Personal digital TV subscriptions

It seems as if the cable companies have figured out how to capitalize on the switch to digital media.

Historically, when AT&T was broken up in 1984 a family of four paid for a single telephone line into the house, and paid long distance. A second line was usually reserved for either spoiled children or for a business line if you were self employed. Nowadays, a family of 4 is expected to pay $160 for four mobile phone lines and often doesn't bother with a land line.

In some ways it mirrors the evolution of the one car family which is nearly nonexistent.

Cable companies are going to sell digital streaming television which will be more easily customized, and less costly than traditional cable, but the catch is that it will be personal. That means that you will be able to view the service on the big screen in the TV room, or you will be able to watch it on smaller screens or tablets, etc but you will not be able to watch more than one channel at once.

While you could easily reproduce a single line mobile phone (like it was 1984), and purchase a bluetooth enabled 4 handset system for your house for $100 (to handle phone calls when you are at home) most families of four could not stand sharing a single line.


Following that lead, the companies are gambling that most couples want to watch different things AT THE SAME TIME on television, and will pony up the extra money. If couples can't do it, then there is almost no chance for a family of four.

That way the media companies will protect their revenue stream.

QUESTION: If you are half of a couple, could you make do with a single TV program available at one time? Could you watch TV together, or one of you read a book while the other one watches a show that is only appealing to him/her?

I always watch TV alone now. The concept of watching
a program with someone else, even my wife, is an unlikely
scenario. People still do that? The fam gathers around the
flat screen? I doubt it..

Quote: Evenbob

I always watch TV alone now. The concept of watching
a program with someone else, even my wife, is an unlikely
scenario. People still do that? The fam gathers around the
flat screen? I doubt it..

I should say Netflix or products like it is exempt. The question is could you stand to watch football while your wife reads a book or watches Netflix, and then she could take a turn and watch a live stream brand new TV series?

Of course, a lot depends on if you could record a show. If you watch live football game, it doesn't mean she misses her TV show, but she must time shift until you are done.

The cable companies are better that couples will not be able to do that, and hence will purchase multiple services, and keep their revenue high.

It's been a full ten years since my wife and
I watched a show together, and it was on
DVD. It all about individual choice now,
no more having the whole fam watching
Gilligans Island. I don't want to view TV
with another person, ick. I'll ask again,
do people still do that? Why?

This sounds like the same kind of denial the record companies were in about 1999 when Napster was destroying their model. Their initial response was a service where you paid a monthly fee and could only listen to the songs on your PC. Not surprisingly few bought the service.

Cable still does not get it. I don't want to pay $80 a month for the five channels I watch. So I found Roku, got Netflix, and over a year changed my viewing habits. Now I might not go back for even $10 a month. I have learned and liked to binge watch. I developed other things to do. Others here on the board have said the same. Right now I am binge watching a neat if basic auto-repair show on my Roku. No commercials! Basic, but interesting.

Last year cable subscriptions went down for the first time ever. It is the first in a trend. We won't even need congressional action to get it ala carte. I predict within 5-10 years there will be an easy but underground way to get live feeds of cable channels. After it starts to take hold there will be a move to just allow people to get the feed legit. At the same time, cable subscriptions will keep falling. This vise will force most channels to price reasonable. The nice channels will either close or just be free over the internet. The biggies will possible small bundle but $25 a year is all they will get.

The model of ESPN will be the trickiest. My guess is half the people paying $7 a month whether they know it or not would drop it in an instant. They will be really trapped. They may have to offer "mini pay per view" for maybe $1 a night.

All I know it the old model dies more by the day.

Quote: AZDuffman

The model of ESPN will be the trickiest. My guess is half the people paying $7 a month whether they know it or not would drop it in an instant. They will be really trapped. They may have to offer "mini pay per view" for maybe $1 a night.

All I know it the old model dies more by the day.

ESPN thinks it will be much more than half. The problem is, of course, the price will go up and up which will result in the potential people who want to pay for it will go down. Most people are saying $25 will be the probable stand alone price.

The old business model from five years ago where a signal comes into your house and you can break it up over 5 televisions will not work either. The cable companies have pretty much destroyed that by encrypting the signal and requiring set top boxes on each TV.

I don't think anything on Netflix is less than 18 months old other than the handful of programs they produce. The industry will not survive in it's present form if half the households are paying $8-$12 /month.

Quote: Pacomartin

ESPN thinks it will be much more than half. The problem is, of course, the price will go up and up which will result in the potential people who want to pay for it will go down. Most people are saying $25 will be the probable stand alone price.

It will be interesting to see. Say half drop almost instantly so the price goes to $14. Then the ones who didn't know they were paying so much in the first place catch on. They lose another half and it goes to $28, just around the $25 you quoted. Not you are getting to the point where it is only the real sports fan who is left. While they are heavy viewers, will they pay so much? Even big sports fans have their favorite sports and ones they don't care so much about. $300 a year for ESPN?

Is ESPN the pioneer in the Obamacare model where you make everyone pay whether they want it or not just so it is less costly to some?

In theory you could just purchase TV episodes. If 20 million people pay twenty fives cents for a half hour of TBBT that seems about right. It balances out the $5 million that they currently get for advertising. Other shows would be cheaper. But how do you explain why episodes of a TV series cost $3 for a half hour right now on iTunes?

The Fcc has been trying to encourage small indie type productions since TV began. Prime Time used to start at 7:00 PM every day of the week (not just Sundays). They moved it to 8:00 PM hoping that smaller independent regional productions would air. Instead, they just created a huge market for syndication, often simply showing sitcoms that formerly aired on network.

Video on Demand options keep growing, but it is all organized by channel. You look under ABC, NBC, FXX, FXX, SyFy, etc. It would seem to me that if they put all the shows in a Netflix type of organization, and you could easily select one and you watch the show. But that would just emphasize to the consumer that the network is superfluous. They don't want the network to be secondary. They want you to tune to AMC, and then find THE WALKING DEAD under AMC.

I think a network executive's worst nightmare is to imagine television as a menu of choices (including sports) with prices attached to each show. The consumer would pick a show or a game, and pay a price. About 50% of television jobs would immediately vanish.

Quote: Pacomartin

I should say Netflix or products like it is exempt. The question is could you stand to watch football while your wife reads a book or watches Netflix, and then she could take a turn and watch a live stream brand new TV series?

Of course, a lot depends on if you could record a show. If you watch live football game, it doesn't mean she misses her TV show, but she must time shift until you are done.

The cable companies are better that couples will not be able to do that, and hence will purchase multiple services, and keep their revenue high.

Brighthouse (my cable company) is already offering this in the Orlando area. They are marketing wireless with enough bandwith to watch 3 HD channels at once, off 1 feed. And making their entire lineup available on demand, including live feeds.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Brighthouse (my cable company) is already offering this in the Orlando area. They are marketing wireless with enough bandwith to watch 3 HD channels at once, off 1 feed. And making their entire lineup available on demand, including live feeds.

Does that mean you can watch any channel on a digital device?