http://www.deadline.com/2013/12/dir...nnels-and-offering-an-internet-video-service/
Looks like both Dish and Direct are going to have some bad PR after today.
Looks like both Dish and Direct are going to have some bad PR after today.
OT: DirecTV Considers Dropping Channels And Offering An Internet Video Service
- Thread starter Deadlocked
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 70
- Views 8K
Register to hide this ad
My opinion - it is a little posturing, and a little bit of truth about a possible future plan. I think it is a signal that it will not be a given Direct will carry the companies channels if the cost is deemed too high. Rather than pay too much, they won't carry it. Now doing that and saying that are two different things.
I imagine DISH welcomes the possibility of DIRECT doing this, not to take advantage of it and carry channels DIRECT does not, but to also drop channels if Direct Does.
I imagine DISH welcomes the possibility of DIRECT doing this, not to take advantage of it and carry channels DIRECT does not, but to also drop channels if Direct Does.
I do not see any way they can keep programming cost growth to 7-9% through 2016 without dropping channels.
7% - 9%?
After 10 years, your bill has doubled or gone up about one and a third times!
Inflation at 2% and bills go up "only" 7% - 9%? I'm sorry, I think most of us will have to bail before then. Can't keep paying an ever increasing portion of income for TV.
Libraries look better all the time. I wonder if TV & movie "content providers" will try to suppress them? Might not be too far off- remember how bus companies destroyed trollies.
After 10 years, your bill has doubled or gone up about one and a third times!
Inflation at 2% and bills go up "only" 7% - 9%? I'm sorry, I think most of us will have to bail before then. Can't keep paying an ever increasing portion of income for TV.
Libraries look better all the time. I wonder if TV & movie "content providers" will try to suppress them? Might not be too far off- remember how bus companies destroyed trollies.
And the past 10 years hasn't seen the determination of broadcasters, Disney and Sports, etc to "increase their take" to the degree they seem to expect. Ain't gonna happen, folks! It can't!
Think about it,if all the cable and sat companies had caved to what some of these networks have originally asked for,our bills would have tripled in the last 10 years.They don't seem to have any limits in what they demand,it's as if they figure money grows on trees.That flawed logic will eventually lead to a very different tv landscape in the coming years.It's already started,and the more money they demand it will happen sooner than later.
Just imagine if you were a minimum wage employee????? I think between that and gas should be a wakeup call to the blind and ignorant!
I see people stating that they drop their programming packages to compensate for price increases. You can only drop the packages down so far to where you lose a lot of programming that you want to watch or get to the minimal package that you can get. At that point you are stuck with every increase or will have to drop the DVR, HD, extra receivers or the service altogether.
I think these days a lot of people can do without tv more than they can do without internet. You can watch content online on demand.
I think these days a lot of people can do without tv more than they can do without internet. You can watch content online on demand.
The problem is that previously cable channels and broadcast channels did not view per subscriber fees as a main revenue stream. Cable channels charged a little, broadcast was free and they relied on commercials to make money. Now commercials are becoming secondary to fees, so the rate of bill increase will increase.
But, initially, cable channels got the majority of their revenue from subscription fees, with relatively few commercials compared to broadcast channels. They were the ones who initially figured out how to double-dip the revenue stream by having as many commercials as broadcast channels and for some, charging almost as much for commercial time. Then along came paid programming, followed by reduced content that is split into multiple owned channels each with a separate subscription fee. Reduced content that is repeated ad naseum. The whole system has been milked dry, and drastic change is inevitable.
And to think that when I was a kid back in the 60s, I could get all the programming available to me for FREE on 4 stations: ABC,CBS,NBC,UHF-#30. Now they have spread that same content out on to hundreds of channels and yet there is still nothing on ,but the price to watch the same content has skyrocketed. I can remember when Hbo was ONE channel, so was Showtime , and The Movie channel, Starz. Now there are duplicates that show the same shows on all of them at different times . But the price is $18.00 for HBO now. A few more years of this kind of stupidity and even cable and satellite will understand that they will have to do something to keep prices down or the few subs that they have left will literally die off. I think was like 300,000 subs that Time Warner Cable lost this last quarter. Imagine that replicated on all cable and satellite companies. Directv saying that they will drop the less popular channels may be the first sign that they are learning how to battle back the programmers and their yearly extortion price hikes. IF only we could force the UN-bundling of cable channels through LAW, we could really keep the prices down on our bills.
Getting rid of the unpopular ones might accomplish little, as they are likely to be the cheapest ones. They need to cut some big ticket items.
Eventually there could be enough online content to justify a decent amount of people to switch to online only viewing if more create their own channels and good enough content on them. I can see a whole new suite of channels created and it being provided for free via the internet and as popularity and content grows a small fee being charged to compete with satellite/cable.
I see something different. Yes more channels/content available online. But if you want to watch as you do now, it will be at a higher cost. You will pay per episode or series, not per "channel" and the cost will add up fast. Then there's the internet providers who will raise the cost in a variety of ways if more and more people are relying on them for viewing programming. It might be higher monthly cost, could be throttling, could be added charges over X amount of data, and could be all three. I remain convinced getting your primary TV viewing from the internet will not be cheaper unless you decide to watch a few shows and nothing else. On top of that it will all be less reliable, both in Ct and Fl I lose the internet from time to time, sometimes for hours.
Cord cutting now for many does save money no question, partly because the amount of material you have to pay for is limited. And if you don't watch much TV to begin with, even better.
Cord cutting now for many does save money no question, partly because the amount of material you have to pay for is limited. And if you don't watch much TV to begin with, even better.
+1 on the above post
I believe the companies are looking to gain profits. Internet providers will most likely gain from this new model as well especially if there are data caps on certain plans. I am definitely not thrilled about any of these new plans by satellite providers.
I believe the companies are looking to gain profits. Internet providers will most likely gain from this new model as well especially if there are data caps on certain plans. I am definitely not thrilled about any of these new plans by satellite providers.
No matter what we decide to do it's going to end up costing us eventually. If customers leave the cable and satellite providers then the networks are going to get their money from you another way. The only way your going to save money is by not watching TV at all really.
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)
Latest posts
-
-
-
Review: consumer receiver natively tuning 4:2:2- Latest: comfortably_numb
-
