What's with all these major TV networks being dropped from cable and satellite companies

Don't be alarmed, be glad.

Because this is just hastening the end for satellite and cable companies as more content providers move to internet streaming. After years of saying it will never happen HBO is doing it, now CBS is doing it, etc.

In 10 years the TV viewing landscape will be remarkably different and it is my most sincere hope that Comcast goes the way of Blockbuster.

deters said:

Hopefully google outbids everyone for Sunday Ticket and allows internet subs so anyone can have it. If that happens, I will end all TV subscriptions. I already watch all my shows via stream or torrent and watch ESPN3 for college sports.

Click to expand...

That is not going to be for a while, direct tv just reup with the nfl for nfl sunday ticket.

It's time to start revoking broadcast licenses until these companies get their act together. Can someone explain to me why they these companies should be allowed to bring in billions in profits instead of treating TV and radio like a public service? Cable is a racket, and the news media is the worst and most powerful part of it all.

fnordcircle said:

Don't be alarmed, be glad.

Because this is just hastening the end for satellite and cable companies as more content providers move to internet streaming. After years of saying it will never happen HBO is doing it, now CBS is doing it, etc.

In 10 years the TV viewing landscape will be remarkably different and it is my most sincere hope that Comcast goes the way of Blockbuster.

Click to expand...

I agree that internet streaming will become much more common in the future. Yes, many, many more channels will be available. We have hundreds of channels available now through ROKU, Newfix, Huluplus, Prime and Acorn.

I disagree that Comcast and satellite providers will be a thing of the past. Why would you hope for LESS competition. I'm fine with internet streaming competing with Direct TV AND with Comcast AND with Verizon.

I think that we need to remember that we are not talking about a system for the most technologically savvy among us. In the future, if it is to change drastically, there needs to be a system which is as easy to use as Comcast or Direct TV. Just having 500 channels available through streaming is grossly insufficient.

CHALLENGE 1 - BUNDLING
How will a consumer pay for all the channels he wants. Paying for them a few at a time sounds great, but the transaction costs are also great. We may think that Comcast and Direct TV are expensive. Unbundling the services and channels may be much more expensive.

Also, the smaller market channels would find it difficult to compete. We have lots of Discovery and Science channels because they are bundled. In the end, we would move the bundling to internet streaming. Channels could be purchase one at a time (I think that DISH allows that). However, the NBC bundle would include perhaps 50 channels. You would end up making up your own packages, instead of choosing from the relatively few that are now offered. For most folks, that will be a pain in the neck. There would end up being services that provided major bundles that include other bundles (perhaps the kinds of bundles that we have today).

Will internet streaming provide a more efficient market for sports programs? Perhaps. What about movies for sale? This is already available and fairly efficient.

CHALLENGE 2 - BANDWIDTH
There is an increasing issue of what to charge for what speed on the internet. This may go away, or not.

CHALLENGE 3 - SERVICES SERVICES
There are lots of services that Direct TV provides that aren't generally available if I watch a ROKU channel. Think of all that you now take for granted:

DVR's and the menus associated with them
the ability to watch and record in any room, and continue in another
the channel menus, channel lists, record capability

I may be able to get the channel content as cheaply over the internet in the future. It is difficult to imagine the robust systems being developed by totally new companies in a few years.

BOTTOM LINE
I suspect that companies like Verizon and Direct TV will move to the internet market. AppleTV is trying and doing a poor job. So, sure, maybe the cable companies will be gone. But I don't see Verizon, Direct TV and Google going anywhere. The vast majority need someone to bundle content, provide equipment and provide associated service to make it very easy to watch.

mgteich said:

Why would you hope for LESS competition.

Click to expand...

Implying that there's competition now. Other than a few markets most of us in this country have 1 choice and the game is rigged to keep it that way. We already paid our ISPs for fiber to the door and they did jack **** to deliver it.

Municipal broadband is the answer.

obgod3 said:

Before I go on my broadcast rant.. , I would like to wish everyone a happy thanksgiving, have a great day everyone!

Problem for some of us is the NFL Sunday ticket, without it I would just stop watching the NFL entirely. I would find something else to do. That the government allowed an exclusive contract with only the NFL and DTV sucks. I have a friend at Dish, they battle this all the time, he admits that Dish is just as culpable as anyone but that when networks like Fox, AMC and others get hit shows they immediately try to renegotiate the terms (The Walking Dead) and when contracts come due it gets very nasty. He said lots of other providers wanted in on NFL Sunday Ticket and even fought it via the FCC but were denied claims saying it wasn't anti-competitive.

He has also discussed the point that while some folks are going free from cable etc. and going to the airwaves that the next thing coming is the Networks will start scrambling signals and charging if you want it, back to tech, otherwise the the ad revenue will suffer. So it wont be free forever, Im referring to cord cutting. Now while he works for a big company in this business he is pretty reasonable about what he thinks will happen, but he is very committed to the fact that cord cutting will last for a short period and then they will find a way to charge you and are already working with the large internet providers on it. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon are all already in contract discussions for the long term with major networks and outlets so it really isnt free now and wont be in the future. They also already charge you to use their service, so it isnt free. Particularly sports.

The biggest problem with cutting the cord is that the content is limited and will always be limited, paying $5 for CBS or $15 for HBO isnt really a good deal unless that is all you want to watch and then when all networks do it then next thing is your paying $60-100 for the networks you want. Im not sure I watch either of those channels, maybe CBS for football.

The tech coming out is the real threat and as a very basic example NFL Sunday ticket tracks your IP, unless you spoof it but they also have the ability to see that also via some very interesting tech and algorithms. So if your in a region where a game is on local or blacked out or in Europe or Asia you are not getting the games, believe me I have tried in those places. It is just a matter of time before the major networks have a similar approach to make sure they get your money. It is important to understand that the tech behind broadcast TV is huge, hundreds of thousands if not millions of software engineers constantly working on it. I think ultimately we are doomed to pay for the content we want to view, regardless of the insignificant cut the cord movement we see today.

Click to expand...

You're probably right. In Canada the scumbag cable/internet providers are trying to shut down OTA permanently and have people pay 20-30 dollars a month just for local channels. They also don't compete against each other. Raising their prices around the same time constantly. It's not collusion by the legal definition but it really is. They just have an unspoken agreement. Internet is going to become a luxury here soon enough. 60 bucks for the most basic high speed internet.(125 GB data cap, 10 Mbps/512 kbps) It's wrong, just wrong. They're not stopping either with the increases in price with cable, internet and mobile services.

A lot of cord cutters have expressed their disapproval with the proposal. I don't think it'll be enough. The worst part is the CRTC(FCC equivalent) are clueless and trust the providers in what direction Canada needs to go with TV/internet/mobile services. That's only made things worse in Canada with the providers being the only party benefiting from it with more money in their pockets by bleeding Canadians dry. The providers complain how they can't afford this or that, need to charge this much or do this just to break even yet all I ever see is the providers making record breaking profits. One provider just created a 300 million dollar retirement plan for their executives. Paid for by the citizens of Canada. Freaking ridiculous! I wouldn't be surprised if they have the CRTC in their pockets too. CRTC are supposed to serve the people of Canada!

You're right about all these individual streaming services will end up costing more than cable in the long run. You can already see it happening.

But if anyone is losing fox and want a temp solution to watch the games on fox go to www.tvfool.com and punch in your address. It'll tell you which OTA stations you're in range of. If you're lucky you'll be able to use a cheap indoor antenna. Good Luck

I spend a huge chunk of money each month on my cable bill. Between DVR and all the packages I've purchased so I can watch every sports game imaginable...

If I can't find anything on my TV, I can usually find it immediately streaming for FREE on the internet.

I hope that never changes. F the government, and screw all these greedy corporations.

But the point is internet streaming is not going to always be free, they are sucking you into a dependence in them, they will make you pay for it eventually. No internet, cable, services provider does this for free forever. Or we will have 30 minutes of commercials in a 1 hour program, but you can't have it for free forever. As an FYI I work in high tech and the internet providers have a long range plan to raise our rates much higher than what they are today. They believe we will pay double or triple of what we pay today so get what we want from streaming, so then we are just paying the same as we are today. Enjoy it while it lasts.

ohgod3, I stream from some under the radar sites on occasion. Are you referring to the bandwidth used to stream video, data content as monitored by my ISP?

I strictly stream from my laptop, is that really in jeopardy?

I understand that internet costs will rise, but how will they charge me for my "internet streaming" if it isn't a subscription based service, other than basic internet charges?

Excuse my ignorance and bear with me, please!?

fnordcircle said:

Implying that there's competition now. Other than a few markets most of us in this country have 1 choice and the game is rigged to keep it that way. We already paid our ISPs for fiber to the door and they did jack **** to deliver it.

Municipal broadband is the answer.

Click to expand...

Most folks have the choice between cable, Direct TV, DISH, Verizon and Hughes. Putting government in the internet business is certainly one answer.

With regard to municipalization, there is a middle ground that many communities employ. The municipality bids out the contract. So the city controls access without owning it.

However, in the end, access to content will (and should) cost money. Why should CBS provide its content for free? If you want to watch very high definition CBS or sports or movies, then you will pay for it.

mmasterkillah said:

ohgod3, I stream from some under the radar sites on occasion. Are you referring to the bandwidth used to stream video, data content as monitored by my ISP?

I strictly stream from my laptop, is that really in jeopardy?

I understand that internet costs will rise, but how will they charge me for my "internet streaming" if it isn't a subscription based service, other than basic internet charges?

Excuse my ignorance and bear with me, please!?

Click to expand...

Folks buy movies on the internet all the time. Companies can charge for content. If companies illegally transmit content, that is another matter entirely. I belong to lots of services that provide content for pay. They also provide lots of content includes in the price of the service. There are lots of these companies where there is no subscription cost and no free content. As I have said, I pay under $30 a month and subscribe to Huluplus, Netflix, ROKU, Amazon Prime and lots of free services. These services charge for internet streaming all the time.

There will always be lots of free content and lots of content that cost money. That seems reasonable to me. BTW, I think it a bit naive that you seem to think that your internet activity is in anyway private and not accessible to thousands of entities throughout the world.

chasa said:

its all about the money, but the joke is on the cable companies because the networks are starting to offer ala carte services.

You can get CBS now on any device you want for $5
You will soon be able to get HBO on any device you want for around $15
That plus hulu/netflix means bye bye cable, all people will need is an internet connection.

Click to expand...

Problem is these Cable/Satellite companies have people by the balls. Many times these companies are also ISPs. And in many cases they have monopolies in the areas they are in. Companies will simply raise the price of standalone Internet Service to the point where having the Internet/Cable/ and maybe Phone bundles will actually be a bargain compared to just the Internet Service. So people are really screwed and there is nothing they can do.

The FCC needs to step in and stop this travesty. Internet is important to the lives of many Americans so really the Internet needs to be declared a Public Utility. The ripping off people when they have no choice needs to stop now.

mgteich said:

BTW, I think it a bit naive that you seem to think that your internet activity is in anyway private and not accessible to thousands of entities throughout the world.

Click to expand...

I don't think I have a belief that my viewing habits are private, but I don't download any content, I simply go to websites which happen to be streaming it. I'm not familiar with the legality in hosting some of the particular sites, but I know it isn't illegal to simply view them.

Other than that, thanks for your response.

mmasterkillah said:

I don't think I have a belief that my viewing habits are private, but I don't download any content, I simply go to websites which happen to be streaming it. I'm not familiar with the legality in hosting some of the particular sites, but I know it isn't illegal to simply view them.

Other than that, thanks for your response.

Click to expand...

Perhaps there are attorneys on the site. As I understand the situation, there is lots of content that is illegal to stream (pornography, first run movies, and live NFL games come to mind). I am quite sure that the viewer also has legal culpability. For example, watching child porn is clearly illegal in most jurisdictions.

Well, if it is illegal to view NFL games, I'd be learning something new.

The child porn thing seems a little over the top, I think that's in a whole different ballpark.

FrodoBagginz said:

Problem is these Cable/Satellite companies have people by the balls. Many times these companies are also ISPs. And in many cases they have monopolies in the areas they are in. Companies will simply raise the price of standalone Internet Service to the point where having the Internet/Cable/ and maybe Phone bundles will actually be a bargain compared to just the Internet Service. So people are really screwed and there is nothing they can do.

The FCC needs to step in and stop this travesty. Internet is important to the lives of many Americans so really the Internet needs to be declared a Public Utility. The ripping off people when they have no choice needs to stop now.

Click to expand...

So, you want internet service to be a utility the way phone service used to be? I strongly disagree. The quality of phones has gone up and the cost of phones and service has gone down since phone service has become competitive.

If a company is using its monopoly power to raise prices in a market, then this violates various laws. How much should unbundled internet service cost? I purchase as fast a service as I can get and bundle it with land-line phone service (I still like my land line). I understand that most of the cost is for internet service.
There are many. many studies that show that bundling TV service is NOT a good deal for the consumer. There are much better choices if the consumer unbundles and considers the various TV options out there (including streaming options).

BTW, I pay less than $10 a month for my mobile phone. Competition is great.

I have dish and got the sports package. One of the reasons I got it was because they HAD CNNSE. When I ordered it and found out they dropped CNNSE I immediately called them and demanded they get it back. Long story short. I got the sports package without CNNSE for half price for 6 months. I will be cancelling this package at the end of the season. I will also tell them that if they don't get their **** straight they will lose a customer forever. Not that they care and I really don't want to go back to Comcast or DTV, but I'm sick and tired of their games. might be a n I ternet streaming tv watcher in the near future. Greedy bastida they all are!

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

neckroll#14 said:

Making the viewers pawns in these disputes is infuriating... someday one of these insanely profitable entities will miscalculate and this brinkmanship will backfire - the viewers/subscribers will be lost forever. i have already installed an over-the-air antenna for free DTV (no digital box on cable)... if they screw with me too many more times i'll dump FiOS TV and go internet only. i seem to be watching just the news and football on TV more and more anyway - and i can get that for free.

Click to expand...

Well, this is a typical third party payer scheme. Broadcasters want more money from rebroadcasters who get their money from consumers. Fox tells their premium provider viewers to demand their premium provider work out a deal with the broadcaster so that the viewer can continue to get 'what they pay for'. In reality, the broadcaster wants the viewer to pay more via their premium provider. If enough people call to complain, the content provider wins and rates go up.

You have done as many have done and you are right that both content provider and content distributer are taking a HUGE risk. A lot of people who sampled Free TV during the CBS outage never came back. Antennas are sprouting like dandelions where I like.

The fact is that broadcast has a better picture and is free. In reality, all picture quality is great under the right circumstances so broadcast wins on price. Premium provider wins on available content (MLB, NHL, NBA) and ease of use (You plug in the cable and it works or some guy comes out and makes it work for you).

Another reality is that, for most people, broadcast is pretty easy to set up and not very expensive. Go to TVFool.com to see what kind of antenna you need and which way to point it, run a cable from the antenna to the tv, and you are done.

We are more than four years without a premium provider. We lost power yesterday. I am watching the football games. We even have internet.

There are five distinct phases of cable separation. I have organized them to minimize cost in the beginning so that people who change their mind don't lose much money and so that people who want cable can afford to have an antenna too (so you do not need a rented box on every TV in your house). I recommend everyone at least go through #1 and #2 -- you will never regret having an inexpensive antenna on your roof or (even better) in your attic.

https://freetvforme.wordpress.com

OP, since you already have an antenna, be sure to check out the Channel Master DVR+ which will be on sale for $175 Friday and Monday.

There is no question that an inexpensive option is to go back to over the air antennas for local programming and use the internet for other content. It's been over 50 years since I had an over the air antenna. Now, as then, the best idea is to buy a high quality antenna, put it in the attic, and move it around to find the best reception.

My personal opinion is that most will come back to Direct TV, Comcast, DISH, Verizon or another bundled option. Much depends on how much you watch TV and how much variety of content your household wants. Also, most of us are willing to pay a lot for features that make watching easier.

mgteich said:

How much should unbundled internet service cost?

Click to expand...

The way Google fibre has it setup is great. No Monthly fee(5/1 Mbps) + pay for installing fibre into your building. Anything higher charge a fee.(Installation fee waived) This allows for anyone to at least have access to internet in their home which is becoming more and more of a basic need but prices are getting higher and higher and sooner or later the price point will be a luxury.