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

[Nikolai]

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

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.

A la carte is the wave of the future, I suspect.

Seriously, I see things moving in this direction, especially with the streaming. Streaming quality is pretty damned good these days, and I can stream onto my laptop and then connect my laptop into the HDMI port on my TV...bam.

The way to direct content-to-consumer on a mass scale is still a bit fuzzy, but it's a possible outcome.

 

[rochrist]

The networks want more money.

Or the sat and cable companies want to give them less. Which is actually the more likely situation.

 

[FrodoBagginz]

Or the sat and cable companies want to give them less. Which is actually the more likely situation.

http://news.yahoo.com/boston-area-verizon-fios-subscribers-lose-access-local-153824161--nfl.html


Customers shouldn't have to pay for a network they can get for free over the air anyways.

 

[JMC00]

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.

Directv and the NFL agreed to an 8 year extension for ST back in Oct.

 

[obgod3]

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!?

Well I'll try to explain a few things from what I know. First off the re is no such thing as watching content on a web site without streaming, you are still downloading content, it's just how it works, there are lots of ways to explain it, but make no mistake you are downloading content and that content regardless of what type it is is tagged so that marketing teams and firms can see who and how people use it. Your data is monitored and analyzed by the provider your streaming from, the ISP itself and anyone that contracted with the two for use of their data! read your terms of use and it will become clear. Those under the radar sites are not as under the radar as you think, some are fake put out there by security companies of the networks and major studios, honeypots we call them. Even my kid got a cease and desist order from comcast because he streamed and illegal movie.

For the rest of folks here, and I assume some of you do the same work I do, Google won't be free forever, most of huge pipes, actually pipes that fiber is run in are owned by the big guys like level 3 and centurylink. Yes google is laying down their own fiber but it will never stay free forever, it costs hundreds of millions to run this stuff. Again back to my point of sucking you in for a while until you can't let it go.

As far as ale cart streaming, sure it is the wave if the future, but when you add up the dollars when you your still paying the money. Unless you only watch one or two networks exclusively. There are two schools of thought here in my industry, first that they lure you in for a few years them start charging, the mobile companies did this with the iPhone by subsidizing them, that doesn't ahooen anymore. Second you will have free internet access but won't be able to actually access anything without paying for it, this is the worst case scenario and what google wants. It is pretty scary. Don't think for a minute google is your friend, they have never done anything for free, there is always a catch, most companies are the same.

Oh one more thing, in 99% of cases the companies giving you streaming content are looking at the device you are streaming to. That means if you don't know the deep dark secrets of locking down your computer your risking a lot of information. I saw recently first hand where folks browser history and even shared folders were in clear view of they world. It is pretty scary. I have a full blown firewall that blocks my DTV receivers from seeing any other part of my home network. Those guys are pulling whatever they can, god for id your using a cox or comcast provided router or wifi device...good luck with that one. All my equipment is purchased and configured by myself.

Please excuse my grammar or spelling, I'm not going to fix it, been drinking all day, ha ha ha ha

 

[ausbacker]

Be thankful you guys have choice. In Australia, we have Free to Air TV and Foxtel.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Second you will have free internet access but won't be able to actually access anything without paying for it, this is the worst case scenario and what google wants.

I feel like that's the exact opposite of what they want.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I feel like that's the exact opposite of what they want.

Google wants whatever will make the most money for Google, and anyone who thinks anything other than that, or buys any of Google's ridiculous self-serving hype about how wonderful it is, is hopelessly deluded.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

The tenured CSP industry (an unofficial term meaning content service provider -- cable/telco, satellite) is changing and it will be different in a handful of years. It would be, probably, different already if not for the regulation/lobbying and lack of more robust competition. But the fight between charter and the CSP is telling of one of the impetus of the coming change.

They big cost enchiladas for CSPs are the physical layer (copper, fiber, spectrum, CPE, staff) and the content layer (payments to stations/networks, studios, etc).
Equipment cost due to newer equipment technology replacements (a must due to what competition currently exists) along with the delicate balancing act of keeping the minimum but adequate staffed for sales/support, that just doesn't leave the kind of room for savings that will be required. So if the stations and studios start asking for more (and they will get it) that will become game changing to CSPs. CSPs will need to refresh their business/reorganize their business models to keep cost/profit at current levels and growing.

When you add in the growing polish of/the competition of the Internet & cord cutting (a growing ability of networks/studios to deliver their product without a CSP), the coming change is involuntarily. CSP business models require subscriptions/paying customer levels to be constant, even growing. So, ultimately, how they keep paying customers is the unknown but, in the long run, should be a good thing for consumers (unless the government gets too involved - then 'consumer benefit' becomes iffy). The short term side effect will be some upheaval causing some unhappy customers, however and again, the long run should be a good thing for customers/consumers.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Google wants whatever will make the most money for Google, and anyone who thinks anything other than that, or buys any of Google's ridiculous self-serving hype about how wonderful it is, is hopelessly deluded.

No doubt Google is a for profit company. Their purpose is to deliver goods & services that people will use/consume for a profitable price. Google in that regard is no different than any other for profit company (despite the belief that they are different and therefore better). However, that doesn't make Google bad at all. The quest and competition for profit results in better and/or cheaper goods/services. If Google wants to spend their money in order to provide an option to the consumer, good for them if they can make a profit out of giving me option of their goods/services.

An entrenched big money industry (Cable/Telco, Satellite in this instance) typically becomes singular minded. This typically results in less then ideal goods/services scenario for consumers. It usually takes a complete outsider, typically, to cause an entrenched industry to become less singular minded, different (as an example see Apple and others effect on the entrenched music industry). So, again, if Google wants to spend its money to try and offer a better or simply satisfactory service option for a cost/cheaper cost to me, isn't that a good thing regardless of people believing Google is 'cool'/'not like others' even though they are actually just seeking profit??

 

[rochrist]

http://news.yahoo.com/boston-area-verizon-fios-subscribers-lose-access-local-153824161--nfl.html


Customers shouldn't have to pay for a network they can get for free over the air anyways.

That isn't the issue though. From a networks point of view, cable providers shouldn't be able to get a free ride making money on their content without paying for it.

 

[Midship]

Filthy rich people squeezing other filthy rich people and screwing over everyone else...

Welcome to America.

 

[Joker]

hey...I'm already filthy...may as well try rich while I'm at it...please send unmarked 100 dollar bills to : Joe Kerr Swindles & Associates..PO Box 666, Cayman Islands

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

We next to nothing for a product that costs billions, then complain if it's not even cheaper everyone else is greedy but not us. Get a grip.

 

[Christiancat]

It's greed on the part of the networks. The satellite/cable companies are trying to negotiate a rate with the major TV networks that is favorable enough for them so they don't have to raise prices for their subscribers.

It truly is a double edge sword for these satellite/cable companies. The companies know that losing a major station like CBS for example would be detrimental to their business and would cause them to lose subscribers. However, they also realize that CBS would leverage a very high fee to renew the contract if they give into CBS demands without proper negotiation. Which would most likely lead to the Satellite/cable companies in question having to raise prices in or to remain profitable after inuring higher costs to maintain such programming.

Basically increasing prices for subscribers can lead to subscriber losses and losing major TV networks can lead to subscriber losses. Thus, it is essential that both sides meet each other half way by renewing the contract at a fair rate so they can keep prices fair for all their subscribers while maintaining all its programing.

 

[Deus Irae]

We next to nothing for a product that costs billions, then complain if it's not even cheaper everyone else is greedy but not us. Get a grip.

We've been overpaying for decades, because of government sanctioned monopolies, among other reasons. Even today, the American user pays more for less in comparison with Europe, S. Korea and Japan.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Google wants whatever will make the most money for Google, and anyone who thinks anything other than that, or buys any of Google's ridiculous self-serving hype about how wonderful it is, is hopelessly deluded.

Of course, this is exactly why I questioned the previous poster's logic. Why would Google want people to pay to access everything? How is that good for their business model?

 

[wizwor]

A la carte is the wave of the future, I suspect.

Seriously, I see things moving in this direction, especially with the streaming. Streaming quality is pretty damned good these days, and I can stream onto my laptop and then connect my laptop into the HDMI port on my TV...bam.

The way to direct content-to-consumer on a mass scale is still a bit fuzzy, but it's a possible outcome.

It may be, but that future is a long way off. Aereo had problems streaming the Superbowl to a very small audience. Netflix has had outages the last two Christmases. People who stream in prime time suffer image degradation, buffering, and disconnects.

Imagine a significant number of people streaming to multiple sets at 4k like we watch television?

And the cost of a la carte -- especially for sports fans -- will be prohibitively expensive since sports are currently subsidized by people who would not pay for them absent bundling.

I think it is much more likely that people end up paying for a basic service or use an antenna to receive a basic service then stream select programming. BTW, in this market, we have ABC, Bounce, CBS, Cozi, CW, Escape, FOX, Fox Movies, GetTV, Grit, ION, ION Life, MeTV, MyTV, NBC, PBS (+ Create, Explore, Kids, and World) , Qubo, The Works, This TV, and ZUUS which is a pretty decent level of service.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

We've been overpaying for decades because of government sanctioned monopolies. Even today, the American user pays more for less in comparison with Europe, S. Korea and Japan.

Monopolies are another discussion, Sunday ticket isn't a monopoly. But I lived in Germany recently, the service is garbage and the prices are much higher in a country that requires a fraction of the cost to run lines because of its size, so don't buy the hype.

 

[wizwor]

http://news.yahoo.com/boston-area-verizon-fios-subscribers-lose-access-local-153824161--nfl.html


Customers shouldn't have to pay for a network they can get for free over the air anyways.

No one *has* to pay for anything. When you pay for a premium servoce, you get very good reception and customer service. Remember too that you need very good high speed internet for high quality streaming.