The cable vs streaming discussion: HBO doesn't require cable anymore

[Sean Miller Fan]

I've always been on the side of "there will always be cable" in some form or another, at least for a few more decades if not longer whereas some folks think cable will be eliminated in a few years and 60 and 70 year olds will be streaming all their shows (yea, right).

Well, the new HBO NOW app through Apple TV is probably more of what you'll see. HBO will still be on your cable, but if you want to cut the cord and still want to watch HBO you can........but you'll still need your cable company for internet (in most areas) and you'll have to pay $14.99 per month for HBO NOW. For people who don't like sports, this might make sense.

Could you see ESPN offering something similar on Apple TV? ESPN3 is offered by a few of those streaming devices but it requires you to have cable to access it. Could they eliminate that requirment? Yea, but then you'd probably have to pay $20, $30, $40 per month to access ESPN's content. In many ways, it would give ESPN more leverage over the cable companies: "Up our carriage fees or we're going to allow the streamers to cut the cord and just pay us directly to watch our content."

Bottom line is that college sports rights fees have nowhere to go but up. People need college football and basketball. Maybe there will come a day where you can dump cable and pay for ESPN $30, HBO $15, TBS $3, HGTV $1, etc. You're going to end up paying roughly the same thing.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

I dumped cable and have ESPN and ESPN2, as well as 14 other cable channels and pay $20 per month from Slingtv.

I think ESPN3 is included too.

In a couple months my Internet provider will be a local company with fiber that runs at 1,000 mbps (compared to 15 mbps from most isp). After that, cable companies will get zero dollars from me each month, compared to over $200 just a couple years ago.

I'm starting to think you work for Comcast Sean..cable is now antiquated technology.

This post was edited on 4/8 8:26 AM by Darth_VadEER

 

[Darth_VadEER]

Cable in some form will probably always exist, just like CD's still exist and flip phones still exist, but the tech has moved on.

 

[drp1tt]

Actually I would love to see this happen as long as it doesn't become to pricey. If ESPN can fairly come up w a price for ESPN3, like $5/month, they would definitely put themselves into a better position of controlling content and not being held hostage to the cable companies. Actually if you had the ability to purchase any channel(s) you want for like $1-2/ month it would become cheaper and better and break the strangle hold cable has on all of us..

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Originally posted by Darth_VadEER:
I dumped cable and have ESPN and ESPN2, as well as 14 other cable channels and pay $20 per month from Slingtv.

I think ESPN3 is included too.

In a couple months my Internet provider will be a local company with fiber that runs at 1,000 mbps (compared to 15 mbps from most isp). After that, cable companies will get zero dollars from me each month, compared to over $200 just a couple years ago.

I'm starting to think you work for Comcast Sean..cable is now antiquated technology.

This post was edited on 4/8 8:26 AM by Darth_VadEER

That's great, but since you're a WVU fan, what do you do when they play on Fox Sports 1 as they do multiple times per year or any other channel that isn't one of the ones you get.

I'm not defending cable's technology, just saying its going to be a LOOOOOONG time before everybody is watching TV through internet apps. And when they are, guess what will happen to the price? Hint: the most basic economic principle is when demand increases, so does the price. One of the reasons you're getting 14 channels so cheap is because there is very little demand at the present time.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Originally posted by drp1tt:
Actually I would love to see this happen as long as it doesn't become to pricey. If ESPN can fairly come up w a price for ESPN3, like $5/month, they would definitely put themselves into a better position of controlling content and not being held hostage to the cable companies. Actually if you had the ability to purchase any channel(s) you want for like $1-2/ month it would become cheaper and better and break the strangle hold cable has on all of us..

ESPN gets like $7 per cable customer as it is and studies show that only 30% of Americans are sports fans (ie "need" ESPN). So, if they're getting $7 from people who don't even watch their channel, how much do you think they can get from the 30% who can't live without their channels? As I said in the OP: The market value for a cord-cutting ESPN app is probably somewhere between $20-$40. Forget Darth VadEers's Sling TV. He's getting that so cheap because its an introductory product at an introductory price trying to build market share. Good for him but that's WAY below market value.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

Geez, I dunno...maybe I won't watch the game. I'm not a TV zombie, I have no need for 200 channels. I have no need for 20 channels. We got sling so my kid could watch Disney.

There's no true demand for any of these add-on channels, they are just pushed onto the consumer and smartly bundled and previously consumers had no other option...but now they do.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

Are there any other currently available technologies that youd like us to ignore to bolster your argument?

 

[vegasgreed]

no way in hell i'm paying 14.99 for hbo. no way.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

LOL - If you want to discuss basic economic principles you'll need to include competition, but that wouldn't support your argument, huh?

Right now, if I want cable I only have one option. There's no competition to benefit the consumer. Apps have no equipment, they don't require a local presence, a local technician, installation of hardware, ect.

Streaming applications are just software.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Originally posted by Darth_VadEER:
LOL - If you want to discuss basic economic principles you'll need to include competition, but that wouldn't support your argument, huh?

Right now, if I want cable I only have one option. There's no competition to benefit the consumer. Apps have no equipment, they don't require a local presence, a local technician, installation of hardware, ect.

Streaming applications are just software.

People forget that the reason there is a monopoly for cable in each town/area is because the cable company (or the predecessor which has since been bought out) made the agreement with the local town to install the cable lines for free if they agreed to not allow competitors in. Blame the mayor at the time for agreeing to that, not the cable company.

So, yea, cable doesn't have true competition other than satellite (and see what that's done to cable prices, they continue to go up). If a better competitor like these streaming services become more viable, the demand for cable will drop and prices will drop. At the same time, the price for SlingTV will go up.

I just think its incredibally naive to think that in 5 years, you can just cut the cord and get all the TV you want for $20. SlingTV works for you but if you don't care about watching the 5-6 WVU games per year on FS1 or Root or the Pirates/Pens, etc, it works. But, as I said, if the demand for Sling goes up, so will the price. Cable and devices will probably meet somewhere in the middle and the biggest losers will be those obscure channels that nobody watches and nobody cares about.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

You're confusing product demand with consumer need. There's no demand for slingtv, but there's obviously a consumer need for reasonable TV options.

If slingtv goes up to $75 per month, consumers will just go with the next company that fills the market void - that's what you're not getting. Until now, consumers didn't have that option because of the cable TV model.

This post was edited on 4/8 9:39 AM by Darth_VadEER

 

[Darth_VadEER]

The concept of having to pay $750 + per year just to watch 5 football games to makes me laugh.

You must work for comcast. You sound exactly like the rep I had when I cancelled service.

 

[wbrpanther]

What do we do with the millions upon millions of americans who get their basic tv soaps and reality shows and network programs and local news and all the other things that many people watch? serious question. I'd love to pay less cash every month and still watch the things I watch.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

We get our local channels via digital antenna.

If people want to pay for enormous channel packages, they still can with traditional cable.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Originally posted by Darth_VadEER:
We get our local channels via digital antenna.

If people want to pay for enormous channel packages, they still can with traditional cable.

Spoiler alert: This is how it ends. The increased competition will cause cable to change its model a bit and lower its price, maybe by 20%, significant but nothing drastic. It'll still be there and it'll still make money. Way too many old people that'll never watch TV through an app. I don't know what the average cable bill (just cable, not including internet). Lets say its $100 for a million channels (most of which we dont watch). The streamers will probably offer more of an a la carte option, which eventually will probably run sports fans $60-$70 for maybe a 10-20 channels.

3 myths I'll dispell:

1. Cable is going away. Not happening.

2. The streamers will always be super cheap. Nope. Increase in demand will greatly increase the prices of those things, which are currently in their infancy and just trying to build a customer base.

3. Sports TV rights will go down. Nope. As fewer people watch commercials, live sports is the last thing that people truly can't timeshift. They should continue to rise.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

I have a calender reminder to call directv every 5 months to renegotiate.

Just dropped my bill by $55 per month the next 6 months, still have HBO and Showtime and all the channels I actually watch.
Use chromecast to watch the ESPN options (a fixed $40 cost) and it's video quality is pretty great.

Google Fiber is on its way to my area, and AT&T is now pulling cables for their U-Verse service to neighborhoods near mine, so I'm expecting that to be soon offered, too.

I made that known and got my bill dropped by over a third. And I'll still probably drop it all together if either fiber offering comes to my neighborhood.