Satellite TV’s Orbit Is Failing Fast

[Cheddar_Head]

Do you think the cost for the movies, TV series, and documentaries they don't produce might be going up also? Just like MVPDs are upping their cost because they're now paying more?

Absolutely, NetFlix was one of the earliest OTT products and many studios signed licensing deals with NetFlix that were dirt cheap because NetFlix was the only game in town plus many studios didn't really think that NetFlix OTT was a viable business. Now with many more providers in the game there is much more competition for content which raises the price and the studios have realized just how much money is available in the OTT market.

With the content providers realizing that the early deals were "too cheap" and demanding more money in later deals the montly prices for OTT services is bound to start going up just like Dish and DirecTV do, plus with fragmentation many people will have multiple subscriptions which will mean even cord-cutters easily have $75 per month bills plus Internet Service. I already have Netflix ($15 mo), Amazon Prime ($99/12mo=$8.50 per month), NHL.TV ($120 per year) and MLB.TV ($120 per year) which is approximately $45 per month plus Internet service.

 

[Claude Greiner]

I sell both satellite, cable Tv and internet service.

It’s at the point where Internet is what the customers want as a primary service and Tv is an after thought if the price is right.

I talk to many people, and they have this thing they think they are going to get a Tv and internet package for $60.

Then when you break it down, find out the channels they really want, now the bill is $120 and that’s just the promotional price for 12 or 24 months.

The real issue here is 2 fold

#1 cheap internet - Comcast has cheap internet packages starting at $29.99 in areas where the cheapest AT&T package starts at $50.

Instead of offering “cheap” internet, the costs need to be shifted so stand alone internet is $20 more and Tv is $20 less.

When you compare it that was, streaming is no longer such a great deal.

#2 The content providers need to stop making their content available online for less than traditional cable.

Perfect example is the WWE. Why bother purchasing the PPV, when it all can be streamed with a cheap subscription.

All this is going to is force providers to go to an a la carte model.

If we go a la carte, I would say that 50% of all the channels we have today will go dark, as their is a lot of crap that we pay for that nobody watches.

The only “good” thing that will come out of this is what’s going to happen to the sports industry. I can tell you first hand that the regional sports fees are getting out of hand. Less and less people are subscribing to packages with regional sports

The less people who subscribe to regional sports, the less revenue these teams bring in, and the less salary to these players.

The players are way over paid anyways, so this is the only positive they will come out of this.

 

[Claude Greiner]

It's a shame because they let these retransmission providers hood wink them into these unsustainable price increases. They expect us to pay these outlandish rates. Some of it is the providers fault namely AT&T. It's scale and size of its empire. We are paying for this growing monopoly. When does it stop with the growth of these companies? They have to blame themselves too. They are looking at their shareholders and profit. As you can see the customers aren't having any of it. The stuff customers want; big bad AT&T won't provide. They 've cut a lot of stuff and took away features without any customer input. Look at Verizon - their DVR can record 15 shows at once, has autotune, caller ID and some on screen features you can do with the caller ID. Their onDemand library is much better than DTV's. I went on Fox OnDemand - not one damn program available. This has happened on many of the OnDemand channels. It stinks! I think you can see your message call list too. I could be wrong. At any rate - this is all nicely housed in the DVR. It looks like Orby satellite TV, YouTube TV and the likes are going to have a bright future!

It has nothing to do with the features of the equipment. Average customer don’t give an F about the hopper, or how many shows that can be recorded on their DVR.

It’s all about price, price and price.

Nobody wants to pay anything for their monthly service and expects everything for free

 

[DishSubLA]

One main thing I do like about Charter (Spectrum) is there are no caps. I pay about $65 a month for 100 down. In this day, that is not bad. DSL is less (where available), but tops out at about 20, if lucky. Most fall in the 10-14 range for $40-$50 a month.

yeah the same yeah the same here I also have Charter Spectrum and although it is expensive I really do feel that at least I get no caps for that price, but while I get 100mps down they only give me about 10 to 15 MPS up. that's really my big gripe: I would really prefer a little faster Upstream even if it meant I was just a little slower on the downstream because sometimes we have Dish Anywhere going upstream and or Slingbox going upstream. I'd be happy with Up 30 and down 70.

 

[DishSubLA]

I'm also on Spectrum with the same rate.Keep in mind though that they had to promise "no caps" for I believe 5 years for the Charter/Time Warner merger to go through.There might be 2 years left.In the next 2 years everyone will be consuming larger and larger amounts of bandwidth and the bill will come due-especially for those of us who don't have a choice of internet providers.

yeah, I forgot about that.

 

[DishSubLA]

OK, I'll bite... what promises did the BROADCASTERS make for ATSC 3.0? I'm not talking about the standards committee or manufacturers of 3.0 equipment, I'm talking the broadcasters themselves.

NONE! the only thing that has been floated as a possible mandate is that the broadcasters continue broadcsting programming on the atsc 1.0 in order for legacy equipment to still be useful. however, there was never any inclusion or proposed promise that the content broadcast at ATSC 1.0 would be the same (presumably most desired new episodes of current hit shows) programming content on the ATSC 3.0. In other words look for the main broadcast channel with all the new current hit content only available on ATSC 3.0 while all those channels showing reruns of all the shows or religious programming or foreign programming staying at ATSC 1.0. Broadcasters just aren't going to invest in atsc 3.0 unless they drag you along with it. Essentially our current FCC is pretty much letting the broadcasters do whatever they want and come up with their own plan and "promises" for the transition to ATSC 3.0 and maintenance of ATSC 1.0. that could change if someone else wins the next presidential election.

I hope understood your question. I will add that there may not be any Mandate of any tuners on televisions or other devices because atsc 3.0 will be IP and that means headless tuners are quite likely and those headless tuners will send the broadcasting packets throughout your home network to televisions, possibly DVRs, and, of course, to your tablets and phones. further, the broadcasters have been talking up being able to have mobile devices in remote locations like your smartphone being able to tune and display the broadcast signal. In other words, watching live over the air TV on your smartphone because atsc 3.0 is IP. it would be like any other stream as if it were coming through your wireless network, but instead it is the ATSC 3.0 broadcast signal carrying the stream picked up by your phone or tablet to watch free OTA broadcast TV.

There have been no true promises, but the broadcasters and their promoters talk as if they are promising everything by using phrases such as "What we can do . . ." as opposed to "what we might . . ." or "What we could do . . ." To some people, such language implies and certainly sounds like a "promise" or a "definitely will do" feature. In other words, the broadcasters are still selling atsc 3.0 to the public amd the FCC.

What is interesting is that the four major networks are not excited, nor looking forward to about atsc 3.0( they're owned by Studios and major media companies who already have their fingers deep into the IP pie). Instead it is the vast majority of independent stations (many owned by very large companies) who make up most of the NAB and its missions and objectives, and NAB has a massive love affair for ATSC 3.0. one of the reasons is this a potential for targeted advertising and other possible streams of new Revenue that likely include selling some of your viewing habits. remember your atsc 3.0 is connected to your home network and of course the internet. they're probably not even talkin about all sorts of other Revenue they can get from this. Oh yeah, and it's supposed to be UHD to sell it to the masses.

 

[Juan]

I sell both satellite, cable Tv and internet service.

It’s at the point where Internet is what the customers want as a primary service and Tv is an after thought if the price is right.

I talk to many people, and they have this thing they think they are going to get a Tv and internet package for $60.

Then when you break it down, find out the channels they really want, now the bill is $120 and that’s just the promotional price for 12 or 24 months.

The real issue here is 2 fold

#1 cheap internet - Comcast has cheap internet packages starting at $29.99 in areas where the cheapest AT&T package starts at $50.

Instead of offering “cheap” internet, the costs need to be shifted so stand alone internet is $20 more and Tv is $20 less.

When you compare it that was, streaming is no longer such a great deal.

#2 The content providers need to stop making their content available online for less than traditional cable.

Perfect example is the WWE. Why bother purchasing the PPV, when it all can be streamed with a cheap subscription.

All this is going to is force providers to go to an a la carte model.

If we go a la carte, I would say that 50% of all the channels we have today will go dark, as their is a lot of crap that we pay for that nobody watches.

The only “good” thing that will come out of this is what’s going to happen to the sports industry. I can tell you first hand that the regional sports fees are getting out of hand. Less and less people are subscribing to packages with regional sports

The less people who subscribe to regional sports, the less revenue these teams bring in, and the less salary to these players.

The players are way over paid anyways, so this is the only positive they will come out of this.

Somebody will create a "free" ad supported model similar to OTA and blow the greedy channel streamers out of the water OR piracy will destroy the industry

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[Juan]

NONE! the only thing that has been floated as a possible mandate is that the broadcasters continue broadcsting programming on the atsc 1.0 in order for legacy equipment to still be useful. however, there was never any inclusion or proposed promise that the content broadcast at ATSC 1.0 would be the same (presumably most desired new episodes of current hit shows) programming content on the ATSC 3.0. In other words look for the main broadcast channel with all the new current hit content only available on ATSC 3.0 while all those channels showing reruns of all the shows or religious programming or foreign programming staying at ATSC 1.0. Broadcasters just aren't going to invest in atsc 3.0 unless they drag you along with it. Essentially our current FCC is pretty much letting the broadcasters do whatever they want and come up with their own plan and "promises" for the transition to ATSC 3.0 and maintenance of ATSC 1.0. that could change if someone else wins the next presidential election.

I hope understood your question. I will add that there may not be any Mandate of any tuners on televisions or other devices because atsc 3.0 will be IP and that means headless tuners are quite likely and those headless tuners will send the broadcasting packets throughout your home network to televisions, possibly DVRs, and, of course, to your tablets and phones. further, the broadcasters have been talking up being able to have mobile devices in remote locations like your smartphone being able to tune and display the broadcast signal. In other words, watching live over the air TV on your smartphone because atsc 3.0 is IP. it would be like any other stream as if it were coming through your wireless network, but instead it is the ATSC 3.0 broadcast signal carrying the stream picked up by your phone or tablet to watch free OTA broadcast TV.

There have been no true promises, but the broadcasters and their promoters talk as if they are promising everything by using phrases such as "What we can do . . ." as opposed to "what we might . . ." or "What we could do . . ." To some people, such language implies and certainly sounds like a "promise" or a "definitely will do" feature. In other words, the broadcasters are still selling atsc 3.0 to the public amd the FCC.

What is interesting is that the four major networks are not excited, nor looking forward to about atsc 3.0( they're owned by Studios and major media companies who already have their fingers deep into the IP pie). Instead it is the vast majority of independent stations (many owned by very large companies) who make up most of the NAB and its missions and objectives, and NAB has a massive love affair for ATSC 3.0. one of the reasons is this a potential for targeted advertising and other possible streams of new Revenue that likely include selling some of your viewing habits. remember your atsc 3.0 is connected to your home network and of course the internet. they're probably not even talkin about all sorts of other Revenue they can get from this. Oh yeah, and it's supposed to be UHD to sell it to the masses.

Sounds like a last gasp for air in a dying industry...especially if they need 2 way communication like other ip services

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[comfortably_numb]

Somebody will create a "free" ad supported model similar to OTA and blow the greedy channel streamers out of the water OR piracy will destroy the industry

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

Pluto TV and iGoCast are kinda like that

 

[Juan]

Pluto TV and iGoCast are kinda like that

But thats just junk....for now....kinda like early cable networks

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[navychop]

Per Wikipedia, there is a five year simulcasting requirement. So once a station starts broadcasting ATSC3, 5 years later they can shut down the ATSC 1 signal.

If they want to.

I wonder how many stations might try to broadcast a low power ATSC 3 signal for 2-3 years, just to get that clock started.

IF the ATSC 3 design was made to benefit Sinclair more than what’s best for the public, I’d be all in favor of starting over.


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[ncted]

#2 The content providers need to stop making their content available online for less than traditional cable.

Perfect example is the WWE. Why bother purchasing the PPV, when it all can be streamed with a cheap subscription.

All this is going to is force providers to go to an a la carte model.

If we go a la carte, I would say that 50% of all the channels we have today will go dark, as their is a lot of crap that we pay for that nobody watches.

The only “good” thing that will come out of this is what’s going to happen to the sports industry. I can tell you first hand that the regional sports fees are getting out of hand. Less and less people are subscribing to packages with regional sports

The less people who subscribe to regional sports, the less revenue these teams bring in, and the less salary to these players.

The players are way over paid anyways, so this is the only positive they will come out of this.

Yes, yes, and yes. TV largely costs too much because we are paying for channels we don't watch and broadcaster sports contracts that have gotten way out of hand. It is time for a readjustment.

 

[comfortably_numb]

But thats just junk....for now....kinda like early cable networks

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

Depends on what someone considers "junk..." iGoCast has all the major diginets for free....

 

[Juan]

Depends on what someone considers "junk..." iGoCast has all the major diginets for free....

like I said..like early cable networks wtbs etc

 

[truckracer]

But you are not forced to buy as many channels as cable or satellite..you can pick and chose

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

Now you can pay nearly as much for two or three as a whole package.

Sent from my 14.4 K dialup connected IBM Think Centre

 

[sam_gordon]

NONE! the only thing that has been floated as a possible mandate is that the broadcasters continue broadcsting programming on the atsc 1.0 in order for legacy equipment to still be useful. however, there was never any inclusion or proposed promise that the content broadcast at ATSC 1.0 would be the same (presumably most desired new episodes of current hit shows) programming content on the ATSC 3.0. In other words look for the main broadcast channel with all the new current hit content only available on ATSC 3.0 while all those channels showing reruns of all the shows or religious programming or foreign programming staying at ATSC 1.0. Broadcasters just aren't going to invest in atsc 3.0 unless they drag you along with it. Essentially our current FCC is pretty much letting the broadcasters do whatever they want and come up with their own plan and "promises" for the transition to ATSC 3.0 and maintenance of ATSC 1.0. that could change if someone else wins the next presidential election.

I hope understood your question. I will add that there may not be any Mandate of any tuners on televisions or other devices because atsc 3.0 will be IP and that means headless tuners are quite likely and those headless tuners will send the broadcasting packets throughout your home network to televisions, possibly DVRs, and, of course, to your tablets and phones. further, the broadcasters have been talking up being able to have mobile devices in remote locations like your smartphone being able to tune and display the broadcast signal. In other words, watching live over the air TV on your smartphone because atsc 3.0 is IP. it would be like any other stream as if it were coming through your wireless network, but instead it is the ATSC 3.0 broadcast signal carrying the stream picked up by your phone or tablet to watch free OTA broadcast TV.

There have been no true promises, but the broadcasters and their promoters talk as if they are promising everything by using phrases such as "What we can do . . ." as opposed to "what we might . . ." or "What we could do . . ." To some people, such language implies and certainly sounds like a "promise" or a "definitely will do" feature. In other words, the broadcasters are still selling atsc 3.0 to the public amd the FCC.

What is interesting is that the four major networks are not excited, nor looking forward to about atsc 3.0( they're owned by Studios and major media companies who already have their fingers deep into the IP pie). Instead it is the vast majority of independent stations (many owned by very large companies) who make up most of the NAB and its missions and objectives, and NAB has a massive love affair for ATSC 3.0. one of the reasons is this a potential for targeted advertising and other possible streams of new Revenue that likely include selling some of your viewing habits. remember your atsc 3.0 is connected to your home network and of course the internet. they're probably not even talkin about all sorts of other Revenue they can get from this. Oh yeah, and it's supposed to be UHD to sell it to the masses.

Again, broadcasters aren't promising crap, because they don't know how well 3.0 will be received. THAT'S why the networks aren't excited... there's no mandate (and associated reimbursement) from the government like there was to go to DTV. So stations will put out hundreds of thousands of dollars to broadcast 3.0 to reach how many viewers? And you think they'll put different content on 3.0 than on 1.0? Why? That's added cost too, and you're not really gaining any more eyes than what you have now.

It's an entire "chicken and egg" thing.

 

[DishSubLA]

Again, broadcasters aren't promising crap, because they don't know how well 3.0 will be received. THAT'S why the networks aren't excited... there's no mandate (and associated reimbursement) from the government like there was to go to DTV. So stations will put out hundreds of thousands of dollars to broadcast 3.0 to reach how many viewers? And you think they'll put different content on 3.0 than on 1.0? Why? That's added cost too, and you're not really gaining any more eyes than what you have now.

It's an entire "chicken and egg" thing.

To your points:

1. Broadcasters aren't promising anything because they don't want to be held to their word.

2.The big Nets, owned by studios, already have TONS of cable/sat/Virtual MVPD channels making them tons of money along with all the movies in their vaults. The big 4 view ATSC 3.0 as a huge expense for little return. Further, the big 4 had proposed simply adding HDR to the current ATSC 1.0 HD INSTEAD of spending $$$ for ATSC 3.0, since what really makes UHD amazing to view or what people notice as an immediate improvement is NOT really the resolution but the greater color pallet and greater contrast ratio. HDR can be added to the current ATSC 1.0, but the "independents" (owned by pretty big companies) need a gimmick because they don't own studios nor are they part of MASSIVE media companies.

3. It is NOT about gaining anymore "eyes," it's about gaining all your viewing habits and building personal data on households/viewers that can be turned into targeted ads and data to sell to the bidders who will call and junk mail you, and slip by your ISP's spam filter to get your attention. It is also about delivering downstream streaming services such as Netflix to rural areas with households willing to pay for such service at a pretty low price. This will NOT replace satellite or dial-up ISP services in rural area, it only provides delivery of Netflix or Hulu at a better speed than either satellite (with its crushing data caps) or dial ups can do today.

FWIW, ATSC 3.0 would, thankfully, not use the "ATSC " for its platform, but would use the DVB-T platforms (at least as I last heard) which has always been superior to ATSC from day one, despite the "rigged" arguments about ATSC performing better at greater distances because the most common complaint of ATSC is multi-path, and that affects far more people who live in far more populated areas. It's about time.

Although I had answered all your points in the post you responded to, I took the time to respond thinking you didn't have time to read the earlier post to the end.

 

[mwdxer1]

OK, I'll bite... what promises did the BROADCASTERS make for ATSC 3.0? I'm not talking about the standards committee or manufacturers of 3.0 equipment, I'm talking the broadcasters themselves.

I was told and read that the broadcasters will be able to offer high speed internet from neighborhood call antennas. These are supposed to be small and just cover a neighborhood (low power). This will offer high speed in areas not available as well as more competition for the current suppliers. It will give the broadcaster more $$$ too.

 

[sam_gordon]

I was told and read that the broadcasters will be able to offer high speed internet from neighborhood call antennas. These are supposed to be small and just cover a neighborhood (low power). This will offer high speed in areas not available as well as more competition for the current suppliers. It will give the broadcaster more $$$ too.

But that's not a "promise". It's a listed possibility (possibly by a manufacturer) of a potential capability. THAT'S my point. If you had broadcasters (usually through the NAB) saying "If we had ATSC 3.0, we will give everyone high speed internet.", THAT'S a promise. Someone saying "With ATSC 3.0, high speed internet could be sent over the television airways", that's not a promise.

 

[sam_gordon]

To your points:

1. Broadcasters aren't promising anything because they don't want to be held to their word.

And I'm the only one who challenged a PP who said broadcasters made promises.

2.The big Nets, owned by studios, already have TONS of cable/sat/Virtual MVPD channels making them tons of money along with all the movies in their vaults. The big 4 view ATSC 3.0 as a huge expense for little return. Further, the big 4 had proposed simply adding HDR to the current ATSC 1.0 HD INSTEAD of spending $$$ for ATSC 3.0, since what really makes UHD amazing to view or what people notice as an immediate improvement is NOT really the resolution but the greater color pallet and greater contrast ratio. HDR can be added to the current ATSC 1.0, but the "independents" (owned by pretty big companies) need a gimmick because they don't own studios nor are they part of MASSIVE media companies.

Are we talking broadcasters or networks? While nets do own some stations, it's not really a lot. And you echoed my point with the bolded.

3. It is NOT about gaining anymore "eyes," it's about gaining all your viewing habits and building personal data on households/viewers that can be turned into targeted ads and data to sell to the bidders who will call and junk mail you, and slip by your ISP's spam filter to get your attention. It is also about delivering downstream streaming services such as Netflix to rural areas with households willing to pay for such service at a pretty low price. This will NOT replace satellite or dial-up ISP services in rural area, it only provides delivery of Netflix or Hulu at a better speed than either satellite (with its crushing data caps) or dial ups can do today.

Targeted ads would be a goal of broadcasters. They could sell the same ad time slot to multiple people. And again, I am personally not convinced ATSC 3 could be used as an internet delivery platform. Just because tests/theories say it can be done doesn't mean it's practical.