While it isn't yet aspiring to deliver TV channel content to its users, that could easily be a new source of growth for the company, if it wants to go down that path.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebo...AP2RB?il=0

Quote:Facebook Inc on Wednesday made its biggest move to date to compete in the television market by expanding its video offerings with programming ranging from professional women's basketball to a safari show and a parenting program.

The redesigned product, called "Watch," will be available initially to a limited group in the United States on Facebook's mobile app, website and television apps, the company said.

The world's largest social network added a video tab last year, and it has been dropping hints for months that it wanted to become a source of original and well-produced videos, rather than just shows made by users.

(06-15-2017 09:29 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  My family has come full circle.

We cut cable when it was nearly $200/month. We switched to Sling TV for several months. When the cable company came up with a hybrid cable/streaming product for under $100, we switched back. Now we have the best service we've ever had, and it's half the cost it used to be.

And it will be back up to $200 within 2 years. Cable is dying. Has been for a long time. Just like the land line phone, say goodbye. In a decade you won't even recognize your television viewing options.

I'm beginning to think none of you actually know anybody under 35 years old. If you think the Millennial generation numbers for CATV is going to be bad, wait till the generation that follows.

(08-10-2017 04:49 PM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 09:29 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  My family has come full circle.

We cut cable when it was nearly $200/month. We switched to Sling TV for several months. When the cable company came up with a hybrid cable/streaming product for under $100, we switched back. Now we have the best service we've ever had, and it's half the cost it used to be.

And it will be back up to $200 within 2 years. Cable is dying. Has been for a long time. Just like the land line phone, say goodbye. In a decade you won't even recognize your television viewing options.

I'm beginning to think none of you actually know anybody under 35 years old. If you think the Millennial generation numbers for CATV is going to be bad, wait till the generation that follows.

Cable isn't dying. Cable will just make more of its coin selling internet access.

TV entertainment is the new used car.

If you don't do your homework you will overpay

I say wonderful. I fully admit to wanting to see ESPN's demise. I'm proud to say it. They ruined college football by telling the country only certain schools were "major" BCS, P5 etc...and the rest of us didn't count. Shame on them for the destruction they caused. Let them burn a slow death I say. Or not so slow...

(08-10-2017 08:36 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I say wonderful. I fully admit to wanting to see ESPN's demise. I'm proud to say it. They ruined college football by telling the country only certain schools were "major" BCS, P5 etc...and the rest of us didn't count. Shame on them for the destruction they caused. Let them burn a slow death I say. Or not so slow...

ABC and CBS, and publications like the Sporting News, Sports Illustrated and newspapers were doing that before there satellites to beam ESPN to cable systems.

(08-10-2017 05:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Cable isn't dying. Cable will just make more of its coin selling internet access.

Thing is, it doesn't matter if "cable" dies or not.

Proclaiming that cable dying is the savior of the G5, or the savior of college football "as it should be", is like saying that the death of landline telephones is the savior of in-person conversations. No, it wasn't. The technology platform, for a service that people very much still demand and utilize, just changed.


That's all it will be, in the end.

The technology platform might one day be all wireless, and more people might watch on their phones, tablets, and laptops, than on their big screens ... but at the fundamental level concept -- recording video and audio of a game, live, and transmitting that information to those who want to view/listen to it, live -- is never going away. That concept was, is, and will always be extremely valuable. Big schools and conferences must always recognize that, and simply refuse to accept lower revenue just because business models and technology platforms die.

G5 schools can lament and cry that ESPN killed the radio star ... but the fact simply is, and will continue to be, that far few people wish to tune their screens to an ECU football game than a Clemson football game, no matter how many people ECU puts in the stands.

(08-11-2017 08:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 05:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Cable isn't dying. Cable will just make more of its coin selling internet access.

Thing is, it doesn't matter if "cable" dies or not.

Proclaiming that cable dying is the savior of the G5, or the savior of college football "as it should be", is like saying that the death of landline telephones is the savior of in-person conversations. No, it wasn't. The technology platform, for a service that people very much still demand and utilize, just changed.


That's all it will be, in the end.

The technology platform might one day be all wireless, and more people might watch on their phones, tablets, and laptops, than on their big screens ... but at the fundamental level concept -- recording video and audio of a game, live, and transmitting that information to those who want to view/listen to it, live -- is never going away. That concept was, is, and will always be extremely valuable. Big schools and conferences must always recognize that, and simply refuse to accept lower revenue just because business models and technology platforms die.

G5 schools can lament and cry that ESPN killed the radio star ... but the fact simply is, and will continue to be, that far few people wish to tune their screens to an ECU football game than a Clemson football game, no matter how many people ECU puts in the stands.

That's the thing I don't get.

Am I the only old fart remembers what it used to be like????

More schools get exposure today than in the pre-ESPN universe.

In 1979, Arkansas State and Louisiana played on ABC in a regional telecast, it was the "once every two years" exposure guaranteed to the then I-A Southland Conference. The game was seen OTA in Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri and I think Tennessee and Mississippi.

Now that bad evil ESPN is around that game has been telecast nationally on ESPN2 a few times, ESPNU, and the now defunct ASN.

I'm skeptical that say Kansas State would have been as likely to have their sustained run of 6 top 10 finishes in 8 years if it had been like the pre-ESPN era. With fewer exposures, TV execs maybe would have given K-State a game against Nebraska, OU, and Texas (the schools people really wanted to see) but never given them the exposure that let them become a real player.

You deliver dollars, ESPN gets you more dollars and more exposure, today's environment is miles and miles ahead of the pre-ESPN era.

(08-10-2017 05:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 04:49 PM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 09:29 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  My family has come full circle.

We cut cable when it was nearly $200/month. We switched to Sling TV for several months. When the cable company came up with a hybrid cable/streaming product for under $100, we switched back. Now we have the best service we've ever had, and it's half the cost it used to be.

And it will be back up to $200 within 2 years. Cable is dying. Has been for a long time. Just like the land line phone, say goodbye. In a decade you won't even recognize your television viewing options.

I'm beginning to think none of you actually know anybody under 35 years old. If you think the Millennial generation numbers for CATV is going to be bad, wait till the generation that follows.

Cable isn't dying. Cable will just make more of its coin selling internet access.

Until there's a change in the political dynamic and some of the following are allowed

1) Localities creating "Internet Utilities" where the city or county provides a internet option to compete with the oligopoly
2) Real net neutrality
3) A ban on internet providers selling content.

Evantually, the aforementioned will hit the internet oligopoly.

It already is an oligopoly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_i..._providers

The top two cable companies and the three remaining Baby Bell companies provide landline internet service to most of the country, via cable modem or DSL/fiber.


The whole kit and caboodle is all going to boil down to three or four giga-companeis. I'm talking from studios all the way to your phone, computer, and/or TV. It'll be interesting to see if Comcast (NBC) will get a merger with Sprint or T-Mobile first, or if AT&T (DirecTV) will be allowed to acquire Time Warner Inc first, to create the first giga-company.

(08-10-2017 04:49 PM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 09:29 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  My family has come full circle.

We cut cable when it was nearly $200/month. We switched to Sling TV for several months. When the cable company came up with a hybrid cable/streaming product for under $100, we switched back. Now we have the best service we've ever had, and it's half the cost it used to be.

And it will be back up to $200 within 2 years. Cable is dying. Has been for a long time. Just like the land line phone, say goodbye. In a decade you won't even recognize your television viewing options.

I'm beginning to think none of you actually know anybody under 35 years old. If you think the Millennial generation numbers for CATV is going to be bad, wait till the generation that follows.

I have a young son. He watches YouTube videos every day on his tablet, but he also watches live football and basketball games on ESPN.

As for price, everything has a sweet spot price. Of course there's inflation, but adjusting for that, there will always be a provider below $100 - IMO

(08-09-2017 03:15 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-09-2017 08:46 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 06:43 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  But also, there will be an inflection point where the there will be more numerous declines.
5 years ago it was a trickle, now it is a stream, creek or crook depending what part of the country and getting bigger.

Thing is, we're already past the inflection point ... and the inflection point is turned UP, not down.

Cable/sat will be/already are combating the losses with new, cheaper products to retain subscribers while maintaining margins.

(08-08-2017 07:00 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Side note: https://www.fastcompany.com/40450179/cor...c-declines
Last year (2016) saw 1.75 million households cut the cord. For 2017 the first 2 quarters have match last years total (1.75 million) already with still half a year to go.

Keep in mind, these numbers are doctored, like all reported numbers are, to present an agenda. The agenda being "whatever sounds the worst/best/etc in order to get you to click on our click-bait headline".

These numbers are purely people who are canceling Comcast cable, Charter cable, DirecTV satellite, DISH, satellite, and other similar services, with NO regard to the large percentage of these folks who are in turn paying for TV service in another way (be it Sling, VUE, Netflix, HBO Now, etc.).

(08-09-2017 07:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  The real issue for them is the never connected. Younger people are automatically going for the streaming alternatives and never developing a habit for cable. Many of those customers are permanently lost and they will be a majority of the potential customer base in 20 years.

You adapt, or you die. That has always been true in business, for even the largest companies. No product platform lives forever ... people are always the most interested in what's new.

Young people may not have ever had a cable TV subscription with a cable box in their apartments .... and may not even own a TV! They're very dedicated to their secondary screens, laptops and phones. So .... you adapt, and offer them subscription services that cater to those secondary screens. DirecTV Now, being a great example.

Pay TV isn't going anywhere. It may just not look like what you had when you were growing up ...

Lol, when I grew up we only had an antenna and three channels.....but, I agree with you.

When I was born, few people had TV sets, including my family. After a few years, we had a small black and white, 3 channels plus PBS, rabbit ears, and no programming from midnight to 6 a.m. We didn't have color TV until I was an adult.

We also had party line telephones and switchboard operators.

Oh, and I had been in the work force almost a decade before copy machines were invented, lol.

Most people now can't imagine any of that. Times change.

(08-08-2017 12:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Trading a cable/sat channel bundle for an online streaming channel bundle isn't cord cutting.

Yes it is ... that is well within the definition for the phrase. Define: cord cutting:

Quote: cord cut·ting ... the practice of canceling or forgoing a cable television subscription or landline telephone connection in favor of an alternative Internet-based or wireless service.

Phrases mean what they mean, even if it is not the first thing you think of when you read the words out of context.

Quote: You're still getting ESPN, HGTV, Comedy Central, piped into your house via a cord.

The "cord cutting" in the phrase is a metaphor.

When Google pulls up an informal definition, then that means jack squat.

Why do people who call themselves "cord cutters" want a medal for canceling cable/sat TV?

Go pat yourselves on the back some more.

(08-12-2017 08:20 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 04:49 PM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 09:29 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  My family has come full circle.

We cut cable when it was nearly $200/month. We switched to Sling TV for several months. When the cable company came up with a hybrid cable/streaming product for under $100, we switched back. Now we have the best service we've ever had, and it's half the cost it used to be.

And it will be back up to $200 within 2 years. Cable is dying. Has been for a long time. Just like the land line phone, say goodbye. In a decade you won't even recognize your television viewing options.

I'm beginning to think none of you actually know anybody under 35 years old. If you think the Millennial generation numbers for CATV is going to be bad, wait till the generation that follows.

I have a young son. He watches YouTube videos every day on his tablet, but he also watches live football and basketball games on ESPN.

As for price, everything has a sweet spot price. Of course there's inflation, but adjusting for that, there will always be a provider below $100 - IMO

One interesting observation I noticed

Millennials don't mind watching sports and TV shows on their Computer Screens, Phones and I Pads. Older generations love them some 42-90" TV Screens.

(08-12-2017 11:08 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 12:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Trading a cable/sat channel bundle for an online streaming channel bundle isn't cord cutting.

Yes it is ... that is well within the definition for the phrase. Define: cord cutting:

Quote: cord cut·ting ... the practice of canceling or forgoing a cable television subscription or landline telephone connection in favor of an alternative Internet-based or wireless service.

the

Quote: You're still getting ESPN, HGTV, Comedy Central, piped into your house via a cord.

The "cord cutting" in the phrase is a metaphor.

Agreed..basically semantics

Skinny Bundle is another word you can use.

(08-12-2017 02:09 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(08-12-2017 11:08 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 12:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Trading a cable/sat channel bundle for an online streaming channel bundle isn't cord cutting.

Yes it is ... that is well within the definition for the phrase. Define: cord cutting:

Quote: cord cut·ting ... the practice of canceling or forgoing a cable television subscription or landline telephone connection in favor of an alternative Internet-based or wireless service.

the

Quote: You're still getting ESPN, HGTV, Comedy Central, piped into your house via a cord.

The "cord cutting" in the phrase is a metaphor.

Agreed..basically semantics

Skinny Bundle is another word you can use.

Or 'Cord Shaver'. Think that is a more appropriate term used for those who quit cable/sat/U-Verse and go to OTT TV services like Sling, PS Vue...etc.
Still the majority are the pure cord-cutters that just go OTA and Netflix/Prime/Hulu..

(08-12-2017 11:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  When Google pulls up an informal definition, then that means jack squat.

It means more than a random discussion board commentator who wants to "win" arguments by playing with semantics.

Quote: Why do people who call themselves "cord cutters" want a medal for canceling cable/sat TV?

I'd guess that it's because they have moved from a tight oligopoly market to a more competitive market, and therefore have gained the increase in consumer sovereignty that goes along with that.

Quote: Go pat yourselves on the back some more.

I agree ~ more power to them, they should pat themselves on the back. Unless, of course, they are doing it by engaging in copyright piracy, in which case they are scumsucking freeloaders.

(08-12-2017 02:09 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Skinny Bundle is another word you can use.

Yeah, if talking about the product, thick bundle, skinny bundle & unbundled are useful terms.

The thing about "cutting the cord" is that cable is one local monopoly, TV-over-landline-IP is a second local monopoly, and subscription TV from satellite is a tight oligopoly, so even if all are available, it's not a very competitive market. The option of going completely unbundled with OTT streaming services means that the skinny bundles that are offered OTT are being offered in a more competitive market, and so profit margins will tend to be lower and a broader variety of choices will be available.

The providers in the oligopoly market fought back against the first movements toward OTT content by trying to wrap up exclusives, but they don't actually license the content. The channels who DO license the content have seen the writing on the wall, and have been sorting out how they are going to offer their content OTT.

sports tv will fracture with many additional providors, including the schools and conferences themselves, entering the streaming market. far more viewing options for fans, a return to normal kick-off times as smaller schools begin to focus again on fans in seats while still giving streaming and on demand options for exposure. Yes, less money overall from espn for most schools as espn focuses cash on core pro and selected p5 programs. If I increase attendance a few thousand a game with better start times and I still stream and offer the game on demand online that is the winner over a crappy espn deal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(08-13-2017 10:45 AM)billings Wrote:  sports tv will fracture with many additional providors, including the schools and conferences themselves, entering the streaming market. far more viewing options for fans, a return to normal kick-off times as smaller schools begin to focus again on fans in seats while still giving streaming and on demand options for exposure. Yes, less money overall from espn for most schools as espn focuses cash on core pro and selected p5 programs. If I increase attendance a few thousand a game with better start times and I still stream and offer the game on demand online that is the winner over a crappy espn deal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just want to go back to the tradition of Saturday college football games where one can watch the games of their choice on a nice screen (smart tv or computer) without buying all these extra channels. I just want to watch local tv, Netflix, HBO and some college football and basketball games. I don't need to hear the talking heads over analyzing the heck out of who should win because blah blah blah. Call me old fashioned.