If Ma Bell could be destroyed, so can they. But unlike the telephone world, they won't even have the opportunity to recombine.
There is a vast difference between the telecommunications monopoly enjoyed by AT&T until 1982 and the current state of mass media production and distribution as owned by a handful of companies today.
The only way to destroy the model is to "cut the cord." If enough people "cut the cord" then these robber barons will be forced to change their model.
Total Lobbying Expenditures by Company
The Walt Disney Company: $3,890,000
Time Warner: $3,548,000
News Corp: $6,340,000
Viacom: $1,400,000
Cool that HBO is even considering this but I'm still confused why so many people are interested in channels instead of programs.
Personally, I'd never ever subscribe to a channel. What I want is the individual shows. I could care less where they "air." All HBO really needs to do is put their shows on iTunes (and other sell-through sites) in a more timely fashion.
I cut my cable cord about seven years ago and haven't looked back. Channels are long since dead to me. These days I have a Netflix streaming account paired with iTunes and miss out on very little.
Are you suggesting that HBO continually replays the same content? All the more reason not to subscribe.
With an HBO subscription, you also get HBO Go and HBO On Demand, both of which provide unlimited access to all episodes of Game of Thrones, as well as all other current HBO original programs (and several past programs and a rotating monthly selection of about 400 movies).
Cool that HBO is even considering this but I'm still confused why so many people are interested in channels instead of programs.
Personally, I'd never ever subscribe to a channel. What I want is the individual shows. I could care less where they "air." All HBO really needs to do is put their shows on iTunes (and other sell-through sites) in a more timely fashion.
I cut my cable cord about seven years ago and haven't looked back. Channels are long since dead to me. These days I have a Netflix streaming account paired with iTunes and miss out on very little.
Miss out on very little. Don't watch much sports, do you?
It's all about revenue and numbers. Game of Thrones alone accounts for about 10 million viewers on HBO for each episode (across all broadcast and digital platforms). Assuming an average monthly subscription fee of about $15/month, that works out to $150 million PER MONTH from those viewers alone. That's the math that HBO is working off of when they time the sell-through for their DVD/Blu-ray and digital download releases.
If anything, the sell-through serves as an infomercial for the upcoming season. The promotional value of the home video release can't be underestimated. That's why HBO times the release for about one month prior to the new season premiere -- because it adds to the build up and it bumps up the subscription numbers. With Game of Thrones, this scheduling certainly hasn't hurt sales -- the Season Two release broke all of HBO's first week sales records for both DVD/Blu-ray and digital download formats.
I love the HBOGO app on my iPad....use it all the time to watch movies and original series! Cinemax too! I think most large media companies will soon offer "pay as you go" type monthly subscriptions..it makes so much sense for consumers!
Think about it. Netflix Hulu Plus= $16. Let's add another $10 for HBO. Then let's add some sports channel subscription, and a cooking channel. Get the picture? It doesn't take long for these subscription fees to mount up to the typical cable bill. In fact you could wind up with a bigger bill depending on your appetite. All on top of the of the cost for broadband service too. What about multiple HDTVs in the home? Even more bandwidth needed to increase overall cost. With data caps?
The a la carte model may sound attractive but it starts to add up quickly. Economy of scale and all that jazz. So I kind of chuckle at the "And the future slowly arrives" mindset.
That's the whole package right there. If the industry goes to an a la carte model, then the cost for each channel will skyrocket. For viewers that watch programs on several different channels, it would not take much to wind up paying more for fewer channels.
The economics of the industry are built around bundling on the basic tier, and the carriage fees are based on having those channels available to nearly all subscribers. For example, the carriage fees for ESPN average nearly $5 per cable/satellite subscriber. If ESPN was placed on an a la carte menu, the subscription charge would be a lot higher than $5 a month, since not every subscriber will select ESPN and ESPN would need to price the service such that they can maintain their revenue levels. Same goes for all other basic tier channels.
The prevailing mindset on so many of these so-called cord cutting threads is that if somebody pays for broadband service, then they are somehow entitled to programs for free or for cheap. It doesn't work that way. If someone wants the programming, then it needs to be paid for somewhere along the line -- whether that's with commercials, carriage fees, subscriptions, etc. If it's not paid for, then the programming doesn't get produced or it will need to be cheapened.
But, even broadband service isn't immune from potential carriage fees getting imposed. Take for example, ESPN3.com, which is ESPN's live game streaming service. It's free and it streams over 3,000 live events annually, including hundreds of events that aren't even televised on ESPN's broadcast channels. The catch? In order to access ESPN3.com, you need to get your broadband service from an ISP that already pays ESPN a carriage fee. In other words, if you can access the ESPN3.com website, then the cost for the service has already been bundled into your broadband service. Rather than billing customers directly for access to ESPN3, they decided to go straight to the ISPs. And that's an avenue that remains open for all other highly rated channels.
For now, the carriage fees are very low because the ratings are very low (ESPN estimates that less than 0.1% of their viewing occurs via streaming). Most major ISPs decided to simply pay ESPN rather than risk losing subscribers. But, what will happen if/when ESPN's streaming viewership increases to meaningful levels? How much will they charge per subscriber at that point? And what if other broadcasters follow ESPN's lead and starting demanding carriage fees of their own from the ISPs? In that scenario, the ISP becomes the bill collector for the content providers, serving the role that cable/satellite providers currently have.
That's the whole package right there. If the industry goes to an a la carte model, then the cost for each channel will skyrocket. For viewers that watch programs on several different channels, it would not take much to wind up paying more for fewer channels.
The economics of the industry are built around bundling on the basic tier, and the carriage fees are based on having those channels available to nearly all subscribers. For example, the carriage fees for ESPN average nearly $5 per cable/satellite subscriber. If ESPN was placed on an a la carte menu, the subscription charge would be a lot higher than $5 a month, since not every subscriber will select ESPN and ESPN would need to price the service such that they can maintain their revenue levels. Same goes for all other basic tier channels.
The prevailing mindset on so many of these so-called cord cutting threads is that if somebody pays for broadband service, then they are somehow entitled to programs for free or for cheap. It doesn't work that way. If someone wants the programming, then it needs to be paid for somewhere along the line -- whether that's with commercials, carriage fees, subscriptions, etc. If it's not paid for, then the programming doesn't get produced or it will need to be cheapened.
But, even broadband service isn't immune from potential carriage fees getting imposed. Take for example, ESPN3.com, which is ESPN's live game streaming service. It's free and it streams over 3,000 live events annually, including hundreds of events that aren't even televised on ESPN's broadcast channels. The catch? In order to access ESPN3.com, you need to get your broadband service from an ISP that already pays ESPN a carriage fee. In other words, if you can access the ESPN3.com website, then the cost for the service has already been bundled into your broadband service. Rather than billing customers directly for access to ESPN3, they decided to go straight to the ISPs. And that's an avenue that remains open for all other highly rated channels.
For now, the carriage fees are very low because the ratings are very low (ESPN estimates that less than 0.1% of their viewing occurs via streaming). Most major ISPs decided to simply pay ESPN rather than risk losing subscribers. But, what will happen if/when ESPN's streaming viewership increases to meaningful levels? How much will they charge per subscriber at that point? And what if other broadcasters follow ESPN's lead and starting demanding carriage fees of their own from the ISPs? In that scenario, the ISP becomes the bill collector for the content providers, serving the role that cable/satellite providers currently have.
This is exactly what HBO is proposing and is the reason this is such a bad idea. The content producers and distributors are simply repackaging the same content in a different wrapping paper and ribbon.
Hey, when my 80+ year old father-in-law is complaining of the way his cable bill keeps going up unexpectedly, and starts sending me stories about how you can get all your TV over the internets these days, I think a tipping point may be nearing...
I love the HBOGO app on my iPad....use it all the time to watch movies and original series! Cinemax too! I think most large media companies will soon offer "pay as you go" type monthly subscriptions..it makes so much sense for consumers!
I hope so...I also hope Formula One will do it too!
Comments
Difference being that Ma Bell was a monopoly.
I can't apologize. I only provide the facts (with some opinion). Interpret the facts as you will.
There is a vast difference between the telecommunications monopoly enjoyed by AT&T until 1982 and the current state of mass media production and distribution as owned by a handful of companies today.
The only way to destroy the model is to "cut the cord." If enough people "cut the cord" then these robber barons will be forced to change their model.
Total Lobbying Expenditures by Company
The Walt Disney Company: $3,890,000
Time Warner: $3,548,000
News Corp: $6,340,000
Viacom: $1,400,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcasey
i wont buy cable but i would buy hbo..i doubt im alone here..
It's all about Game of Thrones. I know quite a few people that would buy 3 months of HBO for this alone - me included.
iTunes
Game of Thrones Season 1 (HD) USD $38.99
Game of Thrones Season 2 (HD) USD $38.99
Or $45 for 3 months worth of HBO and one can watch seasons 1&2 plus episodes of season 3 as soon as they air.
Are you suggesting that HBO continually replays the same content? All the more reason not to subscribe.
I have an agenda.
My agenda is saving you money.
Cool that HBO is even considering this but I'm still confused why so many people are interested in channels instead of programs.
Personally, I'd never ever subscribe to a channel. What I want is the individual shows. I could care less where they "air." All HBO really needs to do is put their shows on iTunes (and other sell-through sites) in a more timely fashion.
I cut my cable cord about seven years ago and haven't looked back. Channels are long since dead to me. These days I have a Netflix streaming account paired with iTunes and miss out on very little.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
Are you suggesting that HBO continually replays the same content? All the more reason not to subscribe.
With an HBO subscription, you also get HBO Go and HBO On Demand, both of which provide unlimited access to all episodes of Game of Thrones, as well as all other current HBO original programs (and several past programs and a rotating monthly selection of about 400 movies).
Quote:
Originally Posted by yensid98
Cool that HBO is even considering this but I'm still confused why so many people are interested in channels instead of programs.
Personally, I'd never ever subscribe to a channel. What I want is the individual shows. I could care less where they "air." All HBO really needs to do is put their shows on iTunes (and other sell-through sites) in a more timely fashion.
I cut my cable cord about seven years ago and haven't looked back. Channels are long since dead to me. These days I have a Netflix streaming account paired with iTunes and miss out on very little.
Miss out on very little. Don't watch much sports, do you?
It's all about revenue and numbers. Game of Thrones alone accounts for about 10 million viewers on HBO for each episode (across all broadcast and digital platforms). Assuming an average monthly subscription fee of about $15/month, that works out to $150 million PER MONTH from those viewers alone. That's the math that HBO is working off of when they time the sell-through for their DVD/Blu-ray and digital download releases.
If anything, the sell-through serves as an infomercial for the upcoming season. The promotional value of the home video release can't be underestimated. That's why HBO times the release for about one month prior to the new season premiere -- because it adds to the build up and it bumps up the subscription numbers. With Game of Thrones, this scheduling certainly hasn't hurt sales -- the Season Two release broke all of HBO's first week sales records for both DVD/Blu-ray and digital download formats.
No I'm saying all that content can be viewed on VOD and HBO Go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
Think about it. Netflix Hulu Plus= $16. Let's add another $10 for HBO. Then let's add some sports channel subscription, and a cooking channel. Get the picture? It doesn't take long for these subscription fees to mount up to the typical cable bill. In fact you could wind up with a bigger bill depending on your appetite. All on top of the of the cost for broadband service too. What about multiple HDTVs in the home? Even more bandwidth needed to increase overall cost. With data caps?
The a la carte model may sound attractive but it starts to add up quickly. Economy of scale and all that jazz. So I kind of chuckle at the "And the future slowly arrives" mindset.
That's the whole package right there. If the industry goes to an a la carte model, then the cost for each channel will skyrocket. For viewers that watch programs on several different channels, it would not take much to wind up paying more for fewer channels.
The economics of the industry are built around bundling on the basic tier, and the carriage fees are based on having those channels available to nearly all subscribers. For example, the carriage fees for ESPN average nearly $5 per cable/satellite subscriber. If ESPN was placed on an a la carte menu, the subscription charge would be a lot higher than $5 a month, since not every subscriber will select ESPN and ESPN would need to price the service such that they can maintain their revenue levels. Same goes for all other basic tier channels.
The prevailing mindset on so many of these so-called cord cutting threads is that if somebody pays for broadband service, then they are somehow entitled to programs for free or for cheap. It doesn't work that way. If someone wants the programming, then it needs to be paid for somewhere along the line -- whether that's with commercials, carriage fees, subscriptions, etc. If it's not paid for, then the programming doesn't get produced or it will need to be cheapened.
But, even broadband service isn't immune from potential carriage fees getting imposed. Take for example, ESPN3.com, which is ESPN's live game streaming service. It's free and it streams over 3,000 live events annually, including hundreds of events that aren't even televised on ESPN's broadcast channels. The catch? In order to access ESPN3.com, you need to get your broadband service from an ISP that already pays ESPN a carriage fee. In other words, if you can access the ESPN3.com website, then the cost for the service has already been bundled into your broadband service. Rather than billing customers directly for access to ESPN3, they decided to go straight to the ISPs. And that's an avenue that remains open for all other highly rated channels.
For now, the carriage fees are very low because the ratings are very low (ESPN estimates that less than 0.1% of their viewing occurs via streaming). Most major ISPs decided to simply pay ESPN rather than risk losing subscribers. But, what will happen if/when ESPN's streaming viewership increases to meaningful levels? How much will they charge per subscriber at that point? And what if other broadcasters follow ESPN's lead and starting demanding carriage fees of their own from the ISPs? In that scenario, the ISP becomes the bill collector for the content providers, serving the role that cable/satellite providers currently have.
This is exactly what HBO is proposing and is the reason this is such a bad idea. The content producers and distributors are simply repackaging the same content in a different wrapping paper and ribbon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
The only way to destroy the model is to "cut the cord." If enough people "cut the cord" then these robber barons will be forced to change their model.
Kabletown...uh...I mean Comcast, had around 400,000 of their customers (net) "cut the cord" last year:
http://www.businessinsider.com/comcast-loses-nearly-400000-subscribers-in-last-year-2012-8
...including me
Hey, when my 80+ year old father-in-law is complaining of the way his cable bill keeps going up unexpectedly, and starts sending me stories about how you can get all your TV over the internets these days, I think a tipping point may be nearing...
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
And the future slowly arrives. One day cable subscription will be remembered like milk deliveries.
Bingo! I'm a cable cutter going on 5 years now....I will definitely get this just for Real Time!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordon Eagan
I love the HBOGO app on my iPad....use it all the time to watch movies and original series! Cinemax too! I think most large media companies will soon offer "pay as you go" type monthly subscriptions..it makes so much sense for consumers!
I hope so...I also hope Formula One will do it too!