Future of linear cable channels?

[tall_guy1]

Most cable channels are on autopilot, airing a few blocks of a handful of shows. How much longer will they last with more cordcutters?

 

[Theater of My Mind]

The only things I see sustaining cable TV right now are live news and sports. And the sports is quickly migrating to streaming platforms. That leaves the live news channels.

Everything else is taped shows and they must all be available on demand via streaming platforms by now, with a few on the OTA channels that can be had for free.

 

[louis_p]

Several of the streaming platforms include linear channels. Tubi, Pluto, Paramount, Prime, and Peacock offer themed channels that repeat programming throughout the day. Apparently, Netflix is considering linear channels as well.

These channels allow an audience to discover new content. Also, some people like to select a channel and allow programming to continuously play instead of browsing through an infinite of catalog options that can lead to decision fatigue.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Many of the broadcast diginets are doing likewise. Example: The reconstituted Ion+ is doing six hour long blocks of such shows as Leverage, Murdoch Mysteries, the recent MacGyver reboot, and (don't ask me why) the 1970's trucker-based drama Movin' On.

 

[Don CT]

Cable companies know this so they are pushing internet and security services. There is no future for “Cable TV”.

 

[louis_p]

Cable companies know this so they are pushing internet and security services. There is no future for “Cable TV”.

Cable companies make a lot of money from internet services. Beyond the capital hardware costs and monthly peering fees, most of the monthly fees paid by subscribers are profits.

For Cable TV, a significant portion of the subscription fee is paid to the content owners and media companies.

 

[Don CT]

Cable companies make a lot of money from internet services. Beyond the capital hardware costs and monthly peering fees, most of the monthly fees paid by subscribers are profits.

For Cable TV, a significant portion of the subscription fee is paid to the content owners and media companies.

And that revenue is drying up, this is why ESPN is not making the money they used too.

 

[K.M. Richards]

And that revenue is drying up, this is why ESPN is not making the money they used too.

And that brings us back around to the OP's point in starting this thread. The business model that the cable channels have depended on for decades is now being destroyed by the "cord cutters". (I admit to being one myself; once digital multicasting began, I found that cable -- actually, by that point I had been a DirecTV subscriber for several years -- had little to offer that I couldn't find an equivalent OTA channel for.)

What concerns me is -- as I pointed out a bit earlier -- some of the OTA channels are showing the same signs of trying to run "on the cheap" to survive. In the case of Ion+, I was so intrigued by them resurrecting that 1970s series "Movin' On" that I tracked its airing. With their running two six-hour blocks per week, it only took them a month to cycle through all the episodes and start over.

Unless they are counting on random viewing so people see the episodes individually over a longer span, I don't see how this is a viable programming policy.

 

[Don CT]

There are far too many channels and not enough good content on them. We have a bloat issue. At least 200 channels could be wiped out and nobody would even notice.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

And that brings us back around to the OP's point in starting this thread. The business model that the cable channels have depended on for decades is now being destroyed by the "cord cutters". (I admit to being one myself; once digital multicasting began, I found that cable -- actually, by that point I had been a DirecTV subscriber for several years -- had little to offer that I couldn't find an equivalent OTA channel for.)

This is a frequently-made argument among cord-cutting proponents that is not true. The only "equivalent" content to cable channels available on OTA channels are the OTA channels themselves. Sure, you can watch your local NBC station on either cable or OTA. But the cable-only channels carry unique content that is not available on OTA channels. You might find some other shows on OTA channels that have similarities to some cable shows but they are not the same, thus not "equivalent".

What concerns me is -- as I pointed out a bit earlier -- some of the OTA channels are showing the same signs of trying to run "on the cheap" to survive. In the case of Ion+, I was so intrigued by them resurrecting that 1970s series "Movin' On" that I tracked its airing. With their running two six-hour blocks per week, it only took them a month to cycle through all the episodes and start over.

This is also true of many cable channels which now air endless reruns of their old shows. The entertainment companies are trying to push everyone from both cable and OTA onto their streaming platforms where they can collect escalating subscription fees on top of ad revenue. NBC primetime seems like nothing but a dozen variants of Chicago Fire/PD/Med, Law and Order, and The Voice. Meanwhile the best new scripted shows go to Peacock. Ka-ching.

Another nice "gotcha" for them is that viewers can't skip ads on the streaming platforms like they can on a cable DVR. It's like a trip back to the 70's where the mute button is the best you can hope for.

Finally, the outlook for relying on free OTA channels to avoid subscription fees looks even more grim with encrypted and paywalled channels on "Nextgen" ATSC 3.0 looking like they'll become the norm just a few years down the road.

 

[Don CT]

In a few years OTA stations will not exist. One the ad revenue will dry up and 2 people will stream everything. I expect the big 4 to uncouple from their affiliates at some point and go direct.

 

[K.M. Richards]

You might find some other shows on OTA channels that have similarities to some cable shows but they are not the same, thus not "equivalent".

Your definition of "equivalent" is different from mine, and I am not going to get into an argument over semantics.

Finally, the outlook for relying on free OTA channels to avoid subscription fees looks even more grim with encrypted and paywalled channels on "Nextgen" ATSC 3.0 looking like they'll become the norm just a few years down the road.

"Down the road" appears to be many, many miles off. The FCC is already mandating that if a station goes 3.0 on their primary stream, it must also remain available on 1.0, and I doubt they will ever allow the primary streams to be encrypted/paywalled. I also doubt that those diginets which somehow survive would be content with becoming "subscription services" unless the stations coughed up a fee equal to the lost advertising revenue.

I don't expect that a huge percentage of the diginets will still be around ten years from now, though.

 

[richc]

i give cable tv 5 more years

 

[K.M. Richards]

i give cable tv 5 more years

Agreed, as far as the "TV" part is concerned. I have read that some smaller systems have already stopped providing same ... sometimes with little to no warning to their subscribers.

As I implied in my earlier posts, the big companies like Charter/Spectrum (my internet provider) are downplaying their video services more and more, and making their more attractively-priced "bundles" combinations of broadband internet, VoIP phone, and wireless.

 

[tall_guy1]

Agreed, as far as the "TV" part is concerned. I have read that some smaller systems have already stopped providing same ... sometimes with little to no warning to their subscribers.

As I implied in my earlier posts, the big companies like Charter/Spectrum (my internet provider) are downplaying their video services more and more, and making their more attractively-priced "bundles" combinations of broadband internet, VoIP phone, and wireless.

Is cable that close to the end?

 

[tall_guy1]

This is a frequently-made argument among cord-cutting proponents that is not true. The only "equivalent" content to cable channels available on OTA channels are the OTA channels themselves. Sure, you can watch your local NBC station on either cable or OTA. But the cable-only channels carry unique content that is not available on OTA channels. You might find some other shows on OTA channels that have similarities to some cable shows but they are not the same, thus not "equivalent".



This is also true of many cable channels which now air endless reruns of their old shows. The entertainment companies are trying to push everyone from both cable and OTA onto their streaming platforms where they can collect escalating subscription fees on top of ad revenue. NBC primetime seems like nothing but a dozen variants of Chicago Fire/PD/Med, Law and Order, and The Voice. Meanwhile the best new scripted shows go to Peacock. Ka-ching.

Another nice "gotcha" for them is that viewers can't skip ads on the streaming platforms like they can on a cable DVR. It's like a trip back to the 70's where the mute button is the best you can hope for.

Finally, the outlook for relying on free OTA channels to avoid subscription fees looks even more grim with encrypted and paywalled channels on "Nextgen" ATSC 3.0 looking like they'll become the norm just a few years down the road.

Don't they make more money on linear instead of streaming though?

 

[Mark Roberts]

Moving to Denver last year was an opportunity to "cut the cord". Over-the-air is mostly fine here with an amplified indoor antenna. (More about that later in this post.) But we still wanted DVR capability. I tried getting that with a combination tuner-recording device ordered from some outfit in southern California whose name I've already forgotten. The tuner was excellent. Problem was, that vendor was using a generic remote control that wasn't properly programmed. Buttons that should have worked didn't work. Labeling on the remote control did not match the instructions. It was impossible to actually program the thing to record. The vendor sent me another unit; same problem. The vendor sent me another remote control; same problem. I can usually get anything to work, but this vendor's device, particularly the remote control, totally stumped me.

Finally, I gave up. We now have YouTube TV going into a Roku. Essentially, we're using YTTV as a cloud DVR. $73 a month may seem expensive for that purpose. But we're paying $70 for 1 GB fiber Internet. Combined, this is a little over 60% of the cost that we were paying Comcast in Oakland, and with way better reliability. As a bonus, I can watch YTTV on my iPad, which has been useful very recently as I recover from surgery and have mobility issues (which should go away in a few weeks). And we get the cable channels that we are interested in, which aren't many. We're not much of a TV-watching household, to be honest. We may end up with Netflix eventually since we were using its ancestral DVD service for years but there's no haste to do so now.

As for over-the-air: two of the major network affiliates, KMGH and KUSA, made the bad decision to stick with VHF for RF. Tegna at least has KTVD to work with as well, putting KUSA's programming on KTVD's RF at virtual channel 9.4. Scripps doesn't seem to have a better option for KMGH, though. Lookout Mountain is not as great of a transmitter site as one would think; reliable VHF reception in east Denver pretty much requires an amplified antenna, and even UHF LDs/LPs need amplification. (FM translators on Lookout are also feeble here.)

Conclusion? Linear probably will dwindle for some time but won't go away altogether. Cable companies screwed their own pooch by tacking on fee after fee after fee, inflating their monthly bills, and not working to contain costs, thus encouraging people to find other choices. Thus, viewers are finding lower-cost options that better satisfy what they want. Over-the-air can work, but circumstances vary and may require some tinkering. Cable providers will primarily become Internet providers, but will need to learn how to run more reliable networks as DOCSIS feels like a gigantic hack; with Comcast there was always some issue or another every month or so relating to a reconfiguration that the Comcast-approved modem couldn't handle.

 

[Don CT]

Don't they make more money on linear instead of streaming though?

Cable cos make money on broadband.

The companies providing the content make money on everything.

 

[tall_guy1]

Cable cos make money on broadband.

The companies providing the content make money on everything.

But I would imagine the fees to carry the channels were higher for the companies than they are making on streaming. Why push people now towards only going to their streaming platforms?

 

[Don CT]

But I would imagine the fees to carry the channels were higher for the companies than they are making on streaming. Why push people now towards only going to their streaming platforms?

You need paying customers to get carriage fees. ESPN has lost billions because they can’t get the cable fees.