# Years and Years (of Pay TV Industry Predictions)



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Here's some (at least semi-plausible) future fiction on where the pay TV industry, including TiVo, may be heading in the coming years. Hope you find it entertaining. Please feel free to respond with your own thoughts and questions.

_*Note:* I will original post additional predictions for future years, all the way through 2024, in the coming days, so please scroll down for the rest of the story!_

OK, buckle up, here we go&#8230;

*3Q 2019: Verizon begins selling YouTube TV to their FiOS and Wireless customers*

Following through on an announcement made in April, Verizon begins selling the YouTube TV streaming cable TV service to their own FiOS broadband and Verizon Wireless cellular customers. The marketing and backing that Verizon gives the service encourages many of their FiOS broadband customers to switch from FiOS TV to YouTube TV, seeing significant savings on their monthly bill, along with better HD picture quality.

Although they charge the standard $50/mo price for YouTube TV, Verizon offers unified billing plus enhanced technical support for YouTube TV for their customers, with the first month of service free.

*3Q 2019: Apple TV+ debuts*

In Sept., Apple launches their new Apple TV+ SVOD to great fanfare. They announce that the new service will focus on quality over quantity, featuring the best storytellers, directors, actors and cinematographers, with all series, films and docs produced in 4K with Dolby Vision HDR and Dolby Atmos sound, all 100% ad-free, with no paid product placement. All viewership data that Apple collects will be anonymized and never sold or shared with other companies. The service only features Apple's own original content, with new titles premiering each month.

Apple TV+ will be free for its first year to all owners of an Apple iPhone, iPad, Mac or Apple TV device that supports the new Apple TV app. Those customers can link a free Apple TV+ subscription to their Apple accounts inside the TV app on those devices. After activation, they can also view the service in the Apple TV app on non-Apple devices too, such as Android phones, Rokus, Fire TVs, and smart TVs. These free accounts only allow one stream at a time.

Others can subscribe to Apple TV+ at its regular monthly price of $7, or add it to an Apple Music account for an extra $4. These paid accounts are allowed two simultaneous Apple TV+ streams.

*3Q 2019: AT&T sells their four Regional Sports Networks to Sinclair*

AT&T eases its huge debt burden a bit by unloading their 4 RSNs to Sinclair for around $1 billion. This makes Sinclair, already the largest owner of local broadcast stations in the country, also the undisputed king of RSNs, having earlier in the year purchased 21 RSNs from Disney (formerly owned by Fox), plus major stakes in the NY Yankees RSN, YES Network, and a future Chicago Cubs RSN to be named Marquee Sports Network.

*3Q-4Q 2019: CBS scales up*

CBS remerges with Viacom to form a significantly larger media powerhouse. But with a combined market cap of only around $33 billion, still far smaller than Disney ($254 bn), AT&T/WarnerMedia ($250 bn) or Comcast/NBCU (over $193 bn), and around the same size as Sony Pictures, CBS is still a middleweight, not heavyweight, fighter. CBS follows up soon after with acquisitions of Lionsgate (owner of Starz, plus a film and TV studio) and AMC Networks, bringing their overall market cap up to about $40 billion.

*4Q 2019: AT&T TV launches nationwide*

AT&T TV is the company's new flagship premium streaming cable TV service, taking the company's marketing focus away from DirecTV satellite, Uverse TV, DirecTV Now, and AT&T Watch TV. After a soft launch in limited markets in August, the service becomes available nationwide in 4Q, over any internet connection, although AT&T particularly aims to bundle it with their own home broadband and wireless phone services. (AT&T home broadband customers' data caps are waived if they add AT&T TV to their account.) The service is offered with AT&T's own customized Android TV streaming box with full-featured remote (including channel up/down and 0-9 buttons!) to provide a traditional cable TV user experience, although it can also be accessed through the AT&T TV app on popular TV-connected devices (e.g. Roku, Apple TV, Fire TV) as well as mobile devices.

AT&T TV blurs the distinction between operator-provided traditional cable TV services (e.g. Charter Spectrum TV) and skinny bundle OTT streaming cable TV services (e.g. YouTube TV) because it contains aspects of both while not being completely like either. All AT&T TV channel packages include virtually all of the networks owned by AT&T/WarnerMedia, including HBO, as part of the base price. It's also the only OTT cable TV service to include nearly all the popular and niche cable channels, from every major network group including Viacom, A+E Networks and Discovery, making it a full substitute for traditional cable and satellite TV. The service includes nearly all of the major network-affiliated HD local stations across the nation's top 150 markets and is the first OTT cable TV service to also include PBS and C-SPAN.

*4Q 2019: NBCU acquires Crown Media, owner of Hallmark networks*

Comcast/NBCU announces their wholesale acquisition of Crown Media (a subsidiary of Hallmark Cards, Inc.), owner of the Hallmark Channel, Hallmark Movies & Mysteries, and Hallmark Drama cable networks, as well as the Hallmark Movies Now OTT SVOD, including all those services' content properties. Terms of the deal with the privately held Hallmark Cards, Inc. are not publicly disclosed.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

*1Q 2020: AT&T TV distribution expands*

AT&T announces that telco/fiber operator CenturyLink will sell AT&T TV and HBO Max as their preferred video entertainment services to be optionally bundled with CenturyLink home internet service. Up until this point, CenturyLink had been reselling DirecTV satellite TV service after giving up on selling their own Prism TV IPTV service two years earlier in 2018. They immediately cease all marketing and sales of DirecTV.

*1Q 2020: Showtime+Starz co-branding*

CBS announces that all new original series debuting on both Showtime and Starz in 2020 will be co-branded as "Showtime+Starz Originals," and will air and stream on both brands' platforms. Additionally, while Showtime and Starz remained individually priced at $11 and $9, respectively, they begin to be advertised and sold together at a discounted price of $15. CBS encourages their traditional cable distribution partners to also offer a specially discounted Showtime+Starz bundle.

*1Q 2020: HBO Max launches*

HBO Max, WarnerMedia's competitor to Netflix and their long-term bet on the future of video entertainment, launches. It's a subscription streaming video on-demand (SVOD) service that offers content from all of WarnerMedia's various brands, centered on HBO but also including TBS, TNT, CNN Originals, DC Universe, TruTV, Audience, Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, Looney Toons, Hanna-Barbera, and decades of films and series from Warner Bros. Pictures and Warner Bros. Television. New original series and films exclusive to this streaming service, dubbed Max Originals, are also included, focused on demographics and tastes outside of those traditionally targeted by the HBO brand. The standalone Cinemax service shuts down and ceases to exist as a brand, with current and former Cinemax original series incorporated into the HBO Max library, rebranded as Max Originals. The original Cinemax linear channel is rebranded as HBO Cinema, a 24/7 theatrical movie channel, joining HBO, HBO Family and HBO Latino as the only live linear channels inside the HBO Max app.

HBO Max is the company's cornerstone of their video entertainment strategy. The company directly sells no video packages on any platform without HBO Max. All cable channel packages in AT&T TV include HBO Max. As a standalone direct-to-consumer service, it's priced at $16/mo, the same as Netflix's premium plan, and like it, HBO Max includes 4K HDR and allows multiple simultaneous streams, while being completely ad-free.

Some major cable operators announce that they will cease selling new subscriptions to the traditional HBO service (typically at $15 a la carte) and will instead begin selling HBO Max, with some pricing it at $17 and others at $16. All their existing HBO subscribers, however, would be given the option of staying on the traditional service at current pricing. Meanwhile, other cable operators declined to distribute HBO Max and said that they would continue selling only traditional HBO, with one cable operator immediately announcing a new lower $13/mo price point for it. Traditional HBO continues to be sold as a standalone direct-to-consumer service via HBO Now, as well as through streaming platforms such as Prime Video Channels, Apple TV Channels, and The Roku Channel.

*1Q 2020: Discovery launches their OTT SVOD*

Discovery Networks, in partnership with the BBC, launches their own OTT SVOD simply named Discovery. Positioned as the marquee destination for lifestyle and knowledge programming, the service offers current and library content from across nearly all the company's underlying brands/channels, as well as nature docs produced by the BBC such as the acclaimed Planet Earth series. It features select content in 4K HDR and is priced at $5 with limited ads or $9 ad-free. Discovery is available through its own app on all major platforms as well as an add-on through Prime Video Channels, Apple TV Channels, the Roku Channel, and YouTube TV.

*1Q 2020: YouTube TV expands their line-up*

YouTube TV announces that, by popular demand, their service will include the new Magnolia channel created by Chip and Joanna Gaines, from Discovery Networks, along with A&E, History, Lifetime, The Hallmark Channel, and Hallmark Movies & Mysteries, all five of which ranked among the 25 most-watched cable networks in the US in 2019. Furthermore, Google says that they are proud to support non-commercial TV with the addition of both PBS and C-SPAN channels to YouTube TV.

Of course, the addition of new popular channels, as well as the start of a new calendar year, means that Google has to increase the price of YouTube TV again by $5, this time to $55/mo. But they soften the blow by announcing that select live and on-demand content from a number of channel providers will be available in 4K and 4K HDR for no additional charge, while every channel on the service is now offered with Dolby Digital 5.1 audio (if available from the network).

They also act to make the service an even fuller replacement for traditional cable and satellite TV by offering an optional "Sports Overtime Pack" containing most of the popular and niche sports channels that aren't already offered in the regular main tier (e.g. NFL Network, NFL RedZone, NHL Network, Pac-12 Network, BeIN Sports, etc.).


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

*2Q 2020: NBCU launches their OTT SVOD*

NBCUniversal launches their new OTT SVOD nationwide. They aim to have it included as part of cable operators' basic cable bundles, alongside NBCU networks like NBC, USA, Hallmark Channel, Bravo, SyFy, and E!, although most major operators do not include it at launch. For those that do (obviously including Xfinity TV), the service is available with ads for no additional cost. Ads can be removed for $6. Those without access to the service as part of a cable bundle must pay $10 for it with ads or $16 without ads. Comcast intentionally prices the product early on so as not to compete with Hulu (of which it retains a 1/3 ownership stake for a few more years) for cord-cutters' dollars, while positioning it as a free sweetener to their basic cable channels to encourage sampling and adoption.

The NBCU SVOD won't be the exclusive streaming home of The Office until the start of 2021. But still, it boasts at launch a handful of new original premium-quality series, plus a library of past series and movies aimed at all ages and tastes, including favorites like The Blacklist, Law & Order, Will & Grace, American Ninja Warrior, Heroes, Monk, Psych, Suits, Miami Vice, Magnum P.I., The A-Team, Murder She Wrote, Little House on the Prairie, and a wealth of Hallmark content. Next-day access to current series airing on NBC and other NBCU-owned networks is limited to subscribers with a cable channel package that includes those networks.

*2Q 2020: CBS All Access expands*

CBS All Access announces a dramatic expansion and redesigned app. (Does the service take on a new name too? My crystal ball is a bit cloudy on that question.) The service now includes on-demand content and live linear channels acquired from Viacom and AMC Networks, including Pluto TV (which continues to exist for now as its own separate totally free app), as well as CBS's own Smithsonian Channel. CBS News and sports content are also prominently featured. The newly redesigned CBS app also incorporates live and on-demand content from Showtime and Starz for customers who subscribe to either service on the same account at a discounted price. At this time, CBS All Access ceases to be available as an add-on in other apps/platforms, such as Prime Video Channels, Apple TV Channels, or the Roku Channel. The cost of the service, despite all the additional content, increases only $2/mo, up to $8 with ads or $14 ad-free.

CBS also announces that their Sundance Now OTT service (which former owner AMC had tried to sell as a $7/mo premium service) would be shut down, with its original series content shifted to Showtime or the regular Sundance TV channel.

*2Q 2020: DirecTV Now and AT&T Watch TV shut down*

On June 30, AT&T shuts down both of their OTT streaming cable TV services originally aimed at "cord-cutters": DirecTV Now and the skinny $15/mo AT&T Watch TV. The latter had mostly served as a bonus packaged in with certain AT&T Wireless plans. HBO Max mainly fills that role now. Neither had received any advertising or other marketing attention from AT&T since the launch of AT&T TV in 4Q 2019.

Although AT&T TV is marketed as a "premium" multichannel pay TV service, and not targeted at cord-cutters, per se, AT&T TV's pricing, channel packages, feature set and OTT delivery system make DirecTV Now completely superfluous. Existing DirecTV Now subscribers on the Plus or Max package are notified that they will automatically be transferred over to the same package - at the same standard $50 or $70 price but with additional channels - on AT&T TV when DirecTV Now shuts down. Customers on DirecTV Now packages other than Plus or Max are incentivized to switch to AT&T TV with special discounts but are not automatically transitioned to the service. AT&T Watch TV subscribers are invited to check out HBO Max, priced at only $1/mo more, or the $30/mo Select package on AT&T TV, which includes almost exactly the same channel line-up as Watch TV, but also includes HBO Max too.

*2Q 2020: Verizon markets Google's Stadia and YouTube Music, doubles down on YouTube TV*

Verizon announces that they are extending their marketing agreement with Google to include both their Stadia subscription streaming video game service and YouTube Music subscription streaming music service, which Verizon will sell to their FiOS, 5G Home, and Wireless customers, as they already do with Google's YouTube TV. Verizon promises a high-quality, low-latency gaming experience on Stadia when played on their advanced fiber and 5G networks.

Additionally, Verizon sweetens the deal for bundling YouTube TV with their FiOS or 5G Home broadband service by giving new subscribers a free 4K HDR Google Android TV dongle with a custom mid-sized backlit voice remote control. The remote appeals to traditional cable TV users with buttons for TV power, volume up/down, channel up/down, last channel, home (YouTube TV), apps, Google Assistant (voice), shortcut launch buttons for Netflix and YouTube, plus standard navigation and playback controls. The dongle (hardware similar to Sling TV's AirTV Mini, released in 2019, but with a mini-USB port for optional ethernet adapter) runs nearly-standard Android TV 9.0, differing only in that it defaults to the YouTube TV app as its "home screen" while Google's regular Android TV multi-app launcher home screen is accessible through an "Apps" button on the custom remote and a special Apps on-screen button in the YouTube TV app. It also comes with apps for YouTube, Stadia, YouTube Music, and Netflix pre-installed.

Google works with Verizon to better integrate Google's content distribution network into Verizon's network to ensure optimal performance across Google's range of apps and services.

Now that Verizon has dedicated hardware to offer their YouTube TV customers, and now that YouTube TV offers a full-scale line-up of cable channels with superior picture and sound formats, Verizon sees it as a viable replacement for their own FiOS TV service for over 75% of their customer base. (Viacom channels are the only real missing element in YouTube TV, and those can be had through CBS All Access if desired.) From this point forward, Verizon no longer actively markets FiOS TV, although they continue to sell and install it via website- and phone-based sign-ups.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

2019-202x.. I continue to use my LifeTime Tivo via Antenna and the Minis not payin a dime for all that streamed crap shows of the new Millennia , along with the fire sticks with Kodi to view the awesome content I already own. This will continue on till I die saving tens of thousands of dollars not having to watch modern crap.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

foghorn2 said:


> 2019-202x.. I continue to use my LifeTime Tivo via Antenna and the Minis not payin a dime for all that streamed crap shows of the new Millennia , along with the fire sticks with Kodi to view the awesome content I already own. This will continue on till I die saving tens of thousands of dollars not having to watch modern crap.


Don't forget driving your 65 Rambler listening to AM radio.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

mschnebly said:


> Don't forget driving your 65 Rambler listening to AM radio.


Get real! No one ever liked a '65 Rambler! Now a '57 Chevy? That's something else.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

@NashGuy : You should write a book ..... oh, you already did, here.

Frankly your predictions are too detailed for me to even care about --- but that's just me. The prediction I would care about is: The traditional cable TV model continues to lose market share and eventually disappears along with its monopolistic, crappy billing and service experience. (And Tuning Adapters!).


----------



## Mr Tony (Dec 20, 2012)

mschnebly said:


> listening to AM radio.


hey whats wrong with AM radio? There is some good stuff on there...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy, I think you're spot on with pretty much all of that, although those launches are depressingly boring, and are going to fracture the market and probably drive up piracy. I think customers will have subscription fatigue and either pirate stuff, rotate subscriptions, or just watch whatever is on Netflix/Amazon.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Also, I know you're looking at the content side of it, but I think Verizon 5G is going to be pretty interesting. 5G is going to end up being sort of useless for mobile in most cases, but it could be interesting in a lot of markets for home internet. Verizon has a TON of fiber, and they are going to have to continue building out small sites for their mobile network due to their spectrum position anyway, so why not put 5G antennas on them? mmWave 5G will show up in all sorts of weird places in little blobs here and there where they had to put a small cell to offload mobile traffic from the macro network on LTE or sub-6 5G.

AT&T could do some 5G outside of core downtowns if they see a synergy with their content business, either through AT&T TV or DirecTV. However, they could also decide to go FTTH, even outside of their ILEC footprint, as they have found that fiber has very low churn, and has good bundling synergy with TV content, whether delivered over satellite, managed IPTV, or in the future, unmanaged IPTV. They don't have the same need as Verizon to deploy small cells for mobile due to their spectrum position, so they may well just target busy downtown areas only for small cell deployment.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

*3Q 2020: T-Mobile expands fixed wireless home broadband, teams with Disney for TV*

As promised, T-Mobile gets serious about taking market share from cable and other broadband operators with fixed wireless home broadband service running over their 5G and 4G LTE networks. They mainly focus on underserved areas with less competition but consistently price their broadband plans at levels that slightly undercut the local competition for standalone broadband service at decent speeds with a generous (or no) data cap.

And while the company continues to sell their full-scale traditional cable TV competitor service T-Vision (a rebranded Layer3 TV), complete with a non-optional physical DVR box but with no T-Vision app for mobile streaming access, T-Mobile quietly gives up on their previously promised goal of disrupting pay TV with their own revolutionary new OTT service. Given that the company owns no content or TV networks, and would have to negotiate carriage contracts starting from a subscriber base of zero, on top of the fact that the cable channel bundle seems to be slowly disintegrating and dying, they realize it is a fool's errand. So instead, they decided to team up with an existing OTT streaming cable TV service to distribute to their own customer base. But which one? YouTube TV was out of the question since it had already been claimed by arch-rival Verizon. AT&T TV was out of the question for obvious reasons. X1 TV (see next prediction) wasn't a great option because of its association with "big cable" Comcast, with which they were directly competing throughout the nation now on both the broadband and mobile service fronts.

So that left Disney and their Hulu service. T-Mobile quietly drops their "Netflix on Us" deal and instead offers a free basic Hulu (with ads) subscription to all T-Mobile customers, both mobile and home broadband. Those customers with both services also get Disney+ for free. Subscribers can upgrade their free Hulu account to Hulu with Live TV for an extra $35/mo, or basic ad-free Hulu for an extra $7/mo. Disney+ and ESPN+ are available to add to Hulu at Disney's typical discounted bundling rates. Data usage for all Disney streaming services are zero-rated against T-Mobile's mobile and home broadband plans.

*3Q 2020: Xfinity cable TV goes OTT nationwide*

Due to competitive pressure from rival AT&T TV, Comcast decides to take their Xfinity cable TV service nationwide as an OTT streaming product. Their official company line for years had been that they were not interested in selling cable TV service outside of their physical network footprint. But that tune had begun to change when Comcast acquired Sky, which had already been selling skinny OTT cable TV bundles in Europe. And now that Comcast was selling their own OTT NBCU SVOD in the US, and one that was mainly intended to act as a complement to the cable bundle rather than a competitor to it, it only made sense that Comcast would now begin selling their cable TV service nationwide over the open internet. They had had the technology platform in place to make the move for years, and in fact had already been streaming live, VOD and cloud DVR content OTT to their Xfinity Stream app on mobile devices for their traditional cable customers. So all that was really needed to roll out their cable TV service as a fully OTT product was adjustments to some cable network carriage contracts, plus marketing and customer service arrangements.

The new service, named X1 TV, is available inside its own app of the same name, featuring 4K HDR, video on demand, and various amounts of cloud DVR storage. At the low end, the cheapest package includes just the local NBC and Telemundo channels plus all the cable networks owned by NBCU (NBCSN, MSNBC, USA, SyFy, etc.) as well as all the on-demand content from the new NBCU SVOD. The next package up includes all the content from the cheapest tier, plus local channels from ABC, CBS, Fox, PBS, and (in some areas) The CW, along with nearly all of the basic cable channels owned by Disney, CBS and Fox, as well as Sinclair's regional sports networks. A few add-on packs are available for those customers who want additional channels, including anything from WarnerMedia or Discovery. Those same live channel bundles are also available as add-ons inside of the NBCU SVOD app (just as Hulu has a Live TV add-on). While the X1 TV app uses a more traditional cable-box-like UI (very similar to the Xfinity Stream app), the NBCU SVOD app uses a more next-gen streaming UI akin to Hulu and Netflix.

Comcast makes both apps available for all the major streaming platforms but positions their own X1 streaming box with voice remote as the ideal consumption device for their services. They market a small 4K HDR-capable X1 box as the "X1 4K HDR" and announce it for sale via their own website and physical stores as well as the websites and physical stores of Walmart, Target and BestBuy nationwide. Aside from a home screen customized for Comcast's own apps, the X1 box supports a range of popular third-party video and music apps too.

Comcast's own Xfinity broadband customers can choose from the new set of X1 TV packages as well as their standard set of packages that aren't distributed OTT (Basic, Extra, Preferred). Either way, any Xfinity TV service delivered over their own broadband network is considered IPTV by Comcast and does not count against their broadband usage caps.

*3Q 2020: Amazon announces extensive pact with Sony*

Amazon announces that it will immediately take ownership of the PS Vue live streaming cable TV service from Sony, rebranding it as Prime Video Live Channels. Sony had never been able to get PS Vue to a minimal level of profitability and the handwriting was on the wall that they would have to shutter or sell the small service. Amazon said that they would continue to operate the existing PS Vue app for the remainder of the year, at which point it would shut down with an option to transfer over to Prime Video Live Channels, which would immediately begin operation inside the Prime Video app (and integrated into the native Fire TV UI), offering the same channel packages at slightly lower prices. In order to subscribe to Prime Video Live Channels, one must have an active Prime or Prime Video subscription or an active PlayStation Plus subscription (in which case the Prime Video Live Channels sign-up must be done in the Prime Video app on a PS4 or subsequent Sony game console).

As a second part of their overall deal, Amazon announces that after the current Sony Pictures output deal with Starz (now a part of CBS) expires, Prime Video would become the new home for recent theatrical movies from Sony, including their popular Spider-Man films. Amazon will also co-operate with Sony for nationwide distribution of select Amazon Originals films to movie theaters, with those films to debut on the Prime Video service 60 days later. Furthermore, a number of popular TV series from the past 80 years owned and distributed by Sony Pictures Television, from Bewitched to Masters of Sex to The Goldbergs, would be made available as streaming exclusives on Prime Video as well.

As a third part of the deal, Sony announces that they will exclusively use Amazon's Fire TV OS as the smart TV app platform for all future model Sony TVs. Sony had been using Google's Android TV OS, to mixed reviews. Amazon commits to producing first-class apps for the Sony PS4 and future PlayStation consoles.

As a fourth part of the deal, Amazon announces that they will offer a low-cost streaming game service to Prime members exclusively for play on recent model Fire TV devices. The service, named PlayStation Prime, will be similar to Sony's existing PlayStation Now service but will not include PS4 games, only games that debuted on the PS3 and PS2, plus indie games and new games made exclusively for the service, aimed at all ages and skill levels. PlayStation Prime will require use of Sony's Dualshock 4 wireless controllers, which Amazon will sell at a discounted price to PlayStation Prime subscribers.

Given the extensive nature of the pact, some wondered why Amazon didn't simply buy Sony outright. But many analysts observed that, given the increasing election year calls to "break up big tech," Amazon CEO Bezos saw an arms-length deal as a much safer path to trod.

*3Q 2020: HBO Max adds live cable bundles*

HBO Max begins offering add-on bundles of live cable TV channels, the same ones sold under the AT&T TV brand. While the AT&T TV app offers a more traditional cable box-like UI with a grid guide, etc., the HBO Max app has a more next-gen streaming UI akin to Hulu and Netflix.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

*4Q 2020: ATSC 3.0 debuts*

Local stations in nearly 40 local markets across the US begin full-power commercial broadcasts in ATSC 3.0. About 3/4 of those stations belong to Sinclair, the largest backer (and patent owner) of the new broadcast standard. Sinclair promises many more of their stations will begin ATSC 3.0 broadcasting in 2021 although other station groups sound less enthusiastic. Among the four major broadcast networks, only Fox announces that it will offer some of its fall 2020 primetime and major sports broadcasts in 1080p HDR format to its affiliates broadcasting in ATSC 3.0.

There are a few external ATSC 3.0 tuners available for purchase at retail but not a single TV with a built-in 3.0 tuner. Major TV brands say that some of their 2021 models will include 3.0 tuners, though.

Meanwhile, Hulu begins to stream select shows on-demand from ABC, Freeform, and FX in 4K HDR (joining their own Hulu Originals plus select movies). Select shows from Fox are also streamed on Hulu in 4K HDR. Likewise, CBS streams some of its new fall season shows on-demand in 4K HDR via CBS All Access.

*4Q 2020: Cox cable begins marketing "AT&T TV plus Unlimited Broadband"*

Cox cable quietly launches a new option for their standalone broadband customers: AT&T TV that comes with a waiver of Cox's normal 1 TB broadband data cap. The plans cost $10 more per month than standalone prices for AT&T TV's three base channel bundles (so $40, $60 and $80 per month, on top of Cox's standalone broadband prices, rather than $30, $50 and $70) but it's a good deal for some, considering that Cox normally charges $50 per month to waive the data cap. While Cox customers get unified billing from Cox for both broadband and AT&T TV, they're on their own to provide whatever streaming devices they wish to use with the service. AT&T TV's own custom Android TV streaming box and remote can be purchased from AT&T stores and online and come with a $30 promo code that can be credited toward the service via Cox or any other distributor.

*4Q 2020: CBS All Access adds live cable bundles and other add-ons*

CBS announces that their flagship All Access streaming app now offers add-on subscriptions of both a live cable channel bundle, including local affiliates of all the major networks, as well as smaller on-demand content bundles (e.g. Discovery, Epix, Acorn TV, PBS Living, etc.).

*4Q 2020: Next-gen Apple TV debuts, Nintendo joins Apple Arcade*

Apple releases a new Apple TV box featuring HDMI 2.1 and a new chipset with decoding support for the new AV1 codec, plus high-end video upscaling/processing/decompression/cleaning, motion processing, and dynamic HDR handling, features typically only seen, if at all, inside the most premium TVs from Sony, LG, and Samsung. Apple even includes a simple calibration app to guide users through the process of tweaking their TV's/receiver's video and audio settings to their optimal levels for use with the box, for those who do not wish to get an expensive professional calibration done. Apple is clearly positioning their new Apple TV as the highest quality video consumption device on the market, aiming squarely at home theater enthusiasts, as well as consumers already enmeshed in the Apple ecosystem. It remains priced at $179, the same as the previous 5th gen model it replaces, while the 4th gen Apple TV HD sees a price cut to just $79.

Apple also announces that the new Apple TV box will come with a free six-month subscription to their Apple TV+ video service, which recently won its first Emmy Award in Sept. 2020. The less expensive Apple TV HD will offer only a three-month free subscription to Apple TV+. Both devices come with a free one-month trial of Apple Arcade.

At the same event, Apple announces that their one-year-old Apple Arcade subscription video game service will expand to include a selection of classic Nintendo games originally released on the WiiU, Wii, 3DS, DS, GameCube, Nintendo 64, Super NES and NES game systems, with graphics updated to 4K or HD. Industry observers applaud this as a savvy move for both companies, giving Apple Arcade a shot in the arm to broaden its appeal while giving Nintendo a lucrative new licensing stream for their older content. Nintendo does not see their participation in Apple Arcade as a direct threat to their successful current-gen Nintendo Switch console or its related online platform. Instead, they hope that some casual gamers exposed to Nintendo games on Apple Arcade may choose to "upgrade" to Nintendo Switch for the latest and greatest Nintendo experience.

*4Q 2020: Frontier begins distributing AT&T TV*

Frontier announces that they will begin selling AT&T TV as an option for all Frontier customers on internet service with a minimum download speed of 12 Mbps. They note that their own Vantage TV and FiOS TV services will continue to be sold and be fully operational. They simply want to make it convenient for their customers to select the best TV option for their needs. Also, standalone HBO will no longer be an option on any Frontier Vantage TV or FiOS TV account. Instead, HBO will be replaced by the much larger HBO Max service at a slight price increase. HBO linear channels and on-demand content, as parts of the HBO Max service, will continue to exist on Frontier's set-top boxes and DVRs for their Vantage TV and FiOS TV services.

*4Q 2020: HBO Max introduces lower-priced plan with ads*

HBO Max announces that their standard plan will remain ad-free at $16, but they will also offer a new $10 plan with targeted limited ads. It will include all of the same content, including in 4K HDR. While HBO-branded originals, as well as most children's programming and theatrical films, will remain ad-free, all other content (e.g. Max Originals; series from WarnerMedia basic cable channels such as TBS, TNT, and CNN; and past TV series from the Warner Bros. library) will contain ads. The new $10 plan only allows two simultaneous streams.

*4Q 2020: HBO Now shuts down*

WarnerMedia assured the public when they introduced HBO Max in early 2020 that the traditional HBO service would continue to be available through many cable providers, as well as directly from Warner through their own HBO Now service. But given that HBO Now remained priced at $15 while HBO Max was available as a standalone service direct from Warner for just $1 more, but with a lot more content (and marketing power behind it), the subscriber base for HBO Now plummeted, as Warner desired, with the vast majority migrating over to HBO Max.

So on Dec.1, HBO Now notified its subscribers that the service would shut down at year-end, with all existing accounts automatically converting over to HBO Max at the same $15/mo price for the first month, before increasing to the standard $16 price thereafter. Those who wish to stay on the service need not do anything; the HBO Now app on all their devices should automatically update to the HBO Max app on Jan. 1, with their current logins carrying over.

A month earlier, on Nov. 1, HBO's digital distribution platform partners, such as Prime Video Channels, Apple TV Channels, The Roku Channel and Hulu, had notified their customers that HBO would cease to be available through them as of Dec. 31. Customers were instead directed to the HBO Max app for continued access to HBO programming.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

dlfl said:


> @NashGuy : You should write a book ..... oh, you already did, here.


Ha! I'm just getting started!


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> NashGuy, I think you're spot on with pretty much all of that, although those launches are depressingly boring, and are going to fracture the market and probably drive up piracy. I think customers will have subscription fatigue and either pirate stuff, rotate subscriptions, or just watch whatever is on Netflix/Amazon.


They will be some rotating of subscriptions (there already is, I do it somewhat) but the bigger long-term trend we'll see is more and more households dumping the cable channel bundle and replacing it with 3 to 6 simultaneous SVODs. And, as my predictions will illustrate, I think we're going to see a blurring between SVODs and live channel services, too.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Hulu's model is to basically give their service away in order to get eyeballs on their ads, I think T-Mobile could end up doing Netflix AND Hulu if T-Sprint goes through, or even if it doesn't.

T-Mobile and Comcast isn't as awkward as it sounds, as I'd bet T-Mobile is a big Comcast customer for Metro-E backhaul since they aren't a legacy B-side (ILEC) carrier like T and VZ, and thus has little of their own fiber to rely on.

I think what you're predicting for Cox will happen for many smaller MSOs as well as they exit the TV business. It's just not profitable to be a smaller MSO, and I think at the end of the day, it's going to be AT&T, Comcast, Charter, Altice, DISH, and the smaller vMVPDs left in the game, and most other current MVPDs will be out of TV entirely, and will be bundling one of those services.

However, I think you're wrong on AT&T. Cox is very tight with Comcast, and I think they will roll out Comcast's TV service and bundle it with their broadband, as they already use Comcast's technology platform.

I think Amazon is going to run away with the bundling of OTT services, as they have the whole platform, and the UX is pretty good. They could use some navigation tweaks, but otherwise, they've got it down, and they can just keep adding new content.

I don't think Frontier will keep Vantage and FiOS TV around very long. They are way too small of an MSO to negotiate good rates, and also to support three different TV platforms plus bundled DISH and OTA. I have to wonder if Frontier will even be around at that point, however, or if their assets will be sold off in a fire sale after bankruptcy. I've had quite a few experiences with them recently, and they are a completely dysfunctional company. They are basically refusing to do any sort of expansion or upgrades, and the morale is rock-bottom. I suspect that they are going to go bankrupt, shed/restructure debt, and either get bought by a private equity firm, somehow bought/merged into Consolidated, or bought up by AT&T if they see the light on how successful their fiber is.

I don't think AT&T would pull HBO Max out of Amazon Channels, as Amazon gives they a lot of exposure, and they are used to going through other companies with cable, where they got less control over the UX and a smaller chunk of the pie.



NashGuy said:


> They will be some rotating of subscriptions (there already is, I do it somewhat) but the bigger long-term trend we'll see is more and more households dumping the cable channel bundle and replacing it with 3 to 6 simultaneous SVODs. And, as my predictions will illustrate, I think we're going to see a blurring between SVODs and live channel services, too.


I'm not sure that many households will. Some will, but I think you're going to see a relatively weak demand for a lot of these services. People are used to Netflix and paying one fee and just going there, and I think that behavior is going to be a tough nut to crack for the others. I think there will be a small group of TV superfans with many subscriptions, but most people will only have a couple, if that. There is a lot of subscription fatigue as everyone wants a recurring revenue stream.

Based on the re-capture rate of cord cutters, I think the vMVPD market is going to be relatively small as well. Cable channels are just going to have to scale down their offerings. This change is going to have massive ripple effects throughout the professional and college sports world as contracts become less valuable. That being said, I think this phenomenon will bode really well for sports bars and for the stadiums themselves, as people figure they're saving $70-$100/mo on TV, so they'll go out now and then and spend some of it on the bar or the venue itself instead.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I think what you're predicting for Cox will happen for many smaller MSOs as well as they exit the TV business. It's just not profitable to be a smaller MSO, and I think at the end of the day, it's going to be AT&T, Comcast, Charter, Altice, DISH, and the smaller vMVPDs left in the game, and most other current MVPDs will be out of TV entirely, and will be bundling one of those services.
> 
> However, I think you're wrong on AT&T. Cox is very tight with Comcast, and I think they will roll out Comcast's TV service and bundle it with their broadband, as they already use Comcast's technology platform.
> 
> I think Amazon is going to run away with the bundling of OTT services, as they have the whole platform, and the UX is pretty good. They could use some navigation tweaks, but otherwise, they've got it down, and they can just keep adding new content.


Hold tight, I've already written further predictions for all those companies. Will post more soon.



Bigg said:


> I don't think Frontier will keep Vantage and FiOS TV around very long. They are way too small of an MSO to negotiate good rates, and also to support three different TV platforms plus bundled DISH and OTA. I have to wonder if Frontier will even be around at that point, however, or if their assets will be sold off in a fire sale after bankruptcy. I've had quite a few experiences with them recently, and they are a completely dysfunctional company. They are basically refusing to do any sort of expansion or upgrades, and the morale is rock-bottom. I suspect that they are going to go bankrupt, shed/restructure debt, and either get bought by a private equity firm, somehow bought/merged into Consolidated, or bought up by AT&T if they see the light on how successful their fiber is.


Yeah, good point about Frontier. They have a bit of FTTH and I guess some of the FTTN areas could be further monetized by AT&T or someone, but a lot of their network, who would want, really? Old-school pure copper DSL is dead. Only way any telco is gonna reach any of those homes in a profitable way going forward will be via some kind of wireless distribution



Bigg said:


> I don't think AT&T would pull HBO Max out of Amazon Channels, as Amazon gives they a lot of exposure, and they are used to going through other companies with cable, where they got less control over the UX and a smaller chunk of the pie.


Does Netflix distribute through Amazon Channels? How about Hulu? No, neither of them? Do you think Disney+ will? I doubt it. How about Apple TV+? No, that one either?

You've been trained to think of HBO as a flexible add-on, an a la carte cable channel. But that's not what it's becoming. What Hulu/Disney+ is to Disney, and what Netflix is to, well, Netflix, that's what HBO Max will be to WarnerMedia. I don't think it's going to be distributed through anyone else's UI. They're going to want to control the UI/UX and gain the user data.

HBO -- not the fuller HBO Max -- will continue to be distributed through third-party platforms for awhile (as my predictions point out). But I'll be surprised if you'll be able to get HBO Max via Amazon Prime Channels, Apple TV Channels, etc. Could be wrong, of course. We'll see...



Bigg said:


> I'm not sure that many households will. Some will, but I think you're going to see a relatively weak demand for a lot of these services. People are used to Netflix and paying one fee and just going there, and I think that behavior is going to be a tough nut to crack for the others. I think there will be a small group of TV superfans with many subscriptions, but most people will only have a couple, if that. There is a lot of subscription fatigue as everyone wants a recurring revenue stream.
> 
> Based on the re-capture rate of cord cutters, I think the vMVPD market is going to be relatively small as well. Cable channels are just going to have to scale down their offerings. This change is going to have massive ripple effects throughout the professional and college sports world as contracts become less valuable. That being said, I think this phenomenon will bode really well for sports bars and for the stadiums themselves, as people figure they're saving $70-$100/mo on TV, so they'll go out now and then and spend some of it on the bar or the venue itself instead.


A basic mistake a lot of people make when trying to figure out what's going to happen is to assume everyone else spends money they way they do. Unless there's a bad recession (which is possible), I don't see the average American spending WAY less on video entertainment. People LOVE TV and movies. Are there 20-somethings with three roommates who are fine with just Netflix? Sure. Will the average middle-age homeowner with a spouse and kids be happy giving up their $100/mo cable TV service in exchange for just Netflix plus maybe one SVOD. Nah. If they leave the cable channel bundle, it'll be for a combo of a few different SVODs. Or maybe they'll do a skinner channel bundle plus a couple SVODs. It's going to be messy as the new order emerges...


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> A basic mistake a lot of people make when trying to figure out what's going to happen is to assume everyone else spends money they way they do. Unless there's a bad recession (which is possible), I don't see the average American spending WAY less on video entertainment. People LOVE TV and movies. Are there 20-somethings with three roommates who are fine with just Netflix? Sure. Will the average middle-age homeowner with a spouse and kids be happy giving up their $100/mo cable TV service in exchange for just Netflix plus maybe one SVOD. Nah. If they leave the cable channel bundle, it'll be for a combo of a few different SVODs. Or maybe they'll do a skinner channel bundle plus a couple SVODs. It's going to be messy as the new order emerges...


$100 cable is not an option for a lot of people -- including me -- except as a promotional offer. My sister pays $300/mo for her Comcast bundle. I don't see Amazon doing Live Channels. Right now, Recast integrates Vue, Philo, and Pluto plus Prime Channels. Offering one would likely discourage others. I think Amazon will entice other OTT services into integrating. Recast + Sling TV would be a very attractive option for me.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wizwor said:


> $100 cable is not an option for a lot of people -- including me -- except as a promotional offer. My sister pays $300/mo for her Comcast bundle. I don't see Amazon doing Live Channels. Right now, Recast integrates Vue, Philo, and Pluto plus Prime Channels. Offering one would likely discourage others. I think Amazon will entice other OTT services into integrating. Recast + Sling TV would be a very attractive option for me.


Yeah, I think a lot of households can't or won't pay $100/mo for TV. And yet that's about the average price that cable TV subscribers spend. And a majority of US households still have cable TV. So lots of people *will* pay that much, even if they grumble about it.

I do think that the average monthly spend for pay TV will decrease somewhat as more and more Americans move away from full cable channel bundles and instead put together their own custom combinations of live and on-demand sources from among a menu of choices. Sports fans will pay the most, which makes sense. For a long time, non-sports viewers were sharing the cost of televised sports but those costs kept increasing and, frankly, is the #1 reason why cord-cutting began, IMO. Pro (and to a lesser extent, college) sports just kept inflating the cost not only of sports channels like ESPN but also the retransmission fees to include local affiliates of ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox in cable bundles.

As for Amazon getting into selling bundles of live cable channels, well, they've already started doing it in Canada this year. I think they may be getting their feet wet in a small pond there before making a big splash doing it here in the US. Amazon has to know that the future of American TV won't simply be Prime Video plus a few second-string on-demand add-ons. If they want to *really* insert themselves into the mix, they're going to have to offer live locals and sports channels.

As for Recast + Sling TV, maybe it'll happen, IF I'm wrong about Amazon getting into the live channels game (which would make them a direct competitor to Sling TV). Have you considered going with an AirTV black box? (Maybe hold off on the current one because the AirTV 2 is due to release any day now.) It'll stream live and DVR OTA TV into the Sling TV app throughout your home. And you could use the new AirTV Mini 4K stick on your main TV. It runs Android TV, which just got a widely available Prime Video app, so you could watch your Amazon content on it too.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

dlfl said:


> Get real! No one ever liked a '65 Rambler! Now a '57 Chevy? That's something else.


You need a real AMC.


----------



## Mr Tony (Dec 20, 2012)

nothing wrong with a Gremlin


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

*1Q 2021: Showtime absorbs Starz with an eye to become the "new HBO"*

Starz and Starz Encore cease to exist as either streaming services or linear cable TV channels, with nearly all of their on-demand libraries absorbed into an enlarged Showtime service, which increases its direct-to-consumer standalone monthly price from $11 to $13. Nearly all current Starz series will continue on, rebranded as Showtime Originals. Showtime unveils a new redesigned app featuring 4K HDR plus live streams of their only four remaining linear channels: Showtime, Showtime Extreme, Showtime Showcase, and Showtime Movies. But Showtime says they remain committed to letting their customers access and view their content however they prefer, including through a range of third-party apps as add-on subscriptions via Amazon Prime Video Channels, Apple TV Channels, Hulu, the NBCU SVOD, HBO Max and, of course, their own CBS All Access. The standard monthly price for Showtime distributed through cable operators and third-party digital distributors increases to $14. When added to a CBS All Access account, though, Showtime is priced at only $10.

With recent feature films from their corporate sibling studios Paramount and Lionsgate, plus extended output deals with STX Studios and Amblin/DreamWorks/Participant, the service boasts a decent slate of theatrical films, although not too much in the way of superhero/comic book-based movies. On the contrary, Paramount's recently announced prestige label, Paramount Signature, focuses on serious adult dramas that vie for Oscar nominations while Lionsgate's new "indie" division aims to cultivate lower-budget auteur films. Showtime now offers slightly more hours per week of original premium content than the core HBO brand (though certainly not the broader HBO Max service). Showtime positions itself as the only remaining pure "premium" service aimed at the wealthier half of US adults, with a "snob-appeal" focus on edgy, taste-making originals plus a steady stream of new, quality feature films. Rather than trying to be all things to all people, the service sees itself as a higher-quality complement to more mainstream fare from CBS All Access, the major broadcast networks, and most of the content on Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Max.

*1Q 2021: Charter launches Spectrum X1 TV*

Charter announces that they have deepened and extended their cooperation with Comcast on their shared mobile phone service platform (Xfinity Mobile / Spectrum Mobile) and also agreed to redistribute Comcast's national OTT cable TV service X1 TV to their own Spectrum broadband subscribers under the white-label brand Spectrum X1 TV. It features all the same channel packages and pricing as the OTT X1 TV service but Spectrum broadband subscribers under a minimum one-year commitment who add Spectrum X1 TV to their account score up to 3 free X1 4K HDR streaming boxes for use with the service (one box for each line of service: broadband, mobile, home phone), a free one-month trial, plus the convenience of unified billing. X1 4K HDR boxes could be ordered directly from Charter at a 1/3 discount versus the standard retail price. Customers were also assured that Spectrum broadband would always remain data-cap free for anyone with Spectrum X1 TV on their account.

Analysts said that the move shouldn't have been so surprising in retrospect. Back in spring 2019, Charter's CEO went on the record saying "I'm sort of indifferent" about whether or not Charter's broadband customers chose to also take their Spectrum TV service. Cable TV subscribers at that point were no longer even "a material driver" of Charter's business. The growing consensus among industry observers now was that only companies owning major sources of video content would continue to package and offer their own pay TV services.

At the same time, Spectrum announces a six-month transition period to deprecate their traditional QAM-based Spectrum TV service (although it ultimately got extended three additional months beyond that). At the end of the period, they would eliminate all HD channels, some basic cable channels, and all add-on premium, sports or specialty channels. All that would remain on their traditional TV system would be a Basic (locals only + C-Span) package, a small Spanish-language package, and an Expanded Basic package containing most, though not all, of the non-premium channels that had constituted their Silver package. All channels, while SD, would be presented in their original aspect ratio, either 16:9 widescreen or 4:3 standard. None of the three packages would include "TV everywhere" streaming privileges. Customers already in possession of a Charter DVR could retain it (for the same ongoing monthly service fee) for use with the traditional SD-only TV service if they chose to stay on it. All new subscribers to the service would immediately be offered only one basic digital adapter and basic remote or one CableCARD at no additional charge. Additional adapters and remotes for extending service to additional TVs were offered for $5/mo each. The traditional SD-only service would not be actively advertised, only shown as an option on the Spectrum website and official rate card.

*1Q 2021: Comcast announces deprecation of their QAM TV system*

Shortly after Charter's similar announcement, Comcast reveals that by the end of 2021, the only channels that will remain available on their traditional QAM TV system will be SD versions of channels in their Basic and Extra packages. Customers will be able to keep their current hardware, including DVRs, but for the roughly 20% of customers NOT on IPTV-compatible devices (modern X1 boxes or streaming devices with the Xfinity Stream app), they will lose access to all HD channels, as well as any channels beyond the Extra package. New customers signing up for traditional QAM TV will exclusively be given basic digital adapters and remotes or CableCARDs. Comcast says that customers overwhelmingly prefer their new IPTV TV packages, with 4K HDR, cloud DVR, access to apps and a voice remote. Deprecating their QAM TV system will allow them to upgrade their network and devote more bandwidth for faster broadband performance.

*1Q 2021: Netflix has peaked in the US?*

Netflix announces their financial results for 4Q 2020. While their reported figures are still seen as generally positive, analysts note that the company no longer provides subscriber numbers for the USA or any other individual company but rather focuses on their global subscriber count. While that number continued to rise, many on Wall Street suspect that Netflix ended 2020 with slightly fewer US subscribers than they started the year with, due to the all the increased competition from new SVODs Disney+, HBO Max, NBCU, Apple TV+, and Discovery, plus increased growth at Hulu and CBS All Access.

Analysts continue to worry about the company's debt load and loss of popular licensed content such as Friends and The Office, which have migrated to new competing SVODs. Netflix has to increasingly focus more on foreign markets for growth, such as Brazil and India, where they are forced to charge lower average subscription prices. Their international push also means that a growing slice of their budget for Netflix original content is devoted to non-English-language series and movies aimed at the tastes of those international audiences.

*1Q 2021: TiVo exits the market for retail CableCARD DVRs, announces new ATSC 3.0 OTA DVR*

Following the announcements by Charter and Comcast, it was immediately obvious that there would be little market for sales of new CableCARD DVRs from TiVo or any other company, given that Comcast and Charter together accounted for nearly 3/4 of the total number of US cable TV subscribers who could use a CableCARD with their service.

So TiVo and Arris, who had anticipated the moves for months, announce that they will immediately cease manufacture of new retail DVRs containing CableCARDs, although TiVo assures customers that they will continue to sell and deliver ongoing DVR service on a monthly, annual and lifetime basis to all existing TiVo units in the field, as well as provide the same level of customer support, including honoring warranties, that they had always done.

To blunt the negative news on the cable DVR front, TiVo also announces that they will release an advanced new OTA DVR featuring hybrid ATSC 3.0/1.0 tuners, plus a range of popular Android TV apps via the Google Play Store, in late summer 2021.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

*3Q 2021: Verizon announces that their FiOS TV service will completely shut down at year-end*

After two years of successfully selling YouTube TV to FiOS broadband customers (while seeing just as many customers completely cut the cord on cable TV or switch to competing services like AT&T TV), Verizon decides that the time is right to turn off the lights on their own FiOS TV service (which had never even been offered to customers on their newer 5G Home broadband service). FiOS TV customers are given nearly six months to transition over to YouTube TV or another service with the help of Verizon customer service, then pack up their FiOS TV hardware and return it.

*3Q 2021: AT&T and DISH strike a deal for DirecTV*

Since launching AT&T TV nationwide in 4Q 2019, AT&T had given little marketing attention to their satellite TV service, DirecTV. Starting at the time that AT&T TV launched, DirecTV had exclusively offered to new customers the same set of channel packages offered on AT&T TV, although with somewhat higher prices to account for the expensive "free" professional installations and bulky hardware DVRs. (And unlike the contract-free AT&T TV service, DirecTV still required a 2-year contract for new customers to qualify for free installation and a slightly discounted first-year rate.) AT&T had aggressively worked to transition all of their DirecTV satellite TV customers who also had AT&T home broadband service over to AT&T TV. Meanwhile, bundling discounts for DirecTV were only offered to AT&T Wireless customers whose home address could not access AT&T internet service. The only active marketing that was done for DirecTV had been to rural dwellers, mainly via direct mail and radio.

DirecTV's subscriber count had already seen steep declines prior to the introduction of AT&T TV; afterward, as expected by the company, the fall-off accelerated. DISH satellite TV, meanwhile, also continued to suffer subscriber losses from cord-cutting, although its numbers weren't nearly as bad as DirecTV's.

So AT&T and DISH jointly announce a plan for AT&T to spin off their DirecTV business into a separate company in which AT&T will retain 51% majority ownership and DISH will buy a 49% minority stake, with an option to purchase the remainder of the company in 24 to 30 months, based on a fair market third-party valuation at the time. Under the co-ownership arrangement, both brands will be maintained, each with their separate channel packages based on DISH's and AT&T's separate existing network carriage contracts. DISH will assume full operational control of both services, with the ability to deliver any channel package, whether DISH or DirecTV-branded, over either company's satellite fleet, to either company's rooftop dishes and receivers. AT&T will retain exclusive pricing control over DirecTV service during the period and retain access to current customer contact information (to also be shared with DISH) for purposes of marketing their other services. AT&T will also retain responsibility for marketing and new customer acquisition for DirecTV, while DISH will handle actual installation services, plus ongoing billing and customer support. Because billing for DirecTV will be uncoupled from AT&T's billing system, there will no longer be any bundling discount between DirecTV and any other AT&T service. The AT&T name and logo are also removed from all DirecTV branding and references.

As part of the deal, HBO Max is made available as part of DISH. HBO had left DISH nearly three years earlier. An HBO Max 4K linear channel is offered on both DirecTV and DISH showcasing the best content in 4K and 4K HDR from throughout the service. This channel was exclusively created for and distributed via satellite TV on the reasoning that many satellite TV subscribers do not have fast enough home internet service to support 4K streaming (which is how HBO Max is typically accessed). AT&T also renews their network carriage contract with DISH for their WarnerMedia basic cable channels (e.g. TBS, TNT, CNN, etc.) at favorable rates for DISH. The DirecTV brand will remain the exclusive satellite TV distributor of NFL Sunday Ticket during the upcoming 24-30 month period.

The deal receives no pushback from either the FCC or the DOJ. Wall Street cheers the deal as a way for AT&T to unburden themselves from a declining business that is mismatched to the rest of their more growth-oriented corporate portfolio.

*4Q 2021: Showtime absorbs Epix, Sony absorbs MGM*

Epix had been initially created in 2009 by three film studios who had walked away from renewing their output deals with Showtime after negotiations broke down: Paramount, Lionsgate and MGM. The service launched featuring only those studios' recent and library films but in time offered a modest slate of original series, documentaries and comedy specials too. Then in 2016, Paramount and Lionsgate sold their ownership interests to MGM, a studio that made hardly any new films any more. After CBS's acquisitions of Paramount and Lionsgate, the handwriting was on the wall for Epix. They lost almost all of their new and library theatrical movies. They tried to expand their originals line-up in 2020-21, but, despite some critical acclaim, found fewer and fewer subscribers willing to pay $6 per month for the service. Getting dropped by certain third-party distributors had also hurt their subscriber count significantly.

In 4Q 2021, MGM was broken up and sold off piecemeal. The private equity groups who co-owned MGM had been considering a sale for over a year. Sony Pictures acquired the MGM film library while Epix (as an ongoing service, with ownership of certain titles in the Epix Originals library) was sold to CBS for a bargain price. CBS shut the Epix service down three months later, offering all current Epix subscribers a one-month free trial of Showtime. All Epix originals were absorbed into the Showtime library, with some current Epix series continuing on, rebranded as Showtime Originals.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, good point about Frontier. They have a bit of FTTH and I guess some of the FTTN areas could be further monetized by AT&T or someone, but a lot of their network, who would want, really? Old-school pure copper DSL is dead. Only way any telco is gonna reach any of those homes in a profitable way going forward will be via some kind of wireless distribution


They have FTTH in ex-FiOS areas, and a mix of FTTN and a little bit of FTTH here in CT. Fiber can be quite profitable if the telcos are willing to spend money to make money. I think we'll continue to see cherry picking here and there. The problem is that they have Vantage TV (MPEG-4) in CT on FTTN/FTTH, FiOS TV in CTF, and Vantage TV (HEVC) in the Carolinas. What a nightmare for less than 1 millions subscribers.



> Does Netflix distribute through Amazon Channels? How about Hulu? No, neither of them? Do you think Disney+ will? I doubt it. How about Apple TV+? No, that one either?


True. But HBO does, along with all the other major premium channels. I guess we'll see if they keep HBO or pull it.



> A basic mistake a lot of people make when trying to figure out what's going to happen is to assume everyone else spends money they way they do. Unless there's a bad recession (which is possible), I don't see the average American spending WAY less on video entertainment. People LOVE TV and movies.


Some may spend as much on OTT, but everyone I've heard talk about this stuff is complaining about their bill and wants to spend quite a bit LESS on TV, and these are people with well-paid salaried jobs. The big challenge is going to be how to navigate all of this content, and we're farther from a solution there than ever. People are spending more time now just trying to figure out what the heck they want to watch.

You think it takes until 2021 to get an ATSC 3.0 TiVo? You are pretty pessimistic on both TiVo and ATSC 3.0, but then again there might be reason to be on both fronts....

I don't think AT&T is going to spin off DirecTV for one reason, and one reason only. DirecTV is what gives them the massive scale they have for negotiating programming, and they need to ride out the decline for at least 5 or more years in order to keep their total subscriber numbers up as they build up a base of AT&T TV subscribers on IP. Once they have AT&T TV up to scale, they will, over time, transition all of their fiber and higher-tier FTTN/FTTB customers over to AT&T TV, both inside of and outside of their ILEC footprint. They still have a lot of FTTN and DSL customers, however, for whom bundling with DirecTV makes sense due to bandwidth limitations. Over time, I think they will cherry pick most of those customers for overbuilding with fiber, but there still may be a sizable chunk that they want to keep on DirecTV but don't want to build out with fiber. They also have fixed wireless customers that they need to bundle with DirecTV, both within and outside their ILEC footprint.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> They have FTTH in ex-FiOS areas, and a mix of FTTN and a little bit of FTTH here in CT. Fiber can be quite profitable if the telcos are willing to spend money to make money. I think we'll continue to see cherry picking here and there. The problem is that they have Vantage TV (MPEG-4) in CT on FTTN/FTTH, FiOS TV in CTF, and Vantage TV (HEVC) in the Carolinas. What a nightmare for less than 1 millions subscribers.


You're right. If anything, I'm probably being overly optimistic on how long Frontier and/or their own Vantage TV will survive.



Bigg said:


> Some may spend as much on OTT, but everyone I've heard talk about this stuff is complaining about their bill and wants to spend quite a bit LESS on TV, and these are people with well-paid salaried jobs. The big challenge is going to be how to navigate all of this content, and we're farther from a solution there than ever. People are spending more time now just trying to figure out what the heck they want to watch.


Well, I do believe that non-sports fans will see their average total pay TV expenditures go down at least modestly in the coming years. Beyond that, I would say that complaining about one's cable TV bill is one of those things that folks like to do, like how here in Nashville we all like to complain about the traffic, the rate of growth, the hellishly hot summers, etc. But just because folks *talk* about wanting to cut expenses doesn't mean that they'll actually make the sacrifices to their entertainment menu (as they see it) in order to realize those savings.



Bigg said:


> You think it takes until 2021 to get an ATSC 3.0 TiVo? You are pretty pessimistic on both TiVo and ATSC 3.0, but then again there might be reason to be on both fronts....


Well look, broadcast industry cheerleaders for 3.0 are saying that 3.0 won't have its big "coming out party" until fall 2020. (Supposedly 3.0 will be lit up on towers in 40 markets across the country by year-end 2020 but a well-connected source of mine is skeptical about that.) Frankly, I don't think there would be enough consumers to even WANT a 3.0-capable TiVo until 2021. And given that the new TiVo Edge DVR for ATSC 1.0 should hit next month, that would mean a nice 2-year window before the follow-up model. Sounds right to me.



Bigg said:


> I don't think AT&T is going to spin off DirecTV for one reason, and one reason only. DirecTV is what gives them the massive scale they have for negotiating programming, and they need to ride out the decline for at least 5 or more years in order to keep their total subscriber numbers up as they build up a base of AT&T TV subscribers on IP.


Yeah, but if you carefully read my prediction, it posits that AT&T will sell a minority share of DTV to DISH in 3Q '21, with DISH having the *option* to buy out the remainder around the start of 2024. And during that interim period, DTV would have to stick to the same channel packages being sold for AT&T TV. So basically, AT&T would still have the scale of all those subscribers on both AT&T TV plus DTV when it comes to negotiating carriage contracts through roughly the end of 2023. (While the cable networks might *think* that DISH would buy out the rest of DTV at the start of 2024, and thereby fold in those subs into DISH's own packages, they wouldn't *know* for sure that would happen because DISH would have the optionality.) I admit that I don't know the standard length of AT&T's network carriage contracts, but it seems feasible that they could have contracts in place covering AT&T TV through maybe 2025 by the time they sold out the remainder of DTV to DISH in early '24. And frankly, once we get past 2025, will linear cable channels matter that much any more?



Bigg said:


> Once they have AT&T TV up to scale, they will, over time, transition all of their fiber and higher-tier FTTN/FTTB customers over to AT&T TV, both inside of and outside of their ILEC footprint. They still have a lot of FTTN and DSL customers, however, for whom bundling with DirecTV makes sense due to bandwidth limitations.


For DSL 1.0 customers, sure, keep them on DTV satellite. But did you know that the subscriber count for that tier of internet service from AT&T is down to only about 500k? As for the FTTN and FTTH subs, nope, they'll aim to aggressively move them over to AT&T TV.



Bigg said:


> They also have fixed wireless customers that they need to bundle with DirecTV, both within and outside their ILEC footprint.


The future of fixed wireless home broadband service is 5G, whether from AT&T or any other provider. It'll be plenty fast enough to run AT&T TV (and/or HBO Max) on multiple concurrent screens throughout the home.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

*1Q 2022: Netflix offers cheaper ad-supported plan*

Netflix restructures their plans and pricing in the US to include a new 2 simultaneous stream plan for $8/mo that includes ads (as well as 4K HDR). While ads do not appear in Netflix Original movies, theatrical movies, or children's programming, a limited amount of targeted ads appear in all other content.

*1Q 2022: The "skinny live" cable channel bundle emerges: locals + sports + news*

Following rounds of two-way negotiations between each possible pair among media powers Disney, Comcast/NBCU, AT&T/WarnerMedia, CBS, Fox, Sinclair, and PBS, a new standard cable channel package appears featuring major local affiliates of the big broadcast networks, plus national sports and news channels, including RSNs, but nothing else except for whatever content is owned by whichever company provides the package. So, for instance, Hulu with Live TV offers a package including the base Hulu on-demand service plus live locals for ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, The CW, Telemundo, and PBS, plus all the channels owned by Disney (including ESPN and SEC Network), plus NBC Sports Network, MSNBC, CNBC, NBC News Now, Golf, Olympic Channel, CNN, HLN, Turner Sports (formerly TNT), CBS Sports Network, CBSN, FS1, FS2, Big Ten Network, Fox News, Fox Business, and Sinclair-owned RSNs and Stadium. Similar packages are offered in the OTT apps run by Comcast/NBCU, AT&T, and CBS, with their own base library of channels/content included too.

These packages, including forced targeted ads in on-demand/cloud DVR (but removable for an upgrade fee), typically run about $55/mo.

*1Q 2022: ESPN goes totally OTT*

Disney announces that their main ESPN package - all the live sports and related content aired on their ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN U, SEC Network, and ESPNews linear channels - can be purchased as a standalone OTT streaming service inside the ESPN app for $17/mo. The existing ESPN+ live service, focusing on less popular games/sports, can still be added for another $5/mo. Bundling discounts apply for customers who also subscribe to Hulu and/or Disney+.

*2Q 2022: Cox launches Cox X1 TV*

Cox follows in the footsteps of Charter and largely throws in the towel on their own cable TV service. Cox had been the first cable operator to license Comcast's X1 technology platform for use with their own cable TV packages, under their own Contour brand. But as subscribers dwindled and content costs rose, the service was no longer profitable enough for Cox to continue operating, so they announce that it will shut down at year-end. Effective immediately, the only TV service actively marketed will be Xfinity X1 TV, which they white-label as Cox X1 TV, with an offer of free X1 4K HDR boxes for new subscribers who bundle it with Cox broadband, with all streaming done on the service zero-rated against Cox's 1 TB data cap. Some customers on the existing Contour TV service will be able to keep their current Contour set-top boxes and use them with Cox X1 TV if they choose to do so (for a small monthly rental fee), while others will need to return them for an X1 4K HDR box, or instead use the free Cox X1 TV app on their own devices.

The old Contour TV service ceases to be sold at all, although Cox's QAM-based TV Starter basic service continues to be offered. As had been the case for years, TV Starter features only local channels, in both HD and SD, and can only be accessed through the use of a Cox-issued basic digital adapter and remote or a CableCARD. Cox had never supplied their own DVRs or full-featured set-top boxes for use with TV Starter.

*4Q 2022: HBO ceases to exist as a standalone service*

HBO's final legacy distribution contract with a major cable operator expires, after which the operator is given no choice but to distribute HBO Max if they wish to distribute any channels or services at all from WarnerMedia. For the preceding two years, HBO (and its associated HBO Go app) had continued to be available as an option from a dwindling number of cable and telco operators around the country. Some had preemptively struck a new distribution deal with Warner to instead distribute HBO Max rather than HBO while others had waited it out, remaining on their existing contracts that allowed them to distribute only HBO. Most of those, though, had felt the need to cut the price of HBO as an a la carte option down from $15 to about $12-13 per month due to competition from HBO Max as a much larger standalone service priced at just $16.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

*Netflix stock drops more than 10% as earnings show huge decline in new subscribers*
7/17/2019, 7:15:11 PM · by Red in Blue PA · 13 replies
Marketwatch ^
Netflix Inc. shares plunged more than 10% in the extended session Wednesday after the video-streaming giant badly missed projections for new paid subscriptions. Netflix NFLX, -12.40% reported the addition of just 2.7 million paid subscribers globally in the second quarter, far short of what Wall Street and the company expected. Analysts were looking for global paid streaming subscriber additions of 5.3 million, according to FactSet, on domestic additions of 350,000 and 4.8 million internationally. Netflix had projected 5 million new customers.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

wizwor said:


> *Netflix stock drops more than 10% as earnings show huge decline in new subscribers*
> 7/17/2019, 7:15:11 PM · by Red in Blue PA · 13 replies
> Marketwatch ^
> Netflix Inc. shares plunged more than 10% in the extended session Wednesday after the video-streaming giant badly missed projections for new paid subscriptions. Netflix NFLX, -12.40% reported the addition of just 2.7 million paid subscribers globally in the second quarter, far short of what Wall Street and the company expected. Analysts were looking for global paid streaming subscriber additions of 5.3 million, according to FactSet, on domestic additions of 350,000 and 4.8 million internationally. Netflix had projected 5 million new customers.


I'm not surprised there are few global financial issues in play, Netflix depends heavily on international expansion. They won't be the last streamer to have this problem.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

I agree, but they have made a dramatic change in their business model which chased a lot of customers (including me) away...

Raise prices
Shrink library
Replace classic content with controversial home grown programming


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

tenthplanet said:


> I'm not surprised there are few global financial issues in play, Netflix depends heavily on international expansion. They won't be the last streamer to have this problem.





wizwor said:


> I agree, but they have made a dramatic change in their business model which chased a lot of customers (including me) away...
> 
> Raise prices
> Shrink library
> Replace classic content with controversial home grown programming


Yup. See my post #21 above, *1Q 2021: Netflix has peaked in the US?*


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> You're right. If anything, I'm probably being overly optimistic on how long Frontier and/or their own Vantage TV will survive.


You're definitely over-estimating how long Vantage TV lasts, and you may well be over-estimating how Frontier itself lasts. It's on the express train to bankruptcy/insolvency.



> But just because folks *talk* about wanting to cut expenses doesn't mean that they'll actually make the sacrifices to their entertainment menu (as they see it) in order to realize those savings.


Except that most of these folks are in apartments and don't have kids yet. I strongly suspect that the next time they move, many of them won't move their TV service with them.



> Frankly, I don't think there would be enough consumers to even WANT a 3.0-capable TiVo until 2021. And given that the new TiVo Edge DVR for ATSC 1.0 should hit next month, that would mean a nice 2-year window before the follow-up model. Sounds right to me.


TiVo customers will want a 3.0 DVR as soon as 3.0 exists, if and when that happens.



> Yeah, but if you carefully read my prediction, it posits that AT&T will sell a minority share of DTV to DISH in 3Q '21, with DISH having the *option* to buy out the remainder around the start of 2024. ... And frankly, once we get past 2025, will linear cable channels matter that much any more?


For older, more rural customers, yes, I think linear will still matter to a certain extent, but that part is a salient point. That being said, I think AT&T has to keep D* for much longer than 2025 in order to keep the scale that they want. D* also has a huge number of commercial subs that are very profitable, and D* would likely be a profitable enterprise if it just serviced commercial accounts. I think AT&T will have D* for quite a long time.



> For DSL 1.0 customers, sure, keep them on DTV satellite. But did you know that the subscriber count for that tier of internet service from AT&T is down to only about 500k? As for the FTTN and FTTH subs, nope, they'll aim to aggressively move them over to AT&T TV.


No. You're looking at it wrong. You need 25mbps or more to deliver reliable IPTV service. You're just looking at ATM-based DSL connections, which is basically irrelevant. They have millions of U-Verse IPBB connections that are 5kft or more from the VRAD/IRAD/CO and are running at accordingly slow speeds, *as low as 0.8mbps*. Whoever the heck is subscribing to that train wreck of a connection could well be 18kft or more depending on wire gauge in rural areas. For example, my parents could get 12mbps pair bonded IPBB ADSL2+ from Frontier (AT&T built), but they are about 11kft from their VRAD/xbox. Probably most of sub-broadband speed IPBB customers are at 18mbps or 12mbps, which would typically range from 4kft-5kft or more depending on wire gauge and condition. In theory, 12mbps could be available well over 12kft depending on wire gauage and condition.

Just because it's IPBB/FTTN doesn't mean it's fast or running over lines that are in good condition. It just means that there is an IRAD or VRAD somewhere with a 2gbps fiber connection, and it's switched on an IP network. VRADs can serve 100mbps VDSL2 to a customer within about 1kft, while simultaneously serving 6mbps ADSL2+ to another customer at 13kft.

Performance Characteristics | AT&T Broadband

For whatever reason, they took the IPBB 300 and 500 tiers (G.Fast) off of there, but I digress.



> The future of fixed wireless home broadband service is 5G, whether from AT&T or any other provider. It'll be plenty fast enough to run AT&T TV (and/or HBO Max) on multiple concurrent screens throughout the home.


Even if they upgraded the B30 FWI system to 5G, it's still only a 10x10, so even if they could crank it up to 150 or 200mbps shared with a whole bunch of customers, that doesn't scale for video. If they added CA from the mobile network, now they're dipping into their mobile spectrum, and that's not a replacement for cable TV either. There's a reason they started it with a cap of 160GB, which they have slowly raised up (430GB now I think?) In urban areas, yes mmWave 5G will have plenty of bandwidth for video, but not FWI.

The bottom line is that you're way overestimating the bandwidth that some areas of AT&T's network actually has. If AT&T doesn't have DirecTV to service these customers with, and doesn't build fiber out to them, then they will be forced to use DISH or wherever DirecTV ends up.

Very interesting prediction surrounding Netflix. I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually do ads, as Hulu is proving that they are extremely lucrative.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

NashGuy said:


> Yup. See my post #21 above, *1Q 2021: Netflix has peaked in the US?*


Classic what, younger viewers don't watch that.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> TiVo customers will want a 3.0 DVR as soon as 3.0 exists, if and when that happens.


Ha! How many TiVo OTA DVR fans do you think there are, man? Not that many.



Bigg said:


> For older, more rural customers, yes, I think linear will still matter to a certain extent, but that part is a salient point. That being said, I think AT&T has to keep D* for much longer than 2025 in order to keep the scale that they want. D* also has a huge number of commercial subs that are very profitable, and D* would likely be a profitable enterprise if it just serviced commercial accounts. I think AT&T will have D* for quite a long time.


Nah. It's not about whether DTV continues to be somewhat profitable. It's about whether or not the level of profitability and, more importantly, the future projections for the satellite TV business, bring the stock price up or weigh it down. Trust me, DTV is going to become an increasingly heavy anchor on AT&T's stock price. Wall Street will reward AT&T for cutting it loose for some up-front cash (or maybe some of that spectrum that DISH has been hoarding).



Bigg said:


> No. You're looking at it wrong. You need 25mbps or more to deliver reliable IPTV service. You're just looking at ATM-based DSL connections, which is basically irrelevant. They have millions of U-Verse IPBB connections that are 5kft or more from the VRAD/IRAD/CO and are running at accordingly slow speeds, *as low as 0.8mbps*. Whoever the heck is subscribing to that train wreck of a connection could well be 18kft or more depending on wire gauge in rural areas. For example, my parents could get 12mbps pair bonded IPBB ADSL2+ from Frontier (AT&T built), but they are about 11kft from their VRAD/xbox. Probably most of sub-broadband speed IPBB customers are at 18mbps or 12mbps, which would typically range from 4kft-5kft or more depending on wire gauge and condition. In theory, 12mbps could be available well over 12kft depending on wire gauage and condition.


Um, no, you're looking at it wrong. If you've got internet fast enough to stream Netflix or YouTube, you've got internet fast enough to stream AT&T TV or HBO Max. Period. AT&T TV can and will be delivered to many customers exclusively in the form of variable bitrate unicast streams (just like Netflix and YouTube). If I'm AT&T, and I know I'm giving you an IP pipe that's fast enough to stream any kind of 720p video, I WANT YOU TO STREAM MY VIDEO, NOT MY COMPETITORS' VIDEO.

I've lived in AT&T Uverse country since that service started and I don't think I ever recall them selling an internet tier rated below 12 Mbps (other than the 5 Mbps tier for low-income folks). And 12 Mbps is PLENTY fast for AT&T TV. Heck, they can crank out one live 720p stream in HEVC on a 4 Mbps connection, probably.



Bigg said:


> The bottom line is that you're way overestimating the bandwidth that some areas of AT&T's network actually has. If AT&T doesn't have DirecTV to service these customers with, and doesn't build fiber out to them, then they will be forced to use DISH or wherever DirecTV ends up.


AT&T will either abandon those areas as an internet service provider (and let them take TV from whomever) or they'll come through with some form of fixed 5G wireless, perhaps using their AirGig technology. And if they do that, what are they going to bundle in for TV service? AT&T TV and HBO Max.



Bigg said:


> Very interesting prediction surrounding Netflix. I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually do ads, as Hulu is proving that they are extremely lucrative.


Here's the rule for the not-too-distant future: If you're a big mainstream subscription TV service, you gotta offer it two ways: without ads for more money, with ads for less money. Now, if you're more of a niche/luxury TV service -- I would categorize Prime Video, Disney+, Apple TV+ and Showtime that way -- then you can choose to just be ad-free.


----------



## ptrubey (Jan 26, 2004)

NashGuy said:


> The future of fixed wireless home broadband service is 5G, whether from AT&T or any other provider. It'll be plenty fast enough to run AT&T TV (and/or HBO Max) on multiple concurrent screens throughout the home.


The future is fiber for urban and suburban. While the big telcos and Google have gotten bogged down in places, the overall direction is still clear. Fiber will continue to be installed, and at an accelerating rate. Some rural will get fiber, and the ones that don't get it will be serviced by SpaceX's 10,000 satellite Starlink or Amazon's equivalent (1 Gbps links).

5G will have its hands full just servicing mobile customers. It won't be used for fixed wireless in any great number. Rural isn't going to get 5G since the density is too low, and when there is enough density for 5G, there will be fiber (you need fiber in place for 5G cell antennas anyways).

BTW, I have a feeling that the transition from linear TV (channels) to streaming shows will be fast and brutal. No one under the age of about 22 watches traditional TV anymore. They only stream shows and movies. The content creators will be in the drivers seat, not the streaming companies. If you have a streaming service, you better start making your own original content. That is what draws people to Hulu, HBO, Amazon, Netflix. Unique must watch content that you can only get on those services.


----------



## ptrubey (Jan 26, 2004)

Oh, and will there even be OTA TV in 5 years? Cellular and WiFi have been crowding out TV, forcing broadcast to give up valuable spectrum. At some point broadcast TV will be forced to shut down.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

ptrubey said:


> Oh, and will there even be OTA TV in 5 years? Cellular and WiFi have been crowding out TV, forcing broadcast to give up valuable spectrum. At some point broadcast TV will be forced to shut down.


Five years it will still be around, ten years..the crystal ball becomes cloudy. Or as a famous oracle would put it..


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

ptrubey said:


> The future is fiber for urban and suburban. While the big telcos and Google have gotten bogged down in places, the overall direction is still clear. Fiber will continue to be installed, and at an accelerating rate. Some rural will get fiber, and the ones that don't get it will be serviced by SpaceX's 10,000 satellite Starlink or Amazon's equivalent (1 Gbps links).
> 
> 5G will have its hands full just servicing mobile customers. It won't be used for fixed wireless in any great number. Rural isn't going to get 5G since the density is too low, and when there is enough density for 5G, there will be fiber (you need fiber in place for 5G cell antennas anyways).


Nothing beats fiber but it's expensive to deploy. AT&T just finished their big fiber-to-the-home deployment sprint, in order to meet a condition imposed on them for their DirecTV acquisition a few years back. Verizon has been fairly loathe to extend their FiOS fiber footprint in any dramatic way the past few years. Going forward, we'll still see some more fiber deployed but it'll mostly just be in those spots where fiber needs to roll out for mobile or fixed 5G deployment anyway -- low-cost pick-up homes, in other words.

As far as your projections about 5G not covering rural areas, I think you're thinking only of the uber-fast millimeter wave 5G signals, which will only travel a couple city blocks. That kind of 5G, yeah, it's only got to hit isolated spots in certain high-traffic urban and suburban cores. But 5G can travel over long-range signals too, like all that 600 and 700 MHz spectrum that T-Mobile has. (AT&T has quite a bit too.) No, it's not gonna deliver multi-gig speeds but it'll still be at least a little better than 4G LTE on that same spectrum. And, yes, that's the kind of 5G that T-Mobile (and I suspect AT&T and maybe Verizon) will use to deliver fixed 5G home internet to some rural and suburban homes.

Low-earth orbit satellite broadband from the likes of SpaceX Starlink and Amazon Project Kuiper? Yeah, that could be a game-changer for folks in the sticks. But I doubt that the price/quality ratio of the service will make it attractive to anyone who can't get broadband via cable, fiber, or fixed 5G. It'll target two markets: businesses who need ultra-fast connections (e.g. stock traders between NYC, London, Tokyo, etc.) -- they'll be charged mega-bucks -- and then those in spots that can't get anything else much (e.g. rural dwellers, ships, airplanes, etc.).



ptrubey said:


> BTW, I have a feeling that the transition from linear TV (channels) to streaming shows will be fast and brutal. No one under the age of about 22 watches traditional TV anymore. They only stream shows and movies. The content creators will be in the drivers seat, not the streaming companies. If you have a streaming service, you better start making your own original content. That is what draws people to Hulu, HBO, Amazon, Netflix. Unique must watch content that you can only get on those services.


Live sports, news, and local channels (which are mainly watched for live sports and news) are what's keeping the linear TV channel system alive. And that's not going to go away overnight. The media powers-that-be will have to get all their assets shifted over and priced right via OTT direct-to-consumer subscription services first. And even then, there's a pretty powerful ingrained cultural habit of watching linear channel TV, at least for folks born before 1990. So the transition will take awhile. But yeah, we'll get there eventually.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

tenthplanet said:


> Classic what, younger viewers don't watch that.



fourth most expensive show on Netflix is Friends (Lost, The Blacklist, Scrubs, and The Walking Dead are also in the top 15 expensive shows)
demographic bands above 35 years prefer Prime to Netflix



ptrubey said:


> Oh, and will there even be OTA TV in 5 years? Cellular and WiFi have been crowding out TV, forcing broadcast to give up valuable spectrum. At some point broadcast TV will be forced to shut down.











The impact of Amazon's Recast is not reflected in this growth.

For the record, in 2019, as in every other year, the top rated shows are on broadcast television.

My prediction is that change will continue to underwhelm.


----------



## Sparky1234 (May 8, 2006)

dlfl said:


> Get real! No one ever liked a '65 Rambler! Now a '57 Chevy? That's something else.


Or a 68' 442 of 67' Firebird!


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

wizwor said:


> fourth most expensive show on Netflix is Friends (Lost, The Blacklist, Scrubs, and The Walking Dead are also in the top 15 expensive shows)
> demographic bands above 35 years prefer Prime to Netflix
> 
> 
> ...


Prime is like an Amazon version of a Costco membership and streaming is only a part of it, so the numbers can't be directly compared. TV antennaes without dvrs (dvr numbers are way behind antennae sales) is no indicator they are used to any degree unless everyone is watching live. Live ????


----------



## ManeJon (Apr 14, 2018)

What needs to be factored in is that "local" stations own rights to local broadcasts of some of the stations mentioned. There are franchise laws that protect that ownership.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

*1Q 2023: HBO Max loses theatrical film sources as decade-long contracts lapse*

HBO had long been home to the biggest selection of major Hollywood films that had premiered in theaters within the past year. But, like everything else, theatrical movies must eventually shift to the direct-to-consumer model too when it comes to their initial pay TV windows. All theatrical films released on or after Jan. 1, 2023 from Disney's 20th Century Fox and related studios will go exclusively to Disney's own Hulu and/or Disney+ SVODs rather than HBO, where they had gone since the late 20th century. (The Fox movie studios, of course, have been a division of Disney since 2018.) Likewise, all new theatrical films from Universal will go exclusively to Comcast/NBCUniversal's own NBCU SVOD rather than HBO. And finally, HBO also loses access to theatrical films from Summit Entertainment, a division of Lionsgate, due to the simultaneous lapse of that contract on Dec. 31, 2022. CBS, owner of Lionsgate, shuts down the Summit label at this time.

*1Q 2023: Major league sports get serious about OTT direct-to-consumer*

MLB.TV had launched several years earlier as a direct-to-consumer OTT subscription service that let Major League Baseball fans buy season passes to stream their favorite team's games all season long -- so long as that team was based hundreds of miles away, in a distant TV market. The far more lucrative broadcast and streaming rights for in-market baseball games were still held by various third parties, mainly regional sports networks.

But that begins to change with the advent of the 2023 MLB season. The league and certain individual teams have renegotiated deals with the RSNs and others to allow those specific teams to sell full-season subscriptions to their in-market fans via the MLB.TV streaming service. The relevant RSNs and/or other television and streaming outlets (e.g. Fox, Turner Sports, ESPN, etc.) continue to hold non-exclusive rights to all the games as well. MLB says the move is an experiment but, if all goes well, the arrangement could eventually expand to every team in the league. MLB.TV continues to a offer free game for viewing every day, including the occasional local game, in order to encourage sampling and new subscriptions.

Industry observers say the development is a harbinger of the same trend that has already largely transformed the rest of the video entertainment industry: content producers (in this case, the MLB) pulling their content back to their own direct-to-consumer streaming outlet. Will all pro sports games, including the NBA, NHL, MLS and possibly even the NFL, eventually be offered this way?

*1Q 2024: DISH buys remainder of DirecTV*

Per the terms of their deal struck over two years earlier, DISH buys out the remaining 51% of DirecTV from AT&T, giving it complete ownership and total control of the business, its satellite fleet, and all other commercial assets. The move also removes DISH's only direct competitor, a necessary development for DISH's continued survival.

During the preceding two years, DISH had standardized on using their own Hopper line of DVRs for customers of either brand service, which proved to be a popular move with DirecTV customers. They had also installed rooftop dishes pointed at the DirecTV fleet of satellites whenever possible, as that fleet offered greater bandwidth and had a longer expected usable lifespan than DISH's own aging fleet.They had also revised DISH's channel packages (but not pricing) to closely resemble Sling TV's, but with local channels relegated to an optional Locals Pack on DISH with the price differing depending on the subscriber's address. As with Sling TV, DISH offered customers the option of saving money on local channels by integrating free OTA signals into their DISH DVRs.

Both DISH and DirecTV had seen steep drops in subscribers in the 2020s, with satellite TV now used almost exclusively by rural, older and/or poorer Americans without home broadband service, as well as a decent number of commercial establishments such as sports bars, restaurants and motels. The total number of residential subscribers for both satellite TV services totals only 12 million at this point.

All subscribers on the DirecTV-branded service are immediately migrated to the DISH-branded service and assigned the channel package that most closely approximates their previous line-up. Having the entire customer base on the same set of packages will help DISH negotiate better carriage rates with the cable networks and local station owners going forward. AT&T will continue to provide HBO Max and their basic cable networks at discounted wholesale rates to DISH through 2030, or the suspension of DISH services, whichever comes first.

*2Q 2024: NBCU sells out of Hulu and removes next-day access to their shows*

Per the terms of the deal they struck five years earlier, NBCU sells its 1/3 stake in Hulu to Disney, giving them full ownership. At the same time, NBC also removes next-day access to their primetime shows from Hulu, making that an exclusive feature of their own NBCU SVOD. They had already slowly taken a few of their past series, such as 30 Rock, away from Hulu (and other SVODs) in order to make them exclusive to their own service. There would be even more of that with regard to Hulu going forward.The with-ad and ad-free prices of the NBCU SVOD was lowered to slightly undercut the corresponding prices of Hulu's basic service in an effort to better compete for dollars among non-cable-bundle subscribers. And, of course, NBCU's SVOD had benefitted greatly from being included as a part of every X1 TV plan sold by Comcast, Charter, Cox and other broadband operators to their customers.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

OK, will post the last bit of predictions, taking us through the end of 2024, tomorrow.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Ha! How many TiVo OTA DVR fans do you think there are, man? Not that many.


True, there may not be that many.



> Nah. It's not about whether DTV continues to be somewhat profitable. It's about whether or not the level of profitability and, more importantly, the future projections for the satellite TV business, bring the stock price up or weigh it down.


The problem is that without D*, their OTT offerings are basically dead, and their margins will disappear due to higher content costs. Even as D* shrinks to 15M and 10M subs, their OTT offers will likely still be quite a bit smaller, so D* has to carry the weight in programming negotiations.



> Um, no, you're looking at it wrong. If you've got internet fast enough to stream Netflix or YouTube, you've got internet fast enough to stream AT&T TV or HBO Max. Period. AT&T TV can and will be delivered to many customers exclusively in the form of variable bitrate unicast streams (just like Netflix and YouTube). If I'm AT&T, and I know I'm giving you an IP pipe that's fast enough to stream any kind of 720p video, I WANT YOU TO STREAM MY VIDEO, NOT MY COMPETITORS' VIDEO.
> 
> I've lived in AT&T Uverse country since that service started and I don't think I ever recall them selling an internet tier rated below 12 Mbps (other than the 5 Mbps tier for low-income folks). And 12 Mbps is PLENTY fast for AT&T TV. Heck, they can crank out one live 720p stream in HEVC on a 4 Mbps connection, probably.


Your 500k number is simply wrong, as that's ATM-based DSL. Like I said, IPBB tiers range from 0.8mbps to 500mbps. They could offer OTT video to 18mbps and even 12mbps customers, but below 25mbps they have the same problem U-Verse has had all along of the number of simultaneous HD streams. A lot of households will want all the bandwidth they can get for internet and OTT video, so they'll want linear to continue to be delivered via D*. Other households will have 6mbps, 3mbps, or 1.5mbps DSL speeds, so they won't be able to do OTT video at all.



ptrubey said:


> 5G will have its hands full just servicing mobile customers. It won't be used for fixed wireless in any great number. Rural isn't going to get 5G since the density is too low, and when there is enough density for 5G, there will be fiber (you need fiber in place for 5G cell antennas anyways).


5G will largely be available for home internet. If the sites are spaced close enough to offer decent 5G coverage, then they will have plenty of 4G LTE or sub-6 5G capacity for mobile use through density. That being said, mmWave 5G coverage is going to be very spotty, and I doubt it will ever cover a large proportion of cable subscribers- it will just be a huge PITA for cable operators, as the areas dense enough to warrant mmWave 5G are also very profitable to service with HFC, due to that same density.



NashGuy said:


> As far as your projections about 5G not covering rural areas, I think you're thinking only of the uber-fast millimeter wave 5G signals, which will only travel a couple city blocks. That kind of 5G, yeah, it's only got to hit isolated spots in certain high-traffic urban and suburban cores. But 5G can travel over long-range signals too, like all that 600 and 700 MHz spectrum that T-Mobile has. (AT&T has quite a bit too.) No, it's not gonna deliver multi-gig speeds but it'll still be at least a little better than 4G LTE on that same spectrum. And, yes, that's the kind of 5G that T-Mobile (and I suspect AT&T and maybe Verizon) will use to deliver fixed 5G home internet to some rural and suburban homes.


It's around 25% faster than 4G LTE on those frequencies. There is no way that sort of system has the bandwidth to deliver OTT linear TV services at scale. With rural households using LTE as their home internet, plus mobile users in the area, there just isn't enough bandwidth. DBS is a key part of that market if AT&T doesn't want to actually wire it with fiber.



> Low-earth orbit satellite broadband from the likes of SpaceX Starlink and Amazon Project Kuiper? Yeah, that could be a game-changer for folks in the sticks. But I doubt that the price/quality ratio of the service will make it attractive to anyone who can't get broadband via cable, fiber, or fixed 5G. It'll target two markets: businesses who need ultra-fast connections (e.g. stock traders between NYC, London, Tokyo, etc.) -- they'll be charged mega-bucks -- and then those in spots that can't get anything else much (e.g. rural dwellers, ships, airplanes, etc.).


I agree in the sense that it won't be competitive with cable or fiber, but I think it may be competitive with sub-6 fixed wireless, although I could be wrong there, and it could only be competitive with geosynchronous satellite, which is already a tiny niche for where there is no fixed broadband and no decent LTE service.



> And even then, there's a pretty powerful ingrained cultural habit of watching linear channel TV, at least for folks born before 1990. So the transition will take awhile. But yeah, we'll get there eventually.


You have a point about generational differences in TV viewing, but I'd put the tipping point a lot earlier than 1980.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

tenthplanet said:


> Prime is like an Amazon version of a Costco membership and streaming is only a part of it, so the numbers can't be directly compared.


Maybe, but I switched because Netflix had very little I was interested in and Prime carried a lot of 'classic' HBO content. And was less expensive. The other stuff is nice, but I would not pay for free shipping -- it's not that hard to plan shopping so that shipping is free anyway. Spin all you want, but Netflix just officially reported what I said and the shareholders are running for the hills.


tenthplanet said:


> TV antennaes without dvrs (dvr numbers are way behind antennae sales) is no indicator they are used to any degree unless everyone is watching live. Live ????


I know a lot of antenna owners and stop to talk to people in front of a home with an antenna on the roof. Almost none of them have a DVR. My oldest sister and in-laws each used an antenna without a DVR until I gave them one. On my street, three of eleven homes have antennas. Of these only mine has a DVR. Despite the fact that I own, at this time, nine DVRs, I rarely watch recorded tv. With 40 broadcast channels, there is almost always something 'good enough' to prevent me from looking for something on the DVR.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> The problem is that without D*, their OTT offerings are basically dead, and their margins will disappear due to higher content costs. Even as D* shrinks to 15M and 10M subs, their OTT offers will likely still be quite a bit smaller, so D* has to carry the weight in programming negotiations.


I think AT&T's goal is that by the time that they part ways with the DTV subscriber base, their AT&T TV subscriber base will be large enough to sustain them in negotiating decent rates from the other content owners.

Beyond that, I think your mind is fixated on this concept of negotiating favorable carriage rates that comes out of the way that things have looked in the past. Understand that AT&T is a major content owner themselves. It's a different game for them than it is for, say, Charter. We're moving to a situation pretty soon where all the channels on the cable dial will be owned by a handful of companies. They'll all own assets that the others need if they want to offer a full bundle: Disney, Comcast, AT&T, and CBS/Viacom will be the big boys at the table. Fox, Sinclair and Discovery (if it doesn't get snatched up by CBS or another major) will be junior players, along with a few major local broadcast groups like Nexstar. They'll all be sitting around the same table, all of them holding cards that the others need should they wish to offer a full deck of channels to their cable package subscribers.

And that's it, really. AMC Networks, A+E Networks, and Crown Media (Hallmark) are just too small to survive independently long-term. Beyond those, what else is there?



Bigg said:


> Your 500k number is simply wrong, as that's ATM-based DSL. Like I said, IPBB tiers range from 0.8mbps to 500mbps. They could offer OTT video to 18mbps and even 12mbps customers, but below 25mbps they have the same problem U-Verse has had all along of the number of simultaneous HD streams. A lot of households will want all the bandwidth they can get for internet and OTT video, so they'll want linear to continue to be delivered via D*. Other households will have 6mbps, 3mbps, or 1.5mbps DSL speeds, so they won't be able to do OTT video at all.


Uverse is managed IPTV. The linear channels on AT&T TV can, and it looks like will be, offered via multicast (like Uverse TV) on at least some segments of the AT&T network but there's no reason that that must be the case everywhere on the network. For a lot of viewers (including everyone NOT on the AT&T network), everything will be unicast. And of course all cloud DVR and VOD will be unicast for everyone, regardless. In more bandwidth-constrained neighborhoods, they might deliver AT&T TV purely via OTT unicast streams, at least at first, while moving to rapidly shut down Uverse TV in those areas, freeing up that bandwidth. And remember that with AT&T TV, all the recording is done in the cloud. Streams are sent only when actual viewing happens, which probably helps a bit in terms of smoothing out the bandwidth used.

As for those households at 6 Mpbs or lower, I just don't think they constitute a very big percentage of AT&T's home internet customer base. No one in 2019 *chooses* that level of service unless it's the only option available. For those folks, sure, AT&T will be happy to keep them on DTV satellite, at least until they maybe roll out some kind of fixed wireless 5G there. (That will probably be the only way that AT&T ever upgrades those slow DSL addresses at this point. I don't think they're going to upgrade many more of them to fiber and I think they're completely done with FTTN deployment.)



Bigg said:


> It's around 25% faster than 4G LTE on those frequencies. There is no way that sort of system has the bandwidth to deliver OTT linear TV services at scale. With rural households using LTE as their home internet, plus mobile users in the area, there just isn't enough bandwidth. DBS is a key part of that market if AT&T doesn't want to actually wire it with fiber.


We'll see. T-Mobile thinks you're wrong. I know that (for some strange reason) you have this illogical emotional attachment to DBS. The 2020s will be sad for you and the satellite grandpas over at DBSTalk.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I think AT&T's goal is that by the time that they part ways with the DTV subscriber base, their AT&T TV subscriber base will be large enough to sustain them in negotiating decent rates from the other content owners.


They've got a LONG way to go to that point, and I'm not sure they'll ever make their streaming service as large as DirecTV is today. DirecTV has a physical reach that is, quite literally, unparalleled except by DISH, and is a much less competitive market.



> Beyond that, I think your mind is fixated on this concept of negotiating favorable carriage rates that comes out of the way that things have looked in the past. Understand that AT&T is a major content owner themselves.


That logic works great for getting them good rates on NBCU content, since Comcast needs TW content. But it does diddly squat for all the rest of the content providers, who are only in the content business, and are going to play hardball with everyone.



> Uverse is managed IPTV. The linear channels on AT&T TV can, and it looks like will be, offered via multicast (like Uverse TV) on at least some segments of the AT&T network but there's no reason that that must be the case everywhere on the network. For a lot of viewers (including everyone NOT on the AT&T network), everything will be unicast. And of course all cloud DVR and VOD will be unicast for everyone, regardless.


Multicast doesn't help when a household is watching four different TV channels in HD at the same time. DirecTV can do that without using a single bit of that house's 6mbps DSL connection. Meanwhile, with AT&T TV, they'd be lucky to keep two streams going if no one is doing anything else online.



> In more bandwidth-constrained neighborhoods, they might deliver AT&T TV purely via OTT unicast streams, at least at first, while moving to rapidly shut down Uverse TV in those areas, freeing up that bandwidth.


That's just not how U-Verse works. Each customer has their own dedicated connection to the VRAD. As soon as they turn off their U-Verse box, that bandwidth is available for whatever else if their tier is that close to where they are provisioned. That's why on some packages and provisioning combinations, the internet slows down when multiple users are watching TV. So no bandwidth is "freed up" by getting rid of U-Verse.



> And remember that with AT&T TV, all the recording is done in the cloud. Streams are sent only when actual viewing happens, which probably helps a bit in terms of smoothing out the bandwidth used.


That could help or hurt compared to U-Verse, depending on how it is used.



> As for those households at 6 Mpbs or lower, I just don't think they constitute a very big percentage of AT&T's home internet customer base. No one in 2019 *chooses* that level of service unless it's the only option available. For those folks, sure, AT&T will be happy to keep them on DTV satellite, at least until they maybe roll out some kind of fixed wireless 5G there. (That will probably be the only way that AT&T ever upgrades those slow DSL addresses at this point. I don't think they're going to upgrade many more of them to fiber and I think they're completely done with FTTN deployment.)


Sure, they may well upgrade them to FWI. In which case they still need DirecTV to bundle a video offering.



> We'll see. T-Mobile thinks you're wrong. I know that (for some strange reason) you have this illogical emotional attachment to DBS. The 2020s will be sad for you and the satellite grandpas over at DBSTalk.


T-Mobile is going to have to densify the crap out of their network and deploy all their spectrum if they think that they can deliver a full blown TV service over fix sub-6 5G. As it stands today, in rural areas, it often barely works for mobile use with relatively few users, forget about fixed wireless. U-Verse is sort of a joke for putting TV over phone lines, but doing TV over a wireless network is at least equally as insane.

I have no particular emotional attachment to DBS, it's just the fact of the matter that it has a place and a role, and will continue to do so for decades to come, or at least as long as there is linear TV content to broadcast. Even in my town, which has gigabit service from Cox everywhere, and the decrepit remains of the 30 or so VRAD/xbox combos that AT&T left behind for Frontier to ruin, people are switching to DirecTV because Cox is so bad in some ways, and Frontier is so bad in others.

Cord cutting is here, and it's the way things are going, but as long as there are at least a few linear channels, there will be DBS, and I predict there will be at least a few linear channels for a very, very long time.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Also, they are doing FWI outside of their ILEC footprint to cash in on that sweet, sweet gubmint money to do almost nothing (basically install a second set of equipment on an existing tower with existing backhaul). Unless they want to start wiring the whole country with fiber, they are going to need DirecTV for that too.


----------



## Adam C. (Jul 24, 2017)

I came across this article yesterday about Youtube TV being bundled with Verizon internet. So basically Verizon will give you 1 free month of Youtube TV and then you pay the regular $49.99/month rate that every other Youtube TV customer pays. I'm not exactly sure what the point is of this "bundling".

Verizon Is Now Offering a Free Month of YouTube TV with $39.99 Fios Internet Customers - Cord Cutters News


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> They've got a LONG way to go to that point, and I'm not sure they'll ever make their streaming service as large as DirecTV is today. DirecTV has a physical reach that is, quite literally, unparalleled except by DISH, and is a much less competitive market.


You seem to miss the point that the entire cable channel bundle is going downhill anyway. Subscriber numbers will decrease across all the MVPDs.



Bigg said:


> That logic works great for getting them good rates on NBCU content, since Comcast needs TW content. But it does diddly squat for all the rest of the content providers, who are only in the content business, and are going to play hardball with everyone.


Wrong. Disney has Hulu with Live TV. And can't you imagine -- as I predicted on this thread -- that after CBS acquires Viacom (and, after that, probably other entities) that they'll fold their cable channels (and perhaps even the free Pluto TV channels) and the related on-demand content into CBS All Access? At which point, why wouldn't they get into the MVPD game too in order to give customers the option of making their app as close as possible to a "one-stop shop," just like Hulu with Live TV, and HBO Max (which AT&T has already stated will allow live cable bundle add-ins)?

I wrote up so many detailed predictions in this thread that, I admit, it's probably easy for readers to miss the forest for the trees. But perhaps the biggest trend I predict is that virtually ALL MVPDs who don't OWN content (except DISH) -- so Charter, Verizon, Cox, etc. -- will get out of the business of constructing and operating their own cable TV services. Meanwhile, all the MAJOR content owners except Netflix -- so AT&T, Comcast, and CBS/Viacom, as well as Amazon and Google/YouTube -- will be in the business of running virtual OTT nationwide MVPDs.



Bigg said:


> Multicast doesn't help when a household is watching four different TV channels in HD at the same time. DirecTV can do that without using a single bit of that house's 6mbps DSL connection. Meanwhile, with AT&T TV, they'd be lucky to keep two streams going if no one is doing anything else online.


You're quibbling over stuff that just doesn't matter. You love to get into technical minutiae but you're missing the big picture, which is that, yes, DirecTV satellite service will live on for several more years (as I spelled out above) but AT&T will only aim to sell it to households with no home internet service or such low speeds that the residents find streaming video to be a poor experience. Will AT&T have an official policy that says "We only sell AT&T TV to our internet customers with a download speed of at least X Mbps"? Yeah, maybe. What is X? I don't know. And frankly, it doesn't really matter. I think you're way more concerned about the network quality experience of AT&T DSL customers than AT&T is.



Bigg said:


> That's just not how U-Verse works. Each customer has their own dedicated connection to the VRAD. As soon as they turn off their U-Verse box, that bandwidth is available for whatever else if their tier is that close to where they are provisioned. That's why on some packages and provisioning combinations, the internet slows down when multiple users are watching TV. So no bandwidth is "freed up" by getting rid of U-Verse.


Bandwidth is certainly free up on the other side of the VRAD if Uverse and all its multicast streams are eliminated. And it's also true that AT&T provisions a maximum internet speed for their Uverse customers that is lower than it would be if Uverse TV didn't exist because they don't want to run into situations where multiple simultaneous Uverse TV viewers in the house results in slower internet speeds. So eliminating Uverse TV entirely in those neighborhoods should allow AT&T to advertise and set slightly high max internet speeds.



Bigg said:


> Sure, they may well upgrade them to FWI. In which case they still need DirecTV to bundle a video offering.


I can already tell that you're going to need some cheering up when DirecTV satellite gets sold off or shut down. "What a stupid move by AT&T!" you'll say. "Now they have no way to bundle video to those folks out in the country! They're leaving it all to DISH!"



Bigg said:


> T-Mobile is going to have to densify the crap out of their network and deploy all their spectrum if they think that they can deliver a full blown TV service over fix sub-6 5G. As it stands today, in rural areas, it often barely works for mobile use with relatively few users, forget about fixed wireless. U-Verse is sort of a joke for putting TV over phone lines, but doing TV over a wireless network is at least equally as insane.


So I assume when you say it "barely works" that you're testing that on a modern phone with support for LTE bands 66 and 71, right? Because that's the long-range 600/700 MHz spectrum that T-Mobile bought a crap-ton of and has been busy converting over from UHF TV to cellular across the nation. They're not done yet either. And it's the same spectrum on which they'll deploy long-range 5G.

As for putting TV over phone lines being "insane," do you know anyone under age 30? Do you realize how much video consumption -- right now, today -- happens on smartphones? What ABC, NBC and CBS were to my generation growing up, YouTube is to kids today. You have a very 20th-century living-room-TV-centric understanding of video consumption. The cellular network providers, who are busy rolling out 5G, know that they're going to be carrying LOTS of video on their wireless networks. That can be content that they sell or it can be content that other companies sell. If I'm a wireless provider, I'd rather it be stuff that I sell so that I can get a cut of the revenue.



Bigg said:


> Cord cutting is here, and it's the way things are going, but as long as there are at least a few linear channels, there will be DBS, and I predict there will be at least a few linear channels for a very, very long time.


I agree, although the role of both DBS and linear channels (especially the former) will diminish as the 2020s roll on.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Adam C. said:


> I came across this article yesterday about Youtube TV being bundled with Verizon internet. So basically Verizon will give you 1 free month of Youtube TV and then you pay the regular $49.99/month rate that every other Youtube TV customer pays. I'm not exactly sure what the point is of this "bundling".
> 
> Verizon Is Now Offering a Free Month of YouTube TV with $39.99 Fios Internet Customers - Cord Cutters News


Please see the very first prediction I made to start off this thread. I honestly hadn't heard any of the details I posted, just made them up based on what I thought would be logical. And, sure enough, they're charging the regular price for YouTube TV after the first month free. (Normally YTTV only gives away a free initial one-week trial.) Only thing I *maybe* missed was the part about Verizon offering "enhanced technical support" for YTTV on their own networks for customers who sign up through them. But we'll see. If they get enough YTTV customers so that it effectively becomes like a first-party TV service, I could imagine them doing that.


----------



## Adam C. (Jul 24, 2017)

NashGuy said:


> Please see the very first prediction I made to start off this thread. I honestly hadn't heard any of the details I posted, just made them up based on what I thought would be logical. And, sure enough, they're charging the regular price for YouTube TV after the first month free. (Normally YTTV only gives away a free initial one-week trial.) Only thing I *maybe* missed was the part about Verizon offering "enhanced technical support" for YTTV on their own networks for customers who sign up through them. But we'll see. If they get enough YTTV customers so that it effectively becomes like a first-party TV service, I could imagine them doing that.


My post was not meant to be a dig against your prediction. It was more of just an observation about YTTV integrating with Verizon. I just don't understand the connection between these 2 services unless Verizon at some point is going to offer some type of discount for people that "bundle" both services. Otherwise what's the point of Verizon even offering YTTV to begin with.

On a different note, all of these streaming services are already becoming way too fragmented. I currently have Hulu, Netflix, and Prime Video, in addition to my OTA antenna. It is already hard enough to know what to find on each service. I can't imagine adding any more to the mix. I am admittedly much too lazy to download 10 different apps on my Roku and then try to figure out what shows are available where.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Adam C. said:


> My post was not meant to be a dig against your prediction.


Oh, and I didn't take it that way! Sorry if I implied otherwise. Thank you for posting it. I hadn't seen that news about Verizon and YTTV yet myself.



Adam C. said:


> It was more of just an observation about YTTV integrating with Verizon. I just don't understand the connection between these 2 services unless Verizon at some point is going to offer some type of discount for people that "bundle" both services. Otherwise what's the point of Verizon even offering YTTV to begin with.


Well, as my long thread of predictions reveals, what we're probably going to see are Verizon and other cable TV operators who don't actually own any major TV channels/content -- so also Charter, Cox, etc. -- just completely get out of the business of operating and selling their own cable TV service in the coming years. Instead, they'll partner with one or more outside services and offer to bundle them in with their own broadband service.

Now, I agree that for Verizon customers, there's not a lot of benefit to buying YouTube TV through Verizon as opposed to directly from Google. For now, it's just the convenience of unified billing, plus the perk of a full free month to start off (rather than just one week, as Google offers).

But as I speculate in my prediction "2Q 2020: Verizon markets Google's Stadia and YouTube Music, doubles down on YouTube TV," we might see Verizon sweeten the deal for bundling YTTV with Verizon's broadband service (both FiOS and 5G Home) by giving customers a free (or discounted) Android TV-powered box/stick/dongle with a remote control that's customized for YTTV. If they're serious about ultimately replacing FiOS TV with YTTV, and I suspect they are, they'll need to make it easy for folks who are used to a more traditional cable box and remote. (We'll see AT&T be a trail-blazer on this front next month when they unveil their own AT&T TV service with their custom Android TV box.)



Adam C. said:


> On a different note, all of these streaming services are already becoming way too fragmented. I currently have Hulu, Netflix, and Prime Video, in addition to my OTA antenna. It is already hard enough to know what to find on each service. I can't imagine adding any more to the mix. I am admittedly much too lazy to download 10 different apps on my Roku and then try to figure out what shows are available where.


Agreed. Roku is going to need to follow Apple's lead in terms of developing a nice, content-forward UI that blends stuff from across all your major apps and gives you a unified watchlist. That's what the TV app on the Apple TV box does. It's great. I use it every day. And like you, I'm someone who subscribes to 2-3 paid SVODs at a time, plus uses free streaming apps and OTA TV. I watch it all through my Apple TV.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Agreed. Roku is going to need to follow Apple's lead in terms of developing a nice, content-forward UI that blends stuff from across all your major apps and gives you a unified watchlist. That's what the TV app on the Apple TV box does. It's great. I use it every day. And like you, I'm someone who subscribes to 2-3 paid SVODs at a time, plus uses free streaming apps and OTA TV. I watch it all through my Apple TV.


Just a short question, does Apple TV show the free choices of the particular program in your search results?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Joe3 said:


> Just a short question, does Apple TV show the free choices of the particular program in your search results?


If the free app opts into working with the TV app on the Apple TV, yes. Right now, both Tubi TV and Pluto TV do so. And Apple features some of their content as recommended picks on the main Watch Now tab of the TV app too, commingled in with stuff from lots of other paid apps (including Apple's own iTunes rentals and purchases).

I don't think there's an IMDb TV app from Amazon (yet) for Apple TV, although that free content shows up inside the Prime Video app, although I don't know if it turns up in searches.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

_*And now for the thrilling (?) conclusion to Years and Years (of Pay TV Industry Predictions):*_

*3Q 2024: Fox dissolves*

Fox Corp. strikes a deal to sell their diminished Fox broadcast network plus their national sports channels (FS1, FS2, Big Ten Network) to Sinclair/Diamond Sports, who - alongside Disney/ESPN - emerges as one of the nation's two general sports entertainment powerhouses. (But unlike Disney, Sinclair had also struck gold by exploiting the burgeoning market for sports betting.) Sinclair must sell off a few of their Fox affiliate local stations but not many, given that FCC rules around station ownership had relaxed somewhat due to the rise of streaming and dramatic shifts in video entertainment consumption in the 2020s. Many key members of Fox management stay on under the new ownership.

Industry observers question the long-term viability of the Fox broadcast network given its long-term ratings slide in the early 2020s. Sinclair states that they intend to maintain 14 hours of primetime programming each week (2 hours per night) on the network but that it will not air any costly scripted/fictional programming, only sports plus cheap-to-produce talk, lifestyle, reality, competition/game, true crime, and news magazine shows, with an emphasis on live content. This content would be further monetized off-network through various AVOD and SVOD streaming platforms. MyNetworkTV is shut down, with Sinclair opting to focus their syndication and channel-branding efforts only on their own local stations across the nation.

Meanwhile, the Fox News and Fox Business channels are absorbed into the Murdoch family's News Corp., owner of the Wall Street Journal and the UK's The Times and The Sun. Fox News retains its iconic brand name but unveils a refreshed logo while retooling its political perspective and primetime line-up to appeal to a younger, more diverse center-right audience in the post-Trump era. The station is widely distributed as an add-on to every possible OTT subscription platform possible, as well as a standalone OTT service through its own app. Fox Business (which had always been an also-ran next to CNBC) is rebranded as Wall Street Live, a free ad-supported 24/7 streaming/cable business news network operated in conjunction with the WSJ. Access to on-demand and premium clips from Wall Street Live are restricted as perks for WSJ's digital/print subscribers.

*3Q 2024: HBO Max rebrands as "The Max"*

Now that HBO has ceased to exist as a standalone service for awhile, HBO Max shortens their name to simply The Max, following the nickname that many of its younger viewers had been calling it for years. The HBO, HBO Family, HBO Latino and HBO Cinema linear channels continue to exist inside the app as showcases for the service's higher-brow original content, plus Warner Bros' big theatrical films. But a new live linear streaming channel, simple called The Max, joins the line-up to showcase the large and growing body of Max Originals, as well as favorite content from the Warner Bros. vault and Warner's basic cable entertainment channels. The Max linear channel exists exclusively inside The Max app. One of the biggest Max Originals hits so far has been a reboot of the classic 80s film, The Goonies, now in its third season as a series which many fans see as "the new Stranger Things".

The change in branding from HBO Max to simply The Max made sense as WarnerMedia had gradually relied less and less on the HBO brand, while shifting an increasing percentage of their spending on new content from HBO-branded content to the broader Max Originals brand. Also, more and more original documentaries and docuseries had shifted from the HBO brand to the CNN brand. (Both moves allowed the service to run more ads, since even on the cheaper plan with limited ads, HBO-branded content, theatrical films and kids' shows always remained ad-free, while Max Originals, CNN docs and everything else could contain lucrative targeted ads.) In retrospect, analysts said the rebranding had been telegraphed from the very start, when HBO Max introduced their logo in 2019 featuring a small white "HBO" and a large colorful "MAX" in its design. From the get-go, the service was ultimately intended to be less about HBO and more about The Max.

*4Q 2024: TiVo files for bankruptcy, ATSC 3.0 fizzles*

TiVo Corp. had split into two different publicly-traded companies years earlier: the new TiVo, focused on selling services/platforms to MSOs (and, to a lesser extent, retail users), and Rovi, focused on licensing intellectual property and metadata to media and technology companies, based on the company's trove of patents. They had hoped to find private buyers for one or both sides of the business before the split but could not, so Rovi was spun-out as a separately traded stock.

While Rovi continued to be profitable, TiVo had found their entire business model to be untenable as the 2020s progressed. The small-to-midsized MSOs to whom TiVo sold solutions had increasingly chosen to completely stop operating their own unprofitable cable TV services and instead focus on selling and operating their highly profitable broadband networks. If an MSO as large as Charter had decided there wasn't decent money in running their own cable TV service, how could an operator with only 5% as many customers make it work? All of these smaller MSOs had instead decided to resell one or more national OTT streaming cable TV services, such as YouTube TV, AT&T TV, X1 TV, Sling TV, Hulu with Live TV, Prime Video Live Channels, or CBS All Access with Live TV. TiVo had limped along, serving a handful of MSOs still under contracts struck a few years earlier, but those clients continued to drop off.

Meanwhile, the company had virtually zero retail customers still paying for service on their TiVo DVRs with CableCARDs, given that HD channels had not been accessible on those devices to the vast majority of Americans for a few years now.

TiVo did still have a modest number of retail customers using their OTA DVRs but it simply wasn't enough to sustain them. They had a small slice of a fairly small pie, thanks to OTA DVR competition from Tablo, Amazon, AT&T, DISH and other pay TV operators who followed Sling TV's lead to sell low-cost network OTA tuners like the AirTV, with local DVR capabilities, to their streaming cable TV subscribers as a way to supplement their own service while keeping retransmission fees in check during negotiations with local broadcast stations.

TiVo had hoped to take the lead with ATSC 3.0 DVRs but ATSC 3.0 has yet to reach sufficient adoption by broadcasters or viewers for it to supplant ATSC 1.0 and few industry observers expect it ever will. While Sinclair, and to a lesser extent other local station owners, had been enthusiastic supporters of ATSC 3.0 at the dawn of the decade, virtually all of the major media and tech titans saw its rise as inimical to their own interests and therefore they never gave it much, if any, support. The FCC had never voted to make ATSC 3.0 adoption mandatory and no stations that voluntarily chose to broadcast in 3.0 have yet signaled any plans to cease their 1.0 broadcasts immediately at five years after their 3.0 launch, which is the soonest that FCC regulations allow.

*4Q 2024: Where the SVODs stand*

At the end of 2024, Prime Video continues to boast the highest US subscriber count of any SVOD, although that's mainly due to the fact that it is packaged in with Prime membership primarily used for free shipping. When it comes to actual minutes viewed, Prime Video ranks behind most other leading services.

After Prime Video, Disney+ ranks second in US subscribers, with Netflix, then Hulu, then HBO Max, then NBCU all following closely behind.

Showtime, CBS All Access, and Apple TV+ all lag well behind that most popular tier of SVODs in subscriber counts, but all three services appear strong enough to continue operating thanks to their devoted subscriber bases and positive financial results for their owners. As had always been the case, the majority of viewers who pay for access to the main CBS network do so not through CBS All Access but through other distribution platforms, which offer at least CBS and its related news and sports networks.

Free ad-supported OTT services had also grown to become important parts of the video ecosystem, with many of the SVODs offering a free ad-supported content tier inside their own apps and/or in separate apps. But Google's YouTube remained far and away the leader, essentially serving as the aggregator of all "long-tail" niche content that had once been somewhat filled by a plethora of cable networks which no longer exist. The TV universe has evolved from "500 channels and nothin' on" to "500 billion streams and something for everyone".


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> You seem to miss the point that the entire cable channel bundle is going downhill anyway. Subscriber numbers will decrease across all the MVPDs.


I agree that the cable channel bundle as we know it today is going downhill, but it's going to be a very long time before live pay TV is gone completely. I'm not convinced that it will ever totally disappear, as we still have a robust network of AM radio stations.



> Wrong. Disney has Hulu with Live TV. And can't you imagine -- as I predicted on this thread -- that after CBS acquires Viacom...


Even if that happened, what about other content providers? AT&T still needs the scale to get good carriage rates with them, and it just gives them that much more leverage over channels owned by those other companies who are running MVPDs (NBCU) or vMVPDs (ABC, and as you suggest CBS/Viacom).



> I wrote up so many detailed predictions in this thread that, I admit, it's probably easy for readers to miss the forest for the trees. But perhaps the biggest trend I predict is that virtually ALL MVPDs who don't OWN content (except DISH) -- so Charter, Verizon, Cox, etc. -- will get out of the business of constructing and operating their own cable TV services. Meanwhile, all the MAJOR content owners except Netflix -- so AT&T, Comcast, and CBS/Viacom, as well as Amazon and Google/YouTube -- will be in the business of running virtual OTT nationwide MVPDs.


I agree with all of that except maybe Charter, due to their sheer scale, although they could end up getting out of the business as well. However, none of that suggests that AT&T will get rid of DirecTV.



> You're quibbling over stuff that just doesn't matter. You love to get into technical minutiae but you're missing the big picture, which is that, yes, DirecTV satellite service will live on for several more years (as I spelled out above) but AT&T will only aim to sell it to households with no home internet service or such low speeds that the residents find streaming video to be a poor experience. Will AT&T have an official policy that says "We only sell AT&T TV to our internet customers with a download speed of at least X Mbps"? Yeah, maybe. What is X? I don't know. And frankly, it doesn't really matter. I think you're way more concerned about the network quality experience of AT&T DSL customers than AT&T is.


I think the technical minutiae matters a lot here, as the lack of bandwidth for video was a big part of the reason that AT&T bought DirecTV in the first place. Also, I largely skipped over them, but data caps could continue to drive business to DirecTV. A vMVPD is a LOT less competitive when someone has to pay Cox a $50/mo ransom just to use more than 1TB on their cable connection that they're already paying $85/mo for. A LOT of those folks have DirecTV. I can tell when I go from a Comcast town to a Cox town, the number of dishes goes WAY up. It doesn't matter that much whether the cutoff for AT&T TV is 6mbps or 12mbps or 18mbps, there are still plenty of AT&T's own customers who don't have enough bandwidth to get it, but can get DirecTV. There's also commercial customers, and various niches for RVs, boats, etc.



> Bandwidth is certainly free up on the other side of the VRAD if Uverse and all its multicast streams are eliminated. And it's also true that AT&T provisions a maximum internet speed for their Uverse customers that is lower than it would be if Uverse TV didn't exist because they don't want to run into situations where multiple simultaneous Uverse TV viewers in the house results in slower internet speeds. So eliminating Uverse TV entirely in those neighborhoods should allow AT&T to advertise and set slightly high max internet speeds.


They might be able to push the 25mbps and 50mbps tiers out slightly farther without U-Verse TV, but they may have already done that, and just let TV make the internet speeds take more of a hit as the total bandwidth has gone up. I think they're about maxed out on what they can offer on the VDSL architecture. There is no upstream bandwidth savings, since the multicast streams only come to the VRAD if a customer on that VRAD is actually using them, and AT&T TV will just replace that. However, it's irrelevant, as the fiber backhaul isn't the limiting factor. They started out with 2gbps, and they can increase that to 10gbps or probably higher if they need to. In fact, if they wanted to, they could feed GPON fiber out of a VRAD, even though it's a crappy architecture, since you don't have the same power backup as you do out of a CO.



> I can already tell that you're going to need some cheering up when DirecTV satellite gets sold off or shut down. "What a stupid move by AT&T!" you'll say. "Now they have no way to bundle video to those folks out in the country! They're leaving it all to DISH!"


I'd be happy if they sold DirecTV off, since they have really screwed it up, but they're not going to, as it's essential to both their bundling and content negotiations, i.e. the two reasons that they bought it in the first place.



> So I assume when you say it "barely works" that you're testing that on a modern phone with support for LTE bands 66 and 71, right? Because that's the long-range 600/700 MHz spectrum that T-Mobile bought a crap-ton of and has been busy converting over from UHF TV to cellular across the nation. They're not done yet either. And it's the same spectrum on which they'll deploy long-range 5G.


I haven't personally tested rural T-Mobile, but I've read many reports on how bad it is. Their towers are spaced way too apart, the coverage is like swiss cheese, and in many areas they still have only a single 5x5 deployed. Even if they fully deployed their spectrum, they wouldn't have much capacity, and the coverage holes would mostly still be there.



> As for putting TV over phone lines being "insane," do you know anyone under age 30? Do you realize how much video consumption -- right now, today -- happens on smartphones? What ABC, NBC and CBS were to my generation growing up, YouTube is to kids today. You have a very 20th-century living-room-TV-centric understanding of video consumption. The cellular network providers, who are busy rolling out 5G, know that they're going to be carrying LOTS of video on their wireless networks. That can be content that they sell or it can be content that other companies sell. If I'm a wireless provider, I'd rather it be stuff that I sell so that I can get a cut of the revenue.


I'm under 30- just barely. The fact of the matter is that Americans consume vast amounts of TV, and much of that is in the living room. U-Verse is a joke for cramming TV over phone lines, although it sort of works to a point. I stream video on mobile sometimes, but it's a crappy experience, the screen is tiny, and a nice 65"+ TV is a much better way to consume video content. Regardless, all that really doesn't matter much to rural 5G. n71 5G just doesn't have the capacity to handle a ton of TV viewing and/or streaming, especially not in T-Mobile's swiss cheese configuration that can barely keep up with some mobile usage. Heck, AT&T has a better shot at that, as they have 50x50 or more deployed on more towers in a lot of the areas that T-Mobile still is running on a single 5x5 with swiss cheese coverage.



> I agree, although the role of both DBS and linear channels (especially the former) will diminish as the 2020s roll on.


DBS is going to diminish, there's no question. DirecTV was at 20M subs, and I don't know where their long term plateau is. It might be 5M subs, it might be 2M, but at some point, there is a niche market for satellite delivery of linear channels as long as linear channels exist, and I suspect that they are going to be around for a very, very long time. The Atlanta airport and sports bars nationwide need something to fill up their thousands of cheap LCD screens.

However, I think that by some time in the mid-2020's, streaming events may become the main way we consume sports, with the more popular events then simulcast over the linear networks for sports bars, rural customers, etc, with cable news left as the last bastion of live TV, as the 24 hour news cycle naturally lends itself to a live linear channel more than any other type of content.

On the path to that eventuality, however, poor broadband access, overpriced broadband, and arbitrary and capricious data caps are going to significantly hold back that other inevitable transition to a streaming world, and DirecTV neatly fills all of those needs and use cases.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> _*And now for the thrilling (?) conclusion to Years and Years (of Pay TV Industry Predictions)*_


Thank you so much for the time, effort, and thought that you have devoted to this episodic _magnum opus_ on the future of television. It is gracious of you to share with us your insights (not to mention your prodigious prognosticating skills).

You have raised the stakes for posting on the TCF!


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> *4Q 2024: TiVo files for bankruptcy, ATSC 3.0 fizzles*
> 
> TiVo Corp. had split into two different publicly-traded companies years earlier: the new TiVo, focused on selling services/platforms to MSOs (and, to a lesser extent, retail users), and Rovi, focused on licensing intellectual property and metadata to media and technology companies, based on the company's trove of patents. They had hoped to find private buyers for one or both sides of the business before the split but could not, so Rovi was spun-out as a separately traded stock.
> 
> ...


There is no doubt you thought about this. However, I disagree about what will cause TiVo's end. I believe they will go bankrupt years earlier than your prediction. If TiVo launches the same old mediocrity with it's new Series 7 and try's to pass it off as something new, look for the end of the company to happen soon after. TiVo's resent Facebook tour filled me with dread as the so call lead technologies person had no ideas and no spark. Rather, the IT person the witless guy in the office calls to reboot his computer and not a technology guru with the imagination to reboot a failing company.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> Thank you so much for the time, effort, and thought that you have devoted to this episodic _magnum opus_ on the future of television. It is gracious of you to share with us your insights (not to mention your prodigious prognosticating skills).
> 
> You have raised the stakes for posting on the TCF!


Why thank you, sir. As you know, I like thinking about the future of TV and tech (often during my bike rides and jogs) and so I decided to start typing it out to organize and flesh-out my thoughts. "Why not post it here on TCF?" I thought. Maybe I should start a blog...


----------



## ManeJon (Apr 14, 2018)

I live in an area where the local cable company (Spectrum) offers only 2 tuner DVR and no whole home viewing. As long as situations such as that exists Tivo will be a favored choice although there may not be enough of those areas to keep the company alive. Also, even though there are efforts to fix this huge parts of the country are still without high speed internet. 
I wonder what % of the populous even know there are alternatives to their standard cable TV and would be able to deal with multiple vendors when there are issues.
I'm waiting for actual 4K or 8K tv other than a few from a very few vendors.
Thanks also for the predictions


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

_Addendum/Erratum_

[Plant tongue firmly in cheek before continuing.]

*2Q 2020: Hello, Juno.*

NBCUniversal launches Juno, their new nationwide OTT SVOD. This new service would eventually grow into the company's answer to Hulu. The company's branding mavens wanted a modern, yet friendly-sounding name. It was a given that they would go with a two-syllable nonsense word that followed the typical consonant-vowel-consonant-vowel phoneme pattern (see also: Hulu, Vudu, Roku, TiVo, Vevo, Quibi, Xumo, Philo and Tubi).

Focus group testing for the name Juno was through the roof and corporate brass loved the sound of it. Couple small hitches, though. To score exclusive use of the trademark, NBCU had to buy the rights to the quirky 2007 indie comedy film of the same name, starring Ellen Page and Michael Cera, from Disney's 20th Century Fox. NBCU decided that the movie Juno, about a high school girl who gets pregnant with her best guy friend and chooses to have the baby, would permanently be featured in the movie section of their new Juno service. If any movie could appeal to both red and blue America simultaneously, they figured, it was this one.

Also, NBCU had to completely buy out a small dial-up and DSL internet provider named Juno. "Didn't that company go out of business in like 2003?" the marketing team asked. "Nope," their lawyers replied. So they bought Juno, shut them down, and used the mailing list of former customers to advertise Comcast's various services.

The company launches a kick-off ad campaign for Juno exploiting the joke that the name sounds like "you know".

_Person speaking to an anonymous voice assistant_: "Who has my favorite classic shows from the past like Miami Vice and Murder, She Wrote plus exclusive new premium originals like Angelyne starring Emmy Rossum?"

_Voice assistant_: "Juno..."


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> *2Q 2020: Verizon markets Google's Stadia and YouTube Music, doubles down on YouTube TV*
> 
> Verizon announces that they are extending their marketing agreement with Google to include both their Stadia subscription streaming video game service and YouTube Music subscription streaming music service, which Verizon will sell to their FiOS, 5G Home, and Wireless customers, as they already do with Google's YouTube TV. Verizon promises a high-quality, low-latency gaming experience on Stadia when played on their advanced fiber and 5G networks.
> 
> ...


Well, look what our good buddy Dave Zatz apparently turned up at the FCC (per a new report over at Cord Cutters News):

Verizon is Planning to Release a Streaming Player Called Stream TV - Cord Cutters News

When details of this new streaming TV player emerge, remember, you read the prediction for it here from me first. ;-)


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Att said HBO Max will have live sports. MLB, NBA and soccer aka TBS and TNT from the sound of it. 

Also DTV lost 770k satellite subscribers in Q2.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Well, look what our good buddy Dave Zatz apparently turned up at the FCC (per a new report over at Cord Cutters News):
> 
> Verizon is Planning to Release a Streaming Player Called Stream TV - Cord Cutters News
> 
> When details of this new streaming TV player emerge, remember, you read the prediction for it here from me first. ;-)


From the linked article: "From the sounds of it, this could be very similar to Comcast's streaming player they recently launched earlier this year."

That would be the "Flex" streamer? Have you seen any feedback on this or Comcast's "Instant TV" service?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> Att said HBO Max will have live sports. MLB, NBA and soccer aka TBS and TNT from the sound of it.
> 
> Also DTV lost 770k satellite subscribers in Q2.


Yeah. Well, they had already told us a couple weeks ago that eventually DirecTV Now (or some aspects of it) would integrate into HBO Max. In other words, HBO Max will have an optional add-on bundle(s) of live cable channels, which would necessarily include sports and news channels.

But then, aside from that, there have been some hints that live sports specifically from their Turner and/or Bleacher Report properties would appear in HBO Max. My question is whether that will be some kind of optional add-on tier (maybe priced at $5/mo, the same as ESPN+) or if those AT&T-owned live sports events will simply be included at some point in the $16-17 base price for HBO Max.

Here's my *slightly updated* thinking on all this:

HBO Max will be the app targeted at a pool of consumers that we'll call "modern". These would include those who could be described as any of the following: cord-cutters, more budget-conscious consumers, those who prefer direct-to-consumer on-demand apps like Hulu and Netflix, and those who watch a lot of video on their phones and tablets. The HBO Max app will be available for all major retail devices (TV-connected and mobile) and the service will be given away for free as a perk to most AT&T Wireless post-paid customers. At some point in 2020 (probably around the same time that the DirecTV Now and AT&T Watch TV apps/services are killed), HBO Max will offer the option of adding various live channel bundles (i.e. the same bundles sold under the AT&T TV brand: Select, Plus and Max). It may also offer a less expensive add-on that only includes the live sports and news offered directly by WarnerMedia.

AT&T TV will be the service targeted at consumers we'll call "traditional" -- these folks want a dedicated TV box and remote custom-designed for channel-based TV, with a traditional channel grid guide, full-service DVR, and large bundles of channels owned by many different companies (e.g. Viacom, Discovery, A+E, Disney, NBCU, Fox, etc.), although they like the idea of having access to popular streaming apps on that same box. (The typical TiVo owner would fall in this category.) I increasingly believe that AT&T TV *will* require subscribers to take at least one of AT&T's own Android TV set-top boxes. My guess is that customers will place their order to initiate AT&T TV service online, via the phone, or in AT&T Stores, at the same time purchasing (or getting for free) an AT&T TV box that will be shipped to them or handed to them at the store. But one's credit/debit card won't be charged for the first month of AT&T TV service, and the service won't actually be accessible, until the AT&T TV box is connected to a TV and to the internet and the user agrees to the service terms and activates the account. There will also be an AT&T TV app, with a very similar UI to the one on the AT&T TV box, for Apple TV, Roku, Fire TV, iPhone, iPad, Android phones, smart TVs, etc. That app can be used on secondary TVs and non-TV screens. Just like DirecTV Now, AT&T TV will offer anywhere-access to live, recorded and VOD TV to any device over any fast-enough internet connection.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> From the linked article: "From the sounds of it, this could be very similar to Comcast's streaming player they recently launched earlier this year."
> 
> That would be the "Flex" streamer? Have you seen any feedback on this or Comcast's "Instant TV" service?


Yeah. Similar strategy. Comcast's "Flex" streamer is really just their Xi5 or Xi6, which is the standalone IPTV box that they're now giving by default to ALL new Xfinity TV subscribers in many parts of the country now. (Both the Xi5 and Xi6 run the X1 operating system/UI; the difference is that the Xi5 is HD while the Xi6 is 4K HDR.) Comcast no longer markets the Xfinity Instant TV service. Basically, Instant TV is now their "regular" TV service, except that it has of course expanded to allow any and all channels to be ordered through it, as well as have the standard 20 hours of cloud DVR expanded to 60 hours for an additional $10/mo. Note that right now (although I believe this will change by the end of 2020), these little Comcast Xi5 and Xi6 boxes are only useful for any kind of streaming video if you have Xfinity Internet service. I believe that Comcast will take their cable TV service nationwide as an OTT service, available via any internet connection, just like AT&T TV and YouTube TV. Competitive pressures will force them to do it. (And their European subsidiary, SkyTV, has already been doing it over there for a few years now via their NowTV service.) And when that happens, I think Comcast will distribute their Xi5 and/or Xi6 to consumers nationwide for use with the OTT version of Xfinity TV service. They may be only sold/rented directly from Comcast, although maybe they'll also be sold at popular retailers like Walmart and Best Buy right next to Rokus and Fire TVs.

The new Stream TV box/dongle/stick that Verizon is developing is probably more like the box that will be offered for use with AT&T TV. I predict that the Stream TV, like the AT&T TV box, will run a customized version of Google's Android TV operating system, including the Google Play app store and the Google Assistant. And Verizon will offer the Stream TV for use with the YouTube TV service that they have already begun bundling and selling with their FiOS Internet, 5G Home Internet, and Wireless services. As I predicted earlier in this thread, I think the Stream TV will use the YouTube TV app as its home screen. The "normal" Android TV home screen -- see photo below -- might be accessible via pressing an Apps button. (Or, like the AT&T TV box, it might not offer the standard Android TV home screen at all but use an alternative presentation for installed apps and general Android TV system settings.) And I expect that the remote for the Stream TV -- just like the remotes for the AT&T TV box and the Xi5/Xi6 -- will have buttons suited for channel-based TV, e.g. channel up/down, volume up/down, TV power, last channel, channel guide, DVR, etc.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Adam C. said:


> My post was not meant to be a dig against your prediction. It was more of just an observation about YTTV integrating with Verizon. I just don't understand the connection between these 2 services unless Verizon at some point is going to offer some type of discount for people that "bundle" both services. Otherwise what's the point of Verizon even offering YTTV to begin with.
> 
> On a different note, all of these streaming services are already becoming way too fragmented. I currently have Hulu, Netflix, and Prime Video, in addition to my OTA antenna. It is already hard enough to know what to find on each service. I can't imagine adding any more to the mix. I am admittedly much too lazy to download 10 different apps on my Roku and then try to figure out what shows are available where.


??? The ROku actually makes it easy. It allows you to follow your shows and the info will show up when they are available. It's how I keep track of some of the shows that I buy outright.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

aaronwt said:


> ??? The ROku actually makes it easy. *It allows you to follow your shows* and the info will show up when they are available. It's how I keep track of some of the shows that I buy outright.


Could you please explain what you are referring to here? Unless I am missing something, the Roku does not aggregate the shows you follow on the separate VOD apps. So, e.g., if you have a favorite series on HBO, you would first have to launch HBO from the Roku's menu to find where you had left off watching that particular show and then do the same again for each of your VOD services.

OTOH, as far as "what is available where," if that is what OP meant in its literal sense, the Roku does a good job of returning specific results among the VOD apps for that type of search.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

chiguy50 said:


> Could you please explain what you are referring to here? Unless I am missing something, the Roku does not aggregate the shows you follow on the separate VOD apps. So, e.g., if you have a favorite series on HBO, you would first have to launch HBO from the Roku's menu to find where you had left off watching that particular show and then do the same again for each of your VOD services.
> 
> OTOH, as far as "what is available where," if that is what OP meant in its literal sense, the Roku does a good job of returning specific results among the VOD apps for that type of search.


You can follow shows on the roku. And you will be notified when new stuff appears. Then you will see a list of what apps it's available and a price. And you just select it and it opens the appropriate app. There are shows I purchase an entire season of. Ones that are not available on streaming services without commercials. And those are the ones I follow on my Rokus. I need to buy it that way to be able to avoid commercials.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> Could you please explain what you are referring to here? Unless I am missing something, the Roku does not aggregate the shows you follow on the separate VOD apps. So, e.g., if you have a favorite series on HBO, you would first have to launch HBO from the Roku's menu to find where you had left off watching that particular show and then do the same again for each of your VOD services.
> 
> OTOH, as far as "what is available where," if that is what OP meant in its literal sense, the Roku does a good job of returning specific results among the VOD apps for that type of search.





aaronwt said:


> You can follow shows on the roku. And you will be notified when new stuff appears. Then you will see a list of what apps it's available and a price. And you just select it and it opens the appropriate app. There are shows I purchase an entire season of. Ones that are not available on streaming services without commercials. And those are the ones I follow on my Rokus. I need to buy it that way to be able to avoid commercials.


I believe aaronwt is referring to Roku's "My Feed" feature. See here:


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Why is satellite seemingly losing a lot more subs than cable?


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

There's lots to unpack here, you've clearly given these predictions a lot of thought. Although I do think you're *severely* underestimating the impact of Disney's plans. Launching Disney+ at $7/month is going to undercut just about everybody and will be an absolute content juggernaut w/ Disney proper, Marvel, Star Wars & 20th Century Fox back catalogs. I agree that CBS, Viacom & probably Lionsgate too are going to combine one way or another.

Over the next decade, I think there will only be three major standalone subscription video services and one of them will be Disney.

Between Netflix, AT&T/HBO, CBS/Viacom and Comcast/NBC & Amazon Prime Video, only two will survive as separate services. I would not be surprised if Amazon or Netflix snapped up CBS/Viacom/Lionsgate. They keep losing content the other companies are pulling away and need more back catalog to go toe-to-toe with Disney, AT&T and Comcast.

I also think Apple's going to stay in its lane--not a mega content creator like one of the others, but they'll make a tidy profit as a high-quality boutique service off to the side but not really in direct competition.

Amazon's a bit of a wildcard. If they don't eat one of their rivals, they might just keep their video service as a throw-in w/ free shipping and scale back their ambitions of being a content powerhouse and go to more of an Apple-esque boutique model.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> Why is satellite seemingly losing a lot more subs than cable?


For a lot of customers, it's a one-off relationship. DISH has no home broadband or home phone service to sell you. AT&T does, but only in parts of the country (mainly the South, Midwest and CA, and even there, they only offer decent broadband speeds in the cities and certain suburbs). The more services a company can offer a customer, the stickier the relationship is, the more the customer is likely to benefit from bundling discounts, and the less like they are to churn away to a competitor.

Another reason that satellite TV, especially DirecTV, is losing so many customers is that, unlike cable/telco TV, satellite always requires that 2-year lock-in agreement for new customers. What DISH does is lock in a modestly discounted rate for customers throughout the length of that 24-month period and then go up on them a little once they become "free agents" starting with month 25. What DirecTV does is offer a drastically discounted rate -- about 60% off! -- for the first 12 months, then hit you with a big price hike to the standard price for months 13-24. Which, uh, customers don't like so much. And lots of them, as soon as month 25 rolls around, decide to bolt. And actually, there are a number of cable operators who will offer to pay off your early termination penalty fee for breaking your satellite TV contract early if you switch over to them. So I imagine that a not-insignificant number of DirecTV subs leave at some point in that second year rather than sticking it out to the end.

Beyond that, AT&T (like Comcast and other MVPDs) is now trying to focus only on retaining the truly profitable video subscribers. In the past, the norm for both DirecTV and DISH has been to offer limited-term discounts to longstanding customers who are no longer under the initial 2-year contract. They knew those folks were free agents, so when they called up and complained about the bill, they were often thrown a bone in the form of $20 off per month for the next 12 months and/or a year of free HBO or whatever. That kind of Turkish bazaar haggling over pay TV billing is becoming a thing of the past, though. Increasingly, the MPVDs just don't care to keep you if you're going to insist on a price point that gives them a profit of like 75 cents a month on your TV account. And part of the reason that the cable TV industry is so hated among consumers is that they feel the need to go through this distasteful song-and-dance every so often to get what they see as a reasonable price for pay TV.

So lately, DirecTV has become somewhat stingier in giving out those price breaks for long-standing customers. So that's also contributing to the exodus of subscribers.

I expect that this fall when AT&T TV debuts, it will feature an everyday standard price, with the three main packages priced at $30, $50 and $70, with various add-on channels and features available. I don't think it will require a contract, unless it's a very short one (e.g. 3 months) that one can take in exchange for scoring a free AT&T TV streaming box. (Or they might just require you to pre-pay for your first couple months to get the free box, or make you buy the box but include a promo code in the package for a discount off your first month.) I think AT&T understands that Americans are fed-up with cable TV as usual and so they're going to move on from all that baggage.

At the same time, I expect that DirecTV satellite will only offer the same set of channel packages as AT&T TV (all of which will include HBO and, when it launches next year, HBO Max). Existing DirecTV customers will be grandfathered into their existing packages but new customers will have to choose from the new set of packages. Except the prices will be higher on DirecTV and still require a 2-year contract. Gotta cover the expense of those pro installations, rooftop dishes, and big set-top boxes/DVRs. If they're smart, they'll switch their pricing for DirecTV so that it only has a modest discount in the first year, so that there's no big sticker shock come month 13.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

Disney+ arrives on Nov. 12, just a few months from now. It's been hailed as the best thing since the invention of sliced bread and that which will lead us into the new streaming evolution. Looks like the same old repackaged Disney Channel to me with 2 walled in movie franchise whose best days are arguably behind them. Lot of brand and nothing interesting here. This might be one of the biggest con's about content ever. Take a look at Disney+ opening line up and tell me this channel (Excuse me, streaming) is going to take off and take the lead from Netflix.

Disney+ launch day lineup includes tons of 'Star Wars,' Marvel and Disney Channel entertainment. Here's the full list


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

OrangeCrush said:


> There's lots to unpack here, you've clearly given these predictions a lot of thought. Although I do think you're *severely* underestimating the impact of Disney's plans. Launching Disney+ at $7/month is going to undercut just about everybody and will be an absolute content juggernaut w/ Disney proper, Marvel, Star Wars & 20th Century Fox back catalogs. I agree that CBS, Viacom & probably Lionsgate too are going to combine one way or another.
> 
> Over the next decade, I think there will only be three major standalone subscription video services and one of them will be Disney.
> 
> ...


Yes. I know I will be subscribing to Disney+ all year because of the very low cost.
It is only $5.83 a month when paid yearly. The yearly cost will be only $69.99. That is a heck of a deal. I pay around $100 a year to Netflix for the UHD tier. And that is after getting Netflix gift cards at half price.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Joe3 said:


> Disney+ arrives on Nov. 12, just a few months from now. It's been hailed as the best thing since the invention of sliced bread and that which will lead us into the new streaming evolution. Looks like the same old repackaged Disney Channel to me with 2 walled in movie franchise whose best days are arguably behind them. Lot of brand and nothing interesting here. This might be one of the biggest con's about content ever. Take a look at Disney+ opening line up and tell me this channel (Excuse me, streaming) is going to take off and take the lead from Netflix.
> 
> Disney+ launch day lineup includes tons of 'Star Wars,' Marvel and Disney Channel entertainment. Here's the full list


Sounds like a good deal to me if the content will be in UHD/HDR. Either way for only $5.83 a month, it will be extremely inexpensive. Heck, I waste $8 a week on lottery tickets..


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> Yes. I know I will be subscribing to Disney+ all year because of the very low cost.
> It is only $5.83 a month when paid yearly. The yearly cost will be only $69.99. That is a heck of a deal. I pay around $100 a year to Netflix for the UHD tier. And that is after getting Netflix gift cards at half price.


Obviously, getting what you pay for.

Prediction: Prices will rise.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> And that is after getting Netflix gift cards at half price.


where do you get netflix gift cards at half price?


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

Joe3 said:


> Take a look at Disney+ opening line up and tell me this channel (Excuse me, streaming) is going to take off and take the lead from Netflix.
> 
> Disney+ launch day lineup includes tons of 'Star Wars,' Marvel and Disney Channel entertainment. Here's the full list


They won't on day one. It'll take a few years for existing licensing deals to expire and they get more of their back catalog on there, but they'll be adding content at a fairly rapid pace and become the exclusive destination for future theatrical releases. Consider that mediocre remakes of 30 year old animated films are bringing in close to a billion each. There is no shortage of people who will throw money at this.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

OrangeCrush said:


> There's lots to unpack here, you've clearly given these predictions a lot of thought. Although I do think you're *severely* underestimating the impact of Disney's plans. Launching Disney+ at $7/month is going to undercut just about everybody and will be an absolute content juggernaut w/ Disney proper, Marvel, Star Wars & 20th Century Fox back catalogs. I agree that CBS, Viacom & probably Lionsgate too are going to combine one way or another.
> 
> Over the next decade, I think there will only be three major standalone subscription video services and one of them will be Disney.
> 
> ...


Well, it's true that I didn't talk much about Disney+ in my predictions but I'm not sure how I'm severely underestimating it. Look at my final set of predictions -- post #55 -- in which I predict that by the end of 2024, *Disney+ will have more subs than Netflix* and rank behind only Amazon Prime Video in terms of total subscribers. (And that's only because of Prime's connection to Amazon's retail behemoth, not because there are tons of folks subscribed to just the Prime Video standalone service because they adore Jack Ryan and Lord of the Rings.)

You're right, Disney+ is going to be huge. Sort of what HBO and Showtime were to the basic cable bundle from the '70s to the '00s -- premium ad-free add-ons -- that's what I think Disney+ will be for a lot of households, except that instead of skewing toward adults, Disney+ will skew towards families. No one's going to think of Disney+ as their main one-stop-shop for video entertainment but it'll be a premium experience with high-quality on-brand ad-free entertainment from today and yesterday, much of it available in 4K HDR. Disney+ will be a great complement to a mainstream TV service, whether that's the traditional cable channel bundle, or Hulu, or Netflix, or HBO Max, or some combo of those. And, yes, the pricing will be a big key to its uptake. Only $7! Heck, I think HBO cost at least that much back in 1980. ($7 in 1980 is worth $21.76 today due to inflation, BTW.) That said, we should expect that price to creep up over the next few years. Disney is being aggressive on pricing up-front to grab market share.

As for further consolidation among the major media powers, I'm skeptical that the government will allow it. There's increasing concern on the political left, right and center about too much power getting concentrated into too few corporate hands. We'll see some more small/mid-size media outlets getting snapped up (e.g. my prediction of NBCU buying Crown Media, and CBS/Viacom buying AMC, Lionsgate and/or A+E Networks). But among AT&T/Warner, Comcast/NBCU, Disney, and CBS/Viacom, I don't see any of them buying another in that group. Too dicey, both politically and financially.

Netflix probably has too much debt already (with iffy future growth prospects) to be able to manage an acquisition of CBS/Viacom; any of the other three are completely out of the question due to size. But Amazon? Yeah, maybe they could afford to buy one, if the government allowed it. But I'm doubtful that'll happen. There's increasing skepticism, if not outright growing hostility, toward Amazon's quest to rule the world. The Trump FTC and DOJ -- a Republican admin! -- are reportedly scrutinizing Amazon on an anti-trust basis. So I'm not sure I see Amazon being allowed to scoop up major US networks, films and TV studios, regardless of who wins the next election. (And can you imagine what a Pres. Warren might do to Amazon, Google and Facebook? Ha!)

But, as I hypothesized in another prediction in this thread, I can imagine Amazon making a long-term broad strategic pact with Sony (as opposed to buying Sony outright). There are a lot of potential points of synergy for both companies there: an OTT streaming cable TV service (PS Vue), exclusive access to new theatrical films plus older TV series and films, a streaming video game service, a high-end brand of TVs that could run Fire TV OS, and Amazon's uber-important retail channel for selling all those Sony electronics.

Amazon's ambition with all of their digital media/tech efforts will always be to extend the value of their Prime subscription and increase the amount of time and mindshare that consumers give to Amazon, which can only translate into additional dollars spent on goods ordered from Amazon. As Andy Gibb almost sang, Amazon just wants to be your everything.


----------



## Adam C. (Jul 24, 2017)

Joe3 said:


> Obviously, getting what you pay for.
> 
> Prediction: Prices will rise.


That's what I'm thinking too. Even at only $6/month the choices there seem underwhelming. This is a service I would get for my kids (not something I'm interested in), but with those choices I'm only seeing a handful of movies they would be interested in. This is not something I'll be subscribing to on Day 1. I'll see how it all plays out into early next year...


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Joe3 said:


> Disney+ arrives on Nov. 12, just a few months from now. It's been hailed as the best thing since the invention of sliced bread and that which will lead us into the new streaming evolution. Looks like the same old repackaged Disney Channel to me with 2 walled in movie franchise whose best days are arguably behind them. Lot of brand and nothing interesting here. This might be one of the biggest con's about content ever. Take a look at Disney+ opening line up and tell me this channel (Excuse me, streaming) is going to take off and take the lead from Netflix.
> 
> Disney+ launch day lineup includes tons of 'Star Wars,' Marvel and Disney Channel entertainment. Here's the full list


I'm skeptical too. And that link of yours makes me more skeptical. It just doesn't strike as something that I would continually pay for. I didn't even watch most of that content when it was and in some cases still is on netflix and cable.

But I do see the young kids angle.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Adam C. said:


> That's what I'm thinking too. Even at only $6/month the choices there seem underwhelming. This is a service I would get for my kids (not something I'm interested in), but with those choices I'm only seeing a handful of movies they would be interested in. This is not something I'll be subscribing to on Day 1. I'll see how it all plays out into early next year...





trip1eX said:


> I'm skeptical too. And that link of yours makes me more skeptical. It just doesn't strike as something that I would continually pay for. I didn't even watch most of that content when it was and in some cases still is on netflix and cable.


Maybe you guys missed the big dog-and-pony show that Disney did for the media and Wall Street back in the spring, but they affirmed that the entire Disney movie vault* will eventually show up and reside permanently on Disney+. Everything won't be there on day 1, but they'll get added in the weeks and months following.

*OK, not Song of the South. So _almost_ everything.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Beyond that, AT&T (like Comcast and other MVPDs) is now trying to focus only on retaining the truly profitable video subscribers.


 I think that's the main reason why they are losing a ton of subscribers compared to cable.

Obviously streaming is making both lose customers, but surprised satellite (DTV at least) was losing them so much faster.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> I think that's the main reason why they are losing a ton of subscribers compared to cable.
> 
> Obviously streaming is making both lose customers, but surprised satellite (DTV at least) was losing them so much faster.


Well, as I said, Comcast is also focusing on only retaining their more profitable video customers too. From a story yesterday about Comcast's 2Q results announcement:

_More importantly from the company's perspective, video ARPU increased by 1.3%, as the operator, like a growing number of its peers, continues to shift its focus from low-margin to high-margin customers.

"We'll continue to emphasize our approach to this segment," said Comcast Cable President and CEO Dave Watson. "We're not going to chase the low end."_​
And yet DirecTV is bleeding subs at a far higher rate than Comcast. It's been going on a long time now. In just 2Q 19 alone, AT&T's "premium" TV services (DTV + Uverse TV) lost a whopping 778k subs while Comcast TV lost 224k. (And AT&T has only slightly more total video subs than Comcast.) So there must be other differentiating factors at play, and those are what I spelled out in detail earlier.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Well, as I said, Comcast is also focusing on only retaining their more profitable video customers too. From a story yesterday about Comcast's 2Q results announcement:
> 
> _More importantly from the company's perspective, video ARPU increased by 1.3%, as the operator, like a growing number of its peers, continues to shift its focus from low-margin to high-margin customers.
> 
> ...


Yeah but the ability of cable to offer other services has been a thing for a long time. That isn't new. DTV only started losing subs in 2017. Cable has packaged broadband and voice with video for over 15 years now.

Also just showing Comcast's video ARPU increase without showing DTV's doesn't show us that Comcast is doing just as much as DTV to shift its focus to high margin subscribers from low margin.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

trip1eX said:


> where do you get netflix gift cards at half price?


I get them from Ebay. The last time I got around $400 worth of Netflix gift cards for around $200. Then applied them to my Netflix account. I currently have around a $250 balance left on my Netflix account. So I'm still good for around 14 months of the UHD service.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> I get them from Ebay. The last time I got around $400 worth of Netflix gift cards for around $200. Then applied them to my Netflix account. I currently have around a $250 balance left on my Netflix account. So I'm still good for around 14 months of the UHD service.


ok. how do you do that? the only thing I see on Ebay is for $3 I can get told how to get (netflix) gift cards for 50% off.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> Yeah but the ability of cable to offer other services has been a thing for a long time. That isn't new. DTV only started losing subs in 2017. Cable has packaged broadband and voice with video for over 15 years now.


DTV and DISH are more hurt by cord-cutting than are broadband operators who can also bundle in (at reduced prices) their cable TV service. If a consumer is going to shift over to streaming video, whether a vMVPD like YouTube TV or just OTT SVODs like Netflix and Hulu, he still needs broadband. So if he's getting both TV and broadband from Comcast and he's thinking of cutting the cord, he may not be able to make a clean break from Comcast since he'd still need them for broadband. And for a lot of folks, when they do the math, they wouldn't save that much by shifting to a vMVPD plus standalone broadband (plus possible data cap fees) vs. just keeping their current cable TV and broadband. For many, the hassles wouldn't be worth the modest savings.

But if you're already getting standalone TV via satellite and standalone broadband via cable, well, the psychology and the math are different. It's just easier to dump satellite TV.


----------



## Adam C. (Jul 24, 2017)

NashGuy said:


> Maybe you guys missed the big dog-and-pony show that Disney did for the media and Wall Street back in the spring, but they affirmed that the entire Disney movie vault* will eventually show up and reside permanently on Disney+. Everything won't be there on day 1, but they'll get added in the weeks and months following.
> 
> *OK, not Song of the South. So _almost_ everything.


Yes I'm well aware of what they said they are going to do. That's why I said I will wait and see how everything plays out. It could take months or even years for everything to get added, and there could be price increases during that time. I don't see this as something I would need on Day 1 given the current list of programming.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> DTV and DISH are more hurt by cord-cutting than are broadband operators who can also bundle in (at reduced prices) their cable TV service. If a consumer is going to shift over to streaming video, whether a vMVPD like YouTube TV or just OTT SVODs like Netflix and Hulu, he still needs broadband. So if he's getting both TV and broadband from Comcast and he's thinking of cutting the cord, he may not be able to make a clean break from Comcast since he'd still need them for broadband. And for a lot of folks, when they do the math, they wouldn't save that much by shifting to a vMVPD plus standalone broadband vs. just keeping their current cable TV and broadband. For many, the hassles wouldn't be worth the modest savings.
> 
> But if you're already getting standalone TV via satellite and standalone broadband via cable, well, the psychology and the math are different. It's just easier to dump satellite TV.


I don't buy it. I think DTV is discounting much less and that's why people are leaving more than cable.

I always figured DTV was higher priced than cable and thus a DTV sub was already paying more than cable. And they didn't care. They liked DTV.

Why would they leave to go to an OTT service if the price isn't really less than cable which they never got before because they liked DTV more?

And if they were on DTV because they kept getting promotional rates that kept it competitive with cable then the only reason they would leave at a rate higher than those leaving cable would be if those discounts went away.

Or so it seems to me.

I mean the whole bundling thing for cable has been there for a long time. As I see it those on DTV chose DTV despite that.

IT's all related though. I mean if cable isn't as dramatically taking away the discounts that DTV is then it is obviously related to the fact their fixed costs are ~half-covered by broadband subscribers. And thus there isn't that churn in the comcast subscribers as DTV subscribers.

Also feel like the merger is a part of the difference. DTV got bought by ATT about 3 years ago. I'm sure that change has affected customers and perhaps not for the better. Perhaps the DTV service is worse than it was. I did read few things mentioning the satisfaction rate for DTV has dropped. Not sure if that has continued into 2019 or not. I imagine not offering discounts to keep long time customers wouldn't help that.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

In terms of pricing, bandwidth caps are going to become a bigger concern in many parts of the country. A 1TB data limit that looks massive a couple of years ago is going to be pretty tight when streaming from multiple services that are going to increasingly replace cable/satellite and disc-based media. Add in digital distribution of games to consoles and/or Google's Stadia or similar systems, and those caps are going to be a drag on the entire digital streaming market. The caps, along with lack of broadband access, upgrades, upstream speeds, and competition are also going to continue to be a drag on a lot of cloud storage, backup, security (camera), and other IoT applications.

Amazon partnering with PS Vue could be really interesting, as they already have a lot of tie-in. That would be the last missing piece now that Amazon has Channels, Prime, and PPV all through the same interface and the same little Amazon world. I think Amazon might be one of the most interesting players, especially since they've shown a willingness to sell the hardware around or maybe even below cost in order to get it out there and get people into their ecosystem.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

trip1eX said:


> ok. how do you do that? the only thing I see on Ebay is for $3 I can get told how to get (netflix) gift cards for 50% off.


When I got them earlier this year there were a bunch of sellers with Netflix gift cards for 30%, 40%, and 50% off. I guess things have changed? Or maybe they only show up during certain times of the year?


----------



## MizzouJames (Jul 15, 2019)

The Disney service will be huge.. someone said that they now have half of the top 50 most popular movies ever. They have alot more superhero movies coming plus superhero TV shows, plus star wars movies and shows. Plus Pixar movies, don't forget!


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> For a lot of customers, it's a one-off relationship. DISH has no home broadband or home phone service to sell you. AT&T does, but only in parts of the country (mainly the South, Midwest and CA, and even there, they only offer decent broadband speeds in the cities and certain suburbs). The more services a company can offer a customer, the stickier the relationship is, the more the customer is likely to benefit from bundling discounts, and the less like they are to churn away to a competitor.


The part your skirt around is that both AT&T and Comcast are selling their video services _*at or near cost*_ in broadband bundles. So yes, it does go back to their broadband footprint, and AT&T has a lot of existing DirecTV customers outside of their footprint where DirecTV is priced for a ~50% profit margin, not a near-zero profit margin like it is when bundled with broadband within their 21-state territory (and certain MDUs outside of that). Comcast is also bundling TV at a near zero profit margin, as it also reduces their churn, and they still get upwards of $90/mo in most areas for broadband, which is 90%+ profit.

The discounts ending certainly has an effect, as does cord cutting in general, but the ability to bundle broadband is the single overarching driving force in the subscriber number statistics. Straggling DSL customers are retiring, dying off, or moving to cable, and in the process, if they're not cutting the cord, they are moving to cable TV alongside their cable broadband, which is offsetting the cord cutting losses, and effectively net concentrating almost all of the cord cutting losses on the satellite side. Like DirecTV's huge customer gains as AT&T moved people from U-Verse to DirecTV after their merger, this shift from satellite to cable is a fundamentally unsustainable trend, however, as eventually cord cutting will outpace people moving from satellite to cable.

DirecTV is lucky that there are horrendous and overpriced cable companies like Cox, as well as rural areas that don't have cable or good broadband, as if those problems, along with arbitrary and capricious data caps were suddenly remedied, the bottom would drop out from another big chunk of DirecTV's market in favor of vMVPDs and cord cutting, with only part of it being recaptured by AT&T in their own ILEC territory to bundle with fiber.

However, in the end, it really doesn't matter how many customers DirecTV has. Wall Street loves subscriber numbers, and that's one reason that MSOs give cable TV away at near their own cost with broadband, but that's not how a company makes money. AT&T is finally getting smarter with DirecTV and focusing only on profitable customers, and letting the rest go. If DirecTV ends up just being bundled with some AT&T lines, in a few rural areas, used for portable/mobile applications like RVs and boats, and used for commercial/hospitality, but is still quite profitable, then great for DirecTV, even if they have <5M subscribers.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Adam C. said:


> Yes I'm well aware of what they said they are going to do. That's why I said I will wait and see how everything plays out. It could take months or even years for everything to get added, and there could be price increases during that time. I don't see this as something I would need on Day 1 given the current list of programming.


Fair enough. I personally doubt I'll ever subscribe other than maybe one month a year here or there. I do like a few of those Pixar movies but I don't have kids and I'm not into Star Wars or Marvel stuff.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> The part your skirt around is that both AT&T and Comcast are selling their video services _*at or near cost*_ in broadband bundles.


I suspect this is true only if you're on a low-end channel tier and you don't subscribe to any full-price a la carte premiums. Even when discount bundled with internet, I think DirecTV is making money on their Xtra package and Comcast is making money on their Preferred package. Remember, both companies own a decent chunk of the channels they carry.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> I don't buy it. I think DTV is discounting much less and that's why people are leaving more than cable.


Maybe that's part of it but it's not the whole reason. DTV's sub numbers have dropped every quarter since 1Q 2017. Do you think they've been cracking down on discounts that long?

DirecTV: no of video subscribers in the U.S. 2019 | Statista


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> When I got them earlier this year there were a bunch of sellers with Netflix gift cards for 30%, 40%, and 50% off. I guess things have changed? Or maybe they only show up during certain times of the year?


Oh ok. I was curious because yesterday I bought some $100 Netflix gift cards at Best Buy because they gave away a $15 BB card with each one. I thought that was good.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> Also feel like the merger is a part of the difference. DTV got bought by ATT about 3 years ago. I'm sure that change has affected customers and perhaps not for the better. Perhaps the DTV service is worse than it was. I did read few things mentioning the satisfaction rate for DTV has dropped. Not sure if that has continued into 2019 or not. I imagine not offering discounts to keep long time customers wouldn't help that.


I definitely think a particular factor that's hurt DTV is that AT&T has done nothing to improve the service's streaming platform. Seriously, the app line-up on DTV Genie receivers is:

_[drumroll, please]_

ESPN, The Weather Channel, Music Choice and, uh, that's about it.

No Netflix. No YouTube. No Prime Video. No Hulu. No HBO Go. No Showtime Anytime. No Starz. Folks like to rag on TiVo's app game but, seriously, DTV's HAS NO app game.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Maybe that's part of it but it's not the whole reason. DTV's sub numbers have dropped every quarter since 1Q 2017. Do you think they've been cracking down on discounts that long?
> 
> DirecTV: no of video subscribers in the U.S. 2019 | Statista


The acceleration of the DTV losses compared to cable seems to have really ramped (up) this year. I know everyone started losing subscribers in 2017 because of the rise of streaming. But was surprised when I saw DTV sub losses were so much ahead of cable losses this year.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I suspect this is true only if you're on a low-end channel tier and you don't subscribe to any full-price a la carte premiums. Even when discount bundled with internet, I think DirecTV is making money on their Xtra package and Comcast is making money on their Preferred package. Remember, both companies own a decent chunk of the channels they carry.


I've done the math on their bundles, and even Digital Starter and Digital Preferred are bundled near cost compared with standalone broadband.

That being said, maybe they can eke out a single-digit profit due to their large negotiating power with content providers, and then make more on box rentals and PPV.

And yes, it's also true that due to their ownership of certain channels, which should never have been allowed and violates the principles of anti-trust laws/regulations, even if they are breaking even on cable, their content arms make more money as a result.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> I definitely think a particular factor that's hurt DTV is that AT&T has done nothing to improve the service's streaming platform. Seriously, the app line-up on DTV Genie receivers is:
> 
> _[drumroll, please]_
> 
> ...


But what does cable (say Comcast) have compared to DTV in terms of app support. I know Comcast has Netflix. My parents have an X1. I've seen Netflix on there.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> But what does cable (say Comcast) have compared to DTV in terms of app support. I know Comcast has Netflix. My parents have an X1. I've seen Netflix on there.


YouTube, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Sling TV (for international), Pandora, and some other stuff. It's by no means complete, and some junk has slipped in there recently, but it's good enough for a lot of their target audience.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> But what does cable (say Comcast) have compared to DTV in terms of app support. I know Comcast has Netflix. My parents have an X1. I've seen Netflix on there.


Comcast has said that want to build out the X1 app platform to rival Roku. (We'll see.) So far, they have Netflix, YouTube, and Prime Video, plus some music stuff. They just announced that Hulu will be the next big app to come to X1.

HBO, Showtime, Starz, Cinemax and Epix content are built into X1's on-demand platform if you subscribe through Comcast. Believe the same is true with Acorn TV and some smaller a la cartes.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

*Sometime in 2021: Cable Mobile invests in DISH
*
Comcast, Charter, Altice and Cox form a privately held joint venture called Cable Mobile, which in turns provides a huge cash injection in DISH in exchange for a special tranche of convertible bonds. DISH will use the capital to help build out their nationwide 5G-from-scratch network. Around the time that the first phase of the network goes live, Cable Mobile's bonds will convert to common stock, giving the group a huge equity stake in DISH and a voice in its future. Cable Mobile members will obviously use the DISH 5G network, complemented by their own cable/fiber-fed wi-fi networks, to power their own MNVO mobile services, such Xfinity Mobile and Spectrum Mobile. The complicated deal also involves the sale to DISH of bits of spectrum held by Comcast and other owners of Cable Mobile. Until DISH launches their own 5G network, DISH's wireless service(s) will continue to exclusively rely on MVNO access to the New T-Mobile's 3G and 4G LTE networks.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

Quatrain Predicts!

"*The young lion will not overcome the older one,
On the field of combat in a single battle;
He will pierce his eyes through a golden cage,
Two wounds made one, then he dies a cruel death."*


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> *Sometime in 2021: Cable Mobile invests in DISH*


I think this could happen sooner. DISH could use cable for strand mount small cells, but even more importantly, fiber backhaul, as Charter, Altice, and Comcast cover most of the US with fiber networks that DISH doesn't currently have. They are weird bedfellows, but Sling TV is already on X1 so it's not totally unprecedented for them to work together, this time on a much larger scale.

I always assumed Comcast would have Verizon deploy their little bit of B71, but it could well end up being DISH.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I think this could happen sooner. DISH could use cable for strand mount small cells, but even more importantly, fiber backhaul, as Charter, Altice, and Comcast cover most of the US with fiber networks that DISH doesn't currently have. They are weird bedfellows, but Sling TV is already on X1 so it's not totally unprecedented for them to work together, this time on a much larger scale.
> 
> I always assumed Comcast would have Verizon deploy their little bit of B71, but it could well end up being DISH.


Yeah, it might. After the DOJ announced their approval of the deal yesterday, Charlie Ergen said that DISH has enough cash to cover the deal and build the first phase of the 5G network but he said that they'll definitely need access to additional capital beyond that. (He also said they could have an operational 5G network built out in their first city by end of 2020.)

For backhaul, there are certainly other (B2B) fiber suppliers they could turn to, but having the cable companies on board would be a boon. And of course the cable companies need a 5G wireless play for the future. So that all makes sense.

I guess the counter-argument would be that if DISH aims to get into 5G home broadband and IPTV/OTT TV service, as many presume they will (and as the New T-Mobile plans to do), then that would make them a direct competitor to the cable companies. Unless, I suppose, if the cable companies' equity stake in DISH were large enough to prevent them from doing that, setting a DISH policy that the company would only deploy fixed 5G home service for addresses not already on any of their own wired HFC networks.

In the end, it just makes too much sense to me for one or more of the major cablecos to *somehow* hook up with DISH 5G for it not to happen. Because the future is that all the major players are going to want to offer broadband service both to customers' homes and mobile devices nationwide. But the scale of that is so great, and the market can only bear so many competitors (as Sprint has learned the hard way).

BTW, did you read that Charter had contacted the DOJ with a last-minute bid for the divested T-Mo/Sprint spectrum, but not Boost Mobile and MVNO access to New T-Mo? The DOJ reportedly did not return the call, ha.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, it might. After the DOJ announced their approval of the deal yesterday, Charlie Ergen said that DISH has enough cash to cover the deal and build the first phase of the 5G network but he said that they'll definitely need access to additional capital beyond that. (He also said they could have an operational 5G network built out in their first city by end of 2020.)


There's no question that they are going to need a LOT of new capital.



> For backhaul, there are certainly other (B2B) fiber suppliers they could turn to, but having the cable companies on board would be a boon. And of course the cable companies need a 5G wireless play for the future. So that all makes sense.


Sure, and I'm sure that Comcast/Charter/Altice would be happy to sell them fiber at normal commercial rates, but having them on board would be huge to cut a deal for network access in exchange for fiber access at a reduced rate.



> I guess the counter-argument would be that if DISH aims to get into 5G home broadband and IPTV/OTT TV service, as many presume they will (and as the New T-Mobile plans to do), then that would make them a direct competitor to the cable companies. Unless, I suppose, if the cable companies' equity stake in DISH were large enough to prevent them from doing that, setting a DISH policy that the company would only deploy fixed 5G home service for addresses not already on any of their own wired HFC networks.


I don't think they have enough spectrum to compete against cable in suburban/urban areas, so if they did get into 5G home access, it would be bundled with DBS in rural areas, which was the idea of their spectrum all along. If that's the plan, then Comcast/Charter/Altice have nothing to worry about. In terms of IPTV/OTT, Comcast put SlingTV on their X1 box, so I just don't think they're too worried about that. The customers cable are targeting for wireless are going to be Triple-, Quadruple-, or Quintuple-Play customers anyway, and for other customers who might get SlingTV versus cable's IPTV system, I don't think they really care. They'll still make money on the broadband side.

In terms of broadband, just from a pure technical perspective, they should be much more worried about Verizon eating away at their most profitable areas that are dense enough for mmWave, and T-Sprint eating away at suburban/exurban when they have massive MIMO n41 deployed that's cranking out gigabit speeds over wireless.

T-Sprint's n41 system isn't going to be in any way equivalent to cable's fiber deep architecture, but skimming off some low-usage customers for whom wireless is "good enough" should be scaring the crap out of cable, as they have basically fixed costs, so lower penetration from a provider with a relatively low capital intensiveness to deploy should be of great concern.



> In the end, it just makes too much sense to me for one or more of the major cablecos to *somehow* hook up with DISH 5G for it not to happen. Because the future is that all the major players are going to want to offer broadband service both to customers' homes and mobile devices nationwide. But the scale of that is so great, and the market can only bear so many competitors (as Sprint has learned the hard way).


Yeah. The big question is if DISH tries to make a network that's equivalent to even T-Mobile's, much less Verizon's and AT&T's, or if it's largely a metro-market play with targeted rural deployments for home broadband. I just don't see there being 4 truly nationwide networks. It's sort of an insane idea. If they can get roaming on T-Sprint or one of the big two, then that would solve that problem.



> BTW, did you read that Charter had contacted the DOJ with a last-minute bid for the divested T-Mo/Sprint spectrum, but not Boost Mobile and MVNO access to New T-Mo? The DOJ reportedly did not return the call, ha.


No, I did not see that. That's interesting. I think it's too bad that the DOJ approved this, as it will be bad for the consumer wireless market, even though it has the potential to put a big band-aid over the US's failed telecom policy that has failed to get fiber for all as it should. I would rather have seen the merger denied, and the government to work on our failed telecom policy as a separate issue. 5G is way overhyped for home broadband access, but with the government 15-20 years into a failed telecom policy, it's what some folks may end up with instead of the fiber that they should have.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> There's no question that they are going to need a LOT of new capital.
> 
> Sure, and I'm sure that Comcast/Charter/Altice would be happy to sell them fiber at normal commercial rates, but having them on board would be huge to cut a deal for network access in exchange for fiber access at a reduced rate.
> 
> ...


Lots of good points. I agree with most all you wrote. Although I would point out that Comcast has only put Sling's *international* packages on X1. They're not letting the main Sling service (which obviously competes with Xfinity TV) on their boxes. And I'm betting that when Hulu shows up on X1 soon, it will only be for the main core service, not the Live TV or premium add-ons.

I think the DOJ is making the right decision here with approving the deal. The alternative was to let Sprint continue to bleed out and then get sold off for parts, with some of the spectrum likely ending up in Verizon or AT&T's hands as high bidder. At least this way, we'll have a third major competitor with a strong 5G network and there's a plausible plan in place to get DISH to actually deploy their spectrum as a viable business. It wasn't in anyone's interest for that spectrum to keep sitting there or for it to get auctioned off with much of it going to Verizon and/or AT&T. As you say, there may not really be room in the market for 4 truly nationwide network competitors. We'll see. If DISH fails and we end up with only the big 3, then that's what was always going to happen anyhow, I suppose. So again, hard for me to see the harm in approving this deal. I don't think the various state AGs have any chance of stopping the merger or imposing any additional significant concessions.

One guy on another posted that, in addition to regular B2C service, he thinks an important part of DISH's 5G strategy will be serving government and industry purposes. Think smart cities, communication with cars to regulate traffic/speeds, etc. At any rate, I think you're right that when it comes to home broadband, DISH will probably only be aiming to pick up easy business where there's either 0 or 1 incumbent broadband provider and that mainly means rural/exurban areas. If necessary from a bandwidth perspective, I could imagine them continuing to rely on DBS for linear channels, although DISH receivers would still have an on-demand platform and all the popular OTT apps which could be fed by 5G. I suppose it would depend on whether the cost of doing those rooftop dish installs and the related equipment would justify the reduction in traffic that multicast video via 5G eMBMS would take up for linear channels.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Lots of good points. I agree with most all you wrote. Although I would point out that Comcast has only put Sling's *international* packages on X1. They're not letting the main Sling service (which obviously competes with Xfinity TV) on their boxes. And I'm betting that when Hulu shows up on X1 soon, it will only be for the main core service, not the Live TV or premium add-ons.


Interesting. I thought that they were allowing the full Sling service. It wouldn't really serve any purpose since you have to have Comcast cable to have the X1 box.



> I think the DOJ is making the right decision here with approving the deal. The alternative was to let Sprint continue to bleed out and then get sold off for parts, with some of the spectrum likely ending up in Verizon or AT&T's hands as high bidder. At least this way, we'll have a third major competitor with a strong 5G network and there's a plausible plan in place to get DISH to actually deploy their spectrum as a viable business. It wasn't in anyone's interest for that spectrum to keep sitting there or for it to get auctioned off with much of it going to Verizon and/or AT&T. As you say, there may not really be room in the market for 4 truly nationwide network competitors. We'll see. If DISH fails and we end up with only the big 3, then that's what was always going to happen anyhow, I suppose. So again, hard for me to see the harm in approving this deal. I don't think the various state AGs have any chance of stopping the merger or imposing any additional significant concessions.


The problems I have with the merger are twofold. First, we don't know that there weren't any other potential buyers of Sprint, especially after a debt restructuring. There was a whole laundry list of companies that might be interested in Sprint, ranging from Amazon to a consortium of cable companies (who now look like they're going to invest in this DISH venture).

Secondly, the way they structured the merger, they didn't force a divestiture of any of T-Sprint's spectrum, and now they have a utterly absurd amount of spectrum. They are going to be able to undercut AT&T and Verizon on the capital cost to build out a network, as they don't really need small cells except in a few very targeted locations. They can rely on a high density macro grid with n41 to have some insane capacity. I think that John Legere is smart in that he recognizes the value of the "two dot five" spectrum as he calls it for metro market deployment, as well as fixed wireless in rural areas.

What I would have liked to see is Sprint and T-Mobile stay as separate companies, and DISH be forced to sell off their spectrum. Sprint needed the B71 and B25, Verizon needed the B70 and some of the B4/66, and the remainder of the B4/66 would have been good for T-Mobile.

I doubt that the state AGs will be successful, but once Sprint is gone, they're gone. If the deal had been denied, Sprint would have had to figure out a way to survive as a much smaller fourth network. Unfortunately, the mess that we are in now can be traced much farther back in the various consolidations that have happened over the course of the last decade or two, how spectrum has been allocated and managed by the government (not well), and how the government has not rate regulated roaming, which would have allowed more competition in the market and one or two networks to be built into rural areas, with everyone using them.



> One guy on another posted that, in addition to regular B2C service, he thinks an important part of DISH's 5G strategy will be serving government and industry purposes. Think smart cities, communication with cars to regulate traffic/speeds, etc.


The problem I see with building an IoT network is that it takes so little capacity and is relatively profitable that an AT&T or Verizon can easily scoop it up, as they largely have. More and more power meters are going online, and I think that a lot of power grid and city infrastructure will end up with wireless connectivity, especially outside of the biggest cities like LA that have their own fiber and/or wireless networks for that stuff.

Also, the whole 5G self-driving car thing is completely insane. The idea that cars will communicate with each other is insane. Self-driving cars needs to use their sensors to follow the rules of the road as if they are humans, and 5G is going to be of little help to the cars themselves. The latency is too high, and the connectivity too spotty. The idea that we're somehow going to go from 4G LTE that's not reliable to 5G that magically works everywhere and cars are going to use it to drive themselves is ridiculous. People peddling this stuff seem to forget that you can go a few miles away from the Acela Corridor and find weak spots where data barely works or drops out completely in the 4G LTE network. Heck, it was only a couple of years ago that they put the last tower in to cover the Acela Corridor itself. The rest of the country has no hope. There will always be weak/dead spots. Between cost and NIMBYs, wireless networks just aren't that robust.



> At any rate, I think you're right that when it comes to home broadband, DISH will probably only be aiming to pick up easy business where there's either 0 or 1 incumbent broadband provider and that mainly means rural/exurban areas. If necessary from a bandwidth perspective, I could imagine them continuing to rely on DBS for linear channels, although DISH receivers would still have an on-demand platform and all the popular OTT apps which could be fed by 5G. I suppose it would depend on whether the cost of doing those rooftop dish installs and the related equipment would justify the reduction in traffic that multicast video via 5G eMBMS would take up for linear channels.


Their 5G spectrum isn't enough to support full-time streaming video for TV, especially in rural areas. I think they will continue to use DBS for that, and maybe do some VOD over 5G. DirecTV has found that installation costs are prohibitive, but that's in a mainly competitive urban/suburban market. While driving the truck around costs more in a rural area due to sheer distance, the installs themselves are a lot cheaper due to much lower churn. I don't think that multicast video will scale well over 5G. How many people are going to be watching the same linear channel on the same sector of the same site? Not many. DBS works great for that application, as you can stick a 2TB hard drive in the DVR and cover most of people's viewing that way.

AT&T is currently capping FWI at 215GB/mo, although they are only using 10x10mhz to supply it. With DISH's spectrum, they should be able to offer 1TB caps. They'll also likely need an outdoor antenna for the FWI, so why not put a DISH dish up at the same time? I could see Ergen getting pissed off with the retransmission situation and putting up an OTA antenna as well, resulting in 3 antennas total. While that antenna farm would be unpalatable to many suburban dwellers, I don't think rural residents care, as long as they like the service and the price it's being offered at. DISH also has data on where their TV customers are, and probably some telemetry from the boxes that are connected to the internet on connection speed, as well as knowledge of which ones aren't so they can target areas with a lot of satellite customers who don't have good connectivity.

I think this merger/DISH combo could be great for rural residents who have substandard connectivity today, and may end up creating not only available connectivity, but actual competition in those areas. If T-Mobile and DISH get in on the action, AT&T wont be able to resist, and they will offer something, probably on their existing cellular network, like the Home Phone and Internet product (not FWI, that's a separate network, the one that runs on their cellular network) with much higher data limits to bundle with DirecTV.

This will be both good and bad. It will be good to have some connectivity, but bad in that it will likely torpedo any future plans to actually fix our completely broken telecom policy and do fiber for all. The ILECs, particularly AT&T and Verizon should be held accountable for the billions of dollars in tax breaks and incentives they have been given over the years to build out fiber that they have failed to build out. The larger ILECs should be forced to go 100% FTTH/FTTB on their own, with smaller ILECs offered government loans or subsidies if needed to get there, and provide everyone with one fiber provider.

Further, the government should figure out how to properly define where MSOs build out, as they seem to be able to pick and choose where they want to go too much, and then create some program to both incentivize overbuilders like RCN and WOW, as well as muni and local private providers to expand HFC and/or fiber overbuilds to get 3 options into more suburban/urban markets, as well as remove barriers (like pole access) for them to do so.

Lastly, minimum speeds should be set, caps should be outlawed, and net neutrality should be enforced. ILECs should have a minimum of gigabit for all SFUs and small multi-families, and 300/100 for large MDUs with fiber inside the building (to allow for G.Fast). Meanwhile, MSOs should have a minimum speed of at least 1000/100, maybe even 1000/250, the former allowing for mid-split, the latter requiring either high-split or FDX. These speeds with no data caps would effectively force them to go fiber-deep.

Then, fixed wireless could be used for off-grid locations or locations that never had an ILEC due to their remote nature, as well as temporary access, backup connectivity, and RVs/trucks/boats/etc. And the few off-grid locations that don't have an ILEC or wireless access would have to remain on satellite broadband.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> What I would have liked to see is Sprint and T-Mobile stay as separate companies, and DISH be forced to sell off their spectrum. Sprint needed the B71 and B25, Verizon needed the B70 and some of the B4/66, and the remainder of the B4/66 would have been good for T-Mobile.
> 
> I doubt that the state AGs will be successful, but once Sprint is gone, they're gone. If the deal had been denied, Sprint would have had to figure out a way to survive as a much smaller fourth network. Unfortunately, the mess that we are in now can be traced much farther back in the various consolidations that have happened over the course of the last decade or two, how spectrum has been allocated and managed by the government (not well), and how the government has not rate regulated roaming, which would have allowed more competition in the market and one or two networks to be built into rural areas, with everyone using them.


So what you're saying is that you'd like to see 3 big, strong nationwide networks (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile) and 1 smaller/weaker network (Sprint). How is that so different from the scenario we're headed for under the deal with AT&T, Verizon and New T-Mobile on the one hand and DISH on the other? And how did you think that Sprint was going to buy that B71 and B25 spectrum from DISH and build it out? Sprint can't afford to build out very much of the 2.5 GHz 5G spectrum that they have NOW, much less build out any additional licenses. At least with DISH, we'll have a company building a new 100% 5G (and probably 100% virtualized) network from scratch. Their operating cost per GB of bandwidth served will be significantly lower than the big 3 and that will good for them and for consumers. Check out what Rakuten is doing in Japan and Jio in India, with both building 5G-from-scratch networks. Something like that will be the game plan for DISH.



Bigg said:


> Also, the whole 5G self-driving car thing is completely insane. The idea that cars will communicate with each other is insane. Self-driving cars needs to use their sensors to follow the rules of the road as if they are humans, and 5G is going to be of little help to the cars themselves. The latency is too high, and the connectivity too spotty.


Not insane at all. It's already being developed and tested in labs. You'd only need continuous 5G coverage along the busiest streets in the core urban grid, plus several miles along the main arteries feeding into the urban core (plus the beltway around it). The 5G coverage for cars need not bathe every square inch of America, not even close.



Bigg said:


> Their 5G spectrum isn't enough to support full-time streaming video for TV, especially in rural areas. I think they will continue to use DBS for that, and maybe do some VOD over 5G. DirecTV has found that installation costs are prohibitive, but that's in a mainly competitive urban/suburban market. While driving the truck around costs more in a rural area due to sheer distance, the installs themselves are a lot cheaper due to much lower churn. I don't think that multicast video will scale well over 5G. How many people are going to be watching the same linear channel on the same sector of the same site? Not many. DBS works great for that application, as you can stick a 2TB hard drive in the DVR and cover most of people's viewing that way.


Maybe, although I think your view of video consumption remains stuck in roughly 2010. Live linear channel viewership is dying, there's already a ton of on-demand viewing done on wireless networks and that's only ever going to rise with 5G. And if you had clicked through and read about eMBMS on 5G, you'd have a better understanding of how multicast works there. It's actually dynamic, so that streams switch from unicast to multicast as the number of viewers rise so that network bandwidth is always used most efficiently.

This is probably the future of free local TV distribution at some point in the 2030s. The FCC will just shut down all ATSC 1.0 and 3.0 spectrum and convert it all over to 5G. Certain types of TV, including emergency alerts, local news, local community events, national cultural/political/historical events, children's educational content, etc. (all of which will be seen as special "protected" classes of media under FCC rules), will hitch a free ride on commercial 5G networks to any device with a 5G receiver chip (including phones, home network gateways, big-screen TVs, etc.). And of course, the "broadcasters" offering that content will offer free (usually ad-supported) streams over wired internet connections too. Free universal TV that gets a free ride on 5G will essentially just be PBS and your local news. Everything else will be subsumed into paid subscription (e.g. Hulu) or free ad-supported (e.g. Tubi) streaming sources that will be available over any internet network but the consumer will have to pay for that internet connection as a precondition of viewing, unlike with the free universal TV on 5G, which would not require any active service with Verizon, AT&T, T-Mo, DISH or any other internet carrier.



Bigg said:


> This will be both good and bad. It will be good to have some connectivity, but bad in that it will likely torpedo any future plans to actually fix our completely broken telecom policy and do fiber for all. The ILECs, particularly AT&T and Verizon should be held accountable for the billions of dollars in tax breaks and incentives they have been given over the years to build out fiber that they have failed to build out. The larger ILECs should be forced to go 100% FTTH/FTTB on their own, with smaller ILECs offered government loans or subsidies if needed to get there, and provide everyone with one fiber provider.


You need to forget this fantasy of 100% FTTH penetration from sea to shining sea. Never gonna happen. Way too costly. Only way it could happen is if the federal government heavily subsided it and I have to think that's going to be a political loser. The 80% of non-rural Americans will see better ways to spend tax dollars (or, who are we kidding, borrow from their grandchildren) than to subsidize first-class connectivity for the 20% of Americans living in the country.

Hopefully AT&T's AirGig technology proves to be economically feasible for wide-scale rural deployment. It could be a real game-changer and the closest thing we'll ever see to 100% FTTH.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Interesting. I thought that they were allowing the full Sling service. It wouldn't really serve any purpose since you have to have Comcast cable to have the X1 box.


No, you don't need Xfinity TV to have an X1 box. Comcast has a program called Flex in which they rent their standalone broadband customers an X1 box (the Xi6), which can be used for all of the OTT (and managed IPTV) services supported by X1. Not sure what Comcast is thinking there, as who wants to rent a glorified Roku Ultra for $5/mo? I think it's really just Comcast easing their way toward what will happen next year when they launch their nationwide OTT NBCU SVOD and OTT X1 TV, with the Xi6 either rented, sold or given away nationwide as the preferred custom device to be used with those services.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> So what you're saying is that you'd like to see 3 big, strong nationwide networks (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile) and 1 smaller/weaker network (Sprint). How is that so different from the scenario we're headed for under the deal with AT&T, Verizon and New T-Mobile on the one hand and DISH on the other? And how did you think that Sprint was going to buy that B71 and B25 spectrum from DISH and build it out? Sprint can't afford to build out very much of the 2.5 GHz 5G spectrum that they have NOW, much less build out any additional licenses. At least with DISH, we'll have a company building a new 100% 5G (and probably 100% virtualized) network from scratch. Their operating cost per GB of bandwidth served will be significantly lower than the big 3 and that will good for them and for consumers. Check out what Rakuten is doing in Japan and Jio in India, with both building 5G-from-scratch networks. Something like that will be the game plan for DISH.


T-Mobile today is nowhere near AT&T and Verizon. They have hit a sweet spot in-between Sprint's lousy network and AT&T and Verizon's superior but far more expensive networks. Sprint's finances are a problem, but with some outside investors, they could have purchased that B71/B25 and then started to fix their own network. It's far harder for DISH to create a brand new network than it would have been for Sprint to fix an existing and at least semi-functional one. The CAPEX required to build a new network is absolutely monstrous, and they have to compete with T-Mobile, which will now have a huge incentive to sell bandwidth relatively cheaply due to their massive spectrum position. Where I'm still skeptical is in T-Mobile's rural coverage, as they have to date done a poor job with the rural coverage that they have built. Maybe they'll go back and re-build it all, but I'm skeptical that they'll ever have the same reach as T and VZ, who have, through M&A, been building towers in various places since 1983, and are currently spending CAPEX at a rate of around $20B/year each.



> Not insane at all. It's already being developed and tested in labs. You'd only need continuous 5G coverage along the busiest streets in the core urban grid, plus several miles along the main arteries feeding into the urban core (plus the beltway around it). The 5G coverage for cars need not bathe every square inch of America, not even close.


So there's three issues. One is the actual coverage itself, which I still think is a problem. There are spots in major cities today with poor 4G connectivity, and we're talking about 5G everywhere? On top of that, what is the point? Self-driving cars need to be able to make decisions on their own, based on their own sensors. Even if every car on the road was fully self-driving, there are bikes, pedestrians, scooters, trucks unloading things with hand carts, etc, etc. Secondly, all the manufacturers would have to get onto the same system, and it would have to go through the same servers on the other end. Third, what's the point? If you need short-range V2V communication, just do it ad-hoc V2V, and then it will work just as well in the middle of a cornfield at a 4-way stop in Iowa as it will in the middle of Manhattan.

I'm just not buying the 5G self-driving car thing. I think self-driving cars will take over, and I think it's inevitable that most vehicles on the road are fully self-driving, but I don't think 5G will play much of a part in that. That being said, it's a huge opportunity for 5G, as people will be freed from driving, and can watch videos loaded with targeted advertisements, or their Netflix, or adult videos or whatever they want to watch in the privacy of their own car rolling down the road under autonomous control.



> Maybe, although I think your view of video consumption remains stuck in roughly 2010. Live linear channel viewership is dying, there's already a ton of on-demand viewing done on wireless networks and that's only ever going to rise with 5G. And if you had clicked through and read about eMBMS on 5G, you'd have a better understanding of how multicast works there. It's actually dynamic, so that streams switch from unicast to multicast as the number of viewers rise so that network bandwidth is always used most efficiently.


I still think that they're going to need DBS for traditional linear channels. You're right in that linear is dying off, however, it is a slow, long tail, and rural users are probably, on average, well behind the technological curve, whether due to what is available to them, or some self-selection and demographic (age) factors involved. There is still a culture of people having the TV on a lot, even when they aren't really actively watching it, and that puts a lot of load on a 5G network, so why not keep that on DBS for the time being?



> This is probably the future of free local TV distribution at some point in the 2030s. The FCC will just shut down all ATSC 1.0 and 3.0 spectrum and convert it all over to 5G. Certain types of TV, including emergency alerts, local news, local community events, national cultural/political/historical events, children's educational content, etc. (all of which will be seen as special "protected" classes of media under FCC rules), will hitch a free ride on commercial 5G networks to any device with a 5G receiver chip (including phones, home network gateways, big-screen TVs, etc.). And of course, the "broadcasters" offering that content will offer free (usually ad-supported) streams over wired internet connections too. Free universal TV that gets a free ride on 5G will essentially just be PBS and your local news. Everything else will be subsumed into paid subscription (e.g. Hulu) or free ad-supported (e.g. Tubi) streaming sources that will be available over any internet network but the consumer will have to pay for that internet connection as a precondition of viewing, unlike with the free universal TV on 5G, which would not require any active service with Verizon, AT&T, T-Mo, DISH or any other internet carrier.


Does 5G work on frequencies below 600mhz? From what I understand, T-Mobile is about maxed out on the size of antennas that are practical to mount on towers, and phones and mobile devices can't go a whole lot lower. Of course there are always new technologies and new engineering, unless we're running into a limit of physics. I also wonder what the broadcasters would think of something like that. In the end, they'd probably give up their spectrum for the right price, however, so it depends on how much other companies would be willing to pay for that spectrum.

I just have a hard time seeing broadcast TV going away entirely given how much of a part of American culture it is. AM radio is still around, as is FM. I think they will all be drastically reduced in importance, but I doubt that they will fully go away. If the current trend of wireless coverage decreasing from generation to generation of technology, i.e. AMPS to 2G/3G and 2G/3G to LTE, then 5G, which should have coverage equal to LTE, isn't going to be that great, and is still going to leave a market open for broadcast radio, as well as TV.

I could see them cutting back to RF 30 at some point after the ATSC 3.0 transition either happens or doesn't, although for the cost of another repack, it might not end up being worth it, and we might just keep the status quo. The focus on 5G seems to be mid-band and mmWave for capacity, and wireless carriers already have some low-band spectrum for coverage.



> You need to forget this fantasy of 100% FTTH penetration from sea to shining sea. Never gonna happen. Way too costly. Only way it could happen is if the federal government heavily subsided it and I have to think that's going to be a political loser. The 80% of non-rural Americans will see better ways to spend tax dollars (or, who are we kidding, borrow from their grandchildren) than to subsidize first-class connectivity for the 20% of Americans living in the country.


What I'm proposing is not sea-to-shining-sea, but rather covers the existing POTS and electrical system footprints. It's not a matter of cost. That has been proven over and over again with rural co-ops that have done successful fiber deployments. It's a political failure of regulation. We built out universal electric service, we built out universal telephone service, universal fiber service is peanuts in comparison. The problem is government corruption and regulatory capture, and that is why it will never happen. It would cost the government very little to force AT&T and Verizon to build out on their own dimes, and offer loans or modest subsidies to the other, smaller ILECs that can't afford to do it on their own dime. Some further regulations of MSOs and regulatory reform and financing mechanisms to encourage overbuilders would encourage more competition.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

> Hopefully AT&T's AirGig technology proves to be economically feasible for wide-scale rural deployment. It could be a real game-changer and the closest thing we'll ever see to 100% FTTH.


AirGig is yet another half-***ed kludge. It will never be widely deployed. Anything that provides enough coverage will be close to the cost of just doing it right and putting in fiber, so the companies will balk at the cost and continue to abandon their responsibilities as the ILEC in those areas.



NashGuy said:


> No, you don't need Xfinity TV to have an X1 box. Comcast has a program called Flex in which they rent their standalone broadband customers an X1 box (the Xi6), which can be used for all of the OTT (and managed IPTV) services supported by X1. Not sure what Comcast is thinking there, as who wants to rent a glorified Roku Ultra for $5/mo? I think it's really just Comcast easing their way toward what will happen next year when they launch their nationwide OTT NBCU SVOD and OTT X1 TV, with the Xi6 either rented, sold or given away nationwide as the preferred custom device to be used with those services.


That's true, there is Flex. I forgot about that, as that's relatively new and small in comparison. Comcast's whole Xi6-as-a-Roku plan seems kind of absurd, but I guess it's sort of a low-risk program for them, as they need to develop the X1 software for themselves and their MSO partners in the US and Canada anyway, so why not?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> What I'm proposing is not sea-to-shining-sea, but rather covers the existing POTS and electrical system footprints. It's not a matter of cost. That has been proven over and over again with rural co-ops that have done successful fiber deployments. It's a political failure of regulation. We built out universal electric service, we built out universal telephone service, universal fiber service is peanuts in comparison. The problem is government corruption and regulatory capture, and that is why it will never happen. It would cost the government very little to force AT&T and Verizon to build out on their own dimes, and offer loans or modest subsidies to the other, smaller ILECs that can't afford to do it on their own dime. Some further regulations of MSOs and regulatory reform and financing mechanisms to encourage overbuilders would encourage more competition.


If the federal government (or all states) specifically permitted co-ops (such as rural electrical co-ops) to create and run their own wired IP networks to serve those communities, along with a little cash thrown at them from the Universal Services Fund, that would go a long way toward the problem. But the reality is that it will be a patchwork of different solutions from different providers that will bring fast broadband to rural America. Everyone is NOT going to have FTTH (just as, even now, nowhere close to all urban/suburban residents have access to FTTH). The price/performance ratio of broadband in rural areas may never be as good as in metro areas but that's OK. The shopping, dining and cultural amenities aren't as good either. Life is a series of trade-offs and if you want the peace, quite and fresh air of country life, away from the maddening crowds, that's always going to mean giving up some things that you could have in the city.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> If the federal government (or all states) specifically permitted co-ops (such as rural electrical co-ops) to create and run their own wired IP networks to serve those communities, along with a little cash thrown at them from the Universal Services Fund, that would go a long way toward the problem. But the reality is that it will be a patchwork of different solutions from different providers that will bring fast broadband to rural America. Everyone is NOT going to have FTTH (just as, even now, nowhere close to all urban/suburban residents have access to FTTH). The price/performance ratio of broadband in rural areas may never be as good as in metro areas but that's OK. The shopping, dining and cultural amenities aren't as good either. Life is a series of trade-offs and if you want the peace, quite and fresh air of country life, away from the maddening crowds, that's always going to mean giving up some things that you could have in the city.


We already have a system for dividing and conquering: the ILEC. If the federal government forced ILECs to migrate POTS to fiber and thus provide universal FTTH/FTTB service, it would create a lot more competition in areas already covered by MSOs, and would provide a provider in the rest. Further, it would protect regulated POTS service, which is decaying to the point that it's useless in many areas, since it would run over the same fiber lines that gigabit and TV would, as Verizon is currently doing in some areas with FiOS. In areas that don't have an ILEC, they are probably too remote to ever be wired and can be served by fixed wireless or satellite. I'd be in favor of a system that allowed an AT&T or a Verizon to find willing takers of their ILEC status in certain areas, and run the POTS/fiber systems instead of them, and allow them to negotiate the terms, which might involve paying to get rid of some less desirable rural areas.

Of course it's going to be a very long time before fiber service reaches most of the US, but it's not because it's actually too difficult or expensive, it's really not, it's due to a failure of our political, financial, and regulatory systems. We can't just leave behind rural areas, as they are the areas that need fast broadband access the most. I would allow for slightly higher prices for delivering service to areas with low density, as it just costs more to build out fiber plant when there are a few houses a mile versus in cities where you could be hitting thousands or tens of thousands of units per mile, as well as send trucks out to those areas, but it has to be reasonable so that people can actually afford and use it.

Our lack of a coherent policy on broadband is just one of many. We basically have no energy policy, no transportation/infrastructure policy, and no policy for many other areas. We did rural electrification, we did rural telephone service, now it's time for rural fiber for all. Unfortunately, our government has been failing at this since the early 2000's when it was clear that FTTH was the future. If they had put in place a policy to do fiber for all back then, we would have actually had fiber virtually everywhere by the mid-2010's.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Life is a series of trade-offs and if you want the peace, quite and fresh air of country life, *away from the maddening crowds*, that's always going to mean giving up some things that you could have in the city.


I am enjoying this extensive, erudite colloquy between you two knowledgeable fellows but feel called upon to interject a small linguistic correction to your post above.

The phrase you are looking for is "_far from the madding crowd_" ("madding" in the archaic sense of "frenzied"). It is taken from a poem by the 18th century English poet Thomas Gray entitled "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard."

Also often misquoted (and a pet peeve of mine) is the following line from Gray's "Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College": "_Where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise_." Here Gray is not maintaining that "ignorance is bliss" (as those who take the line out of context would have us believe) but rather questioning the wisdom of gaining insight into the troubles that life might have in store for us if the knowing would only cause us further grief.

Now back to your debate over technological esoterica.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> The phrase you are looking for is "_far from the madding crowd_" ("madding" in the archaic sense of "frenzied"). It is taken from a poem by the 18th century English poet Thomas Gray entitled "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard."


Fair enough, except that "madding" isn't a word in American English. (Americans' limited knowledge and use of the word is exclusively as a literary relic.) You're right that I didn't quote the English poem correctly (frankly, I didn't even realize the phrase was from that poem) but -- assuming I was aiming to use a word that's actually recognized and used as a part of American English -- then I chose correctly.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Fair enough, except that "madding" isn't a word in American English. (Americans' limited knowledge and use of the word is exclusively as a literary relic.) You're right that I didn't quote the English poem correctly (frankly, I didn't even realize the phrase was from that poem) but -- assuming I was aiming to use a word that's actually recognized and used as a part of American English -- then I chose correctly.


As your English teacher I am awarding you a C- on this assignment. The C is for your Rube Goldberg-esque alibi and the "-" is for not being familiar with the work of Thomas Gray.

Now you can stay after class and erase the blackboards!


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> As your English teacher I am awarding you a C- on this assignment. The C is for your Rube Goldberg-esque alibi and the "-" is for not being familiar with the work of Thomas Gray.
> 
> Now you can stay after class and erase the blackboards!


Somehow this is not at all how I had you pictured, sir.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> *4Q 2019: AT&T TV launches nationwide*
> 
> AT&T TV blurs the distinction between operator-provided traditional cable TV services (e.g. Charter Spectrum TV) and skinny bundle OTT streaming cable TV services (e.g. YouTube TV) because it contains aspects of both while not being completely like either. ... The service includes nearly all of the major network-affiliated HD local stations across the nation's top 150 markets and *is the first OTT cable TV service to also include PBS* and C-SPAN.


Well, the first OTT cable TV service to be announced to include PBS stations -- all 330 local member stations across the nation -- is YouTube TV! PBS announced it today during their presentation at the TCA Summer Press Tour.

PBS will stream live for the first time with YouTube TV

So, after more than a year of working out the licensing and technical issues that would involve individual PBS stations being able to offer their live streams in OTT vMPVD services, they're finally ready to do it. I'm confident that AT&T TV will carry them as well. So the question is who will actually go live with them first: YouTube TV, or AT&T TV, as I had predicted. Even though AT&T TV isn't slated to launch nationally until 4Q, they will soft launch in several pilot markets this summer (reportedly August). So they might beat YouTube TV to the punch. We'll see...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Well, the first OTT cable TV service to be announced to include PBS stations -- all 330 local member stations across the nation -- is YouTube TV! PBS announced it today during their presentation at the TCA Summer Press Tour.


This is a HUGE step forward for streaming, considering that PBS is a must-have channel. I'm fine with my antenna, but others may not get good reception, or want everything in one interface.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> This is a HUGE step forward for streaming, considering that PBS is a must-have channel. I'm fine with my antenna, but others may not get good reception, or want everything in one interface.


Yep. Step by step, the vMVPDs are becoming full-on replacements for traditional cable/satellite/telco TV. Even better, actually. The end point will be services that offer locals (including PBS) plus all the *most popular* cable channels that actually have a shot of surviving for a few more years, with the option of bundling in with broadband and using a dedicated custom streaming box, all while delivering superior picture quality with select content in 4K HDR. And the overall prices will be lower than what consumers had been used to paying for traditional cable TV.

I'm telling you, this transition is going to go FAST during the next 3 years. That's the main theme of this whole predictions thread that I wrote -- the death of traditional MVPDs and the take-over of vMVPDs allied with in-house OTT SVODs, with the latter being the ultimate long-term survivors.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I'm telling you, this transition is going to go FAST during the next 3 years. That's the main theme of this whole predictions thread that I wrote -- the death of traditional MVPDs and the take-over of vMVPDs allied with in-house OTT SVODs, with the latter being the ultimate long-term survivors.


I think that will be true for Verizon, Cox, and small MSOs. I think Comcast, Charter, and AT&T will stay as MVPDs for a long time, and ride out whatever business there is.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Somehow this is not at all how I had you pictured, sir.


Let me put it to you this way: It's how I look on social media.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Yep. Step by step, the vMVPDs are becoming full-on replacements for traditional cable/satellite/telco TV. Even better, actually. The end point will be services that offer locals (including PBS) plus all the *most popular* cable channels that actually have a shot of surviving for a few more years, with the option of bundling in with broadband and using a dedicated custom streaming box, all while delivering superior picture quality with select content in 4K HDR. And the overall prices will be lower than what consumers had been used to paying for traditional cable TV.
> 
> I'm telling you, this transition is going to go FAST during the next 3 years. That's the main theme of this whole predictions thread that I wrote -- the death of traditional MVPDs and the take-over of vMVPDs allied with in-house OTT SVODs, with the latter being the ultimate long-term survivors.


Although, I wish the overall price to lower, the facts are not there to back up your claims as this Consumer Reports article shows.

The Cord-Cutting Decision Is Tougher These Days. Here's What You Need to Know


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Yep. Step by step, the vMVPDs are becoming full-on replacements for traditional cable/satellite/telco TV. Even better, actually. The end point will be services that offer locals (including PBS) plus all the *most popular* cable channels that actually have a shot of surviving for a few more years, with the option of bundling in with broadband and using a dedicated custom streaming box, all while delivering superior picture quality with select content in 4K HDR. And the overall prices will be lower than what consumers had been used to paying for traditional cable TV.
> 
> I'm telling you, this transition is going to go FAST during the next 3 years. That's the main theme of this whole predictions thread that I wrote -- the death of traditional MVPDs and the take-over of vMVPDs allied with in-house OTT SVODs, with the latter being the ultimate long-term survivors.


 I think ultimately it's all going to Youtube-like services.

I don't see the need for OTT vMVPDs. I think they are a stop gap. There just isn't a need for linear tv. We're (Us older people are) just all used to it because that's the way it was delivered for 50+ years and it was delivered that way because of the way the technology worked.

Now the notion of having to program for time slots and a content provider being limited to programming just 1 show between 7-8 pm every time is passe.

The tech of today has no such limitations.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I think that will be true for Verizon, Cox, and small MSOs. I think Comcast, Charter, and AT&T will stay as MVPDs for a long time, and ride out whatever business there is.


Well, as I've said over and over, YES, Comcast and AT&T remain MVPDs AND vMVPDs AND sellers of OTT SVODs because they're *major content owners*. But Charter? Nah. They'll fold like the rest of 'em and partner up with a big vMVPD. As I predicted on this thread, I see Charter reselling Comcast's vMVPD after it launches next year, and giving out the Xi6 4K HDR streaming box with it (just as AT&T TV is giving out their own 4K HDR streaming box and Verizon looks set to do as well with their Stream TV box for YouTube TV). Charter has already expressed openness to X1 and they're already partnering with Comcast on their mobile phone platform. And they don't have any overlapping footprint. So Comcast would be the natural partner for Charter to turn to when they decide to get out of the MVPD game and resell someone else's vMVPD.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> I think ultimately it's all going to Youtube-like services.
> 
> I don't see the need for OTT vMVPDs. I think they are a stop gap. There just isn't a need for linear tv. We're (Us older people are) just all used to it because that's the way it was delivered for 50+ years and it was delivered that way because of the way the technology worked.
> 
> ...


Yes, but that's going to take a decade or so. It'll be a long transition. And that's why most of the vMVPDs will be operated by content players that automatically include their SVOD in with all of the channel packages in their vMVPD. Just as Hulu with Live TV automatically includes the basic Hulu SVOD, I expect AT&T TV will automatically include the basic HBO Max SVOD and Xfinity/X1 TV to automatically include the forthcoming basic NBCU SVOD. If Amazon gets into the vMVPD game, then their "Prime Video Live Channels" service would be an add-on to the basic Prime Video SVOD and therefore non-optionally include it. Same goes for CBS All Access if it eventually offers a vMVPD cable bundle add-on.

The only vMVPD I see possibly surviving long-term without their own base SVOD is YouTube TV. But then their free ad-supported YouTube is kinda positioned as their underlying base tier, isn't it?

I don't see Netflix *ever* getting into the vMVPD game and I'm skeptical that Apple will either. I think their Apple TV+ service will be positioned as a smallish premium SVOD and it'll have the option of other add-on SVODs in the same app (e.g. Showtime, Starz, Epix, Acorn TV, etc.). But Apple is always so forward-looking that I don't really see them hopping on the linear cable channel bandwagon and launching their own vMVPD.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Well, as I've said over and over, YES, Comcast and AT&T remain MVPDs AND vMVPDs AND sellers of OTT SVODs because they're *major content owners*. But Charter? Nah. They'll fold like the rest of 'em and partner up with a big vMVPD.


I think Charter will remain an MVPD for quite a while, just due to their sheer scale.



> Charter has already expressed openness to X1 and they're already partnering with Comcast on their mobile phone platform. And they don't have any overlapping footprint. So Comcast would be the natural partner for Charter to turn to when they decide to get out of the MVPD game and resell someone else's vMVPD.


I've heard they do overlap a bit, but it's a negligible amount. I do think that Charter could consider X1, seeing the success that Comcast and Cox have had with it, but with their own QAM-based MVPD and eventual migration to IPTV (maybe).


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I've heard they do overlap a bit, but it's a negligible amount. I do think that Charter could consider X1, seeing the success that Comcast and Cox have had with it, but with their own QAM-based MVPD and eventual migration to IPTV (maybe).


Again, read these statements from Charter's CEO and you tell me if this sounds like a guy who wants to swap out their STBs and TV delivery system to managed IPTV, while still negotiating carriage contracts, or if this sounds like a guy who'd just like to phase out/deprecate their QAM-based system and shift over to an outsourced vMVPD? (First article/quote from this spring, latter from this week.)

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
_"I'm sort of indifferent," Charter Chief Executive Officer Tom Rutledge said at an investor conference last month. Two years ago, he said the second-largest U.S. cable company planned to add video customers. Now, they're not even "a material driver" of Charter's business, he said.

_​_Charter CEO: Content Companies Hurt Pay TV Bundle With Free Programming "Everywhere"_
_On the company's earnings call, the exec reiterated that Charter is focused on its broadband business and does not "look at video as a stand-alone business." While many consumers still see "a lot of value" in the pay TV bundle, the "problem with the bundle of video today is that the content companies that supply it essentially [make] their service available for free through TV Everywhere, excessive streams, password sharing and the free over-the-air television," said Rutledge. "It's hard to compete with free."_​


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, but that's going to take a decade or so. It'll be a long transition. And that's why most of the vMVPDs will be operated by content players that automatically include their SVOD in with all of the channel packages in their vMVPD. Just as Hulu with Live TV automatically includes the basic Hulu SVOD, I expect AT&T TV will automatically include the basic HBO Max SVOD and Xfinity/X1 TV to automatically include the forthcoming basic NBCU SVOD. If Amazon gets into the vMVPD game, then their "Prime Video Live Channels" service would be an add-on to the basic Prime Video SVOD and therefore non-optionally include it. Same goes for CBS All Access if it eventually offers a vMVPD cable bundle add-on.
> 
> The only vMVPD I see possibly surviving long-term without their own base SVOD is YouTube TV. But then their free ad-supported YouTube is kinda positioned as their underlying base tier, isn't it?
> 
> I don't see Netflix *ever* getting into the vMVPD game and I'm skeptical that Apple will either. I think their Apple TV+ service will be positioned as a smallish premium SVOD and it'll have the option of other add-on SVODs in the same app (e.g. Showtime, Starz, Epix, Acorn TV, etc.). But Apple is always so forward-looking that I don't really see them hopping on the linear cable channel bandwagon and launching their own vMVPD.


There is no reason to get into the vMVPD game as that's not where tv is headed. That's just slapping the old model onto streaming technology.

if the Disney and Time Warner and NBCU put their content on their streaming services day one, same as linear tv, and offer up all the same content for a price that is right...I don't see customers flocking to the vMVPDs.

What I see is "linear tv" moving to SVOD format.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> There is no reason to get into the vMVPD game as that's not where tv is headed. That's just slapping the old model onto streaming technology.
> 
> if the Disney and Time Warner and NBCU put their content on their streaming services day one as linear tv and offer up all the same content for a price that is right...I don't see peopel going the vMVPD route.
> 
> I see linear tv moving to SVOD format. Stuff that is live will be marked live. But can be watched whenever.


The part you're not getting is that lots of people are like sheep. They're not going to jump across the ditch to the other side. A bridge has to be built for them to walk over. Traditional MVPDs are the past. OTT SVODs are the future. vMVPDs operated by the same companies that own and run the major SVODs are the transitional bridge to the future. And they'll be around for quite some time.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> The part you're not getting is that lots of people are like sheep. They're not going to jump across the ditch to the other side. A bridge has to be built for them to walk over. Traditional MVPDs are the past. OTT SVODs are the future. vMVPDs operated by the same companies that own and run the major SVODs are the transitional bridge to the future. And they'll be around for quite some time.


well to me it's more like customers will stick with what they have unless the benefit of moving to something new is very desirable. That to me means sticking with MVPDs until they switch to SVODs or until the customer dies out.

I don't see a huge jump into vMVPDs because I don't see the big benefit. There isn't a huge savings and you're getting a worse experience.

As for now there are really no vMVPDs that own and run major SVODs. Is there? I guess Hulu maybe? so not sure how they could be around for quite some time. They aren't even born yet.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Again, read these statements from Charter's CEO and you tell me if this sounds like a guy who wants to swap out their STBs and TV delivery system to managed IPTV, while still negotiating carriage contracts, or if this sounds like a guy who'd just like to phase out/deprecate their QAM-based system and shift over to an outsourced vMVPD? (First article/quote from this spring, latter from this week.)


Hard to say. I think they could still squeeze some profit out of it on sheer scale, but if they decide it's not worth the investment, I could see them bundling Comcast's IPTV system and letting Comcast deep into their network to do IP multicast and such.



trip1eX said:


> I don't see a huge jump into vMVPDs because I don't see the big benefit. There isn't a huge savings and you're getting a worse experience.


There's not a huge savings... until you factor in box fees. And the vMVPDs can be a much better experience... look at YouTube TV...


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> well to me it's more like customers will stick with what they have unless the benefit of moving to something new is very desirable. That to me means sticking with MVPDs until they switch to SVODs or until the customer dies out.
> 
> The movement from MVPDs to vMVPDs won't be *mainly* driven by consumer demand for it, it'll be driven by rational economic decisions among the large companies who run those businesses.
> 
> ...


So yes, Hulu was the first. As I've said over and over on this forum in the past, if you want to understand what the future of TV looks like, look at Hulu. That's true in so many ways and I won't list them all here. But I will list for you the companies below whom I believe will be running SVODs focused on the content they own but also offering a vMVPD live cable channel bundle service that can be added to the SVOD. (It will ALWAYS go in that direction -- the SVOD content bundle is the foundation and must be taken; the bundle of third-party cable channels is optional.)


Disney: Hulu / Hulu with Live TV
AT&T WarnerMedia: HBO Max / AT&T TV (and HBO Max with Live TV, which will be the same thing with a different UI/app)
Comcast NBCUniversal: NBCU SVOD / X1 TV and/or NBCU SVOD with Live TV
Amazon: Prime Video / Prime Video Live Channels
CBS/Viacom: All Access / All Access with Live TV

Now, you'll note that we really only know about vMVPD services so far from the first two on that list. We do know that Comcast will launch their NBCU SVOD next year but they've said nothing about taking their X1 live cable TV service and offering it OTT nationally. But I believe that they will because their chief rival AT&T is doing the same thing, and they're doing it two ways. First, with AT&T TV (in which, I predict, the channel packages will automatically include the HBO Max on-demand library) and later with HBO Max itself, which will eventually allow live channel packages to be added into that app. Competitive pressure will force Comcast to do the same. They've already revealed that the upcoming NBCU SVOD will be positioned mainly as a complement to, not a competitor to, the cable bundle. They're going to give it away for free (with ads) to their US cable and European satellite (Sky) subscribers and try to negotiate with other MVPDs to offer it to their customers too as part of their cable package (essentially negotiating for distribution as though the SVOD were just another cable channel in the NBCU family alongside USA, Bravo, SyFy, etc.). The SVOD's app will be built on the Now TV app created years ago by Sky, the European satellite TV operator that Comcast acquired not long ago. You know what Now TV is? It's an OTT vMVPD.

I just think all the signs are there from a business and tech perspective that Comcast will give non-cable subscribers the option of buying their NBCU SVOD standalone (reportedly for about $12, with ads!) or with a decent bundle of their own and third-party cable channels for around $50. And if they're going to do that, then why not take a page from AT&T and also offer the vMVPD in a different app with the more traditional X1 cable box UI and market it as "X1 TV" or somesuch. Either way, they could just sell/give away their little Xi6 streaming X1 box as the preferred custom device to use with either service (plus lots of other popular apps like Netflix, Prime Video, Hulu, YouTube, etc.). The Xi6 supports 4K HDR and has a full-featured voice remote, just like the custom streaming box that comes with AT&T TV.

I won't go into additional sets of hypotheticals for Amazon and CBS. I'll just say this: the economics of this industry have shifted. There's really only good money to be made on selling your OWN content. If all you're doing is bundling together other companies' channels into a package and then flogging that, the margins are awful, because the channel owners keep demanding more money but your cable TV customers keep yelling at you that they're not paying a dime more and then cancelling. So what's happening is that offering bundles of other companies' channels is becoming something that you do not to actually make real money on, but just as a courtesy, an option to satisfy those paying for your OWN content. If I'm AT&T, what I really care about is you paying for HBO Max. Would you like to watch other companies' stuff too, without having to leave my app? OK, cool, here's a bundle of their channels that we'll offer you at a decent price, right inside our own app. Now you can stick around in our app longer and be a more satisfied customer. (Also, we're gaining valuable user data about your viewing habits, plus we get a bit of the ad inventory on those third-party cable channels.)


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> So yes, Hulu was the first. As I've said over and over on this forum in the past, if you want to understand what the future of TV looks like, look at Hulu. That's true in so many ways and I won't list them all here. But I will list for you the companies below whom I believe will be running SVODs focused on the content they own but also offering a vMVPD live cable channel bundle service that can be added to the SVOD. (It will ALWAYS go in that direction -- the SVOD content bundle is the foundation and must be taken; the bundle of third-party cable channels is optional.)
> 
> 
> Disney: Hulu / Hulu with Live TV
> ...


But to me a customer who wants HBO Max isn't going to want other people's content via a vMVPD.

They are going to want other people's content through Disney + and NBCU and HULU and Netflix etc.

And the more the content owners put their content into SVOD services the less attractive vMVPDs become.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> But to me a customer who wants HBO Max isn't going to want other people's content via a vMVPD.
> 
> They are going to want other people's content through Disney + and NBCU and HULU and Netflix etc.
> 
> And the more the content owners put their content into SVOD services the less attractive vMVPDs become.


Which is why AT&T is offering it two ways: for those like you, you can just get WarnerMedia's own content bundle in HBO Max, and then subscribe to whatever other SVODs you want and jump between apps for viewing. For others, they're offering AT&T TV, which has a more traditional cable-like experience with a single unified interface. But when HBO Max eventually launches, it will automatically be a part of your AT&T TV subscription. My guess is that you'll have access to the separate HBO Max app too but for convenience sake, they'll incorporate all of that HBO Max content into the VOD section of the AT&T TV UI. (Maybe a brief "HBO Max" splash screen will appear when a selection begins playing to remind the customer that they're getting HBO Max as part of their AT&T TV service.)

Beyond that, I'll just say that your view is a bit too narrowly focused on what YOU like and you seem to assume that other consumers have the same preferences for SVODs vs. live cable channels or that they will all rapidly get there. I'm telling you, no, they won't. It will be a multi-year process that plays out over the 2020s. (And what happens with sports and local and national news will be a big determinant too, because that content remains largely trapped inside the linear cable channel system for now.)

Come 2030, HBO Max will still exist (although maybe the brand name has changed by then, who knows). Will AT&T TV still exist? Questionable.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

What's going to get really interesting is the churn. People are already having the discussion about which streaming services to cut if they pick up a new one, like Disney+. People just don't have a huge appetite for paying for a whole bunch of these things. There was an interesting discussion about this on TWiT. I think Netflix is going to lose a LOT of customers, at least in the US, unless they can produce some really compelling original content. On top of losing a lot of licensed content (i.e. The Office, which is now a joke about people who subscribe to Neflix just to watch The Office), their prices have gone up, and they no longer have the small number of new must-see shows, but rather a sea of mediocre content.

News is a big question mark. Linear channels that carry content other than sports or news are basically destined to fail, as that content is more easily distributed via OTT SVOD. For sports, I could foresee a system where you either subscribe by the content owner or the individual sport and have live "events" that are streaming, not linear channels that have physical satellite slots like they do today. But what happens to news? News is inherently a live thing, there will always be a market for it. Is there some alternative way to monetize news (ad revenue?) such that it will be streamed for free, or will there be a subscription-based system just for news? Or will it be thrown in with various OTT SVOD offerings from the parents companies, i.e. Fox, NBC, and Time Warner? Or will there be super-skinny vMVPD bundles that outlast the linear channel ecosystem itself just for news and live events?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> What's going to get really interesting is the churn. People are already having the discussion about which streaming services to cut if they pick up a new one, like Disney+. People just don't have a huge appetite for paying for a whole bunch of these things. There was an interesting discussion about this on TWiT. I think Netflix is going to lose a LOT of customers, at least in the US, unless they can produce some really compelling original content. On top of losing a lot of licensed content (i.e. The Office, which is now a joke about people who subscribe to Neflix just to watch The Office), their prices have gone up, and they no longer have the small number of new must-see shows, but rather a sea of mediocre content.
> 
> News is a big question mark. Linear channels that carry content other than sports or news are basically destined to fail, as that content is more easily distributed via OTT SVOD. For sports, I could foresee a system where you either subscribe by the content owner or the individual sport and have live "events" that are streaming, not linear channels that have physical satellite slots like they do today. But what happens to news? News is inherently a live thing, there will always be a market for it. Is there some alternative way to monetize news (ad revenue?) such that it will be streamed for free, or will there be a subscription-based system just for news? Or will it be thrown in with various OTT SVOD offerings from the parents companies, i.e. Fox, NBC, and Time Warner? Or will there be super-skinny vMVPD bundles that outlast the linear channel ecosystem itself just for news and live events?


Yep, totally agree with everything you wrote here. Yep, churn will be somewhat of a bother for the handful of big media players left standing when the dust settles but, honestly, they'll all be so big that I think they'll make do just fine. None of them will need to be in every US home every month of the year any more than Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda or VW need to have a car parked in every American driveway. And they'll offer discounts if you pre-pay for 6 or 12 months at a time to encourage loyalty.

As for sports, yep, you've got it dead-on.

News? The future of that is free and ad-supported. CBS was the first to figure this out with CBSN, which just keeps growing and expanding. It now has two local variants, CBSN New York and CBSN Los Angeles, as well as sister streaming news channels devoted to entertainment news (ET Live) and sports news (CBS Sports HQ). ABC News and NBC News have both followed suit, although a bit more tentatively so far. NBC's new OTT thing, NBC News Now, is being differentiated from MSNBC; NBC News Now doesn't feature Maddow and the other primetime stars but instead is supposedly focused more on millennial/Gen Z tastes. We'll see if at some point down the road (as the cable bundle collapses), the two services don't just merge into one free ad-supported OTT outlet.

CNN, the original cable news network, will eventually just be automatically included at no additional charge in the $16/mo HBO Max, I think. (Either that or they eventually offer their own live sports + news add-on to HBO Max for an extra -- what? $4 to make it a round $20/mo? -- featuring a live stream of CNN plus live stream pop-ins of sports from TBS, TNT and Bleacher Report.)

Fox News? Oh my. Well, I did make a prediction about Fox News in 2024 on this thread. Fox is now a shell of its former self after selling all those assets to Disney. Now they're just the Fox broadcast net, Fox News, Fox Business News, FS1, FS2, and Big Ten Network. Fox says they have no plans to launch their own direct-to-consumer SVOD and why would they? They're simply not big enough and don't really own any content now. Yes, they have that Fox Nation streaming service for Fox News super fans but I don't see that really taking off as it's currently structured. (It doesn't have a live stream of the actual Fox News channel, just additional content.) But Fox News is *clearly* that company's most valuable asset now. It's the most-watched cable network in America. OTOH, their median viewer is age 65 (and same is true of MSNBC). I'm not sure that augurs well for long-term viability. At some point, I think Fox News will have to take every opportunity to make themselves available to viewers who will pay for it, both in and out of the cable bundle. So I can see that Fox Nation OTT service morphing into a standalone subscription to live streams of the Fox News and Fox Business News channels, along with whatever bonus on-demand content that already exists from Fox Nation still there too.

But the whole phenomenon of folks paying to watch "news channels" with primetime talking heads opining about the day's news, on both the left and right, I think will be something that fades away as Boomers die off. It's not that younger generations won't be consuming news and opinion and analysis, it's just that it won't be from 24/7 cable news channels.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

One traditional MVPD I did not mention in my voluminous predictions is Altice USA, the fourth-largest cable operator in the US (behind Comcast, Charter and Cox) with about 5 million residential and business customers, many on Long Island and the greater NYC area, although their network footprint extends across 21 states. They're actually the US arm of a Dutch company and own the former Cablevision and Suddenlink systems.

Anyhoo, I read this blurb about their quarterly results today over at Light Reading:

_Altice USA lost 21,000 net video subs in Q2, improving on year-ago losses of 24,000. The company said Altice One, its all-services gateway/media hub, has been deployed to 429,000 customers, or 13% of its total video subs, up from 4% in the year-ago period.

Goei said Altice USA's set-top integration discussions with the various virtual MVPDs and other OTT video service providers continue, but that he doesn't expect the company to announce a virtual MVPD partnership in 2019.
_​So lemme get this straight. They're losing video subs, like everybody else. OK, that checks out. But they're also talking to multiple vMVPDs about putting their apps right on their own Altice STBs? That's, uh...that's special. Not sure what to say about that.

Also, note that last bit. They're not gonna announce a vMVPD partnership _this_ year. Next year? Well...my guess would be yes.

Another interesting tidbid: Altice has decided to chuck this whole HFC DOCSIS nonsense and leapfrog straight to where it's all going by 2030 anyway, which is full-on FTTH. They're rolling it out now in the NYC area. But last I checked, they have no video service to offer their FTTH customers. I would've thought that they would have by now a managed IPTV version of their existing cable TV service to offer, maybe exclusively using the smaller AlticeOne Mini boxes at every TV (in conjunction with a multicast-capable gateway router). (The current traditional system uses a bigger AlticeOne box at the main TV and that box contains tuners, a DOCSIS modem and a DVR hard drive, I think.) TV service is supposedly coming but, 6 months after FTTH service has launched, it's still not available, I think.

Maybe they're just gonna pull a Verizon and abort the whole in-house IPTV thing. When Verizon launched their 5G Home Broadband service, they just partnered up with YouTube TV, a move that's now expanding to Verizon FiOS. Couldn't you see Altice doing the same? _They're already in talks with vMVPDs, they say! _Yes, their cross-town rival Verizon FiOS has beat them to the punch by partnering with YouTube TV but I could imagine Altice Fiber deciding to partner up with AT&T TV, at least in their old Optimum footprint (NYC area), which is not served at all by AT&T Internet/Fiber. (Their larger Suddenlink footprint is largely in AT&T wireline country but then I don't think they're doing any FTTH conversions there yet.) If a deal for Altice Fiber went well, it wouldn't be hard to imagine Altice eventually just scrapping their whole cable TV system and using AT&T TV system-wide. If folks didn't like it, hey, they'd be free to subscribe to any other OTT services they wanted over their network.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> And they'll offer discounts if you pre-pay for 6 or 12 months at a time to encourage loyalty.


Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. Either that or grandfathered deals of some sort kind of like what Spotify does with Hulu.



> News? The future of that is free and ad-supported. CBS was the first to figure this out with CBSN, which just keeps growing and expanding. It now has two local variants, CBSN New York and CBSN Los Angeles, as well as sister streaming news channels devoted to entertainment news (ET Live) and sports news (CBS Sports HQ). ABC News and NBC News have both followed suit, although a bit more tentatively so far. NBC's new OTT thing, NBC News Now, is being differentiated from MSNBC; NBC News Now doesn't feature Maddow and the other primetime stars but instead is supposedly focused more on millennial/Gen Z tastes. We'll see if at some point down the road (as the cable bundle collapses), the two services don't just merge into one free ad-supported OTT outlet.


That's really interesting. I didn't even know NBC News Now existed. I've watched CBSN before. I guess they could all just become free streaming services, since they are inherently live, and inherently have one of the few platforms left (alongside live sports) for live ad viewing. So does CNN at some point become both a free livestreamed channel, and available in commercial pay TV packages? Airports need _something _to put up on their hundreds of TVs.



> At some point, I think Fox News will have to take every opportunity to make themselves available to viewers who will pay for it, both in and out of the cable bundle. So I can see that Fox Nation OTT service morphing into a standalone subscription to live streams of the Fox News and Fox Business News channels, along with whatever bonus on-demand content that already exists from Fox Nation still there too.


I could see FNC being one of the last live TV channels in traditional MVPD and vMVPD services, due to their relatively old and relatively more rural or small city audience. They also have one of the most vocal audiences of any channel.



> But the whole phenomenon of folks paying to watch "news channels" with primetime talking heads opining about the day's news, on both the left and right, I think will be something that fades away as Boomers die off. It's not that younger generations won't be consuming news and opinion and analysis, it's just that it won't be from 24/7 cable news channels.


Do you think it will move away from the big opinion and analysis shows that are on during primetime and more towards 24/7 live hard news coverage with the opinion stuff being part of an OTT SVOD or YouTube type of content? One the one hand, the opinion and analysis shows are a big part of those networks, but they also obscure live coverage, and a lot of those networks basically go off-air (run old repeats of junk) late at night, so a few big 24/7 networks doing actual news rotations might attract a bigger audience who wants to get up to speed on actual hard news.

Speaking of that, it's CNN time in 55 minutes.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> So does CNN at some point become both a free livestreamed channel, and available in commercial pay TV packages? Airports need _something _to put up on their hundreds of TVs.


That's be my guess. Wring whatever value they can out of it as a pay option until the more lucrative strategy is to maximize ad viewership by making it a free livestream.

If you remember, the original idea for HBO Max announced last fall was that it would be a three-tier sort of thing. My hunch was that the bottom tier would've been AVOD (free ad-supported). I still imagine that that could be a part of the HBO Max app. Why leave AVOD just to Pluto TV, Tubi, etc? Why not have a free section with a rotating selection of older Warner Bros. movies and TV shows? Score some extra ad revenue, pull in free users of the app, give them free samples of season premieres of the good stuff and get some to upgrade and pay for the real thing. I could see live CNN ultimately just living inside that free section of HBO Max.



Bigg said:


> I could see FNC being one of the last live TV channels in traditional MVPD and vMVPD services, due to their relatively old and relatively more rural or small city audience. They also have one of the most vocal audiences of any channel.


Yeah, for sure. Although Fox doesn't really have *that much* to defend when it comes to the cable bundle, right? They've got so few linear channels. They're absolutely going to have to try to squeeze themselves into every distribution channel they can find (kinda like Showtime and Starz do now). So that means MVPDs and vMPVDs but I think they'd be fine offering their few channels as an add-on bundle via Amazon Channels, Apple TV Channels, The Roku Channel, as well as a DTV standalone app. Why not, at some point?



Bigg said:


> Do you think it will move away from the big opinion and analysis shows that are on during primetime and more towards 24/7 live hard news coverage with the opinion stuff being part of an OTT SVOD or YouTube type of content? One the one hand, the opinion and analysis shows are a big part of those networks, but they also obscure live coverage, and a lot of those networks basically go off-air (run old repeats of junk) late at night, so a few big 24/7 networks doing actual news rotations might attract a bigger audience who wants to get up to speed on actual hard news.


Eh, I don't know. I think all of that will ebb and flow with changing cultural tastes. What I'm saying, though, is that Fox News, and to a lesser extent MSNBC, and to an even lesser extent, CNN, are products of a passing era in which older adults are willing to spend good money on the kind of content they offer. Everybody on the internet has an opinion. Doesn't make you special, y'know? That's the world that millennials and younger have grown up with. Why pay for that stuff when there's plenty of it out there for free?



Bigg said:


> Speaking of that, it's CNN time in 55 minutes.


Thanks for the reminder. Gotta fire up the CNN live stream and root for my guy.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> One traditional MVPD I did not mention in my voluminous predictions is Altice USA, the fourth-largest cable operator in the US (behind Comcast, Charter and Cox) with about 5 million residential and business customers, many on Long Island and the greater NYC area, although their network footprint extends across 21 states.


Hah, I forgot about Altice even though I'm in Alticeland semi-frequently. They are the third mid-sized MVNO alongside Cox and Verizon. They are already very broadband-first, they charge reasonable prices for broadband and don't force bundles down your throat like Comcast, which is the most aggressive in that practice.

They're actually the US arm of a Dutch company and own the former Cablevision and Suddenlink systems.



> So lemme get this straight. They're losing video subs, like everybody else. OK, that checks out. But they're also talking to multiple vMVPDs about putting their apps right on their own Altice STBs? That's, uh...that's special. Not sure what to say about that.
> 
> Also, note that last bit. They're not gonna announce a vMVPD partnership _this_ year. Next year? Well...my guess would be yes.


So it makes perfect sense. Charter has little competitive overlap in most of it's markets, Comcast has some, but not a whole lot, Altice has a HUGE competitive overlap with Verizon FiOS, and the areas they serve are quite dense FWIW. It makes perfect sense to get people used to the Altice ONE box and then put apps on that, as it will make their service "stickier" than Verizon FiOS.



> Another interesting tidbid: Altice has decided to chuck this whole HFC DOCSIS nonsense and leapfrog straight to where it's all going by 2030 anyway, which is full-on FTTH. They're rolling it out now in the NYC area. But last I checked, they have no video service to offer their FTTH customers. I would've thought that they would have by now a managed IPTV version of their existing cable TV service to offer, maybe exclusively using the smaller AlticeOne Mini boxes at every TV (in conjunction with a multicast-capable gateway router). (The current traditional system uses a bigger AlticeOne box at the main TV and that box contains tuners, a DOCSIS modem and a DVR hard drive, I think.) TV service is supposedly coming but, 6 months after FTTH service has launched, it's still not available, I think.


Yeah, kinda-sorta. There's some weird conspiracy theory about left over fiber that they needed to deploy or something over at DSLReports, which is probably a bunch of nonsense, but their FTTH efforts seem kind of half-hearted. I believe they said they wouldn't do DOCSIS 3.1 and then they did. Actually doing full FTTH would be ungodly expensive in that market due to the high density, and large number of MDUs and areas with old underground service.

The AlticeONE box itself doesn't do fiber, and they have a lousy fiber router with no bundled TV or phone right now.

I disagree with the notion that we're headed towards universal FTTH on the MSO side. The ILECs have to do fiber or they're going to die. VDSL can't meet the needs of many customers today, and it will basically implode within the next decade, as it will become far too expensive to maintain for the relatively small number of low-paying customers that want slower, cheaper service. The only place left for xDSL is for in- or on-building wiring from the ONT to the unit on 5+ unit MDUs, i.e. with G.Fast, or in out of market deployments with large MDUs that are fed with microwave or Metro-E like AT&T is doing.

Back to HFC, I see a bright future. I'm rather skeptical of FDX, both because of the CPE power requirements, but also because of it's lack of scalability to low-density areas. However, high-split DOCSIS 3.1 could have a LOT of life left in it, with the potential to offer uploads of up to 500mbps with gigabit downloads, and if they are able to overcome the issues with FDX, that could be a path too. I see peak bandwidth plateauing at some point. I believe that there is no organic demand for connectivity over 300mbps today, but everyone wants to be at "gig" speed partly because it sounds cool, and partly because that additional bandwidth helps them to solve the real problem, which is capacity. Overall bandwidth and capacity utilization is going to continue to increase drastically over the next decade or two as all video moves to IPTV, and the handful of discs that are still out there for movies and games also mostly move to digital distribution channels. I think that organic demand could eventually hit 500mbps or maybe even a bit higher for larger households, but at some point there is only so much 8k video you can watch in a day, as we only have so many eyeball-hours, and I believe that there may be a cultural backlash against the amount of screen time that we already have.

That being said, Americans have loved TV since the 1950's, and TV is going exactly nowhere, it's just that "TV" is going to be mostly OTT SVOD in the future, with a few bits and pieces of other things thrown in for good measure. This means that the capacity of broadband networks is going to have to go WAY up, the current cable nodes of 250 customers sharing 1.7gbps just isn't going to cut it as video consumption goes up, and Wi-Fi 6 mesh networks come out, pushing the peak utilization for large downloads of most gig connections from 200mbps today to 600-800mbps in the future. Comcast's model of "fiber-deep" (which is a BS term, it just means small nodes and other cable companies have been doing this for ~15 years) puts <128 subs on a node and could, in the future, be sharing something like 8gbps of downstream and 2 gigs of upstream, putting an FDX or high-split fiber deep system more or less on par with today's GPON fiber systems.

I do believe that there will be a lot of new-build fiber, as well as potentially FTTH in more rural areas where upgrading HFC and series of cascaded amps into the middle of nowhere doesn't make sense, and that could also allow them to edge out profitably into more rural areas. Comcast has a robust plan for EPON, and I think that some targeted areas will get that where it makes sense, but denser suburban and urban areas will stay on coaxial, with fiber nodes within a block of the users. There are also potential plans for running EPON over coax, getting rid of the whole DOCSIS layer, and running an Ethernet connection directly to the user via coax. For areas that get FTTH, Comcast's EPON system is super robust as well, with 10gbps symmetrical shared between 128 subs, putting it on par with ILEC and Cox GPON, as well as FDX or high-split fiber deep systems. There may be a competitive advantage to marketing fiber in some markets, but I'd suspect that most users don't really care how their intarwebz get to them, merely that they keep flowing.



> Maybe they're just gonna pull a Verizon and abort the whole in-house IPTV thing. When Verizon launched their 5G Home Broadband service, they just partnered up with YouTube TV, a move that's now expanding to Verizon FiOS. Couldn't you see Altice doing the same?


Yup, definitely. They have the same basic scale problem that Cox, Verizon, and small MVPDs have with being an MVPD. They are also in a relatively media-savvy, forward-looking market in NYC, so it's likely more competitive than even markets in the middle of the country that have multiple players.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> So it makes perfect sense. Charter has little competitive overlap in most of it's markets, Comcast has some, but not a whole lot, Altice has a HUGE competitive overlap with Verizon FiOS, and the areas they serve are quite dense FWIW. It makes perfect sense to get people used to the Altice ONE box and then put apps on that, as it will make their service "stickier" than Verizon FiOS.


Makes TOTAL sense to put apps like Netflix, Prime Video, Hulu (without the live TV part), YouTube, Spotify and Pandora on their AlticeOne boxes, sure. Makes NO sense to me to put apps for vMVPDs that compete with their own native cable TV service. Why would they stick apps for PS Vue, Sling, and YouTube TV on their own boxes? Makes zero sense to me, from either the company's or their customers' perspective.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Which is why AT&T is offering it two ways: for those like you, you can just get WarnerMedia's own content bundle in HBO Max, and then subscribe to whatever other SVODs you want and jump between apps for viewing. For others, they're offering AT&T TV, which has a more traditional cable-like experience with a single unified interface. But when HBO Max eventually launches, it will automatically be a part of your AT&T TV subscription. My guess is that you'll have access to the separate HBO Max app too but for convenience sake, they'll incorporate all of that HBO Max content into the VOD section of the AT&T TV UI. (Maybe a brief "HBO Max" splash screen will appear when a selection begins playing to remind the customer that they're getting HBO Max as part of their AT&T TV service.)
> 
> Beyond that, I'll just say that your view is a bit too narrowly focused on what YOU like and you seem to assume that other consumers have the same preferences for SVODs vs. live cable channels or that they will all rapidly get there. I'm telling you, no, they won't. It will be a multi-year process that plays out over the 2020s. (And what happens with sports and local and national news will be a big determinant too, because that content remains largely trapped inside the linear cable channel system for now.)
> 
> Come 2030, HBO Max will still exist (although maybe the brand name has changed by then, who knows). Will AT&T TV still exist? Questionable.


It's about what where the puck is going. Not what I'm using. The puck is going to SVODs.

Today's gen is the youtube generation. It is the Netflix generation.

And then the old generation is slow to change habits. So I'm not seeing a big uptake on the vMVPDs.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Makes TOTAL sense to put apps like Netflix, Prime Video, Hulu (without the live TV part), YouTube, Spotify and Pandora on their AlticeOne boxes, sure. Makes NO sense to me to put apps for vMVPDs that compete with their own native cable TV service. Why would they stick apps for PS Vue, Sling, and YouTube TV on their own boxes? Makes zero sense to me, from either the company's or their customers' perspective.


Why? Same reason Comcast is renting a streaming box for ~$5/mo.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Makes TOTAL sense to put apps like Netflix, Prime Video, Hulu (without the live TV part), YouTube, Spotify and Pandora on their AlticeOne boxes, sure. Makes NO sense to me to put apps for vMVPDs that compete with their own native cable TV service. Why would they stick apps for PS Vue, Sling, and YouTube TV on their own boxes? Makes zero sense to me, from either the company's or their customers' perspective.


It only makes sense if they want out of the pay TV ecosystem, but want to maintain their marketshare as a broadband provider and have a stickier service. We know the latter is true, so if the former is the case, then it makes sense. They may also pick one to partner with and run with that, whether doing combined billing or not.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> It only makes sense if they want out of the pay TV ecosystem, but want to maintain their marketshare as a broadband provider and have a stickier service. We know the latter is true, so if the former is the case, then it makes sense. They may also pick one to partner with and run with that, whether doing combined billing or not.


Why bother with the expense of their own STBs if they intend for their broadband customers to simply use OTT services (for which their STB isn't really ideally suited for anyhow)? Why wouldn't their customers just use their own Roku, etc? Why wouldn't Altice offer customers a free or discounted Apple TV 4K for signing up for their broadband package and packaging in an OTT service on the same bill?

I totally understand the desire to get out of the MVPD business (as I've explained ad nauseum lately). Don't understand doing it on your own STBs. Instead, do what Verizon is doing: partner with a vMVPD to bundle with your broadband and then roll out a custom streaming device (probably running Android TV) for use with your selected vMVPD.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> Why? Same reason Comcast is renting a streaming box for ~$5/mo.


Can you list for me the vMVPD apps that run on Comcast's streaming box which compete with Comcast's own cable TV service? (Answer: there's not any.)


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Can you list for me the vMVPD apps that run on Comcast's streaming box which compete with Comcast's own cable TV service? (Answer: there's not any.)


it's the same mentality. let's rent a box to the customer for $5/mo in perpetuity and hope they don't discover they can buy a Roku for $50.

Why is Altice , putting other people's vMVPD apps on their STB? In hopes the customer stays put and is too lazy to go buy a Roku for $50, set it up, get used to another device and return the old one.

To me the mentality is also similar to DTV offering up DTV Now or Dish doing Sling.

Altice is trying to make money off customers who can't afford their legacy service or would otherwise switch. If you are their customer and you hear about YTTV and are thinking about it and you get a Roku then Altice is left out of the picture completely. But if you sign up for YTTV on the cable box then Altice keeps some of your business on the video side through a box rental. They also might get paid some money if you sign up for the service from their cable box for all I know.

I'm sure these guys get questions like yeah I would like to subscribe to YTTV. What package is that a part of? 

Also just changing remotes is a big deal for some people. IF their cable remote works with YTTV then that can be a big selling pt. Actually I imagine a cable remote would work better for YTTV etc than the remotes supplied with the streaming boxes.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Why bother with the expense of their own STBs if they intend for their broadband customers to simply use OTT services (for which their STB isn't really ideally suited for anyhow)? Why wouldn't their customers just use their own Roku, etc? Why wouldn't Altice offer customers a free or discounted Apple TV 4K for signing up for their broadband package and packaging in an OTT service on the same bill?


Stickiness. The Apple TV or Roku works with Verizon FiOS. The Altice ONE box doesn't.



> Instead, do what Verizon is doing: partner with a vMVPD to bundle with your broadband and then roll out a custom streaming device (probably running Android TV) for use with your selected vMVPD.


Better yet, use Altice ONE, which already has a built-in router, AP, switch, modem, MoCA adapter, eMTA, etc.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Also, I don't know what they are up to in Europe, but I do know that Altice ONE is based on designs there and adapted for North American technology. So that may have something to do with something.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> Also just changing remotes is a big deal for some people. IF their cable remote works with YTTV then that can be a big selling pt. Actually I imagine a cable remote would work better for YTTV etc than the remotes supplied with the streaming boxes.


This is why Verizon has recently submitted to the FCC their own custom streaming box named Stream TV. Bet you dollars to doughnuts it'll run Google Android TV, lightly customized for YouTube TV, with a remote that's designed for channel-based TV. And because it's WAY cheaper than those AlticeOne boxes, they'll just give it away for free when their broadband customers sign up for YouTube TV and bundle it in.

I just think that if Altice customers have the knowledge to know about YouTube TV, they know that they don't need to pay however much to rent the AlticeOne box. That'll especially be the case when their crosstown rival Verizon FiOS rolls out their free Stream TV box.

All that said, now that I think about it, I think the AlticeOne box -- for those on the main DOCSIS network, not those on the new FTTH network -- is a combined modem/gateway/video STB all in one. And if that's true, then that would mean that a customer ceasing to rent it would not only need their own streaming device but also their own modem and router. Although I'm pretty sure that the majority of Altice customers are on pre-One hardware, meaning traditional modems, routers and STBs. No idea how the equipment rental charges break down...

All that said, when it comes to Comcast's Flex program, trust me, that's gonna be dead in the water. Trying to rent set-top boxes to cord-cutters with standalone broadband service is like trying to sell ice cubes at the North Pole. As I see it, the only point of officially offering the Xi6 at a $5/mo rental charge is so they can package it in for free to new broadband subs and say "It's a $5/mo value, yours free as long as you stay with Xfinity!" And even then, I think most folks would just say, "Nah, I'm good."


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> This is why Verizon has recently submitted to the FCC their own custom streaming box named Stream TV. Bet you dollars to doughnuts it'll run Google Android TV, lightly customized for YouTube TV, with a remote that's designed for channel-based TV. And because it's WAY cheaper than those AlticeOne boxes, they'll just give it away for free when their broadband customers sign up for YouTube TV and bundle it in.
> 
> I just think that if Altice customers have the knowledge to know about YouTube TV, they know that they don't need to pay however much to rent the AlticeOne box. That'll especially be the case when their crosstown rival Verizon FiOS rolls out their free Stream TV box.
> 
> ...


I'd have to guess that Verizon would rent the box to the customer. Otherwise what's the point? The cable cos make good money off equipment rentals. What's in it for them to resell YTTV then? Would Google be subsidizing the boxes themselves? Would they cut in Verizon on every YTTV subscriber? If so then I could see them not charging for the box.

I don't disagree that any savvy customer would just buy a Roku and watch YTTV on that instead of continuing to rent an Altice box. But there's lots of cable customers who pay $5-$10 a month to rent cable modems and routers as it is despite the fact they could just walk into a Best Buy or click on Amazon and buy a cable modem/router off the shelf and start to put money in their pocket starting some time in year 2. I would think the mentality of those customers is what prompts an Altrice to allow YTTV on their set top boxes.

I never said it was a great strategy or one that will ultimately work out.  I laughed at Comcast's Flex thing too. But that's the mentality of the cable company. IT's built into their culture to rent the customer a box and make money off it. They know their customers.  They know quite a few will have the same box for 5-10 years.

But, in their defense, really the cable cos in these cases are providing a service. You do get something for your rental fee beyond what the person buying the product in the store gets. You get an unlimited warranty and then you often get free installation or service as long as it isn't your fault. You get free tech support I think too. That's worth something to some people.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> I'd have to guess that Verizon would rent the box to the customer. Otherwise what's the point? The cable cos make good money off equipment rentals. What's in it for them to resell YTTV then? Would Google be subsidizing the boxes themselves? Would they cut in Verizon on every YTTV subscriber? If so then I could see them not charging for the box.


Cord-cutters, I think, have this inflated view of the importance of video STB rentals to broadband operators' bottom lines. I don't think they matter all that much. And frankly, managing/refurbishing all that physical inventory is a hassle I suspect they'd rather relinquish (although they'll still have their own gateways/routers). And I think they're also not stupid. They see which way the wind is blowing when it comes to the kind of video consumption devices that Americans are gravitating to.

What's in it for Verizon to offer YTTV "with special offers" (as they put it)? Well, first off, remember: broadband (and wireless) is what these operators are really selling. Video is just about giving customers something they want, a convenient option to make them happier, stickier broadband subs. My guess is that Google gives Verizon a little commission on every new YTTV customer they sign up and that's way more than covering the cost of the little Stream TV device they'll give out. (And like AT&T TV, probably only the first one is free; if you want more for other TVs, they'll make a little money selling those.) You realize that Amazon sells their Fire TV 4K stick (which even supports Dolby Vision!) for $50, right? And it can be had for, what, $40 on sale. These devices, manufactured at scale with bog-standard parts, aren't expensive to make.



trip1eX said:


> I don't disagree that any savvy customer would just buy a Roku and watch YTTV on that instead of continuing to rent an Altice box. But there's lots of cable customers who pay $5-$10 a month to rent cable modems and routers as it is despite the fact they could just walk into a Best Buy or click on Amazon and buy a cable modem/router off the shelf and start to put money in their pocket starting some time in year 2. I would think the mentality of those customers is what prompts an Altrice to allow YTTV on their set top boxes.


Eh, scratch my comments above about the AlticeOne box. I had forgotten yesterday that it's an all-in-ONE box that contains the modem and router too. So given that, I can understand Altice wanting to put as many vMVPDs on there as possible, so long as Altice scores a commission when new customers sign up. AlticeOne (which still only has 13% penetration among Altice customers) is basically for folks who have no desire to buy and be responsible for ANY internet-connected hardware: modem, router or streaming video box. So they pay a fee for the convenience of never thinking about any of that and just calling Altice if something breaks. Doesn't matter which apps/services provide their TV entertainment. And there's definitely a crowd for that!



trip1eX said:


> I never said it was a great strategy or one that will ultimately work out.  I laughed at Comcast's Flex thing too. But that's the mentality of the cable company. IT's built into their culture to rent the customer a box and make money off it. They know their customers.  They know quite a few will have the same box for 5-10 years.


I think the Flex thing is Comcast getting ready to offer the Xi6 box as the preferred streaming device for the future OTT services, not only the NBCU SVOD, but also an OTT version of their live cable TV service. Nationwide. Whether the Xi6 will be rented for $5/mo or just sold, we'll have to see. Kinda hard to see the rental thing working out, especially in areas where there's no local Comcast store. I think they'll have to bow to market reality and follow the lead of AT&T TV, Verizon/YouTube TV, etc. and just sell the things, while also allowing full access via Roku and other streaming devices.



trip1eX said:


> But, in their defense, really the cable cos in these cases are providing a service. You do get something for your rental fee beyond what the person buying the product in the store gets. You get an unlimited warranty and then you often get free installation or service as long as it isn't your fault. You get free tech support I think too. That's worth something to some people.


Fair point. See my thoughts on AlticeOne above. But I think when it comes to video/streaming boxes, the rental idea really only works when it's all packaged in together with everything else. Comcast is developing a compelling hardware platform for the connected smart home with mesh wifi, streaming boxes, home security, etc. There's definitely a market for those who just say, "Yep, sign me up for that whole deal and you be responsible for the equipment."


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Cord-cutters, I think, have this inflated view of the importance of video STB rentals to broadband operators' bottom lines. I don't think they matter all that much. And frankly, managing/refurbishing all that physical inventory is a hassle I suspect they'd rather relinquish (although they'll still have their own gateways/routers). And I think they're also not stupid. They see which way the wind is blowing when it comes to the kind of video consumption devices that Americans are gravitating to.
> 
> What's in it for Verizon to offer YTTV "with special offers" (as they put it)? Well, first off, remember: broadband (and wireless) is what these operators are really selling. Video is just about giving customers something they want, a convenient option to make them happier, stickier broadband subs. My guess is that Google gives Verizon a little commission on every new YTTV customer they sign up and that's way more than covering the cost of the little Stream TV device they'll give out. (And like AT&T TV, probably only the first one is free; if you want more for other TVs, they'll make a little money selling those.) You realize that Amazon sells their Fire TV 4K stick (which even supports Dolby Vision!) for $50, right? And it can be had for, what, $40 on sale. These devices, manufactured at scale with bog-standard parts, aren't expensive to make.
> 
> ...


well if the cable industry didn't want the hassle of the renting boxes then you would think they wouldn't have fought tivo and efforts to create a retail market for boxes and they wouldn't be offering routers and modems for rent either when one can just buy them in the store. And then someone like Comcast wouldn't turn around and try to rent a 'roku' for $5/mo.

yeah verizon would have to be making some money from Google or perhaps Google sells them a license for really cheap in exchange for customer viewing data and having Google services on the boxes. Maybe Google even pays VErizon to distribute YTTV. After all Google pays Apple billions every year to be the default search engine in Safari.

Obviously Verizon wants to sell broadband to customers, but in a lot of markets (most markets probably ) the cable company is the only choice or the best choice by far for broadband. So I don't see the big need to offer promotions to get customers.

yeah I don't expect Flex to do anything. There is a retail market for streamers already. It doesn't make sense to me. It's just Comcast doing what they always do. Same thing for Altrice. But as we both agree some customers like the service aspect of renting a box. A lot of customers rent cable modems/routers even though there is a retail market for those. So maybe I'm underestimating the number of customers that would sign up to rent a streaming box from the cable company. And as you said, if they combine it with a cable modem/router then there is more incentive perhaps for that to work.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Cord-cutters, I think, have this inflated view of the importance of video STB rentals to broadband operators' bottom lines. I don't think they matter all that much.


They actually matter a LOT. Those boxes stay out there for years and years beyond their break-even points, the cable companies make millions and millions of dollars off of them, and they get to control the UX.



> Eh, scratch my comments above about the AlticeOne box. I had forgotten yesterday that it's an all-in-ONE box that contains the modem and router too.


Especially in small apartments in New York, instead of having 3 or 4 different boxes, people would just have ONE.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> They actually matter a LOT. Those boxes stay out there for years and years beyond their break-even points, the cable companies make millions and millions of dollars off of them, and they get to control the UX.


You're one of the people I was talking about when I said some folks overestimate how important STB rentals are. You're stuck in the past. The cable operators understand that the times are a-changin'. You haven't quite caught on yet, it seems.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

New Doctor Who Seasons Will Stream Exclusively on HBO Max - Cord Cutters News


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

mschnebly said:


> New Doctor Who Seasons Will Stream Exclusively on HBO Max - Cord Cutters News


Warner had said that they would do a bit of licensing for HBO Max to shore up its content library in certain areas but I was imagining, IDK, children's educational stuff, or "lifestyle" HGTV-type stuff. Warner is already a powerhouse when it comes to scripted content but they're taking the fight to Netflix even more by striking this deal with the BBC for British telly.

My free stock tip of the day: if you're holding Netflix stock (sorry about that 10% dip after the 2Q earnings announcement, BTW), keep it until around the time of the 3Q earnings announcement on Oct. 18. It should get a bump because they'll have strong results this quarter from Stranger Things, the last season of OITNB, and the Emmy glow of When They See Us and Ozark. And then once you get that good news price bump, sell it.

Disney+ is launching in Nov. The investor/media reveal for HBO Max will be on Oct. 29. It may have a beta launch in the fall or simply wait for a final launch in early 2020. And of course we'll also see the NBCU SVOD launch in Apr. 2020 and the Discovery/BBC SVOD launch at some point early next year too. Meanwhile, CBS AA may start looking stronger by then as it incorporates content from Viacom.

None of that spells the death of Netflix by any means but it does mean the going will get much tougher for the service SOON. And the valuation of Netflix stock is kinda ridiculous, built on the illusion that it could sustain breakneck subscriber growth indefinitely. (Psst: it can't.)

The first chapter in the saga known as "Stream Wars" is coming to a close. This fall, we begin a new chapter: "Hollywood Strikes Back".


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> You're one of the people I was talking about when I said some folks overestimate how important STB rentals are. You're stuck in the past. The cable operators understand that the times are a-changin'. You haven't quite caught on yet, it seems.


Tell that to Comcast shareholders. They make many millions in profit off of STB rentals.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Tell that to Comcast shareholders. They make many millions in profit off of STB rentals.


The shareholders may not know it but Comcast realizes that that business will largely (though not completely) wither away, thanks to Roku, Fire TV and Apple TV. Have you checked out the new sign-up flow on their website? They make it very easy to avoid paying the $5/mo per X1 box rental charge. Just check the box that you wish to use your own equipment. No additional cost.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> The shareholders may not know it but Comcast realizes that that business will largely (though not completely) wither away, thanks to Roku, Fire TV and Apple TV. Have you checked out the new sign-up flow on their website? They make it very easy to avoid paying the $5/mo per X1 box rental charge. Just check the box that you wish to use your own equipment. No additional cost.


Absolutely, for new customers. But they know that they are making millions and millions of dollars off of box rentals that are already out there, and they're going to milk them for a while yet while simultaneously trying to appeal to younger customers with the streaming apps.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Absolutely, for new customers. But they know that they are making millions and millions of dollars off of box rentals that are already out there, and they're going to milk them for a while yet while simultaneously trying to appeal to younger customers with the streaming apps.


Sure, but we're discussing where things are going, not where they've been. And whether Comcast likes it or not, they're soon going to be competing with AT&T TV and YouTube TV and other vMVPDs partnering up with competing broadband operators who are willing to dispense with box rentals. You can milk the sheep for only so long before the sheep wander off to greener pastures.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> The acceleration of the DTV losses compared to cable seems to have really ramped (up) this year. I know everyone started losing subscribers in 2017 because of the rise of streaming. But was surprised when I saw DTV sub losses were so much ahead of cable losses this year.





Bigg said:


> I still think that they're going to need DBS for traditional linear channels. You're right in that linear is dying off, however, it is a slow, long tail, and rural users are probably, on average, well behind the technological curve, whether due to what is available to them, or some self-selection and demographic (age) factors involved. There is still a culture of people having the TV on a lot, even when they aren't really actively watching it, and that puts a lot of load on a 5G network, so why not keep that on DBS for the time being?


Just read a new piece of analysis by Roger Entner, founder of Recon Analytics, about the whole DISH/T-Mo/Sprint deal. The whole piece is worth reading if that topic interests you. But there was one bit buried way down in the article about the long-term viability of DISH's DBS (satellite TV) business that I found very interesting, and rather surprising. (Emphasis mine):

_Ultimately, Dish could be an aggressive competitor similar to what it is in satellite. Dish competes on price and features with good customer service. *Unfortunately, at the current trajectory, the satellite business will become unprofitable in about three years as subscribers, revenue and profit are declining precipitously.* The underlying profitability of Dish's core satellite business, capital intensity of wireless, the hyper-competitiveness of the wireless industry, the vagaries of international politics, delays in technical standards, the fickleness of investors, and plain old execution risks are the biggest complicating factors in Dish becoming successful in wireless.
_​So a leading telecom industry researcher/analyst is saying that DISH's core satellite TV business is on track to be a money-loser by end of 2022. Yikes. Bigg and I have always disagreed about how long DBS can survive; he is far more bullish than I am. But even I wouldn't have pegged 2022 as a possible end of the road.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Sure, but we're discussing where things are going, not where they've been. And whether Comcast likes it or not, they're soon going to be competing with AT&T TV and YouTube TV and other vMVPDs partnering up with competing broadband operators who are willing to dispense with box rentals. You can milk the sheep for only so long before the sheep wander off to greener pastures.


Yes, the future is streaming devices, OTT SVOD, etc, but I think you'll see Comcast, Charter, and AT&T in particular holding on to those box rentals and extra TVs for quite some time to come as they milk their existing system for millions in profits. Of course, this also accelerates cord cutting since people get pissed off from paying $50/mo or more in various fees for content and extra boxes on top of their actual service.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Just read a new piece of analysis by Roger Entner, founder of Recon Analytics, about the whole DISH/T-Mo/Sprint deal.


This thread is sort of interesting, I linked back to here. They are totally missing the changes in the pay TV industry. I get the idea that a lot of people think vMVPDs are just going to replace MVPDs when, in reality, the entire industry is going to fundamentally change.

What's the future for Dish?



> So a leading telecom industry researcher/analyst is saying that DISH's core satellite TV business is on track to be a money-loser by end of 2022. Yikes. Bigg and I have always disagreed about how long DBS can survive; he is far more bullish than I am. But even I wouldn't have pegged 2022 as a possible end of the road.


I think they can hang on longer than that, but DISH is at a MASSIVE disadvantage to DirecTV. There are four fundamental parts of their business that make DirecTV much more likely to survive MUCH longer than DISH:

1. DirecTV is more expensive. They have much higher margins to work with.
2. DISH lacks the scale for negotiating content that DirecTV has.
3. DirecTV doesn't even need residential customers to survive. They have a MASSIVE commercial presence that would be a viable service on it's own.
4. AT&T doesn't need to make money on DirecTV, just like Comcast doesn't need to make money on TV. They can bundle it with their cash cow, internet. While xDSL is fading, AT&T fiber, fixed wireless internet, and MDU installations are on the rise, and DirecTV pairs well with all of those, particular fixed wireless the MDUs.

What I do think will happen is they will get out of the installation business, at least outside of their ILEC territory or where they are providing broadband services. It's just too darn expensive. Better to have the customer pay a contractor, like they did in the early days of DBS, which is more or less how commercial works anyway, as they have to build a whole system either to distribute satellite signals throughout the property, or increasingly, to build an SMATV headend and integrate streaming and all the boxes into that, or in restaurants and bars, an HDMI matrix or HDMI-over-IP system to split and distribute the signal.

If DISH can actually get 5G going, they might be able to target pockets of their rural market for fixed wireless and get something going on there, although they won't have the synergy that AT&T has, since AT&T already has towers and fiber out in those areas for mobile anyway, then they get government money to put up another set of antennas for FWI, costing them little to nothing, at which point they charge for FWI and DirecTV, so it's basically a gravy train all the way.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Just read a new piece of analysis by Roger Entner, founder of Recon Analytics, about the whole DISH/T-Mo/Sprint deal. The whole piece is worth reading if that topic interests you.


That article is interesting. He seems to have a lot of concerns about DISH as a competitor in the wireless market, and some of the churn numbers are breathtaking. That's the problem with the low end of the wireless market. AT&T and Verizon have tons of 20-year-plus customers, while Boost and Virgin churn theirs over every 2 years.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> AT&T doesn't need to make money on DirecTV, just like Comcast doesn't need to make money on TV. They can bundle it with their cash cow, internet. While xDSL is fading, AT&T fiber, fixed wireless internet, and MDU installations are on the rise, and DirecTV pairs well with all of those, particular fixed wireless the MDUs.


No. They're not going to be bundling DirecTV any longer with any form of internet service unless it's for those addresses on AT&T DSL under, say, 12 Mbps. I think you're going to discover in the next couple years that you think FAR more highly of DirecTV than AT&T management does.

Actually, one guy over on one of the satellite forums said someone at AT&T said that they're considering reversing the recent integration of DTV into the unified AT&T billing system (which has NOT gone over well with DTV subs). That wouldn't surprise me at all. For one, it would mean no more bundle discounts for DTV together with other AT&T services. Secondly, that's the kind of move you do when you're getting ready to spin off DTV into a separate company or sell it outright.



Bigg said:


> If DISH can actually get 5G going, they might be able to target pockets of their rural market for fixed wireless and get something going on there, although they won't have the synergy that AT&T has, since AT&T already has towers and fiber out in those areas for mobile anyway, then they get government money to put up another set of antennas for FWI, costing them little to nothing, at which point they charge for FWI and DirecTV, so it's basically a gravy train all the way.


I think we should take a step back and still maintain some healthy skepticism over whether Ergen really, truly is going to build out that 5G spectrum. Think about it -- what'd he just do with the FCC? As Entner points out, he agreed to buy Boost Mobile (bleh), wholesale MNVO access to New T-Mo's network, plus some additional spectrum to add to his trove BUT the real thing of value he got was a major extension on his spectrum build-out deadline. He's not up against next March for anything now. His new buildout deadlines are mid-2023 and 2024.

Do we really think he's not going to turn around and make some new deal with Comcast and/or Charter? I don't know why the FCC would be against such a deal since they tried to get them to the table already. And you could easily see how in such a situation, DISH's DBS system just carries the Comcast TV service. Providing assurances to the feds that rural dwellers would have access to competitively priced cable TV service via satellite through at least, say, 2026 might be a condition that allows the deal to go through. Now, whether or not big cable wants to make such a deal and get into bed with Ergen, I don't know. But I have to believe that Ergen is actively considering that option.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> No. They're not going to be bundling DirecTV any longer with any form of internet service unless it's for those addresses on AT&T DSL under, say, 12 Mbps. I think you're going to discover in the next couple years that you think FAR more highly of DirecTV than AT&T management does.


We had this discussion before, but I think you really don't understand how large AT&T's system is, and how many areas are not upgraded to fiber or fast VDSL. Don't forget about FWI.



> Actually, one guy over on one of the satellite forums said someone at AT&T said that they're considering reversing the recent integration of DTV into the unified AT&T billing system (which has NOT gone over well with DTV subs). That wouldn't surprise me at all. For one, it would mean no more bundle discounts for DTV together with other AT&T services. Secondly, that's the kind of move you do when you're getting ready to spin off DTV into a separate company or sell it outright.


Color me skeptical.



> I think we should take a step back and still maintain some healthy skepticism over whether Ergen really, truly is going to build out that 5G spectrum. Think about it -- what'd he just do with the FCC? As Entner points out, he agreed to buy Boost Mobile (bleh), wholesale MNVO access to New T-Mo's network, plus some additional spectrum to add to his trove BUT the real thing of value he got was a major extension on his spectrum build-out deadline. He's not up against next March for anything now. His new buildout deadlines are mid-2023 and 2024.
> 
> Do we really think he's not going to turn around and make some new deal with Comcast and/or Charter? I don't know why the FCC would be against such a deal since they tried to get them to the table already. And you could easily see how in such a situation, DISH's DBS system just carries the Comcast TV service. Providing assurances to the feds that rural dwellers would have access to competitively priced cable TV service via satellite through at least, say, 2026 might be a condition that allows the deal to go through. Now, whether or not big cable wants to make such a deal and get into bed with Ergen, I don't know. But I have to believe that Ergen is actively considering that option.


That's really interesting. That would save DISH's DBS system and make use of their spectrum. Comcast and Charter are far more likely to do something with it than DISH alone. In this age of bundling and synergies, the whole DISH thing still makes no sense. But it also makes no sense if he just wants to hoard his spectrum and sell it later, as it's worth a lot more with 4 carriers in the market than with 3. On the other hand, if he wants to partner with or sell to Comcast/Charter, that would make a LOT of sense, as they have the synergies required to make DISH 5G make sense for them.

The problem is, Ergen needs a plan. I think 3 years of profitability is a bit hyperbolic, but we can all agree that if it's not 3 years, at some point in the not-too-distant future, DISH network's business will be gone.


----------



## Adam C. (Jul 24, 2017)

This is basically robbery:

Verizon Fios is Raising Its DVR & Set-Top Box Fees to $24 Per Box - Cord Cutters News


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Just read a new piece of analysis by Roger Entner, founder of Recon Analytics, about the whole DISH/T-Mo/Sprint deal. The whole piece is worth reading if that topic interests you. But there was one bit buried way down in the article about the long-term viability of DISH's DBS (satellite TV) business that I found very interesting, and rather surprising. (Emphasis mine):
> 
> _Ultimately, Dish could be an aggressive competitor similar to what it is in satellite. Dish competes on price and features with good customer service. *Unfortunately, at the current trajectory, the satellite business will become unprofitable in about three years as subscribers, revenue and profit are declining precipitously.* The underlying profitability of Dish's core satellite business, capital intensity of wireless, the hyper-competitiveness of the wireless industry, the vagaries of international politics, delays in technical standards, the fickleness of investors, and plain old execution risks are the biggest complicating factors in Dish becoming successful in wireless.
> _​So a leading telecom industry researcher/analyst is saying that DISH's core satellite TV business is on track to be a money-loser by end of 2022. Yikes. Bigg and I have always disagreed about how long DBS can survive; he is far more bullish than I am. But even I wouldn't have pegged 2022 as a possible end of the road.


that's the problem with Directv wanting to get rid of the least profitable subscribers. There are lots of fixed costs there and getting rid of some of the lower end customers just makes it so you need to raise prices on the ones you have left which in turns causes more to leave ... it's a bit of a death spiral. That's a view I read similar sounding to the one you quoted.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Yes, the future is streaming devices, OTT SVOD, etc, but I think you'll see Comcast, Charter, and AT&T in particular holding on to those box rentals and extra TVs for quite some time to come as they milk their existing system for millions in profits. Of course, this also accelerates cord cutting since people get pissed off from paying $50/mo or more in various fees for content and extra boxes on top of their actual service.


yeah I don't think the cable companies trying to rent streaming boxes is something that works out in the end, but it's in their wheelhouse. It's easy for them to do. Downside is pretty low as long as they don't buy too much inventory to start with.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Ergen is pretty smart guy. that's one thing I'd give to DISH over DTV. He was one of the first to do a streaming OTT cable service. And is the only major one, that I've heard of at least, to have that $20 and $25 skinny bundle. and DISH is his personal project sorta speak. dTV just another corporation.

also what about Dish and DTV combining like sirius and xm. I don't know if that makes any sense technically speaking. But makes sense otherwise. Also makes sense as far as at some pt the customer churn will stop as satellite is strong in a lot of rural areas. places where broadband doesn't get to.

DISH only lost 30k subscribers btw in Q2.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Adam C. said:


> This is basically robbery:
> 
> Verizon Fios is Raising Its DVR & Set-Top Box Fees to $24 Per Box - Cord Cutters News


the article said they were going up $7 to $24. I thought the FIOS DVR fee was already north of $20.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Adam C. said:


> This is basically robbery:
> 
> Verizon Fios is Raising Its DVR & Set-Top Box Fees to $24 Per Box - Cord Cutters News


This is the stage of the game where the MVPD (Verizon) milks the sheep who choose to remain on their traditional cable TV service (FiOS TV). If folks don't mind the price hike, cool, more money for Verizon. If folks call up and complain, Verizon will just offer to switch them over to YouTube TV (and before long, they'll offer them the new Stream TV device customized to go with it -- either for free or at some very low price, not a rental, yours to keep forever!). Once enough of the sheep have been herded off of FiOS TV over onto YouTube TV, then they just shut FiOS TV down completely and refarm that bandwidth over for general IP use. ("Verizon FiOS, now available at twice the speed: 2 Gigs per second!")


----------



## Adam C. (Jul 24, 2017)

trip1eX said:


> the article said they were going up $7 to $24. I thought the FIOS DVR fee was already north of $20.


I cancelled Fios back in early 2017 and the DVR cost at that time was $15.99/month. I don't know if there were any additional price increases since then.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Once enough of the sheep have been herded off of FiOS TV over onto YouTube TV, then they just shut FiOS TV down completely and refarm that bandwidth over for general IP use. ("Verizon FiOS, now available at twice the speed: 2 Gigs per second!")


It doesn't free up bandwidth, as QAM is on a different lambda than IP. It actually would cost them bandwidth to stream YouTube TV instead, but GPON can handle it no problem. It's a business decision, not a technical/bandwidth issue.



trip1eX said:


> also what about Dish and DTV combining like sirius and xm. I don't know if that makes any sense technically speaking. But makes sense otherwise. Also makes sense as far as at some pt the customer churn will stop as satellite is strong in a lot of rural areas. places where broadband doesn't get to.


It makes no sense technologically, they'd have 3 satellite arcs, but it really depends on content. But if AT&T spun off DirecTV and they merged with DISH, they'd just be a larger, more efficient company that's still in a dying industry.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Heard an interview with Mark Cuban who kept repeating that the marginal cost of delivering data is almost zero.

But is there some trend to abolish data caps?

Without it, how far can streaming go.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> It doesn't free up bandwidth, as QAM is on a different lambda than IP. It actually would cost them bandwidth to stream YouTube TV instead, but GPON can handle it no problem. It's a business decision, not a technical/bandwidth issue.


Again, I think your viewpoint is locked into "the way it's always been" rather than trying to imagine the future. You're assuming that Verizon will never choose to update their network architecture in order to take advantage of the lambda on which QAM resides. If those frequencies on their glass can be used for QAM, why can't network components be upgraded to allow those same frequencies to instead be used for IP?

Under DOCSIS 4.0, cable will move ahead to faster symmetrical speeds, up to 10 Gbps. FTTH systems, like FiOS, will be forced to respond.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wco81 said:


> Heard an interview with Mark Cuban who kept repeating that the marginal cost of delivering data is almost zero.
> 
> But is there some trend to abolish data caps?
> 
> Without it, how far can streaming go.


As all video consumption moves to streaming, more and more Americans will begin bumping up against data caps. But broadband operators who partner with a 3rd-party streaming service, as Verizon is doing with YouTube TV, will likely do one of two things: either waive their data cap for their broadband customers who take a package with the preferred streaming service, or zero-rate the data incurred by using that streaming service so that it doesn't count toward the cap.

Obviously, such moves are the sort of thing that net neutrality activists warned us about. We'll have to see whether American consumers are sufficiently angered by that kind of behavior to do something about it at the ballot box. If political pressure begins mounting, we may well see broadband operators try to ease that pressure by voluntarily doubling their data caps. You can imagine Comcast making a big deal about how they're being so great to their customers by giving them 2 TB of data usage each month at no additional charge! But if political pressure from hacked off consumers gets strong enough, we can expect Democratic politicians and regulators to enact some kind of changes that would essentially make data caps no longer a concern for consumers, whether by outlawing data caps (or requiring that they be set at levels so high that they only affects no more than a small X% sliver of customers) or by enacting net neutrality, meaning that all streaming data from all sources must be counted the same, so Comcast and AT&T would have to count their own video streams against their own broadband customers' data caps.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wco81 said:


> But is there some trend to abolish data caps?


That would require a literal act of Congress. Hence why it does't get done.



NashGuy said:


> Again, I think your viewpoint is locked into "the way it's always been" rather than trying to imagine the future. You're assuming that Verizon will never choose to update their network architecture in order to take advantage of the lambda on which QAM resides. If those frequencies on their glass can be used for QAM, why can't network components be upgraded to allow those same frequencies to instead be used for IP?


They could. But so could a bunch of other lambdas on that fiber as well. On Verizon FiOS, ex-Verizon FiOS, and Cinici Bell systems, QAM will go away when it is no longer a business value to them. It's not a bandwidth consideration and never will be.



> Under DOCSIS 4.0, cable will move ahead to faster symmetrical speeds, up to 10 Gbps. FTTH systems, like FiOS, will be forced to respond.


NG-PON2, which can handle 4 10 Gbps connections at once on different lambda was specifically designed to avoid GPON and RF video, so that they can all inter-operate happily on the same port, so there's no value in reclaiming the RF video lambda. Also, FiOS can support two or three technologies at once, like they do with BPON and GPON today, by having BPON and GPON ports feeding each FDH. They could have 80%+ GPON with one NG-PON2 port feeding each FDH and switch people over as there is demand for it. There is no organic demand for 10 Gbps service, so if they price it at $200/mo or more, advertise that they in fact have it, and they won't need very many ports for it and can continue using GPON for decades to come.

Further, cable can't provide 1 Gbps to very many customers today. Sure, it's available to over 75% of the US, but on any given node, if more than a few subscribers actually *use* gigabit speeds at the same time, the whole thing gets congested. Luckily, few customers who have gigabit can even use it, and most of them only have it for the pathetic 35mbps upload which is slightly less pathetic than the typical 10 or 20mbps uploads on cable. When symmetrical speeds are available in a given area, the number of gigabit subs may go down, depending on how speeds are priced and what the bandwidth caps are.

The bottom line is that RF video on FiOS will live or die on it's own merits, not because that lambda is useful for anything else, because it isn't.



NashGuy said:


> As all video consumption moves to streaming, more and more Americans will begin bumping up against data caps. But broadband operators who partner with a 3rd-party streaming service, as Verizon is doing with YouTube TV, will likely do one of two things: either waive their data cap for their broadband customers who take a package with the preferred streaming service, or zero-rate the data incurred by using that streaming service so that it doesn't count toward the cap.


We could also see situations like where Comcast will "give" you Unlimited data if you rent their xFi gateway. Other bundling could come into play, whether with video or with other ancillary services. They love the bundles as they can get more revenue out of their existing customer base without having to actually expand their service area.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> The bottom line is that RF video on FiOS will live or die on it's own merits, not because that lambda is useful for anything else, because it isn't.


The entire fiber is useful and will eventually be used for IP at some point down the road. Our bandwidth needs will only ever increase. That said, OK, it's possible that Verizon won't choose to use the lambda currently used by QAM for IP until after the point when linear channel pay TV ceases to exist, meaning that FiOS TV would have withered away because it's no longer economically useful to Verizon. I wonder when their major carriage contracts will need to be renewed because that's a logical point at which the company chooses to simply sunset the service assuming that the subscriber numbers have fallen enough by then.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> The entire fiber is useful and will eventually be used for IP at some point down the road. Our bandwidth needs will only ever increase. That said, OK, it's possible that Verizon won't choose to use the lambda currently used by QAM for IP until after the point when linear channel pay TV ceases to exist, meaning that FiOS TV would have withered away because it's no longer economically useful to Verizon. I wonder when their major carriage contracts will need to be renewed because that's a logical point at which the company chooses to simply sunset the service assuming that the subscriber numbers have fallen enough by then.


If you think FiOS TV will still exist as a business in 2030 or later when whatever comes after NG-PON2 is out, then you can worry about it then. I don't think FiOS TV as a business will survive long enough for that to be a relevant discussion. Further, at some point, we will have plenty of capacity, and won't need any more. HFC has a long way to go, fiber is much closer to where we need to be. We will eventually reach a point where we run out of eyeball-hours to stream 8k video and we just can't consume more bandwidth. Will NG-PON2 satisfy that need? Or the following generation? I don't know, but we will eventually get to that point.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

The average HFC customer today has somewhere around 4-8mbps of downstream bandwidth allocated to them, HFC being a shared medium. GPON fiber has about 75, as does Comcast's EPON system. It will take HFC at least another entire rebuild cycle that will go well into the 2020s just to catch up to where GPON was in 2008 when it rolled out. The applications of FDX or high-split that MSOs are looking at today would get them about 2/3 of the way to where FiOS was 11 years ago.

I think Verizon will roll out NG-PON2 in the next couple of years, but the reality is that most customers will be just fine with GPON through at least the end of the 2020s.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

wco81 said:


> Heard an interview with Mark Cuban who kept repeating that the marginal cost of delivering data is almost zero.
> 
> But is there some trend to abolish data caps?
> 
> Without it, how far can streaming go.


To me data caps are there to prevent the few from abusing the network to the detriment of the many.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Adam C. said:


> I cancelled Fios back in early 2017 and the DVR cost at that time was $15.99/month. I don't know if there were any additional price increases since then.


Maybe they dropped their price. I swear it was north of $20 5+ years ago.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> To me data caps are there to prevent the few from abusing the network to the detriment of the many.


Except... they're not. They are a money grab plain and simple. Here in CT, Comcast doesn't cap because they treat the Northeast as an entire region. Since they can't cap around the 128 belt, they don't cap anywhere in New England. Same for NJ, PA, MD, NoVA, etc in that region. Cox treats each state separately. So CT is capped even though they can't cap in RI. In both cases, their uncapped systems are just fine. They have network management tools that don't involve charging people more if they need them.

It is pure greed, plain and simple. There is absolutely zero technical justification for data caps. If they had actual congestion issues that weren't easily solved by splitting nodes, they would be using depri thresholds like wireless does, not charging overages that do almost nothing to reduce congestion.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> If you think FiOS TV will still exist as a business in 2030 or later when whatever comes after NG-PON2 is out, then you can worry about it then. I don't think FiOS TV as a business will survive long enough for that to be a relevant discussion.


Yes. As my predictions that launched this thread made clear, I do not believe FiOS TV will survive that long. I think I had the entire service shutting down (not even continuing on in a deprecated fashion) by end of 2021. The transition of their video sub base over to YouTube TV (and/or whatever other services they seek out on their own) might take longer than that but there simply won't be a business case for the continued operation of FiOS TV by some point in the early 2020s, I believe.



Bigg said:


> Further, at some point, we will have plenty of capacity, and won't need any more. HFC has a long way to go, fiber is much closer to where we need to be. We will eventually reach a point where we run out of eyeball-hours to stream 8k video and we just can't consume more bandwidth. Will NG-PON2 satisfy that need? Or the following generation? I don't know, but we will eventually get to that point.


I don't think the future will simply be higher-res video. It'll be immerse high-res virtual reality too, I suspect, and all sorts of network-delivered AI to all sorts of items scattered throughout homes and businesses.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yes. As my predictions that launched this thread made clear, I do not believe FiOS TV will survive that long.


And I agree with that. I don't see FiOS TV surviving beyond the end of 2025, and probably not nearly that long. So the issue of that lambda being needed for IP bandwidth is a non-issue.



> I think I had the entire service shutting down (not even continuing on in a deprecated fashion) by end of 2021. The transition of their video sub base over to YouTube TV (and/or whatever other services they seek out on their own) might take longer than that but there simply won't be a business case for the continued operation of FiOS TV by some point in the early 2020s, I believe.


2021 is a bit aggressive, but otherwise, I agree.



> I don't think the future will simply be higher-res video. It'll be immerse high-res virtual reality too, I suspect, and all sorts of network-delivered AI to all sorts of items scattered throughout homes and businesses.


So I think there is a fundamental affinity for TV on a screen. 8k streaming on a 75" LED is fundamentally the same idea as analog broadcasts on a 19" TV, just way better. VR is fundamentally something entirely different. There is a super niche market for it now in gaming, and I think that will continue to expand, but I just can't foresee it taking over from TV. People want that experience of sitting in front of a screen and watching TV, with a director or producer deciding what they are going to see and how. It's also ingrained in the American culture.

Network-delivered AI already exists in Google Home and Amazon Alexa. Those types of services will certainly make networks "chatty", but in terms of actual bandwidth consumption, they don't use much. I do think that data caps and slow upload speeds are holding back adoption home security surveillance cameras, online backup and cloud storage, and a few other applications. Further, I think we are already seeing somewhat of a backlash to digital assistants, and I think we may see even more of a backlash to connected devices and AI in our homes due to privacy and general annoyingness concerns.

Streaming video, and to a much smaller extent, gaming streaming and downloads are going to be by far the largest drivers of bandwidth usage in the next decade. As streaming video takes over for linear while simultaneously increasing in resolution and offering HDR, bandwidth consumption is going to go way up. With data caps the way they are, I don't see Google Stadia taking off, except maybe in uncapped markets like Metro Boston or NYC.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Except... they're not. They are a money grab plain and simple. Here in CT, Comcast doesn't cap because they treat the Northeast as an entire region. Since they can't cap around the 128 belt, they don't cap anywhere in New England. Same for NJ, PA, MD, NoVA, etc in that region. Cox treats each state separately. So CT is capped even though they can't cap in RI. In both cases, their uncapped systems are just fine. They have network management tools that don't involve charging people more if they need them.
> 
> It is pure greed, plain and simple. There is absolutely zero technical justification for data caps. If they had actual congestion issues that weren't easily solved by splitting nodes, they would be using depri thresholds like wireless does, not charging overages that do almost nothing to reduce congestion.


 There is technical justification for it. Splitting a node costs money. Wireless companies still have data caps. Plus I doubt they make any real money off the data caps. And last it's not like they haven't raised the data cap over the years. Google tells me it used to be 300gb and in 2016 they raised it to 1 TB.

I'm sure in the NE, Comcast is more competitive because FIOS is also there. In the Boston area I had my choice of VZ or Comcast.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> There is technical justification for it. Splitting a node costs money.


And yet all of Charter, the ex-Cablevision part of Altice, Comcast in the Northeastern US, and Cox in Rhode Island are all just fine without bandwidth caps, and they don't seem to have more nodes than on capped systems. Even if they do, they are doing just fine from a business perspective in these markets.



> Wireless companies still have data caps.


So? There are only so many places you can put cell towers, and so much spectrum that they own. With cable, that's not the case. Wired and wireless are two totally different animals.



> Plus I doubt they make any real money off the data caps. And last it's not like they haven't raised the data cap over the years. Google tells me it used to be 300gb and in 2016 they raised it to 1 TB.


They obviously are making money off of data caps, otherwise they wouldn't spend their time and effort making a billing system to bill people for what amounts to nothing.



> I'm sure in the NE, Comcast is more competitive because FIOS is also there. In the Boston area I had my choice of VZ or Comcast.


Obviously. If they capped the 128 belt, suburban NJ, Philly, or MD/NoVA, they would lose a ton of customers to Verizon FiOS. They cap other parts of the country because they can, and they make a ton of money for very little effort. There is no technical reason to cap them, there is no rational justification to cap them other than to generate shareholder value in markets that lack adequate competition.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> There is no technical reason to cap them, there is no rational justification to cap them other than to generate shareholder value in markets that lack adequate competition.


In other words, these are businesses simply charging what the market will bear. Saying that's there "no rational justification _other than to generate shareholder value_" is a bit like saying "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" Businesses exist to create profits and corporate businesses exist to create shareholder value. It's just what they do.

The real answer, from a consumer perspective, is to have competition. THAT'S the reason why Comcast does not impose data caps in the areas you mentioned, because they're competing against Verizon FiOS, who decided not to impose them as a competitive advantage, to which Comcast had to respond.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> In other words, these are businesses simply charging what the market will bear. Saying that's there "no rational justification _other than to generate shareholder value_" is a bit like saying "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" Businesses exist to create profits and corporate businesses exist to create shareholder value. It's just what they do.


In a way, yes. I would rephrase that to say that they are only charging $80/mo and putting in place 1TB data caps because of a market/regulatory failure.



> The real answer, from a consumer perspective, is to have competition. THAT'S the reason why Comcast does not impose data caps in the areas you mentioned, because they're competing against Verizon FiOS, who decided not to impose them as a competitive advantage, to which Comcast had to respond.


Correct. One competitor is clearly better than none, although the duopoly still charges too much for service in most cases. Having 3 providers seems to be a bit better, as at least RCN is a cheaper option that provides pretty much the same service as Comcast, and something that most people would find competitive to FiOS even though it doesn't have the upload speeds.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Correct. One competitor is clearly better than none, although the duopoly still charges too much for service in most cases. Having 3 providers seems to be a bit better, as at least RCN is a cheaper option that provides pretty much the same service as Comcast, and something that most people would find competitive to FiOS even though it doesn't have the upload speeds.


Lucky indeed is the home that can choose between three broadband providers. My town has three -- Comcast, AT&T, and Google Fiber -- but very few addresses are wired for Google Fiber, or probably ever will be. And most of those wired for GF are MDUs that aren't wired for anything else.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Lucky indeed is the home that can choose between three broadband providers. My town has three -- Comcast, AT&T, and Google Fiber -- but very few addresses are wired for Google Fiber, or probably ever will be. And most of those wired for GF are MDUs that aren't wired for anything else.


A lot of the 128 belt has 3 options, but I don't know any large areas elsewhere that do- just pockets. I used to have 3 providers available, but one was VDSL, one was Comcast, and one was a local overbuilder.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> And yet all of Charter, the ex-Cablevision part of Altice, Comcast in the Northeastern US, and Cox in Rhode Island are all just fine without bandwidth caps, and they don't seem to have more nodes than on capped systems. Even if they do, they are doing just fine from a business perspective in these markets.
> 
> So? There are only so many places you can put cell towers, and so much spectrum that they own. With cable, that's not the case. Wired and wireless are two totally different animals.
> 
> ...


Bottom line is the more data customers use the more strained a network becomes and the more need for Comcast to spend money to upgrade its data network.

Wireless works the same way in that you can only put so much data through the pipe at any one time before you need a bigger "pipe."

And then according to the internets the average customer uses under 250GB of data per month at Comcast and only a very small percentage of customers go over 1TB of data. Of course everything is fine with most everything most of the time as far as broadband goes. People are happy in areas with data caps and areas without. The outrage over data caps is overblown in the first place. And as data shows the average customers uses way way less data than the 1TB cap at Comcast. It makes sense if the vast vast majority of customers don't notice a difference.

And if it was pure greed and they wanted to stop streaming why would Comcast raise the data cap from 300gb to 1TB in 2016? Why wouldn't they keep it at 300gb as least in areas without a competitor and then just charge customers extra if they wanted more data?

And there's making money and then there's making MONEY. Obviously if a small percentage of users go over the data cap then Comcast makes extra money on that small percentage of users. IF 1% go over and Comcast has ~27 million broadband subscribers then they make at least $10 x 270,000 or $2.7 million dollars extra per month. If that happens every month then in a year they make an extra ~$33 million. That's compared to the 27 million customers paying ~$50/mo or $1.35 billion dollars in for broadband every month. Or ~$16 billion per year.

so yes Comcast is making at least $33 million extra from over-use charges compared to the ~$16 billion they already take in per year from broadband. for a grand total of $16.03 billion dollars revenue generated from broadband.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

So Hulu has *finally* decided to roll out their new-design app, with the option of subscribing to their Live TV add-on, to Android TV devices. The new app is in the Google Play app store, allowing any device running Android TV to download and install it.

Hulu + Live TV Comes to Android TV - Hulu Press Site

Raise your hand if you think Hulu will eventually roll out their own "Hulu Stick 4K HDR," a little device that will run a customized version of Google's Android TV Operator Tier so that the Hulu UI is integrated into the home screen. Sure, anyone will be able to buy it online, but a big part of the reason they'll do this is to supply it to broadband operators who choose to partner up with Hulu (Disney) as their preferred next-gen TV service. The Hulu Stick 4K HDR will come with a mid/full-sized remote with some custom buttons designed to make it easier to navigate and use Hulu with Live TV. In other words, what the AT&T TV box will be to AT&T TV, and what (I predict) the Verizon Stream TV device will be to YouTube TV, the Hulu Stick 4K HDR will be to Hulu with Live TV.

I expect that this will happen within the next year, after or as soon as Hulu begins offering select content in 4K HDR across all major hardware platforms. (Right now, Hulu offers select stuff in 4K, but not HDR, and only on Apple TV 4K and Chromecast Ultra.) It looks like Disney+ (which will launch with 4K HDR content) is going to be available as an add-on inside the Hulu app, so we might see the Hulu app get updated to support HDR quite soon.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Hulu will need HDR and also 5.1.

It's okay for $5.99.


----------



## Adam C. (Jul 24, 2017)

One big question is what to do with old people. I'm talking about the 60+ crowd. Many of these people are still using SD TV sets. You're never going to get them to use a streaming TV service, so do the cable companies just drop them completely and lose that part of the business entirely?


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

Adam C. said:


> One big question is what to do with old people. I'm talking about the 60+ crowd. Many of these people are still using SD TV sets. You're never going to get them to use a streaming TV service, so do the cable companies just drop them completely and lose that part of the business entirely?


My 60+ parents are doing surprisingly well with a Roku & YouTube TV, but I also expect we'll eventually see something along the lines of Consumer Cellular pop up and start marketing devices and packages specifically to that crowd that provides some basic package in a simplified form.

I have an older family member who can't get around anything with menus (which I think has more to do with his vision deteriorating more than he wants to admit and can't really read text on a screen) but he's happy as a clam with Channel up / channel down on a TiVo plugged in to an antenna. He loves the OTA sub-channels that run old shows like Gunsmoke, Have Gun, Mr. Ed, etc.

He occasionally mentions wishing we had a certain 24 hour cable news network when he visits, but the break from that noise is better for his blood pressure anyway.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Adam C. said:


> One big question is what to do with old people. I'm talking about the 60+ crowd. Many of these people are still using SD TV sets. You're never going to get them to use a streaming TV service, so do the cable companies just drop them completely and lose that part of the business entirely?


Well, if you read the nitty-gritty in my predictions that kicked off this thread (yes, I know some of it gets tedious), I predict that cable operators like Comcast, Charter, Cox, etc. will actually continue to operate a shrunken version of their current traditional QAM TV systems. In most cases, it would probably just contain SD channels, probably those that constitute whatever mid-level package they can negotiate that includes locals plus the most popular national channels (big cable news nets, big national sports nets, RSNs, most popular entertainment nets). So, on Comcast, that would roughly be their "Extra" package (which is positioned between Basic and Preferred).

Existing customers on the traditional QAM system could keep whatever hardware they're already using, including DVRs, but if they didn't switch to the next-gen streaming TV service, they'd lose access to HD as well as upper-tier cable channels and premiums. New customers signing up on the traditional service would only be offered the most basic kind of digital adapter box (with both HDMI and analog outputs) and remote control, no DVRs offered at all. This would keep the operator from getting bad PR for dumping old folks off their system and it would also allow them to easily continue serving businesses, doctors' offices, hospitals, etc. that just need "something" running on their TV screens.

If my math is correct, I think doing something like that would allow Comcast to reclaim about 70% of the bandwidth currently devoted to QAM TV. That's extra bandwidth that they could instead devote to faster broadband.

The operator could continue to operate the truncated QAM TV system for a few years or indefinitely, just depending on the number of users it serves.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Streaming services aren't making shows for old people. In fact nobody is making shows with the over 60 as the main demo.

Well maybe some CBS shows.


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

wco81 said:


> Streaming services aren't making shows for old people. In fact nobody is making shows with the over 60 as the main demo.


I wouldn't underestimate the massive back catalog of TV from the past 60 years or so. Lots of old shows are popping back up into heavy rotation over the air and on streaming. Not that they ever really went away, I'm in my 30s and watched plenty of black & white Lassie in my childhood. But today, licensing battles aside, you can watch almost every episode of almost every show ever made as long as decent copies got stored properly. It's kind of astonishing when you think about it.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> So Hulu has *finally* decided to roll out their new-design app, with the option of subscribing to their Live TV add-on, to Android TV devices. The new app is in the Google Play app store, allowing any device running Android TV to download and install it.
> 
> Hulu + Live TV Comes to Android TV - Hulu Press Site
> 
> ...


I don't see them doing their own hardware. It would be natural of them to eventually offer 4k content.

btw, one thing interesting to me is that link says Hulu + Live TV is available on the Switch. I knew Hulu was. But LIve TV too? Makes me want to trial it to see how it runs on there just out of curiosity's sake.


----------



## ashipkowski (Oct 8, 2008)

wco81 said:


> Streaming services aren't making shows for old people. In fact nobody is making shows with the over 60 as the main demo.
> 
> Well maybe some CBS shows.


Part of the whole thing is that the focused core demo for advertisers versus broadcast TV still remains 18-49, so that's the real key to any ratings queries and the part of Nielsen that gets focused upon.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> Bottom line is the more data customers use the more strained a network becomes and the more need for Comcast to spend money to upgrade its data network.


Except that congestion just isn't a problem, and hasn't been for several years. I've used Comcast in an uncapped market, and the last time I had congestion issues was 3-4 years ago when they were running 8 channels down for two large apartment/condo complexes on one node, and even then while I could see the speed droop, it was perfectly usable (worst I ever saw was 30mbps on a 100mbps plan). Now that they've got a minimum of 24 channels down plus D3.1, there isn't a congestion issue. An 8 channel modem on the 250mbps plan gets anywhere from 250 to 280mbps consistently.



> Wireless works the same way in that you can only put so much data through the pipe at any one time before you need a bigger "pipe."


The over-subscription is totally different and with cable systems, you don't have to worry about people moving around constantly.



> And then according to the internets the average customer uses under 250GB of data per month at Comcast and only a very small percentage of customers go over 1TB of data. Of course everything is fine with most everything most of the time as far as broadband goes. People are happy in areas with data caps and areas without. The outrage over data caps is overblown in the first place. And as data shows the average customers uses way way less data than the 1TB cap at Comcast. It makes sense if the vast vast majority of customers don't notice a difference.


People are NOT happy with arbitrary and capricious data caps, as it's a PITA to have to manage your usage to a data cap that everyone knows has no purpose other than profiting off of a monopoly.

Did you even read this thread? Everything is going to streaming. Data usage is shooting upwards. They purposefully set those caps several years ago so that almost no one would hit them, knowing that over time a larger and larger proportion of their customers would be hitting them.



> And if it was pure greed and they wanted to stop streaming why would Comcast raise the data cap from 300gb to 1TB in 2016? Why wouldn't they keep it at 300gb as least in areas without a competitor and then just charge customers extra if they wanted more data?


The whole industry seemed to have settled on 1TB, as has AT&T, which they compete with in many markets. They probably wanted to put something in place that sounded HUGE, even though they know over time data usage will go way up.



> And there's making money and then there's making MONEY. Obviously if a small percentage of users go over the data cap then Comcast makes extra money on that small percentage of users. IF 1% go over and Comcast has ~27 million broadband subscribers then they make at least $10 x 270,000 or $2.7 million dollars extra per month. If that happens every month then in a year they make an extra ~$33 million. That's compared to the 27 million customers paying ~$50/mo or $1.35 billion dollars in for broadband every month. Or ~$16 billion per year.
> 
> so yes Comcast is making at least $33 million extra from over-use charges compared to the ~$16 billion they already take in per year from broadband. for a grand total of $16.03 billion dollars revenue generated from broadband.


There's two ways to look at this. First, the present, and secondly the future.

The present is that if they are making $33M a year and the billing system costs $1M/year, then they've got about a 97% profit margin. Does it cost $1M/year to maintain? I have no clue. It might cost $500k, it might cost $2M, but the point is still valid. It's massively profitable for something that otherwise takes no effort to implement and doesn't otherwise change the network.

The second is the long game. They know that when they started their caps, less than 1% of users went over. But now several percent are going over, and they know that 5 years down the road that will be much higher, and 5 years after that, and so forth and so on. Today that number is something like $50-$100M/year, and 5 years down the road it will have grown to $200M+.

This is a failure of regulation and policy, plain and simple. Limited competition and no regulation yields an ironclad monopoly that can get away with absurd things like data caps. If there was any decent competition, then data caps would disappear, like they have along most of the east coast (sadly not my town since we have the awful Cox in CT).

The market dynamic is really weird with cable. In most areas, they have no competition, so they can charge more or less whatever they want, as long as they stay under the radar for outraged politicians to go after them. I seem to think that the $100/mo price point is what they want to stay under, which is absurd for a service that should cost half that, but they want to make even MORE money, so they do crap like data caps, charging for gateway rentals, etc.

To make it even more absurd, they actually charge THREE times for a lot of the traffic crossing their network. You'd think paying them close to $100/mo for internet would be enough, but no, then they do data caps. So you get charged twice. But that's not all, because let's not forget that the Roberts crime family shook down Netflix in a classic racket scheme a number of years back, and they are surely doing it to virtually every other content provider and major CDN. They broke Netflix's traffic by refusing to upgrade links, and then told Netflix, "Hey Netflix, I see your packets are having some "accidents". Maybe you should pay us some protection money to make sure that these "accidents" stop happening, huh?". That is literally chapter and verse out of the five crime families' playbook for an extortion racket.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Adam C. said:


> One big question is what to do with old people. I'm talking about the 60+ crowd. Many of these people are still using SD TV sets. You're never going to get them to use a streaming TV service, so do the cable companies just drop them completely and lose that part of the business entirely?


AT&T and Comcast will make an old people's box with composite outputs that can stream from their or their partners' IPTV networks. It's not rocket science to put in a gateway that is captive to their own websites if you plug into it and allows boxes to access IPTV. This would also work for folks with other internet providers, which is becoming increasingly rare, but will be the case here in certain pockets where buildings an internet-only fiber provider or something. Or like the guy on here who at one point had his phone and internet from the cable company (TWC), and his cable TV from the phone company (FiOS) because he was grandfathered into something that saved him $10/mo.



NashGuy said:


> Well, if you read the nitty-gritty in my predictions that kicked off this thread (yes, I know some of it gets tedious), I predict that cable operators like Comcast, Charter, Cox, etc. will actually continue to operate a shrunken version of their current traditional QAM TV systems.


What I don't fully understand is whether QAM will work with FDX and rPHY setups, or if that requires IPTV.



> Existing customers on the traditional QAM system could keep whatever hardware they're already using, including DVRs, but if they didn't switch to the next-gen streaming TV service, they'd lose access to HD as well as upper-tier cable channels and premiums.


On Comcast, that's one and the same, and existing Cox STBs could be flipped over to Comcast's OTT service, since they are also X1-based.



> New customers signing up on the traditional service would only be offered the most basic kind of digital adapter box (with both HDMI and analog outputs) and remote control, no DVRs offered at all. This would keep the operator from getting bad PR for dumping old folks off their system and it would also allow them to easily continue serving businesses, doctors' offices, hospitals, etc. that just need "something" running on their TV screens.


They don't need QAM. For in-footprint hospitals or nursing homes, they can get SMATV systems much like they do today, and doctors's offices or whatever just get a different type of box. Many restaurants and hotels are on DirecTV. They could fiber-feed the SMATV headend if necessary since then the customer isn't buying the bandwidth, the MSO is. They could then provision Metro-E services over the same connection as well.



> If my math is correct, I think doing something like that would allow Comcast to reclaim about 70% of the bandwidth currently devoted to QAM TV. That's extra bandwidth that they could instead devote to faster broadband.


I'm interested to see how they transition, but if they just moved all the less popular channels to IP unicast today, they would see a huge bandwidth savings on QAM. In reality, there are basically about 70 that most people watch most of the time. The remaining 150+ channels could move to IP unicast tomorrow and it would work just fine. I do think that they will keep Expanded Basic on QAM for DTAs for a while though, at least as long as they have anything on QAM.

The whole frequency allocation design really depends on what they do for IP, and whether they go high-split or FDX, and what they run as an upper edge on the network. Today, they seem to have video in the middle in the 200-600mhz range, with data on either end. That middle will shrink, and they will have more space for data.

Comcast seems to want to go to 1.2ghz on the downstream, but that will require a LOT of work, as will FDX, in order to remove drop amps and replace splitters and fix crappy wiring that works up to 860mhz and doesn't really work above that.

This slide seems to suggest that they can do FDX+rPHY, and retain a little bit of QAM.

I think the MSOs like Cox that want to get out will just wholesale get out, however. I don't see any reason for them to continue providing QAM services.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Except that congestion just isn't a problem, and hasn't been for several years. I've used Comcast in an uncapped market, and the last time I had congestion issues was 3-4 years ago when they were running 8 channels down for two large apartment/condo complexes on one node, and even then while I could see the speed droop, it was perfectly usable (worst I ever saw was 30mbps on a 100mbps plan). Now that they've got a minimum of 24 channels down plus D3.1, there isn't a congestion issue. An 8 channel modem on the 250mbps plan gets anywhere from 250 to 280mbps consistently.
> 
> The over-subscription is totally different and with cable systems, you don't have to worry about people moving around constantly.
> 
> ...


the average customers uses 250gb of data on Comcast. A very small percentage go over. They raised the caps from 300gb to 1tb in 2016. Any given pipe can only transport so much data. Yet it's just about pure greed?

No one is going to saint Comcast. But I'm not going to declare them the devil either. Network upgrades are costly. Businesses are in business to make money.

$50-$100 million is still chump change compared to what broadband brings in otherwise. No one said it isn't highly profitable. But this notion that they are making a fortune off it doesn't ring true when you compare it to the money broadband brings in otherwise. It's a rounding error. Even using your higher numbers, it's less than $2-$4 per broadband customer per year. AT the high end that is ~33 cents a month per customer.

you're preaching to the choir about no competition. But it's not only about staying under the radar of politicians but potential competitors as well. If the money looks too good competition would enter the space.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> the average customers uses 250gb of data on Comcast. A very small percentage go over. They raised the caps from 300gb to 1tb in 2016. Any given pipe can only transport so much data. Yet it's just about pure greed?


It is about pure greed, plain and simple. The FACTS show that there are no problems with uncapped systems on Cox, Charter, and Comcast.

I don't know why you're being such an apologist for the big abusive cable monopolies.



> No one is going to saint Comcast. But I'm not going to declare them the devil either. Network upgrades are costly. Businesses are in business to make money.


And you are proven WRONG by the fact that they can do their upgrades just fine here in the Northeast where they don't have data caps. The ONLY difference with other Comcast markets is competition (in parts of the Northeast anyway). The same is true for Cox in Rhode Island, where they don't cap and offer more competitive pricing.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

If you want to argue that it's their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to be as greedy as possible and maximize their monopoly position for as much profit as possible, fine, make that argument, but DON'T argue that it's not pure greed, because it clearly and obviously is.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> It is about pure greed, plain and simple. The FACTS show that there are no problems with uncapped systems on Cox, Charter, and Comcast.
> 
> I don't know why you're being such an apologist for the big abusive cable monopolies.
> 
> And you are proven WRONG by the fact that they can do their upgrades just fine here in the Northeast where they don't have data caps. The ONLY difference with other Comcast markets is competition (in parts of the Northeast anyway). The same is true for Cox in Rhode Island, where they don't cap and offer more competitive pricing.


YOu gotta show facts first. 

There's tons of nodes out of any hub. And there's lots of hubs. You don't (know) where data caps have helped alleviate congestion and where not having data caps has hurt congestion. Every node is different too.

Yeah comcast has competition so they upgrade their systems more in the NE to stay competitive with Verizon. I would assume the experience is better over there on Comcast than where they don't have competition. That's just how things work.

comcast's track record based on raising data caps previously shows me they will eventually eliminate the data cap in their other territories.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

Bigg said:


> That would require a literal act of Congress. Hence why it does't get done.
> 
> They could. But so could a bunch of other lambdas on that fiber as well. On Verizon FiOS, ex-Verizon FiOS, and Cinici Bell systems, QAM will go away when it is no longer a business value to them. It's not a bandwidth consideration and never will be.
> 
> ...


Just got my Xfi installed today and have to say it's lightning fast, topped out at 949 Mbps via Ethernet and hit in the 800s when my iMac was connected via WiFi.

I know that's not relevant to this discussion, but the tech told me there will be a soft launch of their IP service here in the "Freedom area" as Comcast calls it (aka the Delaware Valley) by the end of this month. Hard launch sometime in Boston area later this year (most likely).


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Bigg said:


> If you want to argue that it's their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to be as greedy as possible and maximize their monopoly position for as much profit as possible, fine, make that argument, but DON'T argue that it's not pure greed, because it clearly and obviously is.


Capitalism is greed, greed drives the economy and profits. Companies that forget this .. don't survive. The definition of greed is a judgement in itself. Dolla,dolla,dolla, dollar bill y'all. Get your dollar, get your dollar..


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> If you want to argue that it's their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to be as greedy as possible and maximize their monopoly position for as much profit as possible, fine, make that argument, but DON'T argue that it's not pure greed, because it clearly and obviously is.


it is obviously not pure greed. unless you want to call all business pure greed.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Adam C. said:


> One big question is what to do with old people. I'm talking about the 60+ crowd. Many of these people are still using SD TV sets. You're never going to get them to use a streaming TV service, so do the cable companies just drop them completely and lose that part of the business entirely?


Most of those sets will die sooner than later. Tech does the rest.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> YOu gotta show facts first.


The FACT is that Comcast's network in CT works just fine with no data caps. The FACT is that Cox's network in Rhode Island works just fine with no data caps. The FACT is that Altice's network around NYC works just fine with no data caps. The FACT is that Charter's network works just fine nationwide with no caps.



> There's tons of nodes out of any hub. And there's lots of hubs. You don't (know) where data caps have helped alleviate congestion and where not having data caps has hurt congestion. Every node is different too.


I've used a bunch of different nodes, and it's just not an actual problem.



> Yeah comcast has competition so they upgrade their systems more in the NE to stay competitive with Verizon. I would assume the experience is better over there on Comcast than where they don't have competition. That's just how things work.


MA probably gets upgrades, but we don't in CT. Our systems are usually in the last rounds of upgrades. No data caps, but old equipment, for a while they had some 625mhz and 650mhz systems running.



> comcast's track record based on raising data caps previously shows me they will eventually eliminate the data cap in their other territories.


Why would they make a data cap and then eliminate it, unless new competition comes in and forces them to? That makes absolutely no sense, as it's a long game to make obscene amounts of money from cable internet.



PSU_Sudzi said:


> Just got my Xfi installed today and have to say it's lightning fast, topped out at 949 Mbps via Ethernet and hit in the 800s when my iMac was connected via WiFi.


So is your lack of data caps down in the Freedom region slowing you down with all the congestion? 



tenthplanet said:


> Capitalism is greed, greed drives the economy and profits. Companies that forget this .. don't survive. The definition of greed is a judgement in itself. Dolla,dolla,dolla, dollar bill y'all. Get your dollar, get your dollar..


Capitalism works when there is a functional market and lots of competition. When there is no competition, capitalism doesn't work. If there was effective competition, we'd all have unlimited broadband for $50/mo or less, and gigabit for $70/mo or less.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> it is obviously not pure greed. unless you want to call all business pure greed.


It's pure greed when it's abusing a monopoly, all the while shoveling millions at Congress to pass protectionist laws and regulations instead of actually welcoming competition and competing with them.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> It's pure greed when it's abusing a monopoly, all the while shoveling millions at Congress to pass protectionist laws and regulations instead of actually welcoming competition and competing with them.


so we're just talking about all business. ok. i just wanted to translate your (strong) language to one i can understand.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> so we're just talking about all business. ok. i just wanted to translate your (strong) language to one i can understand.


Businesses in a functioning market tend to behave rather differently than those with a monopoly to exploit.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Businesses in a functioning market tend to behave rather differently than those with a monopoly to exploit.


They try to make as much money as they can. Pure greed!


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> They try to make as much money as they can. Pure greed!


Whoosh. If they were in a functioning market they would have to *compete *in order to win business, not sit that fat, dumb and happy and charge three times to move the same data.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

trip1eX said:


> I don't see them doing their own hardware. It would be natural of them to eventually offer 4k content.
> 
> btw, one thing interesting to me is that link says Hulu + Live TV is available on the Switch. I knew Hulu was. But LIve TV too? Makes me want to trial it to see how it runs on there just out of curiosity's sake.


I think they will and others will too. Those sticks are going to be a dime a dozen and easily carried anywhere you go. They wont manufacture them of course but they'll be given away. They'll be just like carrying a thumb drive around with you.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

mschnebly said:


> I think they will and others will too. Those sticks are going to be a dime a dozen and easily carried anywhere you go. They wont manufacture them of course but they'll be given away. They'll be just like carrying a thumb drive around with you.


I don't see it. it seems like it would be going be backwards.

I think the whole thing moves forwards. I mean all tvs sold today don't need a streaming stick or box. tvs of the past few years don't need one. Then so many people have streaming boxes and and sticks and consoles etc. And then those things are sold by 3rd parties.

And then can you imagine the support costs involved if a cable company handed out a stick?

I don't buy it. a world of thumb drives? that seems like the past not the future. 

I don't even buy that vMVPDs are going to be a big thing. I think before they get big we're off to the pure SVODs. ..unless the vMVPDs can morph into aggregators of SVOD services.

I just think the whole notion of the linear time slot tv guide and media companies having to program for time slots is outdated. There is no reason for that to exist going forward. IT's there still because it's the status quo. But it's slowly being chipped away by those that recognize hey I can just make whatever content and put it out via on-demand on over my service. And leave it up to the customer to watch whatever show at whatever time the customer wants to watch it.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Whoosh. If they were in a functioning market they would have to *compete *in order to win business, not sit that fat, dumb and happy and charge three times to move the same data.


 It's their fault they are the only game in town?!?!? What point are you trying to make? That prices would be lower with competition. SErvice better? You're preaching to the choir!!!!!!

But the fact is one can only put so much data through a pipe before one needs a bigger pipe. The fact is the average customer uses 250gb of data on Comcast. The fact is Comcast raised the data cap from 300gb to 1TB in 2016.

The picture isn't as bad as you're trying to paint it as.

Plus they do have to compete to some degree in every market. Even the ones without another cable company.

They have to be better than the landline phone company. They have to be better than the wireless companies. They have to make sure customers are at least somewhat happy. They can't make as much money as they want either. Otherwise I would be getting charged $200/mo for internet and my speeds would still be what they were in 2005.

If they aren't competing then they sure have increased speeds and bandwidth over the years while keeping the price roughly the same. It's not all bad.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> What I don't fully understand is whether QAM will work with FDX and rPHY setups, or if that requires IPTV.


Yes, that's a good question and I'm not sure. The next round of major network upgrades could possibly be when Comcast and/or other HFC MSOs just completely dump QAM altogether. And even though I've repeatedly posted on this forum way back about Comcast maybe doing that in 2019 or 2020, I now tend to think that the first major blow won't be a complete shutdown of QAM but rather a truncation/deprecation. But that's just my hunch.



Bigg said:


> On Comcast, that's one and the same, and existing Cox STBs could be flipped over to Comcast's OTT service, since they are also X1-based.


There are still folks on both Comcast and Cox who use simple digital adapters and other non-X1 (and therefore non-IPTV-capable) STBs. I think it's still about 25% of the Xfinity TV user base at this point.



Bigg said:


> They don't need QAM. For in-footprint hospitals or nursing homes, they can get SMATV systems much like they do today, and doctors's offices or whatever just get a different type of box. Many restaurants and hotels are on DirecTV. They could fiber-feed the SMATV headend if necessary since then the customer isn't buying the bandwidth, the MSO is. They could then provision Metro-E services over the same connection as well.


Oh, sure, there are ways that it could be done. But those installations/change-overs cost money. For businesses that are already on simple direct-QAM-based TV service, the easiest and cheapest thing to do would be to let them stay on it, same as with non-demanding residential TV customers who can live without HD.



Bigg said:


> I'm interested to see how they transition, but if they just moved all the less popular channels to IP unicast today, they would see a huge bandwidth savings on QAM. In reality, there are basically about 70 that most people watch most of the time. The remaining 150+ channels could move to IP unicast tomorrow and it would work just fine. I do think that they will keep Expanded Basic on QAM for DTAs for a while though, at least as long as they have anything on QAM.


Yup. I agree, at least when it comes to the big 2, Comcast and Charter.



Bigg said:


> I think the MSOs like Cox that want to get out will just wholesale get out, however. I don't see any reason for them to continue providing QAM services.


IDK. Maybe. Check out Cox's website and you'll see that they already offer two types of TV service: "Contour," which uses X1 hardware/software and is their preferred cable TV service, and "TV Starter," which offers only locals, plus government and shopping channels (e.g. C-SPAN, HSN), plus 50 Music Choice audio-only channels. Locals are offered in HD, as available, and are carried in clear QAM, so most folks wouldn't even need a digital adapter from Cox -- just screw the coax into the back of your TV. They don't offer DVR service with this package; you'd need your own TiVo for that. The cost is $25/mo, plus another $10/mo broadcast TV fee.

Unless DOCSIS upgrades necessitate the complete removal of QAM from the network, it's easy to imagine Cox and others keeping a package like TV Starter running until they can demonstrate to local franchise authorities that there's virtually no demand for it any more.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> I don't see it. it seems like it would be going be backwards.
> 
> I think the whole thing moves forwards. I mean all tvs sold today don't need a streaming stick or box. tvs of the past few years don't need one. Then so many people have streaming boxes and and sticks and consoles etc. And then those things are sold by 3rd parties.
> 
> And then can you imagine the support costs involved if a cable company handed out a stick?


Smart TVs are accounting for an increasing percentage of streaming video consumption vs. separate boxes/sticks/dongles and I imagine that trend will continue. But I'm not sure I see smart TVs surpassing dedicated boxes/sticks/dongles any time soon when it comes to being the best devices for streaming, given that smart TVs don't seem to work as well, at least after the first year or so. In general, TVs remain quality, useful devices long after the point when the same can be said of their smart app platform.

Anyhow, there's two reasons why we're going to see so many new streaming devices come out sporting a customized version of Android TV. One, the vMPVDs for whom these devices will be customized want to have "hero" devices that put their service front-and-center, integrated right into the home screen. They'll always control the main UI on these devices. Two, the vMVPDs and/or the broadband operators with whom they partner understand that a sizable portion of American cable TV viewers (especially those middle-aged and above) want a device and an accompanying remote control that are purpose-designed for use with channel-based TV. They don't want to have to research which streamer is best to use (Roku? Apple TV? Fire TV? What's a Shield?) or how to download and install apps. These consumers need something dead-simple to be handed with a very short illustrated self set-up guide. Plug it in, boot it up, connect it to your wifi, enter your user ID and password, and boom, you're watching your live cable TV service.

When it comes to operators, like Verizon, who partner with YouTube TV, it seems natural to me -- knowing what we do about Google -- that Google would leave it to each operator to come up with their own customized streamer for YouTube TV, if they wanted to do that. It's always been in Google's DNA to offer platforms and then encourage partners to use those platforms to create their own devices rather than for Google to just do it themselves (although they're evolving on that front with Pixel phones, etc.).

Hulu, however, is a self-contained standalone brand. Sure, they'll be happy with partner up with operators for distribution purposes (like they already do with Sprint, who packages Hulu in for free on their wireless plans) but it seems more likely to me that Hulu would create their own self-branded streaming device, with a standard Hulu remote control, and then offer that to any operator that wanted to partner with them as opposed to having each operator partner produce their own slightly different Android TV device with slightly different remotes.

And aside from being able to offer a "Hulu Stick 4K HDR" to their future operator partners, simply having such a piece of hardware for sale at retail (if only via their website) and/or as a give-away to new customers who prepay X number of months, could be a real marketing/branding shot in the arm for Hulu. It would be a great move to make at the same time that the service begins streaming in 4K HDR as a way to advertise that new feature.



trip1eX said:


> I don't even buy that vMVPDs are going to be a big thing. I think before they get big we're off to the pure SVODs. ..unless the vMVPDs can morph into aggregators of SVOD services.
> 
> I just think the whole notion of the linear time slot tv guide and media companies having to program for time slots is outdated. There is no reason for that to exist going forward. IT's there still because it's the status quo. But it's slowly being chipped away by those that recognize hey I can just make whatever content and put it out via on-demand on over my service. And leave it up to the customer to watch whatever show at whatever time the customer wants to watch it.


I agree with your overall take, I just disagree with you that linear channel TV is going away any time soon. As long as we have local broadcast channels affiliated with major national networks, and as long as most popular live sports remains available only inside linear channels (whether broadcast or cable), they're going to be around. But aside from those business considerations, we still have an ingrained consumer culture of channel-based viewing dating back to the inception of the technology coming up on a century ago.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Smart TVs are accounting for an increasing percentage of streaming video consumption vs. separate boxes/sticks/dongles and I imagine that trend will continue. But I'm not sure I see smart TVs surpassing dedicated boxes/sticks/dongles any time soon when it comes to being the best devices for streaming, given that smart TVs don't seem to work as well, at least after the first year or so. In general, TVs remain quality, useful devices long after the point when the same can be said of their smart app platform.
> 
> Anyhow, there's two reasons why we're going to see so many new streaming devices come out sporting a customized version of Android TV. One, the vMPVDs for whom these devices will be customized want to have "hero" devices that put their service front-and-center, integrated right into the home screen. They'll always control the main UI on these devices. Two, the vMVPDs and/or the broadband operators with whom they partner understand that a sizable portion of American cable TV viewers (especially those middle-aged and above) want a device and an accompanying remote control that are purpose-designed for use with channel-based TV. They don't want to have to research which streamer is best to use (Roku? Apple TV? Fire TV? What's a Shield?) or how to download and install apps. These consumers need something dead-simple to be handed with a very short illustrated self set-up guide. Plug it in, boot it up, connect it to your wifi, enter your user ID and password, and boom, you're watching your live cable TV service.
> 
> ...


The tech needed to receive a stream and make the experience responsive plateaued. Thus streaming capabilities in TVs of today and the past year or two are going to be viable for a long time. The market changed enough recently that I changed my tune on always thinking one needs a streaming box.

Yeah I just don't see vMVPDs making these inroads that you seem to think they will make very soon. I just see an old business model slapped over the top of the public internets and not being an overall more attractive proposition than cable.

So I feel like you're preaching to the choir for the most part. For me the issue is customer uptake. Is the customer really going to go for this? Is it really that much cheaper? If it is any cheaper is the lower price worth what some might consider an inferior experience? Is is worth the hassle of switching.

WE actually could add up the outflows of subscribers in say Q2 2019 from cable/satellite and then find all the inflows of subscribers for the vMVPDs and see just the net percentage who are joining a vMVPD. would be interesting.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> For me the issue is customer uptake. Is the customer really going to go for this? Is it really that much cheaper? If it is any cheaper is the lower price worth what some might consider an inferior experience? Is is worth the hassle of switching.


What you keep seeming to not understand is that so much of the migration to vMVPDs will be driven by the MVPDs themselves who wish to get out of that game and incentivize their own broadband customers to take their partner vMVPD instead of their own first-party MVPD. They'll make it easy by offering streaming boxes and remotes customized to use with their partner vMVPD. And the cost differential will be such that it'll make no sense to stay on the traditional MVPD rather than just take up the operator's invitation to switch to their partner vMVPD. And at some point, the operator won't even give you a choice, they'll just shut down their own unprofitable MVPD service. In other words, the game is going to change -- vMVPDs won't be for "cord-cutters" any more. They'll go mainstream. Verizon's partnership with YouTube TV is just the first shot fired here.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> What you keep seeming to not understand is that so much of the migration to vMVPDs will be driven by the MVPDs themselves who wish to get out of that game and incentivize their own broadband customers to take their partner vMVPD instead of their own first-party MVPD. They'll make it easy by offering streaming boxes and remotes customized to use with their partner vMVPD. And the cost differential will be such that it'll make no sense to stay on the traditional MVPD rather than just take up the operator's invitation to switch to their partner vMVPD. And at some point, the operator won't even give you a choice, they'll just shut down their own unprofitable MVPD service. In other words, the game is going to change -- vMVPDs won't be for "cord-cutters" any more. They'll go mainstream. Verizon's partnership with YouTube TV is just the first shot fired here.


I hear you say that. but I'm in "I will believe it when i start to see it" mode. A big migration of customers from old equipment to new would have to happen right. And i'm looking at some info of the YTTV deal with VErizon and not seeing the implication that it is going to replace FIOS TV anytime soon. It feels like more of a hey we got options to keep the customer with various Verizon services including wireless, FIOS broadband, wireless home broadband(5g) and landlines if they don't want FIOS TV.

IT's like we talked about before. You were wondering why Altrice (or Altice?) was offering up YTTV on its cable box. IT's the same thing. Verizon's thinking is ... if our customer wants to go to a vMVPN then we want them to do it through us. That way we keep them in the family still. And we get a cut.

btw, just heard Disney is going to package Disney+, Hulu and Espn for $12.99/mo. But ...I'm thinking by ESPN she meant ESPN+ ....and then Hulu probably is the version with ads at least for the $12.99. Still ESPN+ is $5/mo. That leaves $8/mo for Disney+ and Hulu. Not bad at all. Attractive even.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> I hear you say that. but I'm in "I will believe it when i start to see it" mode. A big migration of customers from old equipment to new would have to happen right. And i'm looking at some info of the YTTV deal with VErizon and not seeing the implication that it is going to replace FIOS TV anytime soon. It feels like more of a hey we got options to keep the customer with various Verizon services including wireless, FIOS broadband, wireless home broadband(5g) and landlines if they don't want FIOS TV.
> 
> IT's like we talked about before. You were wondering why Altrice (or Altice?) was offering up YTTV on its cable box. IT's the same thing. Verizon's thinking is ... if our customer wants to go to a vMVPN then we want them to do it through us. That way we keep them in the family still. And we get a cut.


Go research the profit margins that Verizon, Altice, Charter, etc. make on a customer who has standalone broadband vs. one who has broadband plus their in-house cable TV service. Then report back to us which customer produces the fatter profit margin. If you're wondering why Wall Street is starting to cheer when certain MSOs report that their video sub base is shrinking and that they no longer consider video to be their core product, this is why.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Go research the profit margins that Verizon, Altice, Charter, etc. make on a customer who has standalone broadband vs. one who has broadband plus their in-house cable TV service. Then report back to us which customer produces the fatter profit margin. If you're wondering why Wall Street is starting to cheer when certain MSOs report that their video sub base is shrinking and that they no longer consider video to be their core product, this is why.


Wall Street would pummel cable stocks for larger than expected video subscriber losses. OTT video is low margin too.

IF anything bringing up the fact that their video is lower margin supports what I just said: " Verizon's thinking is ... if our customer wants to go to a vMVPN then we want them to do it through us. That way we keep them in the family still. And we get a cut."


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> Wall Street would pummel cable stocks for larger than expected video subscriber losses. OTT video is low margin too.
> 
> IF anything bringing up the fact that their video is lower margin supports what I just said: " Verizon's thinking is ... if our customer wants to go to a vMVPN then we want them to do it through us. That way we keep them in the family still. And we get a cut."


No.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> It's their fault they are the only game in town?!?!? What point are you trying to make? That prices would be lower with competition. SErvice better? You're preaching to the choir!!!!!!


The point is, that's not how a normal business operates, they only operate that way because they are in a non-functional market. It's usually not their fault, although sometimes it is when they get protectionist laws passed.



> But the fact is one can only put so much data through a pipe before one needs a bigger pipe. The fact is the average customer uses 250gb of data on Comcast. The fact is Comcast raised the data cap from 300gb to 1TB in 2016.


The pipe is plenty big.



> They have to be better than the landline phone company. They have to be better than the wireless companies. They have to make sure customers are at least somewhat happy. They can't make as much money as they want either. Otherwise I would be getting charged $200/mo for internet and my speeds would still be what they were in 2005.


They have to be faster than DSL, but they're long past that point. And not all areas can even get DSL, so they offer DSL-like plans that are $10-$20/mo more expensive than DSL. What a racket. In most areas though, they can basically charge whatever they want.



> If they aren't competing then they sure have increased speeds and bandwidth over the years while keeping the price roughly the same. It's not all bad.


They knew that bandwidth demand would go up so now they have no competition.



NashGuy said:


> Yes, that's a good question and I'm not sure. The next round of major network upgrades could possibly be when Comcast and/or other HFC MSOs just completely dump QAM altogether. And even though I've repeatedly posted on this forum way back about Comcast maybe doing that in 2019 or 2020, I now tend to think that the first major blow won't be a complete shutdown of QAM but rather a truncation/deprecation. But that's just my hunch.


All of their technology upgrades seem to take years longer than planned.



> There are still folks on both Comcast and Cox who use simple digital adapters and other non-X1 (and therefore non-IPTV-capable) STBs. I think it's still about 25% of the Xfinity TV user base at this point.


True, but in a year or two that will be an even smaller number, and they can be upgraded to Xi5 types of devices.



> Oh, sure, there are ways that it could be done. But those installations/change-overs cost money. For businesses that are already on simple direct-QAM-based TV service, the easiest and cheapest thing to do would be to let them stay on it, same as with non-demanding residential TV customers who can live without HD.


There is no Clear QAM anymore, so they either have boxes or they have an SMATV system. Either one would work fine in the IP world, possibly with box replacements involved.



> IDK. Maybe. Check out Cox's website and you'll see that they already offer two types of TV service: "Contour," which uses X1 hardware/software and is their preferred cable TV service, and "TV Starter," which offers only locals, plus government and shopping channels (e.g. C-SPAN, HSN), plus 50 Music Choice audio-only channels. Locals are offered in HD, as available, and are carried in clear QAM, so most folks wouldn't even need a digital adapter from Cox -- just screw the coax into the back of your TV.


My area does not have Clear QAM.



> Unless DOCSIS upgrades necessitate the complete removal of QAM from the network, it's easy to imagine Cox and others keeping a package like TV Starter running until they can demonstrate to local franchise authorities that there's virtually no demand for it any more.


I think it's again a business decision. If they have Comcast running their pay TV offering, then it's just not worth it to negotiate carriage with local channels for relatively few customers when Comcast can provide a skinny package.



NashGuy said:


> And aside from being able to offer a "Hulu Stick 4K HDR" to their future operator partners, simply having such a piece of hardware for sale at retail (if only via their website) and/or as a give-away to new customers who prepay X number of months, could be a real marketing/branding shot in the arm for Hulu. It would be a great move to make at the same time that the service begins streaming in 4K HDR as a way to advertise that new feature.


Best Buy would carry them too.



trip1eX said:


> WE actually could add up the outflows of subscribers in say Q2 2019 from cable/satellite and then find all the inflows of subscribers for the vMVPDs and see just the net percentage who are joining a vMVPD. would be interesting.


It keeps changing, but I think 6-12 months ago was when I saw a number that suggested the recapture rate by vMVPDs was 10%. I was flabbergasted, as I thought it would be 50%. Most of those numbers also don't include the 500k new net housing starts in the US per years, which further erode marketshare, if not the actual number of paying customers.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> IT's like we talked about before. You were wondering why Altrice (or Altice?) was offering up YTTV on its cable box. IT's the same thing. Verizon's thinking is ... if our customer wants to go to a vMVPN then we want them to do it through us. That way we keep them in the family still. And we get a cut.


The problem is that they don't have the scale to get good rates for channels. AT&T, Comcast, and Charter and maybe DISH are the only ones large enough. Several very small cable companies have already dropped TV service entirely, and that trend will accelerate, eventually getting to the Verizon, Cox, and Altice mid-sized players, leaving just the large players.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> The problem is that they don't have the scale to get good rates for channels. AT&T, Comcast, and Charter and maybe DISH are the only ones large enough. Several very small cable companies have already dropped TV service entirely, and that trend will accelerate, eventually getting to the Verizon, Cox, and Altice mid-sized players, leaving just the large players.


Yeah but I'm not arguing that video doesn't eventually go away. I'm the guy saying everything goes to SVOD.

I just don't think Verizon has some grand plan to push customers to YTTV over the next few years.

The infrastructure to support video is in place already. There's sunk costs there that are amortized on an income statement as expenses each year, but they are already paid for. They could run the video at a loss on the income statement and yet not be losing cash due to this.

The question would be at what point does the video business become unprofitable and not only that but when it does it start losing them cash? And even bigger what is the rate of video subscribers losses each year?

IF they lose 200k video customers a year and it accelerates by 25% each year after 5 years they would have a total of 1.6 billion subscriber losses and they would be down to 2.9 million video subscribers from ~4.5 million the internets says they have today.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> I just don't think Verizon has some grand plan to push customers to YTTV over the next few years.


I think they do. They don't have much interest in FiOS TV at this point.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> I think they do. They don't have much interest in FiOS TV at this point.


Nah. IT's just an option for customers. They make money off FIOS Tv. They sell it on their front page right now as part of a bundle with a 2yr agreement. There's no plan in place to push people to YTTV instead.

And remember the time frame here we are arguing about is Q2 2020 Verizon stops actively marketing FIOStv. That's what I don't agree with. That's less a year. I don't see that happening.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> There is no Clear QAM anymore, so they either have boxes or they have an SMATV system. Either one would work fine in the IP world, possibly with box replacements involved.


No, there's no longer clear QAM on Comcast (although, as Cox's website reveals in the link above, there is on Cox, at least for locals.) Whenever I see wall-mounted TVs in businesses, doctors/dentist offices, etc. around here on Comcast, they don't tend to have an actual cable box attached. They're using a little SD-only digital adapter that is so small and lightweight that it can be mounted to the TV itself. That's the only kind of device I imagine being handed out to new QAM TV subscribers after my hypothesized future truncation of the QAM system. And of course all devices in the field could just be kept there continuing on as always. The only folks who would need to switch out their box would be those on QAM-only boxes who desire HD service rather than widescreen SD.

If and when Comcast does go 100% IPTV, it will mean a decent number of homes and businesses having all of their equipment switched out. None of the current QAM-only non-IP-capable boxes or adapters could be made to work with IPTV, except for those larger businesses (e.g. hospitals) that are on SMATV, and even there, they might need some new kind of equipment installed to simultaneously fetch all the linear IP channels and convert them over to QAM for distribution through the in-house system. For all those other homes and businesses, they'd probably have to swap out their current TV hardware for a combo of a Comcast multicast-compliant broadband gateway (regardless of whether or not they took broadband service) plus an Xi5 or similar TV streamer.

The question is whether Comcast would find it optimal from a cost perspective to do that kind of switch-out on, say, 20-25% of their customer base all at once or if they'd rather just do it for the 5-10% of customers on QAM-only hardware who insist on HD service, and then let the remaining ~15% hang out on a truncated QAM system for another few years until they're ready to incur the additional hardware switch-out expenses for them too.


----------



## osu1991 (Mar 6, 2015)

The Cox website is wrong. There is no clear qam now at least not in Las Vegas or Oklahoma.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> Nah. IT's just an option for customers. They make money off FIOS Tv. They sell it on their front page right now as part of a bundle with a 2yr agreement. There's no plan in place to push people to YTTV instead.
> 
> And remember the time frame here we are arguing about is Q2 2020 Verizon stops actively marketing FIOStv. That's what I don't agree with. That's less a year. I don't see that happening.


Many of the specifics that I wrote in my predictions thread -- which, to be fair, I labelled as "future fiction" in the OP -- won't come true. Many will, but maybe not in the exact quarter I predicted.

At any rate, let's see how Verizon's marketing messaging with regard to FiOS TV and YouTube TV shifts in a few months when Verizon rolls out their own "Stream TV" device, which recently turned up at the FCC for testing and approval. Also, let's see if YouTube TV, after adding local PBS stations nationwide, follows that up with additional channels, options and features that will even better position them to serve as a full-on replacement for traditional cable TV as opposed to being a compromise solution for budget-conscious cord-cutters. Again, I expect by this time next year that YouTube TV will have added the most popular channels from A+E Networks (A&E, History, Lifetime) plus The Hallmark Channel, as well as support for 4K HDR (like Fubo TV already has), plus an optional add-on package of additional sports channels.

Once all those developments are in place by Verizon and Google, that's when I'd expect to see Verizon get serious about plugging YouTube TV rather than FiOS TV.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

osu1991 said:


> The Cox website is wrong. There is no clear qam now at least not in Las Vegas or Oklahoma.


OK. Then I guess anyone who subscribes to Cox Starter TV has to take either their little "Mini Box" or a CableCARD from them. Cost is $3/mo either way.

Cox TV Equipment - Receivers, DVRs & Streaming Boxes | Cox Communications


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Many of the specifics that I wrote in my predictions thread -- which, to be fair, I labelled as "future fiction" in the OP -- won't come true. Many will, but maybe not in the exact quarter I predicted.
> 
> At any rate, let's see how Verizon's marketing messaging with regard to FiOS TV and YouTube TV shifts in a few months when Verizon rolls out their own "Stream TV" device, which recently turned up at the FCC for testing and approval. Also, let's see if YouTube TV, after adding local PBS stations nationwide, follows that up with additional channels, options and features that will even better position them to serve as a full-on replacement for traditional cable TV as opposed to being a compromise solution for budget-conscious cord-cutters. Again, I expect by this time next year that YouTube TV will have added the most popular channels from A+E Networks (A&E, History, Lifetime) plus The Hallmark Channel, as well as support for 4K HDR (like Fubo TV already has), plus an optional add-on package of additional sports channels.
> 
> Once all those developments are in place by Verizon and Google, that's when I'd expect to see Verizon get serious about plugging YouTube TV rather than FiOS TV.


Yeah they are getting options ready no doubt.

But I don't see a fast track plan to dump FIOS TV customers.

They will let the market decide when they want to switch. The money is already sunk into FIOStv infrastructure. There is no hurry to force customers off of it.

The other part I disagree with is there being a huge uptake for vMVPDs. Disney doing Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+ for $12.99 is the latest reason for that.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> The other part I disagree with is there being a huge uptake for vMVPDs. Disney doing Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+ for $12.99 is the latest reason for that.


That bundle offer from Disney for their three services is aggressively priced to directly steal away customers from Netflix's standard $13 HD plan and I'm sure it will be popular. But note also that Hulu with Live TV is the fastest-growing vMVPD in the nation right now, per their recent claim. While some folks are happy with make do with Netflix and/or Hulu and/or HBO (Max), there are and for several years to come will be tens of millions who want access to a variety of live local and national cable channels (especially sports channels and news channels) all served up together in a single unified UI. Disney will be happy to do that via Hulu, as will AT&T through AT&T TV and HBO Max, as will Google through YouTube TV, as will, I predict, Amazon through Prime Video and CBS through All Access.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> Nah. IT's just an option for customers. They make money off FIOS Tv. They sell it on their front page right now as part of a bundle with a 2yr agreement. There's no plan in place to push people to YTTV instead.


They're not making money off of those TV bundles. Do the math on them. They are insane. They want out of the TV business. They also want to cross-market the same service to 5G customers, and it's not worth setting up the architecture to deliver TV via IP when Google is already doing it really well.



NashGuy said:


> No, there's no longer clear QAM on Comcast (although, as Cox's website reveals in the link above, there is on Cox, at least for locals.)


Cox-Manchester does not have much Clear QAM. Only a couple of cable box background channels and a screen to call Cox for service. IIRC, there might be one jesus channel or something on there that's not encrypted. They definitely don't have the big four and other basic cable staples.



> Whenever I see wall-mounted TVs in businesses, doctors/dentist offices, etc. around here on Comcast, they don't tend to have an actual cable box attached.


The Comcast XiD can be a DTA, or it can be an IPTV box, and those are pretty small. They just need a gateway somewhere.



> If and when Comcast does go 100% IPTV, it will mean a decent number of homes and businesses having all of their equipment switched out.


Some will be. I think the biggest deterrent is that they are charging something like $7/mo per DTA, which is utterly absurd, but they have a financial incentive not to switch for a while, as they know that some of those TVs won't get re-connected to IPTV, even if the household stays with their TV service and keeps their main TVs on their X1 boxes.



> For all those other homes and businesses, they'd probably have to swap out their current TV hardware for a combo of a Comcast multicast-compliant broadband gateway (regardless of whether or not they took broadband service) plus an Xi5 or similar TV streamer.


Tons of people would need RDK-B gateways, even many like my parents who have had X1 for a long time. XiDs would work too, as would Xi3, Xi5, etc.



> The question is whether Comcast would find it optimal from a cost perspective to do that kind of switch-out on, say, 20-25% of their customer base all at once or if they'd rather just do it for the 5-10% of customers on QAM-only hardware who insist on HD service, and then let the remaining ~15% hang out on a truncated QAM system for another few years until they're ready to incur the additional hardware switch-out expenses for them too.


Yeah, I'm not sure what the architecture looks like for keeping QAM up there. If the rPHY nodes can do it easily, then they would likely keep some around. To me, it actually makes sense to keep some HD on QAM as well, at least the most popular 50-70 channels so that they don't have to roll out IPTV gateways, and can deliver the remaining 50 or more HD channels via IP unicast to the integrated DSG modems in the XG1s.



NashGuy said:


> Disney will be happy to do that via Hulu, as will AT&T through AT&T TV and HBO Max, as will Google through YouTube TV, as will, I predict, Amazon through Prime Video and CBS through All Access.


Amazon is going to be the one to watch. They have a very good customer base and a good streaming service already.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> That bundle offer from Disney for their three services is aggressively priced to directly steal away customers from Netflix's standard $13 HD plan and I'm sure it will be popular. But note also that Hulu with Live TV is the fastest-growing vMVPD in the nation right now, per their recent claim. While some folks are happy with make do with Netflix and/or Hulu and/or HBO (Max), there are and for several years to come will be tens of millions who want access to a variety of live local and national cable channels (especially sports channels and news channels) all served up together in a single unified UI. Disney will be happy to do that via Hulu, as will AT&T through AT&T TV and HBO Max, as will Google through YouTube TV, as will, I predict, Amazon through Prime Video and CBS through All Access.


 someone has to be the fastest growing.  it doesn't mean anything. nevermind usually the newer entrants to the market are the fastest growing because they start from a very small subscriber base. 

tens of millions already have the ability to watch sports and news.  Those are your current cable/satellite customers. They aren't in any hurry to move to vMVPDs.

CAble companies aren't in a hurry to get rid of those customers. The video infrastructure is already in place. They already spent the money on it.

Cable companies do see that vMVPDs have some uptake and their reaction is...we have to do our own vMVPD service. We need to be there if that is where the market goes.

IT's the same thing with the media companies readying SVOD options. They see how well Netflix is doing and they are like we have to put our content in that format in case that's where the market goes.

IT's just my opinion that the market goes SVOD. and that vMVPDs are a layover at best. 

I think a good prediction is Disney in a few years puts all ESPN content into ESPN+ and raises the price. Or includes the "real" ESPN content as an add-on to their little bundle. Or just introduces an ESPN SVOD.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> That bundle offer from Disney for their three services is aggressively priced to directly steal away customers from Netflix's standard $13 HD plan and I'm sure it will be popular. But note also that Hulu with Live TV is the fastest-growing vMVPD in the nation right now, per their recent claim. While some folks are happy with make do with Netflix and/or Hulu and/or HBO (Max), there are and for several years to come will be tens of millions who want access to a variety of live local and national cable channels (especially sports channels and news channels) all served up together in a single unified UI. Disney will be happy to do that via Hulu, as will AT&T through AT&T TV and HBO Max, as will Google through YouTube TV, as will, I predict, Amazon through Prime Video and CBS through All Access.


Can you recap your analysis and prediction regarding the launch and evolution of AT&T TV and HBO Max? If I understand correctly, it seems that you think HBO Max could evolve into a virtual MVPD; but would it not then be in competition or redundant with AT&T TV?


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> They're not making money off of those TV bundles. Do the math on them. They are insane. They want out of the TV business. They also want to cross-market the same service to 5G customers, and it's not worth setting up the architecture to deliver TV via IP when Google is already doing it really well.


Do the math on vMVPDs.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> Can you recap your analysis and prediction regarding the launch and evolution of AT&T TV and HBO Max? If I understand correctly, it seems that you think HBO Max could evolve into a virtual MVPD; but would it not then be in competition or redundant with AT&T TV?


Yeah, AT&T has already stated that HBO Max will "eventually" include the option to add live cable channels. And they put it another way when they said that DirecTV Now (just rebranded to "AT&T TV Now") will probably eventually get absorbed into HBO Max.

And, yes, that would make HBO Max competitive/redundant with AT&T TV, sort of in the same way that AT&T TV Now will be competitive/redundant with AT&T TV.

So why offer live cable channels in both apps? It really just comes down to marketing -- serving up a product in two different packages aimed at different types of consumers with different UI/UX preferences. AT&T TV will come with a dedicated customized streaming box and remote, marketed to traditional cable/satellite TV customers. AT&T TV Now is marketed to "cord-cutters". HBO Max, likewise, will target folks who have moved on from traditional cable, or never had it in the first place. The core part of HBO Max will be a big on-demand streaming library, competing directly against Netflix and Hulu, so that's going to appeal to folks like trip1eX and me, who are no longer interested in the cable bundle. But AT&T says, "Why not give those HBO Max subscribers the *option* of also paying for a bundle of live cable channels too, in case they want it? They're already using that app and we'd like them to spend even more time in it, so why not?" I assume that the HBO Max UI will be a modern UI similar to Netflix and Hulu. They'll figure out some way to incorporate live cable channels into that UI, as Hulu has already done, but my guess is that it won't have as much of the traditional cable box look-and-feel as AT&T TV will have, with its grid-based guide, channel numbers, etc. And of course, HBO Max (like AT&T TV Now) won't require you to take any kind of device from AT&T in the first place.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> Do the math on vMVPDs.


If you're Sony running PS Vue, or if you're Fubo TV, yeah, the numbers are pretty bleak on your vMVPDs, which is why neither of them will survive long-term. Neither are significant content owners, neither has a major ad platform, neither has any business playing with the big boys in the brave new world of subscription video services.

But the same isn't true of Hulu. Because in order to get Hulu with Live TV, you have to also subscribe to the base Hulu service, which contains a lot of Disney-owned content and which is rapidly growing as a key part of Disney's long-term media strategy. So even if the Live TV part just breaks even for Disney, it doesn't matter, because that subscriber also has the main part of Hulu, which is what Disney really cares about. (OK, they also care about their ESPN and ABC channels, which of course are a part of Hulu with Live TV.) And if they add Live TV, that means that they spend even MORE time in the Hulu app, which gives them valuable data on what sort of content outside of the base Hulu service you're watching and like.

The other important thing about the Live TV part of Hulu is that it provides additional opportunities for Hulu to use their targeted advertising platform to serve up ads; the same platform that injects targeted ads into content on the base Hulu tier also injects ads into cloud DVR recordings from their Live TV channels (and maybe even into their live broadcast streams too). Adding incremental scale to that ad platform makes it more profitable and is helpful to their long-term goals.

The same thing about the targeted ad platform applies to Google's YouTube TV. Frankly, that's the main reason that Google decided to create YouTube TV, because they had a competitive advantage with their massive, data-rich targeted ad platform. (We may think of Google as a search company but, of course, they're really an advertising company. That's how they make all their money.) No, Google doesn't own any cable or broadcast channels and they have only a small amount of their own content (e.g. Cobra Kai and other "YouTube Originals") but they can take the world-class targeted ad platform, streaming video infrastructure and device/app ecosystem that works so well for YouTube and extend it over to traditional cable TV. And that's just what they've done with YouTube TV. Some question whether Google will get bored with this experiment and abandon it like they have so many others. That's always possible but if they can get enough subscribers on YouTube TV, it'll stick around because of the amount of ad revenue it will generate for them (regardless of whether Google is actually making anything on the subscription fee after divvying it up among the constituent cable networks). The fact that Google has landed a major re-distributor in Verizon is a very good sign that YouTube TV will scale up enough to survive long-term.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, AT&T has already stated that HBO Max will "eventually" include the option to add live cable channels. And they put it another way when they said that DirecTV Now (just rebranded to "AT&T TV Now") will probably eventually get absorbed into HBO Max.
> 
> And, yes, that would make HBO Max competitive/redundant with AT&T TV, sort of in the same way that AT&T TV Now will be competitive/redundant with AT&T TV.
> 
> So why offer live cable channels in both apps? It really just comes down to marketing -- serving up a product in two different packages aimed at different types of consumers with different UI/UX preferences. AT&T TV will come with a dedicated customized streaming box and remote, marketed to traditional cable/satellite TV customers. AT&T TV Now is marketed to "cord-cutters". HBO Max, likewise, will target folks who have moved on from traditional cable, or never had it in the first place. The core part of HBO Max will be a big on-demand streaming library, competing directly against Netflix and Hulu, so that's going to appeal to folks like trip1eX and me, who are no longer interested in the cable bundle. But AT&T says, "Why not give those HBO Max subscribers the *option* of also paying for a bundle of live cable channels too, in case they want it? They're already using that app and we'd like them to spend even more time in it, so why not?" I assume that the HBO Max UI will be a modern UI similar to Netflix and Hulu. They'll figure out some way to incorporate live cable channels into that UI, as Hulu has already done, but my guess is that it won't have as much of the traditional cable box look-and-feel as AT&T TV will have, with its grid-based guide, channel numbers, etc. And of course, HBO Max (like AT&T TV Now) won't require you to take any kind of device from AT&T in the first place.


Thank you for that analysis.

I believe you also predict that Comcast will field a comparable vMVPD service at some point in the future. Do you see a similar evolution from a presumed NBCU streaming app to vMVPD, with Flex dying out as an interim stopgap-type streaming product?


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

NashGuy said:


> That bundle offer from Disney for their three services is aggressively priced to directly steal away customers from Netflix's standard $13 HD plan and I'm sure it will be popular. But note also that Hulu with Live TV is the fastest-growing vMVPD in the nation right now, per their recent claim. While some folks are happy with make do with Netflix and/or Hulu and/or HBO (Max), there are and for several years to come will be tens of millions who want access to a variety of live local and national cable channels (especially sports channels and news channels) all served up together in a single unified UI. Disney will be happy to do that via Hulu, as will AT&T through AT&T TV and HBO Max, as will Google through YouTube TV, as will, I predict, Amazon through Prime Video and CBS through All Access.


I think Disney+ was going to get millions of subscribers, especially if it offers all those movies and shows that parents park their toddlers in front of as virtual babysitters.

For the price, people would just add it without necessarily giving up Netflix or other services.

But the bundle price seems to be a ploy to super-size their ARPU from these people predisposed to get Disney + in the first place.

I like Hulu well enough but it probably doesn't offer anywhere near the breadth of programming for adults that Netflix does.

So for now, the Disney offerings seem to complement what Netflix offers, not necessarily threaten to displace it.

For the next 2-3 years at least, I think cord-cutters may just subscribe to multiple services to get shows and movies exclusive to each service.

Or if the cost (not just money but time) it takes to switch or drop a service on and off is low enough, people may do like what they did with HBO, when they would just subscribe for a few months when GoT or some other big HBO show was airing, and then cancel.

It's certainly easier to subscribe and unsubscribe to streaming services than it is to add or remove premium channels from cable TV.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> If you're Sony running PS Vue, or if you're Fubo TV, yeah, the numbers are pretty bleak on your vMVPDs, which is why neither of them will survive long-term. Neither are significant content owners, neither has a major ad platform, neither has any business playing with the big boys in the brave new world of subscription video services.
> 
> But the same isn't true of Hulu. Because in order to get Hulu with Live TV, you have to also subscribe to the base Hulu service, which contains a lot of Disney-owned content and which is rapidly growing as a key part of Disney's long-term media strategy. So even if the Live TV part just breaks even for Disney, it doesn't matter, because that subscriber also has the main part of Hulu, which is what Disney really cares about. (OK, they also care about their ESPN and ABC channels, which of course are a part of Hulu with Live TV.) And if they add Live TV, that means that they spend even MORE time in the Hulu app, which gives them valuable data on what sort of content outside of the base Hulu service you're watching and like.
> 
> ...


"They (customers) just have a lot more [video] choices these days," Julie Laulis, Cable One's president and CEO, said Wednesday on the company's Q4 earnings call. "That might be our linear video product. It might be an OTT product, and we're happy to have them go to Hulu or Netflix or Sling TV... And we also reinforce with them that they need a reliable high-speed, robust Internet service like we provide."

That thinking fits with Cable One's shift about five years ago to a data-focused model. "We've seen nothing to derail us from that path," Laulis said.

She acknowledged that Cable One isn't putting much time and effort into its lower-margin pay-TV service, though it maintains those services for the video customers that remain.

_*"That being said, we're not trying to drive our video customers away,"*_ Laulis said, adding that Cable One will instead help educate customers on the expanding number of video choices they have available.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> _*"That being said, we're not trying to drive our video customers away,"*_ Laulis said, adding that Cable One will instead help educate customers on the expanding number of video choices they have available.


Heh. They don't HAVE to drive them away. When you're not actively selling your own product anymore and you actually spend time on the phone with customers helping them sift through competing OTT video options (as Cable One customer reps do), many of them just tend to leave.

They just reported that they're now down to 293,237 video subs, which amounts to only 48% as many broadband subs as they have. Their video sub number fell 9.4% over the past year. Also of note in an article at Light Reading about Cable One's latest quarterly results:

_A source familiar with Cable One's plans said the company is in negotiations to partner with a virtual MVPD or possibly more than one, but no formal announcement has been forthcoming. Several cable ops in that mid- to small tier range, including WideOpenWest, have already forged such partnerships. Meanwhile, the National Cable Television Cooperative, an organization the represents hundreds of independent cable ops, has deals in place with fuboTV, PlayStation Vue and Philo.

Several MSOs in that group are also working with partners such as Evolution Digital, TiVo, Espial and MobiTV on next-gen video offerings that deliver service to IP-connected devices, including a new class of boxes that run the Android TV Operator Tier platform. But Cable One has expressed no interest in taking that particular step._​


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Heh. They don't HAVE to drive them away. When you're not actively selling your own product anymore and you actually spend time on the phone with customers helping them sift through competing OTT video options (as Cable One customer reps do), many of them just tend to leave.
> 
> They just reported that they're now down to 293,237 video subs, which amounts to only 48% as many broadband subs as they have. Their video sub number fell 9.4% over the past year. Also of note in an article at Light Reading about Cable One's latest quarterly results:
> 
> ...


Except they do still sell their video product. in the quote it even says that.

And if you go to their webpage you can get a bundle with their video product.

And the CEO states point blank they aren't trying to drive video customers away.

Ignore if you want i guess?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> someone has to be the fastest growing.  it doesn't mean anything. nevermind usually the newer entrants to the market are the fastest growing because they start from a very small subscriber base.


It's probably raw subscriber growth, not a percentage.



> CAble companies aren't in a hurry to get rid of those customers. The video infrastructure is already in place. They already spent the money on it.


Except that it's becoming an expensive nightmare to run, isn't their core business anymore, and is sucking up a disproportionate amount of plant capacity compared to how much money it makes. TV uses more than half the downstream bandwidth for almost no profit compared to broadband, which uses less than half of the downstream bandwidth, and makes most of the profit at a 90%+ margin.



chiguy50 said:


> Can you recap your analysis and prediction regarding the launch and evolution of AT&T TV and HBO Max? If I understand correctly, it seems that you think HBO Max could evolve into a virtual MVPD; but would it not then be in competition or redundant with AT&T TV?


It would go well with AT&T's confusing, redundant, and overlapping portfolio of services. 



trip1eX said:


> Do the math on vMVPDs.


The margins are razor thin. They either have to go huge in scale, or do targeted advertising.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> _*"That being said, we're not trying to drive our video customers away,"*_ Laulis said, adding that Cable One will instead help educate customers on the expanding number of video choices they have available.


Meanwhile, the morons at Cox have their heads in the sand. They have this absurd web page up about cord cutting that's full of lies. At the same time, their stratospheric pricing has driven away even many of the customers who still want to pay for an MPVD, as evidenced by the prolific growth of DirecTV dishes in Cox towns.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> Except they do still sell their video product. in the quote it even says that.
> 
> And if you go to their webpage you can get a bundle with their video product.
> 
> ...


Yes, they're still selling it as in, "Here's an option that you can order from our webpage." But I don't think they're selling it as in "We're running TV commercials and direct mail campaigns for our TV service."


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

chiguy50 said:


> I believe you also predict that Comcast will field a comparable vMVPD service at some point in the future. Do you see a similar evolution from a presumed NBCU streaming app to vMVPD, with Flex dying out as an interim stopgap-type streaming product?


Paging Carnac the Magnificent (aka @NashGuy).


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

chiguy50 said:


> Paging Carnac the Magnificent (aka @NashGuy).


It's kind of like when a year or two ago some of us were talking about the boom in streaming services and we heard "Don't worry about it, it will another 10 years or more." I can still buy a starter for my '77 Chevy and still drive it but that doesn't mean that they can still be a profit center for Chevy. Old ways may die slowly but everyone else moves on. 10 years from now who knows what kind of market we will have.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

mschnebly said:


> 10 years from now who knows what kind of market we will have.


I'm pretty sure threads like this one will still be popular.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

"Virtual MVPDs like DirecTV Now and Sling TV have been a growth story for pay TV to hold up during the ongoing cord-cutting dialog. But the shine of streaming TV is wearing off. DirecTV Now lost subscribers for the second straight quarter, and Sling TV only managed to add 7,000 new subscribers during the first quarter. According to MoffettNathanson, Hulu with Live TV and YouTube TV grew but at a slower pace.

The firm estimated that the vMVPD space added approximately 563,000 new subscribers during the quarter – lead by Hulu which added around 400,000 – and now has about 8 million subscribers combined. Those growth totals are well behind the 1.4 million traditional video subscribers lost during the last quarter and MoffettNathanson estimated that vMVPDs only recaptured about 40% of the people who cut the cord.

“We have warned frequently in these pages in the past that the close to 100% conversion rates that obtained through most of 2018 didn’t look sustainable. Well, now they are falling,” Moffett wrote.

That decline in conversion rate is obviously bad for pay TV providers, but it’s also terrible news for cable network groups that rely on distribution to make money."


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> Paging Carnac the Magnificent (aka @NashGuy).


Haha! Sorry, been distracted lately with, y'know, actual work that pays the bills.

Anyhoo, yes, NBCU has said that they're planning to launch their own DTC SVOD next April (name TBD). Here's what we know about that service: it's going to feature some new exclusive original series (including one starring Emmy Rossum, who played Fiona on Showtime's Shameless), as well as a back catalog of older shows owned by NBCU, most notably The Office, although that won't join the service until Jan. 1, 2021 due to its current deal with Netflix. I imagine we'll see a number of the older shows currently airing on COZI TV (which is NBCU's retro channel that airs on many NBC local affiliate's .2 or .3 subchannel) available for streaming on the SVOD.

They're going to position the SVOD as being mainly a *supplement* to the traditional cable channel bundle rather than a (partial) replacement for it aimed at cord-cutters. How do we know this? Well, they're going to give this SVOD away for free as part of Comcast's own cable channel bundles and they're going to try to get other MVPDs to do that too. They'll make money on it mainly through ad revenue, although folks will be able to upgrade and remove the ads by paying a fee ($6/mo?). For those who don't get the SVOD free as part of their cable bundle, they can get it (with ads) for a price; $10-12/mo is the range I've been seeing, which, uh, sounds like a LOT for what this service is gonna be.

Basically, this SVOD is going to be NBCU's fledgling Hulu, but keep in mind that until they sell their 1/3 share of Hulu to Disney in a few years (at a fair market value to be determined at that future time, based on Hulu's future subscriber numbers, etc.), Comcast still wants to see Hulu succeed. So they don't really want this new SVOD to compete with Hulu *too* much, at least among cord-cutters. So NBC's primetime shows will continue to be available on Hulu the next day, with at least the last 5 eps available. (Meanwhile, the Hulu app is about to get added to the X1 app platform too.) If you're a cable subscriber and you authenticate your cable login on the upcoming NBCU SVOD, you'll also have next-day access to current shows from NBC, as well as their cable networks like USA, Bravo, SyFy, etc. But cord-cutters who actually PAY money for that service, well, nope, they won't get access to any of that current content. They'll just get old stuff, plus a smallish library of new exclusive originals.

So we've established this: Comcast is finally going to launch a nationwide OTT video service in early 2020. It'll be available to anyone but it'll mainly be targeted at folks who have a cable TV package that includes the main NBCU cable networks like NBC, USA, Bravo, etc.

How likely is it that Comcast, in addition to offering non-cable TV subscribers this new SVOD for, say, $11, also offers an upgrade option for a package of popular live streaming cable channels, including your major locals and all the NBCU networks, along with ESPN, Discovery, etc., for $45-55? (It would, of course, include cloud DVR too.) And the base $11 SVOD subscription would be thrown in for "free"! Such a deal! I'd say such a scenario is VERY likely.

Especially when you consider how the competitive landscape is about to change for Comcast. Who's the biggest competitor among MVPDs? AT&T. It's not even close in terms of numbers, and also in terms of AT&T being the only other MVPD besides Comcast who is a major content/channel owner. And what is AT&T about to do? They're about to get serious about distributing their cable bundle nationwide OTT with the upcoming AT&T TV service. And then next year, they'll offer those AT&T TV cable channel bundles as add-ons inside their HBO Max SVOD app.

Comcast has the technology right now to deliver their live cable TV service OTT nationwide. They'll soon be offering a different, but related, product OTT nationwide, which will necessitate the build-out of marketing and customer support teams to support it. And they'll be facing their largest direct competitor going OTT nationwide with live cable TV service in a couple of different formats to suit different demographic tastes. If I'm a Comcast stockholder, and Comcast DOESN'T take this opportunity to begin selling their cable channel bundle nationwide OTT to anyone who will pay for it, I'm asking WHY THE HECK NOT?!!

As for Flex, eh, I kinda think that's just Comcast getting their feet wet a bit on how to get their Xi6 streaming box in more users' hands. They're going to position that box as the best way to use their future OTT services, although they'll have to also offer them on at least Roku and some smart TVs, if not also Apple TV, Fire TV, etc. I don't ever expect to see the Flex program as it now exists succeed -- they're asking cord-cutters to pay $5/mo to rent Comcast's own streaming box! I think they're collecting data and trying to figure out if they can rent the Xi6 for a fee alongside the OTT services or if they'll just have to break down and sell it or give it away, which is what I expect AT&T TV will do with their custom Android TV streaming box.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> "We have warned frequently in these pages in the past that the close to 100% conversion rates that obtained through most of 2018 didn't look sustainable. Well, now they are falling," Moffett wrote.
> 
> That decline in conversion rate is obviously bad for pay TV providers, but it's also terrible news for cable network groups that rely on distribution to make money."


I've seen recapture numbers closer to 10%, but 40% sounds more realistic. I think the first year or two of vMVPDs actually had a similar recapture rate, but that was offset by people coming BACK into the pay-TV ecosystem who had already cut the cord.



NashGuy said:


> But cord-cutters who actually PAY money for that service, well, nope, they won't get access to any of that current content. They'll just get old stuff, plus a smallish library of new exclusive originals.





NashGuy said:


> As for Flex, eh, I kinda think that's just Comcast getting their feet wet a bit on how to get their Xi6 streaming box in more users' hands.


It seems like Comcast is trying to make their strategy and branding as much of a mess as AT&T's. Meanwhile, YouTube TV and Hulu have strong, clear brands.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Why wouldn't Comcast sell their cable package OTT? BEcause there isn't much money in it and because it's not the end point. It's not where tv viewing will end up. TV ends up in the SVOD world. 

IF it was me I would go straight to a pure SVOD service and create the future of TV. I wouldn't waste time on slapping the current tv model over the internet. 

STill I bet Comcast does an vMVPD service. Actually I thought it was already announced.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Haha! Sorry, been distracted lately with, y'know, actual work that pays the bills.
> 
> Anyhoo, yes, NBCU has said that they're planning to launch their own DTC SVOD next April (name TBD). Here's what we know about that service: it's going to feature some new exclusive original series (including one starring Emmy Rossum, who played Fiona on Showtime's Shameless), as well as a back catalog of older shows owned by NBCU, most notably The Office, although that won't join the service until Jan. 1, 2021 due to its current deal with Netflix. I imagine we'll see a number of the older shows currently airing on COZI TV (which is NBCU's retro channel that airs on many NBC local affiliate's .2 or .3 subchannel) available for streaming on the SVOD.
> 
> ...


Great stuff, that! You have a real knack for analyzing and extrapolating from given data. (Hats off from a former military intelligence professional.)



NashGuy said:


> NBCU has said that they're planning to launch their own DTC SVOD next April (*name TBD*).


Were you just funnin' us with your commentary on the name "Juno" or did you have a source for that bit of gossip?


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

FWIW, I have just learned that AT&T is not currently offering bulk services to brown-field communities (at least, here in the SE region). I was told by the regional account exec that they are focused on extending their FTTH network to new construction. As far as I can tell, that should leave Comcast with a great opportunity to tie even more existing MDU's long-term to their HFC service, not to mention Google Fiber, who is still open to negotiating FTTH installation agreements in our city in return for as little as a two-year commitment.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

chiguy50 said:


> FWIW, I have just learned that AT&T is not currently offering bulk services to brown-field communities (at least, here in the SE region). I was told by the regional account exec that they are focused on extending their FTTH network to new construction. As far as I can tell, that should leave Comcast with a great opportunity to tie even more existing MDU's long-term to their HFC service, not to mention Google Fiber, who is still open to negotiating FTTH installation agreements in our city in return for as little as a two-year commitment.


Are bulk deals common in your region? They just aren't much of a thing up here. I know of one building that has a bulk deal with Comcast, and then a couple of complexes that are with a local ex-muni overbuilder in a Comcast incumbent area. They seem common in other parts of the country....


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> *3Q-4Q 2019: CBS scales up*
> 
> CBS remerges with Viacom to form a significantly larger media powerhouse. But with a combined market cap of only around $33 billion, still far smaller than Disney ($254 bn), AT&T/WarnerMedia ($250 bn) or Comcast/NBCU (over $193 bn), and around the same size as Sony Pictures, CBS is still a middleweight, not heavyweight, fighter. CBS follows up soon after with acquisitions of Lionsgate (owner of Starz, plus a film and TV studio) and AMC Networks, bringing their overall market cap up to about $40 billion.


CBS and Viacom are merging to become ViacomCBS


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Bigg said:


> Are bulk deals common in your region? They just aren't much of a thing up here. I know of one building that has a bulk deal with Comcast, and then a couple of complexes that are with a local ex-muni overbuilder in a Comcast incumbent area. They seem common in other parts of the country....


Yup, very common. It seems that most larger condominium associations in our area include either CTV, HSI or (increasingly) both in their HOA dues according to their marketing materials. In my experience, the discounts can reach up to two-thirds off market rates (net taxes and fees) in addition to other benefits that accrue to the community (such as free service and devices in the common areas, upgrades to the cabling, dedicated support, etc.). And our homeowners appreciate the convenience of not having to negotiate or pay the bills themselves unless they upgrade the service for their residence.

But then, there are the trade-offs that have to be taken into account. Some folks don't want the service and don't like having to pay for it anyway via their dues, others would rather use a different provider, and some just are never happy no matter what you do. And you are contractually binding yourself for a period of time so that has to be offset by other considerations, such as the "door fee" (a signing bonus based on the number of units times number of months under contract) and a cap on annual increases to keep the cost down over the contractual period. But if done right, it can lead to a mutually beneficial relationship.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

chiguy50 said:


> Yup, very common. It seems that most larger condominium associations in our area include either CTV, HSI or (increasingly) both in their HOA dues according to their marketing materials. In my experience, the discounts can reach up to two-thirds off market rates (net taxes and fees) in addition to other benefits that accrue to the community (such as free service and devices in the common areas, upgrades to the cabling, dedicated support, etc.). And our homeowners appreciate the convenience of not having to negotiate or pay the bills themselves unless they upgrade the service for their residence.
> 
> But then, there are the trade-offs that have to be taken into account. Some folks don't want the service and don't like having to pay for it anyway via their dues, others would rather use a different provider, and some just are never happy no matter what you do. And you are contractually binding yourself for a period of time so that has to be offset by other considerations, such as the "door fee" (a signing bonus based on the number of units times number of months under contract) and a cap on annual increases to keep the cost down over the contractual period. But if done right, it can lead to a mutually beneficial relationship.


Yeah, I have mixed feelings about bulk plans. They do make some sense for a basic utility like broadband, just as much as having bulk water or whatever, but I really dislike them for video. Maybe most of the people would pay $30/mo on their own if given the choice as opposed to the market rate at $75/mo or whatever it is, but I still can't get past the fact that Comcast and other MSOs/telcos are hiding god knows how many would-be cord cutters behind bulk deals and forced bundles. My guess is that if you removed those bulk deals and forced bundles tomorrow, another 5M or more would cut the cord.

It's obvious that exclusive marketing agreements and other sketchy semi-legal de-facto monopoly deals have to go, and all providers should have access to internal wiring, but bulk deals are a challenge. They have some benefits, particularly for broadband, but they also have a lot of downsides, like wanting to pick a different provider if available, or being forced into a TV package that you don't want. I'd tend towards outlawing them.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, I have mixed feelings about bulk plans. They do make some sense for a basic utility like broadband, just as much as having bulk water or whatever, but I really dislike them for video. Maybe most of the people would pay $30/mo on their own if given the choice as opposed to the market rate at $75/mo or whatever it is, but I still can't get past the fact that Comcast and other MSOs/telcos are hiding god knows how many would-be cord cutters behind bulk deals and forced bundles. My guess is that if you removed those bulk deals and forced bundles tomorrow, another 5M or more would cut the cord.
> 
> It's obvious that exclusive marketing agreements and other sketchy semi-legal de-facto monopoly deals have to go, and all providers should have access to internal wiring, but bulk deals are a challenge. They have some benefits, particularly for broadband, but they also have a lot of downsides, like wanting to pick a different provider if available, or being forced into a TV package that you don't want. I'd tend towards outlawing them.


You had me up until that last sentence, which strikes me as much too draconian and undemocratic. I think the more choice people have, the better; then let them vote with their feet (and wallets). And no one is really being forced into anything: HOA boards that make these decisions represent the voice of their homeowners, and rental complexes list the services provided and costs when you agree to sign a lease. And even then, most owners/renters are free to make other arrangements on their individual accounts (including, often, finding another provider), albeit at additional personal cost.

I think the bulk deals, bundles, provisional discounts, and other cost-saving offerings are the only thing standing between the average consumer and ruinous HSI/CTV price-gouging. In a better (forget perfect) world, the standard pricing would be reasonable with no hidden costs. But as Schopenhauer might have paraphrased Leibniz, "we live in the worst of all possible worlds" and have to deal with it as best we can. That means playing the negotiating game to our advantage if we don't want to be victimized. Certainly, price manipulation and consumer deception are and have for many years been rampant in our capitalistic marketplace; the MSO's are by no means unique or even particularly flagrant perpetrators (just look at the airlines, for example, if you want to see consumer exploitation).

I agree that subscribers would probably leave in droves (or drastically downscale their services) if the bundles and bulk deals were eliminated. And the monopolies that exist in many communities are downright scandalous (if we were capable of being scandalized anymore).

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how much pressure Comcast feels to get a new multi-year BSA given all the developments forecast in this thread. We will be considering all the options, including letting our current agreement lapse or even canceling it before term to let our homeowners make their own choices (as you seem to advocate). Or we could do nothing for now and just bide our time with almost two years left on our contract. By this time next year, once AT&T TV and HBO Max have launched nation-wide, AT&T may once again be looking to extend their fiber network into brown-field communities.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

chiguy50 said:


> You had me up until that last sentence, which strikes me as much too draconian and undemocratic. I think the more choice people have, the better; then let them vote with their feet (and wallets). And no one is really being forced into anything: HOA boards that make these decisions represent the voice of their homeowners, and rental complexes list the services provided and costs when you agree to sign a lease. And even then, most owners/renters are free to make other arrangements on their individual accounts (including, often, finding another provider), albeit at additional personal cost.


So the challenge here is should the HOA collectively have the freedom to make a choice about what service they are going to negotiate as a bulk unit, or should the individual have the freedom to choose what service they are going to use on an individual basis? There's no perfect answer for that. When there is no bulk deal, it's pretty clear that all providers should have access to the wiring, and that exclusive marketing agreements should be outlawed, since they have zero benefit for the consumer, but there is a potential benefit for an HOA. Maybe a compromise would be to allow bulk deals for broadband, and then let them do TV as a bolt-on. My grandmother has exactly the opposite of that, where she has TV as part of her fees in her independent living facility, and her broadband/phone are a bolt-on. The bolt-on pricing is far lower than it is for normal consumers, something like $30/mo instead of $75/mo for broadband. Even that is not a perfect answer, as whomever has the broadband bulk deal will be able to way undercut other providers on TV, since they are already in the buildings, and already have wiring set up to every unit, and it is easy to send out a SIK to add TV. The other issue is that while you are technically correct about other providers, if I'm AT&T, am I going to install fiber into a complex that I know has a 10-year deal with Comcast? No way. So it does limit competition.



> I think the bulk deals, bundles, provisional discounts, and other cost-saving offerings are the only thing standing between the average consumer and ruinous HSI/CTV price-gouging. In a better (forget perfect) world, the standard pricing would be reasonable with no hidden costs. But as Schopenhauer might have paraphrased Leibniz, "we live in the worst of all possible worlds" and have to deal with it as best we can. That means playing the negotiating game to our advantage if we don't want to be victimized. Certainly, price manipulation and consumer deception are and have for many years been rampant in our capitalistic marketplace; the MSO's are by no means unique or even particularly flagrant perpetrators (just look at the airlines, for example, if you want to see consumer exploitation).


What we need is some regulation. ILECs should be forced to wire everything with FTTH/FTTB, offering gigabit to all SFUs, and at least 300/100 (or maybe even a bit faster, like 500/200) to all all MDUs, with fiber in the building, allowing for G.Fast or MoCA Access for the last few hundred feet. Caps need to be outlawed, and net neutrality rules enforced.



> I agree that subscribers would probably leave in droves (or drastically downscale their services) if the bundles and bulk deals were eliminated. And the monopolies that exist in many communities are downright scandalous (if we were capable of being scandalized anymore).
> 
> Anyway, it will be interesting to see how much pressure Comcast feels to get a new multi-year BSA given all the developments forecast in this thread. We will be considering all the options, including letting our current agreement lapse or even canceling it before term to let our homeowners make their own choices (as you seem to advocate). Or we could do nothing for now and just bide our time with almost two years left on our contract. By this time next year, once AT&T TV and HBO Max have launched nation-wide, AT&T may once again be looking to extend their fiber network into brown-field communities.


I wonder at what point Comcast gives up on TV, and just offers it upon request, but doesn't actively market it. The problem is that the DOJ allowed vertical consolidation (now under two administrations, one Democratic, and one Republican) of NBCU/Comcast and AT&T/TW, both of which were horrible deals. This type of vertical consolidation gives a perverted incentive for Comcast and AT&T to shove TV down people's throats, as if they break even on TV (Comcast or AT&T), then they still end up making money, as a fraction of those carriage costs end up in the pockets of NBCU or TW.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Comcast owns NBC Universal.

Don't see them giving up TV.

But they sold the RSNs?

I would think RSN helps drive TV subscriptions.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Bigg said:


> Maybe a compromise would be to allow bulk deals for broadband, and then let them do TV as a bolt-on.


I can see us going that route, as well. We plan to explore all options with the end goal to getting the best deal for our homeowners.



Bigg said:


> What we need is some regulation. ILECs should be forced to wire everything with FTTH/FTTB, offering gigabit to all SFUs, and at least 300/100 (or maybe even a bit faster, like 500/200) to all all MDUs, with fiber in the building, allowing for G.Fast or MoCA Access for the last few hundred feet. Caps need to be outlawed, and net neutrality rules enforced.


Amen to that (and a chicken in every pot).



Bigg said:


> I wonder at what point Comcast gives up on TV, and just offers it upon request, but doesn't actively market it. The problem is that the DOJ allowed vertical consolidation (now under two administrations, one Democratic, and one Republican) of NBCU/Comcast and AT&T/TW, both of which were horrible deals. This type of vertical consolidation gives a perverted incentive for Comcast and AT&T to shove TV down people's throats, as if they break even on TV (Comcast or AT&T), then they still end up making money, as a fraction of those carriage costs end up in the pockets of NBCU or TW.


I think it is very well documented that Comcast has placed its strategic corporate emphasis on broadband services. But I don't see them abandoning TV service (whether CTV or IPTV or a combination thereof) anytime soon.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

chiguy50 said:


> I can see us going that route, as well. We plan to explore all options with the end goal to getting the best deal for our homeowners.


That's the best of all worlds from the HOA's perspective. Being forced into TV sort of sucks, although they might push that since they can get more customers on TV that way.



> I think it is very well documented that Comcast has placed its strategic corporate emphasis on broadband services. But I don't see them abandoning TV service (whether CTV or IPTV or a combination thereof) anytime soon.


They're not going to get rid of it, but I wonder when they stop putting an emphasis on advertising and pushing it in bundles and just have it there for people who want it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Verizon to shutter Fios1 News, forcing RNN to cut 150 jobs

Translation: Verizon DGAF about it's TV business.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Verizon to shutter Fios1 News, forcing RNN to cut 150 jobs
> 
> Translation: Verizon DGAF about it's TV business.


or they just want out of the hyper local news business.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> or they just want out of the hyper local news business.


Which is because they DGAF about their TV business. Not saying they're out of TV next year, but the writing is on the wall for it.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I wonder at what point Comcast gives up on TV, and just offers it upon request, but doesn't actively market it. The problem is that the DOJ allowed vertical consolidation (now under two administrations, one Democratic, and one Republican) of NBCU/Comcast and AT&T/TW, both of which were horrible deals. This type of vertical consolidation gives a perverted incentive for Comcast and AT&T to shove TV down people's throats, as if they break even on TV (Comcast or AT&T), then they still end up making money, as a fraction of those carriage costs end up in the pockets of NBCU or TW.





wco81 said:


> Comcast owns NBC Universal.
> 
> Don't see them giving up TV.


Bingo. Comcast owns a major piece of the content business via NBCU. So they're *never* giving up on TV/video entertainment. It's *profitable* for them in a way that it can never be for poor non-content-owning slobs like Charter, Cox and Verizon.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

November looks like it's going to be an interesting month. It's been confirmed that Disney+ is launching then. It's now rumored by Bloomberg News that Apple TV+ will launch that month as well. 

AT&T TV is supposed to have its big nationwide launch in 4Q (it had a soft launch in a few test markets this past Monday, 8/19), so that might happen in Nov. too. AT&T has also talked about the possibility of initially releasing HBO Max in beta form later this year ahead of a finalized launch in early 2020. Could that also come in Nov., to coincide with the formal launch of AT&T TV? We know that the company will unveil the specifics of their plans for HBO Max at a media event on Oct. 29. 

If they do choose to launch the service as a beta, wouldn't it make sense for AT&T to use their own customers as beta testers, folks who would be getting HBO Max for "free" as part of their other AT&T services anyhow? I predict that HBO Max will be automatically bundled in as part of the new channel packages sold to new subscribers on AT&T TV, AT&T TV Now and DirecTV. And I also predict that HBO Max will be automatically bundled in with prepaid AT&T Wireless plans (the same way that T-Mobile currently offers free Netflix and Sprint offers free Hulu). So it would make sense for AT&T to have a beta version of HBO Max ready to coincide with the nationwide official launch of AT&T TV, in order to be bundled in as part of it. It would also help drum up public interest and curiosity around HBO Max by making it exclusively available for a few months only to customers who have larger AT&T subscriptions. And since they would be getting it for "free" as part of their larger subscriptions, it's not like they could drop the service and stop paying for it if HBO Max is glitchy during the beta period.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

the rumored pricing for Apple TV + is $9.99 a month for 4 or 5 shows at launch.

Then we had the ridiculous AT&T TV pricing, along with mandatory set top boxes.

I guess the companies have to try to see how much the market will bear.

Eventually with consolidation, pricing will go up and then the price advantage of cord cutting becomes less apparent.

I guess they're daring people to quit TV altogether.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wco81 said:


> I guess they're daring people to quit TV altogether.


At least a public library card is still free...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wco81 said:


> I guess they're daring people to quit TV altogether.


There's no way Americans stop watching "TV". The question, however, is what is TV? TV is traditional channels, which are going out of style. TV is on demand. TV is Netflix. But TV is also YouTube and other content sources. If the major networks overprice their packages, people won't subscribe to them, or they will hop around from one to another. If they want to watch free or low-cost content from other sources, they will do that. If they want to all go in their own little niches, they will do that. Netflix may turn into the networks, with the lowest common denominator, and aggregators like Amazon may end up catering to various niches and brands. One way or another, Americans are going to be parked in front of TVs for many hours a week. It's a part of our culture and lifestyle. It's just a question of what we watch.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> At least a public library card is still free...


It has served as_ my_ time-delayed Blockbuster for 10+ years.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> Were you just funnin' us with your commentary on the name "Juno" or did you have a source for that bit of gossip?


Nah, just kiddin' around, JunowhatImean?

For the record, though, I do think Juno would make a good name. From a branding perspective, I think they should adopt a name that's as un-Comcastic as possible. Something that sounds soft and friendly, yet modern and tech-y, much like the Hulu name (or other two-syllable nonsense names like Quibi, Roku, etc). I'd avoid anything with "NBC" or "Universal" in the name. Sounds too corporate, too old-school media (and frankly neither of those brands is exciting). Although if they insisted on tying the name to their corporate brand somehow, I guess "Uni" wouldn't be bad.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

I didn't realize DTV Now is called ATT Now now.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

AT&T has branding issues for sure. They have too many different brands and they are too confusing.


----------



## ManeJon (Apr 14, 2018)

I think I know what will finally drive me to "cord cutting" - political ads. Here in Maine we are already seeing political ads. I don't care what party or what candidate they are such a waste of my time. A year from now they will be all we see on TV I understand ads and try and skip but really, really bad times in the next year with ads - again I don't care what candidate.


----------



## djones18 (Jan 6, 2006)

ManeJon said:


> I think I know what will finally drive me to "cord cutting" - political ads. Here in Maine we are already seeing political ads. I don't care what party or what candidate they are such a waste of my time. A year from now they will be all we see on TV I understand ads and try and skip but really, really bad times in the next year with ads - again I don't care what candidate.


Ah, hah! If only TiVo could implement a pollical ad skip function just like their commercial skip function. Sign me up!


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> I didn't realize DTV Now is called ATT Now now.


AT&T could start a weekly TV series about all of the changes they've introduced in that service. Seriously, it's something new all the time. This week: a new brand name!


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

djones18 said:


> Ah, hah! If only TiVo could implement a pollical ad skip function just like their commercial skip function. Sign me up!


Yeah, like the big tech companies in Silicon Valley, they will skip one side over the other according to their bias.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ManeJon said:


> I think I know what will finally drive me to "cord cutting" - political ads. Here in Maine we are already seeing political ads. I don't care what party or what candidate they are such a waste of my time. A year from now they will be all we see on TV I understand ads and try and skip but really, really bad times in the next year with ads - again I don't care what candidate.


A big part of the problem is the Electoral College. Granted, there are local political ads, and getting rid of the EC wouldn't get rid of ALL political ads, but it would save Ohio and some other key swing states from seeing them non-stop for months on end where other states barely get any except a handful for a few local offices.

It would be good for campaign finance reform to limit the number of TV ads, however, as they get redundant after a while. I bet most people don't mind them the first few times, but get sick of them after they see the same stupid ad 20 times.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Bigg said:


> A big part of the problem is the Electoral College. Granted, there are local political ads, and getting rid of the EC wouldn't get rid of ALL political ads, but it would save Ohio and some other key swing states from seeing them non-stop for months on end where other states barely get any except a handful for a few local offices.
> 
> It would be good for campaign finance reform to limit the number of TV ads, however, as they get redundant after a while. I bet most people don't mind them the first few times, but get sick of them after they see the same stupid ad 20 times.


I haven't "seen" a political ad in I don't know how many years (decades?). That's where Skip and FF come into play.

I'm a political junkie, having spent a good portion of my career in the field of political-military affairs, but I make it a point not to pay any attention to political ads. They are nothing more than manipulative marketing at best and disinformation at worst.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

In case you missed it, this interesting perspective on the future of streaming video was published yesterday in the N.Y. Times opinion section. The author, a former head of strategic planning for Amazon Studios, sees the monetization of viewership as the driving force that will result in a replay of the very reasons that have led cord-cutters to leave traditional pay TV: high costs and bloated programming bundles.

Here's a quote: "AT&T spent some $109 billion buying Time Warner in the hopes that series like "Game of Thrones" and "Friends" would help the company add more wireless subscribers, increase data usage and expand its digital advertising/data arm, Xandr. Today, AT&T gives HBO away to many of its subscribers.

Similarly, the real goal of Disney+ isn't the creation of a new revenue line for Disney. Instead, it's about giving the company the ability to know each of its fans individually, including what content and characters they like, and how much, and to sell to them directly. This is why the annual plan is priced at only $70. Monthly subscription fees are trivial if Disney can use the service to sell more $5,000 cruises. The same applies for merchandise, movie tickets and other products."

*Streaming Video Will Soon Look Like the Bad Old Days of TV*


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Disney is relentless in cross marketing which is why I will not subscribe to their services. I have not been on a Disney cruise and won't pay to watch Marvel or Star Wars in theaters.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

zalusky said:


> Disney is relentless in cross marketing which is why I will not subscribe to their services. I have not been on a Disney cruise and won't pay to watch Marvel or Star Wars in theaters.


No Galaxy's Edge for you.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

chiguy50 said:


> In case you missed it, this interesting perspective on the future of streaming video was published yesterday in the N.Y. Times opinion section. The author, a former head of strategic planning for Amazon Studios, sees the monetization of viewership as the driving force that will result in a replay of the very reasons that have led cord-cutters to leave traditional pay TV: high costs and bloated programming bundles.
> 
> Here's a quote: "AT&T spent some $109 billion buying Time Warner in the hopes that series like "Game of Thrones" and "Friends" would help the company add more wireless subscribers, increase data usage and expand its digital advertising/data arm, Xandr. Today, AT&T gives HBO away to many of its subscribers.
> 
> ...


I think the article was much ado about nothing. Just fear mongering.

There's been few different business models in streaming for 5+ years now. So it isn't anything new.

Netflix is more like HBO. No ads. Subscription fee.

Amazon is part of Prime. Amazon uses it to keep you a Prime customer. And if you're a Prime customer you shop more at Amazon than a customer without Prime.

and then you have Hulu which sells ads. They also have an ad-free option.

Last the "cord cutters" who declared they were saving so much money 5+ years ago got a lot less content and less timely content in exchange. There was no miracle of all the content and none of the cost. It was just a lot less content and a lot less timely content. That hasn't even changed either just because a customer has more streaming options. The customer only has to subscribe to 1 subscription service at a time.

also the article further perpetuates the myth that somehow not watching every show that you could possibly watch under a subscription means you are over paying or not getting your money's worth and that this is a bad evil thing. Nevermind as if that wasn't and isn't true if you just had a service like Netflix. I mean even if you could get the HGTV channel only ....there's content you are "paying" for that you are not going to watch on that channel.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

zalusky said:


> Disney is relentless in cross marketing which is why I will not subscribe to their services. I have not been on a Disney cruise and won't pay to watch Marvel or Star Wars in theaters.


Being stuck on a Disney cruise is my idea of hell. (OK, purgatory...)


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

chiguy50 said:


> In case you missed it, this interesting perspective on the future of streaming video was published yesterday in the N.Y. Times opinion section. The author, a former head of strategic planning for Amazon Studios, sees the monetization of viewership as the driving force that will result in a replay of the very reasons that have led cord-cutters to leave traditional pay TV: high costs and bloated programming bundles.


The author brings up some valid points about how a bunch of bundles and siloed content will cause some people to spend more, but I think that it's overall a good thing. The people that do spend more will be getting content more tailored to their interests, and others will likely rotate subscriptions or be very choosy as to what they are paying for.

The one argument that I find nonsensical is the idea that you'll be forced to pay for a bunch of stuff that you don't watch.... that's far worse on traditional pay TV where there are 400 channels and nothing on.

At some level, there has to be a rationalization of the content creation industry. Hopefully we'll continue to see the high-quality, high-budget stuff, but there will at some level be less content in general. The whole industry has been basically freeloading off of bloated cable bundles that were driven for a decade by ESPN and a handful of other "must have" channels. That business model is finally imploding, and the industry is going to have to adapt.

I'm not worried for myself, as I have more content than I can possibly watch, and the various bundles are only going to get better. I have Spotify and Hulu for $10/mo, Netflix on it's own, and Amazon for shipping anyway. I get HBO from a family member, plus I have OTA. It's a lot!

I think the key is this:



> To this end, many analysts believe the greatest threat to Netflix isn't imminent competition from storied media giants like Disney and WarnerMedia, but the fact that it's only in the video business and doesn't even sell ads.


Netflix should be concerned, as the others are in ecosystem plays. Amazon is a bit less evident what exactly their play is, but my sense is that they want to keep Prime "sticky" so that people just have it there and go to Amazon.com to order stuff, and then use the rest of the system.



NashGuy said:


> Being stuck on a Disney cruise is my idea of hell. (OK, purgatory...)


Virgin cruises is doing an adults-only cruise ship.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Virgin cruises is doing an adults-only cruise ship.


_Virgin_ cruises?


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Never been on a cruise but isn't the problem that the passengers are too old, not too young?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Mikeguy said:


> _Virgin_ cruises?


They have an airline, a cell phone carrier, a cable company, why not a cruise line?

Welcome to Virgin Voyages


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wco81 said:


> Never been on a cruise but isn't the problem that the passengers are too old, not too young?


I was referring to the Disney cruises, which are kid city, not the ones that cater to Newlyweds, Nearlydeads, and Overfeds.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Bigg said:


> They have an airline, a cell phone carrier, a cable company, why not a cruise line?
> 
> Welcome to Virgin Voyages


(I was trying to make a play on_ adult_ cruises from_ Virgin_. Apparently, not too successfully.  )


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Mikeguy said:


> (I was trying to make a play on_ adult_ cruises from_ Virgin_. Apparently, not too successfully.  )


Maybe that's why they don't have children with them.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Mikeguy said:


> (I was trying to make a play on_ adult_ cruises from_ Virgin_. Apparently, not too successfully.  )


Yeah, isn't that part of the whole British tongue-in-cheek humor of the Virgin brand name? Branson has always cultivated a sexy, edgy brand for all his endeavors yet named them "Virgin".


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Chiguy50 posted a link to Comcast's standard local rate card over on another thread here. I clicked through and logged into my Comcast account and was presented with the PDF that I've uploaded here. (Hopefully that's kosher.)

I see some very interesting stuff here in this new card effective as of last month.

Y'know how I've predicted that Comcast will deprecate their QAM TV system, leaving only a mid-sized set of basic cable channels, and only in SD, available there, while the full set of channels in HD would be exclusively available via IPTV? Well, check out how Comcast now sells two parallel sets of channel packages to new subscribers.

The new set is: Basic, Extra, and Preferred. There are also little add-on packs that can be appended to add more channels if they aren't already included in the base package you choose. If you sign up online for new Comcast TV service, this is the only set of options that you're offered and, by default, Comcast will send you equipment for your TV service so that it is delivered 100% via IPTV with streaming channels and cloud DVR. (However, if you call up or visit in store, you have the option of asking for traditional X1 boxes with QAM tuners and internal hard drives for use with this new channel package system.) These new packages all automatically include HD versions of channels (if available). They also include Comcast's Streampix on-demand package (which I predict will simply get absorbed into the upcoming NBCU SVOD coming next April). Extra and Preferred automatically include 20 hours of cloud DVR service. Any package can include expanded DVR service (60 hours of cloud DVR and/or local physical DVR) for a $10 upgrade fee applicable to the entire household. TV boxes are optional and cost $5/mo each. (Based on this card and other discussions I've had, it looks like all boxes cost $5/mo regardless of which model you get, whether it's an HD-only box with no hard drive or a 4K HDR X1 box with an internal DVR hard drive.) CableCARDs are free.

But alongside that new channel package system, they still offer two -- but only two -- packages from their old system: Limited Basic and Digital Starter. These packages are not eligible for any kind of bundling discount or paperless autopay discount and they do not automatically include HD channels -- that requires a $10/mo upgrade fee. Limited Basic can apparently serve up to 4 TVs. If you just take a simple digital adapter for each TV, there's no additional cost for the first three TVs. The fourth digital adapter incurs a whopping 50 cent per month charge, though. Or you can get actual TV boxes at $5/mo each -- the boxes offer the interactive program guide, plus the ability to get certain premium channels, VOD and PPV. I think you also need a box if you want to upgrade to HD. If you take the Digital Starter package, it automatically comes with 1 box. If you want service to additional TVs you'll have to pay $5/mo each for additional boxes; it doesn't seem to work with the little digital adapters, only Limited Basic does.

What I believe is that Limited Basic and Digital Starter will soon be the only legacy QAM-based packages that Comcast continues to offer to anyone, whether new or existing customers. Perhaps they'll continue to offer them in HD, or perhaps not. But it's not hard to all to imagine that pretty soon, anyone who is NOT on IPTV-compatible hardware will be told that they have a certain amount of time to either switch out their box (or migrate over to the Xfinity Stream app on their own devices) or instead be automatically transitioned over to either Digital Starter or Limited Basic (whichever is closer to their current package, assuming they have something different). *If this happened, it would mean that TiVo-using Comcast TV customers on a legacy channel package higher than Digital Starter (Digital Preferred or Digital Premiere) would lose channels unless they switched away from using their TiVo.* Just to clarify: this is only my speculation at this point. Comcast has NOT announced anything along these lines. I could very well be wrong. But I'm just putting this out there as food for thought.

Here's a webpage showing the typical channel line-up in Comcast's Digital Starter, Preferred and Premiere packages. As the page notes, it's a national approximation; the exact line-ups differ a bit from one area to another.

EDIT: I'd just like to point out what the regular price for Digital Starter is now: $69.95/mo. But you also have to add in the $10 broadcast TV fee and the $8.10 RSN fee. Want HD? Add on the $9.95 HD Technology Fee. That comes to a whopping $98/mo! Now, that does include 1 set-top box. So if you opted to use a free CableCARD instead of the box, you should get a $2.50/mo credit, bringing your bill down to the low, low rate of $95.50/mo. And keep in mind that the rate card says that the Digital Starter package is no longer eligible for any kind of multi-line bundling discount or other discounts. And since it's not actively advertised, I'm sure it won't qualify for any kind of initial promo deal for new customers either. (That's for the new Extra and Preferred packages.)

What say ye, TiVo-owners on Comcast? Would you pay $95.50 a month for a mid-sized package of HD cable channels, on top of whatever the standalone rate Comcast charges for broadband?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

The one thing we know for sure is that whatever Comcast does, they will do it in a few markets, then stop doing it for a while, do it in a few more, backtrack on it at some point, and then they'll end up doing something somewhat different in the end!


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> The one thing we know for sure is that whatever Comcast does, they will do it in a few markets, then stop doing it for a while, do it in a few more, backtrack on it at some point, and then they'll end up doing something somewhat different in the end!


Nah, I'm betting that they've completely stopped selling all the old Digital TV packages to new subs except for Digital Starter and Limited Basic and, even then, they don't qualify for bundling discounts.

Actually, based on another discussion I'm in on DSL Reports, it sounds like those two TV packages may not be combinable AT ALL with other services for new subs. In other words, if you're signing up for broadband or phone, you must take the new Basic, Extra or Preferred packages.

And I think Comcast has completely stopped giving out non-IPTV-capable hardware for the new set of packages, except MAYBE with the exception of CableCARDs. (I've read at least one person was able to retain their CableCARD and switch to a new package but it required calling in to get permission; online help said no.) Digital adapters are still being distributed for Limited Basic only and *maybe* some QAM-only STBs (likely non-DVRs) are available with Digital Starter and Limited Basic, although it's possible that even new subs on those two legacy packages are forced to take X1 boxes with QAM tuners now.

When Comcast launches a nationwide vMVPD next year, as I've been predicting, I think they'll offer the existing Extra and Preferred packages, with the new NBCU SVOD bundled in (replacing the old Streampix), of course. I think they'll also build one additional package that's cheaper than Extra. Maybe call it Select or Skinny. Like the other two, it'll come with 20 hours of cloud DVR, upgradeable to more for an extra $10/mo, and also come with the NBCU SVOD with full authenticated on-demand access to recent NBCU broadcast and cable content.

Here are the channels it'll have:

your local NBC and Telemundo stations
all NBCU-owned cable nets (USA, MSNBC, CNBC, Bravo, SyFy, E!, NBCSN, Golf, Olympic, Oxygen, Universal Kids, Cozi, NBC News Now)
likely some channels owned by A+E Networks, AMC Networks, and Hallmark/Crown Networks (BTW, I can still see Comcast buying those Hallmark nets. And/or buying out Hearst's 50% of A+E. Disney owns the other half.)
possibly some channels owned by Discovery and/or Viacom
possibly local Fox stations as well as Fox News, Fox Business, FS1, FS2, and Big Ten Network (Outside of Comcast's physical network footprint, if a local Fox affiliate is not part of the package, a live national Fox feed may be available instead.)


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> And I think Comcast has completely stopped giving out non-IPTV-capable hardware for the new set of packages, except MAYBE with the exception of CableCARDs. (I've read at least one person was able to retain their CableCARD and switch to a new package but it required calling in to get permission; online help said no.) Digital adapters are still being distributed for Limited Basic only and *maybe* some QAM-only STBs (likely non-DVRs) are available with Digital Starter and Limited Basic, although it's possible that even new subs on those two legacy packages are forced to take X1 boxes with QAM tuners now.


What doesn't make any sense is why they have seemingly conflated the new packages with IPTV. They're two totally different things, and either set of packages can be delivered via QAM or IPTV. They could migrate customers to IPTV using the existing set of packages by using the X1 hardware, which is capable of both QAM and IPTV.

The only thing I know for sure is that whatever they say they are going to do will be done unevenly, haphazardly, and take at least 3x as long as they say.



> When Comcast launches a nationwide vMVPD next year, as I've been predicting, I think they'll offer the existing Extra and Preferred packages, with the new NBCU SVOD bundled in (replacing the old Streampix), of course.


So do you think that they will immediately launch an OTT option, or first be a provider to other MSOs that want to drop their TV product, sort of like with HITS, except all the way down to the CPE? If they offer it initially through MSOs, each MSO could exert some level of customization/regionalization of the package for their specific markets.



> possibly local Fox stations as well as Fox News, Fox Business, FS1, FS2, and Big Ten Network (Outside of Comcast's physical network footprint, if a local Fox affiliate is not part of the package, a live national Fox feed may be available instead.)


For locals, I would assume they would offer locals where they have them (i.e. to Cox customers in the Hartford, CT area where they operate neighboring systems)?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> What doesn't make any sense is why they have seemingly conflated the new packages with IPTV. They're two totally different things, and either set of packages can be delivered via QAM or IPTV. They could migrate customers to IPTV using the existing set of packages by using the X1 hardware, which is capable of both QAM and IPTV.


No, the new channel package system and IPTV delivery aren't the same thing. They're two recent developments that have occurred about the same time. But Comcast could use these different package system as a sort of "line in the sand," with differential pricing and policies that will shepherd more folks over to IPTV and limit the number of channels that they'll have to maintain on QAM. You're absolutely right that the legacy packages can and (I suspect, for existing customers grandfathered on them) WILL be delivered via IPTV so long as the customer has IPTV-compatible hardware.

Here's what I could see happening in at least one region (probably the Central region where I live) soon:

Comcast announces that, as of that day, the following packages are deprecated and cannot be added to any existing or new account: Digital Economy, Digital Preferred, Digital Preferred Plus, Digital Premier.

Furthermore, the following two packages are available for new subscribers only as standalone TV service options and cannot be combined with Comcast internet or phone service: Limited Basic, Digital Starter. However, existing subscribers on either of those two packages may keep them alongside other Comcast services, albeit without the benefit of any kind of bundling or autopay discounts on those packages. New subscribers on Limited Basic may take up to 4 digital adapters for free or however many non-DVR X1 boxes with QAM tuners (e.g. XG2) for $5/mo each. New subscribers on Digital Starter get one of the latter for free, with additional ones available at $5/mo each.

Existing customers on any of the four deprecated Digital packages would be contacted and told that if their TVs are served by QAM-only devices (i.e. something other than an X1 box or a retail device running the Xfinity Stream app), they'll have X number of months to swap out their hardware for an X1 box or the XS app (in which case they'll be able to keep their current package and nothing will change). If they do not make that switch, at the end of X months, they'll automatically be switched to the Digital Starter package at its regular price with only SD channels (or perhaps HD versions of their major local broadcast nets and everything else in SD), with the ability to keep their current hardware indefinitely. (If their current hardware includes one or more physical DVRs, they can keep them with a $10/mo DVR service charge on the account.) If they stay on their current Digital package or if they get switched to Digital Starter, they will not qualify for any kind of TV service discount. If they switch their hardware to X1 or the app, they'll also have the option of switching to the new Basic, Extra, or Preferred package, on which bundling and autopay discounts are available.

The upshot: for existing customers, if you want to keep using your CableCARD TiVo or your old QAM-only box/DVR, you can, but you'll be stuck with Digital Starter or Limited Basic with all (or nearly all) your channels in SD. If you want a different package and/or you want HD channels and/or you want some kind of discount on your TV package, you'll need to swap out your hardware and/or your channel package.

At this point in time, what % of their TV customer base do you think would be affected by that move? Based on what I've read, I think maybe 70% of them are on X1 and/or the Stream app now. How does that remaining 30% of TV subs break down? Maybe something like this:

A. 10% on a deprecated Digital package: Digital Economy, Digital Preferred, Digital Preferred Plus, Digital Premier
B. 7% on Limited Basic or Digital Starter and also paying the $10 HD Technology Fee
C. 13% on Limited Basic or Digital Starter but not paying the HD Technology Fee

Only groups A and B would be affected by the changes outlined above, which per my SWAG amounts to 17% of their customer base. The remaining 83% of their customer base would be unaffected.



Bigg said:


> So do you think that they will immediately launch an OTT option, or first be a provider to other MSOs that want to drop their TV product, sort of like with HITS, except all the way down to the CPE? If they offer it initially through MSOs, each MSO could exert some level of customization/regionalization of the package for their specific markets.


Hmm, not sure. I think they'll need to get going with a nationwide OTT vMVPD pretty quickly next year, either at the same time that their NBCU SVOD launches or within a few months. I can definitely see them letting MSO partners (e.g. Charter) white-label the service if they want but, due to the specifics of the network carriage contracts involved, I don't think any of the distribution partners would be able to make any changes to the channel line-ups. It would simply be a matter of slapping on their brand name, and discounting the pricing (or sweetening the deal with free STBs and/or data cap waivers) in order to bundle it with their own broadband service.



Bigg said:


> For locals, I would assume they would offer locals where they have them (i.e. to Cox customers in the Hartford, CT area where they operate neighboring systems)?


Comcast will need to negotiate with all those locals nationwide in order to include them in the OTT vMVPD versions of the Extra and Preferred packages. As for that Skinny package that I imagine, the point there is to have some kind of low-priced package to offer. (The current Basic package -- which includes only locals, including small must-carry locals -- would not be offered in the OTT vMVPD, only over Comcast's managed IPTV system.) And the only way to get the pricing down on a Skinny package is to avoid carrying *everyone's* channels. The most savings can be had by dropping Disney channels (ABC locals, ESPN, etc.), ViacomCBS channels, and WarnerMedia channels. They would, of course, carry their own NBCU nets. Fox is a small bundle now of just their local Fox O&Os, Fox News, Fox Business, FS1, FS2, and Big Ten Network. So perhaps they could get squeezed into a $30 package along with the NBCU nets and the nets from A+E, AMC, Discovery and Hallmark that are included in the Extra package (A&E, History, Lifetime, Lifetime Movies, AMC, BBC America, Discovery, Animal Planet, Food, OWN, MotorTrend, TLC, Hallmark, Hallmark Movies & Mysteries). And the new NBCU SVOD would be included too, with full on-demand authentication privileges. If you got all that with 20 hours of cloud DVR, no contract and no additional charges, for $30/mo flat, that could sell.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> But Comcast could use these different package system as a sort of "line in the sand," with differential pricing and policies that will shepherd more folks over to IPTV and limit the number of channels that they'll have to maintain on QAM.


It's possible, but I think these are still two mostly unrelated things that somehow got tangled. They could just convert channels over to IPTV slowly on existing packages.



> If they do not make that switch, at the end of X months, they'll automatically be switched to the Digital Starter package at its regular price with only SD channels (or perhaps HD versions of their major local broadcast nets and everything else in SD), with the ability to keep their current hardware indefinitely.


That seems sort of punitive. It would be much more Comcastic to downgrade their package and keep their bill the same for less service, or leave a couple of the Preferred channels up on QAM and not move them at all, unless they are going all the way with IPTV.



> At this point in time, what % of their TV customer base do you think would be affected by that move? Based on what I've read, I think maybe 70% of them are on X1 and/or the Stream app now. How does that remaining 30% of TV subs break down?


I suspect it varies quite a bit from region to region and market to market depending on age and demographics. My old local cable company had a bunch of old people on analog and still haven't gotten rid of it, so they've got gigabit DOCSIS 3.1 running on a fiber-deep 1ghz plant with about half the spectrum on analog.

The thing is, if they want to go entirely IPTV, they need to roll out D3.1 gateways to do IP multicast. As it stands today, however, they could do IP unicast through DSG for probably half the channels that no one watches, and keep the other half on QAM. Unless IP multicast starts to not have a lot of benefit when they get fiber deep due to small node sizes and local networks still being QAM (i.e. Superbowl).



> Hmm, not sure. I think they'll need to get going with a nationwide OTT vMVPD pretty quickly next year, either at the same time that their NBCU SVOD launches or within a few months. I can definitely see them letting MSO partners (e.g. Charter) white-label the service if they want but, due to the specifics of the network carriage contracts involved, I don't think any of the distribution partners would be able to make any changes to the channel line-ups. It would simply be a matter of slapping on their brand name, and discounting the pricing (or sweetening the deal with free STBs and/or data cap waivers) in order to bundle it with their own broadband service.


Comcast is not exactly notorious for moving fast on anything. There are definitely limits to how much partners could tweak lineups, but there is some regionality to stuff, so I could see some differences with some lesser watched/fringe content.

They need either bundling with their own ISP service or through other MSO partners to replace their QAM-based systems, as no one will want Comcast's offering otherwise. Cap exemptions could push it forward, either on Comcast or on other MSOs (i.e. Cox). Without that tie-in, it would be a total flop compared to YouTube TV and Hulu Live TV.



> Comcast will need to negotiate with all those locals nationwide in order to include them in the OTT vMVPD versions of the Extra and Preferred packages.


I wonder if their current agreements allow for white-labeling their service over another MSO's network, i.e. if they'd consider that to be managed IPTV (not streaming) or streaming.



> And the only way to get the pricing down on a Skinny package is to avoid carrying *everyone's* channels. The most savings can be had by dropping Disney channels (ABC locals, ESPN, etc.), ViacomCBS channels, and WarnerMedia channels. They would, of course, carry their own NBCU nets. Fox is a small bundle now of just their local Fox O&Os, Fox News, Fox Business, FS1, FS2, and Big Ten Network. So perhaps they could get squeezed into a $30 package along with the NBCU nets and the nets from A+E, AMC, Discovery and Hallmark that are included in the Extra package (A&E, History, Lifetime, Lifetime Movies, AMC, BBC America, Discovery, Animal Planet, Food, OWN, MotorTrend, TLC, Hallmark, Hallmark Movies & Mysteries).


That sounds like an untargeted, unbalanced mess. YouTube TV's original $40 package was amazing because it was so well targeted for what live TV is good for, with no crap and cruft. They still have all the channels that live TV is good for, even though they accumulated some crap and cruft in order to soften the blow of the price hike for $40/mo to $50/mo.

I don't think a scattershot of seemingly random channels (not random at all, since it's based on ownership, but random from the end user's point of view) is going to sell well. I can foresee Comcast's offerings turning into the same confusing mess that AT&T is in right now with a whole bunch of different packages that all either suck or are absurdly overpriced for what you get. And meanwhile, the digitally-native companies like Google and Hulu, in addition to crazy old Charlie Ergen with Sling are going to continue to run away with this, or at least what little is left of the market for vMVPDs as many people just cut the cord entirely.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Chiguy50 posted a link to Comcast's standard local rate card over on another thread here. I clicked through and logged into my Comcast account and was presented with the PDF that I've uploaded here. (Hopefully that's kosher.)
> 
> I see some very interesting stuff here in this new card effective as of last month.


Comparing your rate card, line item by line item, with ours in the Atlanta area (with the same effective date of July 17), the only significant difference is in the fee for the Limited Basic TV tier (first item on the list), which is $32.95 here compared to the oddball $22.39 there.

I wonder whether that could be a typo on your card? (I think you would have to call or chat with a CSR to confirm the actual pricing since AFAICT you can not sign up for Limited Basic through the web site.)



NashGuy said:


> I'd just like to point out what the regular price for Digital Starter is now: $69.95/mo. But you also have to add in the $10 broadcast TV fee and the $8.10 RSN fee. Want HD? Add on the $9.95 HD Technology Fee. That comes to a whopping $98/mo! Now, that does include 1 set-top box. So if you opted to use a free CableCARD instead of the box, you should get a $2.50/mo credit, bringing your bill down to the low, low rate of $95.50/mo. And keep in mind that the rate card says that the Digital Starter package is no longer eligible for any kind of multi-line bundling discount or other discounts. And since it's not actively advertised, I'm sure it won't qualify for any kind of initial promo deal for new customers either. (That's for the new Extra and Preferred packages.)
> 
> What say ye, TiVo-owners on Comcast? Would you pay $95.50 a month for a mid-sized package of HD cable channels, on top of whatever the standalone rate Comcast charges for broadband?


Well, to be fair, Comcast is competing in a cut-throat capitalist system and you can't really fault them for charging whatever they think the market will bear. And actual pricing is a moving target anyway as anyone who has shopped for an airline ticket in the last 20 years can attest. I find this type of consumer manipulation positively loathsome (whether through algorithms or highly inflated listed pricing or other chicanery), but you have to play the game and look for discounts or negotiate fearlessly if you don't want to get gouged. _Caveat emptor_ has never been a more valid warning.

Just to put that published retail pricing into perspective, we have the Digital Starter ($69.95) sub on our bulk-services agreement for the current per-unit rate of $28.46. After add-on fees and taxes, it comes to a total of $37.25 vs. $95.00 (the approximate all-inclusive pricing in our market after fees and local taxes).


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> It's possible, but I think these are still two mostly unrelated things that somehow got tangled. They could just convert channels over to IPTV slowly on existing packages.


Well, first "converting" isn't quite the right word since all their channels are already on IPTV. That's the way many/most new customers this year been receiving the entire service.

As for removing channels from QAM, it seems to me that doing it gradually would be a bad idea from a consumer perspective. You want customers to know what's happening, what to expect, and what their options are. If Comcast seems to be quietly and randomly yanking a couple of channels from the Digital Preferred tier off of QAM every month, that's just going to confuse and anger the customers it affects. Seems much better to me for the company to figure out which channels they want to remove from QAM within the next couple of years and then do them all at once.

When it's announced, they would immediately stop providing QAM-only equipment to customers getting any channels leaving QAM and they would at the same time send notices to all affected current customers letting them know the options available to them and the timeframe in which they have to take action before a specified default alternative will be put in place for them, e.g. they'll keep their current hardware and be switched to Digital Starter. Digital Starter, BTW, is a package similar to YouTube TV, except it also contains Viacom channels. Digital Starter has locals, RSNs, and the most popular sports, news and entertainment channels. The sort of channels that it doesn't include, but which are included in the now-apparently-grandfathered next package up, Digital Preferred, is stuff like FX Movie Channel, Nicktoons, and Smithsonian Channel.



Bigg said:


> I suspect it varies quite a bit from region to region and market to market depending on age and demographics. My old local cable company had a bunch of old people on analog and still haven't gotten rid of it, so they've got gigabit DOCSIS 3.1 running on a fiber-deep 1ghz plant with about half the spectrum on analog.


Once you're talking about the regional or divisional level, I doubt there's any significant demographic differences, given the amount of customers you're talking about. (Averages between samples decrease as sample sizes increase.) I would imagine Comcast making this kind of shift to deprecate QAM at the divisional level. There are only 3 divisions in the entire footprint: Central, West, and Northeast.



Bigg said:


> The thing is, if they want to go entirely IPTV, they need to roll out D3.1 gateways to do IP multicast. As it stands today, however, they could do IP unicast through DSG for probably half the channels that no one watches, and keep the other half on QAM. Unless IP multicast starts to not have a lot of benefit when they get fiber deep due to small node sizes and local networks still being QAM (i.e. Superbowl).


Comcast may have already signaled that they do not plan to maintain a hybrid channel system, in which customers are served the most popular channels indefinitely via QAM and the less popular channels via unicast IPTV. If that was the long-term approach that Comcast planned to take, then they probably wouldn't be signing up new customers by default with 100% IPTV service. Remember, those Xi5s and Xi6s that they're handing out by default now to new customers can't access QAM channels at all. That base of users will only grow.

They already have deployed a lot of gateways, including the XB6, that support IP multicast, although I tend to doubt that they're actually running any channels via multicast yet. Let's say that they do end up keeping major locals in HD on QAM (with everything else that stays on QAM going to SD-only). Those HD QAM locals would still serve every customer with a QAM-capable box, regardless of the package they're on. The broadcast nets alone (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, PBS, The CW, Telemundo, Univision) account for a huge chunk of viewers at any given moment, so keeping that viewership on QAM would prevent a lot of unicast IPTV traffic. All other HD channels outside those few locals would be exclusively served up via unicast IPTV streams for awhile, until whatever point Comcast had enough multicast-capable gateways in place to benefit from implementing dynamic switching from unicast to multicast for the most popular cable channels at any given time (e.g. ESPN during a popular game). And then, at that point, the company would be free, if they wanted, to drop the HD versions of the locals on QAM too, replacing them with HD multicast streams.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Comcast is not exactly notorious for moving fast on anything. There are definitely limits to how much partners could tweak lineups, but there is some regionality to stuff, so I could see some differences with some lesser watched/fringe content.


I guess it depends to the extent that these MSOs are "partners" vs. just re-sellers. I'm imaging a very simple scenario in which they're just re-sellers: take Comcast's X1 TV vMVPD product as-is (except maybe customize the name, e.g. "Charter X1 TV") and bundle it in with your own broadband for whatever rate you want. Yes, it could be implemented as managed IPTV on your own network if you like. However it's done, it would need to not count toward whatever data cap you might have. This would be your new next-gen TV system for folks who want a full set of HD channels, DVR service, 4K HDR, SVOD add-ons, etc. For everyone else, just keep a deprecated QAM system as Comcast will do and serve them with very basic hardware.

What I think Comcast will do is roll out something that looks a lot like Hulu with Live TV, except instead of the Hulu on-demand service, it's going to be the upcoming NBCU SVOD that's packaged in with whatever live cable channels you get. And it's going to be constructed for nationwide OTT deployment. There would be no tweaking from one place to another, except in which locals you get. I can imagine that they'll just take their new Extra and Preferred packages and offer them on this new service. That will mean going into all those local markets where Comcast doesn't already operate and getting the major locals on board. Of course, since Comcast is huge and already has relationships in place with Sinclair, Nexstar, Meredith, Gray and all the other big station owners, it won't be *that* hard for them to onboard those new locals quickly. (Also, all those locals have already put systems in place to stream to other OTT vMVPDs like YTTV.)

But Extra is a pretty filled-out package, including RSNs and popular channels from all the major network groups. And it'll have the upcoming NBCU SVOD too. So it'll be priced more than YouTube TV (which I think will go up to $55 next year, BTW). Maybe Extra could be $60/mo? AT&T TV Now's Max package (which includes RSNs, but also HBO and Cinemax) is $70/mo.

That leaves a big hole on the low-end to fill, to compete with stuff like Philo, Sling TV and AT&T Watch TV (which I believe will tack on HBO Max, raising the price from $15 to $30, and become the new Starter tier on AT&T TV Now). It's important to have a low everyday starting price, so you can advertise, "X1 TV, starting at $29.99 everyday!"

Which led me to the idea that Comcast's vMVPD might have a low-end Skinny bundle priced around $30/mo too. But how can they hit that low of a price point? Easy. Start by copying what AT&T has done on their Watch TV (which has no locals or all-sports nets): first stuff in all the networks that you own (duh), then add in lots of networks that aren't owned by the big boys with their broadcast and sports nets, which would mean adding channels from Discovery, A&E, AMC and Hallmark (i.e. "the Philo channels"). It used to mean also including some Viacom channels but now that they're ViacomCBS, it might be hard to get them to participate in a new skinny bundle without also insisting that their pricey CBS locals be included too. Probably not worth it. But instead, there might be pricing room at $30 to include the Fox channels. Fox has shown that they'll do a deal that only includes their local O&Os and substitute in a national feed in markets where a deal has yet to be struck with their non-O&O affiliates. Main reason to include Fox, though, is that it would bring Fox News and FS1 to the table. A skinny $30 bundle that offered both Fox News and MSNBC would appeal to lots of folks -- they were the 5th and 6th most popular channels of 2018, surpassed only by the big 4 broadcast nets. Having NBC, Fox, NBCSN and F1 would have all the NASCAR races. Beyond that, it would offer a variety of entertainment channels for not too much. If you could supply your own locals via OTA, that would be a pretty decent little bundle for a lot of people, I think. Looking at the list of last-year's most popular channels, this hypothetical X1 Skinny package would contain the ones ranked at 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 31, 36, 37, 39, 42, 43, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 57, 64, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 75. You could call that an untargeted, unbalanced mess if you like but some would call it a pretty decent amount and variety of live and on-demand content for $30.



Bigg said:


> That sounds like an untargeted, unbalanced mess. YouTube TV's original $40 package was amazing because it was so well targeted for what live TV is good for, with no crap and cruft. They still have all the channels that live TV is good for, even though they accumulated some crap and cruft in order to soften the blow of the price hike for $40/mo to $50/mo.
> 
> I don't think a scattershot of seemingly random channels (not random at all, since it's based on ownership, but random from the end user's point of view) is going to sell well. I can foresee Comcast's offerings turning into the same confusing mess that AT&T is in right now with a whole bunch of different packages that all either suck or are absurdly overpriced for what you get. And meanwhile, the digitally-native companies like Google and Hulu, in addition to crazy old Charlie Ergen with Sling are going to continue to run away with this, or at least what little is left of the market for vMVPDs as many people just cut the cord entirely.


I don't think Sling is running away with anything. They're scraping out pennies on the low end. But as long as the actually-profitable DISH holds up, they'll be able to keep Sling running with its current packages and pricing.

As for Google's YTTV, I expect they're going to have to add a few more key missing channels and also raise prices again, probably to $55. After they added Discovery channels awhile back, they're very close to being a good middle-of-the-road standard channel package but not quite there. Without A&E, they don't have cable's most popular show of 2019, Live PD. They only need to make two small deals, one with A&E and one with Crown/Hallmark to get 2018's 15th, 17th, 21st, 31st, and 36th most popular channels added.

Here's the new structure that's emerging among MVPDs and vMVPDs:

low-end cheap package that's missing lots of key channels. For MVPDs, this package is ONLY locals. For vMVPDs, this package has 0 - 2 locals. (vMVPD examples: Sling Blue, Sling Orange, AT&T Watch TV, Philo)
mainstream package that covers the vast majority of the 60 most popular channels (e.g. YTTV, Hulu with Live TV, AT&T TV: Plus, Comcast: Extra)
high-end package and/or add-on pack(s) for those who want niche channels that aren't in the mainstream package

YouTube TV, at least so far, has only offered one package and it fits the middle "mainstream package" description. But I expect that they'll eventually also offer some kind of add-on pack to offer at least those missing sports channels they don't currently have. Hulu with Live TV already has an "Entertainment Add-on" pack. AT&T TV Now has Plus as their mainstream package (but without RSNs) and Max as their high-end package with additional sports and entertainment channels.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> Comparing your rate card, line item by line item, with ours in the Atlanta area (with the same effective date of July 17), the only significant difference is in the fee for the Limited Basic TV tier (first item on the list), which is $32.95 here compared to the oddball $22.39 there.
> 
> I wonder whether that could be a typo on your card? (I think you would have to call or chat with a CSR to confirm the actual pricing since AFAICT you can not sign up for Limited Basic through the web site.)


I don't think it's a typo, I just think your Limited Basic service is super-expensive in Atlanta! A guy from IL posted elsewhere that his new rate card shows that their LB service is priced about the same as Nashville's, maybe 90 cents higher there. Per my card, the LB rate shown here does NOT include the additional $10 Broadcast TV fee. So in reality, a Nashville resident would pay $32.39 just to get local channels without any kind of DVR service, which seems crazy to me. (That comes with up to 3 digital adapters, with a 4th costing an extra 50 cents. Which is... odd.) I've read that Comcast has a bunch of different types of digital adapters, some SD-only, some can handle HD. It isn't clear to me if HD versions of locals are included in the LB service for no extra charge. If so, you'd just need to tell them that you want HD-capable digital adapters. I know for sure, though, that the non-locals in the Digital Starter package do not automatically include HD versions unless you pay the extra $10 HD Technology Fee.

And, no, you can't sign up for LB or Digital Starter online. I really do think that those packages are being reserved only for the elderly and/or poor and/or anti-techies who want some amount of pay TV but don't want internet.



chiguy50 said:


> Well, to be fair, Comcast is competing in a cut-throat capitalist system and you can't really fault them for charging whatever they think the market will bear.


Oh, I'm not criticizing, per se. I'm just wondering how badly TiVo fans on Comcast want to keep using their TiVo. If they were presented with the kind of situation that I think is potentially coming, would they stick with their TiVo? Would they pay $95 per month (along with whatever the standard price is for their broadband package) for the Digital Starter package in HD? That seems a bit prohibitive to me, but then my parents have been paying the standard $120 rate for a package on DISH that's probably equivalent to Digital Preferred for awhile now, along with the standard rate for Comcast broadband. Why? Familiarity and inertia.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Oh, I'm not criticizing, per se.


I'm sure you realized that I didn't mean you personally, but rather the generic "you." And, of course, I am by no means defending the practice but just pointing out that this is the field on which the game is being played.



NashGuy said:


> I'm just wondering how badly TiVo fans on Comcast want to keep using their TiVo. If they were presented with the kind of situation that I think is potentially coming, would they stick with their TiVo? Would they pay $95 per month (along with whatever the standard price is for their broadband package) for the Digital Starter package in HD? That seems a bit prohibitive to me, but then my parents have been paying the standard $120 rate for a package on DISH that's probably equivalent to Digital Preferred for awhile now, along with the standard rate for Comcast broadband. Why? Familiarity and inertia.


Well, I think you were correct earlier (I believe it was in this thread) when you surmised that Comcast is interested first and foremost in pushing their broadband services and therefore will make the HSI+TV bundle pricing a relative bargain over stand-alone TV. Any TV subscribers are just a means to achieving that corporate objective or padding to the bottom line.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> Well, I think you were correct earlier (I believe it was in this thread) when you surmised that Comcast is interested first and foremost in pushing their broadband services and therefore will make the HSI+TV bundle pricing a relative bargain over stand-alone TV. Any TV subscribers are just a means to achieving that corporate objective or padding to the bottom line.


Yeah, Comcast and other MSOs have publicly stated that they see broadband now as their primary line of service, with TV, phone, etc. being add-ons.

But because of local franchise authority agreements that have been in place for cable operators since the '70s, we will still see those companies operate standalone TV services. For at least the next several years, skeleton cable TV services will remain on QAM and be accessible by customers via inexpensive recycled last-gen hardware (e.g. digital adapters and simple STBs without DVR).

That's what Comcast is doing with their Limited Basic and Digital Starter packages: creating a legacy TV system intended for standalone TV subscribers, with those channels delivered via a truncated QAM system and probably only in (widescreen) SD, with the possible exception of local affiliates of the major broadcast nets which might still be offered in HD via QAM. Cox already has a similar set-up with their Starter TV service, which only includes HD and SD locals (plus crap stuff like shopping channels and Music Choice). Comcast is going to be more generous toward those who refuse the future of TV by letting them also access the most popular basic cable channels via Digital Starter (which includes stuff like the ESPN channels, Discovery, FX, USA, TBS, TNT, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, FS1, HGTV, Hallmark, Nickelodeon, MTV, History, Disney, etc.)

The main reason for these legacy QAM cable packages to exist in the early 2020s will be to offer, to folks who need them, a way to get their local channels without the need for an antenna. But they'll pay dearly for them. And such a package will ONLY be available from the local *cable* company, not the local telco (e.g. AT&T, Verizon, etc.), not a fiber provider, and not via any streaming or satellite service. Only cable. Around here, Comcast is charging $32.39 per month to deliver my local channels (plus C-SPAN) to up to 3 TVs with simple digital adapters (no on-screen guide).

Outside of participating in those locals-only packages from cable companies, the major network owners (Disney, Comcast, Fox, maybe ViacomCBS) won't allow their locals to be included in any channel package that doesn't include at least *some* of their cable channels too. No ABC without ESPN and Disney. No Fox without Fox News. No NBC without USA and MSNBC. No CBS without Nickelodeon and MTV (probably). At least for the next few years, until the whole cable channel bundle breaks down...


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

And for those thinking that Comcast wouldn't reclaim all that bandwidth by eliminating non-local HD cable channels on QAM, think about this possibility: Comcast gets permission from the cable nets to take their HD feeds and down-rez them from 1080i or 720p to widescreen 480i but at a decent MPEG-2 bitrate for SD. Would they look as good as their current overly compressed bit-starved widescreen 720p MPEG-4 "HD" channels? Probably not. But, OTOH, they probably wouldn't look much worse. My guess is that very few of the affected Digital Starter subscribers (on QAM-only non-X1 boxes) would notice. And those who did would be OK with the change given that it would mean the $10 HD Technology Fee disappeared from their bill.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

chiguy50 said:


> Well, to be fair, Comcast is competing in a cut-throat capitalist system and you can't really fault them for charging whatever they think the market will bear.


TV is kind of turning into a free market, but Comcast still has an ironclad monopoly over millions of homes, and as long as they are putting arbitrary and capricious data caps on their customers in order to coerce them into buying their own TV service or paying them $50/mo more for absolutely nothing, it's not capitalism, but rather a failure of capitalism and regulations to address a monopoly.



NashGuy said:


> Well, first "converting" isn't quite the right word since all their channels are already on IPTV.


I mean to remove QAM versions of them and offer IP multicast for more popular channels with the CPE in place to do so (RDK-B).



> As for removing channels from QAM, it seems to me that doing it gradually would be a bad idea from a consumer perspective.


They've done it before with analog. A letter went out 60 or 90 days before the turndown with a list of channels that were disappearing, and that happened several times before they killed off analog completely. They could do it again in waves the same way.



> You want customers to know what's happening, what to expect, and what their options are. If Comcast seems to be quietly and randomly yanking a couple of channels from the Digital Preferred tier off of QAM every month, that's just going to confuse and anger the customers it affects.


It wouldn't be yanking anything from any package, it would just require them to go in and do a box swap to an X1-based box continue to get the channels. You're way overthinking it. It's not a plan change, they just need to update their equipment. They did the same thing for MPEG-4. It's just a different box with newer tech in it that most of their customers already have anyway.



> Digital Starter, BTW, is a package similar to YouTube TV, except it also contains Viacom channels.


Digital Starter is missing a bunch of stuff, like CBSSN and I believe some others like ESPNU and ESPNNEWS. YTTV is still a better targeted package than Digital Starter, since Comcast has always taken a few essential sports channels and moved them up to Preferred.



> Once you're talking about the regional or divisional level, I doubt there's any significant demographic differences, given the amount of customers you're talking about.


Florida and the Midwest probably mess those up.



> Comcast may have already signaled that they do not plan to maintain a hybrid channel system, in which customers are served the most popular channels indefinitely via QAM and the less popular channels via unicast IPTV.


Then they have to move to RDK-B and IP multicast to do it all via IP.



> They already have deployed a lot of gateways, including the XB6, that support IP multicast, although I tend to doubt that they're actually running any channels via multicast yet.


They need IP multicast for a handful of popular cable channels if they want to take them off of QAM, and they'd need to deploy a lot of XB6s to households that currently have XB3s or customer owned modems.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I guess it depends to the extent that these MSOs are "partners" vs. just re-sellers. ... For everyone else, just keep a deprecated QAM system as Comcast will do and serve them with very basic hardware.


It makes no sense to keep a deprecated QAM system, as now they are negotiating for carriage rights for their QAM system, while Comcast gets the scale advantage on the IPTV side of things. I think it would be a short transition period and then it would be 100% conversion to IPTV. It would be easier for Cox, for example, since they are already running X1, they could move everyone over to X1 before the transition, and they could literally turn on the IPTV system and pull the keys from the QAM side within a few minutes of each other. Reclaiming the physical QAM bandwidth would take longer, but would happen shortly thereafter.

What I think Comcast will do is roll out something that looks a lot like Hulu with Live TV, except instead of the Hulu on-demand service, it's going to be the upcoming NBCU SVOD that's packaged in with whatever live cable channels you get.[/quote]

Sounds like a mess that could be successful if it's zero-rated on Comcast and other partnered MSOs.



> A skinny $30 bundle that offered both Fox News and MSNBC would appeal to lots of folks -- they were the 5th and 6th most popular channels of 2018, surpassed only by the big 4 broadcast nets.


They'd need CNN from AT&T as well. This sounds like an untargeted mess of junk that they would throw together.



> You could call that an untargeted, unbalanced mess if you like but some would call it a pretty decent amount and variety of live and on-demand content for $30.


That's a tough sell when Sling TV is out there and YouTube TV has an incredibly well rounded package of channels for $50 with an award-winning interface.



> I don't think Sling is running away with anything. They're scraping out pennies on the low end. But as long as the actually-profitable DISH holds up, they'll be able to keep Sling running with its current packages and pricing.
> 
> As for Google's YTTV, I expect they're going to have to add a few more key missing channels and also raise prices again, probably to $55. After they added Discovery channels awhile back, they're very close to being a good middle-of-the-road standard channel package but not quite there. Without A&E, they don't have cable's most popular show of 2019, Live PD. They only need to make two small deals, one with A&E and one with Crown/Hallmark to get 2018's 15th, 17th, 21st, 31st, and 36th most popular channels added.


Sling is doing very well. They're on small margins, but they have some upsell potential with DVR and various channel packs, as well as a strong niche market in international channels, which has largely replaced the 2-dish setups from DISH and DirecTV to get international channels.

The problem with YTTV is that they already added a bunch of garbage. They had a perfectly targeted lineup (except a couple of ABC garbage channels that slipped in) at $40/mo, but apparently they had to add more to justify the price increase since they were running on razor thin margins, or possibly losing money at $40.



> YouTube TV, at least so far, has only offered one package and it fits the middle "mainstream package" description. But I expect that they'll eventually also offer some kind of add-on pack to offer at least those missing sports channels they don't currently have. Hulu with Live TV already has an "Entertainment Add-on" pack. AT&T TV Now has Plus as their mainstream package (but without RSNs) and Max as their high-end package with additional sports and entertainment channels.


With their original package, they had everything that is good for the live TV format, and none of the garbage. It's still a pretty good deal at $50, even though some garbage slid in there. It's sad that the Discovery family of networks, which used to be the crown jewel of the cable world has turned into a cesspool of garbage. At least there is a TON of great content to watch on Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, and other specialty sources like Curiosity Stream.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> And, no, you can't sign up for LB or Digital Starter online. I really do think that those packages are being reserved only for the elderly and/or poor and/or anti-techies who want some amount of pay TV but don't want internet.


It's a fringe case, but there's people with Google Fiber or a Muni fiber ISP that have Comcast TV. Most would probably just go OTT in that case though.



NashGuy said:


> The main reason for these legacy QAM cable packages to exist in the early 2020s will be to offer, to folks who need them, a way to get their local channels without the need for an antenna. But they'll pay dearly for them.


It really has nothing to do with the customers, it's Comcast's decision how they want to deliver TV. If they wanted to go all-IPTV, they would go all-IPTV, but they clearly don't want to replace all the DTAs and phase out all of the legacy boxes quite yet. If they went all-IPTV, they could easily provision an XB6 and Xi3/5/6 to provide IPTV to TV-only customers, but that would cost them more money in CPE.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> It really has nothing to do with the customers, it's Comcast's decision how they want to deliver TV. If they wanted to go all-IPTV, they would go all-IPTV, but they clearly don't want to replace all the DTAs and phase out all of the legacy boxes quite yet. If they went all-IPTV, they could easily provision an XB6 and Xi3/5/6 to provide IPTV to TV-only customers, but that would cost them more money in CPE.


Yup. Moving to all-IPTV would cost more money in CPE. That's the same reason that other cable operators (e.g. Cox, Charter) will continue to operate a truncated QAM TV system that offers locals plus maybe a small/medium-sized package of the most popular cable nets too -- they can still cheaply serve that 10-20% of their customer base who doesn't want to take broadband and doesn't care about advanced features. Let them keep whatever old QAM-based box or adapter they have now and recycle that old, cheap equipment to new TV-only customers who sign up for those packages.

As for Comcast transitioning over to 100% IPTV and using multicast for their most popular linear channels, that could be phased in over time. The first step might be to leave only the most popular channels in HD on QAM -- definitely the local affiliates of the major broadcast nets (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, PBS, CW and, where available, Univision and/or Telemundo), as I have said I could see happening. Perhaps they would also leave a few other basic cable channels in HD on QAM, ones that are very popular and which tend to draw a lot of live viewers. Looking at 2018's list of most popular channels, who would that be? Fox News (#5), MSNBC (6), ESPN (7), CNN (22), plus the local RSNs. But the vast majority of basic cable channels probably do not get enough live viewers to justify remaining on QAM in HD. It would be more efficient to take the bandwidth they occupy and convert it to IP, letting the HD versions of those channels get served up exclusively via IPTV.

Let's say they implemented a transition period lasting a couple years or so, starting in mid-2020, in which any viewer with a QAM-capable device (which is the vast majority of currently-deployed X1s) got those 15 or so HD channels via QAM. Additionally, all viewers with QAM-capable devices would get the SD versions of all the channels in Digital Starter via QAM too. Outside of those ~15 HD channels and ~85 SD channels, all linear channels would be exclusively delivered via IPTV. To begin with those IPTV streams would all be unicast, although multicast delivery of the most popular streams (at any given point in time in a given locality) would be phased in over time.

During this ~2-year period, the only devices getting IPTV streams for those ~15 HD and ~85 SD channels would be IPTV-only devices/apps. The number of those devices will increase over that time but Comcast's network -- which is already handling far more unicast video streams for third-party apps like Netflix -- can easily continue to accommodate those cable TV customers exclusively via unicast. Also, keep in mind that the number of installed multicast-capable gateways like the XB6 will continue to rise during that period too, allowing Comcast to begin enabling dynamic switching between unicast and multicast streams for those (initially rare) instances when enough IPTV-capable devices in a local area were requesting the same channel at the same time. Remember that a lot of installed hybrid QAM/IPTV X1 boxes are already mated with XB6s, so they could be served via multicast when there's a spike of viewership on, let's say, FS1.

At some point, Comcast will have determined that enough multicast-capable gateways are deployed in order to exclusively rely on multicast, as opposed to QAM, for delivering the most popular live linear HD channels. At that point, they would be free to completely eliminate their QAM system if they wanted. Or perhaps they'd leave the SD channels for a couple more years and just remove those 15 or so HD channels that were left on it. Because when they eventually completely shut down QAM, they'll need to provision more expensive CPE (a multicast gateway + Xi5 or similar for each TV) to those homes and businesses with standalone TV service. But that number will continue to fall over time while the per-unit cost of the CPE will fall too. So that's a waiting game until the cost gets low enough to completely ditch QAM. In the meantime, though, their IP network will have reclaimed the lion's share of bandwidth from QAM.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> They'd need CNN from AT&T as well. This sounds like an untargeted mess of junk that they would throw together.


Have you taken a look at either Sling's Orange or Blue packages? Kinda similar -- a rag-tag group of channels based around who's the content owner, with no locals (unless you live in a major network O&O market), structured to keep the price down.

I think you have an unrealistically consumer-centric view of channel packages. Sure, it'd be great if an MVPD could cherry-pick just the most popular channels from each content owner and put them together in a low-priced package. Unfortunately, that can't happen. The closest we see to that is YTTV, although its line-up tends more toward those who are sports fan and it's still missing some key channels (nothing from Viacom, A+E or Hallmark).

At any rate, I do believe that there will continue to be a niche (for awhile anyhow) for an entry-level tier that sits below YTTV, or AT&T TV Now's Plus package, or Comcast's Extra package. These will appeal to budget-conscious fans of channel-based TV who either don't care about locals or will get them via antenna. They just want a $20-30 variety pack of "something to watch". Due to the cost constraints necessary to reach such a low price point, those packages will necessarily have to exclude every channel from one or more major content owner (Disney, NBCU, ViacomCBS, WarnerMedia).

AT&T is already playing in that arena with their (virtually unadvertised) AT&T Watch TV package, which I think will just get folded into AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now soon. The kind of Skinny package I imagine NBCU creating will play in this low-cost starter-tier space too.



Bigg said:


> That's a tough sell when Sling TV is out there and YouTube TV has an incredibly well rounded package of channels for $50 with an award-winning interface.


Yeah, YTTV has done a good job of trying to strike a balance between cost and content. Still though, while it's well-rounded for many, it's missing some of the most popular channels. Unless they patch up a few more of those holes, it'll have a tough time taking over as a mainstream cable TV service replacement for Verizon FiOS and other MSOs.



Bigg said:


> Sling is doing very well. They're on small margins, but they have some upsell potential with DVR and various channel packs, as well as a strong niche market in international channels, which has largely replaced the 2-dish setups from DISH and DirecTV to get international channels.


I really don't think Sling is making much money for DISH given those prices. (But given that DISH doesn't own any of the content or the IP pipes their service streams over, how could they?) But they're definitely onto something in structuring a more flexible channel packaging system, with a choice of low-cost base bundles (Orange or Blue) and then add-on Extra packs. The key to the next phase of selling cable TV is to get as many extraneous channels as possible out of the main package in order to get the cost down, while giving consumers who do want those channels the option of adding them on for a few more bucks. And the more flexibility/optionality the vMVPD can build into the system, the better for consumers.



Bigg said:


> The problem with YTTV is that they already added a bunch of garbage.


What's garbage to you is someone else's treasure.

What would a channel package that *doesn't* contain garbage look like to you? Just locals, sports and news channels? That will probably eventually become a reality but it's going to take awhile. The content owners won't allow the bundle to unravel to that degree -- just containing their crown jewels -- until they're making sufficient money on their entertainment (non-news/sports) content via their own DTC streaming services. And when such a channel bundle does become a reality, it won't be all that cheap because, well, sports are expensive.



Bigg said:


> They had a perfectly targeted lineup (except a couple of ABC garbage channels that slipped in) at $40/mo, but apparently they had to add more to justify the price increase since they were running on razor thin margins, or possibly losing money at $40.


So, first off, you know that Sling (and DISH) have lost the Fox RSNs, right? They're at an impasse with the new owner, Sinclair, it seems. And Ergen sounds like he's OK with those RSNs never returning. Keepin' those costs down. (BTW, DISH lost HBO and Cinemax last year.)

And now Disney and Sling/DISH are in negotiations over the carriage renewal of the FX and NetGeo channels (which Disney recently acquired from Fox). Those channels currently reside in the Blue package (along with Fox and NBCU channels) while Disney's other channels reside in the Orange package. So far, both have been regularly priced at $25 each, with a combo of Orange and Blue for $40.

I think it'll go one of three ways:

The FX and NatGeo channels are renewed but moved from Blue to Orange, keeping all the Disney-owned channels together in the latter. If this happens, though, their prices can't remain equal. We'll see a price dip for Blue (down to $22.50?) and a hike for Orange (up to $27.50?). Perhaps the combo pack of the two stays the same at $40, or maybe it has to go up a couple bucks.
The two sides cannot reach an agreement and FX and NatGeo are dropped, just like HBO and the RSNs. If this happens, Blue might be priced lower than Orange, either because the price of Blue dips or because the cost of Orange bumps up. Or maybe prices stay the same and Blue becomes a bit less popular with subscribers.
The FX and NatGeo channels are renewed. Sling decides that their unusual system of two competing base packages is untenable. Orange and Blue combine into "Sling Basics" with the price either staying at $40 or bumping up a bit. This also means that there ceases to be Orange vs. Blue versions of certain add-on Extra packs too. As those collapse into one version for each Extra pack, some of them might have to tick up a dollar or so in price.



Bigg said:


> With their original package, they had everything that is good for the live TV format, and none of the garbage. It's still a pretty good deal at $50, even though some garbage slid in there. It's sad that the Discovery family of networks, which used to be the crown jewel of the cable world has turned into a cesspool of garbage. At least there is a TON of great content to watch on Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, and other specialty sources like Curiosity Stream.


I could see Discovery making a play to buy A+E Networks (currently owned 50/50 by Disney and Hearst). Most of their stuff -- History, A&E, FYI, Biography, Crime & Investigation, maybe Viceland -- is right up Discovery's alley. They'd probably want to spin off Lifetime and Lifetime Movies, along with Discovery's current stake in OWN -- ViacomCBS would probably buy them.

I can also imagine Discovery buying Curiosity Stream, which was founded by the same guy who started Discovery. The fact that Discovery has struck a long-term content deal with The BBC shows that they want to offer serious high-quality nature/science stuff (along with all their other schlock). Discovery wants to be THE place you go for entertainment that isn't fictional, sports, animation, or news/talk. And they're going to put all that in their forthcoming DTC service priced somewhere in the $5-8/mo range.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yup. Moving to all-IPTV would cost more money in CPE. That's the same reason that other cable operators (e.g. Cox, Charter) will continue to operate a truncated QAM TV system that offers locals plus maybe a small/medium-sized package of the most popular cable nets too -- they can still cheaply serve that 10-20% of their customer base who doesn't want to take broadband and doesn't care about advanced features. Let them keep whatever old QAM-based box or adapter they have now and recycle that old, cheap equipment to new TV-only customers who sign up for those packages.


Like you mentioned in the other thread, Comcast has been deploying all-IP equipment. If they do have some basic QAM service, I think that's just a transition phase that lasts a couple of years until they go pure IP multicast. The transition phase also allows them to keep serving people like my parents, who have X1 but not a Comcast gateway with QAM locals and use IP unicast for part or all of the HD cable lineup.



> Perhaps they would also leave a few other basic cable channels in HD on QAM, ones that are very popular and which tend to draw a lot of live viewers. Looking at 2018's list of most popular channels, who would that be? Fox News (#5), MSNBC (6), ESPN (7), CNN (22), plus the local RSNs. But the vast majority of basic cable channels probably do not get enough live viewers to justify remaining on QAM in HD. It would be more efficient to take the bandwidth they occupy and convert it to IP, letting the HD versions of those channels get served up exclusively via IPTV.


Until they have everyone on IP multicast, there are a dozen or two HD channels that would have to stay on QAM. Those you listed plus ESPN2, and a few other sports channels come to mind.



> Because when they eventually completely shut down QAM, they'll need to provision more expensive CPE (a multicast gateway + Xi5 or similar for each TV) to those homes and businesses with standalone TV service. But that number will continue to fall over time while the per-unit cost of the CPE will fall too. So that's a waiting game until the cost gets low enough to completely ditch QAM. In the meantime, though, their IP network will have reclaimed the lion's share of bandwidth from QAM.


By the time they get around to that, pay TV may be largely dead, which is likely what they're counting on.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Have you taken a look at either Sling's Orange or Blue packages? Kinda similar -- a rag-tag group of channels based around who's the content owner, with no locals (unless you live in a major network O&O market), structured to keep the price down.
> 
> I think you have an unrealistically consumer-centric view of channel packages. Sure, it'd be great if an MVPD could cherry-pick just the most popular channels from each content owner and put them together in a low-priced package. Unfortunately, that can't happen. The closest we see to that is YTTV, although its line-up tends more toward those who are sports fan and it's still missing some key channels (nothing from Viacom, A+E or Hallmark).


Sling is somewhat of a mish-mash, but not as bad as what you're describing you think Comcast will do.



> Yeah, YTTV has done a good job of trying to strike a balance between cost and content. Still though, while it's well-rounded for many, it's missing some of the most popular channels. Unless they patch up a few more of those holes, it'll have a tough time taking over as a mainstream cable TV service replacement for Verizon FiOS and other MSOs.


It's not a full replacement for the 400 channels of garbage package. It's just perfectly tailored *to what live TV is good for* (News, sports, and Olympics). At some point, Verizon may not need or cable about a full replacement service, and they'll let people who want it get a package from AT&T or elsewhere. A few may switch to cable, but it's a cost/benefit analysis for them about how much the whole TV system costs to run versus profitability or lack thereof.



> I really don't think Sling is making much money for DISH given those prices. (But given that DISH doesn't own any of the content or the IP pipes their service streams over, how could they?) But they're definitely onto something in structuring a more flexible channel packaging system, with a choice of low-cost base bundles (Orange or Blue) and then add-on Extra packs. The key to the next phase of selling cable TV is to get as many extraneous channels as possible out of the main package in order to get the cost down, while giving consumers who do want those channels the option of adding them on for a few more bucks. And the more flexibility/optionality the vMVPD can build into the system, the better for consumers.


Agreed. I think DISH has the right idea, but the implementation of those channel packages is sort of strange. To get all the major news channels you need Blue plus another add-on, and you can't get them with Orange. It's weird.



> What's garbage to you is someone else's treasure.
> 
> What would a channel package that *doesn't* contain garbage look like to you? Just locals, sports and news channels? That will probably eventually become a reality but it's going to take awhile. The content owners won't allow the bundle to unravel to that degree -- just containing their crown jewels -- until they're making sufficient money on their entertainment (non-news/sports) content via their own DTC streaming services. And when such a channel bundle does become a reality, it won't be all that cheap because, well, sports are expensive.


That's just about what YTTV had before plus a couple of Disney channels that snuck in with the ESPNs. I'm looking at "garbage" in terms of channels that aren't core to the value proposition of live TV. News, sports, and Olympics are core to the value proposition of live TV. Everything else isn't.



> So, first off, you know that Sling (and DISH) have lost the Fox RSNs, right? They're at an impasse with the new owner, Sinclair, it seems. And Ergen sounds like he's OK with those RSNs never returning. Keepin' those costs down. (BTW, DISH lost HBO and Cinemax last year.)
> 
> And now Disney and Sling/DISH are in negotiations over the carriage renewal of the FX and NetGeo channels (which Disney recently acquired from Fox). Those channels currently reside in the Blue package (along with Fox and NBCU channels) while Disney's other channels reside in the Orange package. So far, both have been regularly priced at $25 each, with a combo of Orange and Blue for $40.


I was talking about YTTV, which has them. DISH has been lacking in the RSN department for a long time in the NYC/CT area, which is why they have a tiny marketshare here.



> I can also imagine Discovery buying Curiosity Stream, which was founded by the same guy who started Discovery. The fact that Discovery has struck a long-term content deal with The BBC shows that they want to offer serious high-quality nature/science stuff (along with all their other schlock). Discovery wants to be THE place you go for entertainment that isn't fictional, sports, animation, or news/talk. And they're going to put all that in their forthcoming DTC service priced somewhere in the $5-8/mo range.


I think Discovery and History are doomed at this point. They have totally lost their brand when the History channels stopped showing History, and the Discovery channel stopped showing nature/history content. The market for that stuff is probably significantly heavier in cord-cutters than the market as a whole, and sites like Curiosity Stream, as well as YouTube, Amazon, and other players have already taken over.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> It's not a full replacement for the 400 channels of garbage package. It's just perfectly tailored *to what live TV is good for* (News, sports, and Olympics).


Um, do you spend time with any humans of the female persuasion? Many of them (as well as a fair amount of men, I'd say) happen to enjoy stuff like reality TV (e.g. The Bachelor, Live PD), live competition shows (e.g. The Voice, American Idol), and lifestyle programming (e.g. HGTV, Food Network, etc.). I totally get that YOU don't watch that stuff or think it's part of what live TV is good for, I'm just saying that there's VERY MUCH an audience out there for it and it's part of what they're looking for in a TV service. They want to watch that stuff live as it premiers with their significant other/friends/social media posse, then talk about it the next day at work/school.



Bigg said:


> I think Discovery and History are doomed at this point. They have totally lost their brand when the History channels stopped showing History, and the Discovery channel stopped showing nature/history content. The market for that stuff is probably significantly heavier in cord-cutters than the market as a whole, and sites like Curiosity Stream, as well as YouTube, Amazon, and other players have already taken over.


And I, respectfully, think you are smoking crack. The Discovery family of channels has a LOT of VERY popular content. It's no wonder that they're giving an entire network to Joanna & Chip Gaines, given the cultural phenomenon they've become for that company. I completely understand that you see the content from sources like PBS and Curiosity Stream as more intellectually stimulating than House Hunters on HGTV or Ancient Aliens on History. So do I. But what country are you livin' in, hoss? There's way more of a market for that kind of stuff than there is for Nova. (Which is why Nova needs the support of do-gooders like The David H. Koch Fund for Science to survive.) Sorry!

There's definitely demand for Discovery's content. The question, though, is whether they can survive as a fairly small independent content producer, self-distributing through their own DTC OTT service as well as via the evolving, slimming cable channel bundle. Maybe. ViacomCBS reportedly has their eyes on acquiring them, although given that Discovery has a market cap of about $14 billion while ViacomCBS will only be about $26 billion in size, and given that Discovery isn't looking for an M&A partner, that might not happen.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Um, do you spend time with any humans of the female persuasion?


I'm thinking of my female friends and my friends' S.O.s, and they don't watch much TV- maybe a little bit of college sports. I was texting a friend the other day, she was telling me about some YouTube channels she found. Friends of both genders talk almost exclusively about Netflix and YouTube shows/channels.



> And I, respectfully, think you are smoking crack.


I used to be a Discovery Channel fan, and then they started sucking, and now I just make fun of how much they suck. Aren't you the one here predicting the downfall of pay TV? Yet you're defending some of the trashiest channels and channel families around. I don't disagree that there is a market for trashy, lowest-common-denominator TV, but I think that Netflix is going to take that market over, as they have a far more engaging platform, and can just crank the crap out at breakneck speed with incredible analytics and engagement.



> There's definitely demand for Discovery's content. The question, though, is whether they can survive as a fairly small independent content producer, self-distributing through their own DTC OTT service as well as via the evolving, slimming cable channel bundle.


Probably not, but if they threw their entire catalog on Netflix and kept cranking out low-budget crap, I bet they could grind out some serious revenue. I'm not sure how much data Netflix would share with them, but if they would share enough to point them in the right direction of creating ever more engaging crap, I think they could do that pretty well.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I'm thinking of my female friends and my friends' S.O.s, and they don't watch much TV- maybe a little bit of college sports. I was texting a friend the other day, she was telling me about some YouTube channels she found. Friends of both genders talk almost exclusively about Netflix and YouTube shows/channels.


Yes. This is because your female friends are likely in their 20s and mine are in their 40s! 



Bigg said:


> Aren't you the one here predicting the downfall of pay TV? Yet you're defending some of the trashiest channels and channel families around. I don't disagree that there is a market for trashy, lowest-common-denominator TV, but I think that Netflix is going to take that market over, as they have a far more engaging platform, and can just crank the crap out at breakneck speed with incredible analytics and engagement.


No, I'm not predicting the downfall of pay TV *at all*. I'm predicting that slowly over the course of the 2020s, we'll transition away from paying for TV in the form of linear channel bundles toward paying for it in the form of various direct-to-consumer services which will include both on-demand and live content. I'm predicting that the current major owners of cable channels -- Disney, WarnerMedia, ViacomCBS, NBCU -- will be the owners of some (not all) of those direct-to-consumer services.

I'm not defending, per se, what you call "trashy channels". I'm simply separating my personal viewing preferences from the cold, hard reality of what the general public watches (as evidenced by viewership data, subscriber counts, corporate earnings/market caps, etc.). And there is a BIG market for the kind of stuff carried on the Discovery channels. I see no reason to believe that Americans' aggregate tastes in video entertainment will dramatically shift in the next decade. (But gradually evolve? Sure.)

You may be right that Netflix will be able to eventually take over the market for that kind of reality/lifestyle/unscripted programming. They're certainly trying with stuff like Nailed It!, Marie Kondo, their odd new glassblower competition show (I'm serious). I'm skeptical, though, that Marie Kondo has nearly as much brand appeal with the overall public as Chip & Joanna Gaines. But maybe whoever Netflix finds to host their next lifestyle series will.

Or maybe come the mid-2020s, Discovery throws in the towel on their own DTC service and opts instead to exclusively license all that stuff to Netflix. They'd keep running their linear channels on cable systems until that whole paradigm fades away but on-demand streaming access for their current and past content from HGTV, Food, Discovery, ID, etc. would be exclusively on Netflix. Could happen, I guess.

I think it's more likely, though, that someone just buys Discovery outright. If so, who? Big media acquisitions *seem* to be outside of the cultural DNA of both Netflix and Apple based on what we've seen so far in their approach to media. Netflix increasingly likes to build their own originals from scratch, plus strike licensing deals or partnerships (e.g. The CW) with outsiders. But Netflix has yet to actually acquire an outsider that I know of. And Apple doesn't seem interested in even licensing others' stuff second-hand. They look like they're going all-in on building their own library of exclusive originals.

As I've said, it's rumored that ViacomCBS is interested in buying Discovery. Disney and WarnerMedia are probably out of the question due to their size (government may not allow it) and the amount of debt both are already carrying from previous huge media acquisitions. So if not ViacomCBS buying Discovery, then who? Maybe Comcast/NBCU could get away with it. Maybe Amazon could get away with it (if they even wanted to). It would seem like an odd step for Google, but who knows. Verizon has learned their lesson from the AOL debacle and sworn off trying to be a media owner/player, now content to be a dumb pipe and distribution partner (see: YouTube TV).

Could Charter try to save themselves from their current destiny of being a dumb pipe by buying Discovery? Maybe, although the problem is that Discovery may not be a big enough content producer on their own. Perhaps Charter would try to snap up the only other small-to-midsize players still out there, in order to bulk up: Lionsgate/Starz, Sony Pictures, AMC Networks, A+E Networks, Crown Media, and MGM. But they'll be battling against ViacomCBS for those guys too; ViacomCBS KNOWS that they must bulk up and they've already made an informal offer to buy Starz. And I really don't think Charter (or their shareholders) have the appetite for all that. Better to accept their destiny as a dumb IP pipe and be the best/most profitable dumb pipe they can be.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yes. This is because your female friends are likely in their 20s and mine are in their 40s!


Late 20's yeah, I went to college with them.



> No, I'm not predicting the downfall of pay TV *at all*. I'm predicting that slowly over the course of the 2020s, we'll transition away from paying for TV in the form of linear channel bundles toward paying for it in the form of various direct-to-consumer services which will include both on-demand and live content. I'm predicting that the current major owners of cable channels -- Disney, WarnerMedia, ViacomCBS, NBCU -- will be the owners of some (not all) of those direct-to-consumer services.


I guess it depends on what you count as "pay TV". I generally consider "pay TV" to mean a bundle of linear channels. I think that's pretty much going down the drain. If sports are packaged by league or there is a news-centric service, I don't really consider that to be "pay TV" in the same way that an MVPD or vMVPD is.



> I'm not defending, per se, what you call "trashy channels". I'm simply separating my personal viewing preferences from the cold, hard reality of what the general public watches (as evidenced by viewership data, subscriber counts, corporate earnings/market caps, etc.). And there is a BIG market for the kind of stuff carried on the Discovery channels. I see no reason to believe that Americans' aggregate tastes in video entertainment will dramatically shift in the next decade. (But gradually evolve? Sure.)
> 
> You may be right that Netflix will be able to eventually take over the market for that kind of reality/lifestyle/unscripted programming. They're certainly trying with stuff like Nailed It!, Marie Kondo, their odd new glassblower competition show (I'm serious). I'm skeptical, though, that Marie Kondo has nearly as much brand appeal with the overall public as Chip & Joanna Gaines. But maybe whoever Netflix finds to host their next lifestyle series will.


I think the difference is that a lot of that trash is trash of convenience. People who follow sports follow their team. They will follow them to whatever channel they are on. People who watch trash will watch trash on Netflix just as well as they will from Discovery or TLC. Netflix is cranking out a lot of trash, and I think they will take over that market.



> Or maybe come the mid-2020s, Discovery throws in the towel on their own DTC service and opts instead to exclusively license all that stuff to Netflix. They'd keep running their linear channels on cable systems until that whole paradigm fades away but on-demand streaming access for their current and past content from HGTV, Food, Discovery, ID, etc. would be exclusively on Netflix. Could happen, I guess.
> 
> I think it's more likely, though, that someone just buys Discovery outright. If so, who? Big media acquisitions *seem* to be outside of the cultural DNA of both Netflix and Apple based on what we've seen so far in their approach to media. Netflix increasingly likes to build their own originals from scratch, plus strike licensing deals or partnerships (e.g. The CW) with outsiders. But Netflix has yet to actually acquire an outsider that I know of. And Apple doesn't seem interested in even licensing others' stuff second-hand. They look like they're going all-in on building their own library of exclusive originals.
> 
> ...


If there is an acquisition strategy there for Discovery, I think Comcast or Viacom CBS makes sense. I'm not really sure what they're buying though, as that stuff is easy and cheap to produce, so I guess it's just a matter of back catalog and an assortment of dying linear channels. Discovery isn't big enough to really make a difference for Charter.

Charter is an extremely profitable dumb pipe. They face the least competition of any of the major MSOs, and they have room to grow organically, and even double dip with government funding for rural broadband expansion. It's strange that dumb pipes get such a bad rap, there's a lot of money in being a dumb pipe, especially with very limited competition.

I think the interesting space to watch is wireless and MSOs. If T-Sprint fails, one of them could buy Sprint, if not, they could pair up with DISH in a weird, awkward relationship. The Verizon MVNO thing is fine for bundling, but it's not that profitable in and of itself.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

In case I haven't already posted it somewhere, I'll recap here my predictions of likely media mergers/acquisitions for the coming months/years.

ViacomCBS is hungry to scale up. Look for them to gobble up all or parts of:

Lionsgate/Starz (with Starz folded into Showtime and Lionsgate folded into Paramount Studios)
MGM/Epix (with Epix folded into Showtime and MGM becoming a sub-brand of Paramount Studios)
AMC Networks (If this happened, I could see the scripted series on Paramount Network, which has been Viacom's so-far not-that-successful attempt to build their own high-quality, scripted-content basic cable network answer to FX and AMC, getting split up between Showtime and AMC, while their reality stuff -- Lip Sync Battle, Bar Rescue, etc. -- scatters to various Viacom nets like MTV and VH1. Sundance would also likely be liquidated, with content divided between Showtime and AMC.)
Look for all the basic cable (i.e. non-Showtime) content owned by ViacomCBS (both live channels and their associated on-demand content) to be incorporated into CBS All Access (perhaps to be rebranded to simply All Access).

Discovery seems determined to go it on their own as a relatively small player specializing in unscripted content (but with a strategic deal in place to use The BBC as an arms-dealer for premium-quality docu-series). Look for them to acquire:

A+E Networks (at least Disney's 50% stake, if not Hearst's other 50% stake too)
CuriosityStream
After gaining A+E Networks, I think Discovery would only be interested in retaining the channels/content that fit the Discovery brand of non-scripted documentary/lifestyle/reality content: History, A&E, Viceland, FYI, Biography. They might sell off Lifetime and Lifetime Movies, plus their majority stake in OWN, to ViacomCBS, which is a more natural home for that kind of basic cable scripted/fictional content.

*Someone* will end up buying Crown Media (the division of Hallmark that owns and operates the Hallmark Channels and their affiliated OTT SVOD service). I like NBCU for that purchase, but it could be ViacomCBS instead. I could also see NBCU bidding on Lionsgate/Starz too, although ViacomCBS makes more sense given that they own Showtime. Owning either Hallmark Channel or Starz would provide a nice content boost to NBCU's upcoming SVOD, which is looking somewhat anemic so far. (The Office, which won't even join it until Jan. 2021, only gets you so far.)

Beyond that, the only other small deal I can foresee is an eventual merger between BritBox and Acorn TV, at least in terms of their US services. Given that they both specialize in streaming British telly to Yanks, and they seem to have about the same number of subs (both under 1 million), a combination of the two makes sense.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Welp, DirecTV is falling apart.

AT&T to lose 1.1 million TV subscribers as DirecTV continues nosedive

They could only prop it up with U-Verse subscribers for so long to keep the numbers stable, now some of those subs are cutting the cord, while others are going to cable, and that's keeping cable's numbers relatively stable even as many of their customers cut the cord... but that migration has to end at some point too....


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

NashGuy said:


> In case I haven't already posted it somewhere, I'll recap here my predictions of likely media mergers/acquisitions for the coming months/years.
> 
> ViacomCBS is hungry to scale up. Look for them to gobble up all or parts of:
> 
> ...


If Hearst wants out I expect Disney will try to acquire all of A&E networks.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

tenthplanet said:


> If Hearst wants out I expect Disney will try to acquire all of A&E networks.


Yeah, could be. When you look at the kind of stuff that airs on A&E, History, FYI and Viceland, it's all reality/lifestyle/documentary/unscripted stuff, which doesn't overlap much with any of Disney's other cable channels (ESPN, Disney, Freeform, FX, Nat Geo). So maybe Disney likes the variety that those channels add to their portfolio. But then you could say that that stuff doesn't really fit the Disney brand either. It would never have a home in Disney+, although perhaps they see it as important for Hulu.

OTOH, just yesterday I read that Disney is aiming to sell off some non-core assets, stuff that's sort of distractions. Plus it could help raise some cash to pay down debt incurred from the Fox acquisition. The article specifically mentioned stuff like a video game unit, nothing about A+E Networks. But it wouldn't shock me to hear that Disney has decided that owning a 50% stake in those channels is just a distraction and that they're selling their half to Hearst, or to Discovery (perhaps with favorable access by Hulu to Discovery-owned live channels and past seasons being part of the deal).


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Welp, DirecTV is falling apart.
> 
> AT&T to lose 1.1 million TV subscribers as DirecTV continues nosedive
> 
> They could only prop it up with U-Verse subscribers for so long to keep the numbers stable, now some of those subs are cutting the cord, while others are going to cable, and that's keeping cable's numbers relatively stable even as many of their customers cut the cord... but that migration has to end at some point too....


Yeah, DirecTV is in freefall this year. They say that the situation will turn around in 2020 for a couple reasons: AT&T TV will be launched nationwide by then, and they'll have squeezed out a lot of their low-profit/unprofitable subs by then due to phasing out ongoing discounts (which will increase ARPUs). We'll see.

When I hear the company continue to stake so much hope on the ability of AT&T TV to turn things around for them, that it's going to be their "workhorse" and that they'll really push it, it just makes me think that I must be correct in believing that the way AT&T TV is currently priced and structured in the pilot cities is NOT how it'll look when it rolls out nationwide. Because offering the same DTV channel packages at about the same prices with the same 2-year contract isn't going to cut it, regardless of how nifty their Google Assistant-infused box is.

I think they have to know that marginal changes won't turn this ship around and I suspect that sales numbers in the pilot cities are confirming that so far. Actually, I checked out the AT&T TV ordering process a couple times recently for a St. Louis address. The first time, the day it launched, I don't think it offered any Visa gift cards as a bonus. A couple weeks later, AT&T TV was offering something like $150 in gift cards when ordering online and the amount went up to $400 when combining it with AT&T Fiber. This tells me that AT&T understands that AT&T TV (like DirecTV), as currently structured and priced, isn't that competitive, so they have to juice sales through up-front cash giveaways.

I still think AT&T TV -- after all the necessary carriage contracts get re-negotiated -- will offer a new, slimmer, cheaper channel package line-up, with lower everyday prices and just a 1-year contract (like Uverse TV and AT&T Fiber have always had).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, DirecTV is in freefall this year. They say that the situation will turn around in 2020 for a couple reasons: AT&T TV will be launched nationwide by then, and they'll have squeezed out a lot of their low-profit/unprofitable subs by then due to phasing out ongoing discounts (which will increase ARPUs). We'll see.


Their sub losses have to slow down at some point, but I think they've got a ways yet to drop as more people cut the cord and switch to cable. I think DirecTV is still a viable business, just not as a direct competitor to cable for residential use.



> When I hear the company continue to stake so much hope on the ability of AT&T TV to turn things around for them, that it's going to be their "workhorse" and that they'll really push it, it just makes me think that I must be correct in believing that the way AT&T TV is currently priced and structured in the pilot cities is NOT how it'll look when it rolls out nationwide. Because offering the same DTV channel packages at about the same prices with the same 2-year contract isn't going to cut it, regardless of how nifty their Google Assistant-infused box is.


I don't know. The deathstar is pretty clueless. Their wireless plans aren't really that great, they haven't been doing well there, DirecTV NOW is a disaster, DirecTV is in free fall, they just generally aren't doing very well. They need to really get more competitive on a lot of fronts. Sure, they can work to boost ARPUs, but that only goes so far, and if they keep losing customers, they will have fewer customers to get ARPUs up from.



> This tells me that AT&T understands that AT&T TV (like DirecTV), as currently structured and priced, isn't that competitive, so they have to juice sales through up-front cash giveaways.


That sounds like a recipe for churn. Maybe they are going to have to be happy with lower margins, and not shoot for 50% margins like they have on DirecTV.



> I still think AT&T TV -- after all the necessary carriage contracts get re-negotiated -- will offer a new, slimmer, cheaper channel package line-up, with lower everyday prices and just a 1-year contract (like Uverse TV and AT&T Fiber have always had).


We'll see if they want to compete nationwide. If it's really just for AT&T's own territory, or bundling with other MSOs and ILECs, then they may offer great bundle deals and not great deals for everyone else, like they have done with DirecTV.


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

NashGuy said:


> I still think AT&T TV -- after all the necessary carriage contracts get re-negotiated -- will offer a new, slimmer, cheaper channel package line-up, with lower everyday prices and just a 1-year contract (like Uverse TV and AT&T Fiber have always had).


Since they already have like 15 different TV services, they ought to use that to their advantage and negotiate deals for each "company" separately. i.e. AT&T has all the Disney stuff, DirecTV has all the NBC stuff, AT&T Watch TV Now Max Plus has all the CBS/Viacom stuff, etc. They own all the platforms, so they can do the single-point billing and tie it all together into one app/UI but customers would be able to choose what they want more granularly, not necessarily channel-by-channel, but similar to how SlingTV does it. This would also insulate them from carriage fee disputes somewhat. If ESPN wants more money, fine, but let the customers decide whether they're willing to accept the increase or tell Mickey to get bent.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Comcast now giving away 2 Xfinity Flex streaming boxes to internet(only) customers for free. 

Also Facebook rolling out a $150 device that will do video conferencing and stream various services including showtime, amazon, starz, ...


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

Interesting news.

AT&T is considering selling DirecTV, report says


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> Comcast now giving away 2 Xfinity Flex streaming boxes to internet(only) customers for free.
> 
> Also Facebook rolling out a $150 device that will do video conferencing and stream various services including showtime, amazon, starz, ...


Eh, as I understand it, Comcast's broadband-only subs get 1 free Flex streaming box (which is really just Comcast's Xi6 4K HDR IPTV cable TV box but with a different home screen UI) but ONLY if they also rent an xFi Gateway device (i.e. combo broadband modem/router). And they can rent a second box for $5/mo.

OK, a free 4K streaming box with voice remote is a nice little sweetener. As I posted before (somewhere, who knows where, I post a lot), "free" is the right price for this box if Comcast wants their cord-cutter broadband customers to take it. What's in it for Comcast? Well, they'll use the UI on this box to promote subscriptions to their upcoming Peacock OTT SVOD, along with upgrades to full-blown Comcast cable IPTV service. And they'll also use it to sell subscriptions to HBO, Showtime and Epix through its UI. (Starz seems to be left out in the cold, for now anyway. Doesn't matter, probably, since I still predict Starz will just end up gobbled up by Showtime.)

Basically, what the Apple TV 4K box is to Apple, and the Fire TV box/stick is to Amazon, this Xi6 Flex box is to Comcast. Makes sense. And honestly, looking at the screenshots, it appears to me that it has at least one key advantage over my beloved Apple TV 4K: a unified watchlist that actually includes Netflix original series! Sadly, Netflix is being that kid that doesn't play nice with others on the playground and won't participate in the universal watchlist inside the Apple TV app (even though *every* other major app does). But it looks like they DO play nice with the universal watchlist on Comcast's Flex home screen. See photo:










But here's the weird thing, IMO. Right now, Comcast is ONLY giving this free X1 box rental to standalone broadband customers (who also rent an xFi Gateway). What are their cable TV subscribers, chopped liver? Seriously, if I'm paying Comcast for both broadband AND cable TV AND an xFi Gateway rental, why isn't my first X1 box free instead of the $5/mo rental charge I'm paying?!

I expect that little pricing oddity to be rectified soon enough. Actually, I expect Comcast will go a step further than that. Because they want to convert ALL of their cable TV subscribers over from being dependent on QAM TV to being fully IPTV (with the ability to access multicast IPTV channels, something that the xFi Gateway can handle but retail modems and routers cannot), I expect that pretty soon, Comcast will require all their customers who take broadband AND cable TV to take and use their own xFi Gateway. But it'll be "free," at no extra cost. And so will their first X1 box (the same Xi6 box that they're offering for free via the Flex program to standalone broadband customers). That might mean that the price of adding a cable TV package to broadband goes up a bit to cover that additional equipment cost but, if that's what they have to do, then that's what they'll do. Because a couple of years or so from now, Comcast will want all of their TV subscribers to be served 100% via IPTV, with the ability to access popular live channels via multicast. And once a critical mass of their TV subscribers have the right set of equipment in their homes, then they'll be able to completely pull the plug on QAM TV.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> Interesting news.
> 
> AT&T is considering selling DirecTV, report says


AT&T: Hey man, I got a bunch o' DirecTV-brand meat in my fridge! It's got an expiration date that's coming up pretty soon. You wanna buy it?

DISH: Well, to be honest, I got a bunch o' DISH-brand meat in my fridge and it's gonna go bad before long too. Meanwhile, I'm kinda cash-strapped because I'm trying to buy a whole bunch of 5G-brand cheese. It's a whole thing, really complicated, man. How cheap you wanna sell your meat for?


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Eh, as I understand it, Comcast's broadband-only subs get 1 free Flex streaming box (which is really just Comcast's Xi6 4K HDR IPTV cable TV box but with a different home screen UI) but ONLY if they also rent an xFi Gateway device (i.e. combo broadband modem/router). And they can rent a second box for $5/mo.
> 
> OK, a free 4K streaming box with voice remote is a nice little sweetener. As I posted before (somewhere, who knows where, I post a lot), "free" is the right price for this box if Comcast wants their cord-cutter broadband customers to take it. What's in it for Comcast? Well, they'll use the UI on this box to promote subscriptions to their upcoming Peacock OTT SVOD, along with upgrades to full-blown Comcast cable IPTV service. And they'll also use it to sell subscriptions to HBO, Showtime and Epix through its UI. (Starz seems to be left out in the cold, for now anyway. Doesn't matter, probably, since I still predict Starz will just end up gobbled up by Showtime.)
> 
> ...


source i read said 2 free boxes. and yeah never made sense to rent it for $5/mo when serviceable streaming boxes are $50, sticks are even cheaper and many tvs today don't even require a streaming box.

yep the free Flex box announcement comes the day after the official announcement of the Peacock service.

I don't think they will give cable customers a streaming box for free because the cable customers don't need it. They have cable.

And, we discussed this before, but I don't think Comcast is in a hurry to convert customers over from their current cable packages.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> What's in it for Comcast? Well, they'll use the UI on this box to promote subscriptions to their upcoming Peacock OTT SVOD, along with upgrades to full-blown Comcast cable IPTV service. And they'll also use it to sell subscriptions to HBO, Showtime and Epix through its UI. (Starz seems to be left out in the cold, for now anyway. Doesn't matter, probably, since I still predict Starz will just end up gobbled up by Showtime.)


Also, data. They know everything you're watching, as opposed to just seeing opaque encrypted traffic run over their network.



> What are their cable TV subscribers, chopped liver? Seriously, if I'm paying Comcast for both broadband AND cable TV AND an xFi Gateway rental, why isn't my first X1 box free instead of the $5/mo rental charge I'm paying?!


They already get one box included in their TV package.



> But it'll be "free," at no extra cost. And so will their first X1 box (the same Xi6 box that they're offering for free via the Flex program to standalone broadband customers). That might mean that the price of adding a cable TV package to broadband goes up a bit to cover that additional equipment cost but, if that's what they have to do, then that's what they'll do. Because a couple of years or so from now, Comcast will want all of their TV subscribers to be served 100% via IPTV, with the ability to access popular live channels via multicast. And once a critical mass of their TV subscribers have the right set of equipment in their homes, then they'll be able to completely pull the plug on QAM TV.


They'll bake the cost into their TV packages... two or three times over.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> AT&T: Hey man, I got a bunch o' DirecTV-brand meat in my fridge! It's got an expiration date that's coming up pretty soon. You wanna buy it?


DirecTV has a sustainable future, AT&T just paid way too much for them, as that sustainable future is maybe a few million subs, not 20M.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Bigg said:


> DirecTV has a sustainable future, AT&T just paid way too much for them, as that sustainable future is maybe a few million subs, not 20M.


There are still a bunch of people who can't get TV without a satellite. Some of those remote places won't see high speed internet for awhile.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> DirecTV has a sustainable future, AT&T just paid way too much for them, as that sustainable future is maybe a few million subs, not 20M.


Just reading up on DTV/ATT. i didn't know ATT declared last year that they aren't going to launch any more satellites. And their newest ones were launched in 2014 and 2015. They have a ~15 yr lifespan so they have another ~10 years left. Also supposedly the rest of their satellites are considerably older. so it sounds like they can go another ~10 years on the satellite investments they have already made.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> and yeah never made sense to rent it for $5/mo when serviceable streaming boxes are $50, sticks are even cheaper and many tvs today don't even require a streaming box.


Agreed.



trip1eX said:


> I don't think they will give cable customers a streaming box for free because the cable customers don't need it. They have cable.


The Flex "streaming" box is just an X1 cable box. To be specific, it's the model Xi6. It supports 4K, HDR10 but doesn't have any QAM tuners or internal hard drive. It does have on-board flash storage to buffer live TV for trick play.

When they give the Xi6 to a broadband-only customer under the Flex program, it appears that the UI is different, at least the main home screen, versus how it looks when it's given to an Xfinity TV subscriber. But it's the same hardware and the same operating system.

In many (most?) areas, Comcast is now giving their new cable TV customers who also take broadband either the Xi6 or its step-down HD sibling, the Xi5, and serving them entirely via IPTV. (Look ma, no QAM!) When you sign up for TV service, the cost of the channel package does not include any TV boxes. You can rent them for $5/mo each or (as the sign-up page explains) you can opt to simply use the Xfinity Stream app to access your TV service for no additional charge.



trip1eX said:


> And, we discussed this before, but I don't think Comcast is in a hurry to convert customers over from their current cable packages.


How quickly they'll convert *existing* customers over from the old-style "Digital" packages, I don't know. We'll see. But I can tell you that they have significantly changed their standard prices and policies here in Nashville (and elsewhere in their Central Division) to make the Digital packages MUCH less attractive. Consider the following:


Digital Premier, Digital Preferred and Digital Starter are no longer sold here at all (although existing subscribers on those packages remain on them).
Digital Premier -- which has basically all the cable channels plus the big premium services -- lost Cinemax this summer, replaced with Comcast's own third-rate on-demand movie service Hitz. Next month it's losing Starz. But the price apparently isn't going down.
Digital Starter is still sold here but it cannot be sold in combination with internet service. It can only be sold as standalone TV service.
All the Digital packages are losing certain channels, like TCM, CMT and Crime & Investigation, which are shifting into an optional "More Sports & Entertainment" add-on pack that can only be added to one of the new-style IPTV-ready packages (Basic, Extra, or Preferred).
Here's the biggie: *Digital Starter no longer qualifies for any kind of discount.* No multi-product discount, no paperless billing auto-pay discount.

And why point out that a standalone TV package doesn't qualify for a multi-product discount unless it's to let subscribers who are grandfathered in on this package, but who also have internet, know that they're going to pay the full standalone price for Digital Starter? Here, that's $69.95/mo. The $10 Broadcast TV fee and the $8.10 Regional Sports fee bring the cost to $88.05. To get HD channels, you must also pay the $9.95 HD Technology Fee, bringing the total to $98. But at least that does include your first TV box. (Each additional box is $5/mo.) DVR service is another $10/mo.

Since there's no multi-product discount, I expect grandfathered subs on Digital Starter will also pay full price for internet. Around here, that's $70/mo for Performance internet (the 60/5 speed tier). So if you're on Digital Starter TV plus at least Performance internet, and insist on sticking with that package, once any current promo pricing you have ends, you should expect to pay $168/mo or more. That's a crazy amount to pay for decent internet plus a medium-sized package of basic HD cable channels for 1 TV, without any premiums or DVR service.

Comcast won't have to FORCE folks to switch over to their IPTV-ready packages. With the new pricing and policies that they're putting in place, customers will willingly make the switch!



Bigg said:


> Also, data. They know everything you're watching, as opposed to just seeing opaque encrypted traffic run over their network.


Yup. Good point.



Bigg said:


> They already get one box included in their TV package.


Nope, they don't, not on the new IPTV-ready packages (Basic, Extra, Preferred), which are the only options available for customers who take broadband along with TV service. Only the old-style packages (Digital Starter and Limited Basic) include at least one TV box or adapter. See above.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tenthplanet said:


> There are still a bunch of people who can't get TV without a satellite. Some of those remote places won't see high speed internet for awhile.


Exactly. That and commercial. There is huge value to a chain like Mariott in having the same provider in the entirety of the US, regardless of who the local ILEC or MSO is.



trip1eX said:


> Just reading up on DTV/ATT. i didn't know ATT declared last year that they aren't going to launch any more satellites. And their newest ones were launched in 2014 and 2015. They have a ~15 yr lifespan so they have another ~10 years left. Also supposedly the rest of their satellites are considerably older. so it sounds like they can go another ~10 years on the satellite investments they have already made.


From what I heard, they kind of waffled on that. I do think that as the pay TV ecosystem shrinks, they can probably do everything that they need/want to do with the 99c/101/103c arc, without 110 and 119, and definitely without 95, as they will move the international content over to streaming, as that doesn't have an audience in the commercial or rural markets. I don't know if they will ever utilize RB for 4k, but my guess at this point is probably not. Without MPEG-2, and with newer satellites with better spot beams, 99c/101/103c can handle all the English/Spanish content that they need along with LiL and even a little bit of 4k.



NashGuy said:


> Comcast won't have to FORCE folks to switch over to their IPTV-ready packages. With the new pricing and policies that they're putting in place, customers will willingly make the switch!


It's still strange to me that they've got IPTV all mixed up with the packages, as they really are two separate things. They could offer any existing package over IPTV.



> Nope, they don't, not on the new IPTV-ready packages (Basic, Extra, Preferred), which are the only options available for customers who take broadband along with TV service. Only the old-style packages (Digital Starter and Limited Basic) include at least one TV box or adapter. See above.


Historically, the packages in the Connecticut market have always had one SD box included for free in the package. Other markets are different, as some charge for HD equipment, others charge for HD programming, and hence why no one can figure out how much CableCard actually costs on Comcast.

I don't know about the newer packages, as I don't think they exist around here yet. I don't doubt what you're seeing for your region, but historically, it's always varied region to region. Maybe that will change over time as they try to homogenize/harmonize their offerings between markets.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> Just reading up on DTV/ATT. i didn't know ATT declared last year that they aren't going to launch any more satellites. And their newest ones were launched in 2014 and 2015. They have a ~15 yr lifespan so they have another ~10 years left. Also supposedly the rest of their satellites are considerably older. so it sounds like they can go another ~10 years on the satellite investments they have already made.


DTV launched the T16 satellite this summer but that's supposed to be their last one ever. From multiple comments on the DBS forums from guys who know more about the situation than I do, I think it's probably safe to believe that the existing DTV fleet could offer a viable service at least through 2030, if not a bit longer. (The total number of cable channels will shrink in the 2020s, remember.)

But before the satellite fleet becomes exhausted, I think we may well see the service itself shrink to such a small subscriber base that it becomes unfeasible to continue operating at a minimally profitable level. In other words, when the last remaining DBS service calls it a day, I don't think it's going to be because it no longer has enough working satellites in space. I think it'll be because the operator can't package together content that enough people actually want at a price where the operator can crank out a worthwhile profit.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> DTV launched the T16 satellite this summer but that's supposed to be their last one ever. From multiple comments on the DBS forums from guys who know more about the situation than I do, I think it's probably safe to believe that the existing DTV fleet could offer a viable service at least through 2030, if not a bit longer. (The total number of cable channels will shrink in the 2020s, remember.)
> 
> But before the satellite fleet becomes exhausted, I think we may well see the service itself shrink to such a small subscriber base that it becomes unfeasible to continue operating at a minimally profitable level. In other words, when the last remaining DBS service calls it a day, I don't think it's going to be because it no longer has enough working satellites in space. I think it'll be because the operator can't package together content that enough people actually want at a price where the operator can crank out a worthwhile profit.


Really? I just read an article that said that was canceled. lol.

Welcome To The Slow Death Of Satellite TV In America

DirecTV owner AT&T says it's done buying satellites - SpaceNews.com

But I can see how the 1st article could have jumped to the wrong conclusion from the 2nd article it referenced. The 2nd article has ATT saying they are done launching satellites and is from December 2018. But that could have been said after talking about an upcoming satellite.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> Really? I just read an article that said that was canceled. lol.


Nope, AT&T/DirecTV's final DBS satellite, the T16, was launched on June 20.

Ariane 5 launches AT&T T-16 and Eutelsat 7C - NASASpaceFlight.com


----------



## compnurd (Oct 6, 2011)

trip1eX said:


> Really? I just read an article that said that was canceled. lol.
> 
> Welcome To The Slow Death Of Satellite TV In America
> 
> ...


That's what happens when you listen to executives who have no clue what is going on


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

compnurd said:


> That's what happens when you listen to executives who have no clue what is going on


Nah. That's what I get for assuming the one internet article I skimmed was 100% accurate. 

The quote from the exec is just a sound bite taken out of context.

But afaik the overall point that they aren't planning to release more satellites and that many of them are older than 2014 and the satellites they have up probably will only service the business until 2030 or so is accurate.

I mean if you think about it, the forest is still there even though someone pointed out one of the trees wasn't a tree.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> But before the satellite fleet becomes exhausted, I think we may well see the service itself shrink to such a small subscriber base that it becomes unfeasible to continue operating at a minimally profitable level. In other words, when the last remaining DBS service calls it a day, I don't think it's going to be because it no longer has enough working satellites in space. I think it'll be because the operator can't package together content that enough people actually want at a price where the operator can crank out a worthwhile profit.


The cost of an individual satellite is quite high, but when you actually do the math out, even with a small fraction of the current subscriber base, DBS is remarkably cheap, especially when it is supporting commercial clients that often have dozens or hundreds of TVs/receivers/SMTAV/whatever hooked up to that one dish. If nothing else, commercial will keep DBS alive, and residential will just be along for the ride. They will, however, have reduced orbital positions and a greatly reduced lineup by then as much of the pay TV infrastructure crumbles.

If AT&T really plans on not launching any new satellites, then I read that as AT&T is planning to sell D* soon, even though that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me in the first place. I'd think if they just abandoned their service, the FCC or other entities would go after them for not properly using their licenses and for cutting service off to rural areas.

What I do think is possible is the end of DISH's dual-arc system, and possibly DirecTV selling their 110/119 space to DISH, and that, combined with far fewer channels, allowing DISH to drop 129 and go back to 110/119, which is workable across the entire US, unlike the current 110/119/129 WA that is unworkable in the Northeastern US. I'm not sure who would buy the EA satellites and bandwidth. Or maybe they'd merge, but then I have no clue what they would do with the combined bandwidth on 99c/101/103c/110/119 if they consolidated into a single arc (EA being too far east and 129 being too far west for a single nationwide arc).

Either way, non English/Spanish programming is going to go away pretty soon, and the channel tonnage will start dropping at some point, whether through contract disputes or the rationalization of the whole pay TV market. Maybe 99c and 103c go back to broadband like they were intended, and a combined DISH/DirecTV move to a Ku-based 101/110/119 single arc. Who knows. There's also Orby, which launched maybe a year or two ago, and is in a really weird, very narrow niche.

Maybe a third party or foreign operator will come in and buy both DISH and DirecTV. Who knows. A lot of things can happen, but I don't see DBS going anywhere in the next few decades, even if it operates in a significantly reduced form for rural, commercial, and semi-mobile (RVs and boats) markets only.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

I'm also not sure what the cost of the physical satellite operations are versus the cost of the programming. If the satellite operations are small, a combined DISH/DirecTV could run 3 arcs, but if they are a significant chunk of the cost basis, they would really need to wind down to a single arc somewhere in the 99c-119 range, whatever combination that takes. If they want to keep offering HD LiL, that's the bandwidth killer that would require either a fairly large arc in Ku or a smaller arc in Ka, or some combination of the two.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Around here, that's $70/mo for *Performance internet (the 60/5 speed tier)*. So if you're on Digital Starter TV plus at least Performance internet, and insist on sticking with that package, once any current promo pricing you have ends, you should expect to pay $168/mo or more. That's a crazy amount to pay for decent internet plus a medium-sized package of basic HD cable channels for 1 TV, without any premiums or DVR service.


Just a side note for the record: I got an email from Comcast yesterday informing me that my Blast! speed tier is increasing from 150/10 to 200/10. As you know, Comcast typically overprovisions by about 20%, so my current (rock-solid reliable ) 180Mbps should ramp up to 240Mbps.

Since I haven't seen anything published yet, I made some inquiries and was told that the other tiers will see a similar speed increase. The increases are being rolled out in waves starting this week and should be fully implemented by the end of September (it has not reached me yet, which I verified by rebooting my modem to check for it). Here is the new line-up:

Performance Starter: 25Mbps (no change)

Performance: 60Mbps increases to 100Mbps

Blast!: 150Mbps increases to 200Mbps

Extreme: 250Mbps increases to 300Mbps

Extreme Pro: 400Mbps increases to 600 Mbps

Gigabit: 1000Mbps (no change)


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> The cost of an individual satellite is quite high, but when you actually do the math out, even with a small fraction of the current subscriber base, DBS is remarkably cheap, especially when it is supporting commercial clients that often have dozens or hundreds of TVs/receivers/SMTAV/whatever hooked up to that one dish. If nothing else, commercial will keep DBS alive, and residential will just be along for the ride. They will, however, have reduced orbital positions and a greatly reduced lineup by then as much of the pay TV infrastructure crumbles.


Couple of things there jump out at me. First, "as much of the pay TV infrastructure crumbles". Beyond all of the technical considerations about satellite arcs, and which homes have dishes compatible with which arcs, etc., it's useful to ponder for a moment what the video entertainment landscape will look like in, say, 2027. As you allude, there will certainly be fewer cable channels in existence. At that point, I would bet that virtually 100% of new content coming out -- including live news and sports -- will be available outside of linear channels. I'm not saying that linear channels won't exist but simply that they'll be an alternative way of consuming a subset of the overall content available, all of which will be available through various direct-to-consumer streaming services.

And if that becomes the case, who's going to still be willing to pay for satellite-based channel packages? DBS will be regarded as a last-century technological and entertainment backwater. The stench of death will begin to set in in the early 2020s when it becomes clear that AT&T has no intentions of continuing to develop and improve DirecTV because they want to get rid of it at some point. Yes, some kind of TV is better than nothing at all, so as we've always said, DBS will still be used by rural Americans with no available broadband provider, and therefore with no other choices for pay TV. But what % of US homes will that constitute in the late 2020s? (The latest news out of SpaceX is that their Starlink LEO broadband service will commence operations across the southern US by late 2020 before expanding nationwide.) And as DBS subscribers continue to dwindle throughout the 2020s, carriage rates become less favorable and the fixed costs of operating and marketing the business are spread over fewer and fewer paying customers, a disproportionate share of whom will be low-income/poor-credit.

Second thing is "commercial will keep DBS alive". Maybe. But I'm not sure why sports bars, etc. will be immune to the broader trends of everything in the nation being IP-connected-and-fed. All other video service providers will have transitioned to either OTT and/or managed IPTV in the early 2020s. Why do we think, exactly, that sports bars will want to stick with DBS, unless of course a DBS provider like DTV retains exclusive commercial distribution rights to certain sports content. (But it's already looking like DTV's firm grip on NFL Sunday Ticket is slipping.)

But if that's not the case, then why? I guess simple inertia, sticking with what they've always had, might be a factor. But DBS would have to at least keep up with what other providers will offer, which will mean carrying all live sports in 4K HDR as the 2020s roll on. Still though, those sports bar patrons don't like it when the game goes out because rain has rolled in (as I saw happen at a local establishment this summer). DBS rain fade is a real thing and you shouldn't assume it wouldn't factor into commercial establishments' desire to drop it if and when a cost-effective alternative video pipe becomes available.

Still though, assuming DBS remains a profitable business on the commercial side significantly longer than on the residential side, I suppose it's possible we'd see a situation at some point where the sole remaining DBS provider drops residential service and focuses only on commercial accounts, with the entire system carrying only live 4K HDR sports plus the national live news channels. That kind of B2B operation would be a far simpler business to run for various reasons, I'd think.



Bigg said:


> If AT&T really plans on not launching any new satellites, then I read that as AT&T is planning to sell D* soon, even though that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me in the first place. I'd think if they just abandoned their service, the FCC or other entities would go after them for not properly using their licenses and for cutting service off to rural areas.


FWIW, there's a guy who used to post a bit on the SatelliteGuys forum (his handle is "Inclined Orbit," I think) who says he used to work at DTV and says he's still occasionally in touch with current employees there at AT&T in their DBS operations. He says that multiple things he's been told from insiders there seem to indicate some kind of DBS shut-down in a few years -- I think 2023 was the timeframe he kept saying. I can't remember exactly what he posted at different times, but it was interesting. Might be a lot of hot air and not mean anything.

But 2023 does sound, to me, like a reasonable time to expect AT&T to somehow unload DTV. I still believe their game plan will be to shift as many DTV subs over to AT&T TV (or, failing that, at least to HBO Max) in 2020-22, at which point it'll be time to try to make a deal with DISH for what remains of DTV while it still has some amount of value. Given the diminished size of DTV (as well as DISH) by then, while streaming continues to rise, the FCC might well allow a tie-up between the two DBS systems, although perhaps with some kind of pricing conditions in place.



Bigg said:


> What I do think is possible is the end of DISH's dual-arc system, and possibly DirecTV selling their 110/119 space to DISH, and that, combined with far fewer channels, allowing DISH to drop 129 and go back to 110/119, which is workable across the entire US, unlike the current 110/119/129 WA that is unworkable in the Northeastern US. I'm not sure who would buy the EA satellites and bandwidth. Or maybe they'd merge, but then I have no clue what they would do with the combined bandwidth on 99c/101/103c/110/119 if they consolidated into a single arc (EA being too far east and 129 being too far west for a single nationwide arc).
> 
> Either way, non English/Spanish programming is going to go away pretty soon, and the channel tonnage will start dropping at some point, whether through contract disputes or the rationalization of the whole pay TV market. Maybe 99c and 103c go back to broadband like they were intended, and a combined DISH/DirecTV move to a Ku-based 101/110/119 single arc. Who knows. There's also Orby, which launched maybe a year or two ago, and is in a really weird, very narrow niche.


Well, if there's a deal between DTV and DISH, it'll be not just for the sat fleet but the customer base too. The question is how they would consolidate them on a unified set of channel packages and CPE hardware. Obviously, they'd want to spend as little as possible replacing existing receivers and rooftop dishes. I think they'd just carry all their core channel packages on both sat fleets for as long as possible. Then it doesn't matter what kind of dish, wiring and receiver you have. Perhaps some add-on Extra Packs and/or 4K HDR channels would only be available on the larger, newer DTV fleet. And then as more sats in the DISH fleet failed, perhaps more core channels would become exclusive to the DTV fleet, requiring customers with DISH dishes who still wanted those channels to get their dish swapped out. But they'd only want to force those conversions as they absolutely became necessary. I'd think they'd standardize on one receiver system (probably Hopper, not the decrepit Genie) and perhaps begin making a slightly different version of Hopper receivers that could replace failing Genie receivers for customers with DTV set-ups. New installations would only point dishes toward the DTV fleet.



Bigg said:


> Maybe a third party or foreign operator will come in and buy both DISH and DirecTV. Who knows. A lot of things can happen, but I don't see DBS going anywhere in the next few decades, even if it operates in a significantly reduced form for rural, commercial, and semi-mobile (RVs and boats) markets only.


Yes, I could see both AT&T and DISH getting out of the DBS business by selling their operations to a single third-party operator. (Well, I can see DISH doing that if Ergen's 5G dreams play out, giving DISH a lifeline out of DBS. But if the T-Mo/Sprint deal fails and he otherwise can't build a new 5G network, he'll be stuck extracting the last bits of value he can from DBS until it dies, because what else can he do?)

As for rural, commercial and semi-mobile, I just think all those use-cases will over the next several years be served by some form of wired or wireless broadband (e.g. 5G/4G, LEO sat, AirGig), which is already a way broader, more flexible video pipe than DBS. That perceived quality disparity will only heighten as more and more of the video entertainment we consume exists exclusively outside of linear channels (e.g. Netflix, YouTube, HBO Max, Disney+, Apple TV+, Peacock, etc.)


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> Just a side note for the record: I got an email from Comcast yesterday informing me that my Blast! speed tier is increasing from 150/10 to 200/10. As you know, Comcast typically overprovisions by about 20%, so my current (rock-solid reliable ) 180Mbps should ramp up to 240Mbps.
> 
> Since I haven't seen anything published yet, I made some inquiries and was told that the other tiers will see a similar speed increase. The increases are being rolled out in waves starting this week and should be fully implemented by the end of September (it has not reached me yet, which I verified by rebooting my modem to check for it). Here is the new line-up:
> 
> ...


Yeah, I got an email from Comcast yesterday evening that my Performance tier would go from 60/5 to 100/5. I rebooted everything this morning and speed tested. Still pulling 71.4 Mbps down, so the bump up hasn't reach me yet.

Extra speed for no extra cash is nice! That said, it won't make any noticeable difference to me because I never really do anything (other than Speedtest.net) that even tests the max download speed I have now...


----------



## WhenenRome (Nov 13, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I got an email from Comcast yesterday evening that my Performance tier would go from 60/5 to 100/5. I rebooted everything this morning and speed tested. Still pulling 71.4 Mbps down, so the bump up hasn't reach me yet.
> 
> Extra speed for no extra cash is nice! That said, it won't make any noticeable difference to me because I never really do anything (other than Speedtest.net) that even tests the max download speed I have now...


Just an FYI on the "speed bumps" coming from different ISP's: You _may_ need a new modem to see it happen for your home network. We did. Ours was only capable of handling 100 - found out when I called in to ask. But they came out the next day, changed it out and we were set & running at 200 in about 15 minutes.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

WhenenRome said:


> Just an FYI on the "speed bumps" coming from different ISP's: You _may_ need a new modem to see it happen for your home network. We did. Ours was only capable of handling 100 - found out when I called in to ask. But they came out the next day, changed it out and we were set & running at 200 in about 15 minutes.


Thanks. My modem is good up to about 300 Mbps, I think. So it's just a matter of Comcast implementing it on my account.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Thanks. My modem is good up to about 300 Mbps, I think. So it's just a matter of Comcast implementing it on my account.


Same here. I have a Netgear CM1000 DOCSIS 3.1 modem, which I was using last year with my previous gigabit HSI tier from Comcast. I switched to a Blast! bundle package in March when my gigabit discount pricing had expired.

I plan to wait until the end of the month and, if I still have not received the speed upgrade at that point, will have Comcast take some further action. Assuming that they are implementing this in waves, my instinct is to "first do no harm" and thus avoid any unnecessary intervention from underskilled CSR's that could mess up something else.

I would appreciate it if you would post here when you get the speed increase on your account.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> Same here. I have a Netgear CM1000 DOCSIS 3.1 modem, which I was using last year with my previous gigabit HSI tier from Comcast. I switched to a Blast! bundle package in March when my gigabit discount pricing had expired.
> 
> I plan to wait until the end of the month and, if I still have not received the speed upgrade at that point, will have Comcast take some further action. Assuming that they are implementing this in waves, my instinct is to "first do no harm" and thus avoid any unnecessary intervention from underskilled CSR's that could mess up something else.
> 
> I would appreciate it if you would post here when you get the speed increase on your account.


As it happens, I just rebooted my modem and router about 2 minutes ago and then ran a speed test. Still no upgrade here. Will try to remember to let you know when mine comes through.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I'm not saying that linear channels won't exist but simply that they'll be an alternative way of consuming a subset of the overall content available, all of which will be available through various direct-to-consumer streaming services.


Correct. Linear will really become a way of packaging the streams into a format that can be mass broadcast out over the CONUS and for commercial use.



> And if that becomes the case, who's going to still be willing to pay for satellite-based channel packages?


1. Rural
2. Commercial/hospitality
3. RVs/boats



> Second thing is "commercial will keep DBS alive". Maybe. But I'm not sure why sports bars, etc. will be immune to the broader trends of everything in the nation being IP-connected-and-fed. All other video service providers will have transitioned to either OTT and/or managed IPTV in the early 2020s.


Those types of venues have moved from cable over to satellite almost universally over the past 5-10 years. As some MSOs drop out of the TV business, DBS will become the only practical option. Further, there are access and cost issues to get the bandwidth that would be required to do this sort of thing over IP, whereas satellite works anywhere you can get to the roof. It's not that IPTV can't be done, it's that it can't be done economically in many cases. Further, DBS is nationwide, so a chain of restaurants and hotels can do one contract nationwide.



> But if that's not the case, then why? I guess simple inertia, sticking with what they've always had, might be a factor. But DBS would have to at least keep up with what other providers will offer, which will mean carrying all live sports in 4K HDR as the 2020s roll on. Still though, those sports bar patrons don't like it when the game goes out because rain has rolled in (as I saw happen at a local establishment this summer). DBS rain fade is a real thing and you shouldn't assume it wouldn't factor into commercial establishments' desire to drop it if and when a cost-effective alternative video pipe becomes available.


Rain fade is virtually non-existent on a properly installed dish. That's a matter of training techs properly and fixing dishes that aren't dithered correctly. They will need a few 4k channels if those channels are available elsewhere for sports bars. Most of the rest of the content is fine at HD resolution, and really only the big event for a given region needs to be 4k, as usually the other TVs aren't that big or aren't the focus. For hotels, HD is fine.



> Still though, assuming DBS remains a profitable business on the commercial side significantly longer than on the residential side, I suppose it's possible we'd see a situation at some point where the sole remaining DBS provider drops residential service and focuses only on commercial accounts, with the entire system carrying only live 4K HDR sports plus the national live news channels. That kind of B2B operation would be a far simpler business to run for various reasons, I'd think.


Possible, but I doubt they'd cut out rural, just because of the relative lack of competition and good margins. I think they'd probably run it through a re-seller or at least get rid of their own installers though, and let somebody else drive all over hill and dale installing satellite dishes.



> But 2023 does sound, to me, like a reasonable time to expect AT&T to somehow unload DTV. I still believe their game plan will be to shift as many DTV subs over to AT&T TV (or, failing that, at least to HBO Max) in 2020-22, at which point it'll be time to try to make a deal with DISH for what remains of DTV while it still has some amount of value. Given the diminished size of DTV (as well as DISH) by then, while streaming continues to rise, the FCC might well allow a tie-up between the two DBS systems, although perhaps with some kind of pricing conditions in place.


Possible. Or some other outside investor comes in and takes the carcass of D*. My guess is that they continue on for many decades in one form or another. It wouldn't be the 400 channel behemoth it is today, but there will be a niche market for satellite. There are satellite systems today that broadcast in-store music and TV channels, and all sorts of other niche stuff that's linked over satellite. Satellite is a useful technology in one form or another. Maybe AT&T doesn't want to run a small niche in a few years, but somebody will, whether it's DISH or not.



> Well, if there's a deal between DTV and DISH, it'll be not just for the sat fleet but the customer base too. The question is how they would consolidate them on a unified set of channel packages and CPE hardware.


I'm not familiar with the DISH satellite fleet, but my gut tells me that as those satellite reach EOL, they would move people over to the D* side. It would only be practical to run 3 redundant arcs as long as the existing satellites are serviceable. The question is whether they combine the bandwidth at 110 and 119 into the D* system, or whether they move only to the 99c/101/103c narrow arc after all the international and other stuff is stripped off.

Keep in mind also that DirecTV has markets in Latin and South America, and I'm not sure how those affect the US, or what orbital positions can be used down there versus up here.



> As for rural, commercial and semi-mobile, I just think all those use-cases will over the next several years be served by some form of wired or wireless broadband (e.g. 5G/4G, LEO sat, AirGig), which is already a way broader, more flexible video pipe than DBS.


The problem is, we have no national plan for broadband (or really anything for that matter). There will be some increase in coverage, but it won't be universal, and there will still be a demand for DBS for all three of those usage categories.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

good discussion with Tom Rogers former CEO of Tivo on CNBC. touches on streaming services, old cable model vs on-demand model, streaming vs ads, emmys, broadcast networks, tivo pre-roll ads and more


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Those types of venues have moved from cable over to satellite almost universally over the past 5-10 years.


Comcast has recently begun making a push to get X1 into commercial establishments. All of those places already have broadband, anyhow, so many of them are, I'm sure, customers of Comcast or whoever the local cable operator is.



Bigg said:


> As some MSOs drop out of the TV business, DBS will become the only practical option.


Nope. Like those MSOs' residential customers, we'll see the commercial customers also turn to OTT/IPTV video solutions. In fact, that kind of thing already exists. I remember reading earlier this year about an OTT subscription service targeted at establishments like doctor and dentist offices who need content to display on the TVs in their waiting rooms, etc.



Bigg said:


> Further, there are access and cost issues to get the bandwidth that would be required to do this sort of thing over IP, whereas satellite works anywhere you can get to the roof. It's not that IPTV can't be done, it's that it can't be done economically in many cases.


I'm sure the cable/fiber provider would be happy to serve those sports bars via managed IPTV with a package price for broadband and TV content.



Bigg said:


> Rain fade is virtually non-existent on a properly installed dish. That's a matter of training techs properly and fixing dishes that aren't dithered correctly.


No. You're simply spouting DBS propaganda. I've seen it way, way too many times in too many places (including in my own home, with both DISH and DTV, where tech visits confirmed that the dishes were properly pointed and "peaked," yet rain fade persisted). Comment boards contain too many real-life instances of DBS users experiencing rain fade. Cable companies' TV ads have repeatedly attacked DBS over rain fade *because it's a real phenomenon and an effective line of attack*.



Bigg said:


> They will need a few 4k channels if those channels are available elsewhere for sports bars. Most of the rest of the content is fine at HD resolution, and really only the big event for a given region needs to be 4k, as usually the other TVs aren't that big or aren't the focus.


Nope. Folks go to sports bars expecting to see big screen TVs that look at least as good as what they see at home. If, by the mid-2020s, it's normal for middle-class Americans to watch nearly all of their live sports in 4K HDR at home, then they'll also expect that level of picture quality at sports bars. (It's kind of like "Why go to the movie theater if the movie looks better on my TV?')



Bigg said:


> For hotels, HD is fine.


You do realize that lots of hotels are already switching over to streaming, right? And DISH seems to be one of the leaders there:

Dish's Android TV Hotel Platform Now Lets Guests Stream Live TV To Their Phones | Android Headlines

Maybe Motel 6 out in the middle of nowhere will still be offering "grandpa TV" via DBS come 2025 but I doubt that'll still be the experience at a Hilton or Marriott.



Bigg said:


> Possible, but I doubt they'd cut out rural, just because of the relative lack of competition and good margins. I think they'd probably run it through a re-seller or at least get rid of their own installers though, and let somebody else drive all over hill and dale installing satellite dishes.


Yeah, I could maybe see them dumping installation and having customers handle that separately. But I question how many more years that DBS will be the sole option available for rural customers as LEO satellite and other forms of wireless broadband reach them.



Bigg said:


> Possible. Or some other outside investor comes in and takes the carcass of D*. My guess is that they continue on for many decades in one form or another. It wouldn't be the 400 channel behemoth it is today, but there will be a niche market for satellite. There are satellite systems today that broadcast in-store music and TV channels, and all sorts of other niche stuff that's linked over satellite. Satellite is a useful technology in one form or another. Maybe AT&T doesn't want to run a small niche in a few years, but somebody will, whether it's DISH or not.


Well, I guess we're getting down to semantics now. If those DBS satellites are still in use for *something* come 2033 but they don't offer something resembling cable TV packages for residential users, then can we say that "satellite TV" still exists then? If all they're doing is, I dunno, beaming live news channels to TVs in airports, has "satellite TV" died? I'd say yes.

If there's any kind of viable economic use for those still-operable DBS sats, then sure, they'll be sold/leased to someone for some kind of use. But that doesn't mean they'll be used to provide a service that looks like DTV or DISH as we've always thought of them.



Bigg said:


> The problem is, we have no national plan for broadband (or really anything for that matter). There will be some increase in coverage, but it won't be universal, and there will still be a demand for DBS for all three of those usage categories.


LEO satellite broadband should offer coverage that's just as universal as DBS, no? Meanwhile, other forms of connectivity will reach the lowest-hanging rural fruit: wired co-ops, fixed wireless 5G/4G, maybe AT&T's AirGig if that ever happens.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Comcast has recently begun making a push to get X1 into commercial establishments. All of those places already have broadband, anyhow, so many of them are, I'm sure, customers of Comcast or whoever the local cable operator is.


They largely don't use cable TV, they use satellite. Restaurants may or may not have cable broadband, many use xDSL for office and POS systems, none of which require a lot of bandwidth. They may or may not even have a cable connection available.



> Nope. Like those MSOs' residential customers, we'll see the commercial customers also turn to OTT/IPTV video solutions. In fact, that kind of thing already exists. I remember reading earlier this year about an OTT subscription service targeted at establishments like doctor and dentist offices who need content to display on the TVs in their waiting rooms, etc.


Those aren't the DirecTV power users. It's going to be a while before we see IPTV providing 20 channels at a time to 70 TVs like a modern sports bar. These places literally have dual 42U racks full of D* and HDMI matrix gear.



> I'm sure the cable/fiber provider would be happy to serve those sports bars via managed IPTV with a package price for broadband and TV content.


Except that they are almost universally using D*. I don't know why exactly cable companies don't want to compete for the business, or if it is has to do with NFL ST, but they are all on D*.



> No. You're simply spouting DBS propaganda. I've seen it way, way too many times in too many places (including in my own home, with both DISH and DTV, where tech visits confirmed that the dishes were properly pointed and "peaked," yet rain fade persisted). Comment boards contain too many real-life instances of DBS users experiencing rain fade. Cable companies' TV ads have repeatedly attacked DBS over rain fade *because it's a real phenomenon and an effective line of attack*.


If D* goes out more than once in a blue moon, they didn't peak it correct, or it's not mounted to a solid surface. Ka-band is hard to peak properly. E* is not as solid, I don't quite understand the technical reasons why, but it has something to do with satellite power and dish size. E* is more forgiving, however, as the are Ku-band.

While it can vary widely from cable operator to cable operator, most cable operators cannot match DBS's reliability. It is beaten only by fiber-based systems that are entirely fed from the CO/WC. The cable ads are dishonest propaganda. DBS cuts out for a few minutes at a time once in a blue moon, generally during afternoon rain showers when no one is watching TV anyway. When cable goes out, it's often out for hours. Many cable systems go out shortly after the power is out, while DBS stays up and running even when the power is out for days.



> Nope. Folks go to sports bars expecting to see big screen TVs that look at least as good as what they see at home. If, by the mid-2020s, it's normal for middle-class Americans to watch nearly all of their live sports in 4K HDR at home, then they'll also expect that level of picture quality at sports bars. (It's kind of like "Why go to the movie theater if the movie looks better on my TV?')


Most of the TVs, while fairly big (50-70"), aren't close enough to where most of the people are to get a big boost out of 4k. Bars will need them at least as good as people watch them at home for whatever the main feed they have on, but that's assuming there are a lot of 4k broadcasts, which remains to be seen.



> You do realize that lots of hotels are already switching over to streaming, right? And DISH seems to be one of the leaders there:
> 
> Dish's Android TV Hotel Platform Now Lets Guests Stream Live TV To Their Phones | Android Headlines
> 
> Maybe Motel 6 out in the middle of nowhere will still be offering "grandpa TV" via DBS come 2025 but I doubt that'll still be the experience at a Hilton or Marriott.


That's not streaming, at least not in the traditional sense. That's DBS that's being streamed out to devices on-prem. The big chains have pretty much all converted over to D* in one form or another in the past 5 years or so. Cable is rare these days. Some use SMATV directly to a TV, some go through a custom OTT streaming box, while others offer an actual D* box in each room. But they're all using D*.



> Yeah, I could maybe see them dumping installation and having customers handle that separately. But I question how many more years that DBS will be the sole option available for rural customers as LEO satellite and other forms of wireless broadband reach them.


I'm just wondering how the bandwidth on LEO scales out. Is it really going to be enough to have everyone streaming TV? How much of it will get slurped up by higher-value uses like serving broadband to planes?



> Well, I guess we're getting down to semantics now. If those DBS satellites are still in use for *something* come 2033 but they don't offer something resembling cable TV packages for residential users, then can we say that "satellite TV" still exists then? If all they're doing is, I dunno, beaming live news channels to TVs in airports, has "satellite TV" died? I'd say yes.


I think they'll still offer residential packages, but it will be more of a niche operation, and there might be 50-100 channels, not 400.



> If there's any kind of viable economic use for those still-operable DBS sats, then sure, they'll be sold/leased to someone for some kind of use. But that doesn't mean they'll be used to provide a service that looks like DTV or DISH as we've always thought of them.


It will look more like the D* or E* service of the mid- to late- 1990s than the current model. Meaning that end users pay for their equipment to get access, and independent installers do the installations.



> LEO satellite broadband should offer coverage that's just as universal as DBS, no? Meanwhile, other forms of connectivity will reach the lowest-hanging rural fruit: wired co-ops, fixed wireless 5G/4G, maybe AT&T's AirGig if that ever happens.


If there's enough bandwidth on LEO. That remains to be seen. I'm skeptical that we'll see LEO with the 1TB+ caps required to replace linear video delivery. I'm thinking something more like AT&T's FWI that's had various caps under 500GB offered, some as low as 160GB I believe.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

chiguy50 said:


> Just a side note for the record: I got an email from Comcast yesterday informing me that my Blast! speed tier is increasing from 150/10 to 200/10. As you know, Comcast typically overprovisions by about 20%, so my current (rock-solid reliable ) 180Mbps should ramp up to 240Mbps.
> 
> Since I haven't seen anything published yet, I made some inquiries and was told that the other tiers will see a similar speed increase. The increases are being rolled out in waves starting this week and should be fully implemented by the end of September (it has not reached me yet, which I verified by rebooting my modem to check for it). Here is the new line-up:
> 
> ...





chiguy50 said:


> Same here. I have a Netgear CM1000 DOCSIS 3.1 modem, which I was using last year with my previous gigabit HSI tier from Comcast. I switched to a Blast! bundle package in March when my gigabit discount pricing had expired.
> 
> I plan to wait until the end of the month and, if I still have not received the speed upgrade at that point, will have Comcast take some further action. Assuming that they are implementing this in waves, my instinct is to "first do no harm" and thus avoid any unnecessary intervention from underskilled CSR's that could mess up something else.
> 
> I would appreciate it if you would post here when you get the speed increase on your account.





NashGuy said:


> As it happens, I just rebooted my modem and router about 2 minutes ago and then ran a speed test. Still no upgrade here. Will try to remember to let you know when mine comes through.


I rebooted my modem first thing this morning and am now getting the increased Blast! speeds (240/12).


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> They largely don't use cable TV, they use satellite. Restaurants may or may not have cable broadband, many use xDSL for office and POS systems, none of which require a lot of bandwidth. They may or may not even have a cable connection available.


Lots of those places already offer free wifi for their customers. Everywhere will eventually have broadband. If the broadband provider will offer managed IPTV (either their own TV service or an outside partner provisioned on their IP system) there's no reason not to use it.



Bigg said:


> Those aren't the DirecTV power users. It's going to be a while before we see IPTV providing 20 channels at a time to 70 TVs like a modern sports bar.


Managed IPTV with multicast can easily do that.



Bigg said:


> Except that they are almost universally using D*. I don't know why exactly cable companies don't want to compete for the business, or if it is has to do with NFL ST, but they are all on D*.


I'd say it's largely because of NFL Sunday Ticket. If sports bars were choosing DBS because of some kind of inherent advantages that it offered, then we'd see a mix of DISH and DTV being used. But you almost never see DISH, it's always DTV. So it's about the carriage contracts that AT&T has in place for DTV, with NFL ST being the biggest one. And guess what? NFL ST won't be exclusive to DTV much longer. That contract will be up after the 2020-21 season. And it wouldn't surprise me at all if NFL ST is available over both DTV *and* AT&T TV next year.



Bigg said:


> If D* goes out more than once in a blue moon, they didn't peak it correct, or it's not mounted to a solid surface. Ka-band is hard to peak properly. E* is not as solid, I don't quite understand the technical reasons why, but it has something to do with satellite power and dish size. E* is more forgiving, however, as the are Ku-band.


Have you actually installed these dishes as your job? Because more than one technician who DID do that for a living confirmed that my dish was optimally installed. And yet I had rain fade *every* time it rained. With both DTV and DISH. Granted, my experience is just one data point. But again, I've personally seen and read about lots of other reports of rain fade. I'm sure it's a problem that some DBS users seldom or never experience. But it's a very real phenomenon that afflicts a significant number of them and, if you're one of those users, then it's definitely a factor to be considered when weighing whether to stick with DBS or switch to something else. So again, I have to think that a decent number of sports bars would be happy in switching from DBS to something more reliable if they still had access to all the same programming at a similar cost.



Bigg said:


> While it can vary widely from cable operator to cable operator, most cable operators cannot match DBS's reliability. It is beaten only by fiber-based systems that are entirely fed from the CO/WC. The cable ads are dishonest propaganda. DBS cuts out for a few minutes at a time once in a blue moon, generally during afternoon rain showers when no one is watching TV anyway.


No. We get rain here at any point of the day, including in the evening. It was probably about 8 PM when I saw DTV go out at a restaurant due to a storm rolling in here this summer. Sports were playing at the time.



Bigg said:


> When cable goes out, it's often out for hours. Many cable systems go out shortly after the power is out, while DBS stays up and running even when the power is out for days.


If the power is out, a sports bar or other establishment has bigger problems to worry about than TV.



Bigg said:


> That's not streaming, at least not in the traditional sense. That's DBS that's being streamed out to devices on-prem.


Netflix isn't streaming? And regardless of what is being done with the linear channels, all decent hotels/motels now offer their customers wifi and understand that a growing portion of video that their guests consume is from on-demand streaming services. Who cares any more about turning on a strange hotel cable box (unfamiliar UI and channel numbers) and surfing through whatever happens to be playing live on an unknown bunch of linear channels at the time? Increasingly, hotels are offering ways to make it simple for guests to either access their own SVOD accounts on the room's TV or offer complementary access (no account needed) to Netflix and other SVODs.



Bigg said:


> I'm just wondering how the bandwidth on LEO scales out. Is it really going to be enough to have everyone streaming TV? How much of it will get slurped up by higher-value uses like serving broadband to planes?


Dunno, we'll see. But obviously, it's going to be used for streaming video. Video constitutes a huge majority of the data consumed via broadband. If you don't care about streaming YouTube, Netflix, etc., and simply want to browse web pages and send emails like it's 1999, you don't really need broadband.



Bigg said:


> If there's enough bandwidth on LEO. That remains to be seen. I'm skeptical that we'll see LEO with the 1TB+ caps required to replace linear video delivery. I'm thinking something more like AT&T's FWI that's had various caps under 500GB offered, some as low as 160GB I believe.


We'll see. Musk/SpaceX says that they want Starlink to be competitive. A lower cap than 1 TB wouldn't surprise me but something as low at 160 GB would.

I still find your emotional attachment to DBS (particularly DTV) strange. It's something I'd typically associate with old people. Whatever. It'll probably have a long, slow death as the 2020s unfold. You'll have plenty of time to adjust. Come 2030, we'll think of DBS the way we think of audio cassette tapes today.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Lots of those places already offer free wifi for their customers. Everywhere will eventually have broadband. If the broadband provider will offer managed IPTV (either their own TV service or an outside partner provisioned on their IP system) there's no reason not to use it.


Some offer free Wi-Fi. Often it's slow. Often the Wi-Fi is not connected to broadband at all, but rather high speed internet provided over xDSL. More often than not in my experience, publicly available Wi-Fi isn't broadband at all.



> Managed IPTV with multicast can easily do that.


It's 20 boxes getting 20 different channels, or about 120mbps of video. IP multicast doesn't help when all 20 channels are different.



> I'd say it's largely because of NFL Sunday Ticket. If sports bars were choosing DBS because of some kind of inherent advantages that it offered, then we'd see a mix of DISH and DTV being used.


E* doesn't scale out to as many boxes.



> Have you actually installed these dishes as your job? Because more than one technician who DID do that for a living confirmed that my dish was optimally installed. And yet I had rain fade *every* time it rained. With both DTV and DISH. Granted, my experience is just one data point. But again, I've personally seen and read about lots of other reports of rain fade. I'm sure it's a problem that some DBS users seldom or never experience. But it's a very real phenomenon that afflicts a significant number of them and, if you're one of those users, then it's definitely a factor to be considered when weighing whether to stick with DBS or switch to something else. So again, I have to think that a decent number of sports bars would be happy in switching from DBS to something more reliable if they still had access to all the same programming at a similar cost.


Rain fade is exceedingly rare on D* and suffers outages less than all but the very best maintained HFC plants or fiber providers. E* suffers it far more.

That being said, rain fade is still a huge business problem for AT&T, since many/most dishes aren't properly peaked/dithered to get spot on with the Ka band, and some aren't even mounted on solid structures that will keep the dish in a rock solid position. Some also aren't properly installed with both of the stabilizing legs that give it a true tripod mount when all 3 are screwed down to solid surfaces.



> If the power is out, a sports bar or other establishment has bigger problems to worry about than TV.


Same as for residential, it depends on their backup power. Most places have totally inadequate backup power systems.



> Netflix isn't streaming? And regardless of what is being done with the linear channels, all decent hotels/motels now offer their customers wifi and understand that a growing portion of video that their guests consume is from on-demand streaming services. Who cares any more about turning on a strange hotel cable box (unfamiliar UI and channel numbers) and surfing through whatever happens to be playing live on an unknown bunch of linear channels at the time? Increasingly, hotels are offering ways to make it simple for guests to either access their own SVOD accounts on the room's TV or offer complementary access (no account needed) to Netflix and other SVODs.


I didn't say anything about Netflix, I was addressing the E* system that "streams" to your device in the hotel. That's DBS into the box in the hotel, streaming out over the LAN.

Absolutely, many are, including Mariott. Many are not. Also, even the ones like Mariott that offer boxes where you can log into Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu, alongside their linear TV that is delivered by DBS SMATV are still delivering most video through the SMATV system, not streaming, so the aggregate bandwidth demands are significantly lower than if everyone got into their room and turned on the news over IPTV. I think the Residence Inn/Mariott system that has roughly 40 linear channels delivered in HD over SMATV form a D* dish is the future. They also offer Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu that most people probably don't use, but is a cool feature to have there.



> Dunno, we'll see. But obviously, it's going to be used for streaming video. Video constitutes a huge majority of the data consumed via broadband. If you don't care about streaming YouTube, Netflix, etc., and simply want to browse web pages and send emails like it's 1999, you don't really need broadband.


There will clearly be some streaming video on it. But it likely won't be able to replace DBS for rural users. However, streaming live TV constitutes a much larger chunk of bandwidth than watching some YouTube videos or even watching shows on Netflix.



> We'll see. Musk/SpaceX says that they want Starlink to be competitive. A lower cap than 1 TB wouldn't surprise me but something as low at 160 GB would.
> 
> I still find your emotional attachment to DBS (particularly DTV) strange. It's something I'd typically associate with old people. Whatever. It'll probably have a long, slow death as the 2020s unfold. You'll have plenty of time to adjust. Come 2030, we'll think of DBS the way we think of audio cassette tapes today.


I don't have an emotional attachment to it, I simply have a rational view of how things work in this country. If I could have my way, I'd have universal gigabit fiber everywhere that there is a grid, as well as competition in areas that currently have cable, no bandwidth caps, and net neutrality. That's the right thing to do, and would effectively wipe out DBS or relegate it to a tiny niche. However, none of those things are happening, so DBS has a future, even if it's a much smaller niche than it occupies today. I'm also just reporting what I see with hotels, sports bars, etc. I don't quite understand why D* is so popular, but I believe it has to do with their commercial/SMATV offerings, ability to do HD QAM over SMATV, and the ability to offer it to a large chain like Mariott nationwide.


----------

