for the trees. Bundling is the issue, not subscribers. Sure a lot of current subscribers are dropping out and this may just increase those numbers. However, the reason is because of bundling. Millenials, as the article points out, some 40% do not have cable. Until these providers realize that they need to come up with something new, they aren't going to be creating any new viewers or subscribers. There is so much out there for millenials, a large portion of them get most if not all of their entertainment via the internet and it's not via bundle. Until these companies realize that consumers are finding alternatives via "pay as you go", they aren't going to be changing crap. That means that not only are cable bundles at risk, but so are networks. For the 1st time, it seems that consumers are dictating what the market provides rather than the other way around.
I read an article within the last 6 months that predicted that ESPN's licensing expenditures would be greater than their revenue by 2021. They have 4 years before they are insolvent. As long as they keep bringing out these bundles, nothing is going to change. What they need to do is start charging, online, for each game broadcast. Until they do that, they are in serious trouble.
"a large portion of them get most if not all of their entertainment via the internet and it's not via bundle. "
Yes it is. Netflix and Hulu are still bundles, they're just different kinds of bundles. Even HBO is a bundle of sorts. Of course, most millenials don't actually pay for that. Millenials are certainly not, as a class, consuming TV programming by paying for each show individually by downloading it on iTunes. To the extent they're doing that, they're probably pirating it.
What is greatly different about these sorts of bundles is that they're dramatically cheaper than the traditional cable bundle, have almost no bullshit fees like cable bundles, don't lock you into long term contracts, and are natively accessible on many different devices. That is, they remove most of what people hated about cable companies, while keeping the ease of one account to access most of what you watch.
I agree that eventually there's going to be an ala carte market for things like sporting events, but I don't think it's going to be the predominant method for most folks.
Channel lineups might be slightly different, but not radically so.
I guess it is incrementally better but nothing major.
I have Sling, and I had to choose between the ABC/ESPN package and the FOX/FS1 package.
I think I'll stick with that.
PSVue carries all of ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX
YouTubeTV comes with "dvr" functionality but does not come with video on demand.
It's a good offering. It might be very compelling for sports fans that don't want/need regional sports networks.
Ultimately, it's good for the consumer.
family plan for Google Play Music was enough to make me join my sons. The implementation of 6 accounts, 1 price can be the difference which makes a difference.
on each account" mean? Right now, Netflix allows access on up to 6 DEVICES, I believe. I don't know too many people who are taking advantage of that with other relatives/friends, but essentially, they probably could. The key here is, what does "personalization" mean? Does that mean "on 1 device"? "On unlimited devices"? or something completely different?
is basically you can set the shows you like to watch and "record." You can set up your own favorite channels to navigate through. Show suggestions will get personalized as well, so content relevant to you is made more accessible.
This way I don't have to wade through 5000 episodes of Real Vanderpump Brothers of Waco Flip to get to what I want to watch. It's wonderful.
The guy who is President doesn't understand what Net Neutrality is and his new FCC chairman, a shill for the big telecom companies, is against it. How do you solve the YouTube problem? Choke it's traffic and give preference to your own streaming services. Also, don't forget that all the companies you named, presumably as TV providers, are also internet providers.
I don't think the ISPs are going to fuck with Google. They'd do so to their own extreme peril, even in a world where nobody supported net neutrality concepts.
without net neutrality.
It's the startups that are really fucked.
led the charge on net neutrality. It makes sense. Force the ISPs to effectively subsidize their business model. They don't want to pay extra to hog bandwidth reaching your house.
the little guys get screwed either way.
I think it more likely that YouTube is big and popular enough that those ISPs won't be able to throttle their content... so long as YouTube pays the extortion (or "premium") to keep its speed up. Which means $35/month won't last as those "premier speed service fees" will be passed on to the lucky consumer (or else they'll develop tiered service - more money for higher resolution streaming).