Future of Cable TV

July 12th, 2015 at 6:22:09 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18218
Quote: Pacomartin
They also charge a $4 Sports surcharge and $2 for entertainment. The phone has a $8.50 FSLC charge (which is not a tax). It just allows you to hook up to calls outside of your local area. In other words to function as a telephone.


It is pretty clear that they are committing seppuku, but in the short term they still collect these fees.


Increasing revenue from a decreasing market was taught to us to be a "cash cow." Little investment, just milk daily. Cable has 10-20 years of easy milk left. People over 50 now will keep keeping it as they do landlines. It is, however, dying out and fast.
The President is a fink.
July 13th, 2015 at 9:09:02 AM permalink
reno
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 58
Posts: 1384
Quote: AZDuffman
Cable has 10-20 years of easy milk left. People over 50 now will keep keeping it as they do landlines. It is, however, dying out and fast.


The amazing part is that the media companies (Disney, CBS) still battle the cable/satellite companies (Comcast, DirecTV) over retransmission fees, and those battles can get ugly, with channel blackouts. You'd think they'd just sort of agree to a gentleman's truce, for everyone's benefit.

When music sales plummeted 10 years ago, it was just one industry in denial. With television, it's two industries in denial.
July 13th, 2015 at 9:27:58 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: reno
When music sales plummeted 10 years ago, it was just one industry in denial. With television, it's two industries in denial.


It's not quite TV as a whole, but cable and broadcast. TV production is doing well selling to a plethora of buyers, be they cable, broadcast or streaming.

What I'd like to see is the streaming companies take on new types of TV. remember miniseries? They were never a really big draw, with few exceptions (like Roots). They seem rather fit for streaming, if extended a bit. Say 12 to 24 hours of programming. A real miniseries rather than a long movie. Something you can binge on over a long weekend from start to finish.

That's just one idea. I'm sure there will be many others.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
July 13th, 2015 at 9:29:54 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Oh, another thing. If TV shows get pirated as much as music was a few years ago, the production companies have a revenue option they can apply in such a case: sell ads placed directly on the show. Product placement would be a start, but watch Minority Report for better (worse) ideas.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
July 13th, 2015 at 11:34:37 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: Nareed
They were never a really big draw, with few exceptions (like Roots). They seem rather fit for streaming, if extended a bit. Say 12 to 24 hours of programming. A real miniseries rather than a long movie. Something you can binge on over a long weekend from start to finish.



The British don't use the term mini series, but that is what we would call them. For instance, Foyle's War episodes are about 100 minutes, and they have made only 28 episodes in 13 years. Very high quality productions which got bigger and bigger budgets as the popularity increased. The BBC has announced for the third time that they will not produce anymore episodes as the show is too expensive.

The show has some diehard fans, like LA Times critic mary.mcnamara​@latimes.com who proclaims "I don’t want it to end. Ever." "The world I cover as a critic may be bursting at the seams with the exquisite and the innovative, the mind-blowing and the groundbreaking, but sustained excellence is still hard to come by. But “Foyle’s War” started out great and just keeps getting better."

Some of us hope that Netflix will come to the rescue.
July 13th, 2015 at 12:04:06 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: Pacomartin
The British don't use the term mini series, but that is what we would call them. For instance, Foyle's War episodes are about 100 minutes, and they have made only 28 episodes in 13 years.


2 eps per year? I'd have lost interest after the first year...

I meant more like 28 eps in two years. The first run might draw few viewers, but over the years they'd add up.

The thing is people like binge-watching. I know exactly why, as I've binged several shows on DVD and streaming. It's simple. You're enjoying the show and have all these eps available, you'll watch as many as you can right away. Anyway, give them something they can binge on over a weekend or two. IMO 24 to 48 hours are plenty to make a long, detailed TV novel.

Or go shorter and work on good book adaptations. Think of the many book-based movies which leave you wishing for what got cut out from the book.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
July 13th, 2015 at 12:33:25 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25013
Most of Dickens works were produced in a
weekly format, like TV episodes. That's why
they're so long and complicated. People
couldn't wait for the next installment, they
were the soaps of the Victorian era. Now we
can binge on them, of course. It's nothing
new.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
July 13th, 2015 at 4:03:30 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18218
Quote: reno
The amazing part is that the media companies (Disney, CBS) still battle the cable/satellite companies (Comcast, DirecTV) over retransmission fees, and those battles can get ugly, with channel blackouts. You'd think they'd just sort of agree to a gentleman's truce, for everyone's benefit.

When music sales plummeted 10 years ago, it was just one industry in denial. With television, it's two industries in denial.


Well to be fair Disney, et al still produce content. Even if when cable as we know it dies, content will still be needed. I still see a mini-pack of 8-10 channels with decent content, which will take us back to the very early 1980s in that regard. I see youtube, podcasts, and some other micro-content providers popping up. I watch a gardening guy, a repo guy, and auto news on YT. They seem to be able to get a living on 100-200K viewers, which is nothing in many ways.
The President is a fink.
July 13th, 2015 at 4:46:40 PM permalink
reno
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 58
Posts: 1384
Quote: AZDuffman
Even if when cable as we know it dies, content will still be needed.


Yeah, cable might eventually die. But the overlords who own the pipes (Comcast, Cox, Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner Cable) will just make all their revenue from outrageously overpriced broadband internet. Not sure where DirecTV & Dish Network will fit in to that paradigm.

Alas, Comcast will never die.
July 13th, 2015 at 5:18:17 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: reno
Not sure where DirecTV & Dish Network will fit in to that paradigm.


We forget sometimes that there are almost 60 million people in the USA that live in areas classified as "rural". That is nearly the population of the United Kingdom (64 million). They need TV and satellite based internet as well.

As Multichannel Video Programming Distributors, Dish Network, and DirectTV have possibly more subscribers than any cable company except COMCAST.