Jump to content
turtleback

Cutting the Cord…

278 posts / 35016 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

I believe we will see a lot more of this over the next few years.  With the reliability and speeds of internet access today, traditional "watch on a schedule" television is becoming obsolete.  My family and I "cut the cable cord" in October 2011 and haven't looked back.  Netflix type programming will take over the market soon.  ESPN and Disney are well aware of this which is why they made their content available well before most anyone else.

The NFL voted to suspend regional blackouts for the upcoming season.  My guess is, most everyone will soon.  It is a copycat business.

Really it has been the ABC, NBC, CBS that have spearheaded the move to watching online video for full TV episodes. They usually offer the episode the day after or a week after airtime.

Then you got Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon really pushing the online video.

I think ESPN is using SlingTV has a test to see how much viewership they get off of online video watching. In the end it might save them money because they don't have to broadcast the same stuff over and over again during the day when no one is really watching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Want to hide this ad? Register for free today!

I believe we will see a lot more of this over the next few years.  With the reliability and speeds of internet access today, traditional "watch on a schedule" television is becoming obsolete.  My family and I "cut the cable cord" in October 2011 and haven't looked back.  Netflix type programming will take over the market soon.  ESPN and Disney are well aware of this which is why they made their content available well before most anyone else. The NFL voted to suspend regional blackouts for the upcoming season.  My guess is, most everyone will soon.  It is a copycat business.

Yes, but that's different. The NFL blacked out regional broadcasts when the games were not sold out. Cord cutters rely on alternative providers (mlb tv, nbvsports app, etc.), and those still get blacked out when the game is on local cable. Last nights game was on csn locally so nbcsports put something else on tv and wouldn't let me watch the game on their app because of the local coverage. [quote name="saevel25" url="/t/78230/cutting-the-cord/30#post_1134787"]Sounds like ESPN is suing Verizon for offering stripped down Custom TV plan. Were you get a base plan, then you can switch out monthly other add on bundles. Somehow ESPN thinks what ever they are offering is violating their contract.  [/quote] I think it's because everyone that has a basic package gets espn, and espn gets paid $6 per subscriber. So if Verizon makes espn an extra, fewer people will subscribe. They claim their contract with Verizon requires them to be part of the basic package.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Really it has been the ABC, NBC, CBS that have spearheaded the move to watching online video for full TV episodes. They usually offer the episode the day after or a week after airtime.

Then you got Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon really pushing the online video.

I think ESPN is using SlingTV has a test to see how much viewership they get off of online video watching. In the end it might save them money because they don't have to broadcast the same stuff over and over again during the day when no one is really watching.

Very true, ABC, NBC, CBS and others were at the forefront but I believe they didn't have much of a choice with the soaring popularity of Netflix.

ESPN was, if I remember correctly, the first sports programmer to offer anything of value content wise to a streaming consumer.  CBS Sports, SEC Network and ACC Digital offered apps early on but they have never offered anything in terms of quality content.

SlingTV is interesting but as long as I can get the same content without a subscription, I will continue down that path.  I agree that ESPN, HBO and others are gauging the market for streamed content.  Television viewing may look very different within the next few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't very clear, dsc.  When I said "I believe we will see a lot more of this", I meant cable providers trying to create new revenue streams.  By requiring additional fees for ESPN content, Verizon is hoping to increase revenue.  This mindset is the basis for the "cord cutting" movement over the past few years.  Cable and satellite providers have gouged the pockets of consumers for 30 years.

That is coming to an end.

Now, ISP's will figure out ways to gouge consumers over the next few decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't very clear, dsc.  When I said "I believe we will see a lot more of this", I meant cable providers trying to create new revenue streams.  By requiring additional fees for ESPN content, Verizon is hoping to increase revenue.  This mindset is the basis for the "cord cutting" movement over the past few years.  Cable and satellite providers have gouged the pockets of consumers for 30 years.

That is coming to an end.

Now, ISP's will figure out ways to gouge consumers over the next few decades.


Sure, I agree completely.  I wonder how it will end up though--will the cable providers be able to charge more for ESPN when ESPN starts offering its content directly via the internet?  I mean, here we have ESPN saying they're going to sell their content direct to consumers, which hurts Verizon's ability to maintain subscribes, but then ESPN sues when Verizon makes ESPN an extra because it will cost ESPN subscribers.  I think we have the content providers learning that large chunks of today's population can be reached without the cable companies, and the cable companies are essentially trying to compete with the content providers--who are their clients, or vendors--by offering more al a carte service.  It creates an unusual dynamic.

I don't think cord cutting will save much money in the future.  We'll all just end up paying $8 for each of the 15 channels we want instead of paying $120 for the 150 channels the cable companies bundle together.

But maybe that will change in the long long run, as internet tv will also make it easier for competition to sprout up since they won't need to convince the cable companies to carry their programming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Sure, I agree completely.  I wonder how it will end up though--will the cable providers be able to charge more for ESPN when ESPN starts offering its content directly via the internet?  I mean, here we have ESPN saying they're going to sell their content direct to consumers, which hurts Verizon's ability to maintain subscribes, but then ESPN sues when Verizon makes ESPN an extra because it will cost ESPN subscribers.  I think we have the content providers learning that large chunks of today's population can be reached without the cable companies, and the cable companies are essentially trying to compete with the content providers--who are their clients, or vendors--by offering more al a carte service.  It creates an unusual dynamic.

I don't think cord cutting will save much money in the future.  We'll all just end up paying $8 for each of the 15 channels we want instead of paying $120 for the 150 channels the cable companies bundle together.

But maybe that will change in the long long run, as internet tv will also make it easier for competition to sprout up since they won't need to convince the cable companies to carry their programming.

Absolutely!  But I will take full advantage of it while I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone out there cut the cord?  Anyone solved the live sports problem?

I have had nothing but internet at home for about six years now. I stream Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime all through my game console, or tablet when I'm out and about. I'm an avid Bears fan living in Bengals and Browns country, and have both the Masters and Wimbledon marked off on my calendar every year, because that's when the world stops. With a little hunting, you can live stream just about any sporting event worldwide.

I spend under $70 a month for everything when just the basic TWC package somehow always came out to about $110/mo after random fees and fine print, more if I wanted Golf Channel or anything else that might be interesting to me. I do miss something every now and then or have to pay a one-time fee to stream (like the Olympics at 4AM when NBC is showing Shark vacuum informercials instead of the volleyball finals. Not that I'm still bitter or anything), but I still get to watch almost everything I want without a hitch.

I don't think cord cutting will save much money in the future.  We'll all just end up paying $8 for each of the 15 channels we want instead of paying $120 for the 150 channels the cable companies bundle together.

Of course, people like me will probably lead to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had nothing but internet at home for about six years now. I stream Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime all through my game console, or tablet when I'm out and about. I'm an avid Bears fan living in Bengals and Browns country, and have both the Masters and Wimbledon marked off on my calendar every year, because that's when the world stops. With a little hunting, you can live stream just about any sporting event worldwide.

I spend under $70 a month for everything when just the basic TWC package somehow always came out to about $110/mo after random fees and fine print, more if I wanted Golf Channel or anything else that might be interesting to me. I do miss something every now and then or have to pay a one-time fee to stream (like the Olympics at 4AM when NBC is showing Shark vacuum informercials instead of the volleyball finals. Not that I'm still bitter or anything), but I still get to watch almost everything I want without a hitch.

Of course, people like me will probably lead to this.

I can't agree with this more.  I have been streaming content since October 2011 with no cable or satellite subscription.  I pay a total of $63.22 for internet, Netflix, Hulu Plus and Amazon Prime.  My ISP offers 60-105 MBPS so streaming picture quality and buffering are not an issue.  With some effort, I have been able to watch any sporting event worldwide that I have attempted to watch.  Experience in locating various sporting events to stream cuts down the time and effort required.  You tend to get the hang of what to look for and how to stream certain content.  Apps like Nowhere.tv make the effort easier as well.  Its not point the remote and click but its not difficult.

I also agree that people like us will cause an exponential rise it cost of "cutting the cord" someday!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yahoo to livestream Bills-Jaguars October game in London, free. Sign of things to come?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000495384/article/nfl-and-yahoo-partner-to-deliver-firstever-global-live-stream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Yahoo to livestream Bills-Jaguars October game in London, free. Sign of things to come? [URL=http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000495384/article/nfl-and-yahoo-partner-to-deliver-firstever-global-live-stream]http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000495384/article/nfl-and-yahoo-partner-to-deliver-firstever-global-live-stream[/URL]

Yes, it's going to happen in October. So I guess that's things to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Yahoo to livestream Bills-Jaguars October game in London, free. Sign of things to come?

I can only see it becoming more prevalent if the NFL (and Yahoo) somehow makes money off the deal.  If they were to enter into a partnership with Yahoo to stream NFL games on a regular basis, that cost would somehow be passed on to the consumer because Yahoo isn't going to do it purely out of the goodness of their hearts.  Networks pay billions of dollars to broadcast NFL games (Fox $4.27B, CBS $3.73B, NBC $3.6B and ESPN $8.8B, all according to Wikipedia).  Rights to NFL broadcasts are not only the most expensive of any American sport, they're the most expensive of any American entertainment property, period.  I could easily see any/all the above networks screaming bloody murder about the NFL granting licensing rights to Yahoo, and I can't see Yahoo paying the price the NFL would want in the first place.  Purely IMO, but no way Yahoo (or any other online source) would do it without some kind of a subscription/pay per view model in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Quote:
Originally Posted by sixcat View Post

The NFL voted to suspend regional blackouts for the upcoming season.  My guess is, most everyone will soon.  It is a copycat business.

Yes, the FCC in September removed the regulations which required some of those blackouts.

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-eliminates-sports-blackout-rules

Quote:

Washington, D.C. – The Federal Communications Commission today repealed its sports blackout rules, which prohibited cable and satellite operators from airing any sports event that had been blacked out on a local broadcast station. The action removes Commission protection of the NFL’s current private blackout policy, which requires local broadcast stations to black out a game if a team does not sell a certain percentage of tickets to the game at least 72 hours prior to the game.

It was an outdated rule, from days when most sports revenues were from ticket sales, not broadcast, and when many people also didn't have access to cable broadcasts.  Blackouts will still occur though for contractual reasons:

Quote:

Today’s action may not eliminate all sports blackouts, because the NFL may choose to continue its private blackout policy. However, the NFL will no longer be entitled to the protection of the Commission’s sports blackout rules. Instead, the NFL must rely on the same avenues available to other

entities that wish to protect their distribution rights in the private marketplace.

I think you will continue to see some blackouts when something is actually being broadcast on a local network.  I would think local TV contracts are a big part of why MLB.tv for instance blacks out local games. But hopefully we will see less blackouts where something isn't available at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have Verizon FIOS and it has great quality.   However,   I am paying for hundreds and hundreds of channels .  We watch maybe at the most 15-30 channels consistently.   That includes local news, live sports, and channels we are interested in , like cooking,  crime, National Geographic, history.     The only show we watch from the big 3 is Blue Bloods.    I could give a d*mn about the shopping, Spanish,  Moslem,   alternative life styles,  and reality shows.     It really gets under my skin  that we don't pay for what we want instead of bundled packages that are mostly fluff.     I have been thinking dropping cable just because of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have Verizon FIOS and it has great quality.   However,   I am paying for hundreds and hundreds of channels .  We watch maybe at the most 15-30 channels consistently.   That includes local news, live sports, and channels we are interested in , like cooking,  crime, National Geographic, history.     The only show we watch from the big 3 is Blue Bloods.    I could give a d*mn about the shopping, Spanish,  Moslem,   alternative life styles,  and reality shows.     It really gets under my skin  that we don't pay for what we want instead of bundled packages that are mostly fluff.     I have been thinking dropping cable just because of this.

I saw an ad for verizon starting the pay for what you want but I haven't looked into it yet to see if it was worth it. Has anyone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I have Verizon FIOS and it has great quality.   However,   I am paying for hundreds and hundreds of channels .  We watch maybe at the most 15-30 channels consistently.   That includes local news, live sports, and channels we are interested in , like cooking,  crime, National Geographic, history.     The only show we watch from the big 3 is Blue Bloods.    I could give a d*mn about the shopping, Spanish,  Moslem,   alternative life styles,  and reality shows.     It really gets under my skin  that we don't pay for what we want instead of bundled packages that are mostly fluff.     I have been thinking dropping cable just because of this.

It's more complex than that though. You pay for channels you don't watch, but other people are paying for channels you do watch (someone who doesn't watch ESPN, for example). I don't know if it would entirely even out if TV had an a la carte model, but it's not as simple as saying "I'm not watching Unavision, take that carrier charge off my bill." I've seen estimates that if only people who watched ESPN paid for it, they'd be paying $50 a month. ESPN would not survive charging $50 a month. They'd have to cut back, broadcast fewer live sports, etc. The entire pro sports model is built on those national coverage deals. You can say it's not exactly competitive business practices (there are literally hundreds of networks that are propped by carriage fees that would die without those carriage fees), but it's not as simple as it seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I've seen estimates that if only people who watched ESPN paid for it, they'd be paying $50 a month. ESPN would not survive charging $50 a month. They'd have to cut back, broadcast fewer live sports, etc. The entire pro sports model is built on those national coverage deals.

Keep a close eye on SlingTV, I believe it is the first step to dismantling the current cable/dish model. It is a step toward a la carte. ESPN is in the package with a dozen or so other channels and the whole things costs $20 flat per month. If the only reason you are keeping cable is for ESPN you should give Sling a look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

So my ComCast equipment is sitting on the coffee table and I will be bringing it back to them today, at which time my cord is officially cut.

I've been using the streaming capability of my Sony blu-ray player to access streaming but now am considering alternatives.

Roku is obviously on my scope as is the Apple TV.  But the real feature I want and am looking for is a streaming device with built in browser capabilities, so that it would be possible to navigate to a web page that has streaming video and stream it directly.  I know that some devices can do something like this by casting what is on a computer of smartphone to the TV, but I am looking for something that cuts out the computer/phone middle man and streams directly.

Does anyone know of a streaming device with such a capability (and again, I am not looking for "casting" solutions but a true native solution).

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

@turtleback

Congrats on cutting the cord.

There are many ways, assuming you do not have a smart TV.

Check out - http://www.labnol.org/internet/watch-internet-videos-on-tv/12177/

And - http://www.tested.com/tech/set-top-boxes/458922-best-wireless-hdmi-video-transmitter-today/

Navigating on the TV Website is better using a wireless keyboard.

Some components may not support Adobe Flash Player.

Also, your TV must have HDMI imput for the various components to connect.

I personally like casting my tablet. Some apps will play to TV through DLNA devices.

Go to dlna.org or search TV digital living network alliance.

Club Rat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...