ADVERTISEMENT

Great WSJ Article on Cord Cutting LINK

Boiler20

All-American
May 29, 2001
13,270
14
38
It's so interesting.... about a year or so I thought that once
someone would break ranks in the cable world and offer al a carte channels
and the dam the monopolistic cable companies have had would bust
quickly.... well its happened in less than a year...

Reading this article reminds me of articles from some 25 years ago
when we saw the deregulation of long distance and telephone services...
at that time you had only one option of who your local telephone
company was associated with.... and that was one of only a small handful of
companies...... then the industry was deregulated and you could buy even local
telephone from dozens of companies. This unbundling of a handful of TV
monopolies feels pretty similar....and just like we saw in that Telephone
breakup people were able to choose and drive costs down and many
BIG companies had to lower prices to stay in the market. And as free markets
do they bring the prices in line with the value the customer ascribes to that
product or service.

The big cable/satellite companies will have to evaluate when to
shift from thier monopolistic attitude they have had for 35 years now in some
cases to lowering prices and being more "competitive" in the new
marketplace. Some of them won't survive.

But as the article below says there will be LOTS of confusion as
we go through a transition period. Right now the scramble is just
starting... and there will be winners and losers as they push out these new
services and people determine if they have any interest in it at that price
point.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/unbundling-pay-tv-brings-new-questions-1426639589




MEDIA & MARKETING


Unbundling Pay-TV Brings New Questions

'Cord-Cutting' choices
grow, but questions for consumers, companies swirl









P1-BT103_WEBTV_11U_20150317185727.jpg
ENLARGE

By
KEACH HAGEY and

SHALINI RAMACHANDRAN
March
17, 2015 8:46 p.m. ET
70 COMMENTS
The media industry is
racing toward an Internet-TV future at a breathtaking pace. But the swift
changes, highlighted by efforts from Apple Inc., Dish Network Corp. and
others, are giving consumers an array of confusing options and forcing
entertainment giants to confront some sober realities.
Not
long ago, consumers who wanted to watch "Monday Night Football" on ESPN, "Mad
Men" on AMC or
"Game of Thrones" on HBO knew what they had to do: shell out for a cable
package that typically costs around $90 a month in the U.S. They could catch
old seasons of popular shows on Netflix or a similar streaming on-demand
service, but live, up-to-date programming lived in the cable bundle.


RELATED
READING


·
Apple
TV Offering May Force Rivals to Play Catch Up

In the
span of a few months, tectonic shifts are remaking a television landscape it
took decades to sculpt, opening up a range of other possibilities for "cord
cutters" who don't want traditional pay TV. Apple is working on
an Internet-TV service
with some 25 channels, which is expected
to be priced between $25 to $35 a month, according to people familiar with its
plans. It will join Dish
Network
Corp. and Sony Corp., which are pitching their own
online-TV bundles. A host of TV companies, including HBO, NBCUniversal,
Nickelodeon's Noggin and stand-alone
streaming offerings
.
But if consumers drop
pay TV and sign up for TV services delivered over broadband, will they really
get a better deal?
"If you
buy retail and you have six or seven of these things, that might cost you as
much as a bundle that gives you 400 different networks," said Philippe
Dauman, CEO of Viacom, which earns money from bundled channels but also
recently launched a subscription streaming service aimed at preschool children
that it imagines will be complementary to the bundle.
Advertisement




Sorting through which options or combination of options to sign up for-while
keeping costs from spiraling-will be a headache. Dish's basic $20 a month
streaming package will get you ESPN, TNT and some cable channels but not
broadcasters CBS, NBC and Fox. Apple wants to bring customers a "skinny bundle"
including broadcasters and some cable channels but its service will cost more.
Sony will soon offer something more akin to a full-on cable bundle, albeit
likely at a higher price than the others-and notably, for now, without Walt Disney Co.'s
ESPN and ABC.
Apple is in talks with
several broadcasters to offer an online TV service this fall. WSJ's Shalini
Ramachandran explains on The News Hub. Photo: Apple
On top of all this,
consumers will have to factor in the cost of their broadband access. As a
reference point, one operator charges $67 a month for a speed of 25 megabits
per second once its first-year promotional discount ends.
Still,
the new streaming world has the potential to be "better for many consumers"
because it offers choice that the pay-TV industry never provided,
said Roger Lynch,chief executive of Dish's Sling TV streaming service. For
the "vast majority of all consumers, the pay-TV bundle offers good value. But
there's a growing number of consumers for whom that doesn't work anymore," he
said.
'The ice cube is melting'
-senior industry executive
Media giants have
their own calculations to make-quickly-as they prepare for a world that will
look very different in 12 months than it has for the past several decades.
For years, TV channel
owners and their pay-TV distributors-cable and satellite providers-were able to
count on two reliable trends: that pay-TV subscriptions in America would grow
each year, and that consumers would submit to paying ever-higher cable bills.
In the past two decades, the pay-TV industry has grown by about 40 million
subscribers to a total of about 100 million homes, and typical cable bills
increased at a compound average annual growth rate of about 6.1%, according to
the Federal Communications Commission. Those dynamics produced a steady stream
of subscription revenue that drove profits for Disney and Viacom Inc. just
as they did for DirecTV.
But evidence mounted
over the past couple of years that something fundamental was changing. In 2013,
the industry's base of subscribers contracted for the first time. Last year,
pay-TV subscriptions fell by 129,000 industrywide, according to
MoffettNathanson, even as analysts said new household formation surged,
typically a good sign for the industry in years past.
And
besides cutting the cord, more consumers started
"shaving" it,
downgrading tocheaper
packages
that operators began to offer. Comcast, for instance,
offers an "Internet Plus" package of HBO, fast broadband and local channels for
$40 a month, and AT&T has
been peddling a similar $49-a-month bundle that also includes Amazon.com Inc.'s
Prime free-shipping and streaming-video service for a year.
A mutiny was afoot,
threatening the pay-TV fortress. "The ice cube is melting," one senior industry
executive said. "It's a reality of the marketplace."
The TV advertising
business got a shock as ratings for major cable channels plunged, particularly
over the second half of last year. The Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau, an
industry trade group, recently told media executives that it estimates 40% of the
ratings decline
was due to viewers migrating from traditional
television to subscription streaming services like Netflix.
"It was happening at
a pace no one was anticipating," said an executive at one big TV network. "We
said, 'We better start finding other ways to grow.' "


WSJ.D


WSJ.D is the Journal's home for tech
news, analysis and product reviews.

·
Apple
Is in Talks to Offer a Bundle of TV Networks This Fall

·
Nintendo
Opens the Door to Smartphone Games

·
Pinterest
Is Valued at $11 Billion After Its Latest Funding

·
Google
Adds Humans to Review Apps, Launches Age Ratings

And
with that, media companies that for years had pooh-poohed cord-cutting was a
real threat, began to embrace it, albeit reluctantly. HBO, owned by Time Warner Inc., announced
its stand-alone Web streaming service in October, followed by CBS, while in the
background Dish and Sony assembled rights for their online TV bundles.
The goal for TV
channels is to carry out this experimentation while safeguarding the
traditional business to the extent possible. Virtually every TV network that
has launched a Web TV service says it hopes to target the roughly 10 million
homes that subscribe only to broadband service-without encouraging any current
pay-TV subscribers to drop their service.
But holding on to
pay-TV customers is getting harder. "We think there is going to be a continual
dripping, dripping, dripping of millennial consumers and poor consumers who
will be outside of the big bundle," said MoffettNathanson analyst Michael
Nathanson in an interview.
One
risk of the media companies' strategy is that by bringing TV channels to the
Web they aren't thinking far enough beyond their current business models. Their
real competition for young audiences in coming years will come from companies
likeFacebook, Vimeo
and Vessel that are attracting content creators from entirely outside the
pay-TV ecosystem, said Mr. Nathanson and his fellow analyst Craig Moffett.
"Our suspicion is
that the millennial cord cutter isn't waiting around for just the right package
of cable channels that only their parents watch," they wrote in a research note
Tuesday.
Not
every TV channel is assured a secure place in the emerging Web TV world,
analysts say. The small and midtier channel owners-companies like Discovery
Communications
Inc., Viacom, Scripps Network Interactive, and
A+E Networks-will be jockeying to make sure their networks are in the online TV
bundles being marketed to the audience of the future.
Some are making
headway. Discovery, owner of Discovery Channel, Animal Planet and TLC, and Viacom,
owner of MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon, are in talks to be on the Apple
service, people familiar with the matter said. Some A+E Networks channels will
be added to Sling TV's core package by the end of March, the companies
announced Tuesday.



















































































Write to Keach
Hagey at Keach.Hagey@wsj.com and
Shalini Ramachandran atShalini.Ramachandran@wsj.com

This post was edited on 4/14 4:40 PM by Boiler20

This post was edited on 4/14 4:42 PM by Boiler20

Unbundling
 
Another source for more Cord Cutting information.....with links

A friend who has somewhat in depth knowledge of cord cutting sent me this email on cord cutting...almost serves as a 'how-to' of sorts:


There are several sites out on the web that can give you thoughts
on cutting the cord from Cable/Satellite...


In fact there are a couple of decision tree systems to help you
figure out if cord cutting is right for you.


Just google and you will find those.




I have done this starting last October... I had Directv for 20
years...


It comes down to a couple of things.. How sports crazy are you..
do you have to have all of your Pro Football game LIVE?


If you have been getting Directv Sunday ticket and that is a must
you will have to stay with Directv


Now if you can live without that you are a good candidate for
cutting the cord.


The other learning I had was I was more of a grazer, in other
words many times I found what I wanted to watch by scrolling up and down in the
channel guide.. cutting the cord is totally different you have more of the
situation where you need to know what you want to watch and then going to it...


Also there is a question of how tech capable you are as there are
varying levels of systems you can employ.


Cord cutting isn't for everyone.... but for me it was a great
choice and I am saving about $100 a month... so it is about a 6 month break
even for buying all of this equipment .... but then after that money then you
are saving $1,000 or more a year.




Sadly due to control of the cable networks is preventing any one
company from putting together a nice all in one box with a single remote that
you can buy and just plug in... that will come here in a few years as the cable
systems grip will crumble.




Here is the basic systems that pretty much anyone can put together
and it's not too expensive to get set up...


​Channelmaster DVR + http://www.channelmaster.com/and
an external hard drive of 4 TB + antenna (~$400 - $450 in total)
-


this system gives you a full channel guide like a cable system..
this is local channels only but you will likely find 25 -40 channels of which
the majors will all be in HD.... I have an Omni antenna in my attic. It is a
Full function DVR which can record two shows at a time.. and you can set it to
record your favorite shows to go all season long... Do NOT be fooled by
other similar systems that are cheaper up front but they have a monthly
charge.. this one is a ONE TIME Only purchase and no ongoing fees at all. That
huge hard drive allows you to save 800 to 1000 hours of TV on the DVR... so you
can save most anything you want long term that way.




A Roku 3 box -(~$100 for the box) subscribe to Netflix (this
is if you don't have a flat panel Smart TV, if you have that then you can get
the Netflix through the TV) Netflix runs $9 a month. There are another
1400 channels available on Roku 3 and the majority of them are free...Then
beyond that you can get Hulu and or Amazon Prime. But to me Amazon Prime and
Netflix have a lot of the same material on them.




You do need a wireless network (router) in the house with a
MINIMUM Of 6 Mbps service... but it runs a LOT better with 20 Mbps or better




I borrow a cable log in from a family member to get to ESPN, BTN,
and a couple of other cable channels that you just cant get from any other
system that I wanted. But for those you will need to either have a laptop
or tablet to grab those channels and then send them to the TV


There is a new service called sling that just came out that will
give you ESPN and a few other channels but it cost $20 a month..... better to
borrow a log in from family member or friend in my opinion




This is where i end it for most people... and the above is not
hard to set up or manage...




Now if you are pretty good technically or able to watch and learn
from various You Tube videos you can set up a system called KODI...


http://kodi.tv/about/


It's an open source media center system that is like a Roku but
allows you to put on other add ons that give you access to streaming TV and
Movies from around the world..




If you have some experience on computers and are willing to watch
a few videos on how to set up some of the Add ons for this system this will
give you an almost limitless supply of online media to consume... If you are
not as technically savvy then don't attempt this.




I started out using KODI on my laptop but then moved to a
dedicated box to manage everything on ... http://www.ebay.com/itm/191401113697
for the box and then a mini keyboard http://www.ebay.com/itm/121491985935
The two items cost me $110.


There is no charge for the channels, TV shows or movies on this
system.....





If you have other specific questions about any hardware or service
I can probably answer them since I did some pretty in depth research into this
whole process.
 
Your article could be good, but the worst thing you can do is a copy pasta.

I didn't read a word.

Redo your submission with a link.
 
It is in there, at the end / bottom....termed 'Unbundling'. It is in this post also, after I come back and add it.

The reason I pasted the article is so in case any KH's want to actually READ the article beyond the first 2 paragraphs and they don't want to go through the hassle of joing the WSJ. Of course, that was the 'worst thing I could have done' according to you. Well, pardon me for trying to be accomodative.

You can also skip it entirely and go to the linked article in the very next post.
This post was edited on 4/15 3:02 AM by Boiler20

Unbundling
 
Good post, B20. This leads to the obvious question, what happens to the BTN if Cord Cutting actually comes about?

Methinks that we'd be in pretty good shape, ditto the SECN and probably the Pac-12 network. Those conferences have lots of alumni and fans and I would have not problem at all paying, say, $5/mo for BTN access. Ditto the ESPNs. And if stuff like PBS, ABC/CBS/Fox/NBC/FS1 would be another $2 each per month, no problem.

It will never be totally a la carte, meaning no sports bundles or news bundles, etc. There will be some mini-package deals thaty will be better value than simply picking your channels one by one.

I think the proposed ACC Network and any Big 12 network would be dead in the water if they don't launch before the cord cuts.
 
Re: Another source for more Cord Cutting information.....with links

I like how he terms it "borrowing a cable log in".

When it comes to live sports, cord cutting success is based upon how willing you are to dance on the ethics line.
 
you would have to pay a lot more than $5 a month for ESPN

The cable companies already pay ESPN more than $6 a month per subscriber. If they switch to ala carte, the monthly price will invariably go up significantly. One estimate is that only 25% of cable and satellite subscribers watch ESPN. If you do the math, that means at least $20 per month for ESPN if everything is ala carte.

The Big 10 Network reportedly charges cable companies around $1 per month per subscriber (CNN is about $0.57 per month). But, if everything goes ala carte, how much would the Big 10 Network need to collect from each subscriber to survive with its current level of programming? Keep in mind that even people who watch the BTN right now because it's part of their cable/satellite package will not pay a monthly fee specifically for the BTN. It's just human nature.



This post was edited on 4/15 7:21 PM by Noodle
 
Re: Another source for more Cord Cutting information.....with links


Originally posted by stout1:
I like how he terms it "borrowing a cable log in".

When it comes to live sports, cord cutting success is based upon how willing you are to dance on the ethics line.
Not just dancing on the ethics line, it's outright a crime. It's plain old theft of services, not to mention one or two other things depending on the state (like violation of criminal laws prohibiting unauthorized access to a computer network).
 
Re: you would have to pay a lot more than $5 a month for ESPN

Originally posted by Noodle:
The cable companies already pay ESPN more than $6 a month per subscriber. If they switch to ala carte, the monthly price will invariably go up significantly.
You are dead wrong on that assumption. Most of the subscribers who now get ESPN in their basic cable packages (75%?) do not care one iota about ESPN. If we go to ala carte, it will be a turkey shoot to see how many people will pony up for even $6/mo.
 
wow. you really are clueless

Originally posted by buygreekbonds:
Originally posted by Noodle:
The cable companies already pay ESPN more than $6 a month per subscriber. If they switch to ala carte, the monthly price will invariably go up significantly.
You are dead wrong on that assumption. Most of the subscribers who now get ESPN in their basic cable packages (75%?) do not care one iota about ESPN. If we go to ala carte, it will be a turkey shoot to see how many people will pony up for even $6/mo.
If ESPN is only available ala carte, the subscriber price would have to increase for ESPN to continue operating as anything remotely close to their current footprint and programming. At $6 a month for maybe 30% of their current subscriber reach, their annual revenue would be cut by 70%! Sure they could survive, but we'd be back to the days of Australian Rules football every other night.


Please tell me you never went to Purdue.



This post was edited on 4/15 10:14 PM by Noodle

$20 a month for ala carte ESPN
 
Don't believe me? then how about others saying the same thing?

Now, $36 would not work in my opinion, but it would be a hell of a lot better for ESPN than $6 a month for ala carte.



$36 a month for ESPN?
 
Re: you would have to pay a lot more than $5 a month for ESPN

p.s. did you get your education in Shanghai or Shenzhen? Oh wait, that's right, you don't know the difference between them. Kind of like a lot of things.
 
Re: Another source for more Cord Cutting information.....with links

Which is fine- you simply go ahead and buy the stripped down Internet Access plus HBO, ESPNs pkg from the cable provider, which will run you $20-40 / month.

Then you save only the $720-840 per year instead of the $1,000+ and have a more clear conscious. Nothing wrong with that.
 
Re: Another source for more Cord Cutting information.....with links

Originally posted by Boiler20:
Which is fine- you simply go ahead and buy the stripped down Internet Access plus HBO, ESPNs pkg from the cable provider, which will run you $20-40 / month.

Then you save only the $720-840 per year instead of the $1,000+ and have a more clear conscious. Nothing wrong with that.
I cut the cable a long time ago ... the media center front end I use (Kodi) has a plug in called "ustvnow" which streams all sorts of channels. And it is legit... not a torrent or "illegal" site.

ustvnow was put in place for people that live overseas that want to watch us shows. There is a free and paid version (paid version has a lot more channels and better quality).

There are just so many options out there now for cord cutting than there were even just a year ago. These massive packages that companies have where you pay 200 a month for 600 channels are going to be a thing of the past in the near future. That is just the way the industry is going.
 
Re: you would have to pay a lot more than $5 a month for ESPN


Originally posted by Noodle:
p.s. did you get your education in Shanghai or Shenzhen? Oh wait, that's right, you don't know the difference between them. Kind of like a lot of things.
Noodle, the train tickets that we bought had Chinese characters, not English letters. The person who sold them to us did not speak English. He had a map and pointed where we were and were we were going. The map was labeled in Chinese, not English. When he said "Shenzhen" we thought he was saying "Shanghai" but it really wasn't clear to us what he was saying.

My wife and I were at Clark Air Base, Philippines, for three years. During that time e flew Space A to Korea, Thailand, Hong Kong, Guam and Singapore. We also traveled to about a dozen of the Philippine islands. We usually took local buses to travel around and we've been to dozens of towns and cities where we had no inkling what the names were.

We also lived in Europe for five years and visited about every country there. We drove through hundreds of towns and cities and I can't remember half of them.

Now that short history should give enough fuel for more of your childish little rants throughout the summer and into the fall.
 
Re: you would have to pay a lot more than $5 a month for ESPN


hmmmm...if you took a train from Hong Kong to Shenzhen back in the 1980s/90's, not only would the train tickets have been printed in English and Cantonese, so would have all of the signs at the train station. Hong Kong back then was still British. Today, even though Hong Kong is significantly more Chinese than it was in the 1980s, most people speak English.

But the larger point is that your view of places like China, based on what you experienced 20+ years ago, is very distorted and inaccurate. China and Hong Kong are nothing like they were back then. Heck, in Shanghai alone there are more than 150,000 millionaires today. In some respects China is more capitalistic than the U.S.
 
if this were a fight

BGBs would need immediate medical attention.
 
Re: you would have to pay a lot more than $5 a month for ESPN


Originally posted by Noodle:



But the larger point is that your view of places like China, based on what you experienced 20+ years ago, is very distorted and inaccurate.
Noodle, what is my view of places like China? I've never mentioned a word about anything of the kind on this forum. Please tell us.


"The parents of handicapped children are the most unreasonable people you will ever deal with." - Ernie Terkel
This post was edited on 4/16 9:11 PM by buygreekbonds
 
Re: you would have to pay a lot more than $5 a month for ESPN

I'm pretty sure that you can fukk right off.
 
Re: you would have to pay a lot more than $5 a month for ESPN

Originally posted by buygreekbonds:

Originally posted by Noodle:



But the larger point is that your view of places like China, based on what you experienced 20+ years ago, is very distorted and inaccurate.
Noodle, what is my view of places like China? I've never mentioned a word about anything of the kind on this forum. Please tell us.


"The parents of handicapped children are the most unreasonable people you will ever deal with." - Ernie Terkel
This post was edited on 4/16 9:11 PM by buygreekbonds
Nice. So now you bring my child into this? LOL
This post was edited on 4/16 11:24 PM by Noodle
 
Re: you would have to pay a lot more than $5 a month for ESPN

Also, who in the hell is Ernie Terkel?
 
Re: you would have to pay a lot more than $5 a month for ESPN

What's funny is that I'm really not sure if I should feel offended or laugh out loud. I think he might have even made up that quote and it's supposed author.
 
Re: you would have to pay a lot more than $5 a month for ESPN

Originally posted by Noodle:
What's funny is that I'm really not sure if I should feel offended or laugh out loud. I think he might have even made up that quote and it's supposed author.
He's new here, right? How did he know?
 
Re: you would have to pay a lot more than $5 a month for ESPN

You're right. I may have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion, but of course I'm extremely unreasonable.
wink.r191677.gif


On the other hand, it's not like he includes random quotes in his posts. Oh well, he really did not offend me even if he intentionally tried to take a shot at me. Hell, I've been told that I'm a much more reasonable person compared to before my son was born.
 
Re: you would have to pay a lot more than $5 a month for ESPN

Originally posted by Noodle:
You're right. I may have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion, but of course I'm extremely unreasonable.
wink.r191677.gif


On the other hand, it's not like he includes random quotes in his posts. Oh well, he really did not offend me even if he intentionally tried to take a shot at me. Hell, I've been told that I'm a much more reasonable person compared to before my son was born.
No, I think your conclusion is dead-on, though with BGB I suppose anything is possible. The bizarre nature of the "quote" is interesting, as google tells nothing about either the quote or the person responsible. What kind of person makes up a pitiful "quote" like that? Maybe Ernie Terkel is the name he gave the voice in his head.

I think it's likely that BGB isn't his original screen-name, and he had some sort of interaction with you in the past.
 
Re: you would have to pay a lot more than $5 a month for ESPN

I thought Ernie Terkle was the sore armed pitcher the Cubs got in return when they traded future Hall-of-Famer Lou Brock. vbg
 
Re: you would have to pay a lot more than $5 a month for ESPN

Dr. Ernie Terkel was an SES executive with the Dept of HEW and that quotation was indeed part of his training for incoming public health personnel. The essence of the statement was "No matter how much we do to help these children, the parents don't think we're doing enough."

Noodle, I understand that chip on your shoulder. And I understand that it's not coming off.
 
Re: you would have to pay a lot more than $5 a month for ESPN


Originally posted by buygreekbonds:

"The parents of handicapped children are the most unreasonable people you will ever deal with." - Ernie Terkel
This post was edited on 4/16 9:11 PM by buygreekbonds
These types of comments have no purpose to be posted on here and is just an attempt to make things personal. I am embarrassed for you that you have to reach to such levels to try and prove your point.

It's just completely uncalled for.
 
Re: you would have to pay a lot more than $5 a month for ESPN

Originally posted by buygreekbonds:
Dr. Ernie Terkel was an SES executive with the Dept of HEW and that quotation was indeed part of his training for incoming public health personnel. The essence of the statement was "No matter how much we do to help these children, the parents don't think we're doing enough."

Noodle, I understand that chip on your shoulder. And I understand that it's not coming off.
But what in the world does that quote have to do with anything I said in this thread? "Dr. Terkel" certainly wasn't suggesting that parents of "handicapped children" are unreasonable with respect to all of their views (i.e., things unrelated to the welfare of their child). Yet, that's what you seem to be implying by your use of that quote--assuming it even was a quote in the first place.

As for "Dr. Ernie Terkel," are you sure you were not referring to Dr. Henry Turkel? Henry Turkel was a strong advocate of various vitamin therapies for children with Down syndrome--probably a rather benign treatment method, but one that has been proven to be completely useless (apart from the normal benefit that some vitamin supplements provide to any child).
 
way to go BGB

I mean the parents of handicapped kids have been skating by for way too long now. It was time for someone, anyone, to put them in their place.

And to think, you actually edited that.
 
so you were an Army vet

and thus the only real tie you might have had to "public health" is the role some Army vets play in virology, yet you were present at a training dealing with handicapped children?

Hmmmm....

I see you are doubling down. Kind of like someone on fire running to gas pumps and yelling, "fill 'er up!"
 
ADVERTISEMENT