Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 59

Thread: Higher price less channels!

  1. #21
    Edgecutter inkahauts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,176
    I will never understand why so many people think streaming is cheaper for infrastructure than satelite by a large amount. I doubt it’s cheaper at all right now on a per customer basis, much less as a total in the long run.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if ATTs is cheaper than say Hulu’s just because they can use DIRECTV massive backbone of fiber networks that are paid for by DIRECTV. See what happens if those costs get flipped the the streaming people and satellite gets a free ride on them.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Pcampbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    314
    Second price hike in 7 months, more to fallow. Most only watch 15 to 20 of the channels so for us pay TV is now just to much money. Moved back to OTA
    Wish you all well.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Hookemfins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by inkahauts View Post
    I will never understand why so many people think streaming is cheaper for infrastructure than satelite by a large amount. I doubt it’s cheaper at all right now on a per customer basis, much less as a total in the long run.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if ATTs is cheaper than say Hulu’s just because they can use DIRECTV massive backbone of fiber networks that are paid for by DIRECTV. See what happens if those costs get flipped the the streaming people and satellite gets a free ride on them.
    The infrastructure is there regardless if we subscribe to satellite/cable or streaming TV. People use the internet whether they stream TV or the traditional way. AT&T is laying fiber optics which in the long run will be cheaper all around. DTV will be able deliver TV thru fiber and in fact have already started the process. Streaming is cheaper to AT&T simply because AT&T doesn't need installers or repairmen and I imagine less in the call center personnel is needed.

    Forgetting DTV Now since there prices have risen, I can get PS Vue top package plus sports and red zone channel for $90/month. With DTV I have premier I'm now paying $110 (with discounts). I can save $20/month plus equipment cost and all the associated taxes and fees. That gives me plenty of room for Hulu, Netflix and more and I'm still ahead. I won't because of the convenience.

    So yes, streaming is cheaper all around.

    BUT, I have also said that at some point (and may be sooner than expected) that streaming to the population will rise to satellite/cable levels. Not because of the infrastructure but because of content.

    When <blank> channel goes dark from a provider the customers go berserk. They call up the provider screaming and threatening to cancel. If they (subscribers) were smart they would complain to the content provider instead, but they don't.

    Content is king. And that is the reason why streaming prices are rising both on satellite/cable and streaming.

    Understood about equipment costs, but many folks watch just one or two TVs and those D*
    I think the average HH watches on at least 3 TVs?

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    195
    everyone is thinking of their own equipment for infrastructure cost

    look at what directv will need on their end

    yest it could cost as much as thier sats

    also remember 15% of the country does not have broadband

    the cost to deploy reliable broadband to them vs the cost of satellites?

    sats win every day

  5. #25
    Super Moderator Tom Speer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Adirondack Mtns, NY and Eastern NC
    Posts
    1,350
    Try figuring what it would cost to stream your TV over a satellite internet connection, which is the only choice some people have. It may not even be possible with data limits.
    Tom Speer, N2HF, the curious otter. Part of the DataDigesters team.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    312
    And don't forget, if the Democratic House is unable to restore Obama-era net neutrality regulations, add'l streaming costs will likely filter down to consumers in the form of some combination of increased monthly isp costs, lower data caps or higher monthly charges for D* Now, PSVue, Netflix, Hulu, et al, who may have to pay carriage surcharges to insure QOS.

  7. #27
    Senior Member Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    312
    Quote Originally Posted by UHDFAN0001 View Post
    There's plenty of misinformation regarding streaming these days....

    Here are some facts:

    https://www.cordcuttersnews.com/a-ne...-cord-cutters/
    Today a new study from Parks Associates took a look at how much cord cutting really costs on average. According to Parks Associates, the average cost of subscription streaming services has remained unchanged for the last three years at about $8 a month for the average cord cutter.
    The average cord-cutter spends $8/month on subscription streaming services? What kind of fact is that? We're talking about streaming channel packages here, not just Netflix monthly costs.
    Last edited by Steve; 03-21-2019 at 03:11 PM.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Hookemfins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by mdram View Post
    everyone is thinking of their own equipment for infrastructure cost

    look at what directv will need on their end

    yest it could cost as much as thier sats

    also remember 15% of the country does not have broadband

    the cost to deploy reliable broadband to them vs the cost of satellites?

    sats win every day

    There are two conversations going on here which is leading to the confusions when discussing streaming vs traditional TV:

    In my case I am not confusing the two. They are two separate entities. which one aspect and the other is infrastructure or cost to AT&T.

    A. Cost to customers (us) is one thing. That’s where the talk of comparing our own equipment and the various add on charges (equipment and taxes). That is a factor when comparing streaming to traditional cable/satellite on the customer side. As I have said, if everyone chose right now to dump DTV to streaming DTV Now (won’t happen), cost to AT&T goes down. NO more installers or service calls.

    When we talk about our own cost that affects AT&T. This is part of the free market system. We look at our own situation to determine streaming vs traditional vs other forms of entertainment.

    B. By technology alone cost to AT&T should help lower infrastructure cost. The other thing that I said was about AT&T and fiber. While the cost of laying fiber is large upfront cost to AT&T, in the long run costs should be reduced on their end. Faster internet speeds and bulk services can be offered. Plus, DTV will be available to the customer through fiber thus reducing installation satellite cost.

    C. CONTENT. That is the largest cost to any provider, not just AT&T. And the cost gets passed on to the customer. Content is the number one reason why everyones bills are on the rise. Why are Netflix prices rising? Cost of producing new content plus acquiring old content. You can probably thank ESPN as their cost/sub is at least $8 or more and rising fast. The second culprit are probably local channels.

    I hope that I have put the thread into proper perspective as to the the types of conversation going on in here.

    the cost to deploy reliable broadband to them vs the cost of satellites?

    sats win every day
    
Can’t argue with that statement. Hopefully if AT&T can live up to the promise of fiber to all by 2021 (I am extremely skeptical) then can address non metro areas. But it is in AT&T’s best interest to focus on the meteor areas.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    312
    Quote Originally Posted by Hookemfins View Post
    As I have said, if everyone chose right now to dump DTV to streaming DTV Now (won’t happen), cost to AT&T goes down. NO more installers or service calls.
    Remember if everyone streams, DIRECTV’s hardware ‘rental’ business disappears. Is that a greater loss than the cost of an installer workforce of mostly non-salaried, no benefits employees? Is it a wash? I don’t know, but...

    If they are charging you eight dollars a month per set top box, that’s about $350 per box profit over four years, assuming the cost to manufacture is about $50 and a box lasts 4 years. If the average household pays for two of these each month and there are 25,000,000 sat/U-Verse subscribers, that’s an average of $4.375 billion of PROFIT per year that goes away.

    Seems high, but here’s my math: 2 per house hold x $350 divided by 4 years = $175/year profit per household. Multiply that by 25,000,000 households and we’re talking big bucks!
    Last edited by Steve; 03-22-2019 at 05:57 PM. Reason: edited to reflect more accurate subscriber count

  10. #30
    Senior Member Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    312
    Quote Originally Posted by UHDFAN0001 View Post
    Read it again...they're saying it has only changed $8/month over that timeframe.
    I did.

    Today a new study from Parks Associates took a look at how much cord cutting really costs on average. According to Parks Associates, the average cost of subscription streaming services has remained unchanged for the last three years at about $8 a month for the average cord cutter.
    More here from PR Newswire.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •