We May Be Seeing the Beginning of the End of the TV Business

[eacalhoun]

In the traditional sense of the TV/Broadcast Network business, we may be seeing the beginning of its collapse. This is probably not surprising news to us who frequent this and similar discussion boards. But, this article makes for interesting reading as comparisons are made to what the internet has done to the "traditional" newspaper business and the internet's current and future impact on the TV business:

Don't Mean To Be Alarmist, But The TV Business May Be Starting To Collapse - Business Insider

 

[MikeD-C05]

I think they are right. The traditional tv model for sat /cable is collapsing as we speak. Look at news papers and how they are going under. The future is internet and Vod. You watch any show when you want to . Who needs 200-300 channels anyway? Look at AMC as an example. I only watch two shows on that channel and rarely ever watch it at any other time. Same thing on many other cable channels. A few shows scattered through out the top 200 and I pay over 59.99 a month for the right to do so. I could most likely pay just for the shows I really watch and possibly cut my monthly bill .

 

[whitewolf8214]

I think they are right. The traditional tv model for sat /cable is collapsing as we speak. Look at news papers and how they are going under. The future is internet and Vod. You watch any show when you want to . Who needs 200-300 channels anyway? Look at AMC as an example. I only watch two shows on that channel and rarely ever watch it at any other time. Same thing on many other cable channels. A few shows scattered through out the top 200 and I pay over 59.99 a month for the right to do so. I could most likely pay just for the shows I really watch and possibly cut my monthly bill .

+1

 

[jbrooks987]

I would tend to disagree. While many of the traditional "shows" one finds on TV are now available (for the 50th rerun) on cable/satellite channels, you will NOT find local news, unless you get it OTA, or the cable/satellite package provides the local channels. Like it or not, local news is important to a large number of the citizens in this country.

 

[patmurphey]

I think they are right. The traditional tv model for sat /cable is collapsing as we speak. Look at news papers and how they are going under. The future is internet and Vod. You watch any show when you want to . Who needs 200-300 channels anyway? Look at AMC as an example. I only watch two shows on that channel and rarely ever watch it at any other time. Same thing on many other cable channels. A few shows scattered through out the top 200 and I pay over 59.99 a month for the right to do so. I could most likely pay just for the shows I really watch and possibly cut my monthly bill .

We are a very long way from having the bandwidth for a majority of households to routinely do ala carte HDTV via internet/VOD (not to mention competing internet products). It seems to work well now because usage is far, far from universal. The cable/satellite model is a far more efficient method of delivering content. Ala carte viewing is going to be far more expensive and will make investment in good programming much riskier without the current availability of wide distribution. I don't doubt that change will be coming, but I don't for a second believe it will make HDTV less expensive than today.


News on the internet does't use much banwidth. Music downloads are relatively small, stored locally and played over and over - better and more efficient than previous distribution. HDTV downloads or streams are huge and rarely watched more than once. Books are small - doesn't matter if only read once. We have a long way to go before HDTV can be distributed as efficiently as today.

 

[lparsons21]

I would tend to disagree. While many of the traditional "shows" one finds on TV are now available (for the 50th rerun) on cable/satellite channels, you will NOT find local news, unless you get it OTA, or the cable/satellite package provides the local channels. Like it or not, local news is important to a large number of the citizens in this country.

Yep, that is certainly one of the things missing from internet provided stuff. Add to it most sports, and those that are on the internet aren't free or cheap either.

New scripted shows are available for free now in many cases, but the very best stuff has to be paid for at about $30-35 in HD per series. But the ones that are now free wouldn't stay that way as thing change either. You don't think that if all the sat/cable providers folded today that the 'cable' type channels would still offer their stuff free or cheap, do you?

And then we are back to the multi-tv homes. How many HD streams can you support with a 3Mb DSL? or a 12Mb CableModem? The answer is with 3Mb, one. With 12Mb, maybe 2 or 3 at the outside. And since neither of those speeds are available to many in this country, you can figure that internet TV is a fun hobby, but it isn't going to take over the bulk of the TV watching business anytime soon.

 

[kstuart]

I would tend to disagree. While many of the traditional "shows" one finds on TV are now available (for the 50th rerun) on cable/satellite channels, you will NOT find local news, unless you get it OTA, or the cable/satellite package provides the local channels. Like it or not, local news is important to a large number of the citizens in this country.

I am not sure about elsewhere, but in California, even small local channels in small markets now have the local news available to stream from their web sites. I was actually able to watch the local news from home, while on vacation many miles away.
But even without that, "unless you get it OTA" is no big problem either, as a $20-$30 antenna from monoprice will get you local news in HD just about anywhere in the US.
For the past few years, many people have switched from cable/satellite to OTA and Roku/Netflix/Amazon.

 

[sam_gordon]

I am not sure about elsewhere, but in California, even small local channels in small markets now have the local news available to stream from their web sites. I was actually able to watch the local news from home, while on vacation many miles away.
But even without that, "unless you get it OTA" is no big problem either, as a $20-$30 antenna from monoprice will get you local news in HD just about anywhere in the US.
For the past few years, many people have switched from cable/satellite to OTA and Roku/Netflix/Amazon.

But according to others here, local broadcasters should "just go away"... there's nothing worth watching.

What I loved about the article...

I might value the TV content we get through our cable company at $20 a month--about 1/5th of what we pay for it. Eventually, as soon as I can figure out ways to get the few sports I watch another way, we'll stop paying the $100.
​

No, actually, you value the current content at $100. If you didn't think it was worth $100, you wouldn't pay it. ​

 

[Scherrman]

I would tend to disagree. While many of the traditional "shows" one finds on TV are now available (for the 50th rerun) on cable/satellite channels, you will NOT find local news, unless you get it OTA, or the cable/satellite package provides the local channels. Like it or not, local news is important to a large number of the citizens in this country.

I agree with what you're saying in the sense that people want to have their local news channels, but for people who are connected to the internet there is barely anything the local news can give a person that you can't find online first. I can get better weather updates and find out even more news by searching online and I don't have to wait for it.

 

[eacalhoun]

Regarding Local TV News - About the only thing I watch on our local TV news is the weather segment, and if I were not a weather junkie I probably wouldn't watch Local TV News at all. Do you really think about how Local (and National) news is dictated? THEY define news, as far as how much and what to cover because they only have x amount of time on the air. What if - like the old Anne Murray song stated back around 1980 - there was NO news, or anything newsworthy? Imagine a local TV news anchor coming on at 5, or 5:30, or 6pm and saying, "We have just one news story today, so we'll cover that, get you a quick weather forecast then show you a special Andy Griffith episode." That ain't gonna happen, as local stations get big bucks for ads in local news. Anyway, there has just gotten to be too much needless banter between anchors on local TV news. If they would just report the news and shut-up. I just don't get that banter when I get my news from the internet.

 

[sam_gordon]

Regarding Local TV News - About the only thing I watch on our local TV news is the weather segment, and if I were not a weather junkie I probably wouldn't watch Local TV News at all. Do you really think about how Local (and National) news is dictated? THEY define news, as far as how much and what to cover because they only have x amount of time on the air. What if - like the old Anne Murray song stated back around 1980 - there was NO news, or anything newsworthy? Imagine a local TV news anchor coming on at 5, or 5:30, or 6pm and saying, "We have just one news story today, so we'll cover that, get you a quick weather forecast then show you a special Andy Griffith episode." That ain't gonna happen, as local stations get big bucks for ads in local news. Anyway, there has just gotten to be too much needless banter between anchors on local TV news. If they would just report the news and shut-up. I just don't get that banter when I get my news from the internet.

But there are others who like the banter (I'm not one of them). Different strokes for different folks. While I'll agree I don't like what my local news carries... you want to know how I get mine? I read a physical newspaper. Actually, that's not accurate... I skim the headlines of the paper. If there's something interesting, I'll read the article. Can I do that online? Sure. But first I have to wait for my computer to wake up (not turn on, wake up), load my browser, click to get to my local paper (or whatever news site), wait for that (and ads) to load, skim the headlines, click on something I want to read, click 'back' when done and wait some more, etc, etc. I can be through my entire paper in the amount of time it would take to get through (skim) the 'front section' online.

I can even take the paper with me to read elsewhere if need be. And, if I drop it, forget it, get it wet, etc, it doesn't matter.

Do I think TV is going away? Nope. Do I think TV is changing? Absolutely!

 

[osu1991]

But there are others who like the banter (I'm not one of them). Different strokes for different folks. While I'll agree I don't like what my local news carries... you want to know how I get mine? I read a physical newspaper. Actually, that's not accurate... I skim the headlines of the paper. If there's something interesting, I'll read the article. Can I do that online? Sure. But first I have to wait for my computer to wake up (not turn on, wake up), load my browser, click to get to my local paper (or whatever news site), wait for that (and ads) to load, skim the headlines, click on something I want to read, click 'back' when done and wait some more, etc, etc. I can be through my entire paper in the amount of time it would take to get through (skim) the 'front section' online.

I can even take the paper with me to read elsewhere if need be. And, if I drop it, forget it, get it wet, etc, it doesn't matter.

Do I think TV is going away? Nope. Do I think TV is changing? Absolutely!

Then you need to join the 21st century and get a tablet.
Instant on, tap newspaper or news app and starting skimming, reading whatever.

 

[osu1991]

But according to others here, local broadcasters should "just go away"... there's nothing worth watching.

What I loved about the article...
No, actually, you value the current content at $100. If you didn't think it was worth $100, you wouldn't pay it. [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

We may pay $100 for cable/sat, that doesn't mean we value it at that price. It means that is the price we have to pay to get the few things out of it that we do value and the rest we find an acceptable loss at this time.

 

[R0ss]

We may pay $100 for cable/sat, that doesn't mean we value it at that price. It means that is the price we have to pay to get the few things out of it that we do value and the rest we find an acceptable loss at this time.

+1

Ross

Sent from my rooted DROID RAZR Maxx using SatelliteGuys

 

[stardust3]

I agree we are in the beginning of the end of TV as we know it. The internet is the pipeline for everything. While some are starved for bandwidth there are plenty who have more than they know what to do with. There is 1 provider in this dma making a huge footprint with ftth offering a 50meg standard connection & expanding territory everyday. The way it's delivered is also a factor in future growth. Look what mkv has done compared to mov files, basically the same quality with a fraction of the size. Yes I believe we are living right now in the wild wild west of what we call the internet. While many hurdles lay ahead we are truly witnessing history in the making.................

 

[jimdandyvi]

The first US TV Broadcast was in 1928. CBS began broadcasting TV seven days a week in NYC in 1931.

According to an article published today:

Streaming-content views don't rival traditional TV
Consumers still overwhelmingly watch TV shows on traditional televisions, with 98% of all TV video watched either live or time-shifted on TV, and just 1.5% consumed over the Internet, according to TVB. A comScore study, however, shows that there are 105 million daily viewers of online video in the U.S., up 30% over last year, with far fewer ads per minute of content consumed online. MediaPost Communications/MediaDailyNews

Traditional TV isn't going away soon. It will change, but IMHO it will still being going strong on its 100th anniversary.

 

[sam_gordon]

Then you need to join the 21st century and get a tablet.
Instant on, tap newspaper or news app and starting skimming, reading whatever.

And as I mentioned... if I drop it, forget it, get it wet? Then what do I have? A thin (but expensive) paper weight.

 

[sam_gordon]

We may pay $100 for cable/sat, that doesn't mean we value it at that price. It means that is the price we have to pay to get the few things out of it that we do value and the rest we find an acceptable loss at this time.

umm, that's EXACTLY what it means. Would you pay $500 a month for the same service? What about $1000? I'm guessing the answer is 'no'. It's not worth $500/month to you. But it IS worth paying $100. If you didn't think it was worth paying the money, you wouldn't pay it.

I wouldn't pay 50 cents for some broccoli. It's just not worth it. However, I'll pay $10 for a pork chop meal at a restaurant.

 

[sam_gordon]

Traditional TV isn't going away soon. It will change, but IMHO it will still being going strong on its 100th anniversary.

+1

 

[osu1991]

umm, that's EXACTLY what it means. Would you pay $500 a month for the same service? What about $1000? I'm guessing the answer is 'no'. It's not worth $500/month to you. But it IS worth paying $100. If you didn't think it was worth paying the money, you wouldn't pay it.

I wouldn't pay 50 cents for some broccoli. It's just not worth it. However, I'll pay $10 for a pork chop meal at a restaurant.

No. The Value placed on something and what it's actually Worth are 2 different things.

Well I hope if you're dropping papers, you at least are picking them up and not littering the countryside.
A little thing called a case makes dropping my tablet a non event. Water you got me on. I don't want to find out, but I am sure it doesn't play well with water