It might be only a few more years until some of these cable/satellite channels are in fewer homes than streaming services...

Quote:FS1, NBCSN, now in fewer than 80 million homes

Fox Sports 1 and NBCSN are now in fewer than 80 million homes, Sports Business Daily reported Thursday, with the FS1 mark of 79.87 million the lowest in network history. NBCSN, at 79.88 million, was in its fewest homes since 2014. [Sports Business Daily 1.30]

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2020/01...nbcsn-byu/

I think the one thing we're going to find though will be I think we're going to find the streaming services really start to crack down on password sharing.

(01-30-2020 01:43 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the one thing we're going to find though will be I think we're going to find the streaming services really start to crack down on password sharing.

Yes. However, this service is marketed for its portability across devices. I don't know how you reconcile that unless you put a cap on the number of devices that can use it, or put further ID restrictions in place with devices receiving the stream.

Industry will find a way. Heck, I remember when people were fuming over Windows Vista and the original Kindle for how it bungled performance with its restrictive DRM and remote deletion. DRM is everywhere now, and quite the norm. You don't own ****.

(01-30-2020 02:02 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 01:43 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the one thing we're going to find though will be I think we're going to find the streaming services really start to crack down on password sharing.

Yes. However, this service is marketed for its portability across devices. I don't know how you reconcile that unless you put a cap on the number of devices that can use it, or put further ID restrictions in place with devices receiving the stream.

Industry will find a way. Heck, I remember when people were fuming over Windows Vista and the original Kindle for how it bungled performance with its restrictive DRM and remote deletion. DRM is everywhere now, and quite the norm. You don't own ****.

They restrict the number streams at a time and some put ID restrictions on top.

I don't understand why NBC Sports, for example, won't let me pay them $5/month to have 100% access to their app without a cable subscription.

I also don't understand why I need a cable subscription to watch NBC or CBS or ABC online when they are available over the air, but that's a different question.

(01-30-2020 02:41 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  I don't understand why NBC Sports, for example, won't let me pay them $5/month to have 100% access to their app without a cable subscription.

Because NBC has signed contracts with the cable/phone/internet companies that own the wires going into your house, that give Cable TV exclusive access to the programming that cable TV companies are selling subscriptions to. And NBC is collecting a lot more money for non-sports viewers who are automatically subscribed to NBC-SN even though they only care about HGTV than they ever expect to collect from NBC Sports Go or whatever it is.

Quote:I also don't understand why I need a cable subscription to watch NBC or CBS or ABC online when they are available over the air, but that's a different question.

Same reason. You want to watch it over the air for free? Go ahead. You want to watch it like it's not 1985, you pay.

(01-30-2020 02:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 02:41 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  I don't understand why NBC Sports, for example, won't let me pay them $5/month to have 100% access to their app without a cable subscription.

Because NBC has signed contracts with the cable/phone/internet companies that own the wires going into your house, that give Cable TV exclusive access to the programming that cable TV companies are selling subscriptions to. And NBC is collecting a lot more money for non-sports viewers who are automatically subscribed to NBC-SN even though they only care about HGTV than they ever expect to collect from NBC Sports Go or whatever it is.

Simple math. If NBC gets 50 cents per month per cable home for NBCSN, and $5 per month for a hypothetical streaming service, even if they drop to 50 million cable homes, they'd need at least 5 million streamers to equal the monthly take from cable. So they won't abandon cable.

But maybe in their next round of deals with the cable guys, they take a lower per subscriber fee in exchange for being able to offer NBCSN a la carte as a streaming service. IMO that's where things are eventually headed, though it won't happen overnight.

(01-30-2020 01:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It might be only a few more years until some of these cable/satellite channels are in fewer homes than streaming services...

How many homes were FS1 and NBCSN in last year? If it was 90 million than this is a big deal, if it was 81 million, not so much.

I don't see cable subscriptions plummeting the way say DVD sales have plummeted the last 5 years in response to movie streaming, or CD sales plummeted in the face of music streaming.

Cable subscriptions are just too good a value, even as we whine about paying $130 a month for it. Truth is, it would cost me a LOT more than $130 a month via a la carte streaming to duplicate what I get on cable.

looking-
As of September 2018, Fox Sports 1 is available to approximately 83.3 million pay television households

So it's down in 16 months by 3.5 million just about.

(01-30-2020 03:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Cable subscriptions are just too good a value, even as we whine about paying $130 a month for it. Truth is, it would cost me a LOT more than $130 a month via a la carte streaming to duplicate what I get on cable.

I don’t know if I’d go that far, but bundling cable and data is one way to keep cable just attractive enough. Sling can only take you so far until you want to fall down the rabbit hole of the other streaming and premium stuff.

(01-30-2020 02:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Same reason. You want to watch it over the air for free? Go ahead. You want to watch it like it's not 1985, you pay.

Fine, then don't show me commercials after I already had to pay for the privilege of watching your content.

(01-30-2020 01:43 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the one thing we're going to find though will be I think we're going to find the streaming services really start to crack down on password sharing.

If the people sharing are roughly geographically proximate that's simply impossible.

For the geeks who know what they're doing (VPN etc) it's straight up impossible regardless of whatever the streamer thinks or restrictions they try to impose.

(01-30-2020 04:12 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 02:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Same reason. You want to watch it over the air for free? Go ahead. You want to watch it like it's not 1985, you pay.

Fine, then don't show me commercials after I already had to pay for the privilege of watching your content.

I am down with that. If I can't skip commercials then I'm not paying.

Also, OTA content is hands down the highest quality in terms of quality and bandwidth coming to your screen. Dish is the lowest quality, cable isn't much better in our brave new DOCSIS 3.0 DSV era (though internet bandwidth is), and OTA is still hands down the best and a standard deviation better on audio and video.

Watch the Super Bowl OTA. Then tune it on Dish or Cable. You'll see the difference.

(01-30-2020 04:12 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 02:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Same reason. You want to watch it over the air for free? Go ahead. You want to watch it like it's not 1985, you pay.

Fine, then don't show me commercials after I already had to pay for the privilege of watching your content.

Then get ready to pay out the wazoo for the Platinum Premium option.

(01-30-2020 04:36 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 01:43 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the one thing we're going to find though will be I think we're going to find the streaming services really start to crack down on password sharing.

If the people sharing are roughly geographically proximate that's simply impossible.

For the geeks who know what they're doing (VPN etc) it's straight up impossible regardless of whatever the streamer thinks or restrictions they try to impose.

Limiting the number of simultaneous streams on an account ought to be pretty effective. Netflix limits you to two simultaneous streams (you can pay $3 extra per month to up that to four streams). Let's say you have a kid in high school; you are going to be ok with your kid using your Netflix account while he's at his school waiting for basketball practice to start or whatever. Then let's say your kid goes to college and shares your Netflix password with several people in his dorm. There's about a 99% chance that you will change your Netflix password, and end that sharing, the very first time you really want to watch Netflix and you get a message that you are blocked because all of your streams are in use.

(01-30-2020 05:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 04:36 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 01:43 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the one thing we're going to find though will be I think we're going to find the streaming services really start to crack down on password sharing.

If the people sharing are roughly geographically proximate that's simply impossible.

For the geeks who know what they're doing (VPN etc) it's straight up impossible regardless of whatever the streamer thinks or restrictions they try to impose.

Limiting the number of simultaneous streams on an account ought to be pretty effective. Netflix limits you to two simultaneous streams (you can pay $3 extra per month to up that to four streams).

Our family has five profiles on the account. I don't know for sure how many streams we could run at once, the kids mostly prefer Youtube to Netflix so it hasn't come up.

(01-30-2020 04:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 04:12 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 02:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Same reason. You want to watch it over the air for free? Go ahead. You want to watch it like it's not 1985, you pay.

Fine, then don't show me commercials after I already had to pay for the privilege of watching your content.

I am down with that. If I can't skip commercials then I'm not paying.

I used to be down with it, but then last November (2018), Hulu had a deal for 99 cents a month for a year, but for their tier where you get commercials. I hated the idea of commercials but at 99 cents a month figured it was too good to pass up.

Turns out, I ended up watching a ton of Hulu content that year, and re-upped with Hulu this past November as part of a Disney bundle, because I found the commercials were actually a good thing - they allowed me to check my phone from time to time, something I do obsessively, without hitting the pause button.

Commercials are not going anywhere. NBC has revenue of ~$33 billion. To make that up they would need 550,000,000 subscribers at $5/month. Even if that were possible, they are never going to turn away BILLIONS of ad dollars.

Question. How would fs1 losing more available homes effect the NBE assertions that Fox is going to spend even more on them for sub par ratings even with UCONN? Is that a feasible assumption? I think performance wise the NBE is worth every penny but with the Big10 and their other p5 properties needing those prime OTA slots for ratings while their other channels fading is reasonable? Honest question.

(01-30-2020 05:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 04:36 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 01:43 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the one thing we're going to find though will be I think we're going to find the streaming services really start to crack down on password sharing.

If the people sharing are roughly geographically proximate that's simply impossible.

For the geeks who know what they're doing (VPN etc) it's straight up impossible regardless of whatever the streamer thinks or restrictions they try to impose.

Limiting the number of simultaneous streams on an account ought to be pretty effective. Netflix limits you to two simultaneous streams (you can pay $3 extra per month to up that to four streams). Let's say you have a kid in high school; you are going to be ok with your kid using your Netflix account while he's at his school waiting for basketball practice to start or whatever. Then let's say your kid goes to college and shares your Netflix password with several people in his dorm. There's about a 99% chance that you will change your Netflix password, and end that sharing, the very first time you really want to watch Netflix and you get a message that you are blocked because all of your streams are in use.

Depends. YouTube TV gives you three. But if it's an ESPN broadcast you seek, WatchESPN with your credentials works for more streams.

Also for the geeks you can roll your own DVR with 4 or more simultaneous recordings at crazy high quality and then infinite steaming via Plex or MythTV or Kodi.

You're never going to stop geeks. It's still pretty easy for the casuals too.

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using CSNbbs mobile app