Social Feed

The true "greed" that has propelled TV costs has come not so much from providers as from content. You have local stations demanding exorbitant amounts from sat/cable for what is otherwise free, over-the-air ad-supported content. The biggest cost driver of course is sports, which if that's your thing may be well worth it, but if not you're still paying for it and subsidizing that industry. Cable/sat are contractually barred from selling content a-la-carte, which again is the stranglehold of the content cartel. Little wonder that cord-cutting & streaming have become so popular. People will pay; it just needs to be reasonable to what they consume.

telstar_1 said:

The true "greed" that has propelled TV costs has come not so much from providers as from content. You have local stations demanding exorbitant amounts from sat/cable for what is otherwise free, over-the-air ad-supported content.

Click to expand...

If local stations/ affiliates did not have per sub fees, they would be out of business, advertising rates is up to 3/4 down , as Advertisers have moved to streaming for the cheaper rates and a more accurate count of who is watching.

Does not help when Cable/Satellite are down to 55 Million Households from 100 Million 7 years ago, more people now stream then have a Traditional Paid Live TV Service.

This year, there will be more revenue from advertising thanks to the election, next year will be a another drastic drop.

telstar_1 said:

The biggest cost driver of course is sports, which if that's your thing may be well worth it, but if not you're still paying for it and subsidizing that industry.

Click to expand...

And why RSNs are near collapse, again, just 7 years ago, all 100 Million Households were paying for the RSNs, today, about 45 Million, largely only DirecTV, Comcast and Charter subscribers receive them ( a few smaller companies do also, but Dish/Sling does not).

At this rate, they have 2-3 years left at the most.

telstar_1 said:

Cable/sat are contractually barred from selling content a-la-carte, which again is the stranglehold of the content cartel.

Click to expand...

a-la-carte no, but less expensive packages are popping up, Charter/Spectrum just introduced a everything but sports/locals package, only $40, a step in the right direction.

My problem with paid live TV is the lack of new content, most cable channels are nothing but reruns and I hate paying for that, especially since reruns are available for free on Pluto and other services.

telstar_1 said:

Little wonder that cord-cutting & streaming have become so popular. People will pay; it just needs to be reasonable to what they consume.

Click to expand...

Less expensive is not the only reason I stream, it is also the much better quality, at least a 1080P Picture, now more and more network/cable shows are in 4K.

Cable/Satellite is not just losing on the price front, but on the quality front, I remember when I had DirecTV, so much better then Cable, yet in their almost 30 years, they stayed stagnant on video quality.

Bruce said:

If local stations/ affiliates did not have per sub fees, they would be out of business, advertising rates is up to 3/4 down , as Advertisers have moved to streaming for the cheaper rates and a more accurate count of who is watching.

Click to expand...

Please remind me, didn't local stations have to start paying per-sub fees to the networks at some point? I have a vague recollection of that being when the locals starting playing hardball with the cable/satellite companies.

ncted said:

Please remind me, didn't local stations have to start paying per-sub fees to the networks at some point? I have a vague recollection of that being when the locals starting playing hardball with the cable/satellite companies.

Click to expand...

I haven't heard of that, except I do know that PBS affils have to remit (from 'viewers like you') based on what shows they want to run.

Locals began extorting providers after legislation passed switching them from a cable "must carry" status to a self-declaratory status of either "must carry" or (providers) "must negotiate." Low viewership stations such as religious largely stuck with "must carry" to guarantee they would stay on, while big-net affils of course picked being paid. All the legislation said was that they had to negotiate with providers without any upper limits, so you see why that's gone where it has.

This was a mistake, imo, in that these stations were given free bandwidth on condition of serving in the public interest. I don't find their charging for previously (and currently, over-air) no-charge, ad-supported content to be public serving. Quite the contrary, actually. And if they are remitting back to nets for content, then they're doing their own money-grab from people who don't watch sports, as you have to know that's the nets' biggest expense.

My first dvr was the WebTV/Dish player 7100 model in August of 1999. Loved it and it was also my first experience with the web and getting on the internet. I even refinanced my house over the web tv feature. It worked great till the Microsoft DISH fight started and then it was nothing but sending it back for a replacement at $15.00 a pop. After the 4th or 5th time I told DISH give me a regular receiver again that I could use with my old VCR. Then I got the 501 Pvr when DISH came out with it and it was like a digital VCR. Name-based recording timers came some where in 2005. I loved the 942 dvrs and the 921 was a nightmare. The Hopper 3 has been the best of course. Since I left DISH , I use the Air TV Anywhere ota dvr with 4 tuners that works with Sling TV and I have a Tablo ota dvr that records 4 things at a time. So ota is taken care of. Don't want to be without a dvr of some kind.

MikeD-C05 said:

Don't want to be without a dvr of some kind.

Click to expand...

Do not use one anymore, picture quality on streaming services is so much better, even vs OTA.

I do not regret dropping Traditional Paid Live TV at all, get the same content, get the extra content, all at 1080P/4K for under $70 a month.

Bruce said:

Do not use one anymore, picture quality on streaming services is so much better, even vs OTA.

I do not regret dropping Traditional Paid Live TV at all, get the same content, get the extra content, all at 1080P/4K for under $70 a month.

Click to expand...

I'm with Mike on DVR...don't care about PQ over convenience and access,

KAB said:

I'm with Mike on DVR...don't care about PQ over convenience and access,

Click to expand...

I have convenience and access, all the shows are on next day as of 6am, for example, I watch Tracker on CBS, I can watch live on Sunday, or wait til Monday (or later) to watch it in 4K on Paramount+.

How is that different then a DVR?

Bruce said:

I have convenience and access, all the shows are on next day as of 6am, for example, I watch Tracker on CBS, I can watch live on Sunday, or wait til Monday (or later) to watch it in 4K on Paramount+.

How is that different then a DVR?

Click to expand...

You are just using the programs that are already recorded by Paramount on their app but you have a days worth of delay for the better p/q . I like watching when it is live or slightly delayed at home. I can't really see much difference between 4k and HD anyway. Just like I don't see any reason at all for 8k. If they human eye can't see difference between HD and 4k then 8k is no different. It is just a selling gimmick to get people to buy new TVs.

As for my ota recording it cost me nothing. Only the device and ota antenna I added and since it is free programming on the 4 tuner Tablo and the Sling tv - 4 tuner Air tv Anywhere device.

MikeD-C05 said:

You are just using the programs that are already recorded by Paramount on their app but you have a days worth of delay for the better p/q .

Click to expand...

One day, but just like if I still had a DVR, it would be weeks or even months before I get to it.

MikeD-C05 said:

I like watching when it is live or slightly delayed at home. I can't really see much difference between 4k and HD anyway. Just like I don't see any reason at all for 8k. If the human eye can't see difference between HD and 4k then 8k is no different. It is just a selling gimmick to get people to buy new TVs.

Click to expand...

I can tell the difference, my Sony Z9K up-converts everything to 8K, so I rather feed it the best signal possible, 4K Blu-rays look amazing on it.

MikeD-C05 said:

As for my ota recording it cost me nothing. Only the device and ota antenna I added and since it is free programming on the 4 tuner Tablo and the Sling tv - 4 tuner Air tv Anywhere device.

Click to expand...

My tablo is in a closet right now, never use it for reasons I have already explained.

telstar_1 said:

I haven't heard of that, except I do know that PBS affils have to remit (from 'viewers like you') based on what shows they want to run.

Locals began extorting providers after legislation passed switching them from a cable "must carry" status to a self-declaratory status of either "must carry" or (providers) "must negotiate." Low viewership stations such as religious largely stuck with "must carry" to guarantee they would stay on, while big-net affils of course picked being paid. All the legislation said was that they had to negotiate with providers without any upper limits, so you see why that's gone where it has.

This was a mistake, imo, in that these stations were given free bandwidth on condition of serving in the public interest. I don't find their charging for previously (and currently, over-air) no-charge, ad-supported content to be public serving. Quite the contrary, actually. And if they are remitting back to nets for content, then they're doing their own money-grab from people who don't watch sports, as you have to know that's the nets' biggest expense.

Click to expand...

Finally took the time to do an internet search on the topic and found this:


Specifically:

For the longest time, the major networks were not part of the affiliate fee gravy train. In fact, due to "must carry" laws, most networks never considered intentionally restricting their own distribution. They were simply pleased to get redistributed over cable and satellite. As these fees have grown in size and importance, the networks have changed their position and have come to the table asking for affiliate fees also.

From some other reading I've done, it sounds like the per-sub reverse-compensation model is fairly new though, and most local TV stations are still paying a fixed amount to the networks, so my recollection that it was part of the reason retransmission fees had gone up was incorrect.

ncted said:

Please remind me, didn't local stations have to start paying per-sub fees to the networks at some point? I have a vague recollection of that being when the locals starting playing hardball with the cable/satellite companies.

Click to expand...

Yes. In the industry it's called "reverse comp," whereby the networks take about 50% of the retransmission fee revenue that their local affiliates collect from MVPDs. (And of course in those major markets where the affiliate is a network O&O, they're getting all of it.)

That whole gravy train is going to break down at some point in the latter half of this decade. Local stations have been riding the coattails of the national networks, who actually own the high-value content (e.g. NFL and other live sports, popular primetime shows, breaking national news and election coverage). But in a direct-to-consumer streaming world, the local affiliates are just unnecessary middle-men waiting to be cut out.

This is why the big local station groups have been trying to get into the content games themselves. The largest, Nexstar, is now the majority owner of The CW, which is edging more into live sports. They also own the NewsNation cable channel. Another one, E.W. Scripps, owns ION (which is also getting into sports now with the WNBA and women's soccer), Court TV, Scripps News, and retro diginets like Bounce, Grit and Laff. Pretty much all these guys are offering their local newscasts, live and/or on-demand, for free on multiple platforms to increase ad revenue and reach younger audiences (who will never start watching local news if it remains siloed away on cable and OTA).

I do fear that there will be a huge shakeout in local news providers down the road when retrans revenue dries up. Not sure how many will be able to survive on ad revenue alone. Maybe the strongest will be able to adopt some kind of subscription model. Perhaps we'll see local PBS member stations step into the void with quality local news funded through viewer donations and local philanthropy.

I keep seeing reports like this:


While bundles are now available and ads are pervasive if you don't want to pay to avoid them, there is are significant differences:

1. You don't have to bundle streaming services if you don't want to, unlike cable.
2. You don't have to watch ads if you don't want to, unlike cable without a DVR that isn't hamstrung by your provider.

ncted said:

I keep seeing reports like this:

Streaming is cable now

It’s even got live sports!

www.theverge.com

While bundles are now available and ads are pervasive if you don't want to pay to avoid them, there is are significant differences:

1. You don't have to bundle streaming services if you don't want to, unlike cable.
2. You don't have to watch ads if you don't want to, unlike cable without a DVR that isn't hamstrung by your provider.

Click to expand...

The Verge is owned by Vox Media, who is one of the owners of Vox Media, Comcast.

Once again, I get the vast majority of content from Paid Live TV, HBO, Showtime, streaming shows, Netflix, Apple TV and I spend about $70 a month, all of the services at the highest tier ( except Peacock) so no commercials , 4K, etc.