If I had my druthers, I would opt for only four channels/networks: PBS, HBO, BTN, and ESPN. I have no interest in any of the others.
OT: Cable TV Channel bundling
- Thread starter GeorgeStreet
- Start date
Verizon just announced they would be coming with a stream lined bundle of channels but I forget the details. I read ESPN is challenging it though because they say they have a contractual agreement to be part of any sort of basic package.
BTN and ESPN are available through XBMC. Add in HBO Go and you are only missing PBS which might be available through over the air.
HBO Go requires a cable subscription. HBO Now is the new Internet-only solution, which is also available as an Apple TV app. For $15, HBO can go $%# itself. Should have held onto its content instead of making a deal with Amazon if they wanted to charge double other streaming services.
Doesn't XBMC just play content that is available on the Internet? ESPN and BTN both require cable subscription to access full content on the Internet. Actually, I think BTN requires a separate subscription fee for sports other than football and basketball.
PBS has a Roku channel and also offers content through Amazon Prime and Netflix, I believe. Not sure if you can get the full slate, or if it's just select programming.
As usual, I think the sports are going to make what should be a very reasonably priced four-channel package impossible to get.
Doesn't XBMC just play content that is available on the Internet? ESPN and BTN both require cable subscription to access full content on the Internet. Actually, I think BTN requires a separate subscription fee for sports other than football and basketball.
PBS has a Roku channel and also offers content through Amazon Prime and Netflix, I believe. Not sure if you can get the full slate, or if it's just select programming.
As usual, I think the sports are going to make what should be a very reasonably priced four-channel package impossible to get.
The theory that "Nothing Can Change The Shape of Things To Come' will be put to a severe test in the upcoming decade,as there is a political party who will not allow their propaganda channels to go unsubsidized.
Well Comcast isn't going to get approval for their Time Warner takeover and they're going to be dropping their bid. That should help competition.
Honestly though, I'm not sure how much money will be saved on a la carte. I think they'll charge more for these channels or charge more for the broadband. I don't see the cable companies/telcoms losing money by unbundling they'll just find another way to make the money.
Honestly though, I'm not sure how much money will be saved on a la carte. I think they'll charge more for these channels or charge more for the broadband. I don't see the cable companies/telcoms losing money by unbundling they'll just find another way to make the money.
I've moved into this camp, too. Nothing in TV was more exciting than the idea of being able to put together my own package .. up until it started happening. Looking at the pricing of things, you'll probably be paying the same, or close to it, and getting a lot less. $15/mo for one channel is the fastest way to make people think, "boy I wish they'd package that with something else for that kind of price." HBO has good content and all, but it's quite finite, and half of it is available elsewhere for cheaper (and lo and behold, packaged with a bunch of other stuff).
Looking at the basics of what I'd probably opt for:
Netflix - $8 month and sure to go up in the not-so-distant future
MLB package - something like $130/year, so about $11/month
Some type of college football package that doesn't actually exist yet but hopefully will in the future, let's say $200/year, or $17/month
I pretty much only watch NFL football on broadcast, so that'd probably be good enough.
So that's $36/month, a good deal cheaper than cable, which I think I spend around $60 or $70 on. Not bad, but not exactly "gettin' rich" savings considering I now have a fraction of the content I had with cable, particularly in those months when there's no MLB or football. Also if non-bundled broadband gets jacked up, that's chewing right into those savings. After a while, I'd eat through Netflix content and would probably add one or more of Amazon Prime (will call that $5/month since it comes with other benefits), Hulu Plus ($8), HBO Now ($15) - or have to buy some type of DVR hardware to save network shows for watching on demand.
You can see how quickly you get right back up to the same general price range, only a lot less to watch. The only real way to beat cable is to stop watching period or stop caring what you watch and just watch what you can get for free or with a single streaming service. Otherwise, it seems we're destined to pay, one way or the other.
Sling TV is $20 a month (includes ESPN) and another $15 for HBO. I think if you sign up for 3 or 6 months you get a free Roku.
This is the future of TV.
This is the future of TV.
That's pretty much how it is with most of these businesses. They always find another way even if you close one loophole or change one business model, they'll usually adjust. Same with the banks. After this last crisis they weren't allowed to charge fees for this thing or that thing so what did they do, they charged fees on other things that they didn't charge for before.
Same here, maybe now you get your broadband for such and such price now but if that's the only thing you sign up for from them then they'll probably charge more or maybe they'll charge higher rates for those with the greatest usage, etc... Who knows exactly how it'll all end up looking but I don't expect the Comcasts/Disneys/Time Warners of the worlds pockets getting any lighter. In the end you may save some nominal costs but I wouldn't expect great cost savings. Like you said, you'd really have to cut back or not care to realize big savings.
So then you're paying $35 (assuming no broadband hike) with no sports outside of what ESPN airs. Where you going to watch Rutgers football?
Also, you're still buying a package of channels, it's just cheaper (and lighter). That package probably doesn't have everything that you want and has some junk you don't want. No FX, no Showtime, wtf is the El Rey Network, etc.
The future isn't as bright as it once looked.
Don't forget to add in the price of your internet access to view these streams. And with the new "net neutrality" decision, we can all expect higher prices and data caps (metered service) on the way too.
Sling TV won't remain $20 a month (including ESPN) if we went to a la carte. Dish can charge $20 for Sling now because they are paying ESPN the same fee for Sling subscribers as ESPN gets for any cable/sat subscriber. ESPN is still willing to do that because they are still making money off of everyone, sports fan or not.
If the world goes to a la carte and ESPN loses the guaranteed monthly income from EVERY subscriber, their monthly fee will have to increase.
I doubt you would opt for them if you had to pay the full unbundled price. Careful what you wish for...
If the cable companies and FIOS start to lose more subscribers and revenue from cable TV, they will just replace the revenue from the internet charges. In addition, the broadcast networks have been screaming that they don't get the fees from the cable companies like the other channel channels. I'm sure they will get a bigger piece of the pie thru the internet broadcast.
Depends on who you are. For sports fans - yeah, its gonna hurt, especially if you want to be guaranteed to never miss your favorite teams games in multiple sports (i.e. if I cared enough to just get the BTN for example and have that suffice for RU, its not a big deal. If I have to get the BTN, ESPN Family of Networks, CBSSN, NBCSN, etc plus MLBN or MASN to catch the Orioles then its gonna be really pricey.)
Everyone else is carrying the load right now (thank god the Big Ten expanded when it did - a decade from now the <.5% of the NYC market who would be willing to pay big bucks on a monthly basis might not have gotten us an invite), for alot of money. But for people who arent sports fans. Not having to pay for sports is going to be a huge money saver, and will probably make the difference between then cutting the cord completely or not.
I suspect what it will actually do is cause alot of people to cut the cord entirely though. Its kind of a weird psychological thing. When you have no choice you kind of just accept that you will pay $100+ for all of these channels and end up watching TV just because its there and you have 100+ channels. I think having to really think about what you actually watch (and then whether you are really willing to pay for it) will make ALOT of people say - you know what - I dont really need to pay all of this money for all of this crap at all. I can survive on Hulu Plus for $10 a month or whatever, and find something else to do with my free time other than aimlessly browse 100 channels for some Law and Order SVU reruns.
And dave is correct - the cable companies own the fiber networks. As more people use online sources, they will just charge more for the internet and less for cable. That is until Google throws up a gigabit network in your neighborhood and provides real competition.
In the end you probably end up spending for less options. Take ESPN which is currently about $6. Let just say there are currently 100 million subscribers. Now ala cart that number is reduced to about 20 million who are willing to pay for that channel. So to keep revenue equal they are now going to charge $30 for month. However there peak viewership will go down because casual viewers aren't going to pay for a channel they only watch for big events. So now ad revenue falls. Then you have single sport fans who will cancel in the off season. Soon it is $35 per month. Add that up and you will soon find yourself saving no money and getting 4 channels.
I think HBO has already shown that a price point as low as $15-20 a month can get people to engage in the process of dropping a channel in months when less "hot" content is on and adding it again when new seasons start. A lot of people add/drop HBO based on when new seasons of shows like the GOT occur.
That is potentially a huge problem for ESPN in non-football months.
Sling TV is cheap because the service is very limited & cheap. You can't watch it on more than 1 device/TV simultaneously without paying for additional accounts. No broadcast channels like ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS. No DVR. No ability to pause, rewind or fast forward live TV on most channels. Limited free on-demand (most channels have 3 day replay allowing you to watch any show aired the past 3 days & some have up to 7 days). HD pic isn't as sharp but probably fine for many, especially in small screens, & pic degrades due to capacity or network demands. No 5.1 surround sound for live TV. Now all of this may be fine for Millenials & others looking to save $30 or $50/mos & don't want to just cut out the daily venti latte at Starbucks instead, but I have 65", 50" & 42" plasma TVs & don't want degraded pics, limited channels & functionality. PlayStation Vue looks to be better than Sling TV but also more expensive & needs to get ABC/ESPN/Disney channels (I'm guessing Sling TV has some exclusivity for now).
Computers, tablets & phones are great secondary screens & streaming content provides great incremental viewing options & content, but my primary screen is and always will be a large TV.
Computers, tablets & phones are great secondary screens & streaming content provides great incremental viewing options & content, but my primary screen is and always will be a large TV.
Last edited:
Wow, didn't realize Sling TV was that crappy. I guess it's really only good for those that watch everything on their tablets. I guess the "future of TV" is really just the "present of TV, only a lot sh@ttier."
Google is going to deliver fiber internet service, including last-mile access runs, to every house in America? Do you still believe in the tooth fairy and santa claus too? Verizon already has the rights-of-way and central office equipment in the eastern US and decided to stop rolling out FIOS after it became uneconomic to continue to do so. Google owns none of that but will do it?
Never count Google out.
Anyway, that's not what he said. He said, very generally, "in your neighborhood." Google is getting the network out to select places, whether or not it comes to every neighborhood doesn't matter. The value of many of Google's non-bread-butter products is in the competition they create. Everybody pays attention to Google. If Google can get enough people buzzing about its fiber service, it's going to create a push for improvement from other providers, even without competing directly on the ground. And Google benefits either way, so it doesn't care if its service is everywhere - people buzzing around the Internet faster, using its search engine more, loading its ads more quickly, having better Wi-Fi to run its Android phones, etc. etc.
It did the same thing with autonomous cars. It seemed weird when Google, with no auto experience, was the first company developing high-profile autonomous cars, but then all the actual car companies started racing around to keep up, and now we'll have some of the first such cars within a year or two. And they'll all need high-resolution maps and certain software nuts and bolts, which will come from ...
Anyway, that's not what he said. He said, very generally, "in your neighborhood." Google is getting the network out to select places, whether or not it comes to every neighborhood doesn't matter. The value of many of Google's non-bread-butter products is in the competition they create. Everybody pays attention to Google. If Google can get enough people buzzing about its fiber service, it's going to create a push for improvement from other providers, even without competing directly on the ground. And Google benefits either way, so it doesn't care if its service is everywhere - people buzzing around the Internet faster, using its search engine more, loading its ads more quickly, having better Wi-Fi to run its Android phones, etc. etc.
It did the same thing with autonomous cars. It seemed weird when Google, with no auto experience, was the first company developing high-profile autonomous cars, but then all the actual car companies started racing around to keep up, and now we'll have some of the first such cars within a year or two. And they'll all need high-resolution maps and certain software nuts and bolts, which will come from ...
I work in the industry, which gives me a bias but also gives me some insight into where things are going.
First, the cable industry knows that the current model won't work in the long run, which is why you see a bigger emphasis on making their broadband services more attractive (faster, cable Wi-Fi, etc.) and see them getting into connected home services like home security.
Second, their problem is that the programmers have huge leverage right now - the contracts don't just say they have to take ESPN at $x per subscriber, but also require them to take all of the other channels owned by Disney - if they don't, not just no ESPN, but also no ABC network programming. So, one reason that people who like sports but not other things still get the Kardashian channel is that the programmers want it that way. (Disney's exact complaint to Verizon is that Verizon is violating this requirement of its contract.)
Third, as someone else mentioned, a la carte likely would be more expensive on a per-channel basis for every non-broadcast channel. (The law actually requires all of the broadcast channels to go to everyone, so you couldn't buy Channel 4 and Channel 5, but not Channel 9). On net, I'd expect it to be a bit more expensive for the average customer than today, but some people would save a lot of money and some people would get clobbered. Also, even in an a la carte universe, you'd likely see a lot of bundles and often a bundle would be cheaper than a smaller package of a la carte channels.
Fourth, I think the real potential disruption could come from over-the-top video providers that put together bundles of programming, but that's a ways off in practical terms for most people.
First, the cable industry knows that the current model won't work in the long run, which is why you see a bigger emphasis on making their broadband services more attractive (faster, cable Wi-Fi, etc.) and see them getting into connected home services like home security.
Second, their problem is that the programmers have huge leverage right now - the contracts don't just say they have to take ESPN at $x per subscriber, but also require them to take all of the other channels owned by Disney - if they don't, not just no ESPN, but also no ABC network programming. So, one reason that people who like sports but not other things still get the Kardashian channel is that the programmers want it that way. (Disney's exact complaint to Verizon is that Verizon is violating this requirement of its contract.)
Third, as someone else mentioned, a la carte likely would be more expensive on a per-channel basis for every non-broadcast channel. (The law actually requires all of the broadcast channels to go to everyone, so you couldn't buy Channel 4 and Channel 5, but not Channel 9). On net, I'd expect it to be a bit more expensive for the average customer than today, but some people would save a lot of money and some people would get clobbered. Also, even in an a la carte universe, you'd likely see a lot of bundles and often a bundle would be cheaper than a smaller package of a la carte channels.
Fourth, I think the real potential disruption could come from over-the-top video providers that put together bundles of programming, but that's a ways off in practical terms for most people.
Yes, it was Google who was the first company developing the autonomous car...just because you don't hear of it on the news, it never happened right? You don't even know that you don't know, but then you take it a step further and tell us how you you it all...please stop.
Perhaps you can't see straight. Your incoherent speech suggests you're drunk. Go sleep 'er off, then reread and you'll see an extra adjective there that you missed before. Reread Derleider's post while you're at it. He didn't say what you thought he said, either. Being sober is good. Reading is good, too.
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20150427_ap_ebf66fbc9ea34dc0b5b844e4e1ee7d17.html
ESPN suing Verizon for unbundling, giving the cable subscriber the ability to have a basic package without any sports channels including ESPN.
ESPN suing Verizon for unbundling, giving the cable subscriber the ability to have a basic package without any sports channels including ESPN.
The consumer will ultimately win with cable. It will take a company like Apple to blow up the model and consumers will flock to the company that solves the issue. All it takes is one company to derail this money train.
FWIW, I wouldn't assume that consumers actually want unbundled service in any large numbers. Some do, sure, but the history of other businesses suggests that consumers like bundled packages, particularly if they think they're saving money.
Are people here that naive?The Democrats need their propaganda channels more than Dracula needed blood.They'll stop Google by any means necessary.
Democrat propoganda channels? Faux News is the mother of all propaganda networks. And we know who they are in bed with.
currently with bundling, there are no normal price - demand market forces at play, so there is zero incentive to hold down costs of the "must have" channels.
normally if price goes up, demand goes down, but that's not the case currently for programmers like ESPN, when the normal price - demand relationship is shielded by the bundle itself.
on top of that, unlike most industries, with cable, competition drives up the price of the product, not down.
this inverse relationship between competition and price is precisely because of the bundles, and will go away once networks are unbundled, given that "access to programming" rules are maintained, and we don't get into "exclusivity" arrangements playing havok with said price - demand market forces.
there was a time when the bundle was in the best interest of the consumer, but that is no longer the case.
since competition drives up the price of cable, not down, competition will not cure what's hurting the consumer.
cable and internet are utilities, and should be treated as such.
they must be regulated, including price regulation.
infrastructure access to both cable and internet should be price regulated, and if so, no need to have multiple providers serving the same area
the programmers themselves should not be price regulated, (other than maybe the broadcast nets, but that's a very complicated issue), but they do need mandatory unbundling to eliminate them being immune to normal market forces like the price - demand force, which the current bundle gives them immunity from.
normally if price goes up, demand goes down, but that's not the case currently for programmers like ESPN, when the normal price - demand relationship is shielded by the bundle itself.
on top of that, unlike most industries, with cable, competition drives up the price of the product, not down.
this inverse relationship between competition and price is precisely because of the bundles, and will go away once networks are unbundled, given that "access to programming" rules are maintained, and we don't get into "exclusivity" arrangements playing havok with said price - demand market forces.
there was a time when the bundle was in the best interest of the consumer, but that is no longer the case.
since competition drives up the price of cable, not down, competition will not cure what's hurting the consumer.
cable and internet are utilities, and should be treated as such.
they must be regulated, including price regulation.
infrastructure access to both cable and internet should be price regulated, and if so, no need to have multiple providers serving the same area
the programmers themselves should not be price regulated, (other than maybe the broadcast nets, but that's a very complicated issue), but they do need mandatory unbundling to eliminate them being immune to normal market forces like the price - demand force, which the current bundle gives them immunity from.
Your theory is that unbundling would drive programming prices down. I'm just not sure why you think that. The cable operators (and satellite providers) would still have to buy programming to meet their customers' needs, after all.
My family each watches different "bundles" from the Fios unbundling option. Sports & Sports Plus for me, the entertainment bundle for my wife, kids bundle for my kids. You get 2 of them for $75/month & each additional is $10, not to mention box & dvr rental. I'd be paying more each month without even getting the news channels, history, discover, etc.
Did colleges stop teaching economics 101 5-10 years ago? Unbundling is not a realistic option for those who don't live alone or are not price conscious. This isn't a huge profitable market for the content providers to pursue. Since they are for-profit companies, there is no need for them to provide this at a price which makes it an attractive option to the rest of their consumers. They can just wait for the 20-somethings to get jobs, spouses, families, and more time at home to become profitable consumers.
Did colleges stop teaching economics 101 5-10 years ago? Unbundling is not a realistic option for those who don't live alone or are not price conscious. This isn't a huge profitable market for the content providers to pursue. Since they are for-profit companies, there is no need for them to provide this at a price which makes it an attractive option to the rest of their consumers. They can just wait for the 20-somethings to get jobs, spouses, families, and more time at home to become profitable consumers.
To give market pressure on pricing. Read above for a number of good explanations whats wrong currently.
I don't think channels like Science and Smithsonian can survive being unbundled at current prices - nor do I think they will make sense at unbundled prices.
