If you have dish network, you probably noticed that a few channels when dark on Saturday, October 1st, including:
- ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, ESPN Deportes
- Disney Channel, Disney Jr., Disney XD
- Freeform
- FX, FXX, FXM
- National Geographic, Nat Geo Wild, Nat Geo Mundo
- ACC Network, SEC Network, Longhorn Network
- Baby TV
- Disney-owned ABC Affiliates in Chicago; Fresno, California; Houston; Los Angeles; New York City; Philadelphia; Raleigh, North Carolina; and San Francisco
This will be rough for both San Francisco 49ers and Los Angeles Rams football fans on Monday Night. Per NFL rules, if a game is on a cable network, then a station in the team's primary market can broadcast the game over the air. KGO in San Francisco and KABC in Los Angeles are both owned by Disney, so if you have Dish Network or Sling Streaming, you may be out-of-luck.
Time to break out the carriage dispute BINGO cards. How many times have we heard a multi-channel provider say "We are trying to control costs" while the programming provider says "We just want a fair price". It should be noted that the initial legislation, titled the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, allowing for the local stations to charge retransmission fees, was vetoed by the president on October 2nd, 1992, only to have the veto overridden and the act becoming law three days later. No wonder I consider the cost-benefit ratio of being a multichannel subscriber to be out of whack. When I moved, I decided to be a bare minimum streaming subscriber.
When are we finally going to eliminate the middle man "providers" and be able to subscribe to channels directly?
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 02, 2022, 10:37:42 AM
When are we finally going to eliminate the middle man "providers" and be able to subscribe to channels directly?
The cable business model of yesteryear is now the streaming model of now. Thinking the middle man will be eliminated is quixotic.
Quote from: Rothman on October 02, 2022, 11:06:40 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 02, 2022, 10:37:42 AM
When are we finally going to eliminate the middle man "providers" and be able to subscribe to channels directly?
The cable business model of yesteryear is now the streaming model of now. Thinking the middle man will be eliminated is quixotic.
But streaming allows companies to market their channels directly. We already have Disney+ and ESPN+. Disney could easily package their channels with one or both. Comcast could market their channels with Peacock. Paramount could market their channels with Paramount+. The only major TV company that doesn't have its own streaming platform right now is FOX.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 02, 2022, 10:37:42 AM
When are we finally going to eliminate the middle man "providers" and be able to subscribe to channels directly?
It is very doubtful that people in this country will pay for base ESPN "directly." Case in point: the cost of ESPN+ has slightly more than doubled since its 2018 inception, and Disney doesn't even put its most important college football games on the platform. Growth in ESPN+ subscriptions has flattened, as people quickly figured that bait-and-switch out.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 02, 2022, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 02, 2022, 11:06:40 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 02, 2022, 10:37:42 AM
When are we finally going to eliminate the middle man "providers" and be able to subscribe to channels directly?
The cable business model of yesteryear is now the streaming model of now. Thinking the middle man will be eliminated is quixotic.
But streaming allows companies to market their channels directly. We already have Disney+ and ESPN+. Disney could easily package their channels with one or both. Comcast could market their channels with Peacock. Paramount could market their channels with Paramount+. The only major TV company that doesn't have its own streaming platform right now is FOX.
While FOX doesn't have the overarching streaming app like Peacock and Paramount+ as of yet, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to put FOX's current entertainment programming onto Tubi. Unfortunately, FOX Nation is the best one's going to get for the next few years as far as a FOX News live streaming app, (we can thank CNN+ for doing this damage) and FOX Sports has somewhat the same issue with putting its premium sports product on live streaming that ESPN does.
It would be noted that both E$PN and the Regional $ports network (R$Ns) have the most expensive per-subscriber fees of any sets of channels. Per this article (https://www.axios.com/2021/12/08/espn-streaming-subscribers-cable-disney), the per-subscriber fee for the E$PN channels was $10 per month whether you watched the channel or not. And, per this article (https://www.axios.com/pro/media-deals/2022/05/10/cost-of-tv-sports-grows-as-pay-tv-bundle-breaks), the Regional $ports Network fees are at least $5 per month whether you watched the channel or not. Most of the non-$ports channels are under $2 per month, and many are under $1 per month.
It should be noted that Dish Network (and Sling) have told the regional sports networks to drop dead. At the end of 2021, Dish dropped all of the Regional $ports Networks with the removal of the NESN. They aren't the only ones, as other multichannel providers have dropped the R$Ns citing the high cost and low ratings. What really rubbed salt in the wounds is that the R$Ns still charged their fees in 2020 when absolutely no sports were on.
Now, I hear one of the contractual points is that Disney is insisting on E$PN on all the tiers of services where previously, the lowest tier was exempt.
This type of issue is the reason why I've been hesitant to get some form of cable subscription, even if my reception isn't always the best.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 02, 2022, 10:37:42 AM
When are we finally going to eliminate the middle man "providers" and be able to subscribe to channels directly?
Streaming one's local station for CBS is possible with Paramount+. I don't recall if the same is true with NBC and Peacock or not. Disney has chosen not to do the same with ABC and FOX. PBS actually allows such streaming for free online. The CW is co-owned by two companies, which complicates things.
Quote from: brad2971 on October 02, 2022, 12:08:34 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 02, 2022, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 02, 2022, 11:06:40 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 02, 2022, 10:37:42 AM
When are we finally going to eliminate the middle man "providers" and be able to subscribe to channels directly?
The cable business model of yesteryear is now the streaming model of now. Thinking the middle man will be eliminated is quixotic.
But streaming allows companies to market their channels directly. We already have Disney+ and ESPN+. Disney could easily package their channels with one or both. Comcast could market their channels with Peacock. Paramount could market their channels with Paramount+. The only major TV company that doesn't have its own streaming platform right now is FOX.
While FOX doesn't have the overarching streaming app like Peacock and Paramount+ as of yet, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to put FOX's current entertainment programming onto Tubi. Unfortunately, FOX Nation is the best one's going to get for the next few years as far as a FOX News live streaming app, (we can thank CNN+ for doing this damage) and FOX Sports has somewhat the same issue with putting its premium sports product on live streaming that ESPN does.
The FOX entertainment division is owned by Disney, so wouldn't that make Hulu/Disney+ the streaming apps for FOX just like they are for ABC?
The only winning move is not to play. 🏴☠️
You have to have decent, affordable broadband service to use streaming services. Therefore I don't have streaming services.
Dish seems to be more popular than DirecTV in these parts. UK fans weren't happy when they couldn't watch the UK-Ole Miss game yesterday. Turns out they didn't miss much. I was out running errands and recorded the game, but deleted the recording unwatched.
If you live in a city with decent broadband Internet, you can pick up the over-the-air channels and all their subchannels and then choose whichever streaming services you want. I don't get that option. i can't even pick up the Lexington stations OTA. When I was growing up, we only got two of the three Lexington stations OTA (the NBC and CBS affiliates; we couldn't pick up the ABC affiliate.) The switch to digital ensured that OTA television can't be watched here.
Expect Disney to come out and hype up their TV apps bundles with DIsney+, ESPN+ and Hulu while they are in dispute with Dish and Sling. Yes this will affect people without TV's that get a wifi signal. But for the rest of us we see this at play here.
ESPN, Disney, and other networks have returned to Dish and Sling TV (https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/3/23384591/dish-disney-sling-tv-espn-fx-restored-streaming)
Rate increase coming in 3... 2... 1...
- Those who wish of "a la carte" TV channels should be very careful what they wish for, as they just might get it. A la carte is totally anti-consumer. The bundle protects the consumer and makes the 1000s of off-beat niche channels available. Without it, most would not ever have existed.
- ESPN a la carte, according to most reports would need about $50/month to break even. Most people don't watch sports, at least not enough to pay for them. Add in all the other sports channels and you are looking at $100/month, just for sports.
- I really don't know who Dish is really for today. It is grossly inferior to DirecTV and even to some cable companies. All these disputes, missing channels. If you just want TV as background noise, just watch Pluto, which is free.
Quote from: vdeane on October 02, 2022, 04:26:11 PM
This type of issue is the reason why I've been hesitant to get some form of cable subscription, even if my reception isn't always the best.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 02, 2022, 10:37:42 AM
When are we finally going to eliminate the middle man "providers" and be able to subscribe to channels directly?
Streaming one's local station for CBS is possible with Paramount+. I don't recall if the same is true with NBC and Peacock or not. Disney has chosen not to do the same with ABC and FOX. PBS actually allows such streaming for free online. The CW is co-owned by two companies, which complicates things.
Quote from: brad2971 on October 02, 2022, 12:08:34 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 02, 2022, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 02, 2022, 11:06:40 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 02, 2022, 10:37:42 AM
When are we finally going to eliminate the middle man "providers" and be able to subscribe to channels directly?
The cable business model of yesteryear is now the streaming model of now. Thinking the middle man will be eliminated is quixotic.
But streaming allows companies to market their channels directly. We already have Disney+ and ESPN+. Disney could easily package their channels with one or both. Comcast could market their channels with Peacock. Paramount could market their channels with Paramount+. The only major TV company that doesn't have its own streaming platform right now is FOX.
While FOX doesn't have the overarching streaming app like Peacock and Paramount+ as of yet, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to put FOX's current entertainment programming onto Tubi. Unfortunately, FOX Nation is the best one's going to get for the next few years as far as a FOX News live streaming app, (we can thank CNN+ for doing this damage) and FOX Sports has somewhat the same issue with putting its premium sports product on live streaming that ESPN does.
The FOX entertainment division is owned by Disney, so wouldn't that make Hulu/Disney+ the streaming apps for FOX just like they are for ABC?
https://thestreamable.com/news/peacock-is-rolling-out-local-news-channels-from-nbc-owned-stations
At least NBC and Telemundo affiliates owned by Comcast inc would stream on Peacock app like KNBC, KVEA Los Angeles, KNTV /KSTS San Jose.
CBS and CW affiliates owned by Paramount inc would stream on Paramount+ and the CBS News app.
Quote from: ZLoth on October 02, 2022, 01:11:06 PM
Per this article (https://www.axios.com/2021/12/08/espn-streaming-subscribers-cable-disney), the per-subscriber fee for the E$PN channels was $10 per month whether you watched the channel or not.
Quote from: SP Cook on October 03, 2022, 09:02:04 AM
ESPN a la carte, according to most reports would need about $50/month to break even.
Does that mean that 4 out of 5 cable subscribers don't watch ESPN?
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on October 03, 2022, 11:38:33 AM
Quote from: ZLoth on October 02, 2022, 01:11:06 PM
Per this article (https://www.axios.com/2021/12/08/espn-streaming-subscribers-cable-disney), the per-subscriber fee for the E$PN channels was $10 per month whether you watched the channel or not.
Quote from: SP Cook on October 03, 2022, 09:02:04 AM
ESPN a la carte, according to most reports would need about $50/month to break even.
Does that mean that 4 out of 5 cable subscribers don't watch ESPN?
On a regular basis, it's more like one out of 10 cable subscribers watch ESPN. Other than Monday Night Football, the vast majority of cable subscribers are only watching ESPN when their local NBA/NHL/MLB/even college football team is playing in primetime on a given day.
Given its large presence in Orlando, it really is surprising that Disney does not own the station there.
Quote from: bing101 on October 03, 2022, 09:54:04 AM
Quote from: vdeane on October 02, 2022, 04:26:11 PM
This type of issue is the reason why I've been hesitant to get some form of cable subscription, even if my reception isn't always the best.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 02, 2022, 10:37:42 AM
When are we finally going to eliminate the middle man "providers" and be able to subscribe to channels directly?
Streaming one's local station for CBS is possible with Paramount+. I don't recall if the same is true with NBC and Peacock or not. Disney has chosen not to do the same with ABC and FOX. PBS actually allows such streaming for free online. The CW is co-owned by two companies, which complicates things.
Quote from: brad2971 on October 02, 2022, 12:08:34 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 02, 2022, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 02, 2022, 11:06:40 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 02, 2022, 10:37:42 AM
When are we finally going to eliminate the middle man "providers" and be able to subscribe to channels directly?
The cable business model of yesteryear is now the streaming model of now. Thinking the middle man will be eliminated is quixotic.
But streaming allows companies to market their channels directly. We already have Disney+ and ESPN+. Disney could easily package their channels with one or both. Comcast could market their channels with Peacock. Paramount could market their channels with Paramount+. The only major TV company that doesn't have its own streaming platform right now is FOX.
While FOX doesn't have the overarching streaming app like Peacock and Paramount+ as of yet, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to put FOX's current entertainment programming onto Tubi. Unfortunately, FOX Nation is the best one's going to get for the next few years as far as a FOX News live streaming app, (we can thank CNN+ for doing this damage) and FOX Sports has somewhat the same issue with putting its premium sports product on live streaming that ESPN does.
The FOX entertainment division is owned by Disney, so wouldn't that make Hulu/Disney+ the streaming apps for FOX just like they are for ABC?
https://thestreamable.com/news/peacock-is-rolling-out-local-news-channels-from-nbc-owned-stations
At least NBC and Telemundo affiliates owned by Comcast inc would stream on Peacock app like KNBC, KVEA Los Angeles, KNTV /KSTS San Jose.
CBS and CW affiliates owned by Paramount inc would stream on Paramount+ and the CBS News app.
FYI, Paramount+ doesn't just have CBS-owned stations, but they
are geo-targeted; they pull from whatever the local station is wherever you are (using your browser's current location, so when you travel, you get the local station of wherever you're traveling to).
Quote from: SP Cook on October 03, 2022, 09:02:04 AM
- Those who wish of "a la carte" TV channels should be very careful what they wish for, as they just might get it. A la carte is totally anti-consumer. The bundle protects the consumer and makes the 1000s of off-beat niche channels available. Without it, most would not ever have existed.
And we'd probably all be better off. Yeah it was neat for a while, but all those niche channels turned into dogshit reality shows and endless repeats. Oh look, Step Brothers is on again! I haven't seen that in almost five minutes! And now stayed tuned for 6 hours of The Office; now with 20% more commercials for sleazy lawyers droning on about Camp Lejune!
Quote from: SP Cook on October 03, 2022, 09:02:04 AM
- Those who wish of "a la carte" TV channels should be very careful what they wish for, as they just might get it. A la carte is totally anti-consumer. The bundle protects the consumer and makes the 1000s of off-beat niche channels available. Without it, most would not ever have existed.
If you don't care about a niche cable channel enough to want to pay for it, why would you care whether it existed in the first place?
This is the way I look at it: The money consumers pay now goes to channel providers and bundlers. If the channel providers eliminate the bundlers, that's less overall money consumers have to pay.
Will certain channels cost more? Yes, but that is outweighed by not having to pay for all the channels we get now but don't want. Even better if some channels go out of business and there's less money channel providers need to make.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2022, 05:44:52 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on October 03, 2022, 09:02:04 AM
- Those who wish of "a la carte" TV channels should be very careful what they wish for, as they just might get it. A la carte is totally anti-consumer. The bundle protects the consumer and makes the 1000s of off-beat niche channels available. Without it, most would not ever have existed.
If you don't care about a niche cable channel enough to want to pay for it, why would you care whether it existed in the first place?
I think his point is that you might be unpleasantly surprised at how many channels you think are "not niche" but end up being considered too "niche" to exist anymore. Especially channels like Turner Classic Movies: without it, where would TV viewers go to watch old black-and-white horror flicks on Halloween?
Quote from: vdeane on October 03, 2022, 01:28:50 PM
Quote from: bing101 on October 03, 2022, 09:54:04 AM
Quote from: vdeane on October 02, 2022, 04:26:11 PM
This type of issue is the reason why I've been hesitant to get some form of cable subscription, even if my reception isn't always the best.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 02, 2022, 10:37:42 AM
When are we finally going to eliminate the middle man "providers" and be able to subscribe to channels directly?
Streaming one's local station for CBS is possible with Paramount+. I don't recall if the same is true with NBC and Peacock or not. Disney has chosen not to do the same with ABC and FOX. PBS actually allows such streaming for free online. The CW is co-owned by two companies, which complicates things.
Quote from: brad2971 on October 02, 2022, 12:08:34 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 02, 2022, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 02, 2022, 11:06:40 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 02, 2022, 10:37:42 AM
When are we finally going to eliminate the middle man "providers" and be able to subscribe to channels directly?
The cable business model of yesteryear is now the streaming model of now. Thinking the middle man will be eliminated is quixotic.
But streaming allows companies to market their channels directly. We already have Disney+ and ESPN+. Disney could easily package their channels with one or both. Comcast could market their channels with Peacock. Paramount could market their channels with Paramount+. The only major TV company that doesn't have its own streaming platform right now is FOX.
While FOX doesn't have the overarching streaming app like Peacock and Paramount+ as of yet, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to put FOX's current entertainment programming onto Tubi. Unfortunately, FOX Nation is the best one's going to get for the next few years as far as a FOX News live streaming app, (we can thank CNN+ for doing this damage) and FOX Sports has somewhat the same issue with putting its premium sports product on live streaming that ESPN does.
The FOX entertainment division is owned by Disney, so wouldn't that make Hulu/Disney+ the streaming apps for FOX just like they are for ABC?
https://thestreamable.com/news/peacock-is-rolling-out-local-news-channels-from-nbc-owned-stations
At least NBC and Telemundo affiliates owned by Comcast inc would stream on Peacock app like KNBC, KVEA Los Angeles, KNTV /KSTS San Jose.
CBS and CW affiliates owned by Paramount inc would stream on Paramount+ and the CBS News app.
FYI, Paramount+ doesn't just have CBS-owned stations, but they are geo-targeted; they pull from whatever the local station is wherever you are (using your browser's current location, so when you travel, you get the local station of wherever you're traveling to).
How does location even work on something like a laptop which doesn't have cellular connection, GPS or anything else that determines location?
IP addresses can be geolocated, with caveats. (At my last two jobs, our IP address geolocated to Ada, Oklahoma, about 90 minutes away from where I actually worked, since that was where company headquarters was and thus where our network traffic was routed through.)
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2022, 07:22:28 PM
IP addresses can be geolocated, with caveats.
And, if this sort of thing intrigues you, then you should watch the video below.
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2022, 06:59:46 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2022, 05:44:52 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on October 03, 2022, 09:02:04 AM
- Those who wish of “a la carte” TV channels should be very careful what they wish for, as they just might get it. A la carte is totally anti-consumer. The bundle protects the consumer and makes the 1000s of off-beat niche channels available. Without it, most would not ever have existed.
If you don't care about a niche cable channel enough to want to pay for it, why would you care whether it existed in the first place?
I think his point is that you might be unpleasantly surprised at how many channels you think are "not niche" but end up being considered too "niche" to exist anymore. Especially channels like Turner Classic Movies: without it, where would TV viewers go to watch old black-and-white horror flicks on Halloween?
Then there are channels like REELZ that are "niche" but quickly turn into "Not Niche" upon signing up Police Scanner TV (aka On Patrol Live). BTW, Turner Classic Movies and the Hallmark channels have been consistently popular channels since those channels first came to cable and satellite. People are more than willing to upgrade their cable/satellite packages to get them, even with the presence of Hallmark Movies NOW as a streaming app.
Quote from: Henry on October 03, 2022, 12:31:52 PM
Given its large presence in Orlando, it really is surprising that Disney does not own the station there.
You would be astounded at who owns which stations in markets that have NFL teams. For example, Houston is one of the top 10 TV markets in this country, and the CBS affiliate there is changing ownership from Tegna to COX Media Group. This is despite the fact that CBS has the AFC contract and the Houston Texans play in the AFC.
Quote from: brad2971 on October 03, 2022, 09:05:00 PM
BTW, Turner Classic Movies and the Hallmark channels have been consistently popular channels since those channels first came to cable and satellite. People are more than willing to upgrade their cable/satellite packages to get them, even with the presence of Hallmark Movies NOW as a streaming app.
Upgrade their cable/satellite bundle to include
channel packages that
include them? If every channel is a la carte, then it could be that all the channels in those packages drop below the threshold of "niche".
Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2022, 09:29:15 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on October 03, 2022, 09:05:00 PM
BTW, Turner Classic Movies and the Hallmark channels have been consistently popular channels since those channels first came to cable and satellite. People are more than willing to upgrade their cable/satellite packages to get them, even with the presence of Hallmark Movies NOW as a streaming app.
Upgrade their cable/satellite bundle to include channel packages that include them? If every channel is a la carte, then it could be that all the channels in those packages drop below the threshold of "niche".
Yes, Turner Classic Movies and the Hallmark channels are very valuable cable properties. There's a reason why Hallmark Cards won't sell those channels to the likes of, say, A&E Networks (which have their own valuable properties in Lifetime, LMN, and History).
Compare this to, say, regional sports networks. Both NBC/Comcast and ATT are trying to sell their regional sports channels due to not wanting the headache anymore. And when it comes to Bally Sports channels, let's just say those 22 channels would not fetch the estimated $3 billion net present value (down from the original asking price of $20 billion in 2019, and still down from the $10 billion they did get from a subsidiary of Sinclair) if Bally Sports was forced into Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Think about THAT the next time someone tells you sports is supposed to be cable/satellite's savior.
Quote from: vdeane on October 02, 2022, 04:26:11 PM
...
Streaming one's local station for CBS is possible with Paramount+. I don't recall if the same is true with NBC and Peacock or not. Disney has chosen not to do the same with ABC and FOX. PBS actually allows such streaming for free online. The CW is co-owned by two companies, which complicates things.
...
The FOX entertainment division is owned by Disney, so wouldn't that make Hulu/Disney+ the streaming apps for FOX just like they are for ABC?
The FOX over-the-air broadcast sports and entertainment network is still owned by News Corp. Disney made them remove the searchlights from their logo, and the old studio is now called 20th Century Studios. Ironic, because Fox was the first network that was owned by a studio and could use the synergy of running their own shows. (Their first hit was
Married... With Children, owned by Embassy and then Columbia Pictures.) Now they're the first network not owned by a studio.
Rename themselves to '21st century'?
Mike
Quote from: ran4sh on October 03, 2022, 07:17:12 PM
How does location even work on something like a laptop which doesn't have cellular connection, GPS or anything else that determines location?
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2022, 07:22:28 PM
IP addresses can be geolocated, with caveats. (At my last two jobs, our IP address geolocated to Ada, Oklahoma, about 90 minutes away from where I actually worked, since that was where company headquarters was and thus where our network traffic was routed through.)
My work computer thinks it's in Frankfort.
OTOH, my work cell phone (Verizon) often thinks it's in Indianapolis, no matter where it's physically located.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 02, 2022, 10:37:42 AM
When are we finally going to eliminate the middle man "providers" and be able to subscribe to channels directly?
There's always a middleman. That's the whole object of a business, is to be a middleman between a producer, and a consumer. Everybody gets a piece of the action, except the customer, who gets... yeah.