(11-08-2018 04:24 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  With now another increase of households who don't pay for TV 21% in 2017 to 22% in 2018. It is no wonder why Stadium is getting more traction on their OTA stations.

Lol. Nobody watches Stadium

[/quote]

They also allow people in New Jersey to keep Rutgers off their TVs, as the good lord intended.
[/quote]

No emoji can do that line justice. Well played, says a Jersey native and one who is partial to RU.

(11-09-2018 02:29 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 04:24 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  With now another increase of households who don't pay for TV 21% in 2017 to 22% in 2018. It is no wonder why Stadium is getting more traction on their OTA stations.

Lol. Nobody watches Stadium

Yup. Stadium is really little more than untapped potential for now.

(11-09-2018 02:29 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 04:24 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  With now another increase of households who don't pay for TV 21% in 2017 to 22% in 2018. It is no wonder why Stadium is getting more traction on their OTA stations.

Lol. Nobody watches Stadium

Maybe a bit more than you think. Of course we don't know what are the real numbers, but their expansion doesn't happen in a vacuum. Just as other TV networks like MeTV, Grit...etc are getting some 100k viewership for their shows that they can sell advertising space.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/spor...n-balboni/

Here is a new article about Stadium.

Stadium will be the impetus to change, not the new master. As soon as Stadium proves itself viable Fuhrer Mickey, which already has national OTA infrastructure through ABC, will push ESPN to OTA. I, for one, would be delighted with such a scenario. There's PLENTY of digital TV spectrum that is untapped. And since it is receive only the spectrum is used far more efficiently. True story: there is more data being transmitted on the internet than there is unique data available to access. This is why 5G would be such a damned nightmare. You're sending the same thing over and over to different people. It gobbles up spectrum quickly. With OTA TV you send once ... no muss, no fuss.

I for one welcome our new overlords in a hypothetical future where "mainstream" cable channels go OTA. I'd dust off my MythTV capture hardware, setup MythTV in Linux again as my DVR, and tell YouTube TV to take a hike.

Disney just reported record profits. Doesn't seem like cord cutting is hurting them too badly.

(11-09-2018 08:54 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Disney just reported record profits. Doesn't seem like cord cutting is hurting them too badly.

Of course. They had big revenues from movies and TV. Their cable division is what is lackluster. Sure they are still getting big revenues but they are getting less subscribers and increased expenses every year.
Soon the revenues and expenses will cross paths.

(11-09-2018 09:26 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-09-2018 08:54 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Disney just reported record profits. Doesn't seem like cord cutting is hurting them too badly.

Of course. They had big revenues from movies and TV. Their cable division is what is lackluster. Sure they are still getting big revenues but they are getting less subscribers and increased expenses every year.
Soon the revenues and expenses will cross paths.

Not anytime soon. The dirty little secret is every ESPN carriage agreement carries an automatic annual escalator. So every year, the fee bumps up 4-5%. Losing one percent of subscribers is more than offset by a 4% increase by the remaining subscribers. That’s why ESPN carriage revenus continues to grow despite cord cutting. That said, eventually that game is going to stop working if the subscriber losses can’t be slowed or reversed.

What would be interesting here is let's say Fox got into the standalone app business like ESPN.

They sign some of the G5 conferences to Fox+ for most of their games and then a Thursday/Friday/Saturday package on FS1/FS2 for football so they are also part of the cable carriage.

If you subscribe to Fox+ for 9.99 you could have all FS1/FS2/F+ content and with OTT service watch it as if it was live TV.

Then all of sudden there is no need to pay the $25-$30 dollars to a cable or OTT service for sports if you can get all your teams broadcasts on an app. As of now even on OTT sports are still bundled.

I think this game ESPN is trying to play with ESPN/ESPN3/ESPN+ to make it where you have to pick up all three of them ($35-$40 dollars) can be undercut by a 9.99 sports streaming service.

If DAZN will offer a middleweight boxer $365 million over 5 years surely money should exist on a sports streaming service for $100 or $200 million for a college football conference.

(11-08-2018 03:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I pay $185 a month for internet + cable, and I would switch to Youtube TV in a minute if it wasn't for .... my wife.

You need "permission" from your wife to save $125/month (+/- $1500 yr) on something as discretionary as TV?

(11-10-2018 10:12 AM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 03:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I pay $185 a month for internet + cable, and I would switch to Youtube TV in a minute if it wasn't for .... my wife.

You need "permission" from your wife to save $125/month (+/- $1500 yr) on something as discretionary as TV?

I sure do. And I'm good with that. She's a doll.

(11-10-2018 01:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-10-2018 10:12 AM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 03:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I pay $185 a month for internet + cable, and I would switch to Youtube TV in a minute if it wasn't for .... my wife.

You need "permission" from your wife to save $125/month (+/- $1500 yr) on something as discretionary as TV?

I sure do. And I'm good with that. She's a doll.

Good for you. That’s your and your wife’s choice to keep cable. No matter how “attractive” OTT services may be, there will always be people that prefer cable over a bunch of OTT services. No one should tell you, how to spend your money.

(11-10-2018 01:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-10-2018 10:12 AM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 03:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I pay $185 a month for internet + cable, and I would switch to Youtube TV in a minute if it wasn't for .... my wife.

You need "permission" from your wife to save $125/month (+/- $1500 yr) on something as discretionary as TV?

I sure do. And I'm good with that. She's a doll.

Happy wife, happy life.
Having said that, what is she afraid of losing by switching?

(11-10-2018 03:37 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-10-2018 01:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-10-2018 10:12 AM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 03:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I pay $185 a month for internet + cable, and I would switch to Youtube TV in a minute if it wasn't for .... my wife.

You need "permission" from your wife to save $125/month (+/- $1500 yr) on something as discretionary as TV?

I sure do. And I'm good with that. She's a doll.

Happy wife, happy life.
Having said that, what is she afraid of losing by switching?

I was discussing Youtube TV, which doesn't have TLC, Bravo, or QVC.

(11-10-2018 05:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-10-2018 03:37 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-10-2018 01:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-10-2018 10:12 AM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 03:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I pay $185 a month for internet + cable, and I would switch to Youtube TV in a minute if it wasn't for .... my wife.

You need "permission" from your wife to save $125/month (+/- $1500 yr) on something as discretionary as TV?

I sure do. And I'm good with that. She's a doll.

Happy wife, happy life.
Having said that, what is she afraid of losing by switching?

I was discussing Youtube TV, which doesn't have TLC, Bravo, or QVC.

YouTube TV has Bravo. QVC is free on Roku.

I would recommend combing $16 Philo with $40 YouTube TV. Philo gives you all the Hallmarks, all the Discoverys , HGTV, TLC, Food, Etc.


Take a look at it

(11-10-2018 10:16 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-10-2018 05:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-10-2018 03:37 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-10-2018 01:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-10-2018 10:12 AM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  You need "permission" from your wife to save $125/month (+/- $1500 yr) on something as discretionary as TV?

I sure do. And I'm good with that. She's a doll.

Happy wife, happy life.
Having said that, what is she afraid of losing by switching?

I was discussing Youtube TV, which doesn't have TLC, Bravo, or QVC.

YouTube TV has Bravo. QVC is free on Roku.

I would recommend combing $16 Philo with $40 YouTube TV. Philo gives you all the Hallmarks, all the Discoverys , HGTV, TLC, Food, Etc.


Take a look at it

$56? I pay $30 for DirecTV which has all that plus HBO because I am an ATT wireless customer. Seems like cutting the cord doesn’t/wouldn’t save too many people that much money

(11-10-2018 10:22 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(11-10-2018 10:16 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-10-2018 05:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-10-2018 03:37 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-10-2018 01:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I sure do. And I'm good with that. She's a doll.

Happy wife, happy life.
Having said that, what is she afraid of losing by switching?

I was discussing Youtube TV, which doesn't have TLC, Bravo, or QVC.

YouTube TV has Bravo. QVC is free on Roku.

I would recommend combing $16 Philo with $40 YouTube TV. Philo gives you all the Hallmarks, all the Discoverys , HGTV, TLC, Food, Etc.


Take a look at it

$56? I pay $30 for DirecTV which has all that plus HBO because I am an ATT wireless customer. Seems like cutting the cord doesn’t/wouldn’t save too many people that much money

If you can get a good deal other ways do it.

(11-10-2018 10:16 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-10-2018 05:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-10-2018 03:37 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-10-2018 01:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-10-2018 10:12 AM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  You need "permission" from your wife to save $125/month (+/- $1500 yr) on something as discretionary as TV?

I sure do. And I'm good with that. She's a doll.

Happy wife, happy life.
Having said that, what is she afraid of losing by switching?

I was discussing Youtube TV, which doesn't have TLC, Bravo, or QVC.

YouTube TV has Bravo. QVC is free on Roku.

Didn't realize that.

(11-08-2018 02:10 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 02:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If you want to see real acceleration in cord cutting, wait another year or two. When 5G internet becomes widely available, streaming video quality will be equal to cable/satellite quality, and then the lure of smaller bundles, plus being able to watch on a wide variety of devices, plus being able to cancel at any time, will convince a lot more folks to dump cable and satellite for these lower-obligation options.

So as mentioned in the OP, this is why Disney is ramping up ESPN+ and rolling out "Disneyflix" next year, and why HBO and others are doing similar things.

Yep.

The company that is way behind on this is CBS. You still can't stream CBS Sports anywhere.

I guess that's to be expected when CBS has spent most of the past 20 years being a pawn in the never-ending battle over who will inherit Sumner Redstone's fortune when he retires.

I get CBS Sports with PS Vue.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk