How can this compete with streaming? I realize they have low overhead because the customer bears the cost of the receiver and installation, but they still have the uplink expense.
What is Orby TV?????
- Thread starter (((Garyd)))
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 274
- Views 91K
Conveniently there is no mention of whether these channels are in SD or HD either...
The customer agreement says you can have up four receivers. Additional receivers are $5/month.
The receivers have an HDMI port and the DVR mentions SD and HD recording times....so who knows!
The DVR service costs extra...
How much is DVR service?
DVR service is $4/month if you have a programming package and $12/month by itself, if you just want to record local channels. All taxes are included in our prices!
How much is DVR service?
DVR service is $4/month if you have a programming package and $12/month by itself, if you just want to record local channels. All taxes are included in our prices!
On the economy of scale, each satellite subscriber reduces the distribution cost per customer. For streaming, each customer is an increase in the distribution cost.
I gathered there was no receiver fee since it mentioned you owned the whole system. (and no fee listed)
It can't. This would be for people that don't have access to standard high-speed internet, OR have satellite internet that's very limited.
$5 for each additional outlet per month. And $4 a month for DVR service a month per receiver (and you must buy the $200 DVR receiver)
Very true, but the up-front costs are much higher for satellite than streaming video. Also, due to the way commercial bandwidth/CDN contracts work, the more you commit to, the less you pay per amount transferred. So, the more your customer base grows, the less it costs you to serve your customers on a per-customer basis. I am unsure at which point(s) the economics favor one or the other. Also, content acquisition costs apparently make up a disproportionate amount of the total for on-demand streaming, and I am unsure if/how that comes into play here or not.
My point is that when it is up and running, it won't be FTA -- it will be competing with satellite and, in a majority of cases, pay OTT services. So how big is the market for mini-OTT offerings for those without broadband? Maybe in the tens of thousands?Actually a lot of it is up there in FTA still.They havent encoded everything yet. Looks like a work in progress.
It reminds me of the HDHomerun Premium TV channel lineup right up to requiring OTA access for local channels.
It's another VOOM HD satellite type setup, and we all know what happened to that. I don't see this lasting long, the buy-in costs are just too much.
I could be wrong, but we'll know fairly soon, I'm sure of that.
I could be wrong, but we'll know fairly soon, I'm sure of that.
If you lease the satellite bandwidth via linkbudget and use a 3rd party uplink service, the distribution cost is fixed. Doesn't matter if the 20 channels are unlinked for 1, 10k or 100k.
The bandwidth for this service is likely about $250k per month. Based on current distribution contracts for small providers, approx. 60% of their package cost will probably be for programming. Doesn't take too many customers at $20 to break even. In their case, I would guess that point to be at or less than 10k subscribers.
Edit: missing 0
Last edited:
The difference being that VOOM HD's own channels were commercial-free and had lots of exclusive HD content back when HD was the Holy Grail. It seems like this will be the same thing everyone else already gets with a large up-front hit to the wallet.
Now if they were to offer all of those channels in UHD, there might be some parallels.
How will they succeed where VOOM HD failed so many years ago?
Voom had very high costs making original content.
These guys are not serving up anything original.
I think the big issue these guys will have is they are not using a higher powered DBS satellite, but a regular KU satellite so I expect rain fade to be a real issue over standard DBS.
These guys are not serving up anything original.
I think the big issue these guys will have is they are not using a higher powered DBS satellite, but a regular KU satellite so I expect rain fade to be a real issue over standard DBS.
Interesting. I wouldn't have guessed it was that low. I'd estimate about 1/4 that cost to spin something up on AWS and have a minimum bandwidth commitment on a CDN, depending on how much risk you were willing to by signing a multi-year commitment. If you add in software development costs, it might get to 1/2 of the satellite service. As you said originally, the costs for the satellite service would remain fixed though, so at some point it should become more profitable than streaming.
