5 ms·

Pay TV Just Lost One Million Subscribers in Biggest Quarterly Loss Ever

19 points by sharkweek 8y ago

phendrenad2 8y ago
Recently cancelled my service. I realized that I was paying for something that's already ad-supported. Why am I oaying to eatch ads? Doesn't make sense.
- Analemma_ 8y ago
  You’re paying twice because the fees pay for the delivery service/infrastructure, while the ads pay for the content. They are made by different companies. You might as well ask why you have to pay for Netflix when you’re already paying your ISP.
  - rasz 8y ago
    nah, cable providers sell your viewing habits and channel spot order, you paying is just cherry on top
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    You’re paying twice because they figured out that they could get you to pay twice. Expect Netflix et al to do the same once they hit the end of subscriber growth.
  - phendrenad2 8y ago
    There's absolutely no reason why my cable bill couldn't encapsulate all of the payees. None. It's just a failure to upend the status quo. "They are made by different companies"... Companies pay eachother all the time.
  - bootsz 8y ago
    Originally cable didn’t have ads: https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-invaded-by-commercials.html https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-inv...
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      Yes, cable had ads from day one (as the first sentence of your article hints when it notes that cable was never conceived as ad free.) Originally, cable carried the exact same (ad supported) broadcast channels as were available by terrestrial broadcast; it was a way to get them when you weren't in a location with good reception (which was fairly common, at the time cable originated, places that weren't close to a major market center with a flat line of sight to it; stations weren't expending more power to broadcast than was needed to meet the big markets.) That article is actually quite odd; the then-existing cable-only channels it mentions were mostly also commercially supported from day one, the ones they report on considering commercial models are channels preparing to go online, not then-operational ad-free channels. While they point to a public expectation of ad-free cable, they don't point to any actual history outside of premium channels (that generally remain ad-free), and other than public access channels, few non-premium cable channels were ever ad-free (except PBS broadcast channels carried by cable operators, when PBS had public funding that allowed it to operate ad free, but that had nothing to do with cable.)
      - masonic 8y ago
        The ARTS Channel[0] is ad-free in the USA. [0] http://www.classicartsshowcase.org http://www.classicartsshowcase.org
  - intopieces 8y ago
    When I go to a restaurant, I don't pay the waiter and the restaurant's food distributor on separate bills. They're bundled together as a single product.
    - kingnothing 8y ago
      You do in America by tipping the waiter.
      - phendrenad2 8y ago
        It's always confusing when your restaurant booth is dark, until you remember to pay the electric bill.
kevin_b_er 8y ago
This is why we see the ISPs engaging in Net Discrimination. They want to extract more money from both ends through intentional degradation of cord cutting services.
rland 8y ago
We are at the point where each consumer's spending on Cable TV is now transitioning to "Streaming Services" a.k.a. Cable 2.0. In the end "Cord cutting" will not save money; it will simply mean that instead of paying Cox or Comcast, the consumer pays monthly for Netflix, Disney, Hulu, HBO etc. When there are too many separate streaming services (that there are too many $10 monthlies from each service coming to the house) they will be bundled together and sold as "TV," most likely by Cox or Comcast. This will all be surrounded by a huge amount of marketing, but the bill will be identical: around $60/mo for the basic package and $120/mo for the deluxe package. And everything that was old will be new again. And watch too, as ads find there way in somewhere in the process. They are already in the form of aggressive product placement, and some paid streaming services (Hulu) are rolling them out.
- otakucode 8y ago
  Cord cutting won't save money? I've seen this said multiple places, but it seems inane. A BASIC cable TV subscription costs over $100/mo. Streaming services are typically $10/mo or so. And they offer radically more content, at radically higher quality, with radically higher convenience, etc. Who out there is in need of 10 simultaneous streaming subscriptions? You are right, though, that Cox, Comcast, etc will likely bundle together Netflix, Hulu, Facebook Video, YouTube, etc and try to "sell" it, while aggressively throttling data usage. The fact that distribution of content is now worthless, and distribution is the primary value proposition of their business model won't stop them from making money so long as the government is on their side.
  - awinder 8y ago
    Most of the big providers (comcast & verizon certainly) bundle tv & internet together at fairly low rates. For instance, FIOS gigabit is $80/month alone, $80/month for internet + 155 tv channels. Certainly not $100/month for a basic TV subscription.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > A BASIC cable TV subscription costs over $100/mo. No, it doesn't. > Streaming services are typically $10/mo or so. Streaming multichannel video distribution platform (MVDP) services that are most comparable to a cable subscription, with live TV channels (YouTubeTV, SlingTV, PlaystationTV, DirecTV Now, Hulu with Live TV) have some variation in pricing, but the bottom is way above $10/mo. ~$40/mo seems to be typical base fee, comparable with basic cable plans (U-Verse Basic is $19.99/mo + $10/mo for HD.) $10-15/mo. streaming services are typically more comparable in what they offer to a single premium cable channels, but without live programming and sometimes with little better on-demand catalog. Some of them are exactly equivalent to such a channel (e.g., HBO Now). In addition, streaming services count against your broadband services data cap, which may necessitate additional charges for uncapped service (and require sufficient broadband bandwidth, which may also force a higher tiers of service than you otherwise would use—cable/satellite mostly subsumes all of that.) > The fact that distribution of content is now worthless, and distribution is the primary value proposition of their business model Essentislly all the cable companies are both (owned by, or own) major content owners and major broadband (often both fixed and mobile) ISPs, they often also own or co-own one or more streaming services (sometimes both MVDP and “single channel” style services). They are making money no matter what route you choose to the content.

19 points by sharkweek 8y ago

Recently cancelled my service. I realized that I was paying for something that's already ad-supported. Why am I oaying to eatch ads? Doesn't make sense.

Analemma_ 8y ago
You’re paying twice because the fees pay for the delivery service/infrastructure, while the ads pay for the content. They are made by different companies. You might as well ask why you have to pay for Netflix when you’re already paying your ISP.
- rasz 8y ago
  nah, cable providers sell your viewing habits and channel spot order, you paying is just cherry on top
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  You’re paying twice because they figured out that they could get you to pay twice. Expect Netflix et al to do the same once they hit the end of subscriber growth.
- phendrenad2 8y ago
  There's absolutely no reason why my cable bill couldn't encapsulate all of the payees. None. It's just a failure to upend the status quo. "They are made by different companies"... Companies pay eachother all the time.
- bootsz 8y ago
  Originally cable didn’t have ads: https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-invaded-by-commercials.html https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-inv...
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Yes, cable had ads from day one (as the first sentence of your article hints when it notes that cable was never conceived as ad free.) Originally, cable carried the exact same (ad supported) broadcast channels as were available by terrestrial broadcast; it was a way to get them when you weren't in a location with good reception (which was fairly common, at the time cable originated, places that weren't close to a major market center with a flat line of sight to it; stations weren't expending more power to broadcast than was needed to meet the big markets.) That article is actually quite odd; the then-existing cable-only channels it mentions were mostly also commercially supported from day one, the ones they report on considering commercial models are channels preparing to go online, not then-operational ad-free channels. While they point to a public expectation of ad-free cable, they don't point to any actual history outside of premium channels (that generally remain ad-free), and other than public access channels, few non-premium cable channels were ever ad-free (except PBS broadcast channels carried by cable operators, when PBS had public funding that allowed it to operate ad free, but that had nothing to do with cable.)
    - masonic 8y ago
      The ARTS Channel[0] is ad-free in the USA. [0] http://www.classicartsshowcase.org http://www.classicartsshowcase.org
- intopieces 8y ago
  When I go to a restaurant, I don't pay the waiter and the restaurant's food distributor on separate bills. They're bundled together as a single product.
  - kingnothing 8y ago
    You do in America by tipping the waiter.
    - phendrenad2 8y ago
      It's always confusing when your restaurant booth is dark, until you remember to pay the electric bill.

kevin_b_er 8y ago

This is why we see the ISPs engaging in Net Discrimination. They want to extract more money from both ends through intentional degradation of cord cutting services.

rland 8y ago

We are at the point where each consumer's spending on Cable TV is now transitioning to "Streaming Services" a.k.a. Cable 2.0. In the end "Cord cutting" will not save money; it will simply mean that instead of paying Cox or Comcast, the consumer pays monthly for Netflix, Disney, Hulu, HBO etc. When there are too many separate streaming services (that there are too many $10 monthlies from each service coming to the house) they will be bundled together and sold as "TV," most likely by Cox or Comcast. This will all be surrounded by a huge amount of marketing, but the bill will be identical: around $60/mo for the basic package and $120/mo for the deluxe package. And everything that was old will be new again. And watch too, as ads find there way in somewhere in the process. They are already in the form of aggressive product placement, and some paid streaming services (Hulu) are rolling them out.

otakucode 8y ago
Cord cutting won't save money? I've seen this said multiple places, but it seems inane. A BASIC cable TV subscription costs over $100/mo. Streaming services are typically $10/mo or so. And they offer radically more content, at radically higher quality, with radically higher convenience, etc. Who out there is in need of 10 simultaneous streaming subscriptions? You are right, though, that Cox, Comcast, etc will likely bundle together Netflix, Hulu, Facebook Video, YouTube, etc and try to "sell" it, while aggressively throttling data usage. The fact that distribution of content is now worthless, and distribution is the primary value proposition of their business model won't stop them from making money so long as the government is on their side.
- awinder 8y ago
  Most of the big providers (comcast & verizon certainly) bundle tv & internet together at fairly low rates. For instance, FIOS gigabit is $80/month alone, $80/month for internet + 155 tv channels. Certainly not $100/month for a basic TV subscription.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > A BASIC cable TV subscription costs over $100/mo. No, it doesn't. > Streaming services are typically $10/mo or so. Streaming multichannel video distribution platform (MVDP) services that are most comparable to a cable subscription, with live TV channels (YouTubeTV, SlingTV, PlaystationTV, DirecTV Now, Hulu with Live TV) have some variation in pricing, but the bottom is way above $10/mo. ~$40/mo seems to be typical base fee, comparable with basic cable plans (U-Verse Basic is $19.99/mo + $10/mo for HD.) $10-15/mo. streaming services are typically more comparable in what they offer to a single premium cable channels, but without live programming and sometimes with little better on-demand catalog. Some of them are exactly equivalent to such a channel (e.g., HBO Now). In addition, streaming services count against your broadband services data cap, which may necessitate additional charges for uncapped service (and require sufficient broadband bandwidth, which may also force a higher tiers of service than you otherwise would use—cable/satellite mostly subsumes all of that.) > The fact that distribution of content is now worthless, and distribution is the primary value proposition of their business model Essentislly all the cable companies are both (owned by, or own) major content owners and major broadband (often both fixed and mobile) ISPs, they often also own or co-own one or more streaming services (sometimes both MVDP and “single channel” style services). They are making money no matter what route you choose to the content.