and/or Android TV with little-to-no code tweaking. But at this point, I think that would even be a bridge too far for TiVo because it would still take time and negotiations to get content providers to stick their apps on a TiVo App Store. They just need turnkey access to an existing popular app store and Google Play is the only real option. But to have access to Google Play, they'd need to license Google's Android TV OS rather than roll their own version of Android. This is exactly what Dish did with their Air TV Player. No idea if Google would play ball with TiVo in the same way though, given that TiVo isn't really a pay TV operator.


I think they could pull it off their own app store, as all developers have to do is copy/paste the app into TiVo's app store. They don't need hundreds of thousands of apps like a smartphone, they just need a few dozen core services/apps to be on TiVo, and they'll be good to go.



> Yeah, I shouldn't say that managed IPTV is completely dead. Rather, I think it's dead (or dying) among US telcos. AT&T is going to kill off Uverse TV. Verizon's long gestating plans to migrate FiOS TV over from QAM to managed IPTV are stillborn. (They axed their IPTV beta last year and said the whole plan is dead.) CenturyLink has deprecated their managed IPTV product, Prism TV.


AT&T U-Verse is only endangered because AT&T decided they wanted those subs on DBS instead, and has converted several million of them. If they hadn't bought DirecTV, U-Verse would be alive and strong. I believe Frontier is keeping managed IPTV for the forseeable future on their ex U-Verse system.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

This discussion is really, really good. So good in fact, that I've exceeded the post length limit, so here is the rest of that post:



> I don't think AT&T sees their DBS business being around for decades. *Check out the CEO's remarks* from his last quarterly earnings call back in Jan. about how they see the satellite TV business. It will be positioned going forward as a rural-only product. In the cities and suburbs (where over 80% of Americans live), AT&T will be pushing AT&T TV and DirecTV Now/AT&T Watch.


I got a very different message out of that. The message I got was "DirecTV will be around for many decades, but will probably have 5M subs not 20M subs". The rural market is critical, the portable/travel market for RVs and boats is a thing, there's a high end market, possibly a market for 4k, and then hospitality and commercial, which are not going to be using OTT IPTV in the next decade, if ever. Satellite TV delivery is just too efficient not to leverage for some applications. They will also be pushing new DirecTV subs in MDUs where they are going to push internet, possibly as a way of physical access (internet rides along with DirecTV on the coax into the unit). That being said, I don't think they want to put the cost into installing DirecTV for single units in suburban and urban areas anymore, and they will move much of that market over to DTV NOW like services as the market evolves towards cloud DVR and skinny bundles and away from the HD tonnage wars that are DirecTV's stronghold with 5gbps+ of bandwidth.

The bottom line is that DirecTV isn't going anywhere. They have the technology, and the cost of delivery is trivially low on a per-sub basis, even with 1/4 the number of subs. Even if 3/4 of the cable channels crumble, DirecTV will still have whatever is left, LiLs, and some sports packages, which are extremely lucrative. Remember that DirecTV also has the only platform that will be capable of scaling delivery of live cable 4k (sports) to millions of subscribers within the next 5 years.



> Gosh, hard to say. I do think that the number of linear cable channels will continue to dwindle. Conceptually, I think channels are really just brands and only the strong brands that offer quality original content that they own will survive. Already, when we say HBO, we don't necessarily mean channel 700 or whatever it is on the cable box. We mean a brand that offers certain shows that can be accessed in various ways on many different devices. That's the future. We'll still want to be able to somehow bundle together content from various providers in a convenient way (aggregated UIs and aggregated billing) but I don't think those bundles will necessarily continue to be built around linear channels.


That's a good observation, channels have turned into brands. I agree about HBO, since it's all scripted content, and isn't necessarily something that has to be delivered live. The concept of bundling brands or packages of OTT SVOD content is really interseting too, that's where Amazon has the technology and systems in place to bundle HBO, Showtime, etc, etc, on top of Prime and offer everything through a single UI that's pretty good, with excellent video streaming technology (do they have separate encodes from HBO NOW? They would probably look a LOT better). That leaves behind most of the cable channels, however, as they don't have strong brands on their own. That model, however, also doesn't account for sports, which require live content, and tend to jump from channel to channel, which is where the vMPVDs come into play, with services like YTTV offering a highly targeted offering of sports channels.



> Frankly, I think the UI of the TV app on Apple TV points the way. It offers a unified watchlist, plus a curated selection of on-demand choices, all pulled together from multiple content providers. And it also features special areas for jumping to live news and sports content. In the future, I imagine that "live" linear channels will mainly only be watched when they're actually airing live stuff -- newscasts, sports, live reality/competition shows, etc. Other than that, they're really just airing long-form samples of their on-demand content.


I would agree with that about live channels. I wonder if at some point "channels" cease to exist entirely, and it's all a series of live "streams" of content based on providers and packages? This could continue to work with DBS, as DirecTV can put feeds up and down, as they do now for sports packages, depending on what's on at that point in time. Further, for very rural users, shows could be "downloaded" via DBS on a rotating schedule, creating a local VOD library of what the user wants on a DVR-esque device.

I'm wondering why DirecTV hasn't partnered with Netflix to deliver Netflix content to users who don't have good internet connectivity. It would require a Netflix subscription, and turn Netflix original content into a linear channel to be DVR'ed and watched later.

The only big downside I could see for the de-linearization of TV is that currently channels like ESPN like to draw people into other games or events after the one they are watching, and like to do lots of chit chat in-between games, with various live content that wouldn't be well suited to the "event" model. Maybe we'll see sports channels staying as channels, and everything else moving to VOD? I don't see much reason for HBO to be consumed as a linear channel these days. HBO is one of my favorite "channels" for original content, yet I haven't seen a live feed of HBO in years. It just doesn't matter. I'd rather stream it.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

I still never see anyone talk about the advent of unskippable commercials as we move towards ondemand viewing or even with OTT DVRs like YouTube TV that will replace your DVR copy with a ondemand copy with unskippable commercials.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

smark said:


> I still never see anyone talk about the advent of unskippable commercials as we move towards ondemand viewing or even with OTT DVRs like YouTube TV that will replace your DVR copy with a ondemand copy with unskippable commercials.


Basic cable channels essentially have two income streams: subscription fees from consumers and advertising fees from advertisers. Why have we seen these vMVPDs like YouTube TV, PS Vue, etc. pop up? The main reason is that consumers want to pay lower subscription fees for basic cable TV. There are a few ways that these vMVPDs have aimed to achieve that goal of lower prices:


carry fewer channels (i.e. smaller bundles)
leave it up to the consumer to buy and maintain their own viewing equipment (i.e. TV-connected boxes/sticks, phones, tablets, computers)
leave it up to the consumer to pay for and take care of the physical network connection (i.e. home or mobile internet service) necessary for delivery of the TV programming
configure their service so that consumers watch more ads and/or more valuable (i.e. targeted) ads than with traditional cable TV, thereby allowing the channel owners to make incrementally more advertising money to offset their incrementally lower subscription fees
It's point #4 that I would specifically direct your attention to. There's no technical reason why these vMVPDs can't offer viewers cloud DVRs that work just like a cable box DVR or TiVo -- that is, a cloud DVR with, say, 300 hrs of storage that NEVER replaces recordings with on-demand versions and which ALWAYS allows the viewer to FF/skip through commercials and that NEVER auto-deletes recordings after a set amount of time if space for more recordings is still available.

The reason why they DON'T offer a cloud DVR like that is because, well, the channel providers would require higher subscription fees for their channels, because it would mean that fewer of their ads get watched. Advertisers are well aware of what % of TV gets watched live (when ads can't be skipped) vs. on DVR (when ads can be skipped) vs. on demand (with forced, possibly targeted, ads). Advertisers take those figures into consideration when negotiating their ad buys. And, of course, beyond that, the more cloud space that a vMVPD offers for DVR storage, the higher their storage costs, so that has to be passed on too.

So far, all of the OTT vMPVDs have been targeting more cost-conscious cord-cutters. When you pay less for something, you can always expect trade-offs. One of those trade-offs is a DVR that isn't as good as with traditional cable/satellite TV. That said, I think we're going to see AT&T launch an OTT service later this year that will be more of a "no-compromise" service. Unlike DirecTV Now, this new service -- likely named AT&T TV -- will come with its own dedicated STB and voice remote. I expect that its cloud DVR will be at least as full-featured as on Uverse TV, which this new service will effectively replace. (Meanwhile, it looks like the DirecTV Now cloud DVR, when it finally comes out of beta, will only provide 20 hours of storage space, with auto-deletion of shows after 30 days.) AT&T TV is also going to support 4K HDR (HDR10 and HLG) and multiple user profiles. AT&T's CEO said that he expects it will offer their full line-up of cable channels and even NFL Sunday Ticket, at least eventually. You can also expect that AT&T TV will cost more than DirecTV Now. It will basically be a full-service pay TV service, with a range of channel packages, available nationwide to anyone with home broadband internet, regardless of your ISP.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

smark said:


> I still never see anyone talk about the advent of unskippable commercials as we move towards ondemand viewing or even with OTT DVRs like YouTube TV that will replace your DVR copy with a ondemand copy with unskippable commercials.


can you not skip on youtube tv? I just got the free trial and recorded a few things but haven't watched them long enough to see if I could skip commercials or not. Youtube TVthe most enjoyable OTT service to use so far for me compared to Sling, DTV Now and Vue although I haven't tried Vue in awhile. (edit: i recorded a movie off AMC on YouTube TV and could skip the commercials.)

There are all kinds of scenarios regarding commercials in the on-demand viewing world though.

You have the Netflix which has no commercials at all. Also see HBO and Showtime.

You have a few services that let you pay more to not have commercials if you don't want them. CBS and Hulu are the examples

And then you have the OTT cabletv services which have traditional linear channels with commercials and then cloud dvr/on-demand where I think the rules for how many commercials and how skippable they are depend on the service/channel.

Last, on-demand streaming tech allows the partially skippable commercial. Granted I only have seen it on Youtube but what I'm talking about is letting the user skip a commercial after 5 seconds.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> The only big downside I could see for the de-linearization of TV is that currently channels like ESPN like to draw people into other games or events after the one they are watching, and like to do lots of chit chat in-between games, with various live content that wouldn't be well suited to the "event" model. Maybe we'll see sports channels staying as channels, and everything else moving to VOD? I don't see much reason for HBO to be consumed as a linear channel these days. HBO is one of my favorite "channels" for original content, yet I haven't seen a live feed of HBO in years. It just doesn't matter. I'd rather stream it.


Even with Sports I don't think they need channels per se or at least not 24/7 linear channels. They just have to display the live sporting events. And you click on which event you want to watch. You don't need to look up the channel. The network doesn't have to put the game on a different channel if the previous game is running long. They don't have to fill the air with chitchat in between games. They don't have to program the channel and fill every hour because there are 24 hours in a day.

And they can still point you to other content after a game ends. Netflix does this now after a show ends. It will cue a new show and I think it even starts playing the new show unless you stop it or switch away from it.

Youtube TV has the traditional tv guide but also just has a UI that just show you major live sporting events as do other OTT cable services and even some traditional cable/satellite tv probably has this type of UI as well.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> Even with Sports I don't think they need channels per se or at least not 24/7 linear channels. They just have to display the live sporting events. And you click on which event you want to watch. You don't need to look up the channel. The network doesn't have to put the game on a different channel if the previous game is running long. They don't have to fill the air with chitchat in between games. They don't have to program the channel and fill every hour because there are 24 hours in a day.


Yeah, that's pretty much the way the Sports tab in the TV app on Apple devices works. It has a graphic for the game, showing the current score if it's underway, and you click the graphic to launch the appropriate live stream of the game in whichever app offers it (e.g. ESPN, MLB.TV, etc.).

I imagine the TV UI of the future similarly offering mostly a selection of on-demand stuff, with special areas showcasing live streams of sports, news, awards shows and other special events. And then a personalized on-demand watchlist. And all of that should span all of the content providers you subscribe to: Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Disney, MLB, NBA, SEC, Discovery, Viacom, etc. Ultimately, I think all of the content owners will just be direct-to-consumer OTT and the major tech titans (Apple, Amazon, Google, maybe Roku if they haven't been purchased by someone bigger) will be the aggregators to pull things together into a convenient, unified interface.


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 27, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, that's pretty much the way the Sports tab in the TV app on Apple devices works. It has a graphic for the game, showing the current score if it's underway, and you click the graphic to launch the appropriate live stream of the game in whichever app offers it (e.g. ESPN, MLB.TV, etc.).
> 
> I imagine the TV UI of the future similarly offering mostly a selection of on-demand stuff, with special areas showcasing live streams of sports, news, awards shows and other special events. And then a personalized on-demand watchlist. And all of that should span all of the content providers you subscribe to: Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Disney, MLB, NBA, SEC, Discovery, Viacom, etc. Ultimately, I think all of the content owners will just be direct-to-consumer OTT and the major tech titans (Apple, Amazon, Google, maybe Roku if they haven't been purchased by someone bigger) will be the aggregators to pull things together into a convenient, unified interface.


Tivo is the unified interface. Ever since they stopped making units with DVD writers that's their kill app. They merge live plus recorded plus stream, which is more than Roku. But when too few record off of broadcast they will still have to merge more and better than Roku. That's the challenge of the next generations of Tivo to retain their killer app status.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

dfreybur said:


> Tivo is the unified interface. Ever since they stopped making units with DVD writers that's their kill app. They merge live plus recorded plus stream, which is more than Roku. But when too few record off of broadcast they will still have to merge more and better than Roku. That's the challenge of the next generations of Tivo to retain their killer app status.


Better than Roku? Never happen TiVo has no killer app status. Every streamer is way better than TiVo.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

trip1eX said:


> can you not skip on youtube tv? I just got the free trial and recorded a few things but haven't watched them long enough to see if I could skip commercials or not. Youtube TVthe most enjoyable OTT service to use so far for me compared to Sling, DTV Now and Vue although I haven't tried Vue in awhile. (edit: i recorded a movie off AMC on YouTube TV and could skip the commercials.)
> 
> There are all kinds of scenarios regarding commercials in the on-demand viewing world though.
> 
> ...


You can skip items that are recorded, but if there is an OnDemand version of the same show, YTTV will swap out the recorded version for the OnDemand version when it's available.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I don't know how that can be, even if you're comparing to a post-Haxe Premiere. My TiVo is as fast as anything could possibly be at mashing my way through commercials and replays of stuff. I don't imagine how anything could be much faster, especially something dependent on a far-away cloud.


Local caching of the stream, that's how. The Apple TV 4K has 3GB of fast RAM and a beefy A10X Fusion chip.



Bigg said:


> I think they could pull it off their own app store, as all developers have to do is copy/paste the app into TiVo's app store. They don't need hundreds of thousands of apps like a smartphone, they just need a few dozen core services/apps to be on TiVo, and they'll be good to go.


Yeah, that was my initial thought too but if you've been following the addition of new apps to Fire TV vs. Android TV over the past year or two, as I have, you might think differently. It's not at all unusual for a new or updated app to appear on Fire TV and then take months before it comes to Android TV, if ever. And yet the core OS underneath both is the same -- a fairly recent version of open source Android. You can often take an app from one platform and sideload it on the other and it will work. The only real code tweaking that must be done, if any, would seem to be customizations for slightly different remote controls, or UI changes if they really want to conform to the Amazon vs. Google style guidelines (and most don't).

So if that's the situation for Google's Android TV, I would think it would be an even more uphill battle for TiVo to get all of the OTT and TV-everywhere apps shepherded into a TiVo app store.



Bigg said:


> AT&T U-Verse is only endangered because AT&T decided they wanted those subs on DBS instead, and has converted several million of them. If they hadn't bought DirecTV, U-Verse would be alive and strong. I believe Frontier is keeping managed IPTV for the forseeable future on their ex U-Verse system.


Subscriber counts for DTV DBS as well as U-verse IPTV have been in decline for awhile now. The marketing decision over the past year or more to promote DTV DBS over U-verse IPTV as the preferred flagship TV service within the AT&T wireline footprint was due to a couple factors, I think. One is that the AT&T wireline network in non-FTTH areas (which account for the great majority of their footprint) has limited bandwidth; better to free up more bandwidth on that network by reducing TV traffic and moving some of it offline to DBS. Another, I think, is that AT&T had better contracts in place with the channel providers under DTV than under U-verse TV, so the former was a bit more profitable. However, AT&T reported on their earnings call yesterday that those disparities are evening out. I noticed on that call that the big sub losses continue for DTV DBS, although U-verse TV actually had a slight net addition of 1,000 more subs last quarter. I'd chalk that up to the aggressive rollout of AT&T Fiber, with more of those new subs opting for Uverse TV than for DTV DBS. (There's plenty of bandwidth on FTTH for Uverse TV video traffic, so AT&T is still happy to offer it to those customers.)

Meanwhile, AT&T realizes that if they're going to continue offering TV service over IP (and they are), it makes a lot more sense to structure it as an OTT service that can be offered nationwide, both inside and outside their wireline footprint. Within that footprint, for those who have AT&T home internet, they can pull a few network tricks to make OTT TV about as reliable as managed IPTV. So that's why Uverse TV is going away, to be replaced by OTT services: AT&T TV and DTV Now.

As far as Frontier, yeah, you have a point there. They do have Vantage IPTV in their FTTN footprint. But it's looking like the wheels are coming off the bus at Frontier, so I'm not sure they make a great poster boy for the health of telco managed IPTV.

Meanwhile, Verizon just confirmed that they'll debut their new OTT TV service as an option to bundle with the new fixed 5G home internet service that will debut in Sacramento and a few other markets (Atlanta?) in the latter half of this year. Sounds like it will only be available for those homes, or at least in those markets, at least initially. But being OTT, it could obviously be scaled nationwide pretty easily. My guess is that it's going to look a lot like what I predict AT&T TV will be -- an OTT service that comes with a dedicated STB and advanced remote, all the local HD channels and all the popular cable channels, easy access to other popular apps, and to largely be pushed as a bundling option for their home internet subs.



Bigg said:


> I got a very different message out of that. The message I got was "DirecTV will be around for many decades, but will probably have 5M subs not 20M subs".


Well, I would agree that AT&T sees DTV DBS being around for a long while, mainly for rural subs, but many decades? No man, I don't think so. Nobody sitting in their farmhouse in Bucksnort, TN (yes, that's a real place) is gonna be watching Fox News on their rooftop dish come 2032. Other options will be available to so many rural dwellers by then, and the whole pay TV system as it currently exists will have evolved so much, that I really don't see there being a sufficiently large subscriber base to continue operating one (much less two) national satellite TV services _many decades_ from now. Many years from now? Yes. Decades? No.



Bigg said:


> They will also be pushing new DirecTV subs in MDUs where they are going to push internet, possibly as a way of physical access (internet rides along with DirecTV on the coax into the unit).


Nah, I think they're going to be pushing a mixture of FTTH, fixed 5G and maybe FTTN with G.fast for MDUs. They'll be putting those condo and apartment dwellers on some form of OTT TV.



Bigg said:


> Remember that DirecTV also has the only platform that will be capable of scaling delivery of live cable 4k (sports) to millions of subscribers within the next 5 years.


Um, nope. The only pay TV I'm aware of in North America that has been doing a ton of live 4K sports on a major scale so far is actually Rogers, a cable company, up in Canada. Not sure whether they've been doing that over QAM or as IPTV (possibly multicast). Comcast could easily match what Rogers is doing (and surpass the amount of 4K that DTV DBS is doing) whenever they want to/get the content agreements in place. All of Comcast's 4K STBs are fully IPTV compatible and I'm sure multicast-compatible too.

Meanwhile, AT&T TV (at least for AT&T Internet customers) and Optimum (as they transition their footprint to FTTH over the next few years) should have no problem doing wide-scale live 4K either.



Bigg said:


> That's a good observation, channels have turned into brands. ... That leaves behind most of the cable channels, however, as they don't have strong brands on their own. That model, however, also doesn't account for sports, which require live content, and tend to jump from channel to channel, which is where the vMPVDs come into play, with services like YTTV offering a highly targeted offering of sports channels.


Well, some basic cable channels are strong brands, like HGTV, Comedy Central, CNN, Fox News, etc. As for sports, I think the brands are mainly the leagues: NFL, NBA, MLB, SEC, Pac-10, etc. In the end, I see all of the channel owners (e.g. Discovery, CBS+Viacom, Disney, etc.) just offering their own direct-to-consumer packages of on-demand content, with live streams as necessary. There will always be a desire for a lean-back "just show me something" experience, so I don't really see linear TV going away, although maybe it becomes replaced by smart personalized playlists of on-demand stuff. I don't know.



Bigg said:


> I'm wondering why DirecTV hasn't partnered with Netflix to deliver Netflix content to users who don't have good internet connectivity. It would require a Netflix subscription, and turn Netflix original content into a linear channel to be DVR'ed and watched later.


I think such an arrangement would be so foreign to the very DNA of Netflix that they'd never do it. And obviously, they don't need to! Why change your business and technology model to suit a declining satellite TV service? Sure, maybe DirecTV would love it but Netflix doesn't need them.



Bigg said:


> I don't see much reason for HBO to be consumed as a linear channel these days. HBO is one of my favorite "channels" for original content, yet I haven't seen a live feed of HBO in years. It just doesn't matter. I'd rather stream it.


Agreed.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

smark said:


> I still never see anyone talk about the advent of unskippable commercials as we move towards ondemand viewing or even with OTT DVRs like YouTube TV that will replace your DVR copy with a ondemand copy with unskippable commercials.


Good point, this is a big issue on YTTV, although I think YTTV is targeted heavily at sports, and to a certain extent, news, both of which are inherently live, and thus don't have the commercial problem.



NashGuy said:


> So far, all of the OTT vMPVDs have been targeting more cost-conscious cord-cutters.


You're not a cord-cuter if you have a vMPVD, you're a cord-replacer, and you're replacing the cord with CoIP, but that's another issue.

I agree with everything you say about ad dollars. I think YTTV in particular is just targeting news and sports. If people try to use it too much for other stuff, they'll just get fed up and leave.



> It will basically be a full-service pay TV service, with a range of channel packages, available nationwide to anyone with home broadband internet, regardless of your ISP.


Somebody over to DSLR suggested that AT&T Watch is actually the new brand for DirecTV NOW, not just the $15/$0 super skinny bundle, which would make a lot of sense. I think this AT&T TV service will be rolled in under AT&T Watch as well, all at different tiers. It would make sense to have the OTT vMVPD/CoIP services all under one brand, and leave DirecTV as DirecTV.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Local caching of the stream, that's how. The Apple TV 4K has 3GB of fast RAM and a beefy A10X Fusion chip.


Oooooooh, that's interesting. The Roku seems to have to re-buffer every time you rewind, as it seems to be discarding watched frames almost immediately.



> Yeah, that was my initial thought too but if you've been following the addition of new apps to Fire TV vs. Android TV over the past year or two, as I have, you might think differently.


That's interesting. I guess it would be a problem for TiVo as well. However, I don't see much of a way around it unless TiVo was just an app on Android TV, which wouldn't be a great UX. At least the major stuff would be available, as TiVo could get those developers to copy it over.



> Subscriber counts for DTV DBS as well as U-verse IPTV have been in decline for awhile now.


Moving to DirecTV is all about the bandwidth. There are a lot of U-Verse lines out there provisioned in the 25-50mbps range, so taking IPTV of frees up more internet bandwidth. I think U-Verse IPTV will be around for quite a while.



> As far as Frontier, yeah, you have a point there. They do have Vantage IPTV in their FTTN footprint. But it's looking like the wheels are coming off the bus at Frontier, so I'm not sure they make a great poster boy for the health of telco managed IPTV.


Unfortunately they are in bad shape. The whole Fairpoint/Frontier sell-offs with a lot of debt made no sense from the get-go, and they still don't have a solid plan to get everyone on fiber, which is required to compete with cable.



> Meanwhile, Verizon just confirmed that they'll debut their new OTT TV service as an option to bundle with the new fixed 5G home internet service that will debut in Sacramento and a few other markets (Atlanta?) in the latter half of this year.


I'm still very skeptical about 5G scaling outside of mid-density urban markets. High-density and lower-density may make the tech fall apart.



> Other options will be available to so many rural dwellers by then, and the whole pay TV system as it currently exists will have evolved so much, that I really don't see there being a sufficiently large subscriber base to continue operating one (much less two) national satellite TV services _many decades_ from now. Many years from now? Yes. Decades? No.


I think there will be. Satellite is a massively efficient way to deliver live content. I think news and sports will be around for a very long time as live channels. I don't think the pay tv ecosystem will look anything like it looks today, but I think there will be DBS in 15 years. I think there will always be a role for a small group of live video channels for news and sports, and some people will get those delivered through DBS. Think of all the airports nationwide that need CNN, and sports bars that need ESPN. There is a demand for this sort of thing. However, I think live events will be the main product, and the few linear channels that will be around in 20 or 30 years will simply be mixes of those streams for public/commercial/hospitality/rural consumption, not the main product. Kind of like HBO is rapidly becoming for HBO Go/Now, which is the real service at this point.



> Nah, I think they're going to be pushing a mixture of FTTH, fixed 5G and maybe FTTN with G.fast for MDUs. They'll be putting those condo and apartment dwellers on some form of OTT TV.


Outside of their ILEC footprint, they will be using DirecTV's MFH2 system to get into each unit on coax, and they can use G.Fast for the data side of things. Some installers today use DOCSIS with DirecTV in a weird unholy marriage of technologies to get everything in on one cable.



> Um, nope. The only pay TV I'm aware of in North America that has been doing a ton of live 4K sports on a major scale so far is actually Rogers, a cable company, up in Canada. Not sure whether they've been doing that over QAM or as IPTV (possibly multicast). Comcast could easily match what Rogers is doing (and surpass the amount of 4K that DTV DBS is doing) whenever they want to/get the content agreements in place. All of Comcast's 4K STBs are fully IPTV compatible and I'm sure multicast-compatible too.


Comcast? Yeah, right. They don't have the IP infrastructure in place to scale up live TV viewing at that level. I was being US-centric, so I probably should have specified that. I think in 5 years, Comcast and other players will have the pieces put together on IP-multicast that can scale to 4k.



> Meanwhile, AT&T TV (at least for AT&T Internet customers) and Optimum (as they transition their footprint to FTTH over the next few years) should have no problem doing wide-scale live 4K either.


AT&T U-Verse is a horribly constrained system, and an unmanaged unicast IPTV system is not going to scale for large live events in 4k.



> There will always be a desire for a lean-back "just show me something" experience, so I don't really see linear TV going away, although maybe it becomes replaced by smart personalized playlists of on-demand stuff. I don't know.


The lean-back show-me-something is rapidly being replaced by Netflix's recommendation engine.



> I think such an arrangement would be so foreign to the very DNA of Netflix that they'd never do it. And obviously, they don't need to! Why change your business and technology model to suit a declining satellite TV service? Sure, maybe DirecTV would love it but Netflix doesn't need them.


I suppose, but it would give them an opportunity to reach out to more customers in more corners of the country. There's nothing really antithetical about it. It's probably just too small a niche to care much about.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Moving to DirecTV is all about the bandwidth. There are a lot of U-Verse lines out there provisioned in the 25-50mbps range, so taking IPTV of frees up more internet bandwidth. I think U-Verse IPTV will be around for quite a while.


The guy who just installed my VDSL FTTN internet from AT&T last month disagrees with you. (Yes, I know, he's an installer, not a member of AT&T's C-suite, so take what he says with a grain of salt.) But when I asked him "Hey, what's going on with Uverse TV?", he responded that they're going to stop doing new installs of it later this year. Piece that together with the repeated public comments by AT&T's CEO about a forthcoming new "home-centric" "cable TV" service that will leverage the new cloud-based OTT video platform developed for DTV Now. He's repeatedly said that it's set to arrive before the end of 2018, that they will be agnostic as to the ISP it traverses to get to the customer, that it will offer the full scale of their TV services, that it won't require a dish and that it will rely on the simple self-install of a thin-client STB with no hard drive because it will rely on cloud DVR. Also note that AT&T recently trademarked the new brand name "AT&T TV". You put all those pieces together and tell me what you come up with.

It's been known for quite awhile now that Uverse TV is a "dead man walking" service for AT&T. It's received no advancements in quite some time and it never will. It will never offer 4K HDR. Meanwhile, AT&T has said that the 2018 roadmap for their new OTT platform includes not only cloud DVR but also 4K HDR, individual user profiles, a larger VOD platform, the ability to rewind live TV (you can only pause it now), and pay-per-view. Once those things are in place together with the scenario sketched out in the paragraph above, why on earth would AT&T want or need Uverse TV to stick around? I could understand them letting it exist for maybe a year to give time for those customers to migrate over to AT&T TV (or, failing that, DTV Now). But waiting longer than that to pull the plug makes no sense. (BTW, when you leave Uverse TV, you just take the STB and remote to your nearest UPS Store and give it to them along with your personal info. They package it up in their own box and ship it to AT&T for you for free and give you a tracking receipt. Easy-peasy.)



Bigg said:


> I'm still very skeptical about 5G scaling outside of mid-density urban markets. High-density and lower-density may make the tech fall apart.


It seems that AT&T shares your skepticism while Verizon is very bullish on it. At any rate, I think fixed 5G will be one tool in network providers' toolkit to expand the availability of fast home internet in the years to come and it will make a difference. How big a difference remains to be seen.



Bigg said:


> I think there will be. Satellite is a massively efficient way to deliver live content. I think news and sports will be around for a very long time as live channels. I don't think the pay tv ecosystem will look anything like it looks today, but I think there will be DBS in 15 years. I think there will always be a role for a small group of live video channels for news and sports, and some people will get those delivered through DBS. Think of all the airports nationwide that need CNN, and sports bars that need ESPN. There is a demand for this sort of thing. However, I think live events will be the main product, and the few linear channels that will be around in 20 or 30 years will simply be mixes of those streams for public/commercial/hospitality/rural consumption, not the main product. Kind of like HBO is rapidly becoming for HBO Go/Now, which is the real service at this point.


OK, but at this point in your argument -- when you envision DBS being for airports, sports bars, and a handful of rural homeowners -- that's a pretty niche thing, no? I mean, in the former two cases, we're talking about B2B, not even B2C. And at some point, as the total sub count dwindles and they become further scattered out geographically (which will happen as the sub base shifts to predominantly rural), the economics would seem to break down, I'd think. (Remember that location matters because those rooftop dishes don't install and repair themselves. One of the big reasons why AT&T wants to shift from DBS to the AT&T TV service I mention above as their flagship offering is because the latter offers FAR lower customer acquisition costs -- just ship 'em a self-install kit via UPS. They connect it to their wifi or ethernet and, boom, done. The other reason is because OTT allows for far more lucrative dynamically-inserted data-based targeted ads.)

And if, as you envision 20 years from now, virtually all TV is on-demand stuff, with only a handful of linear channels remaining (concentrating on live content like news, sports, etc.), how many folks are going to want to subscribe to DBS for such little content? American capitalism and technology will have figured out a way to get all that other on-demand TV to those rural dwellers by then. Heck, we may only need to wait a few months -- keep on eye on what T-Mobile announces soon with regard to their forthcoming OTT TV service and how they'll offer to bundle it (with zero-rating of data, I'm sure) over their own network, including all that new 600MHz spectrum they're deploying that will finally make them a player in rural America. I'm betting they put at least the most popular linear channels on LTE Broadcast (a form of multicast IPTV) for viewers connected via the T-Mo network.

Meanwhile, all those sports bars, airports, etc. are going to be in places served by ever-more fiber capacity. Multicast IP video (whether managed IPTV or OTT) will easily be available for ALL their TV display needs. Just like we're going to see among homes in the cities and suburbs over the next few years, they'll begin dumping DBS as better-priced, more advanced alternatives become available.



Bigg said:


> Outside of their ILEC footprint, they will be using DirecTV's MFH2 system to get into each unit on coax, and they can use G.Fast for the data side of things. Some installers today use DOCSIS with DirecTV in a weird unholy marriage of technologies to get everything in on one cable.


Yes, they've been deploying DTV DBS in those ways for awhile now because they didn't have anything better available. But once their nationwide cloud-based OTT streaming video platform (now in beta for DTV Now) is ready, that will undoubtedly become the go-to solution to bundle with internet service for ALL addresses, whether they're inside or outside their traditional ILEC footprint. AT&T knew when they bought DTV that DBS was just a bridge to the future that they would only need to temporarily rely on while they developed a next-gen IP-based solution. They've gotten pretty far across that bridge now.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Comcast? Yeah, right. They don't have the IP infrastructure in place to scale up live TV viewing at that level. I was being US-centric, so I probably should have specified that. I think in 5 years, Comcast and other players will have the pieces put together on IP-multicast that can scale to 4k.


Sure they do. As I've pointed out before, Comcast has a full-scale nationwide IPTV system in place (called VIPER, based in Denver) and it's been running for years to provide live linear TV (as well as on-demand and cloud DVR) to a range of connected devices both on and off their network. And now it's pumping out (horribly compressed) live HD channels to home viewers via the new Xfinity Instant TV service that they're touting. (Visit xfinity.com to see how the big new thing they're promoting right now is that service: "Streaming has never been so simple. Internet plus Instant TV.")

Meanwhile, Comcast has at least a smattering of 4K HDR STBs out in customers' homes. If Comcast already offers live HD channels via IPTV; and they have a network that can and does already handle lots of 4K HDR OTT content during prime viewing hours every evening (from Netflix, Amazon, etc.); and they have already deployed STBs that are compatible with 4K HDR multicast IPTV -- then I fail to see why they couldn't flip the switch at any time and offer, say, a live nationwide Major League Baseball game in 4K HDR to all Comcast viewers nationwide already using the necessary equipment. As I say, Rogers cable up in Canada has been doing exactly that (well, 4K, not 4K HDR) with Toronto Blue Jays games for awhile now. What advantages does Rogers's hybrid QAM-IPTV cable system have that Comcast's doesn't? (Oh, BTW, Rogers began deploying their white-label version of Comcast's X1 this year.)



Bigg said:


> AT&T U-Verse is a horribly constrained system, and an unmanaged unicast IPTV system is not going to scale for large live events in 4k.


Yes, Uverse is constrained but it's also going away, so I wasn't talking about it. I was talking about the forthcoming AT&T TV service. And I did specifically mention AT&T TV _when accessed on AT&T's own network_ as that would allow for the use of multicast streams. As you say, doing live large-scale 4K events completely in unicast would be unreliable (at least without further advances in edge network computing, interconnect agreements between network providers/CDNs, etc.). But I see no reason why AT&T's OTT TV services couldn't also layer in multicast video for linear channels _on their own network_. At that point, I suppose you could argue that a video service isn't purely OTT if it partially uses multicast but that's a semantic distinction that's, I think, more borne out of last-gen IP video categories. The future of video is OTT unicast but with multicast for the most popular live/linear streams where technically feasible.



Bigg said:


> The lean-back show-me-something is rapidly being replaced by Netflix's recommendation engine.


I guess that's true to an extent but -- especially for folks over, say, 30 -- a recommendation engine still isn't the same as the brain-dead experience of just turning on the TV and having something immediately served up to you full-screen. Don't like it? Click one simple button on the remote and you're given another option to sample. I think there will continue to be a need for that kind of experience, at least sometimes, for a significant number of TV viewers.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> But when I asked him "Hey, what's going on with Uverse TV?", he responded that they're going to stop doing new installs of it later this year.


They're really shooting themselves in the foot if they dump U-Verse, but honestly, it wouldn't shock me at this point. AT&T hasn't been very well run over the past few years.



> Once those things are in place together with the scenario sketched out in the paragraph above, why on earth would AT&T want or need Uverse TV to stick around?


To compete directly with cable. Managed IPTV is far superior to OTT in reliability, and will be for the next few years. Also, they have some slow U-Verse lines that use IP Multicast to save on bandwidth when the same channel is being watched on multiple boxes. Beyond that, who knows. Maybe they will take a calculated loss to cable in exchange for a lower cost structure.



> It seems that AT&T shares your skepticism while Verizon is very bullish on it.


It might make sense financially if they can target high-density areas where it makes sense to deploy, but I don't think it's going to revolutionize anything, or expand access anywhere it isn't, other than maybe to low-income urban neighborhoods where people can't afford $80/mo for cable internet.



> OK, but at this point in your argument -- when you envision DBS being for airports, sports bars, and a handful of rural homeowners -- that's a pretty niche thing, no? I mean, in the former two cases, we're talking about B2B, not even B2C. And at some point, as the total sub count dwindles and they become further scattered out geographically (which will happen as the sub base shifts to predominantly rural), the economics would seem to break down, I'd think.


I think some residential users will keep it as well. I see a long tail. The economics don't break down. Commercial contracts are longer and worth a LOT more money than residential, and thus they can afford to send installers out to do the work. Also, a hotel job might put DirecTV in 150 rooms, and involve quite a bit of work.

I believe DirecTV is much better positioned than DISH, as DISH is a downmarket, rural-oriented service for customers that don't pay a whole lot, DirecTV's commercial market, which they have drastically expanded in the past 5 years, is very valuable. You add up all the niches and it's a decent sized market.



> And if, as you envision 20 years from now, virtually all TV is on-demand stuff, with only a handful of linear channels remaining (concentrating on live content like news, sports, etc.), how many folks are going to want to subscribe to DBS for such little content?


There are still plenty of rural locations with little to no cell phone service, as well as commercial. I forsee DBS going back to the old model of a $20 or $30/mo package with a handful of channels, and it costing several hundred bucks to install in the first place, so that DirecTV doesn't take any of the risk, they just collect the money and send out the programming. Or a financing system like mobile phones now have.

This stuff all has a long tail. I'm always surprised how long these transitions take.



> Meanwhile, all those sports bars, airports, etc. are going to be in places served by ever-more fiber capacity. Multicast IP video (whether managed IPTV or OTT) will easily be available for ALL their TV display needs.


DBS is still extremely efficient for delivering video, and it doesn't require more bandwidth, which often costs more alone than the DirecTV bill is.



> They've gotten pretty far across that bridge now.


We'll see. I predict that in 2030, they have 5-10M DBS subs, down from 20M today.

Look at radio. We're 5+ years into streaming music, we've had the iPod for 17 years, FM and AM radio were around long before satellite, and yet satellite radio is still kicking around, and that has a far smaller niche than satellite TV IMO.



NashGuy said:


> Sure they do.


I don't think it would scale to mass delivery of 4k, or even linear HDTV today. It's currently used for VOD and some linear TV for some devices. They need a lot more DOCSIS bandwidth in the last mile to go all-in on IPTV.

I'm skeptical that anything other than DirecTV's DBS system can deliver 4k at scale today.



> I guess that's true to an extent but -- especially for folks over, say, 30 -- a recommendation engine still isn't the same as the brain-dead experience of just turning on the TV and having something immediately served up to you full-screen. Don't like it? Click one simple button on the remote and you're given another option to sample. I think there will continue to be a need for that kind of experience, at least sometimes, for a significant number of TV viewers.


Netflix is now the default go-to for millions of TV viewers. It's easier and offers better content options than linear TV. I think the linear TV model has been dead for years, it's just taking people time to catch up. However, the combination of much better alternatives and the quality of cable content haven taken a nosedive will collectively push people towards VOD-based systems, whether MSO-based or OTT SVOD-based.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

I see the cable channels continuing to program for linear tv while Netflix doesn't have such constraints and is growing and growing. We'll look up one of these days and Netflix will be the modern day cabletv subscription.


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 27, 2006)

mschnebly said:


> Better than Roku? Never happen TiVo has no killer app status. Every streamer is way better than TiVo.


Absolutely better than Roku. Roku only does stream so it doesn't matter that at one, and only one, function of Tivo Roku is better. Roku does not record off live broadcast/cable. Tivo does. Roku does not search a database that merges live plus several subscriptions. Tivo does.

Same with cable DVRs. You could claim that they are also better at Tivo at their one, and only one, function. Sure but so what? Tivo's strength is the merger.

At some point everything I do will be IP streamed including live local news. At that point the Tivo merge function will remain its advantage. I'll still be able to search for a show across every subscription my Tivo manages.

Word to Tivo - Every single time a season of a show appears and it does not automatically appear in my Season Pass or becomes searchable, my Tivo erodes its killer app status. Today that particular merge is not its only killer app as it also manages live and recorded. But that won't be forever. Not having the scond season of The Expanse visible is a huge error today. In five years it will be a fatal error.

If I *ever* actually need to go into the Hulu app in Tivo, Tivo lost for the reason you mention. Right now The Expanse is the one time I really do need to go into an app,

Those apps don't need to be as good as the native devices because that's not what Tivo is about.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

dfreybur said:


> Absolutely better than Roku. Roku only does stream so it doesn't matter that at one, and only one, function of Tivo Roku is better. Roku does not record off live broadcast/cable. Tivo does. Roku does not search a database that merges live plus several subscriptions. Tivo does.
> 
> Same with cable DVRs. You could claim that they are also better at Tivo at their one, and only one, function. Sure but so what? Tivo's strength is the merger.
> 
> ...


Well, yeah. Roku is not a DVR. TiVo streaming is horrible compared to any of the streaming boxes. The few apps it has are outdated and the last to be updated in the industry. Have you tried an Apple TV? That "merge" or universal search is pretty top notch. If you want to call Tivo's DVR function a killer app then sure but it cant record the streaming stuff. Just don't expect TiVo to turn into the best steaming box because there's no way it can compete either by quality or price to literally any of the current streaming boxes. With linear TV slowing, TiVo will probably drop their consumer stuff.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

dfreybur said:


> Roku does not record off live broadcast/cable. Tivo does.


And this is why we have the ability to switch HDMI inputs on an AVR, processor, or HDMI switch.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> I see the cable channels continuing to program for linear tv while Netflix doesn't have such constraints and is growing and growing. We'll look up one of these days and Netflix will be the modern day cabletv subscription.


Yeah. I think Netflix would love to just become the full replacement for your cable bundle; given the amount of original content they're churning out, that seems to possibly be their goal. Although, if that's really what they intend to do, they'd need to offer live sports and news, both of which they've indicated aren't on their radar.

I think Netflix's game is to keep adding more and more original, exclusive content until they're "too big to fail," with a such a huge ingrained install base that they can then jack up their prices to levels where they will be actually be profitable, or at least won't be losing money. You did realize that Netflix is losing money, right? Perhaps the main reason why Netflix keeps gaining so many new subs is that they're spending more money on content than they're taking in through subscriber fees. So it's a great deal for subscribers. Competitors like HBO and Showtime, meanwhile, are sticking to profitable, sustainable business plans, which necessarily means offering less content in exchange for the prices they charge.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> And this is why we have the ability to switch HDMI inputs on an AVR, processor, or HDMI switch.


True. And if you have a programmable universal remote (I recommend the Harmony 650 if it's compatible with all your equipment) and a TV that can switch inputs quickly, then having your viewing split among different inputs is OK. Still, though, I MUCH prefer my set-up with everything going through my one box to rule them all: the Apple TV 4K (with live OTA TV via the Channels app and OTA DVR via the Myth TV app).


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

NashGuy said:


> You did realize that Netflix is losing money, right?


Netflix Goes Global and Its Profit Soars


> Profits are rising steadily. Net income increased 56 percent to $67 million in the quarter from the same period in 2015. The company projected that profits would reach $165 million in the current quarter, up from $28 million in the period a year ago.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

BrettStah said:


> Netflix Goes Global and Its Profit Soars


Ah, I misspoke. Netflix is "burning cash": i.e. Netflix is free cash flow* negative.

Q4 16: -$639 million
Q1 17: -$423 million
Q2 17: -$608 million
Q3 17: -$465 million
Q4 17: -$524 million
Q1 18: -$287 million

So that's a cool $2.95 billion MORE cash that they've spent over the past 1.5 years than what they've taken in.

They're debt financing their content spending binge in the "high yield market" -- i.e. junk bonds.

sources: 
Netflix jumps more than 8% after adding more subscribers than expected
Netflix soars after adding nearly 2 million US subscribers

*Free cash flow (FCF) is a measure of a company's financial performance, calculated as operating cash flow minus capital expenditures. FCF represents the cash that a company is able to generate after spending the money required to maintain or expand its asset base. FCF is important because it allows a company to pursue opportunities that enhance shareholder value.
Read more: Free Cash Flow (FCF) Definition | Investopedia Free Cash Flow - FCF


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

dfreybur said:


> Word to Tivo - Every single time a season of a show appears and it does not automatically appear in my Season Pass or becomes searchable, my Tivo erodes its killer app status. Today that particular merge is not its only killer app as it also manages live and recorded. But that won't be forever. Not having the scond season of The Expanse visible is a huge error today. In five years it will be a fatal error.


You just killed your whole argument about Tivo's advantage with 1Ps and search, because this hasn't been fixed ever since Rovi took over.


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 27, 2006)

slowbiscuit said:


> You just killed your whole argument about Tivo's advantage with 1Ps and search, because this hasn't been fixed ever since Rovi took over.


I say erode rather than kill, but we're bickering over details. As in who's over the edge ready to drop Tivo and who's not.

I just noticed that we're watching Bosch season 4 through the Amazon Prime app because Rovi can't be bothered maintaining that one crucial part of the Tivo infrastructure that gives it a market edge. Every season of every show that appears elsewhere but not in the database merge hurts Tivo. It erodes customer loyalty. Every episode we watch through an app instead of through a Season Pass hurts the Tivo market.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah. I think Netflix would love to just become the full replacement for your cable bundle; given the amount of original content they're churning out, that seems to possibly be their goal. Although, if that's really what they intend to do, they'd need to offer live sports and news, both of which they've indicated aren't on their radar.


Do you think Amazon could swoop into this space? They already can bundle dozens of other subscriptions with Prime Video, and they mix OTT SVOD with OTT PPV VOD already, so adding in live TV bundle subscriptions wouldn't be that crazy.

I'm also just not sure that the live sports and news really has a $70/mo+ draw on people to keep pay tv, or even a $40/mo+ draw to keep people on vMVPDs when the other content is relatively much cheaper.



> Competitors like HBO and Showtime, meanwhile, are sticking to profitable, sustainable business plans, which necessarily means offering less content in exchange for the prices they charge.


Netflix made a 7% profit last year. HBO has a much more tightly targeted, very high quality lineup of content, and they are leveraging their back catalog hard now that it's going off of Amazon. Netflix has some really, really great stuff, and a huge amount of junk showing up too, so it's sort of all over the map.



NashGuy said:


> True. And if you have a programmable universal remote (I recommend the Harmony 650 if it's compatible with all your equipment) and a TV that can switch inputs quickly, then having your viewing split among different inputs is OK. Still, though, I MUCH prefer my set-up with everything going through my one box to rule them all: the Apple TV 4K (with live OTA TV via the Channels app and OTA DVR via the Myth TV app).


I was looking at the Harmony 665, which is basically a Best Buy exclusive of the 650, but it can control more devices and it's black. I don't think the switch time is a big deal, as even on live TV, you go from a 720p channel to a 1080i channel, and the HDMI has to re-sync and re-lock with HDCP and it takes half of forever.

I also prefer the OEM remotes for actually controlling TiVo and Roku, but it would be nice to have a universal remote for switching inputs, turning stuff on and off, and controlling my UHD BD player, which has a crappy remote anyway.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Do you think Amazon could swoop into this space? They already can bundle dozens of other subscriptions with Prime Video, and they mix OTT SVOD with OTT PPV VOD already, so adding in live TV bundle subscriptions wouldn't be that crazy.
> 
> I'm also just not sure that the live sports and news really has a $70/mo+ draw on people to keep pay tv, or even a $40/mo+ draw to keep people on vMVPDs when the other content is relatively much cheaper.


Yeah, it's been rumored for awhile now that Amazon had more ambitious TV plans than just Prime Video and it was thought that their Amazon Channels initiative might be the start of it. Note how, on Fire TV Edition TV sets, they integrate the live streams of HBO, Showtime, etc. from Amazon Channels alongside the OTA channels in the same program guide grid. Would be super-easy for them to also throw in live basic cable channels if they wanted. But so far they've shown no plans to get into the vMPVD basic cable bundle game. Still could, though.



Bigg said:


> Netflix made a 7% profit last year.


Yes, see my subsequent post upstream. Although Netflix is showing a profit after all the accounting is done, they are still spending considerably more money to operate their service than they're taking in from subscribers. Netflix is continually cash flow negative. It reminds me of Amazon's first several years of existence when they were willing to lose money due to low prices and shipping costs in an effort to gain huge market share.



Bigg said:


> I was looking at the Harmony 665, which is basically a Best Buy exclusive of the 650, but it can control more devices and it's black. I don't think the switch time is a big deal, as even on live TV, you go from a 720p channel to a 1080i channel, and the HDMI has to re-sync and re-lock with HDCP and it takes half of forever.
> 
> I also prefer the OEM remotes for actually controlling TiVo and Roku, but it would be nice to have a universal remote for switching inputs, turning stuff on and off, and controlling my UHD BD player, which has a crappy remote anyway.


I hate that dinky little plastic Roku remote. I agree that the native TiVo remote is the best specifically for operating a TiVo but the Harmony makes a good stand-in and it's so nice not to have to juggle separate remotes. You just have to think through how to map some of the buttons, e.g. map the Harmony's Exit button to TiVo's Zoom function in order to exit the TiVo menu system back to the show you were watching.

Another nice thing about the Harmony remotes is that they're backlit. Just pick it up or move it and the buttons backlight for a few seconds, which is great if you tend to watch TV in the dark as I do.

As for re-syncing between 720p and 1080i channels, why not have your TiVo set to output all TV channels as 1080p60? I always found that my Roamio OTA (pre-Hydra) did a fine job of upscaling 720p and de-interlacing 1080i. No way could I stand the delay when changing channels.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> I just noticed that we're watching Bosch season 4 through the Amazon Prime app because Rovi can't be bothered maintaining that one crucial part of the Tivo infrastructure that gives it a market edge. Every season of every show that appears elsewhere but not in the database merge hurts Tivo. It erodes customer loyalty. Every episode we watch through an app instead of through a Season Pass hurts the Tivo market.


Yeah, I always found OnePass to be better in concept than in actual practice. Even before TiVo switched from Gracenote to Rovi for their guide data, new streaming content often took a few days to be reflected in the OnePass database, so I oftentimes ended up by-passing it. And maybe this has changed now, but it used to be that OnePass didn't support the Showtime and HBO add-ons in the Hulu and Amazon Prime Video apps, so I had to go directly to those apps for that stuff anyway. In the end, I only relied on OnePass for regular TV content, not streaming. For me, it was just one more reason to use something other than TiVo for streaming...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, it's been rumored for awhile now that Amazon had more ambitious TV plans than just Prime Video and it was thought that their Amazon Channels initiative might be the start of it. Note how, on Fire TV Edition TV sets, they integrate the live streams of HBO, Showtime, etc. from Amazon Channels alongside the OTA channels in the same program guide grid. Would be super-easy for them to also throw in live basic cable channels if they wanted. But so far they've shown no plans to get into the vMPVD basic cable bundle game. Still could, though.


Yeah, I'm not sure they want to be a vMVPD, but maybe they are already thinking beyond the live tv paradigm, and right to direct-to-customer streaming, as they have with Amazon Channels?



> Yes, see my subsequent post upstream. Although Netflix is showing a profit after all the accounting is done, they are still spending considerably more money to operate their service than they're taking in from subscribers.


I'm not familiar with all the Wall Street lingo and accounting methods, so those two statements might somehow be true by bizarre back-asswards Wall Street accounting logic, but by definition, you can't lose money and make a profit at the same time, as they are by definition two opposite things.



> I hate that dinky little plastic Roku remote. I agree that the native TiVo remote is the best specifically for operating a TiVo but the Harmony makes a good stand-in and it's so nice not to have to juggle separate remotes. You just have to think through how to map some of the buttons, e.g. map the Harmony's Exit button to TiVo's Zoom function in order to exit the TiVo menu system back to the show you were watching.


I love the Roku remote. It's so simple and easy to use. It's no Peanut though, I'll give you that. I think the Roamio Peanut is the best Peanut ever.



> Another nice thing about the Harmony remotes is that they're backlit. Just pick it up or move it and the buttons backlight for a few seconds, which is great if you tend to watch TV in the dark as I do.


I watch TV in the dark, but I can feel the buttons, just like a keyboard. I HATE backlighting, especially on keyboards, I have it turned off on my Mac, it's so annoying to have light coming out the keyboard, and other than rarely-used function keys, it's totally useless and distracting.



> As for re-syncing between 720p and 1080i channels, why not have your TiVo set to output all TV channels as 1080p60? I always found that my Roamio OTA (pre-Hydra) did a fine job of upscaling 720p and de-interlacing 1080i. No way could I stand the delay when changing channels.


It's best to have native output to the video processor or TV, so that's how I've always had mine set up. There is no good reason not to use native output, unless your TV has a really crappy processor in it or something. The channel change times are fine, even when I had a setup with the video processor in, it was maybe 5 seconds to change the channel, nothing unreasonable.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> It's best to have native output to the video processor or TV, so that's how I've always had mine set up. There is no good reason not to use native output, unless your TV has a really crappy processor in it or something.


You shouldn't necessarily assume that your output device has an inferior video processor vs. your TV's. I have a high-end LG OLED TV but my Apple TV 4K does a little better job of upscaling HD to 4K than the TV does.

At any rate, you should try forcing your TiVo just to output everything at 1080p60 (and 1080p24 for streaming, if your TV supports 24Hz). See how you like it. It makes channel changing much quicker and less annoying, IMO.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> At any rate, you should try forcing your TiVo just to output everything at 1080p60 (and 1080p24 for streaming, if your TV supports 24Hz). See how you like it. It makes channel changing much quicker and less annoying, IMO.


Interesting. I guess I could try it and see if I see a difference. I'm still very skeptical though, and especially with a 4k TV, I don't want to scale 720p to 1080p to 2160p, I'd rather go 720p to 2160p, although I have found that with an external video processor, it's best to leave it at 1080p60 and then scale to 2160p even with 720p content, so that's an interesting data point I guess. I don't care about channel change speed, it's such a rare thing to do that it really doesn't matter.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Interesting. I guess I could try it and see if I see a difference. I'm still very skeptical though, and especially with a 4k TV, I don't want to scale 720p to 1080p to 2160p, I'd rather go 720p to 2160p, although I have found that with an external video processor, it's best to leave it at 1080p60 and then scale to 2160p even with 720p content, so that's an interesting data point I guess.


Yeah, I understand that there's a "right" way to do A/V stuff but I like to experiment around and just see what I see firsthand. Sometimes the "right" way isn't necessarily the best way given one's specific set of devices/factors involved.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

I've said for some time now that Hulu is an important player to keep an eye on because they represent, in various ways, where I see the rest of the TV industry evolving. Hulu has roots in traditional TV but embraces both on-demand and live streaming, various add-ons, targeted ads, etc.

Here's an interesting article featuring new remarks from Hulu's CEO Randy Freer. Among them:


The concept of "live TV" will change, with most linear networks dying and maybe only a dozen cable nets still existing a decade from now.
"Freer believes the pay-TV lineup is due for a radical makeover. With the exception of live news and sports, everything else in the TV bundle will be distributed on-demand, said Freer." Hulu is reportedly exploring a new package of their basic on-demand content plus a few linear channels that focus on live news and sports.

Netflix has probably solidified their place in the OTT subscription arena while Hulu is battling everyone else for market share, urgently aiming to scale up to 30-50 million subs over the next 12-24 months. (Hulu reportedly had about 17m subs at the start of 2018 and will exceed 23m by year-end.)
He envisions greater flexibility in how Hulu is structured and priced, including perhaps paying for ad-free access to individual shows (as opposed to everything) and paying to watch individual live sports events (as opposed to a bundle of linear 24/7 channels).


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Here's an interesting article featuring new remarks from Hulu's CEO Randy Freer. Among them...
> 
> Summarized: What we do is the future...



Sports is less compelling on-demand
News is less interesting on-demand
Sometimes people just want to lean back and watch 'TV'
Right now, I have DirecTV on one set. Sometimes I watch a movie or cable news or local news or the channel that binges on Friends. Most of the time, I switch to the antenna and its 'diginets'. Mostly Laff or H&I. I've only been in this promo for six months and already there is nothing on HBO, I'm weary of Cable News, I cringe at the mention of Tiny Homes (get a f'n camper, folks).

The last thing I watched was the weather report on local news. Last night I fell asleep to Big Bang on a broadcast channel. On Sunday, I had H&I tuned in during the afternoon while I was doing other things.

People refer to broadcast television as 'appointment tv' as if it were a chore. I can't be bothered to FIND something to watch. To me, broadcast television is a lot like sitting on the beach watching the scenery. When I was a kid, before remotes, I would look at the TV guide to see which channel had the best lineup for the night, tune that channel, and climb in bed (top bunk). Little has changed for me.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> The concept of "live TV" will change, with most linear networks dying and maybe only a dozen cable nets still existing a decade from now.
> "Freer believes the pay-TV lineup is due for a radical makeover. With the exception of live news and sports, everything else in the TV bundle will be distributed on-demand, said Freer." Hulu is reportedly exploring a new package of their basic on-demand content plus a few linear channels that focus on live news and sports.
> 
> Netflix has probably solidified their place in the OTT subscription arena while Hulu is battling everyone else for market share, urgently aiming to scale up to 30-50 million subs over the next 12-24 months. (Hulu reportedly had about 17m subs at the start of 2018 and will exceed 23m by year-end.)
> He envisions greater flexibility in how Hulu is structured and priced, including perhaps paying for ad-free access to individual shows (as opposed to everything) and paying to watch individual live sports events (as opposed to a bundle of linear 24/7 channels).


I think that's right on the money. It's going to be a challenge for Hulu though, as they just don't have the kinds of content that Netflix, Amazon, and HBO do. They do have quite a collection of network and various other content though, so they have a market, especially as cord cutting grows, unlike Netflix that can be used for cord stacking or cord cutting equally as well.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

wizwor said:


> People refer to broadcast television as 'appointment tv' as if it were a chore. I can't be bothered to FIND something to watch. To me, broadcast television is a lot like sitting on the beach watching the scenery. When I was a kid, before remotes, I would look at the TV guide to see which channel had the best lineup for the night, tune that channel, and climb in bed (top bunk). Little has changed for me.


Hasn't been that way for us in the 18.5 years that we've had a TiVo/DVR and before that at least a few years with VCR's. It's one of the reasons we thought TiVo was the best thing since sliced-bread in 2000 as it made what we had been doing with VCR's and multiple tapes so simple.

You indicated that little has changed for you with regards to broadcast TV, does that mean you are still watching live TV and not using your DVR's to time-shift?

Scott


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Bigg said:


> I think that's right on the money. It's going to be a challenge for Hulu though, as they just don't have the kinds of content that Netflix, Amazon, and HBO do. They do have quite a collection of network and various other content though, so they have a market, especially as cord cutting grows, unlike Netflix that can be used for cord stacking or cord cutting equally as well.


Hulu's Future: What Disney-Fox Deal Means for TV-Streaming Venture


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wizwor said:


> Sports is less compelling on-demand
> News is less interesting on-demand
> Sometimes people just want to lean back and watch 'TV'


I agree 100% with your first two points about sports and news and Hulu's CEO obviously agrees too: "*With the exception of live news and sports*, everything else in the TV bundle will be distributed on-demand." This is why Hulu is reportedly hoping to launch a version of their service that includes their on-demand library plus a few live linear channels focused on sports and news. (Hopefully local affiliates for ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox will be optional, otherwise that would drive up the price another ~$10 without adding too much for OTA antenna users.)

Also, note how the new Hulu app, as well as YouTube, integrate access to live events/channels right next to on-demand content in their UIs. They're all just rectangular thumbnail images waiting to be clicked, but with special iconography to indicate live content. I think we'll see that happen more and more across various TV UIs as linear channels fade away.

I agree with your third point too (although I think it's less relevant for younger people who have always known the concept of on-demand video). Sometimes it's nice not to search for what to watch next but just to be served something you can sample and, if you don't like it, just jump to another option (i.e. change the channel). But I see no reason why that sort of scenario can't be offered for on-demand content through the use of auto-playing queues of suggested content. Individual apps (Hulu, Netflix, etc.) or entire app operating systems (Roku, Apple TV, etc.) could offer a "surf mode" in which one suggested video starts playing and, if you don't like it, you could jump to the next auto-suggested video with a simple click or two. The queue of suggested videos might consist only of stuff you've already begun watching or bookmarked for future viewing; or it might purposely exclude that stuff, in order to help you discover new content you like; or some mix of both.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> suggested videos


Yet Netflix still does get that I won't watch cartoons. I have been a customer pretty much forever and have consistently thumbs downed them at every opportunity and through my preferences. But they still suggest them all the time.

For a while Netflix had a personalized star rating system that worked great for me. But they had to modernize and now it is gone. Sometimes I think they must get paid to suggest titles.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

jth tv said:


> Yet Netflix still does get that I won't watch cartoons. I have been a customer pretty much forever and have consistently thumbs downed them at every opportunity and through my preferences. But they still suggest them all the time.
> 
> For a while Netflix had a personalized star rating system that worked great for me. But they had to modernize and now it is gone. Sometimes I think they must get paid to suggest titles.


 I'm pretty sure I read that they suggest their own content more than something else in their catalog. Not quite the same as being paid but its in the same spirit.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

HerronScott said:


> Hasn't been that way for us in the 18.5 years that we've had a TiVo/DVR and before that at least a few years with VCR's. It's one of the reasons we thought TiVo was the best thing since sliced-bread in 2000 as it made what we had been doing with VCR's and multiple tapes so simple.
> 
> You indicated that little has changed for you with regards to broadcast TV, does that mean you are still watching live TV and not using your DVR's to time-shift?
> 
> Scott


I do both. It's 3:24am. Just put the dog out and am settling back into bed. Grabbed the remote to see what was on. Found nothing of interest. Pressed the TiVo button and started the next episode of House. It happens that I have fallen asleep to the same episode twice already. Didn't even fast forward to the last thing I remembered. That's lazy TV watching. I have a Prime account but rarely sift through the tiles to find something of interest...too much work for something I will fall asleep to.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> I agree with your third point too (although I think it's less relevant for younger people who have always known the concept of on-demand video). Sometimes it's nice not to search for what to watch next but *just to be served something you can sample and, if you don't like it, just jump to another option* (i.e. change the channel). But I see no reason why that sort of scenario can't be offered for on-demand content through the use of auto-playing queues of suggested content. *Individual apps (Hulu, Netflix, etc.) or entire app operating systems (Roku, Apple TV, etc.) could offer a "surf mode" in which one suggested video starts playing and, if you don't like it, you could jump to the next auto-suggested video with a simple click or two. The queue of suggested videos might consist only of stuff you've already begun watching or bookmarked for future viewing; or it might purposely exclude that stuff, in order to help you discover new content you like; or some mix of both.*


I think of these as curated television. The Networks call it programming. The cable nets don't bother. They simply queue up ten episodes of some show they bought in a bundle everyday at 2:00pm. Nick does this: Friends->Mom->George Lopez. H&I does it better queuing up a different binge each day of the week and a sampler of all of these on the weekend. I always thought Netflix should have offered Playlists -- an evening of programming with a theme. Maybe a binge of Tommy Lee Jones or the 007 Days of Christmas (Spike did this a few years ago).

I found out my kids do not watch television when we fired Comcast. I wanted to make sure I did not deprive them of necessary programming, so I interviewed each about what they watched. My oldest watches Netflix. That's it -- no sports, no news, no appointments. His choice of programming is mostly social (what his friends are watching). My youngest watches YouTube. He searches for something and let's YouTube set up a playlist of related videos. Three people with access to the same options watching different things. Any one of us will stop in front of the television when someone is watching something -- Lazy TV.

I definitely could be attracted to curated content delivered OTT -- curated, compelling content delivered OTT. That's not what I think of when I think of Hulu. Hope they get it right, but, for now, I'm pretty happy with an antenna.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

jth tv said:


> Yet Netflix still does get that I won't watch cartoons. I have been a customer pretty much forever and have consistently thumbs downed them at every opportunity and through my preferences. But they still suggest them all the time.


Netflix loves you. That's nice. I had Netflix when they were disc only. Then they added more content via streaming. I was happy. Then they charged separately (as in extra) for disc and streaming. Then they cut back on the programming I like and replaced it with 'original programming' I don't like. Then they lost a customer.


----------



## CloudAtlas (Oct 29, 2013)

wizwor said:


> *Netflix* loves you. That's nice. I had Netflix when they were disc only. Then they added more content via streaming. I was happy. Then they charged separately (as in extra) for disc and streaming. Then they cut back on the programming I like and replaced it with 'original programming' I don't like. *Then they lost a customer.*


If Netflix lost you as a customer then how is your oldest able to watch Netflix?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> Netflix loves you. That's nice. I had Netflix when they were disc only. Then they added more content via streaming. I was happy. Then they charged separately (as in extra) for disc and streaming. Then they cut back on the programming I like and replaced it with 'original programming' I don't like. Then they lost a customer.


Their original content is most of their value, as people want to watch it. It's some of the best and most interesting content on "TV" right now. Amazon also has some original content, but they have a lot more cable shows, which are also good, but not unique to Amazon's platform. Netflix Originals are mostly what people are talking about these days, it's not cable, not OTA, and not even Premiums most of the time.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Their original content is most of their value, as people want to watch it. It's some of the best and most interesting content on "TV" right now. Amazon also has some original content, but they have a lot more cable shows, which are also good, but not unique to Amazon's platform. Netflix Originals are mostly what people are talking about these days, it's not cable, not OTA, and not even Premiums most of the time.


Hmm... must have missed all those show reviews on places like AVClub etc that have nothing to do with Netflix. Odd.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Bigg said:


> Their original content is most of their value, as people want to watch it. It's some of the best and most interesting content on "TV" right now. Amazon also has some original content, but they have a lot more cable shows, which are also good, but not unique to Amazon's platform. Netflix Originals are mostly what people are talking about these days, it's not cable, not OTA, and not even Premiums most of the time.


I think their original programming is very good. Better than anything on regular TV that's for sure.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> It's going to be a challenge for Hulu though, as they just don't have the kinds of content that Netflix, Amazon, and HBO do. They do have quite a collection of network and various other content though, so they have a market, especially as cord cutting grows, unlike Netflix that can be used for cord stacking or cord cutting equally as well.


This is a good point. In the end, it's mostly about content. I stopped watching baseball and hockey when following a team required me to subscribe to three tiers of programming. Too much money and too much work. It didn't help that expansion put games on at times when I sleep. Eventually, you get out of the habit of watching (haven't seen an NFL game for three years). I often lose interest in a show when seasons are shortened, repeats are mixed in with new episodes, or time slots change (though I am not sure which is cause and which is effect). Annoying when Mad About You moves, but offensive when The Sopranos is on for three months every year or two. (Especially if you wake up to Bill Maher.)

There is, however, a discovery aspect. Tiles vs grid vs search. And a control aspect. Playlists, binges, and curated programming vs watch this thing I discovered.

At the moment, I have hundreds of channels of DirecTV, Prime, and an antenna. More than half of my watching time is spent watching LAFF and H&I. Live and On Demand. The programming is interesting (sitcoms while I prepare for work or make dinner, a quick check of the weather, and fall asleep to some drama or movie I collected just for that purpose.

Due to some glitch in the Miles for Mags program, I am offered free magazine subscriptions every few months despite not having flown for nearly a decade. I generally subscribe to some kind of cooking magazine and some kind of finance/news magazine. I put the food and some of the finance magazines in one pile and the news and some of the finance magazines in another. When I hit the first stale news, I dump that pile and start over. I keep the other pile indefinitely. I kind of treat my DVR the same way. I harvest more than I can consume, delete a lot of shows without watching them, and keep some forever.


CloudAtlas said:


> If Netflix lost you as a customer then how is your oldest able to watch Netflix?


He is 25 now, has a job, an apartment, and a Netflix account. We cut the cord a decade ago.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Their original content is most of their value, as people want to watch it. It's some of the best and most interesting content on "TV" right now. Amazon also has some original content, but they have a lot more cable shows, which are also good, but not unique to Amazon's platform. Netflix Originals are mostly what people are talking about these days, it's not cable, not OTA, and not even Premiums most of the time.


Netflix originals make up a bigger and bigger share of their library and they are what get all the buzz and chatter but I think a large percentage of hours viewed on Netflix is still their licensed library of older content. There's a reason why Netflix ponied up $100 million (!) to continue offering Friends for one more year. Still a lot of value in those old favorites that everybody knows (and new generations are discovering).

Amazon's originals strategy for Prime Video kinda went into disarray a couple years back but they seem to be reenergized lately with The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel and Homecoming. I noticed today that Amazon got the second highest number of Golden Globe noms, tying HBO. (FX got the most, Netflix came in 4th and Showtime in 5th.)

FX, and the production house behind it, should prove to be a shot in the arm for Hulu after Disney acquires Fox (giving them FX plus majority control of Hulu). FX has rivaled HBO in the past few years, it seems, in terms of consistently cranking out popular series and limited series lauded by critics. We very well may see Disney do the same thing with FX series as they already do with some of their Freeform original series, which is to make them available next-day on Hulu (just like their ABC shows) and then keep entire seasons there perpetually.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> Their original content is most of their value, as people want to watch it. It's some of the best and most interesting content on "TV" right now. Amazon also has some original content, but they have a lot more cable shows, which are also good, but not unique to Amazon's platform. Netflix Originals are mostly what people are talking about these days, it's not cable, not OTA, and not even Premiums most of the time.


It may be, but I don't care for it. Last thing I binged on Netflix was Breaking Bad.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> It may be, but I don't care for it. Last thing I binged on Netflix was Breaking Bad.


Have you watched Making a Murderer? Orange is the New Black? House of Cards? Mindhunter? Narcos? They have been doing really well, but it's hard to sustain that type of momentum, especially for a relatively new player in the market, so we'll see how they do.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> Have you watched Making a Murderer? Orange is the New Black? House of Cards? Mindhunter? Narcos? They have been doing really well, but it's hard to sustain that type of momentum, especially for a relatively new player in the market, so we'll see how they do.


No, vulgar, hate Spacey, no, no. I haven't had Netflix for a while. Tried to watch Orange and Cards, but could not.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

cant stand all these garbage unoriginal content on Nutflix or AmAscam. Boring idiotic modern actors with modern hairstyles and boring plots. It analogous the todays garbge music.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

foghorn2 said:


> cant stand all these garbage unoriginal content on Nutflix or AmAscam. Boring idiotic modern actors with modern hairstyles and boring plots. It analogous the todays garbge music.


LOL If modern actors with modern hairstyles bother you then you are better off not watching all the new original content out there.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> No, vulgar, hate Spacey, no, no. I haven't had Netflix for a while. Tried to watch Orange and Cards, but could not.


Both are incredible, especially House of Cards. I watched it before we knew Spacey was a creep. All 5 of those shows are EXCELLENT. Those are the types of shows that are catapulting Netflix to success.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> Both are incredible, especially House of Cards. I watched it before we knew Spacey was a creep. All 5 of those shows are EXCELLENT. Those are the types of shows that are catapulting Netflix to success.


I never liked Spacey. He creeped me out in American Beauty, but I have never liked him in anything. Orange is just vulgar. If you like that, great. It makes me change the channel.


----------



## CloudAtlas (Oct 29, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> FX, and the production house behind it, should prove to be a shot in the arm for Hulu after Disney acquires Fox (giving them FX plus majority control of Hulu). FX has rivaled HBO in the past few years, it seems, in terms of consistently cranking out popular series and limited series lauded by critics. We very well may see Disney do the same thing with FX series as they already do with some of their Freeform original series, which is to make them available next-day on Hulu (just like their ABC shows) and then keep entire seasons there perpetually.


I agree about FX. FX's Rescue Me, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, The Americans and AMC's Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Walking Dead showed that HBO wasn't the only network that could produce original content for an adult audience. And Netflix has paid a lot of money for FX & AMC content.

Hulu needs to double its current 20M subscribers to offset its current $1.5B/yr loses at the same time Disney's priority is starting up it's own streaming service.

Netflix and Hulu will be hardest hit if WarnerMedia follows Disney's lead


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Exclusivity will be the death of Big Media. Rather than ensure subscriptions, it is eating away at the value of all services. In the 60s we referred to this as Mutual Assured Destruction. East and West were too smart to engage. Not so sure about the media giants. For the consumer, the best path is ownership -- or at least possession. That is what DVRs are about and that is what Plex and PlayLater are about. It's shocking to me to see OTT working so hard to emulate the Big Cable services they are disrupting.

My wife liked Mad About You. Due to licensing issues, the complete series was never released as a box set...

_Sony Pictures Home Entertainment has released the first three seasons of Mad About You on DVD in Region 1 and 4. The first two seasons were also released in Region 2. Due to poor sales, no subsequent seasons were released by Sony Pictures Home Entertainment.

In February 2010, Shout! Factory acquired the rights to release the remaining seasons of Mad About You on DVD. They subsequently released seasons 4 and 5 on DVD.

On August 27, 2013, it was announced that Mill Creek Entertainment had acquired the rights to various television series from the Sony Pictures library including Mad About You. They subsequently re-released the first and second seasons on DVD on August 5, 2014.

Mill Creek released the complete series on a 14-DVD set on May 3, 2016. The complete series package has been edited, to an unknown degree. One fan of the series finale noticed, to his regret, that some parts were removed from the finale.
_​I'm guessing the edited out parts were songs the rights could not be obtained for at a reasonable price. I think the same thing happened to Quantum Leap. So the pirated copies are better than the originals to many. How much money is lost fighting over exclusivity? All I know is that when I finally stumbled across the complete series, it was only a couple bucks in a bargain bin at Walmart. I probably would not even have paid that had I known the series was edited.

I believe the future of Pay TV is bleak. Fractured audiences and increased competition are all I see. Tiny Homes and Ancient Aliens for everyone.


----------



## CloudAtlas (Oct 29, 2013)

wizwor said:


> Exclusivity will be the death of Big Media. Rather than ensure subscriptions, it is eating away at the value of all services. ... For the consumer, the best path is ownership -- or at least possession. That is what DVRs are about and that is what Plex and PlayLater are about. It's shocking to me to see OTT working so hard to emulate the Big Cable services they are disrupting.


I thought OTT was emulating Netflix which was trying to become HBO. HBO is all about exclusivity but does offer you the option to own it's series & shows on DVD/BluRay and digital download via iTunes or Vudu.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

The truth of OTT streaming and the three shell game called disruption can be gleaned by seeing who owns what service. Most of them are owned by traditional media companies,networks and satellite TV companies, and increasingly content owners. This can be both good and bad depending on how you look at it. Audiences have been fractured since at least the mid 1990's.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> I never liked Spacey. He creeped me out in American Beauty, but I have never liked him in anything. Orange is just vulgar. If you like that, great. It makes me change the channel.


Vulgar? Not sure what you're talking about. Good thing it's not actually on a channel then. 



CloudAtlas said:


> I thought OTT was emulating Netflix which was trying to become HBO. HBO is all about exclusivity but does offer you the option to own it's series & shows on DVD/BluRay and digital download via iTunes or Vudu.


You've got OTT SVOD and vMVPDs. The vMVPDs are just emulating cable but with a bit skinnier bundle. I thought they would do well, but with a 10% recapture rate of people dropping traditional MVPDs, they're just not. Apparently the way Americans consume media really is changing, and it's changing fast.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ATT reported nearly 1 million (945k) subscriber losses for Directv and Uverse in Q4 2019. And also reported ~230k losses at ATT Now - their streaming service. ATT Now lost a ton subscribers in 2019 . And now sits at ~928k subscribers - less than Hulu + Live TV. 

ATT lost 4.1 million paytv subscribers in 2019 although that includes ATT Now (their streaming service) which had ~660k subscribers leave in 2019.

comcast had 193k video sub losses in q4 2019. And expect video sub losses to accelerate in 2020.

Both companies say they are eschewing the unprofitable/least profitable video subscribers.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

trip1eX said:


> ATT reported nearly 1 million (945k) subscriber losses for Directv and Uverse in Q4 2019. And also reported ~230k losses at ATT Now - their streaming service. ATT Now lost a ton subscribers in 2019 . And now sits at ~928k subscribers - less than Hulu + Live TV.
> 
> ATT lost 4.1 million paytv subscribers in 2019 although that includes ATT Now (their streaming service) which had ~660k subscribers leave in 2019.
> 
> ...


I seem to remember some folks here saying it would be another 10 years before this happens. More like a high speed train heading for the bridge that's out.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

mschnebly said:


> I seem to remember some folks here saying it would be another 10 years before this happens. More like a high speed train heading for the bridge that's out.


It's really AT&T that's losing TV subscribers at such an astounding rate. It's fairly bad among all the MVPDs but absolutely ghastly at DirecTV. Satellite TV is dying.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> It's really AT&T that's losing TV subscribers at such an astounding rate. It's fairly bad among all the MVPDs but absolutely ghastly at DirecTV. Satellite TV is dying.


Yeah but Comcast might not be far behind in the sub losses dept. they just announced the same plan DTV has been following for awhile. Don't chase the cheap customer. And the Comcast CEO made it sound like he expects a pretty big increase in video sub losses next year. We'll see I guess.

One thing with satellite is it eventually levels off to rural customers and diehard fans I would think.

While CAble tv customers could go to zero over the long run because of the Netflix's of the world and the OTT cable services and if sports expands its direct to consumer options....

3.4 million video sub losses for DTV and Uverse is a lot though. And sadder thing is ATT is losing their OTT cable streaming customers too.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

NashGuy said:


> It's really AT&T that's losing TV subscribers at such an astounding rate. It's fairly bad among all the MVPDs but absolutely ghastly at DirecTV. Satellite TV is dying.


The cable companies are holding on because in most cases they still hold a monopoly on internet connectivity. If something like SpaceX's StarLink actually comes to fruition and it can compete with cable for speed/price the cable companies are going to be in really big trouble.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> The cable companies are holding on because in most cases they still hold a monopoly on internet connectivity. If something like SpaceX's StarLink actually comes to fruition and it can compete with cable for speed/price the cable companies are going to be in really big trouble.


Possible. It will really depend on what latency looks like, actual speeds as you mentioned and use cases.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> The cable companies are holding on because in most cases they still hold a monopoly on internet connectivity.


good point. But it's also why the traditional tv part of cable can go to zero.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> good point. But it's also why the traditional tv part of cable can go to zero.


Possibly.

I still think that the traditional cable companies will split into two. They will spin off their TV part into an OTT skinny bundle type app (AT&T is actually working on a new version of AT&T Now right now for this) and the line going to your house will be internet only. It'll be more politically stable long term, since there will likely be regulation changes with every new administration and those will be easier to deal with if the pipe is internet only, and it'll also allow them to convert to newer forms of DOCSIS, which break existing QAM, but offer significantly more bandwidth via smaller frequency blocks and different modulation, allowing them to offer even higher speeds. Plus if they spin the TV part off into an OTT app they can offer it nationwide even outside their existing coverage area.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> Possibly.
> 
> I still think that the traditional cable companies will split into two. They will spin off their TV part into an OTT skinny bundle type app (AT&T is actually working on a new version of AT&T Now right now for this) and the line going to your house will be internet only. It'll be more politically stable long term, since there will likely be regulation changes with every new administration and those will be easier to deal with if the pipe is internet only, and it'll also allow them to convert to newer forms of DOCSIS, which break existing QAM, but offer significantly more bandwidth via smaller frequency blocks and different modulation, allowing them to offer even higher speeds. Plus if they spin the TV part off into an OTT app they can offer it nationwide even outside their existing coverage area.


Would they waive the data usage for their own OTT service and not the others?
I bet they will.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

foghorn2 said:


> Would they waive the data usage for their own OTT service and not the others?
> I bet they will.


That's a distinct possibility. Especially with the net neutrality regulations getting tossed out. Although those could end up being a ping pong that come and go as the administration changes. So who knows where we'll land on that.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

foghorn2 said:


> Would they waive the data usage for their own OTT service and not the others?
> I bet they will.


With AT&T Fiber, if you subscribe to broadband plus any TV service from them (even satellite), then they waive the data cap on your broadband service, which would otherwise cost you $30/mo. If you have gigabit service, there's no cap anyway. But all speed tiers below that have a 1 TB cap.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> Yeah but Comcast might not be far behind in the sub losses dept. they just announced the same plan DTV has been following for awhile. Don't chase the cheap customer. And the Comcast CEO made it sound like he expects a pretty big increase in video sub losses next year. We'll see I guess.
> 
> One thing with satellite is it eventually levels off to rural customers and diehard fans I would think.
> 
> ...


One problem for DTV is that their subscriber base is nationwide but most of those subscribers live outside of AT&T's broadband footprint. So they're not eligible to bundle TV and broadband together from AT&T. When you get TV and broadband from two different providers, you're not getting that bundling discount. So I assume that some satellite TV customers are leaving DTV and DISH and opting for cable TV from their broadband provider. (Of course, as you point out, DTV's nationwide coverage cuts the other way too: there are some rural satellite TV customers who can't get TV via any other means, so they're currently stuck with it. But if they're looking to save money on satellite TV, DISH has always been the more value player than has DTV.)

Another issue that DTV has is that their technology platform is outdated. Their receivers don't have apps for Netflix, YouTube or Prime Video, much less Hulu, Disney+, CBS AA, etc. Their on-demand platform is a joke compared to cable providers. (If you have broadband, you can choose to download select content to your hard drive and watch it later for a limited time.) It's a pretty bad situation compared to Comcast X1, Cox Contour, and AlticeOne, as well as the DISH Hopper 3.

And then there are other issues inherent to satellite TV: rain fade and having to keep an ugly dish on your house or out in the yard.

But perhaps the biggest contributor to the huge losses they had in 2019 were the big promotional discounts and price locks that they were offering back in 2017. Those folks had sticker shock when their bills jacked way up to the regular rates last year. But at that point, their 2-year contracts were up, so many chose to leave. DTV still requires a 2-yr contract, and offers discounts in the first year, but the discounts are smaller now. For a detailed discussion, see this post on another site.

As for their loss of subs on AT&T TV Now, I doubt they care. They simply chose to restructure their packages and prices on that service so that they were no longer money-losers. "Cord-cutter" cable TV subscribers tend to be very price-sensitive shoppers (who have unrealistic expectations about what cable TV should cost). Once AT&T's cord-cutter service started selling packages priced at levels that weren't nearly as attractive as YouTube TV and Hulu Live, everyone went to them instead. Better to let Google lose money on each subscriber than us, AT&T figures.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Possibly.
> 
> I still think that the traditional cable companies will split into two. They will spin off their TV part into an OTT skinny bundle type app (AT&T is actually working on a new version of AT&T Now right now for this) and the line going to your house will be internet only. It'll be more politically stable long term, since there will likely be regulation changes with every new administration and those will be easier to deal with if the pipe is internet only, and it'll also allow them to convert to newer forms of DOCSIS, which break existing QAM, but offer significantly more bandwidth via smaller frequency blocks and different modulation, allowing them to offer even higher speeds. Plus if they spin the TV part off into an OTT app they can offer it nationwide even outside their existing coverage area.


Well yeah that's what i'm saying except I think ultimately the competition will drive out the cable co's OTT tv offering.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> Well yeah that's what i'm saying except I think ultimately the competition will drive out the cable co's OTT tv offering.


Maybe. But they have connections to the content providers that others don't have. There is still no single OTT service, other than AT&T now, that offers a bundle with every single channel you can get via cable. Unfortunately the AT&T Now bundle is super expensive and their DVR policy sucks. (recordings only retained for 30 days) Fubo is second and has everything except Disney owned channels. But their top tier is like $80/mo which is basically cable pricing.

So we may end up with OTT "cable" that's just as expensive as it's linear counterpart.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Maybe. But they have connections to the content providers that others don't have. There is still no single OTT service, other than AT&T now, that offers a bundle with every single channel you can get via cable. Unfortunately the AT&T Now bundle is super expensive and their DVR policy sucks. (recordings only retained for 30 days) Fubo is second and has everything except Disney owned channels. But their top tier is like $80/mo which is basically cable pricing.


But you just said cable cos themselves will go to the OTT skinny bundle. 

I don't think connections has anything to do with why the cable OTT services don't have every channel. I think they went skinny on purpose to begin with. They saw a niche that cable cos weren't serving.

However I don't see OTT cable services as being the end game. The netflixes and the Amazons and Disneys and Peacocks and HBO max's etc are the tv of the future. ESPN+ is. Direct to consumer sports as well. DAZN wants to be there too.

Anyway i guess it's a big hurry up and wait. Be interesting to see Comcast's video sub losses this year. Still going to be years before sports rights come up for bid again too. hard for something like DAZN to do anything until then.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

Yep, OTT exists because it is a little cheaper version of what people are already used to with less channels. When you change thinking to shows vice channels, then there are now and in the future, services that will cover that. For most of the OTTs bringing your local broadcast channel into the mix is one of the prime causes of the $50+ cost. Sling is cheap because there are no locals at all in their mix. And of course, how long are the OTT guys going to be willing to lose money?

Right now if you are willing to have a few subscriptions you can cover nearly all the broadcast and cable channels other than sports, if you are willing to have it delayed a day or two, and save even more if you can tolerate ads.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> But you just said cable cos themselves will go to the OTT skinny bundle.
> 
> I don't think connections has anything to do with why the cable OTT services don't have every channel. I think they went skinny on purpose to begin with. They saw a niche that cable cos weren't serving.
> 
> ...


The problem with all those separate services is that they add up to more than cable, and there is nothing out there that can really aggregate them so the user knows when new content becomes available on each individual service. That's why people liked cable and DVRs. They got access to content from 100s of channels aggregated into a single guide where they could pick and choose what they wanted to watch, and the DVR would record those programs automatically. This whole myriad of different services is going to be a cluster f*ck for a while. And the alternative is going to be to pay for a cable like package from some provider, whether that's a traditional MSO or something like YouTube TV, to record and aggregate what you want. I think the traditional MSOs are in a better place to negotiate with the content creators for that second type of service because of their existing relationships.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

Apple’s AppleTV app does a pretty good job of keeping up with new content for the services that are supported by it. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

lparsons21 said:


> Apple's AppleTV app does a pretty good job of keeping up with new content for the services that are supported by it.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


It's also really good for shows that switch streaming services. Say things that Hulu dropped that went to the NBC app, things migrating to Netflix, away from Netflix etc...


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

lparsons21 said:


> Yep, OTT exists because it is a little cheaper version of what people are already used to with less channels. When you change thinking to shows vice channels, then there are now and in the future, services that will cover that. For most of the OTTs bringing your local broadcast channel into the mix is one of the prime causes of the $50+ cost. Sling is cheap because there are no locals at all in their mix. And of course, how long are the OTT guys going to be willing to lose money?
> 
> Right now if you are willing to have a few subscriptions you can cover nearly all the broadcast and cable channels other than sports, if you are willing to have it delayed a day or two, and save even more if you can tolerate ads.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


Do what works for you, which is why most of us own a Tivo to begin with. You are allowed to have a Tivo on your choice of a cable, FIOS or OTA and use a OTT service(s). They won't come for you in the dead of night. Watch things you want, on your own time. There is that joke if you say Live TV to a Tivo owner we won't know what you're talking about.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> It's really AT&T that's losing TV subscribers at such an astounding rate. It's fairly bad among all the MVPDs but absolutely ghastly at DirecTV. Satellite TV is dying.


I unsubscribed today, so...maybe.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

lparsons21 said:


> Yep, OTT exists because it is a little cheaper version of what people are already used to with less channels.


I believe OTT's success is due to the contempt people feel for the premium providers. The franchise agreements, long term customers paying more than new ones, and tactical bundling feel like bullying.


lparsons21 said:


> When you change thinking to shows vice channels, then there are now and in the future, services that will cover that. For most of the OTTs bringing your local broadcast channel into the mix is one of the prime causes of the $50+ cost. Sling is cheap because there are no locals at all in their mix. And of course, how long are the OTT guys going to be willing to lose money?


There was a time when cable and satellite companies provided local channels by antenna. Makes MORE sense today given the growth of broadcast channels and networks.


lparsons21 said:


> Right now if you are willing to have a few subscriptions you can cover nearly all the broadcast and cable channels other than sports, if you are willing to have it delayed a day or two, and save even more if you can tolerate ads.


Or you can install an antenna and a PSIP device and just watch what is on.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

lparsons21 said:


> Yep, OTT exists because it is a little cheaper version of what people are already used to with less channels. When you change thinking to shows vice channels, then there are now and in the future, services that will cover that. For most of the OTTs bringing your local broadcast channel into the mix is one of the prime causes of the $50+ cost. Sling is cheap because there are no locals at all in their mix. And of course, how long are the OTT guys going to be willing to lose money?


Yeah, Sling is really a niche service for folks who don't need to get their locals and are OK with a weird smallish line-up of channels. But hey, it's all some people need and it's a low price. Just $35/mo for either of the two base packages. If all you really care about is getting ESPN the cheapest way possible, Sling is for you.

As for Hulu Live and YouTube TV, they've raised prices before and I have to believe more price hikes are on the way. As you say, how long will their owners lose money on those services? Hulu Live just went up to $55/mo in Dec. but if you want a decent DVR, that takes you to $65/mo. YTTV is at $50/mo and has gone up the past two springs. I expect they will go up to $60/mo this March or April. But they'll likely soften the blow by adding a few more channels again, as they have before. Slowly, they're filling out to become the standard mid-tier cable package while they're creeping closer to the incremental cost of adding TV service to broadband from Comcast, Charter, AT&T, etc.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> There is still no single OTT service, other than AT&T now, that offers a bundle with every single channel you can get via cable.


Sony's Vue product was a true cable replacement. Could not make money. Closed up shop. It isn't so much that the premium providers are over charging as it is that people do not value their product at the asking price. MLB made money when it was ad supported. Maybe the content providers should work a little harder at managing their costs? Maybe $430m is a bit much for a guy who can hit, throw, and catch a ball? Maybe $1,000,000 is a bit much to pay an actor for a 30 minute episode? Maybe $100,000,000 is too much for Friends? Maybe not, but I don't pay for sports or Netflix.


Dan203 said:


> So we may end up with OTT "cable" that's just as expensive as it's linear counterpart.


Right.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I think the content creators, and consolidation and bundling ate also a problem. Like how Disney wont give you ABC without also requiring you to take ESPN. Or how Viacom owns like 3-4 of the most popular basic cable channels, while also owning a bunch of turds, and requires MSOs to take them as an all or nothing package deal. 

There are two sides to this coin. I personally love all the choice that multiple services like Netflix, HULU, Disney+, etc.. give me I find it really hard to manage and figure out what to watch. Plus the choices are becoming overwhelming. I have so many shows/movies on my various lists I don’t think I have enough free time left in my life to watch them all. And more is added every day.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

wizwor said:


> Or you can install an antenna and a PSIP device and just watch what is on.


I could do that, but if I use the Tivo Bolt I can only get ABC and Fox with their sub-channels. Good Lord those Bolt OTA tuners suck!!

If I use antenna to TV I get ABC/Fox/PBS and either NBC or CBS with sub-channels but more often than not, no guide data at all.

And of course, the only thing worse with daytime TV than the incessant reruns of the cable channels, is broadcast daytime! 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

tenthplanet said:


> Do what works for you, which is why most of us own a Tivo to begin with. You are allowed to have a Tivo on your choice of a cable, FIOS or OTA and use a OTT service(s). They won't come for you in the dead of night. Watch things you want, on your own time. There is that joke if you say Live TV to a Tivo owner we won't know what you're talking about.


Yeah I almost never watch anything live and haven't for years. Currently these discussions about cutting the cord are mostly just fun to participate in and think about the choices that could be made.

That's because my cable TV portion is essentially $58/month for everything except premiums, some RSN's and some lesser cable channels. That'll go up $20 sometime this year. With that rate its hard to make a change because there really isn't any advantage in doing so.

That said, you can cut the cord for really low prices if you are not ad-adverse and don't care about sports and live events. The combo of Hulu basic and CBS All Access covers a heck of a lot of TV shows, both broadcast and cable. Add in the freebie ad-supported services and you've got so much to watch you'd run out of time before you'd run out of shows!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, Sling is really a niche service for folks who don't need to get their locals and are OK with a weird smallish line-up of channels. But hey, it's all some people need and it's a low price. Just $35/mo for either of the two base packages. If all you really care about is getting ESPN the cheapest way possible, Sling is for you.


On quick glance, yes Sling does appear to be a niche service, but it really is a nifty mix of channels IMO. I am playing with Sling Blue now and it has all 9 of my must have cable channels which most of the others don't. It is cheap, has a very decent UI and overall works well. Even has some sports beyond just ESPN.

You show the price with expanded DVR, but with streaming do you really need that? I say, maybe not. Get Sling Blue for $30, get Hulu w/ads for $6, get CBS w/ads for $6 and you've got the cable channels, Hulu and CBS bring in the shows on locals and many cable channels. Add in a few freebies and you're more than covered. Total cost = $42 and if you want no ads, the bill goes up about $10.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

lparsons21 said:


> And of course, the only thing worse with daytime TV than the incessant reruns of the cable channels, is broadcast daytime!


My favorite channel -- paid or OTA -- is heroes and icons. From 11:00am to 8:00pm they binge programs I like (House, Monk, JAG, Numbers, and Nash Bridges). I DVR House and JAG as well as NYPD Blue (binges weekdays at the wee hours) and Hill Street Blues (weekends).


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

I like both NYPD Blue and Hill Street Blues, but here the video quality is just horrible so I seldom watch H&I.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Right, the ota diginets purposefully screw with the pq and sometimes aspect ratios. They are not so great anymore.


----------



## Anotherpyr (May 6, 2015)

I personally think the content providers are shooting themselves in the foot with their bundling and pricing. But they don’t want to give up their version of the CD model and really don’t have a Napster equivalent to force them into unbundling content. Buying individual shows / seasons from Apple is as close to buying a single as they get.

I dropped satellite TV a long time ago when it was costing more than Comcast or Verizon for the content even though I owned the equipment. In many rural areas there really isn’t much choice. But the pricing for it has gotten ridiculous in my mind. I had DirectNow when AT&T was running the discounts on it. But they kept raising the price on the go big package and the only reason I had it was for the discounted price and the free streaming over their cellular network which I used when traveling. Ultimately their pricing resulted in dropping not only it, but their cell service too.

This year saw an increase in the local channels charge on Xfinity and the unbundling of services on Verizon Fios. I’m beginning to realize that for me, I can probably get more than enough content through HBO Now / Max, and Netflix that I probably don’t need anything else. Other than the local news which I can get for free, there really isn’t anything on the major networks that I watch any more. So sadly my TiVo days may be over not because of TE4 or some other decision made by the owners of the moment, but by the greed of the content providers.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

foghorn2 said:


> Right, the ota diginets purposefully screw with the pq and sometimes aspect ratios. They are not so great anymore.


Doubt they do it purposely. A lot of things contribute to image quality -- source resolution, streamed resolution, scaling at the receiving device, scaling at the display device. When I had DirecTV, the SD west coast feeds were the wrong shape and low resolution. H&I generally looks great for me at 480i. WENH (PBS) subs also look great at 480i. Mostly, I wish they would not edit out the bad words and nudity. 480i nudity is STILL nudity, right?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> It's really AT&T that's losing TV subscribers at such an astounding rate. It's fairly bad among all the MVPDs but absolutely ghastly at DirecTV. Satellite TV is dying.


Satellite TV is dying as a competitor to OTT and cable. It's not dying on it's own, and there is a long-term market for DBS.



trip1eX said:


> Yeah but Comcast might not be far behind in the sub losses dept. they just announced the same plan DTV has been following for awhile. Don't chase the cheap customer. And the Comcast CEO made it sound like he expects a pretty big increase in video sub losses next year. We'll see I guess.


Comcast finally realized that their business is broadband, and they shouldn't chase subscriber numbers when they aren't profitable.



> One thing with satellite is it eventually levels off to rural customers and diehard fans I would think.


There is a long-term role for DBS, but it's probably 5M or 10M not a combined 30M+ that they have right now.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> (Of course, as you point out, DTV's nationwide coverage cuts the other way too: there are some rural satellite TV customers who can't get TV via any other means, so they're currently stuck with it. But if they're looking to save money on satellite TV, DISH has always been the more value player than has DTV.)


So do you think DirecTV will disappear and DISH will be the long-term player in the DBS market? It would kind of make sense for a DBS company to be doing DBS, as opposed to AT&T. It's a shame, as DirecTV's system is much more technologically advanced, and has a lot more bandwidth, but that may not be the market they're in as that moves to OTT streaming, and rural, value-conscious customers are left in the DBS ecosystem.



> And then there are other issues inherent to satellite TV: rain fade and having to keep an ugly dish on your house or out in the yard.


The dishes aren't ugly, and satellite is more reliable than cable, but I don't think either of those things are driving factors anyway. The economics are what really matters.



> "Cord-cutter" cable TV subscribers tend to be very price-sensitive shoppers (who have unrealistic expectations about what cable TV should cost). Once AT&T's cord-cutter service started selling packages priced at levels that weren't nearly as attractive as YouTube TV and Hulu Live, everyone went to them instead. Better to let Google lose money on each subscriber than us, AT&T figures.


I believe Google is now profitable at $50/mo. It depends on how you look at what cable TV "should" cost. The cost problem is not driven by the MVPDs (although they sometimes add to it), but by the content providers. The notion that cable TV "should" cost over $100/mo is completely ridiculous relative to the value it provides and what people spend money on. $50/mo seems like a semi-reasonable price point, and I think that's about what the market will bear in the long run.

The whole cable TV ecosystem was brought down, in large part, by content providers who have jacked rates over and over and over again, while decreasing both the quality and quantity of their content, while having one or two "must see" shows for some vocal subset of the MVPD's audience so that the MVPDs have been basically forced to shell out ever-increasing carriage fees. It's an unsustainable model and a tragedy of the commons. No single content provider has any incentive to offer programming at a reasonable cost when the others are jacking their rates up year after year after year, so they have all jacked their costs up so high that people got sick of it and started cutting the cord. If the cable bundle didn't get so bloated and overpriced due to content providers increasing rates over and over and over again, and was offered at a much more reasonable cost, then cord cutting wouldn't be nearly what it is today. The fundamental problem is that the cable bundle is an economically broken model with a bunch of misaligned incentives, and the result is that it will eventually fail.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> The problem with all those separate services is that they add up to more than cable, and there is nothing out there that can really aggregate them so the user knows when new content becomes available on each individual service. That's why people liked cable and DVRs. They got access to content from 100s of channels aggregated into a single guide where they could pick and choose what they wanted to watch, and the DVR would record those programs automatically.


This argument has been repeated over and over again by various articles online, as well as cable companies pushing DVRs.

First, for most people, their costs to have OTT SVOD and even OTT streaming will still be far lower than with cable, especially when you count all the extra fees that cable tacks on to their packages, as well as equipment rental costs.

Secondly, the idea that cable aggregates all of your content together used to be true, *but isn't any longer*. If you look at the media landscape today, you see that the good content is spread out among sources that aren't available on cable TV anyway, like Netflix, Amazon Prime, YouTube, and elsewhere. So all cable can do, in a best case scenario, is to aggregate premium and local content together. There's basically nothing left on the cable channels other than live sports, and cable can't aggregate Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, and the rest. Comcast sort of tries to with X1, but there are still separate apps for various types of content, and it's still largely a manual process to keep up with each content source.

The only solution now is a streaming platform like Apple TV or Roku coming in and working with the content providers to figure out how to integrate all the content onto a single watchlist.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> Maybe the content providers should work a little harder at managing their costs? Maybe $430m is a bit much for a guy who can hit, throw, and catch a ball? Maybe $1,000,000 is a bit much to pay an actor for a 30 minute episode? Maybe $100,000,000 is too much for Friends? Maybe not, but I don't pay for sports or Netflix.


If all the providers had managed their costs properly, then cable today would be under $50/mo for a fully featured package. Of course, there would also be fewer channels of junk with the good content consolidated on fewer channels. However, I don't see incentives in place to proactively do that, and I think it's going to be a bloodbath for ESPN and the rest of the sports providers at least as the pay TV world collapses, and that will finally force the changes that have been needed for a long time.

In terms of movie and TV shows, right now there is more money than ever in them, and with new revenue sources coming in through various streaming platforms and global markets, they have room yet to grow, just not on the traditional broadcast and cable networks.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

lparsons21 said:


> On quick glance, yes Sling does appear to be a niche service, but it really is a nifty mix of channels IMO. I am playing with Sling Blue now and it has all 9 of my must have cable channels which most of the others don't. It is cheap, has a very decent UI and overall works well. Even has some sports beyond just ESPN.


Yeah. I'm not criticizing Sling. It fills a useful market niche. My point is that it's a niche. I don't think there are that many folks out there who would look at either the Blue or the Orange package and say, "I like this collection of channels. I'm happy paying $30 for this" as opposed to spending more for a standard more well-rounded package with locals, or only paying $20 for the sports-free Philo, or most likely just going with a few on-demand services like Hulu, Netflix, etc.

I wonder what DISH's long-term strategy is for Sling. As it's currently structured, I don't think it has much room to grow. I suppose Charlie Ergen's idea is that if DISH does eventually begin offering consumer 5G service (a claim I remain skeptical of), then he'll want to pair Sling with it as the in-house cable TV service. But if that happens, then I would expect Sling to look a lot more like a streaming version of DISH, with fuller channel packages including locals and a more capacious DVR. It would become the thing he would want to shepherd DISH users over to, just as AT&T wants to move their DirecTV customers over to AT&T TV. Right now, Sling serves as DISH's cut-rate sibling.



lparsons21 said:


> You show the price with expanded DVR, but with streaming do you really need that? I say, maybe not.


Oops. Yes, I misquoted Sling's base packages as $35 when they're actually just $30. And the optional expanded cloud DVR is $5 extra.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Satellite TV is dying as a competitor to OTT and cable. It's not dying on it's own, and there is a long-term market for DBS.


Let's circle back in five years and see if you still feel that way.



Bigg said:


> There is a long-term role for DBS, but it's probably 5M or 10M not a combined 30M+ that they have right now.


As the subscriber numbers dwindle, the prices will have to increase. Meanwhile, those rural consumers whose only choice had been DBS will increasingly opt for streaming-based options as LEO satellite and other forms of broadband become available to them. Starlink is supposed to begin offering service to consumers in at least part of the US by the end of this year...


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> I wonder what DISH's long-term strategy is for Sling. As it's currently structured, I don't think it has much room to grow. I suppose Charlie Ergen's idea is that if DISH does eventually begin offering consumer 5G service (a claim I remain skeptical of), then he'll want to pair Sling with it as the in-house cable TV service. But if that happens, then I would expect Sling to look a lot more like a streaming version of DISH, with fuller channel packages including locals and a more capacious DVR. It would become the thing he would want to shepherd DISH users over to, just as AT&T wants to move their DirecTV customers over to AT&T TV. Right now, Sling serves as DISH's cut-rate sibling.


I sure hope that Dish's long term strategy doesn't expand to resemble the so far, failing approach ATT is taking. Note that Sling increased subscriptions while ATT lost subscriptions. ATT's only product that I see having a chance of being successful is HBOMax since it is just an expansion of the current HBO at the same price. Their others are fat channels counts, fat prices and a contract.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> So do you think DirecTV will disappear and DISH will be the long-term player in the DBS market? It would kind of make sense for a DBS company to be doing DBS, as opposed to AT&T. It's a shame, as DirecTV's system is much more technologically advanced, and has a lot more bandwidth, but that may not be the market they're in as that moves to OTT streaming, and rural, value-conscious customers are left in the DBS ecosystem.


I think AT&T disdains DBS as a legacy non-IP technology. Culturally, I suspect most of the company has no desire to keep and operate DirecTV but rather sees it as their red-headed stepchild. I think there's a growing consensus on Wall Street and probably within AT&T that buying DTV was a strategic mistake. So I expect them to somehow unload DirecTV from their books at some point in the next few years. The only buyer that makes any sense is DISH, although I don't know if even they want it, especially if they really do transform into a 5G provider. Maybe AT&T and DISH both spin off their DBS operations into a joint holding company and merge the brands. A single major DBS provider would obviously remain viable for longer than would two as the market rapidly shrinks for that kind of service in the 2020s.



Bigg said:


> I believe Google is now profitable at $50/mo.


I'd love to know if it is. I doubt it though. Remember that the cable networks are charging these new vMVPDs higher per-subscriber carriage rates than they are the established MVPDs, which makes sense given that YouTube TV, Hulu Live, Fubo, etc. don't have nearly as many subscribers as Comcast, AT&T, Charter, DISH, etc.

Now look at the line-up of channels in YouTube TV. All the major locals, lots of expensive sports nets including RSNs, Fox News, etc. And they're charging $50 flat for it (with unlimited cloud DVR to boot). Now look at DISH's packages. Ergen is one of the most notoriously hard bargainers in the industry. He's kissed goodbye to HBO and the Fox/Sinclair RSNs to control prices. But even at DISH -- with their size and pricing power -- you can't come close to the combination of high-value channels that YTTV offers for anything close to $50. Maybe value-wise the closest thing DISH offers would be America's Top 120 Plus (which no longer has the Fox RSNs but offers some other stuff YTTV lacks, mainly Viacom and A+E Networks). DISH prices that package -- without DVR service -- at $75/mo for the first two years (with a 2-yr contract). That's 50% more than YTTV costs. Granted, DISH has to cover the cost of those free installations. But still.

[EDIT: Here's another point of comparison. To get something close to the YTTV line-up from Sling, you'd need to get their Orange+Blue combo for $45, add the Sports Extra pack for $10 and the cloud DVR for $5. Now you're at $60/mo and you still don't have locals or RSNs! Comcast's Broadcast TV fee for locals is $15/mo and RSN fee is about $8/mo. If you tacked those fees onto Sling, you're up to $83/mo!]

So, as I say, I'm pretty skeptical that YTTV is breaking even at $50/mo. I suspect Google is playing the long game with YTTV by starting out as a budget alternative to MVPDs, priced so low that it loses money. But then they're slowly raising the cost, while adding additional channels, to get it to a point where it's both profitable and broadly acceptable content-wise to the mainstream consumer market. If history repeats itself, they'll raise the price again this March or April, just as they did the past two years. A price point of $60/mo feels right to me for YTTV this year.



Bigg said:


> It depends on how you look at what cable TV "should" cost.


It should cost whatever the market will bear, i.e. what consumers are willing to pay for it. About half of Americans are still willing to pay more for cable TV than are self-identified "cord-cutters" who subscribe to (for now, anyway) lower-priced vMVPDs.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

wizwor said:


> My favorite channel -- paid or OTA -- is heroes and icons. From 11:00am to 8:00pm they binge programs I like (House, Monk, JAG, Numbers, and Nash Bridges). I DVR House and JAG as well as NYPD Blue (binges weekdays at the wee hours) and Hill Street Blues (weekends).


You're not a Star Trek fan, eh?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

lparsons21 said:


> I sure hope that Dish's long term strategy doesn't expand to resemble the so far, failing approach ATT is taking. Note that Sling increased subscriptions while ATT lost subscriptions. ATT's only product that I see having a chance of being successful is HBOMax since it is just an expansion of the current HBO at the same price. Their others are fat channels counts, fat prices and a contract.


I don't think we can really make any conclusions yet about AT&T's streaming cable TV strategy. AT&T TV Now is something of a red-herring. It's been an experimental staging ground to allow the company to prepare for the real thing, AT&T TV. The entire AT&T TV Now brand will disappear, if not this year, then next. And we don't yet know what AT&T TV is really going to look like in terms of pricing, packages, features, and contracts until it launches nationwide here in a week or two.

I suspect that, like other "cord-cutters," you would define a "successful" cable TV strategy as selling a bundle of popular channels at a price that isn't profitable in order to get a large number of subscribers. AT&T isn't going to do that. They acknowledge that the cable bundle is in secular, long-term decline and that the future is direct-to-consumer services like HBO Max, which is why that's the thing they're really pinning their hopes on. But they can't just abandon the sizable business they have in selling the cable bundle. That would destroy their stock price. There's still significant money to be made there, even as it fades away in the 2020s. AT&T TV is simply their attempt to get that business in a healthier place than it is now with DirecTV and UVerse TV, which are losing subscribers at much faster rates than the overall cable TV industry. They're not going to destroy their per-subscriber profit margins in their cable TV business by selling AT&T TV at an unsustainably low price. What they're hoping AT&T TV will do for them is be a more attractive product for consumers who are still interested in the cable bundle. And they'll be able to price it a _little_ lower than DirecTV, while maintaining similar profit margins, because the customer acquisition/installation costs are lower and also because they can better monetize their ad inventory through data-enabled targeting (Xandr).


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

I’m not overly concerned whether or not a particular streaming service is profitable or not, that’s their problem and they have plenty of bean counters to guide them in their financial arena.

That said, yeah there are some who want to keep fat channel counts, but the writing on the wall is that they are a declining number. What they want is to save some money and the only way you save anything significant is reduce the channel count in the long term. And that presents a big issue for the streaming service providers since the program producers like bundling all their content in one contract. But as with all things, that probably is going to change a bit.

The changes will be slowly forced on them as people sign up for the different packages and find that you don’t really need a channel guide since it isn’t the channel you want, it is the content on it. And for some channels today, that content is sorely lacking. At the lower end look at Paramount, arguably only one or two good shows, the rest is reruns and drek, other channels suffer from this same issue.

Once the user figures this out, and has already had experience with the differences in how the UI’s work, then shifting away from a cable/sat replacement service like ATT, Hulu Live and the others to those a little different. With that the consumer will have better control of exactly what is important to them and how to get it.

The one thing that nearly no one is looking for is ATT’s proposed fat channel offering. Or at least the ones looking to cut the cable.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

tarheelblue32 said:


> You're not a Star Trek fan, eh?


I want to be. I bought all the movies. I just can't latch on.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> I suspect that, like other "cord-cutters," you would define a "successful" cable TV strategy as selling a bundle of popular channels at a price that isn't profitable in order to get a large number of subscribers. AT&T isn't going to do that. They acknowledge that the cable bundle is in secular, long-term decline and that the future is direct-to-consumer services like HBO Max


I like the Recast model (though the hardware needs some work). With the Recast, the consumer is the aggregator. The Recast connects to an antenna and the internet and integrates YOUR local channels via the antenna with OTT services like Pluto (free), Philo (inexpensive), and Prime Channels (a la carte/on demand). I think that is what most cord cutters would define as an attractive option. No reason that integrator could not integrate ATSC 3.0 as well.

Antenna plus Pluto plus high speed internet is $50/month. If you want 'cable filler channels' Philo adds $20 per month. Prime adds $13/month and HBO adds $15. That is a cable replacement with better local channels plus HBO for < $100 per month.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

All I pay is $30 for sling- I get all the channels I want and more, internet is fixed @ $45/mo, Prime comes bundled basically free with my family cell phone plan. Thats it!

Locals come free with the airtv/sling


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

First, wizwor & foghorn2, how do the OTA tuners in the recast and AirTV compare to the Tivo Bolt cable/OTA boxes in tuner strength? I hooked up my Bolt to antenna the other day and it could find only 2 of the big 4 broadcast channels ad their sub-channels, my TV connected to the same antenna gets 3 of the 4 and PBS.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Ive used the bolt in the past, currently use the Roamios and the AirTv, AirTv pull in more, the Roamios next, back when I had the bolt, I was missing about 5 (we have about 96 channels in Vegas). and some scanned were quite weak.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

foghorn2 said:


> Ive used the bolt in the past, currently use the Roamios and the AirTv, AirTv pull in more, the Roamios next, back when I had the bolt, I was missing about 5 (we have about 96 channels in Vegas). and some scanned were quite weak.


Thanks. Do the broadcast channels work with the SlingTV app on the AppleTV yet? That's my preferred streaming box.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

lparsons21 said:


> Thanks. Do the broadcast channels work with the SlingTV app on the AppleTV yet? That's my preferred streaming box.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


 No, and not on Xbox or Samsung Tv's either, they have to update the apps first. Works fine on the Roku and FireTV sticks. Apple fans are not happy about this right now


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

foghorn2 said:


> No, and not on Xbox or Samsung Tv's either, they have to update the apps first. Works fine on the Roku and FireTV sticks. Apple fans are not happy about this right now


Sorry to hear that. I have a FireTV Cube but I really don't like the UI on it at all.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

lparsons21 said:


> Sorry to hear that. I have a FireTV Cube but I really don't like the UI on it at all.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


I dont either, I just use the first column of recent apps for that same reason. I have a AirTv Mini 4k on its way, we shall see if the will replace the fireTV's. Stay tuned - this is a big brother of the new Tivo stick.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Let's circle back in five years and see if you still feel that way.


DBS will still be around. It will continue to lose customers until it flattens out as a niche service. What that plateau is remains to be seen. It could be 1M customer, it could be 5-10M.



> As the subscriber numbers dwindle, the prices will have to increase. Meanwhile, those rural consumers whose only choice had been DBS will increasingly opt for streaming-based options as LEO satellite and other forms of broadband become available to them. Starlink is supposed to begin offering service to consumers in at least part of the US by the end of this year...


That remains to be seen.



NashGuy said:


> I think AT&T disdains DBS as a legacy non-IP technology. Culturally, I suspect most of the company has no desire to keep and operate DirecTV but rather sees it as their red-headed stepchild. I think there's a growing consensus on Wall Street and probably within AT&T that buying DTV was a strategic mistake. So I expect them to somehow unload DirecTV from their books at some point in the next few years. The only buyer that makes any sense is DISH, although I don't know if even they want it, especially if they really do transform into a 5G provider. Maybe AT&T and DISH both spin off their DBS operations into a joint holding company and merge the brands. A single major DBS provider would obviously remain viable for longer than would two as the market rapidly shrinks for that kind of service in the 2020s.


It's strange that AT&T doesn't want DirecTV to succeed in the DBS market, given how much they paid for them. What happens with DISH, and thus the DBS market may depend a lot on what happens with T-Sprint.



> I'd love to know if it is. I doubt it though. Remember that the cable networks are charging these new vMVPDs higher per-subscriber carriage rates than they are the established MVPDs, which makes sense given that YouTube TV, Hulu Live, Fubo, etc. don't have nearly as many subscribers as Comcast, AT&T, Charter, DISH, etc.


I thought the discussion is that going from $40/mo to $50/mo and softening the blow with some of the garbage channels that they previously had excluded was going to push them over the edge to being profitable.



> DISH prices that package -- without DVR service -- at $75/mo for the first two years (with a 2-yr contract). That's 50% more than YTTV costs. Granted, DISH has to cover the cost of those free installations. But still.


The installation and equipment costs are significant. If they pay $500 for the installation and equipment, that's $20/mo over the contract term. That's almost the difference in cost right there.



> So, as I say, I'm pretty skeptical that YTTV is breaking even at $50/mo. I suspect Google is playing the long game with YTTV by starting out as a budget alternative to MVPDs, priced so low that it loses money. But then they're slowly raising the cost, while adding additional channels, to get it to a point where it's both profitable and broadly acceptable content-wise to the mainstream consumer market. If history repeats itself, they'll raise the price again this March or April, just as they did the past two years. A price point of $60/mo feels right to me for YTTV this year.


I disagree. I don't think the market will bear $60/mo. There is a certain mental block to going over $50/mo, it's a nice, round number. I think if Google generates more revenue off of YTTV, it will be by doing targeted ad injection, which they can apply their ad tech to and make far more valuable ads than the typical cable company doing system-level injection.



> It should cost whatever the market will bear, i.e. what consumers are willing to pay for it. About half of Americans are still willing to pay more for cable TV than are self-identified "cord-cutters" who subscribe to (for now, anyway) lower-priced vMVPDs.


No. That's a totally misguided view of economics. In theory, there should be competition, and there sort of is, but not really. Due to all the channels being bundled up in these massive, bloated bundles, people are forced to buy a bunch of crap that they don't want to get the few things that they do want. The whole bundle system worked pretty well for the first 2 decades of cable TV, when the number of channels and packages were limited by analog TV systems and analog traps. Once digital cable came onto the scene, things worked well for a while, but eventually went off the rails.

True competition in a digital world would be a la carte, and yes, it would be a blood bath. The reality is that most of the channels that exist today couldn't survive on their own, and that's not a free or fair market in any sense. Meanwhile, the number of people cutting the cord keeps increasing. And increasing. And increasing. Meanwhile, the re-capture rate for vMVPDs is abysmal, around 10%. Aside from the semantics of people with vMVPDs not actually being cord cutters, but rather cord replacers, that means that 90% of people dumping traditional MVPDs are not subscribing to vMVPDs at all, and are getting different content from different sources.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> AT&T TV is simply their attempt to get that business in a healthier place than it is now with DirecTV and UVerse TV, which are losing subscribers at much faster rates than the overall cable TV industry. They're not going to destroy their per-subscriber profit margins in their cable TV business by selling AT&T TV at an unsustainably low price.


Comcast is doing the same thing by shedding undesirable customers. This is good for the market as a whole, and good for these companies to finally focus on profitability, not raw subscriber numbers, but since they are no long subsidizing the whole pay tv ecosystem, this will cause cord cutting to further accelerate, and thus further accelerate the inevitable collapse of the current pay tv system as we know it.



wizwor said:


> Antenna plus Pluto plus high speed internet is $50/month. If you want 'cable filler channels' Philo adds $20 per month. Prime adds $13/month and HBO adds $15. That is a cable replacement with better local channels plus HBO for < $100 per month.


For most people, internet is $75-$100/mo, but that doesn't really change the equation, and might tip people towards cord cutting even faster, since they have less in their budget for TV if they're paying more for internet.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

Yes, the future is feeding those willing to change sources to get what they want and the change is already in process.

Besides the old standbys of Netflix and Hulu, we have Amazon. And then there are things being done like:

CBS - offering the pay CBS All Access and the free Pluto

Disney - owning all of Hulu and also having their own branded service

NBC Universal - Soon offering Peacock

And others will come along too. The new, younger viewers are not watching TV on TVs much these days. Instead using their phones or tablets where the grid guide of the cable/sat streamers isn’t a plus.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wizwor said:


> I like the Recast model (though the hardware needs some work). With the Recast, the consumer is the aggregator. The Recast connects to an antenna and the internet and integrates YOUR local channels via the antenna with OTT services like Pluto (free), Philo (inexpensive), and Prime Channels (a la carte/on demand). I think that is what most cord cutters would define as an attractive option. No reason that integrator could not integrate ATSC 3.0 as well.
> 
> Antenna plus Pluto plus high speed internet is $50/month. If you want 'cable filler channels' Philo adds $20 per month. Prime adds $13/month and HBO adds $15. That is a cable replacement with better local channels plus HBO for < $100 per month.


I like that concept too. I just don't think a big slice of Americans are interested in cobbling together OTA TV plus one or more channel-based streaming services. Amazon, with Fire TV (and its aggregator UI) and the Recast, have the most fully realized vision of this model so far. I can see this kind of thing growing modestly in popularity in the next few years but I remain skeptical that it'll really become big unless Amazon or other major players really push and publicize it. But even then, I think it's probably too much hassle and/or too difficult to quickly grasp for a lot of folks.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> I like that concept too. I just don't think a big slice of Americans are interested in cobbling together OTA TV plus one or more channel-based streaming services. Amazon, with Fire TV (and its aggregator UI) and the Recast, have the most fully realized vision of this model so far. I can see this kind of thing growing modestly in popularity in the next few years but I remain skeptical that it'll really become big unless Amazon or other major players really push and publicize it. But even then, I think it's probably too much hassle and/or too difficult to quickly grasp for a lot of folks.


Right now? Sure, it just isn't quite time yet. In a year or so, after those cutting the cord see the differences, they'll be more likely to look for something cheaper

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I thought the discussion is that going from $40/mo to $50/mo and softening the blow with some of the garbage channels that they previously had excluded was going to push them over the edge to being profitable.


Yeah, I'm sure lots of folks, myself included, were saying that at the time. But as I've more closely examined how MVPDs that are _actually profitable_ -- including one (Sling) that's reportedly only very modestly profitable -- bundle and price the channels they carry, I'm skeptical that YTTV is breaking even at $50/mo. (And keep in mind that Sling gets to rely on lower carriage rates that their parent DISH had negotiated.)

If YTTV hikes the price to $60/mo this year, while adding maybe A&E, History, Lifetime, and Hallmark, that might put them at break-even. Maybe.



Bigg said:


> I disagree. I don't think the market will bear $60/mo. There is a certain mental block to going over $50/mo, it's a nice, round number.


The market already DOES bear cable channel packages that sell for well over $60/mo. (See: Comcast, Charter, Verizon, etc.) At some point, if Google decides that they can't package and price YTTV in a way that's actually profitable, they'll just abandon it as Sony did with PS Vue. That's what Google has done with lots of their other little "side bet" projects over the years. Google has way deeper pockets than Sony and so can tolerate burning cash on a little side project for longer, but they won't do it indefinitely.

Google doesn't care about your "over $50" mental block. Neither does Hulu Live (now up to $55). PS Vue did, I believe, keep their cheapest package at price that would suit you: $49.99. Of course, they went out of business yesterday.

Now, I'm not precluding the possibility that Google might at some point restructure YTTV in order to keep a base level of the service at just $50. Maybe they'll be successful in getting network owners to allow them to shove some channels (including some sports stuff) off into an upper tier so that the base tier can stay at $50. Or maybe the base level service is restricted to one stream and no cloud DVR and you have to pay another $X to get those missing features added back.



Bigg said:


> I think if Google generates more revenue off of YTTV, it will be by doing targeted ad injection, which they can apply their ad tech to and make far more valuable ads than the typical cable company doing system-level injection.


Maybe if they can price it so that YTTV is break-even apart from the incremental revenue generated from targeted ads, that would be a sustainable price point for them. (In this scenario, perhaps Google would be just as happy with a given consumer spending X hours watching free YouTube as watching the same number of hours of paid YouTube TV.)



Bigg said:


> No. That's a totally misguided view of economics.


It seems me that, in general, your understanding of economics reflects a utopian view of how you want the world to be, not a true understanding of how it actually exists. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wizwor said:


> Antenna plus Pluto plus high speed internet is $50/month. If you want 'cable filler channels' Philo adds $20 per month. Prime adds $13/month and HBO adds $15. That is a cable replacement with better local channels plus HBO for < $100 per month.


I'm wondering if we'll see AT&T pursue this budget "cord-cobbler" niche in a way similar to how Amazon/Recast and Sling/AirTV have done. As I've speculated before, I could see them doing the following, either inside the AT&T TV app or the future HBO Max app: offer the same skinny bundle of cable channels currently in their AT&T Watch TV service, plus HBO Max. Then sell an optional network tuner device like the AirTV 2 that would integrate free OTA locals into the AT&T TV and/or HBO Max app. Connect local storage to that device and you've got free local DVR service as long as you pay for the subscription content. Include cloud DVR for the streaming cable channels and allow 3 simultaneous streams on the whole thing. Price it at $40/mo. (Watch TV -- which is basically an unadvertised Philo competitor -- sells for $15 with 1 stream and no cloud DVR. HBO Max will sell for $15.)


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> I like that concept too. I just don't think a big slice of Americans are interested in cobbling together OTA TV plus one or more channel-based streaming services.


Depends where you are, right? Hanging a mudflap on the wall near the Recast should not be too much of an ask. Amazon has to fix the installation so a phone is not required, but, after that, the rest is pretty easy. It helps that the Amazon ecosystem is AC, so wireless is reliable -- no cables to run. It's only a matter of time before Amazon offers antenna installation. I always thought that would be Radio Shack's salvation.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

lparsons21 said:


> video quality is just horrible so I seldom watch H&I.


I love H&I, my favorite along with Decades, of the sub channels. And Comet. And Movies! And Grit.

I guess I like them all.

I scan the guides to see things we might want to watch. Obviously there is a quality issue; most times I can then find those shows elsewhere, hopefully legitimate.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I'm sure lots of folks, myself included, were saying that at the time. But as I've more closely examined how MVPDs that are _actually profitable_ -- including one (Sling) that's reportedly only very modestly profitable -- bundle and price the channels they carry, I'm skeptical that YTTV is breaking even at $50/mo.


It's possible they're losing money, but I doubt it. I'd bet they're about breaking even now, and Google's long game is targeted ads, as is Hulu's. The ARPU from targeted ads is pretty impressive for Hulu. Google also has an advantage in that they have a nearly zero CDN cost.



> The market already DOES bear cable channel packages that sell for well over $60/mo. (See: Comcast, Charter, Verizon, etc.)


If by "bear" you mean losing more than 4% of pay TV customers per year, sure.



> Google doesn't care about your "over $50" mental block. Neither does Hulu Live (now up to $55). PS Vue did, I believe, keep their cheapest package at price that would suit you: $49.99. Of course, they went out of business yesterday.


It's not mine, nice round numbers are mental price points for a lot of people.



> Maybe if they can price it so that YTTV is break-even apart from the incremental revenue generated from targeted ads, that would be a sustainable price point for them. (In this scenario, perhaps Google would be just as happy with a given consumer spending X hours watching free YouTube as watching the same number of hours of paid YouTube TV.)


I think there's some synergy between YouTube and YTTV in terms of targeted advertising. They can also derive value out of some audiences that don't traditionally watch a lot of YouTube.



> It seems me that, in general, your understanding of economics reflects a utopian view of how you want the world to be, not a true understanding of how it actually exists. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


I'm not saying that the various content providers are going to get together and actually work together to bring their carriage costs down from the stratosphere and consolidate their content to save their own industry. The reality is, the tragedy of the commons combined with their own greed is going to accelerate the demise of the pay tv ecosystem.


----------

