Topkat
1st String
Posts: 1,666
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 26
I Root For: TheCats
Location:
|
American TV operators stem subscriber losses
|
|
11-10-2015 01:31 PM |
|
MWC Tex
Heisman
Posts: 7,850
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 179
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
|
RE: American TV operators stem subscriber losses
Interesting find.
It looks like that more people just dropping completely. One thing I do wonder now that I have been 're-exposed' to the OTA channels is that there are many more channels available due to the digital format where 1 station can broadcast sub-channels and provide more content. Until I hooked up my antenna, I didn't there so many channels out there over the air. Yes, some are infomercial and religious channels, but there are quite a few others that and even show sports on the sub-channels also.
|
|
11-10-2015 01:46 PM |
|
TardisCaptain
2nd String
Posts: 332
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 13
I Root For: Starfleet Acdmy
Location:
|
RE: American TV operators stem subscriber losses
I found out I had 40 channels over the air with a simple $40 antenna. I'm considering getting an outdoor antenna.
|
|
11-10-2015 02:06 PM |
|
Topkat
1st String
Posts: 1,666
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 26
I Root For: TheCats
Location:
|
RE: American TV operators stem subscriber losses
(11-10-2015 01:46 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: Interesting find.
It looks like that more people just dropping completely. One thing I do wonder now that I have been 're-exposed' to the OTA channels is that there are many more channels available due to the digital format where 1 station can broadcast sub-channels and provide more content. Until I hooked up my antenna, I didn't there so many channels out there over the air. Yes, some are infomercial and religious channels, but there are quite a few others that and even show sports on the sub-channels also.
That's true. I get my over the air channels through rabbit ear antenna to also pick up the sub channels.
I have sat, they want an extra few dollars a month for locals, but they only give you the "main" locals in our area (no sub channels), so, what's the point? We still enjoy the other channels sat gives us.
So far the dropped subscribers appear no more than normal, people changing lifestyles. The market is saturated, though.
(This post was last modified: 11-10-2015 02:25 PM by Topkat.)
|
|
11-10-2015 02:10 PM |
|
TrojanCampaign
All American
Posts: 4,694
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 170
I Root For: USC, AAMU,
Location: Huntsville
|
RE: American TV operators stem subscriber losses
(11-10-2015 02:06 PM)TardisCaptain Wrote: I found out I had 40 channels over the air with a simple $40 antenna. I'm considering getting an outdoor antenna.
How many of those are real channels and not independent stations?
|
|
11-10-2015 02:18 PM |
|
MplsBison
Banned
Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
|
RE: American TV operators stem subscriber losses
Here's the thing about OTA content: the channels make less money overall than if the content was just on cable.
The ratings for OTA are usually much higher, so the advertising revenue is higher.
But they don't get carriage fees for OTA content.
That tells me right there that carriage fees are a more important revenue source for channels than advertising revenue is.
It just goes back into supporting my hypothesis that the business model for channels is just as dependent on the carriage fee model as distributors are dependent on channels for content.
(This post was last modified: 11-10-2015 02:48 PM by MplsBison.)
|
|
11-10-2015 02:46 PM |
|
TexanMark
Legend
Posts: 25,677
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 1331
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: St. Augustine, FL
|
RE: American TV operators stem subscriber losses
(11-10-2015 02:06 PM)TardisCaptain Wrote: I found out I had 40 channels over the air with a simple $40 antenna. I'm considering getting an outdoor antenna.
http://www.solidsignal.com
|
|
11-10-2015 02:48 PM |
|
Kittonhead
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
|
RE: American TV operators stem subscriber losses
The real competition for the cable companies is going to be from the wireless companies not the internet TV providers.
Once the wireless companies improve their speeds and provide unlimited data across for their whole platform then they'll be able to compete against the DSL providers.
|
|
11-10-2015 02:54 PM |
|
Topkat
1st String
Posts: 1,666
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 26
I Root For: TheCats
Location:
|
RE: American TV operators stem subscriber losses
(11-10-2015 02:18 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote: (11-10-2015 02:06 PM)TardisCaptain Wrote: I found out I had 40 channels over the air with a simple $40 antenna. I'm considering getting an outdoor antenna.
How many of those are real channels and not independent stations?
You know, I don't know. I assume PBS is independent.
Some of the sub channels that are picked up (MeTV, Laff, Bounce, Grit, Buzzr, Antenna TV, Tuff, Cozi, ThisTV, Comet TV, getTV)... I really haven't looked into them other than watch some shows.
Then there are the nationals ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox...
(This post was last modified: 11-10-2015 03:08 PM by Topkat.)
|
|
11-10-2015 02:55 PM |
|
MplsBison
Banned
Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
|
RE: American TV operators stem subscriber losses
(11-10-2015 02:54 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: The real competition for the cable companies is going to be from the wireless companies not the internet TV providers.
Once the wireless companies improve their speeds and provide unlimited data across for their whole platform then they'll be able to compete against the DSL providers.
Yeah ... and once pigs fly, they'll compete with birds for air dominance.
The entire model for wireless companies is to charge extra fees for data usage.
|
|
11-10-2015 03:00 PM |
|
Kittonhead
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
|
RE: American TV operators stem subscriber losses
(11-10-2015 03:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote: (11-10-2015 02:54 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: The real competition for the cable companies is going to be from the wireless companies not the internet TV providers.
Once the wireless companies improve their speeds and provide unlimited data across for their whole platform then they'll be able to compete against the DSL providers.
Yeah ... and once pigs fly, they'll compete with birds for air dominance.
The entire model for wireless companies is to charge extra fees for data usage.
That's the problem.
The big 4 were trotting out lower prices with secondary carriers like Cricket and Boost Mobile.
Boost Mobile has 10GB for 50 dollars with its mobile internet but its a separate plan from its cellular service. Cell phone plan is another 30 dollars. Add in the Sling TV then maybe $120 between internet, cell and TV needs.
Verizon has 12GB for 80 dollars, $20 access fee per phone, $10 access fee per mifi. At $110 plus taxes and fees ($130). Then with an internet TV plan its $150.
Sprint is $110 dollars for 30 GB, Separate phone plan for $20 and with internet TV plan is $160-$170 dollars.
So if you can get a $70 dollar internet/TV plan from Comcast and a 30 dollar phone plan from a secondary cell carrier you're beating any deal you can get from a primary cell carrier across its platform & adding internet TV.
(This post was last modified: 11-10-2015 06:03 PM by Kittonhead.)
|
|
11-10-2015 06:02 PM |
|
MplsBison
Banned
Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
|
RE: American TV operators stem subscriber losses
So I think the point here is that data from from mobile phone technology is way too expensive, per GB, for most home usage.
I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future. Home usage will need land lines.
|
|
11-10-2015 06:21 PM |
|
DavidSt
Hall of Famer
Posts: 23,062
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 778
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
|
RE: American TV operators stem subscriber losses
Suddenlink must have cooked their books. There is no way they gain 42,000 subscribers when there are way too many people complaining of the prices.
|
|
11-10-2015 07:22 PM |
|