(11-08-2018 02:34 PM)cubucks Wrote:  YouTube TV is the way to go. It blows my mind that people still pay cable costs in my area instead of streaming.

The folks saying it's just the old cable model? Nope, you either have a TV with the YouTube TV app or you buy a Roku stick. Cable charges monthly fees for their boxes, Roku is a one time cost.

Old models don't allow you to cancel anytime, Streaming does.

Of course you may see buffering, but I live in the hills of Athens Ohio and it's never a problem.

Spectrum internet (5g)- $69.99
YouTube TV-$35.00

That's my total cost a month. With time Warner (spectrum) cable + internet it was $200.

Right now, I prefer the cable experience---however, to me, the price difference has grown large enough to make it worth making the switch at this point. The problem I have is Astros and Rockets games are both owned by the local Comcast RSN--and that RSN is not available via streaming. So, cutting the cord means no local MLB or NBA games---which is something Im not willing to give up at this point.

(11-08-2018 04:12 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 04:01 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 02:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:44 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  But how many switched over to a service that is just like cable/satellite except the user brings their own box and the delivery infrastructure is the consumer's problem? YouTube TV and the like are just like cable/sat with difference being responsibility for delivery infrastructure.

The OTT services are cheaper, there is healthy competition amongst them, and you can cancel anytime with 1 click. Three things the current cable industry is not.

These differences make the OTT product much more consumer friendly then cable/satellite

But you are still paying carriage fees for preset bundles.

It is absolutely still the old cable/satellite model the only change is who is responsible for the box to decode the signal and the method for bringing the signal into the house.

That's not really cord cutting. It's shifting responsibility for the cord from the provider to the consumer

True, but those OTT players aren't paying the same rates as cable. Which is why about all of them are losing money. AT&T's Direct TV Now has stated that they losing money with that platform, however, their WatchTV platform is a money maker.....all because that platform doesn't include sports or news channels.

It is no secret that ATT and Google are comfortable losing money right now with YTTV and Direct TV Now because they are chasing market share and they know most of the players in the game right now cannot afford to sustain losses as long as they can.

In the long run, ATT WANTS people off Direct and on to Direct TV Now because they can dealing with the costs of installation and repairs and maybe even repurpose the satellites down the road or replace their slot with more profitable satellites.

Let the local cable company worry about storms knocking down the wire or a contractor cutting buried cable. When you shift infrastructure to the consumer, you quit worrying about that and can improve your profit margin.

Based on how ATT-Uverse is only willing to negotiate their prices marginally---I think they want everyone to drop U-Verse as well and go to Direct TV.

(11-08-2018 05:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 04:12 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 04:01 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 02:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:44 PM)solohawks Wrote:  The OTT services are cheaper, there is healthy competition amongst them, and you can cancel anytime with 1 click. Three things the current cable industry is not.

These differences make the OTT product much more consumer friendly then cable/satellite

But you are still paying carriage fees for preset bundles.

It is absolutely still the old cable/satellite model the only change is who is responsible for the box to decode the signal and the method for bringing the signal into the house.

That's not really cord cutting. It's shifting responsibility for the cord from the provider to the consumer

True, but those OTT players aren't paying the same rates as cable. Which is why about all of them are losing money. AT&T's Direct TV Now has stated that they losing money with that platform, however, their WatchTV platform is a money maker.....all because that platform doesn't include sports or news channels.

It is no secret that ATT and Google are comfortable losing money right now with YTTV and Direct TV Now because they are chasing market share and they know most of the players in the game right now cannot afford to sustain losses as long as they can.

In the long run, ATT WANTS people off Direct and on to Direct TV Now because they can dealing with the costs of installation and repairs and maybe even repurpose the satellites down the road or replace their slot with more profitable satellites.

Let the local cable company worry about storms knocking down the wire or a contractor cutting buried cable. When you shift infrastructure to the consumer, you quit worrying about that and can improve your profit margin.

Based on how ATT-Uverse is only willing to negotiate their prices marginally---I think they want everyone to drop U-Verse as well and go to Direct TV.

You have to have a clear view of the southern sky.

(11-08-2018 04:23 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 04:01 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 02:34 PM)cubucks Wrote:  YouTube TV is the way to go. It blows my mind that people still pay cable costs in my area instead of streaming.

The folks saying it's just the old cable model? Nope, you either have a TV with the YouTube TV app or you buy a Roku stick. Cable charges monthly fees for their boxes, Roku is a one time cost.

Old models don't allow you to cancel anytime, Streaming does.

Of course you may see buffering, but I live in the hills of Athens Ohio and it's never a problem.

Spectrum internet (5g)- $69.99
YouTube TV-$35.00

That's my total cost a month. With time Warner (spectrum) cable + internet it was $200.

You are straining at gnats.

You own the box (Roku or smart TV app) vs leasing is no big difference. My Direct TV box goes out they either ship one to me or send a local installer to replace it. Roku goes out, you buy a new one.

Most Americans who are on cable or satellite can cancel immediately because the contract period to offset the cost of a human coming to your house to do installation has long ago expired.

You are still buying a bundle, it's just shifted who handles infrastructure.

You know what sucks? Watching a game on TV and one person in your text group isn't on cable or satellite and gets bitchy because we are talking about whether to kick the PAT or go for 2 before they see the TD.

Great! Stick to cable and pay more than me, I really don't care! And being behind real time 1 minute is worth every penny.

I pay more and I get more. Funny how it works out.

(11-08-2018 05:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 04:12 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 04:01 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 02:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:44 PM)solohawks Wrote:  The OTT services are cheaper, there is healthy competition amongst them, and you can cancel anytime with 1 click. Three things the current cable industry is not.

These differences make the OTT product much more consumer friendly then cable/satellite

But you are still paying carriage fees for preset bundles.

It is absolutely still the old cable/satellite model the only change is who is responsible for the box to decode the signal and the method for bringing the signal into the house.

That's not really cord cutting. It's shifting responsibility for the cord from the provider to the consumer

True, but those OTT players aren't paying the same rates as cable. Which is why about all of them are losing money. AT&T's Direct TV Now has stated that they losing money with that platform, however, their WatchTV platform is a money maker.....all because that platform doesn't include sports or news channels.

It is no secret that ATT and Google are comfortable losing money right now with YTTV and Direct TV Now because they are chasing market share and they know most of the players in the game right now cannot afford to sustain losses as long as they can.

In the long run, ATT WANTS people off Direct and on to Direct TV Now because they can dealing with the costs of installation and repairs and maybe even repurpose the satellites down the road or replace their slot with more profitable satellites.

Let the local cable company worry about storms knocking down the wire or a contractor cutting buried cable. When you shift infrastructure to the consumer, you quit worrying about that and can improve your profit margin.

Based on how ATT-Uverse is only willing to negotiate their prices marginally---I think they want everyone to drop U-Verse as well and go to Direct TV.

You want UVerse at my local ATT store you have to practically beg to get it. They push Direct and Direct Now.

I moved houses a little over a month ago and my wife was insistent that she didn’t want a satellite dish at our new place. We had previously been DirecTV subscribers for over 14 years. I tried seeing if we could get a good cable/Internet deal from Comcast (as we had also been Comcast Internet customers), but their offers at the time were actually much higher than I expected (e.g. even the introductory rates wouldn’t have saved us anything compared to our DirecTV pricing).

So, we have been giving Hulu Live TV a try and the viewing experience has been fairly good. I do think the DirecTV Now channel lineup is better (as it largely replicated the DirecTV lineup) and we may switch over since that has all of the NBA, MLB, NFL and NHL Networks that I want along with the TLC lineup for my wife, but Hulu Live TV is good for the sports fan that is looking for the ESPN, Turner, Fox Sports (including BTN) and NBC Sports networks. They can also bundle in a discounted on demand Hulu subscription that would otherwise have cost $12 a month on top of it, so it’s a fairly good deal strictly on price.

Ironically, the biggest challenge in streaming for me (and this is specific to the Chicago market) is that none of streaming packages include over-the-air WGN. This is critical for a Chicago sports fan since the channel still carries a very large number of Cubs, White Sox, Bulls and Blackhawks games. (This is even more ironic considering that WGN was a superstation that beamed Cubs, White Sox and Bulls games across the entire country on basic cable up until a couple of years ago and now they can’t be accessed at all on streaming sites.) Aesthetically, we didn’t want some type of alien-looking HDTV antenna hanging in our brand new family room with wires everywhere. This is compounded by the fact that any antenna always works better the higher you go in your house, yet our TVs are located in on the main floor and basement. To address this, I bought a Moho Curve antenna that can be placed on a table (and is one of the few antenna options out there that doesn’t look like a complete POS) and put it on a shelf near a window in an upstairs bedroom. I then connected the antenna to an AirTV that uses your home network to send the channels that it receives wirelessly to an app on a Roku, AppleTV or any phone or tablet. This allowed us to get WGN (and other OTA channels not available via streaming) to our downstairs TVs without having to wire them physically to antennas. So far, it has worked fine.

Ultimately, I’m happier with the setup than I thought I would be. We would have paid for Roku and AppleTV devices in any event, so not having to lease equipment from a cable or satellite company definitely saves us money. I don’t really travel very much, but those that do would probably see some benefit from the streaming services since their mobile apps allow you to watch channels largely in the same way that you do at home. (DirecTV provided fairy good access with its streaming app, too, but I believe Comcast was very restrictive outside of your home.) The AirTV also allows you to access your OTA channels anywhere, so if I’m out of town for a Bears game, I can actually access my local Fox/CBS station on my iPhone/iPad. (Note that if you cheer for an out-of-town NFL team and have a friend or family member living in that market, buying that person an AirTV would get you access to the local channels for those games for the price or less than 2 months of NFL Sunday Ticket.)

(11-08-2018 07:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I moved houses a little over a month ago and my wife was insistent that she didn’t want a satellite dish at our new place. We had previously been DirecTV subscribers for over 14 years. I tried seeing if we could get a good cable/Internet deal from Comcast (as we had also been Comcast Internet customers), but their offers at the time were actually much higher than I expected (e.g. even the introductory rates wouldn’t have saved us anything compared to our DirecTV pricing).

So, we have been giving Hulu Live TV a try and the viewing experience has been fairly good. I do think the DirecTV Now channel lineup is better (as it largely replicated the DirecTV lineup) and we may switch over since that has all of the NBA, MLB, NFL and NHL Networks that I want along with the TLC lineup for my wife, but Hulu Live TV is good for the sports fan that is looking for the ESPN, Turner, Fox Sports (including BTN) and NBC Sports networks. They can also bundle in a discounted on demand Hulu subscription that would otherwise have cost $12 a month on top of it, so it’s a fairly good deal strictly on price.

Ironically, the biggest challenge in streaming for me (and this is specific to the Chicago market) is that none of streaming packages include over-the-air WGN. This is critical for a Chicago sports fan since the channel still carries a very large number of Cubs, White Sox, Bulls and Blackhawks games. (This is even more ironic considering that WGN was a superstation that beamed Cubs, White Sox and Bulls games across the entire country on basic cable up until a couple of years ago and now they can’t be accessed at all on streaming sites.) Aesthetically, we didn’t want some type of alien-looking HDTV antenna hanging in our brand new family room with wires everywhere. This is compounded by the fact that any antenna always works better the higher you go in your house, yet our TVs are located in on the main floor and basement. To address this, I bought a Moho Curve antenna that can be placed on a table (and is one of the few antenna options out there that doesn’t look like a complete POS) and put it on a shelf near a window in an upstairs bedroom. I then connected the antenna to an AirTV that uses your home network to send the channels that it receives wirelessly to an app on a Roku, AppleTV or any phone or tablet. This allowed us to get WGN (and other OTA channels not available via streaming) to our downstairs TVs without having to wire them physically to antennas. So far, it has worked fine.

Ultimately, I’m happier with the setup than I thought I would be. We would have paid for Roku and AppleTV devices in any event, so not having to lease equipment from a cable or satellite company definitely saves us money. I don’t really travel very much, but those that do would probably see some benefit from the streaming services since their mobile apps allow you to watch channels largely in the same way that you do at home. (DirecTV provided fairy good access with its streaming app, too, but I believe Comcast was very restrictive outside of your home.) The AirTV also allows you to access your OTA channels anywhere, so if I’m out of town for a Bears game, I can actually access my local Fox/CBS station on my iPhone/iPad. (Note that if you cheer for an out-of-town NFL team and have a friend or family member living in that market, buying that person an AirTV would get you access to the local channels for those games for the price or less than 2 months of NFL Sunday Ticket.)

Interesting concept about the air TV.
If the house wired for cable, you can do what I did and attach the antenna before the splitter and then you can plug the TV into the regular cable outlet.
I have my channel master DVR attached to the main TV to record OTA shows.

(11-08-2018 02:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:44 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 11:49 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talk...919471002/

Cable and satellite TV providers lost about 1.1 million subscribers during the July to September period, the largest quarterly loss ever – and the first time the industry lost more than 1 million subscribers in a quarter.

The writing is on the wall. Makes perfect sense why Disney is scrambling to launch a streaming service of its own. Everyone is kicking the tires on traditional cable model.

But how many switched over to a service that is just like cable/satellite except the user brings their own box and the delivery infrastructure is the consumer's problem? YouTube TV and the like are just like cable/sat with difference being responsibility for delivery infrastructure.

The OTT services are cheaper, there is healthy competition amongst them, and you can cancel anytime with 1 click. Three things the current cable industry is not.

These differences make the OTT product much more consumer friendly then cable/satellite

But you are still paying carriage fees for preset bundles.

It is absolutely still the old cable/satellite model the only change is who is responsible for the box to decode the signal and the method for bringing the signal into the house.

That's not really cord cutting. It's shifting responsibility for the cord from the provider to the consumer

Very True no argument from me. But wouldn't you say the model is more consumer friendly? I'm not tied to a middle man anymore since I own all the equipment and can more easily shop around for the best deal if I so choose

(11-08-2018 04:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 02:34 PM)cubucks Wrote:  YouTube TV is the way to go. It blows my mind that people still pay cable costs in my area instead of streaming.

The folks saying it's just the old cable model? Nope, you either have a TV with the YouTube TV app or you buy a Roku stick. Cable charges monthly fees for their boxes, Roku is a one time cost.

Old models don't allow you to cancel anytime, Streaming does.

Of course you may see buffering, but I live in the hills of Athens Ohio and it's never a problem.

Spectrum internet (5g)- $69.99
YouTube TV-$35.00

That's my total cost a month. With time Warner (spectrum) cable + internet it was $200.

Right now, I prefer the cable experience---however, to me, the price difference has grown large enough to make it worth making the switch at this point. The problem I have is Astros and Rockets games are both owned by the local Comcast RSN--and that RSN is not available via streaming. So, cutting the cord means no local MLB or NBA games---which is something Im not willing to give up at this point.

Yeah AT&T not putting thier RSNs on any platform, including their own, is crazy.

In the same boat with MASN though I'm not an Orioles or nationals fan so its not that big a deal

(11-08-2018 02:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  But you are still paying carriage fees for preset bundles.

If you choose to do so.

Quote: It is absolutely still the old cable/satellite model the only change is who is responsible for the box to decode the signal and the method for bringing the signal into the house.

So it is the same old cable/satellite model except for not being the same old cable/satellite model?

Quote: That's not really cord cutting. It's shifting responsibility for the cord from the provider to the consumer

The "cord" being referred to in "cord cutting" is "the cord owned by the media provider that connects you to their media".

And yes, whenever someone who says "cord cutting" knows what they are talking about, it means taking control and responsibility of the transmission system away from the media provider.
(1) It doesn't automatically mean a competitive market utopia, because independent of local distribution monopolies, media is shot through with all manner of intellectual property and other means of coping with the problem of profiting from a public good.
(2) It doesn't automatically mean a utopia of totally unbundled content, because economies of scope ensure that the aggregate cost of totally unbundled content would be higher, so there is strong economic pressure to economize by bundling. The granularity of bundles is likely to shift, though, as the bundles that a local monopoly or local tight oligopoly media provider that owns the distribution system will put together are likely to offer less granularity and customer choice than the bundles that a loose oligopoly or (ideally) imperfect competitive market will offer.

Like any popular technical term, cable cutting "only" means what it means, and doesn't mean a bundle of other associated ideas that people who have mostly encountered it in discussion mistakenly believe are automatically included.

(11-09-2018 05:15 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 02:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:44 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 11:49 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talk...919471002/

Cable and satellite TV providers lost about 1.1 million subscribers during the July to September period, the largest quarterly loss ever – and the first time the industry lost more than 1 million subscribers in a quarter.

The writing is on the wall. Makes perfect sense why Disney is scrambling to launch a streaming service of its own. Everyone is kicking the tires on traditional cable model.

But how many switched over to a service that is just like cable/satellite except the user brings their own box and the delivery infrastructure is the consumer's problem? YouTube TV and the like are just like cable/sat with difference being responsibility for delivery infrastructure.

The OTT services are cheaper, there is healthy competition amongst them, and you can cancel anytime with 1 click. Three things the current cable industry is not.

These differences make the OTT product much more consumer friendly then cable/satellite

But you are still paying carriage fees for preset bundles.

It is absolutely still the old cable/satellite model the only change is who is responsible for the box to decode the signal and the method for bringing the signal into the house.

That's not really cord cutting. It's shifting responsibility for the cord from the provider to the consumer

Very True no argument from me. But wouldn't you say the model is more consumer friendly? I'm not tied to a middle man anymore since I own all the equipment and can more easily shop around for the best deal if I so choose

More choices is almost always more CONSUMER friendly.

This thread amuses me.

I have long contended that "cord cutting" would eventually lead to LESS quality content, FEWER viewing options, and MORE costs than current Sat/Cable services. On top of that, streaming is killing attendance at sporting events.

The internet destroys EVERYTHING.

(11-09-2018 05:46 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  And yes, whenever someone who says "cord cutting" knows what they are talking about, it means taking control and responsibility of the transmission system away from the media provider.

I think you're wrong to put your cards on an abstract/technical definition of 'cord cutting' when what is relevant on a discussion group like this one is precisely (!!!) what it means on this discussion board as evidenced by its usage here.

And on this board, that meaning is highly ideological - it usually means "I am not forced to pay for the ESPN family of channels by a Cable Company in cahoots with Disney to Shove them Down My Throat while they Ignore or Disparage my Under-Appreciated Alma Mater's On the Rise Football Program".

That's basically what it means, here.

(11-09-2018 12:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2018 05:46 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  And yes, whenever someone who says "cord cutting" knows what they are talking about, it means taking control and responsibility of the transmission system away from the media provider.

I think you're wrong to put your cards on an abstract/technical definition of 'cord cutting' when what is relevant on a discussion group like this one is precisely (!!!) what it means on this discussion board as evidenced by its usage here.

And on this board, that meaning is highly ideological - it usually means "I am not forced to pay for the ESPN family of channels by a Cable Company in cahoots with Disney to Shove them Down My Throat while they Ignore or Disparage my Under-Appreciated Alma Mater's On the Rise Football Program".

That's basically what it means, here.

lol...it kinda does. I look at it more like ArkStfan---I would define cord cutting as dumping the cable bundle and going to all free OTA TV and/or stand alone streaming services (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc).

I agree with GTS that 5G replacing home DSL is a way off in most situations. It's been oversold by Verizon, T-Mobile and AT&T as something currently ready to try to lock in consumers.

That said with the rise of sports streaming subscriptions like ESPN+ and DAZN once you pick up a couple of those going back and forth with your cable package starts to make a lot less sense.

Maybe spending extra on a high speed DSL internet connection 400 Mbps+ is the way to go and then with an OTT service for the time being rather than messing around with the 5G and low datacaps.

(11-09-2018 12:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-09-2018 12:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2018 05:46 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  And yes, whenever someone who says "cord cutting" knows what they are talking about, it means taking control and responsibility of the transmission system away from the media provider.

I think you're wrong to put your cards on an abstract/technical definition of 'cord cutting' when what is relevant on a discussion group like this one is precisely (!!!) what it means on this discussion board as evidenced by its usage here.

And on this board, that meaning is highly ideological - it usually means "I am not forced to pay for the ESPN family of channels by a Cable Company in cahoots with Disney to Shove them Down My Throat while they Ignore or Disparage my Under-Appreciated Alma Mater's On the Rise Football Program".

That's basically what it means, here.

lol...it kinda does. I look at it more like ArkStfan---I would define cord cutting as dumping the cable bundle and going to all free OTA TV and/or stand alone streaming services (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc).

Yeah I mean the cable replacement services are a good thing for the marketplace but it's still pay X receive Y off a preset menu.

The cable replacement business is a good thing, but the common theology here is post ESPN lost this much in revenue from cord cutters. People buying cable replacement services that include ESPN are obviously not part of those numbers.

(11-09-2018 12:13 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  This thread amuses me.

I have long contended that "cord cutting" would eventually lead to LESS quality content, FEWER viewing options, and MORE costs than current Sat/Cable services. On top of that, streaming is killing attendance at sporting events.

The internet destroys EVERYTHING.

DAZN is 9.99 a month with a goal to replace the PPV model for combat sports. If PPV is $85 and someone decides to subscribe to DAZN for one fight after a year they are paying $120.

But then they are putting on more fights and with HBO dropping Boxing after this month then a DAZN subscription can replace your HBO subscription if the primary reason you have it is for boxing.

I dont agree then that necessarily it's a death knell in all situations for content. It's more that streaming allows the studios like Netflix or Showtime to go up directly against cable. When you order Showtime streaming they give you 16 movie stations for example which is competitive compared to 20 dollars worth of crap stations on Philo. But Showtime is only charging you 12.

If any cable package is going to cost you 40 dollars to add to your internet subscription for that price you could have 3 or 4 content studios of your choice.

The revolution we've had prior to the OTT options was the content studio revolution with movie quality unfiltered TV series content. Content that was first sold via DVD or Blue Ray but now is streaming.

The studios had the lead in the content revolution which they had to do to stay relevant when you can get movies anywhere. Then its allowed them to charge independently of a cable bundle as a streaming service.

Its movies that once had standalone rental/purchase power that are now forced to partner with HBO or a Hulu which has 10 to 14 episode series because most people aren't going to pay 6 dollars to watch a one time movie.

(11-09-2018 01:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-09-2018 12:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-09-2018 12:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2018 05:46 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  And yes, whenever someone who says "cord cutting" knows what they are talking about, it means taking control and responsibility of the transmission system away from the media provider.

I think you're wrong to put your cards on an abstract/technical definition of 'cord cutting' when what is relevant on a discussion group like this one is precisely (!!!) what it means on this discussion board as evidenced by its usage here.

And on this board, that meaning is highly ideological - it usually means "I am not forced to pay for the ESPN family of channels by a Cable Company in cahoots with Disney to Shove them Down My Throat while they Ignore or Disparage my Under-Appreciated Alma Mater's On the Rise Football Program".

That's basically what it means, here.

lol...it kinda does. I look at it more like ArkStfan---I would define cord cutting as dumping the cable bundle and going to all free OTA TV and/or stand alone streaming services (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc).

Yeah I mean the cable replacement services are a good thing for the marketplace but it's still pay X receive Y off a preset menu.

The cable replacement business is a good thing, but the common theology here is post ESPN lost this much in revenue from cord cutters. People buying cable replacement services that include ESPN are obviously not part of those numbers.

And the anti-ESPN folks should know that ESPN is getting the same per subscriber price from the Sling/Vue/YouTube's of the world as they do from Comcaast and Uverse.

(11-09-2018 01:45 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The revolution we've had prior to the OTT options was the content studio revolution with movie quality unfiltered TV series content. Content that was first sold via DVD or Blue Ray but now is streaming.

The studios had the lead in the content revolution which they had to do to stay relevant when you can get movies anywhere. Then its allowed them to charge independently of a cable bundle as a streaming service.

Its movies that once had standalone rental/purchase power that are now forced to partner with HBO or a Hulu which has 10 to 14 episode series because most people aren't going to pay 6 dollars to watch a one time movie.

The market I have never really understood is the "on demand" cable movie set up. Its $7.99 on Uverse for the latest releases (these would be movies no longer in theaters and about to be/or already out on DVD). You can rent these same movies for 1.99 at Redbox if you're willing to wait a few weeks. The cable infrastructure for streaming the movie was always there anyway for Uverse---why not drop the price to $2.99---or even compete with Redbox at $1.99 or less? I never stream from Uverse because its such a blatant rip off. If they made renting even halfway competitive I'd probably do so regularly. Im pretty sure Im not the only one who would rent regularly at a more reasonable price point.