CSNbbs

http://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-in-tal...1426555611

Rumored to plan to offer a service similar to Sling/Dish but would include the major broadcast networks not named NBC.

Not the dream of ala carte supporters rather like Sling/Dish basically offering cable via a different delivery method (just as Dish and Direct offer cable via a different delivery method).

If Tim Cook wants my advice, the two upgrades I'd make to Apple TV would be 1) Standardizing the apps to flag previously viewed episodes, not all apps do it. 2) Include an input for an antenna so I can click an OTA app rather than switch inputs on my TV.

OTA App is a nice idea.

I cut the cord for TV maybe 7 years ago but have kept the DSL because of the speed and extraordinary high prices of data plans from wireless providers.

I've been waiting patiently for data prices to come down to make it possible to completely cut the cord. Sprint is offering 8GB share everything for $70 dollars a month and $15 dollars for phone home service. You'll need to spend $20 on the Mifi. For another $40 dollars you can also share that data with a smartphone.

I've been paying $93 for DSL and home phone. At 4GB for $70 dollars like it is with Verizon its not enough data to cover me in a month. You've got to get to about 8-10GB at a comparable price point to make it worth considering doing away with the DSL.

Current
$92 Sprint (Smartphone)
$92 Comcast (Phone & Internet)
$184 Total

New
$70 8GB Data (Sprint)
$20 Mobile Broadband Device (Sprint)
$15 Home Phone (Sprint)
$40 Smartphone Service (Sprint)
$15 Smartphone Device (Sprint)
$11 Smartphone Insurance (Sprint)
$171 Total

The pricing for broadband data is just crossing the threshold whereby it can compete directly with DSL for the individual customer. Now if you could get away from the Smartphone and just go to a data plan tablet to carry around then you can do even better with data only pricing.

New
$80 12GB Data (Sprint)
$20 Mobile Broadband Device (Sprint)
$15 Home Phone (Sprint)
$10 Tablet (Sprint)
$10 Tablet Insurance (Sprint)
$135 Total

What they need to do is come out with a 6" Tablet you can configure for either for data or both phone & data. I still don't think they have a product like that on the market. I've been checking every 6-8 months for 4-5 years for that kind of product.

The thing with going full broadband is you eliminate the DSL box and you eliminate having to have the box colocated with a cable jack which can be cumbersome depending where its located on the wall. Put the TV where you want it.

Anytime I suggest getting rid of my cellphone the person at the store gives me a puzzled look. I use my home phone 500 minutes a month but my cell only 50 minutes a month because of all the texting now of days. I find incoming cellphone calls annoying as the core purpose of my phone has become data.

Kittonhead man, what in the blazes are you paying for? Anything above $39.99 for DSL is a rip off.

I get Comcast 100 meg internet, cable, and the media channels for 79.99 a month.

(03-17-2015 10:31 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote: [ -> ]Kittonhead man, what in the blazes are you paying for? Anything above $39.99 for DSL is a rip off.

I get Comcast 100 meg internet, cable, and the media channels for 79.99 a month.

Are you counting your cable modem rental and fees in the 79.99?

My $92 is internet, cable modem, phone service and fees.

(03-17-2015 10:39 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-17-2015 10:31 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote: [ -> ]Kittonhead man, what in the blazes are you paying for? Anything above $39.99 for DSL is a rip off.

I get Comcast 100 meg internet, cable, and the media channels for 79.99 a month.

Are you counting your cable modem rental and fees in the 79.99?

My $92 is internet, cable modem, phone service and fees.

Oh, I thought you were saying your internet alone was $92.

And I don't rent equipment from cable companies.

Time Warner...just raised my rates $5 a month (again)...sigh.

Time to call them again and cancel...but wait they'll cut $30 or so off my bill.

Not just cutting the cord on cable/dish TV service ... cutting the cord on major, national service providers altogether! That's my dream, anyway.

In my fantasy, data service (because that's all it really is, nowadays) would be a municipal/county provided utility. Preferably fiber to the residence in all urban scenarios.

Then yes, Apple TV or other similar hardware providers would just work directly with content providers. None of this middleman distribution crap anymore.


Now that HBO is selling ala cart on Apple TV, and with Netflix, I'm already more or less covered. Just waiting for Watch ESPN to provide all games on all their networks for say $20/mo. It will happen one day.

Oh and a BTN channel/app would be nice too. But that would probably cost another $10/mo. Probably wouldn't get that one. Don't have enough time to watch.

(03-17-2015 10:54 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-in-tal...1426555611

Rumored to plan to offer a service similar to Sling/Dish but would include the major broadcast networks not named NBC.

Not the dream of ala carte supporters rather like Sling/Dish basically offering cable via a different delivery method (just as Dish and Direct offer cable via a different delivery method).

If Tim Cook wants my advice, the two upgrades I'd make to Apple TV would be 1) Standardizing the apps to flag previously viewed episodes, not all apps do it. 2) Include an input for an antenna so I can click an OTA app rather than switch inputs on my TV.

Speaking strictly hardware, to add an HD OTA tuner to the apple TV would mean it would have to expand the box size. Those (analog) tuners aren't small.

In theory I suppose the tuning could be done digitally, but I don't think anyone does that and I would guess the Apple TV doesn't have near the processing horsepower that would be required to run that task at 1080p/30. I could be dead wrong though. Just my intuition.

(03-18-2015 09:07 AM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]Not just cutting the cord on cable/dish TV service ... cutting the cord on major, national service providers altogether! That's my dream, anyway.

In my fantasy, data service (because that's all it really is, nowadays) would be a municipal/county provided utility. Preferably fiber to the residence in all urban scenarios.

Then yes, Apple TV or other similar hardware providers would just work directly with content providers. None of this middleman distribution crap anymore.


Now that HBO is selling ala cart on Apple TV, and with Netflix, I'm already more or less covered. Just waiting for Watch ESPN to provide all games on all their networks for say $20/mo. It will happen one day.

Oh and a BTN channel/app would be nice too. But that would probably cost another $10/mo. Probably wouldn't get that one. Don't have enough time to watch.

Service like my city owned electric and city owned water would be great but rare is the city willing to spend that sort of money and do it in the face of the political opposition and campaign funding that the phone and cable companies offer.

Two cities in Arkansas did it years ago because the local cable operators in each city couldn't deliver a clear picture to most homes and were just small enough that the gobbling up of cable systems passed them by. The voters approved a short-term tax hike to fund the build out. In one of the cities as soon as the city owned system came online the private operator declared bankruptcy and walked, in the other the private operator upgraded the system and is competitive and the two were still in operation last I knew.

It's weird how my TV works. My TV will control my receiver and vice versa. I have mine set up so that everything runs thru my receiver (home theatre). So If I want to switch from cable to DVD or my PC, all I do is change the input to that on the receiver, or simply turn on that device, and it will automatically change the input on my receiver, and update the TV channel if necessary (for example, if I turn on the DVD player, it will automatically change the receiver to DVD, and it will play on the TV without me pushing any other buttons). One button. Likewise if I decide to watch TV OTA (the sub-channels which have good content are not available on Uverse, or if I have too many things recording), I simply put that channel in on my TV remote, and it will change the channel, and change the input for me, and change the output to my receiver to reflect "TV" so the sound comes out of the speakers.

I still find cutting the cord for anyone other than people who simply don't watch cable channels to be a lost cause, in terms of finding the cheap way out. Once you upgrade your net to be able to handle the TV viewing bandwidth, and pay for the over the top services, you have often paid the same or more than you would for the most basic cable, and cheaper internet. Certainly not enough more to justify the headache. Now if you are someone who truly doesn't watch cable (live), and can live with OTA and Netflix (like my mom) then it can work. That said, she STILL pays $50 per month for internet and $8 for Netflix, which is more than I paid when I had basic cable and internet plan from Time Warner Cable.

(03-18-2015 09:07 AM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]Now that HBO is selling ala cart on Apple TV, and with Netflix, I'm already more or less covered. Just waiting for Watch ESPN to provide all games on all their networks for say $20/mo. It will happen one day.

Oh and a BTN channel/app would be nice too. But that would probably cost another $10/mo. Probably wouldn't get that one. Don't have enough time to watch.

With netlix costing what 7-9 bucks a month,HBO at 15 or 20 (I should probably know this since I have it), plus the hypothetical ESPN service at 20, plus other newtowrks you may want, dont you eventually come to the possibility that you'll be paying just as much as you would be for cable?

I cut the cord for a year, and it was great. I read a lot more and got a lot more things done, but I eventually caved in because of the Orioles, until I can be guaranteed I'll be able to see every Orioles games plus the playoffs via streaming, Im stuck with cable.

Great article on the shifting market and Apple
http://stratechery.com/2015/changing-unc...ucture-tv/

(03-18-2015 11:04 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]Great article on the shifting market and Apple
http://stratechery.com/2015/changing-unc...ucture-tv/

It is a nice article. I think this figure summarizes well:




In my fantasy, it would/should work like this:

- advertisers: give money to content creators for in-scene placement/in-script endorsements and give money to content delivery for ad time pauses within appropriate streams (sports/live events mostly ... I think these days people expect to be able to watch even an hour long scripted show with no commercial interruption)

- content delivery: these are going to be the end user interfaces/systems for obtaining content, like iTunes, Hulu, Netflix, AppleTV, etc. End users pay for access to these interfaces.

- content creators: content delivery pays for the content they create. This keeps the model basically the same for them.

- data pipe: this is the physical medium by which the end user obtains the content and nothing more. End users pay a fee to the data pipe provider on a total data basis (perhaps 10GB is one price, 25GB is another, etc.) or perhaps they charge a flat rate for all non-video data and then a surcharge for video data (akin to today's mobile phone service that charge flat for unlimited text but surcharge for data).


But the key to this is to kill off companies like Comcast being the data pipe provider.

Comcast has far too large of ego and therefore thinks it needs to keep earning a certain amount of money. Thus, if it was relegated to just being a data pipe ... they'd try to screw everyone over with huge fees.

Hence why we need to limit data pipe providers to being small, local companies -- utilities really.

(03-18-2015 06:46 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-17-2015 10:39 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-17-2015 10:31 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote: [ -> ]Kittonhead man, what in the blazes are you paying for? Anything above $39.99 for DSL is a rip off.

I get Comcast 100 meg internet, cable, and the media channels for 79.99 a month.

Are you counting your cable modem rental and fees in the 79.99?

My $92 is internet, cable modem, phone service and fees.

Oh, I thought you were saying your internet alone was $92.

And I don't rent equipment from cable companies.

On the phone with Comcast right now...this is what they are offering me:

Comcast Triple Play
$130 Preferred TP (Phone, Cable and 25Mbps internet)
$10 Internet Modem
$5 Estimated Fees and Surcharges
$145 Total

Now I can upgrade to "HD preferred" and get a free HD box rental for $150 plus 10 dollar internet modem (50 Mbps) and surcharges. HD preferred includes HBO and a few other movie channels. So for $165 that is my first package access point to HBO.

My bill was $108 last month for phone/interenet/modem/charges from Comcast. If I wanted HBO Go & Sling TV on top of that it would be $143.....and my current cell phone bill is $92. So I would have to pay $235 between both for streaming HBO. Going for TP with HBO plus a smartphone is $257 ($165 for Comcast, $92 from Sprint)

New
$70 8GB Data (Sprint)
$20 Mobile Broadband Device (Sprint)
$15 Home Phone (Sprint)
$15 HBO Go
$20 Sling TV
$40 Smartphone Service (Sprint)
$15 Smartphone Device (Sprint)
$11 Smartphone Insurance (Sprint)
$206 Total

For a better price point I can get a cordless package from my service provider. I lose unlimited data but I don't use that much data to begin with.

I could really do better of course if I could go straight data only.

New-Data Only
$80 12GB Data (Sprint)
$20 Mobile Broadband Device (Sprint)
$15 Home Phone (Sprint)
$15 HBO Go
$20 Sling TV
$10 Tablet (Sprint)
$10 Tablet Insurance (Sprint)
$160 Total

That is a difference in $75 a month ($160 vs. $235) or $900 dollars a year. That is pretty significant cost savings. Even if I could save $25 a month its significant.

The only problem is they don't offer 6" data only devices at the store yet. The smallest is 7" inch and that is usually more like 8" or 9" once the borders are factored in. Not small enough for every day pocket travel.

To give perspective, I bought a 2013 car new and my payment is $212 a month for 48 months. Of course to get that low payment and terms I put mostly cash down but the $212 about what most people pay per month.

Cable and Phone Bills have been in the past perceived to be like another utility bill but now they are for everyone the same size of car payment especially when considered together. They should be considered together because they mostly provide the same functionality for you.

Wireless providers if they aren't able to beat Cable Companies that much in price but they can do it with flexibility (e.g. having better access to content while on the move) its worth just dumping cable.

The sprint phones for instance.....if I want to take that phone into an office or on the road I can do it. I can't do it with the Comcast phones. For someone who works out of state on occasion its a big advantage. The problem with the wireless providers is up until recently the data pricing has been too high and internet TV packages have been super limited.

(03-20-2015 12:39 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ]To give perspective, I bought a 2013 car new and my payment is $212 a month for 48 months. Of course to get that low payment and terms I put mostly cash down but the $212 about what most people pay per month.

Cable and Phone Bills have been in the past perceived to be like another utility bill but now they are for everyone the same size of car payment especially when considered together. They should be considered together because they mostly provide the same functionality for you.

Wireless providers if they aren't able to beat Cable Companies that much in price but they can do it with flexibility (e.g. having better access to content while on the move) its worth just dumping cable.

The sprint phones for instance.....if I want to take that phone into an office or on the road I can do it. I can't do it with the Comcast phones. For someone who works out of state on occasion its a big advantage. The problem with the wireless providers is up until recently the data pricing has been too high and internet TV packages have been super limited.

How much data do you estimate you'll use watching a regular amount of TV via an internet streaming TV package on your phone?

Wireless providers can get away with charging on a per GB basis for data. And the penalties are quite steep, I'm told.

(03-20-2015 01:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-20-2015 12:39 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ]To give perspective, I bought a 2013 car new and my payment is $212 a month for 48 months. Of course to get that low payment and terms I put mostly cash down but the $212 about what most people pay per month.

Cable and Phone Bills have been in the past perceived to be like another utility bill but now they are for everyone the same size of car payment especially when considered together. They should be considered together because they mostly provide the same functionality for you.

Wireless providers if they aren't able to beat Cable Companies that much in price but they can do it with flexibility (e.g. having better access to content while on the move) its worth just dumping cable.

The sprint phones for instance.....if I want to take that phone into an office or on the road I can do it. I can't do it with the Comcast phones. For someone who works out of state on occasion its a big advantage. The problem with the wireless providers is up until recently the data pricing has been too high and internet TV packages have been super limited.

How much data do you estimate you'll use watching a regular amount of TV via an internet streaming TV package on your phone?

Wireless providers can get away with charging on a per GB basis for data. And the penalties are quite steep, I'm told.

I use about 1GB of data on my smartphone a month BUT I don't watch videos.

I believe at home I was using 6GB a month but I'm not sure at this point. The cool thing about Sprint mobile broadband is you can get a device that directly monitors your usage which is helpful. That is why I am thinking about starting with 8GB and see how that goes.

And if I ever felt compelled to dial the service back and get cable again. I could go to a 3GB package to save 40 on the data and cancel sling and HBO go to save another 35.

This is a YouTube video of a 900 second think tank power point presentation by Scott Galloway (NYU marketing professor/think tank researcher) on the winners and losers going forward in a world dominated by the four horseman of technology (Apple, Google, Amazon, and Facebook). It moves pretty fast but it has some interesting conclusions. Kinda funny at times as well. Its marketing, so its about these companies and how they relate to retail sales. I just found it pretty entertaining.

http://youtu.be/XCvwCcEP74Q

I think several things will come to pass

data prices will come down I think that is a given, but I think part of that will come from companies that move into the market as "local data companies" they will not be selling even phone service per say (although a local 3G or 4G "home phone") might be available in the package

they will not be selling mobile data other than in a very defined geographic area that they have saturated with coverage

they will basically be cable/home internet companies without the wires on the pole it will all be 3G and 4G wireless

the towers for cell phones (and now data) are almost always owned by tower companies that will rent space on the tower to anyone and everyone that wants space and these days many may have seen the new "cell phone" towers that look like a flag pole they are basically just a stick and sooner rather than later with cell antenna technology I think it will be possible to put a cell antenna on a lot of things besides a tower or a pole and they will hardly be noticed (anything you can drag a fiber backbone to)

the end game of these companies will be specifically to target cord cutters that cable companies are fighting with all their might to keep, but refusing to provide what those cord cutters want and that is easy to understand service and rates not bloated with garbage channels no one wants to watch and in my case and many others that I am loath to even give a penny to

so as HBO, Showtime, Cinemax and others realize they can do an end run on cable companies these "local data companies" will be there in targeted geographic areas to provide large amounts of cheap data per month with high bandwidth (almost always incorrectly called "speeds") and these "local data companies" will be the de facto cable company that provides the ability to have a la carte services for TV/cable and wireless internet will just be a bonus

you will pay something like $30 or $40 per month for a huge amount of data and then they will have all the available networks along with amazon prime and netflix and the like that you choose whatever you want and pay that rate

I realize that phone companies could do that now, but they simply refuse to do that they like cable companies feel they can "control" things as long as possible and make as much as possible until it falls apart.......it is like AOL in the final days of dialup still increasing rates, still offering crappy AOL content and other walled garden garbage that no one wanted until they simply fell apart and basically about went under

the second factor for sports fans especially if specific teams is that there will be many more companies that pop up to place university "networks" online

again it will be an end around on cable TV media companies like ESPN and Fox and the like

as the ability for users to stream channels and the availability of data providers like those listed above and as the technology to put "channels" online becomes cheaper more and more companies will pop up to partner with universities to place 'their university" channel on line

the allure for the universities will be that their channel will be available for all users that have internet (and the bandwidth) anywhere in the world and their channel will not be tied to getting carriage on a cable company or sat company (that will be losing subscribers rapidly by this time) and more so not dependent on being packaged with ESPN through ESPN The Ocho

again Fox an ESPN could offer this now, but they are clinging to the idea that they can hold a gun to the heads of cable MSOs and Sat companies and make them take ESPN - ESPN The Ocho and pay a lot for each of them AND pay a lot for a "conference network or a university network

the second real allure for the universities is the new media partner companies will take a much smaller split of the monthly pie

with a conference network now they basically take 50% and we hear "rumors" (from one source so far) that the SECn will pay $5 million per school, per year starting out

if you take a school that has say 300,000 hard core fans and maybe that is 100,000 hard core "households"

if 100,000 households sign up and they sign up for $10 per month that is $120 per year, per household or $12,000,000 per year

if the new emerging media partner companies are willing to take only 35% of that and 65% stays with the university that equates to $7,800,000 per year which is over what the SECn is currently projecting and would equal what the BTN currently pays out

these companies will be much smaller in overhead, they will use local talking heads and broadcasters for their telecast and they will rely on some actual university and student generated content to fill the off hours of the day (almost like a polished up "access" channel)

a lot of "first tier" content will go back to broadcast channels or to the main ESPN and Fox nationally carried channels

there will also be some "per game" pricing so that if the games that fall to the "university channel" are desirable to people that would never subscribe monthly or yearly they can be bought as a single game (perhaps $3 dollars per game)

media companies and cable/sat companies are looking more and more like the AOL of dialup days.....even in spite of all reason and ALL obvious movements in the market place and technologies they simply can't let go of their dated views and methods or get over the fact that people are not buying or wanting to buy "comcast" or "espn" each month they are wanting to buy (some of) the things those companies provide and more and more they are NOT wanting to buy a lot of what those companies make you buy to get what you actually want

(03-20-2015 01:57 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: [ -> ]media companies and cable/sat companies are looking more and more like the AOL of dialup days.....even in spite of all reason and ALL obvious movements in the market place and technologies they simply can't let go of their dated views and methods or get over the fact that people are not buying or wanting to buy "comcast" or "espn" each month they are wanting to buy (some of) the things those companies provide and more and more they are NOT wanting to buy a lot of what those companies make you buy to get what you actually want

There is also going to be a market for traditional cable packages for a long time to come. Seniors for example are further behind on technology. Some don't even know how to use the internet.

I question that local providers are going to be the future. The reason is we are moving to having global information grid where a lot of the load balancing is going to happen at the application level. Multi-threaded application management over back end load balancing like its been done traditionally.

Locally managed networks and systems are going by the wayside. Moving toward cloud management where the physical infrastructure will be at the data centers only.

Competition will of course drive down price. I predict after a few rounds of cord cutting you will start to see phone cutting as more people don't want to pay $40 dollars for cell service they use once a month. Data only is the way to go and if you really need a phone you can get a $15 month home plan with nationwide calling.