Future of cable/satellite TV

[Moe]

I will say I'm not a "cable is dying" person, because I don't think it will, in theory people have thought radio was dying since 1950, so...

I don't think cable TV will be gone and they are still necessary if you can't get local channels with antenna.

That wasn't a cable company reason, that was a producing company reason. Disney was a big example, they made it where you can't have Disney Channel , ABC(in 8 markets), and other channels they own without ESPN (the most expensive cable channel before you get to the premiums) . They connected it. It would also obliterate smaller channels (depending on you feel about that) to go a-la-carte. Disney wasn't the only one but they are the ones that really have the biggest fees to cable companies. Cable companies couldn't make a-la-carte. Some like Spectrum and Comcast have started offering carve out services for smaller prices, you'll notice the sports channels aren't there, and you'll notice Disney's networks aren't in there. There's a reason for that. Also cable companies were subsidizing things, the channels you don't watch but still have were still getting money so people who did watch them could still watch them. If it was a-la-carte the prices would be higher, even ESPN. That's why DTC ESPN will be in the $30/mo per subscriber range versus the around $12 ($9 just for ESPN (1) through cable.

That why I believed la carte concept is flawed and have more subscriber pool make cable channel more affordable and yeah, you are right about networks forced cable and satellite TV companies to include all main channels. No ESPN = No Disney Channel. It looks like Disney is willing to make a dent by allow Spectrum to offer Disney Channel without ESPN but it is very unusual.

Sport leagues like NFL want prices to be a higher, so that why ESPN is getting more expensive over time.

I know ASTC 3.0* is around and stuff, any maybe that'll make the bandwidth better, but at this moment there's not that much room and would be a lot of awful 480i widescreen broadcasting kids channels, which wouldn't be fun.

Yes, I felt that TV stations don't bother to take advantage of ATSC 3.0 and FCC isn't bother to do transition like they did with analog to digital in 2000s. There is strong public pressure to push FCC to ban on DRM but they rather to require all stations to carry ATSC 1.0 and it is likely that they will push further after 2027. I'm not sure if FCC would reconsider if association agrees to eliminate the DRM. Unlike cable TV operators, TV station operators don't know to do with digital subchannels and their quality is always more crappy than cable channels.

There are some organizations are calling for complete elimination of broadcast TV and free up all spectrums for mobile carriers, so it means all local stations would have to transition from airwave to internet delivered local channels. Those are seen as nonstarter and it is unlikely.

*also ATSC 3.0 would give broadcasters the ability to put things behind a paywall, if they wanted to, some stations have used it to already making recording harder. Again at current time ATSC 3.0 turners are pricy.

ATSC 1.0 has DRM that is broadcast flag = it means recording is prohibited but it is rarely or never used. ATSC 3.0 is just next level with tons of DRM and they can block specific turners. If turners don't support DRM or outdated, so they wouldn't able to receive channels that are DRMed.

FCC gave broadcasters a hard time so they can't shut ATSC 1.0 down or reduce HD to SD since broadcasters just want move to ATSC 3.0 quickly without consider about viewers who don't have access to ATSC 3.0.

ATSC 3.0 allow to expand the coverage but it is unlikely for stations to consider because they want you to subscribe cable or satellite TV to receive local channels, so they can collect $$$$ from retransmission fees.

 

[JMTV]

Personally, I had no idea what the future holds for cable TV at this point. Even though it wasn't as good as it used to be, but I wouldn't say it's dying yet.

The problem with streaming is these companies wanted to be the next Netflix, but didn't realize that Netflix has a sustainable business model that worked for years, and they considered the outlier of traditional entertainment.

When other companies trying to get the piece of the pie, it just doesn't work. What made them work is by producing content to profitable venues like movie theaters, digital media, physical media, AND cable and satellite TV in order to gain more revenue back from the studios. You cannot fix something that isn't broken just because the internet rules the world.

 

[cartoonnetworkpoke]

Personally, I had no idea what the future holds for cable TV at this point. Even though it wasn't as good as it used to be, but I wouldn't say it's dying yet.

The problem with streaming is these companies wanted to be the next Netflix, but didn't realize that Netflix has a sustainable business model that worked for years, and they considered the outlier of traditional entertainment.

When other companies trying to get the piece of the pie, it just doesn't work. What made them work is by producing content to profitable venues like movie theaters, digital media, physical media, AND cable and satellite TV in order to gain more revenue back from the studios. You cannot fix something that isn't broken just because the internet rules the world.

Yeah pretty much this. The market should've never tried to push everything to streaming. Finding different ways for people to watch content is what made them profitable.

I know his name is controversial but Rupert Murdoch did suggest that if other media companies wanted to get into streaming it would have been better for all of them to share one platform so then they don't have to Bare the costs. Plus having a la carte would've been a good addition too.

Here's the article link: Rupert Murdoch urges media firms to unite to fight Amazon and Netflix

 

[aegisrawks]

Personally, I had no idea what the future holds for cable TV at this point. Even though it wasn't as good as it used to be, but I wouldn't say it's dying yet.

The problem with streaming is these companies wanted to be the next Netflix, but didn't realize that Netflix has a sustainable business model that worked for years, and they considered the outlier of traditional entertainment.

When other companies trying to get the piece of the pie, it just doesn't work. What made them work is by producing content to profitable venues like movie theaters, digital media, physical media, AND cable and satellite TV in order to gain more revenue back from the studios. You cannot fix something that isn't broken just because the internet rules the world.

I was about to to say this was not true, Netflix's model is NOT susteinable at all, but the rest is major truth being spoken.

 

[JMTV]

I was about to to say this was not true, Netflix's model is NOT susteinable at all, but the rest is major truth being spoken.

Fair enough. The reason why I said that was because Netflix has that winning formula than any other companies had when it comes to their business model. Not that I agree with it since Netflix has its own issues, but I just wanna point that out.

Yeah pretty much this. The market should've never tried to push everything to streaming. Finding different ways for people to watch content is what made them profitable.

Exactly. Why fix something that isn't broken? More money and power? At the expense of the consumers and the creatives? Make it make sense.

 

[aegisrawks]

Fair enough. The reason why I said that was because Netflix has that winning formula than any other companies had when it comes to their business model. Not that I agree with it since Netflix has its own issues, but I just wanna point that out.


Exactly. Why fix something that isn't broken? More money and power? At the expense of the consumers and the creatives? Make it make sense.

Yeah your post is awesome, it's very well thought out in its entirety. But as a fallible human I saw the first part and jumped to conclusions.

 

[JMTV]

Yeah your post is awesome, it's very well thought out in its entirety. But as a fallible human I saw the first part and jumped to conclusions.

Thank you. I understand, and you're completely fine.

 

[Goldstar!]

I know his name is controversial but Rupert Murdoch did suggest that if other media companies wanted to get into streaming it would have been better for all of them to share one platform so then they don't have to Bare the costs.

This is why I believe that in the next few years, we'll likely see more jointly owned mega steamers between different studios, like how Paramount has been floating around combining streamers with Peacock. Each studio having it's own personal platform may have sounded like a good idea in theory, but right now there are more streaming services than the market can sustain.

 

[LinusFan303]

Yeah pretty much this. The market should've never tried to push everything to streaming. Finding different ways for people to watch content is what made them profitable.

I know his name is controversial but Rupert Murdoch did suggest that if other media companies wanted to get into streaming it would have been better for all of them to share one platform so then they don't have to Bare the costs. Plus having a la carte would've been a good addition too.

Here's the article link: Rupert Murdoch urges media firms to unite to fight Amazon and Netflix

That's what Hulu was for , then they lost the plot. In theory, they could have just crushed streaming in 2014, by not selling their rights to Netflix and Amazon.

This is why I believe that in the next few years, we'll likely see more jointly owned mega steamers between different studios, like how Paramount has been floating around combining streamers with Peacock. Each studio having it's own personal platform may have sounded like a good idea in theory, but right now there are more streaming services than the market can sustain.

It would make more sense they just followed the old model of selling stuff to other services, like how TV media worked for 70 something years, the only hurdle is sports streaming.

There are some organizations are calling for complete elimination of broadcast TV and free up all spectrums for mobile carriers, so it means all local stations would have to transition from airwave to internet delivered local channels. Those are seen as nonstarter and it is unlikely.

I don't think broadcast TV would die out that way either. When there was stories of car makers getting rid of AM radio, Congress and a bunch of groups got mad.

 

[Moe]

I don't think broadcast TV would die out that way either. When there was stories of car makers getting rid of AM radio, Congress and a bunch of groups got mad.

It wasn't reason and it was intended to free up the spectrum for mobile carriers (AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon) after reported about spectrum deficit at time when 3G was heavily congested in late 2000s and early 2010s.

That would require the lawmakers to make an requirement for cable or satellite to provide an access to local channels only at no charge to Americans who are low income, and others gave idea about transition to streaming local channels.

That didn't happen and FCC just auctioned some spectrum off, not all of spectrum that is allotted for TV.

I noticed that lawmakers are becoming less enthusiastic with broadcast networks today, unlike in 1980s that they heavily supported and protected broadcast networks.

Mobile carriers would LOVE to buy all of VHF and remaining of UHF but FCC didn't let this to happen for now.

 

[harry580]

I wonder if paramount & peacock ends up merging their streaming services, maybe sony could be a partner in the new joint venture

 

[Moe]

I wonder if paramount & peacock ends up merging their streaming services, maybe sony could be a partner in the new joint venture

That is between Paramount+ and Peacock, so Sony is unlikely to get involved in this matter because they aren’t into streaming game after sold Crackle and they rather to manage anime based streaming (Crunchyroll).

Sony’s involvement would be strictly for investment purpose.

It is just like Microsoft invested in Apple back in 1997 to help Apple recover from near bankruptcy.

 

[cartoonnetworkpoke]

That's what Hulu was for , then they lost the plot. In theory, they could have just crushed streaming in 2014, by not selling their rights to Netflix and Amazon.


It would make more sense they just followed the old model of selling stuff to other services, like how TV media worked for 70 something years, the only hurdle is sports streaming.

I don't think broadcast TV would die out that way either. When there was stories of car makers getting rid of AM radio, Congress and a bunch of groups got mad.

Yeah Hulu should've been Disney, FOX, CBS, NBC, Sony, AMC, Discovery, and etc putting all their content there. Plus also merging Hulu with cable (assuming there was a a la carte available) would have put Netflix down in the gutter for sure.

 

[Moe]

Best scenario - you would see a la carte are premium channels that been exist around for decades and on-demand service like Amazon's Prime Video Channels, Apple TV Channels and Roku's Movies & TV Channels.

Cartoon Network as a la carte? Unlikely unless you want Max + Boomerang streaming with optional access to free service - Tubi.

Have a la carte for cable TV is going to make media business more complicated than they already right now in streaming era.

 

[Goldstar!]

My prediction: there will be a small number of big streaming services jointly owned by multiple companies and studios instead of 20 smaller ones owned by a single studio.

 

[cartoonnetworkpoke]

Best scenario - you would see a la carte are premium channels that been exist around for decades and on-demand service like Amazon's Prime Video Channels, Apple TV Channels and Roku's Movies & TV Channels.

Cartoon Network as a la carte? Unlikely unless you want Max + Boomerang streaming with optional access to free service - Tubi.

Have a la carte for cable TV is going to make media business more complicated than they already right now in streaming era.

I know there are some drawbacks but I think its better for the consumer. I mean in the end we'll never know because it's never been tried in the US. But in other nations I've seen its been successful and you never know how it could've been dealt out.

 

[Moe]

I know there are some drawbacks but I think its better for the consumer. I mean in the end we'll never know because it's never been tried in the US. But in other nations I've seen its been successful and you never know how it could've been dealt out.

The a la carte for cable TV would need to start back in 2000s before decline of cable TV started and I remembered about our lawmakers attempted to legislate the bill to force cable and satellite TV operators to offer a la carte but heavy fight from cable, satellite, sport leagues and network (studios) thwarted those attempt.

Cable, satellite and network are more concerned about sport channels because they are seen as biggest moneymaking back in 2000s.

Right now, cable/satellite TV is declining and have a la carte isn't going to help when studios get less money and it does cause to add extra complication that lead to much less money or no revenues. As for reason, they are aggressive with streaming services and FAST.

Some cable TV companies like Spectrum offer alternative package that allow to pick 15 channels from approved list for $30 per month and include all local channels, but there a catch, local channels are subjecting to costly broadcast surcharge that is $25 per month on top of $30 per month, so with additional tax and fee = $65 per month. That is very messy.

 

[cartoonnetworkpoke]

The a la carte for cable TV would need to start back in 2000s before decline of cable TV started and I remembered about our lawmakers attempted to legislate the bill to force cable and satellite TV operators to offer a la carte but heavy fight from cable, satellite, sport leagues and network (studios) thwarted those attempt.

Cable, satellite and network are more concerned about sport channels because they are seen as biggest moneymaking back in 2000s.

Right now, cable/satellite TV is declining and have a la carte isn't going to help when studios get less money and it does cause to add extra complication that lead to much less money or no revenues. As for reason, they are aggressive with streaming services and FAST.

Some cable TV companies like Spectrum offer alternative package that allow to pick 15 channels from approved list for $30 per month and include all local channels, but there a catch, local channels are subjecting to costly broadcast surcharge that is $25 per month on top of $30 per month, so with additional tax and fee = $65 per month. That is very messy.

Oh I understand. I guess I should've been more clear. For me personally a la carte should've been available in the 2000s or the early 2010s. It's kinda of late to do it now like you mentioned.