OT: netflix profit up 56%; paradigm shift now fully underway...

[tboyer]

link

This is the flip side of the struggles of ESPN. Netflix can now spend $6 BILLION a year for content so they can afford more and more high quality original productions like "The Crown."

This is now probably an unstoppable virtuous cycle. Netflix and Amazon how have so much money, they can actually outspend the broadcast networks and get some of the best production companies. And a lot of the content producers would rather work for Netflix/Amazon anyway because they get more freedom to do what they want without worrying about week-to-week ratings.

I know our household is typical -- more eyeballs are spending more time streaming Netflix and Amazon, and that means less time available for conventional networks and cable. And once you get used to watching commercial free -- I don't know how you ever go back to 6 minutes of commercials every half hour. Painful!

It is really telling that Comcast just 3 years ago was trying to sabotage Netflix by throttling bandwidth. Now Comcast is building Netflix streaming into its cable box in hopes of holding on to Netflix viewers and discouraging them from viewing Netflix through a Roku or other non-Comcast devices.

Just as an observer of all this, it is fun to watch a paradigm shift happen so fast. It's been two years since HBO realized they could make more money divorcing themselves from cable and selling a stand-alone streaming service. ESPN may move to do the same thing as soon as their contracts allow, because it would be a way to recapture some of the viewers they are now losing.

And BTN can't be far behind. It's just a question of how long the BTN contracts are with cable systems and partners and whether partners are amenable to changing their arrangements. It might be 2 years away, it might be 5-7 years away, but standalone BTN streaming is coming.

What's been surprising to me is the quality of the Netflix/Amazon productions. Their ratio of hits to duds is really quite high. Right now they are BOTH beating HBO at its own game. HBO has made a lot of bad choices, and when Game of Thrones finishes, HBO will lose millions of subscribers because they haven't been able to develop hit content (Westworld wasn't a complete bust but it was certainly not what they were hoping for).

 

[LionJim]

"The Crown" seemed to be wicked expensive and Jane and I were wondering how they'd be able to afford it.

Also, you're seeing Amazon Prime producing movies for theaters ("Love and Friendship," and "Manchester by the Sea" for example) and bringing them online fairly soon.

 

[tboyer]

Yeah, I read an interview with Claire Foy and she was asked about the big budget, whether she was getting any of that money. She laughed and said the money wasn't really going to the cast, but she said people would definitely see it in the production -- quality of costumes and sets -- and they were able to afford the very best shooting locations. And it's true -- the production is absolutely gorgeous. But that wouldn't mean anything without good writing and good acting.

"The Crown" seemed to be wicked expensive and Jane and I were wondering how they'd be able to afford it.

Also, you're seeing Amazon Prime producing movies for theaters ("Love and Friendship," and "Manchester by the Sea" for example) and bringing them online fairly soon.

 

[Lion Lineage]

Because Netflix and Amazon are subscription services, they are also free from the constraints of the FCC in terms of censoring. I'm sure that's a big reason why production companies, actors, etc. love working with those companies. They have free reign from a creative standpoint.

Edit: If Big Ten and ESPN are available for a reasonable price - so I don't miss Penn State games - bye bye Dish TV and hello savings. Will get an antenna for the locals.

 

[Grant Green]

Love it. I've been saying this for years on this board. We are headed to a la carte viewing, where you can choose what you want instead of having 1000 channels of crap that you don't watch. Others argued that the cable companies would never let this happen, but it's becoming clear that they won't have much of a choice.

The final straw will be sports for me. As soon as I can pay for a subscription to see all PSU games, or pay for individual games, I will have no need for a cable package subscription.

The big question is, will it actually be cheaper in the long run.

 

[LionDeNittany]

link

This is the flip side of the struggles of ESPN. Netflix can now spend $6 BILLION a year for content so they can afford more and more high quality original productions like "The Crown."

This is now probably an unstoppable virtuous cycle. Netflix and Amazon how have so much money, they can actually outspend the broadcast networks and get some of the best production companies. And a lot of the content producers would rather work for Netflix/Amazon anyway because they get more freedom to do what they want without worrying about week-to-week ratings.

I know our household is typical -- more eyeballs are spending more time streaming Netflix and Amazon, and that means less time available for conventional networks and cable. And once you get used to watching commercial free -- I don't know how you ever go back to 6 minutes of commercials every half hour. Painful!

It is really telling that Comcast just 3 years ago was trying to sabotage Netflix by throttling bandwidth. Now Comcast is building Netflix streaming into its cable box in hopes of holding on to Netflix viewers and discouraging them from viewing Netflix through a Roku or other non-Comcast devices.

Just as an observer of all this, it is fun to watch a paradigm shift happen so fast. It's been two years since HBO realized they could make more money divorcing themselves from cable and selling a stand-alone streaming service. ESPN may move to do the same thing as soon as their contracts allow, because it would be a way to recapture some of the viewers they are now losing.

And BTN can't be far behind. It's just a question of how long the BTN contracts are with cable systems and partners and whether partners are amenable to changing their arrangements. It might be 2 years away, it might be 5-7 years away, but standalone BTN streaming is coming.

What's been surprising to me is the quality of the Netflix/Amazon productions. Their ratio of hits to duds is really quite high. Right now they are BOTH beating HBO at its own game. HBO has made a lot of bad choices, and when Game of Thrones finishes, HBO will lose millions of subscribers because they haven't been able to develop hit content (Westworld wasn't a complete bust but it was certainly not what they were hoping for).

I agree with almost everything you have said except the part about the quality of Netflix productions.

Most of them are garbage. It's the ability to binge watch that makes them viewable and exciting.

The few that I watched were so/so yet being able to watch 8 episodes over a couple of days made it enjoyable. I doubt I would go out of my way to watch any of them like I do the Simpsons.

LdN

 

[PSUPhreak]

Not to get political, but if you like shows on Netflix and want to see streaming services continue to thrive, contact your congressman/woman and tell them you support Net Neutrality. The incoming Republican wave is keen to gut Net Neutrality, which will allow ISPs to throttle their competitors like Netflix and Amazon in favor of their own streaming services.

 

[getmyjive11]

Love it. I've been saying this for years on this board. We are headed to a la carte viewing, where you can choose what you want instead of having 1000 channels of crap that you don't watch. Others argued that the cable companies would never let this happen, but it's becoming clear that they won't have much of a choice.

The final straw will be sports for me. As soon as I can pay for a subscription to see all PSU games, or pay for individual games, I will have no need for a cable package subscription.

The big question is, will it actually be cheaper in the long run.

You can already do that. Playstation VUE is $35 a month, includes all the ESPN channels and also BTN. And depending on your area, you may have access to your local channels as well through VUE. Up to five devices can be viewing it at the same time.

It looks like Cable companies are starting to see that the only way they can combat this is to bump up the price of stand-alone internet. They are losing that battle though.

 

[Cletus11]

I agree the shift is happening. Especially when you consider that kids growing up now who are entering the work force and would typically be getting their first cable bill are not signing up and doing everything over the Internet. So Cable is getting about ZERO new viewers as all of the new viewers are going over the Internet. Beyond that, people are also abandoing cable and going to Internet. So really Comcast and others fighting for a dwindling market share. I am betting by the start of 2020 there will be a mass shift to a la carte. Now it is just a small wave but it is building. And as more people go and tell friends and neighbors, the more will leave. And as more go, the easier it will be to switch as the technology will continue to improve.

 

[Obliviax]

Not to get political, but if you like shows on Netflix and want to see streaming services continue to thrive, contact your congressman/woman and tell them you support Net Neutrality. The incoming Republican wave is keen to gut Net Neutrality, which will allow ISPs to throttle their competitors like Netflix and Amazon in favor of their own streaming services.

nope...not even close.

while there is an argument that cable TV providers may want to preserve programming, there are just as many highspeed providers that don't. The cable TV providers don't own high speed access. They will try to leverage it, of course, but that's a done deal.

AT&T, for example, is test marketing 5G in Austin Texas. This is 5X faster than 4G. As a result, streaming without a land line will not only be possible, but preferable. And once that Tech is settled, you'll have cricket, us mobile, tracphone, ultramobile (etc.) all up in their grills within a year.

Its over....cable TV is now trying to mitigate the damage but they know its over too. Its just a matter of time until the bulk of the market catches on.

 

[Obliviax]

I agree with almost everything you have said except the part about the quality of Netflix productions.

Most of them are garbage. It's the ability to binge watch that makes them viewable and exciting.

The few that I watched were so/so yet being able to watch 8 episodes over a couple of days made it enjoyable. I doubt I would go out of my way to watch any of them like I do the Simpsons.

LdN

Agree and disagree. Its market driven. I've enjoyed Goliath and am now watching "The Man in the High Castle" on Amazon. Netflix shows Orange is the New Black and House of Cards is as good as anything you'll see. Now we have TV Land, AMC, and a hundred other brands creating programming. The consumer will simply pick and choose.

for example, I don't watch HBO...I am not going to pay for it. But it comes up on Amazon a year later and I can binge watch until my eyes bleed. My choice. I applaud anyone paying for HBO, I don't care that I saw the latest episode.

What a country.

 

[gamblepsu]

From a parent of young kids- The 'forcing' of kids to watch the same certain shows over and over again is going away. I get frustrated that the concept of 'marathons' is now the new normal. Stations will put 4 (or more) episodes of the same show on over and over. If it's a show my kids don't like, they immediately watch something off the dvr or on demand. They don't wait out a show (like we used to have to) to get to one they like. My DVR is overloaded, almost preventing me from upgrading because I'll lose things that they watch that aren't on anymore (As they get older I assume it won't be a big deal though).

We have Amazon prime and they watch some shows on there. Binge watching is great (especially for adults), but they'll release a new show for kids, put out the whole 1st season and the kids will burn through them quickly. The next season doesn't get made until the next year (understandably), but by that time the kids have long lost interest. Nothing keeps them coming back again since there isn't a channel that shows them... it's a strange different concept I don't think I've come to grips yet. The oldest kid is old enough to navigate the 'old school' on-demand menu, but the Amazon menus are overwhelming and hard to navigate for a kid.

I've accepted things are changing and for the most part am welcoming it, but I'm not sure where it's completely going or how to proceed in a world where I might be the only one in the house that can get the show they want on correctly. Amazon is close with the voice remote, but the auto switching of inputs is suspect at best. Sorry for the ramble...

 

[Cletus11]

nope...not even close.

while there is an argument that cable TV providers may want to preserve programming, there are just as many highspeed providers that don't. The cable TV providers don't own high speed access. They will try to leverage it, of course, but that's a done deal.

AT&T, for example, is test marketing 5G in Austin Texas. This is 5X faster than 4G. As a result, streaming without a land line will not only be possible, but preferable. And once that Tech is settled, you'll have cricket, us mobile, tracphone, ultramobile (etc.) all up in their grills within a year.

Its over....cable TV is now trying to mitigate the damage but they know its over too. Its just a matter of time until the bulk of the market catches on.

Obliviax hit a key point. So Comcast doesn't sell cable TV service as nobody is buying it. You still have to get your internet through them (or whoever your local internet cable service provider is) because they have a monopoly so your internet only bill will get jacked way up. Once wireless technology gets to the point where i can put a 6 inch diameter receiver in my house/apartment and get high speed internet like speeds, then Comcast is done as is 'wired' cable TV.

 

[NJPSU]

I doubt there will be much cost savings for the consumer once the dust settles. Consumers are going to continue to pay up for internet access and then they are likely to have 3 or 4 additional subscriptions needed to watch sports, HBO, Netflix, etc. The end result will be a cost not that far off from the original cable bundle.

 

[Sharkies]

The end result will be a cost not that far off from the original cable bundle.

I don't care if I have to pay MORE even, as long as I can say that ESPN doesn't get a dime of it.

 

[Sharkies]

I had a old IT friend that told me about an effort many years ago to develop technology to deliver phone, cable and internet through the existing electrical grid. Does anyone know anything about this? He was saying that the bandwidth capacity would be off the charts. The challenge is that the electrical current is AC and that adaptive tech would have to figure out how to cancel the interference from AC oscillation. I'm not a techie, so I don't know if I characterized this properly. Feel free to correct me.

Believe you can already semi-do this within your own house... use an outlet to get internet service from a far away modem.. as long as on the same electrical line.. I'm pretty sure.

 

[Lionguy32]

I agree with almost everything you have said except the part about the quality of Netflix productions.

Most of them are garbage. It's the ability to binge watch that makes them viewable and exciting.

The few that I watched were so/so yet being able to watch 8 episodes over a couple of days made it enjoyable. I doubt I would go out of my way to watch any of them like I do the Simpsons.

LdN

I couldn't disagree more. I don't binge watch at all and think the quality of Netflix shows are much better than any of the crap on network TV. Obliviax's post pretty much says it all. I'll just add Bloodline, Making of a Murderer, Black Mirror, and the final season of The Killing to the list of good shows.

 

[raleighnclion]

Cable isn't going away, it's just that the population will be segmented as to what is most important to them, and availability of high-speed Internet. There are drawbacks to cutting the cord, the question is if those drawbacks don't matter to you or if they are at least tolerable. You like switching between 2-3 games at the same time? Gonna be a lot slower w/o cable. Is it horrible? No. But it may tick you off enough that it would keep you from cutting the cord.

I am very interested in the longer term price comparisons. Will an equilibrium be reached? Because it may be cheaper now but that will be 'fixed' once there is a greater number of users. It's not like Netflix or Amazon are going to be happy with nice profits when they can possibly make obscene profits. It's what companies do, especially American companies.

All that said, for now this is a very exciting trend. Let's see where it goes. I think I am about to be a cable cutter myself quite soon.

 

[PSUSignore]

AT&T, for example, is test marketing 5G in Austin Texas. This is 5X faster than 4G. As a result, streaming without a land line will not only be possible, but preferable. And once that Tech is settled, you'll have cricket, us mobile, tracphone, ultramobile (etc.) all up in their grills within a year.

Interesting, I hadn't seen they were testing 5G here but I don't have DirecTV either. I could definitely see cable companies trying to recoup lost subscribers by jacking up internet access costs. Fortunately for me, Austin is a highly competitive ISP market. We have Google Fiber and AT&T Gigafiber here. When they came to Austin, Time Warner was forced to raise their speeds and lower their prices so now I have 150MB service for the same price I was paying for 20MB previously . I've heard rumors about Spectrum charging way more than TW did for slower speeds since they acquired them, which probably isn't a good long term strategy for the competitive market we have here. I guess I'll find out when my promo price expires.

 

[Obliviax]

Interesting, I hadn't seen they were testing 5G here but I don't have DirecTV either. I could definitely see cable companies trying to recoup lost subscribers by jacking up internet access costs. Fortunately for me, Austin is a highly competitive ISP market. We have Google Fiber and AT&T Gigafiber here. When they came to Austin, Time Warner was forced to raise their speeds and lower their prices so now I have 150MB service for the same price I was paying for 20MB previously . I've heard rumors about Spectrum charging way more than TW did for slower speeds since they acquired them, which probably isn't a good long term strategy for the competitive market we have here. I guess I'll find out when my promo price expires.

Agreed. In most urban and suburban markets, I believe the consumer will see a drop in price. These places are getting more and more competitive for HS internet. (the TV market lags because the providers have to negotiate with the programming providers) But when the programming providers go directly to market, it is anybody's ballgame. I feel like the rural markets may suffer but satellite and mobile may be of some relief there.

There was a company named Arrow that tried to concoct a plan to intercept programming using an antenna and beaming local programing worldwide (so the local Cavs game could be watched anywhere in the world by capturing and repeating the signal). the FCC shut them down. Aarow's argument was that the signal was beamed off of publicly held airwaves so was generally available.

 

[getmyjive11]

I doubt there will be much cost savings for the consumer once the dust settles. Consumers are going to continue to pay up for internet access and then they are likely to have 3 or 4 additional subscriptions needed to watch sports, HBO, Netflix, etc. The end result will be a cost not that far off from the original cable bundle.

This is what I believe as well. The experience will merely be different. Not necessarily better and not necessarily cheaper.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Agreed. In most urban and suburban markets, I believe the consumer will see a drop in price. These places are getting more and more competitive for HS internet. (the TV market lags because the providers have to negotiate with the programming providers) But when the programming providers go directly to market, it is anybody's ballgame. I feel like the rural markets may suffer but satellite and mobile may be of some relief there.

There was a company named Arrow that tried to concoct a plan to intercept programming using an antenna and beaming local programing worldwide (so the local Cavs game could be watched anywhere in the world by capturing and repeating the signal). the FCC shut them down. Aarow's argument was that the signal was beamed off of publicly held airwaves so was generally available.

I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED I SAY that they were shut down by the FCC (who is only looking out for the citizen). BWAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAA

 

[tboyer]

I'd venture a guess: It will be cheaper for some people and more expensive for some people. The overall pie won't grow or shrink -- people's spending on media stays fairly constant.

But the distribution of that money changes. Right now, sports fanatics who watch every NFL and college game they can, every basketball and baseball game in their market -- right now they get a good deal. Those people's viewing is being heavily subsidized by the 100 million households who do NOT watch sports but pay for sports through their cable subscriptions. They may well pay more when a la carte arrives.

Meanwhile, I know an old lady on fixed income who just watches HGTV and Masterpiece theater - and her cable subscription costs $150! She would benefit -- Masterpiece Theater is free and HGTV can't possibly cost $150 a month.

But what about the many people in the middle, who watch SOME sports - I watch PSU games and a few Eagles/Steelers games. I suspect pay per view/a la carte will HAVE to be affordable in part because they'll have to calibrate the price to what the majority of the market will bear.

They have to find the sweet spot (i.e. market equilibrium). Maybe it means PSU doesn't get $25 million a year in TV money from the B1G, but I bet it's close. I'm sure there are people in PSU athletics doing the numbers right now trying to forecast this.

The big question is, will it actually be cheaper in the long run.

 

[coveydidnt]

nope...not even close.

while there is an argument that cable TV providers may want to preserve programming, there are just as many highspeed providers that don't. The cable TV providers don't own high speed access. They will try to leverage it, of course, but that's a done deal.

AT&T, for example, is test marketing 5G in Austin Texas. This is 5X faster than 4G. As a result, streaming without a land line will not only be possible, but preferable. And once that Tech is settled, you'll have cricket, us mobile, tracphone, ultramobile (etc.) all up in their grills within a year.

Its over....cable TV is now trying to mitigate the damage but they know its over too. Its just a matter of time until the bulk of the market catches on.

Only if you don't understand math.

 

[tboyer]

for example, I don't want HBO...I am not going to pay for it. But it comes up on Amazon a year later anud I can binge watch until my eyes bleed. My choice. I applaud anyone paying for HBO, I don't care that I saw the latest episode.

What a country.

And if you do want to watch current Game of Thrones, nothing's stopping you from subscribing to HBOnow for just one month, binging through it, and then cancelling. That's 15 bucks. Not bad.

 

[tboyer]

I agree, the threat to Net Neutrality is worrisome. If that gets overturned, it would basically give Comcast the power to put Netflix out of business. Though in practice I don't think Comcast could actually get away with it -- it would be a public opinion catastrophe for them.

And really, given that Comcast is increasingly in the Internet bandwidth business, and watching Netflix is the biggest consumption of bandwidth, increasingly I think Comcast and Netflix are going to be allies. Comcast WANTS people to stream because Comcast wants to sell you 100mbps internet.

Not to get political, but if you like shows on Netflix and want to see streaming services continue to thrive, contact your congressman/woman and tell them you support Net Neutrality. The incoming Republican wave is keen to gut Net Neutrality, which will allow ISPs to throttle their competitors like Netflix and Amazon in favor of their own streaming services.

 

[Cletus11]

I had a old IT friend that told me about an effort many years ago to develop technology to deliver phone, cable and internet through the existing electrical grid. Does anyone know anything about this? He was saying that the bandwidth capacity would be off the charts. The challenge is that the electrical current is AC and that adaptive tech would have to figure out how to cancel the interference from AC oscillation. I'm not a techie, so I don't know if I characterized this properly. Feel free to correct me.

Back in the 2004-2005 timeframe I stayed at a hotel in Omaha Nebraska that you got the internet by plugging a box the front desk gave to you in an electrical outlet. Then the high speed internet cord from that box into your computer.

 

[tboyer]

Back in the 2004-2005 timeframe I stayed at a hotel in Omaha Nebraska that you got the internet by plugging a box the front desk gave to you in an electrical outlet. Then the high speed internet cord from that box into your computer.

Yeah powerline works. Sometimes it's a good way to extend internet in a house where you're having trouble with wifi. But in general wifi is going to be better inside the house, and nobody has really found a way to do powerline on a larger scale.

The big problem with powerline inside a house is that it only works between points that are on the same circuit of the box. So if you're basement's on the same circuit as the kitchen, great. But often that's not the case.

 

[tboyer]

Yes this is true. Cell is going to squeeze conventional wired internet more and more. Even LTE is really quite fast if you have good proximity to the tower -- 20 Megabits is enough for 3 netflix streams probably. Very large bandwidth plans even on Verizon and AT&T have gotten so cheap, for a lot of people, it probably pays to just use their phone as their wifi source at home. If you're streaming 10 hours of content a month you may have enough bandwidth already in your plan, and prices keep dropping.

]AT&T, for example, is test marketing 5G in Austin Texas. This is 5X faster than 4G. As a result, streaming without a land line will not only be possible, but preferable. And once that Tech is settled, you'll have cricket, us mobile, tracphone, ultramobile (etc.) all up in their grills within a year.

 

[raleighnclion]

Yes this is true. Cell is going to squeeze conventional wired internet more and more. Even LTE is really quite fast if you have good proximity to the tower -- 20 Megabits is enough for 3 netflix streams probably. Very large bandwidth plans even on Verizon and AT&T have gotten so cheap, for a lot of people, it probably pays to just use their phone as their wifi source at home. If you're streaming 10 hours of content a month you may have enough bandwidth already in your plan, and prices keep dropping.

Not for a long time. You are ignoring multiple people trying to stream at once and assuming ideal connectivity is foolish. It will get there, but it will take a (relatively) long time. It will work for some people, in some locations, and probably even then they will have to jump through some hoops to make it happen. Still, some will do it.

 

[LionDeNittany]

I couldn't disagree more. I don't binge watch at all and think the quality of Netflix shows are much better than any of the crap on network TV. Obliviax's post pretty much says it all. I'll just add Bloodline, Making of a Murderer, Black Mirror, and the final season of The Killing to the list of good shows.

There are good shows on Netflix. They are mixed in with a bunch of crap that would never make it to network TV.
In general people's expectations for shows seem to be down considerably.

LdN

 

[Creek Side]

AT&T, for example, is test marketing 5G in Austin Texas. This is 5X faster than 4G. As a result, streaming without a land line will not only be possible, but preferable. And once that Tech is settled, you'll have cricket, us mobile, tracphone, ultramobile (etc.) all up in their grills within a year.

I read an article that said all the big boys in cell (except for Verizon), said they would have 5G available by the end of the year. The last speed test through my Comcast service was 238Mbps. From what I understand, Comcast next step is gig service, which they already do in some places. Anyhow, the speed is great whether you're on a land line or mobile. The question is where do they cap you. Comcast cap is 1TB, and won't throttle you after that, just add another $10 to your bill for the next 50GB. What will you pay for 1TB from your cell company?

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Back in the 2004-2005 timeframe I stayed at a hotel in Omaha Nebraska that you got the internet by plugging a box the front desk gave to you in an electrical outlet. Then the high speed internet cord from that box into your computer.

I know that place! Best free porn ever!

 

[Peetz Pool Boy]

Love it. I've been saying this for years on this board. We are headed to a la carte viewing, where you can choose what you want instead of having 1000 channels of crap that you don't watch. Others argued that the cable companies would never let this happen, but it's becoming clear that they won't have much of a choice.

The final straw will be sports for me. As soon as I can pay for a subscription to see all PSU games, or pay for individual games, I will have no need for a cable package subscription.

The big question is, will it actually be cheaper in the long run.

It depends on how we define "cheaper". How much are you or others willing to pay for your favorite 5-6 channels? I see the day when HGTV, BTN and other similar popular stations all command viewer-direct fees of $5/month

 

[coveydidnt]

It depends on how we define "cheaper". How much are you or others willing to pay for your favorite 5-6 channels? I see the day when HGTV, BTN and other similar popular stations all command viewer-direct fees of $5/month

I think the prices would be higher than that for major networks & ESPN.

But the bigger issue for most people is that if these were all separate, they would be like "apps" on your Roku/Fire/Chromecast/AppleTV/etc.

Today if you have cable/Satellite, you can watch BTN, flip to TNT during commercials to see an NBA game, if both are on commercial or boring, you can flip to NBC & watch a few minutes of some dumb sitcom/talkshow, then flip back. If all of the networks have their own app, this will be super painful.

If there's another super-app, that wraps all these into one thing to make it better/easier for the consumer, we'll have to kick some $$ to them for adding the convenience. But the networks will of course make deals with that super-app to get put into bundles, and around and around we go. Same as ever.

 

[Peetz Pool Boy]

I think the prices would be higher than that for major networks & ESPN.

But the bigger issue for most people is that if these were all separate, they would be like "apps" on your Roku/Fire/Chromecast/AppleTV/etc.

Today if you have cable/Satellite, you can watch BTN, flip to TNT during commercials to see an NBA game, if both are on commercial or boring, you can flip to NBC & watch a few minutes of some dumb sitcom/talkshow, then flip back. If all of the networks have their own app, this will be super painful.

If there's another super-app, that wraps all these into one thing to make it better/easier for the consumer, we'll have to kick some $$ to them for adding the convenience. But the networks will of course make deals with that super-app to get put into bundles, and around and around we go. Same as ever.

As the lawyer that you obviously are, you bloviated, but didn't really respond with anything meaningful. Oy Vey.

 

[Grant Green]

It depends on how we define "cheaper". How much are you or others willing to pay for your favorite 5-6 channels? I see the day when HGTV, BTN and other similar popular stations all command viewer-direct fees of $5/month

That's fine. My 6 favorites X $5/mo = $30 < my cable bill right now. And I can dump channels like b10 in the off season. Easy math

 

[NJPSU]

That's fine. My 6 favorites X $5/mo = $30 < my cable bill right now. And I can dump channels like b10 in the off season. Easy math

Except they aren't going be $5 a month.

 

[ThePennsyOracle]

Yes this is true. Cell is going to squeeze conventional wired internet more and more. Even LTE is really quite fast if you have good proximity to the tower -- 20 Megabits is enough for 3 netflix streams probably. Very large bandwidth plans even on Verizon and AT&T have gotten so cheap, for a lot of people, it probably pays to just use their phone as their wifi source at home. If you're streaming 10 hours of content a month you may have enough bandwidth already in your plan, and prices keep dropping.

tboyer, I generally agree with you on this type of stuff, but cheap bandwidth, AT&T, and Verizon belong in the same sentence just as often as "Ira Lubert" and "good ethics".

Cell phone companies are horribly expensive for data, much moreso than Comcast or any local cable company. Replacing cable/satellite for streaming with Verizon/AT&T cell service (even at 5g) is frankly a terribly stupid decision. Users would blow through their data caps in less than a day with such service. It's a fallacy that major cell providers are giving cheaper data, too. There's no way someone could use a streaming service and not blow through their data cap. The pricing structure has changed (i.e. we now pay for plans via data levels and not number of minutes), but it's very expensive when compared with cable or DSL internet. There's no sign of that paradigm shifting either.

Note, I'm not saying that it *should* be that way. You are correct in that bandwidth is more widely available and should be cheaper....but it's just not.

I do agree that we are seeing a paradigm shift with younger generations, but cable/satellite and its bundles aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Sure, they'll become less prevalent and such....but there are still many generations out there who don't feel comfortable using streaming technology.

 

[Cletus11]

tboyer, I generally agree with you on this type of stuff, but cheap bandwidth, AT&T, and Verizon belong in the same sentence just as often as "Ira Lubert" and "good ethics".

Cell phone companies are horribly expensive for data, much moreso than Comcast or any local cable company. Replacing cable/satellite for streaming with Verizon/AT&T cell service (even at 5g) is frankly a terribly stupid decision. Users would blow through their data caps in less than a day with such service. It's a fallacy that major cell providers are giving cheaper data, too. There's no way someone could use a streaming service and not blow through their data cap. The pricing structure has changed (i.e. we now pay for plans via data levels and not number of minutes), but it's very expensive when compared with cable or DSL internet. There's no sign of that paradigm shifting either.

Note, I'm not saying that it *should* be that way. You are correct in that bandwidth is more widely available and should be cheaper....but it's just not.

I do agree that we are seeing a paradigm shift with younger generations, but cable/satellite and its bundles aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Sure, they'll become less prevalent and such....but there are still many generations out there who don't feel comfortable using streaming technology.

In the 1980's, long distance calling on your land line was 20-25 cents per minute. Then in the 1990's competition occurred and dropped it down to 5 cents per minute. Now long distance is the same cost as calling your neighbor and is a flat monthly rate no matter how many minutes are used. Look at a cell phone bill from 2000-2005 and then look at one now. Look at the cost of that per the data that you get. That cost has come down dramatically and will continue to come down as more cheap players continue to move into that space and more towers continue to get put up. It is only time before "5G" is here. 4GLTE doesn't cost anymore than 2G speed cost back in the day. Speed gets faster but cost stays the same or goes down and that will continue. There will be a time in the not to distance future where there will be wireless unlimited data plans for a set monthly rate that is affordable to the masses. How long will that take. 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? it is coming.