The other side of the coin is that those same programmers who want so much more per channel, also want better package placement for their channels. Thus, as channels keep moving down to lower packages, many viewers find that they can lower their subscription level, and still watch most (or all) of the channels that they enjoy.I guess we did get off topic. One thing that has killed the great American cable packages, that since the programmers want so much more per channel, the $100+ bill per sub is killing the big package. Some still bite the bullet to get most, but it is so expensive. Now that the OTA channels want even more, it is killing cable & satellite. Streaming is a lot less, as people discover they do not need all of the channels they get. There has to be a limit and I think we are there. I know of several that used to get AT250. Now they get AT120.
Money is killing the bundle.
And the "packaged" delivery systems (Directv.Dish, Cable are going to continue to get whacked by Netflix and over the air reception.
Twenty percent of homes in the U.S. use a digital antenna to access live TV, up from 16 percent just two years ago, according to Parks Associates market research in Texas.
Antenna sales are rising, in another sign of churn in TV watching
I wonder how many of those people are going to go buy a new antenna as the repacks happen and channels move down into VHF. And then how many are going to buy a ATSC 3 tuner when the time (eventually) comes.
No VHF channels are coming to this market. It’s mostly the biggest DMA’s that will have VHF and VHF-Lo.
It is not about 3.0 vs. 1.0. It is about UHF vs. VHF. Many people can get by with UHF-only antennas now, but after the re-pack, they will need antennas that are also capable of VHF, or they will not get all of the channels.No need for a new antenna. The antennas you currently use will be find with 3.0. The only thing needed will be the 3.0 tuner and it may something as simple as a HDMI dongle that runs from the TV. TV stations are already looking at it for more revenue as they can add more sub channels and get better quality.
It is not about 3.0 vs. 1.0. It is about UHF vs. VHF. Many people can get by with UHF-only antennas now, but after the re-pack, they will need antennas that are also capable of VHF, or they will not get all of the channels.
What is ironic to me is the telecoms always say they don't just want to be a dumb pipe to the Internet, but they are essentially giving away video services (or in some cases, losing money on it), just to be the preferred pipe to the Internet for as many as possible. In cities, there will be competition at least. In the rural areas, you get what you get unless LEO satellite internet services really start to take off.
Yeah but keep in mind if the internet provider provides the video, the customer is streaming less and they make more money because the customer is using less data.
I don’t think Leo satellites are ever coming.
Mobile carriers also throttle video back to 480p on most plans. They might be an "unlimited pipe" and offering zero-rated video services, but so often the quality is garbage.
That’s a bunch of bull$hit. Unlimited should be unlimited, not 22 gig or based on network congestion or a reduced video quality.
The carriers need to stop calling it unlimited.
The fact of the matter is people don’t care if it’s unlimited or not. The problem is that most customers don’t understand data usage, and the term unlimited means they don’t have to watch their data usage or get hit with overages.
On my Verizon account I get 82 gigs of data shared with 25 lines on a business account.
Data is $200, each line is $10-$15 depending if its an iPad or smart phone.
Way better than doing unlimited.
Yeah but keep in mind if the internet provider provides the video, the customer is streaming less and they make more money because the customer is using less data.
On my Verizon account I get 82 gigs of data shared with 25 lines on a business account.
Data is $200, each line is $10-$15 depending if its an iPad or smart phone.
Way better than doing unlimited.
if everything stays on-net for a given vertically-integrated provider.
If watching on a phone or tablet, 480 is fine. IMHO.
Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!
Yeah, but 25 people sharing 82 gigs won't do much streaming, which is where your conversation began.
That’s a bunch of bull$hit. Unlimited should be unlimited, not 22 gig or based on network congestion or a reduced video quality.
The carriers need to stop calling it unlimited.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?