• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

RESEARCH COMPANY: 10% WILL DROP CABLE/SATELLITE BY 2016

gregg75

gregg75

Does anyone else see another proposal of a merger between DIRECTV and Dish Network? It seems that they're going to take a bigger beating once FIOS and U-Verse expand.
 
I don't think people are nearly as dissatisfied with the DBS providers as they are with the likes of Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Kabletown. Err, I made that last one up.
 
radiojomo said:
Does anyone else see another proposal of a merger between DIRECTV and Dish Network? It seems that they're going to take a bigger beating once FIOS and U-Verse expand.
Click to expand...

Both Verizon and AT&T have a long way to go before their video services have the same penetration as the satellite providers, or existing traditional cable companies. Any satellite merger would be many years away, by which time improved broadband distribution would have changed the game anyway. And there would be a huge stink raised by regulators. Dish and DirecTV would have to be bleeding a lot of red ink for a merger to be approved.
 
As I said in my Comcast Digital Migration thread in the New England tv section I posted earlier.I might do a switch to AT&T.what I like is the DVR package.
 
Personally, I don't see much difference between cable companies and telcos. They're both bloodsuckers.

What the article didn't mention is broadcast TV is making a comeback now with digital. And broadcasters have digital subchannels that they're starting to populate with programming that have become like cable channels. I foresee a day when a lot of OTA TV channels operate as mini-cable companies with movies and sports, some local, some from national services. These OTA services will compete against cable channels. Some weaker cable channels might find newer audiences by becoming networks for digital subchannels. And we the viewer won't have to pay cable or telco fees any more.

Then again, maybe it's all just wishful thinking.
 
Everyone says they will, but do they? Certain people have to have cable/dish as they get no OTA or the signals are unreliable unless you have a good outside antenna. And not everyone can have one of those either.

With AT&T joining the Internet cap, I think that is going to be the way of the future. Internet usage will go back like it was in the mid 90s when AOL charged by how long you were on the Internet. You will be charged by how much bandwidth you use.

This would easily stop service like Netflix and push people back into cable/U-verse set ups.
 
That's a good point. Now with these digital signals only going 25 miles, a lot of
people need cable/satellite. Was that part of cable's master plan?

Now if the FCC and cable companies could just squeeze the broadcast spectrum
even tighter, then more people would need cable. Master plan Pt. II. It's just a
big corporate conspiracy.
 
gregg75 said:
That's a good point. Now with these digital signals only going 25 miles, a lot of
people need cable/satellite.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you get the idea that digital signals only travel 25 miles.
 
nomadcowatbk said:
Has anyone who likes live sports cut the cord?
Click to expand...

I did. Other than college sports, I don't miss cable at all.

I prefer the radio broadcasts of the Suns & Diamondbacks, the Cards are on OTA TV anyway, I'm not a big hockey fan, and I spend a lot of time (probably too much time! ;D ) at my local sports bar, so I see most of my college sports that way. I also have MLB.TV and can get the NBA and NHL packages if I want them. And the NFL Network is available on my phone.

Because my provider, Ygnition Networks, is internet-only (they contract with Dish Network for "cable" services), they can't provide ESPN3. Too bad there's no college sports package similar to MLB.TV. I keep hearing rumors about one from Big Ten Network, but AFAIK it hasn't happened yet.
 
TheBigA said:
gregg75 said:
That's a good point. Now with these digital signals only going 25 miles, a lot of
people need cable/satellite.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you get the idea that digital signals only travel 25 miles.
Click to expand...

Just a statement, not written in stone. Most of the low powers don't even go that far!
Point is they don't go as far as they used to.
 
gregg75 said:
Just a statement, not written in stone. Most of the low powers don't even go that far!
Point is they don't go as far as they used to.
Click to expand...

I've seen actual demonstrations of all NYC stations reaching more than 100 miles from the ESB. Of course they're all major stations owned by large companies. But their digital signal is carrying farther than analog with higher quality.
 
gregg75 said:
TheBigA said:
gregg75 said:
That's a good point. Now with these digital signals only going 25 miles, a lot of
people need cable/satellite.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you get the idea that digital signals only travel 25 miles.
Click to expand...

Just a statement, not written in stone. Most of the low powers don't even go that far!
Click to expand...

Yes, they do (unless they're translators or LPTVs, of course, then they might not). Now if somebody doesn't have the proper antenna, then that's a different story.

Hint: Directivity is your friend, just like with analog TV. VHF/UHF propagation doesn't change with transmission mode. It'll be the same in analog or digital, but because of the nature of digital transmissions, the station will just go away rather than get snowy or ghosty.

If you're behind a hill or in a valley, you may not get anything. If a plane flies overhead, instead of ghosts, the phasing problems will cause the picture to go away. If you walk in between your rabbit ears and the station, the picture might go away. But a weak signal that would provide a snowy picture on an analog station can still give you a perfect picture in digital, provided that there isn't anything getting in the way of a clean (no phase distortions) signal.
 
I cut the cord 11 years ago. With a little effort, I can find a lot of live sports streaming online these days. I don't miss much of the programming. I can hardly discern the difference between cable channels anymore, since they all show the same movies (often back to back), the same TV shows, etc. But I also work at a TV station, so I am still exposed to Time Warner cable daily.

By the way, even though I live about six miles from the station (on-site tower), I have to move the antenna into a weird leaning position in order to maintain a steady OTA signal.
 
nomadcowatbk said:
Has anyone who likes live sports cut the cord?
Click to expand...

I have to the tune of about 15 years ago. If I miss a Monday Night Football game it's not the end of the world to me, besides I find ESPN's coverage of everything to be all fluff and hype with zero substance. I don't miss that one bit. It's really not that bad, you should try it.
 
From what I've read about the upcoming bandwidth problems the internet providers will be facing, I think we can expect that they won't be spending billions of dollars on upgrades without making both content providers (NetFlix, etc.) and consumers pay for it.

So even if the future of "broadcasting" is primarily on the internet, I think we're living in a dream world if we don't think it start costing us more at some point.

Whether it ends up costing less than cable or satellite (a half-decade from now) remains to be seen.
 
Robnoxious said:
nomadcowatbk said:
Has anyone who likes live sports cut the cord?
Click to expand...

I have to the tune of about 15 years ago. If I miss a Monday Night Football game it's not the end of the world to me, besides I find ESPN's coverage of everything to be all fluff and hype with zero substance. I don't miss that one bit. It's really not that bad, you should try it.
Click to expand...

MNF is another one where the radio coverage (Westwood One) is better than TV, now that they've moved to ESPN. Trouble is, if the WW1 affiliate also carries a local team (in my case, it's the Phoenix Coyotes on XTRA 910) and they're playing at the same time, the football game becomes unavailable unless I can find a distant station that's carrying the game. I'm not sure if WW1 audio feeds are available online. The NFL has a gameday-audio package like the other pro sports, but it's $35 - compared to $15 for MLB and $0 for the NBA and NHL (let's not even go into the expensive ripoff that is CBS Sports ULive).
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom