The High Cost of ABC, CBS, FOX, & NBC is Killing Cable TV Along With YouTube TV & Fubo
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ก.ย. 2024
- Today in Cord Cutting Today for September 18, 2024 we take a look at some of the biggest stories in the world of cord cutting including: The High Cost of ABC, CBS, FOX, & NBC is Killing Cable TV.
Comcast Now Charges Over $55 a Month in Fees for ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, & Your Local RSN On Top of the Advertised Price in Some Areas cordcuttersnew...
Fox Weather Expands DIRECTV Distribution cordcuttersnew...
Deal Alert! Save 20% on Lifetime Plex Pass During Plex Pro Week 2024 cordcuttersnew...
Frndly TV Expands Lineup with ION+ Addition cordcuttersnew...
Small Niche Streaming Services Defy Expectations, Thrive Despite Growing Competition cordcuttersnew...
TH-cam Premium Subscribers Can Get $100 Off NFL Sunday Ticket Even if You Are Also a TH-cam TV Subscriber cordcuttersnew...
Peacock Sees Strong Growth Thanks to The Olympics cordcuttersnew...
You can sign up for our free daily newsletter here: eepurl.com/ih25p5
Did you know Luke has a second TH-cam channel? Subscribe to it here: / thebreakdownwithluke
You can follow us on X here: / cordcuttersnews
Did you know we have a Facebook group for cord cutting tech support? / cordcuttingtechsupport
Check out our Facebook Group dedicated to the best daily deals: / 688897096200090
Please also follow me on Twitter here: / lukebk
You can find the Wondering Luke Channel here: / @wanderingluke3392
You can find the LukeBK gaming channel here: / @lukebk1
You can find me on Instagram here: / cordcuttersnews
Comcast Now Charges Over $55 a Month in Fees for ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, & Your Local RSN On Top of the Advertised Price in Some Areas cordcuttersnews.com/comcast-now-charges-over-55-a-month-in-fees-for-abc-cbs-fox-nbc-your-local-rsn-on-top-of-the-advertised-price-in-some-areas/
Fox Weather Expands DIRECTV Distribution cordcuttersnews.com/fox-weather-expands-directv-directv-stream-distribution/
Deal Alert! Save 20% on Lifetime Plex Pass During Plex Pro Week 2024 cordcuttersnews.com/deal-alert-save-20-on-lifetime-plex-pass-during-plex-pro-week-2024/
Frndly TV Expands Lineup with ION+ Addition cordcuttersnews.com/frndly-tv-expands-lineup-with-ion-addition/
Small Niche Streaming Services Defy Expectations, Thrive Despite Growing Competition cordcuttersnews.com/small-niche-streaming-services-defy-expectations-thrive-despite-growing-competition/
TH-cam Premium Subscribers Can Get $100 Off NFL Sunday Ticket Even if You Are Also a TH-cam TV Subscriber cordcuttersnews.com/youtube-premium-subscribers-can-get-100-off-nfl-sunday-ticket-even-if-you-are-also-a-youtube-tv-subscriber/
Peacock Sees Strong Growth Thanks to The Olympics cordcuttersnews.com/peacock-sees-strong-growth-thanks-to-the-olympics/
Local TV networks are expensive, yet produce less quality programming.
The big draw is sports.
Networks and sports were the deal-breakers for me. I was paying almost $200/month for 12 channels of ESPN that I never watched. That's what triggered me to cut the cord. I called my provider and stripped my service to high-speed internet ONLY. Then I added Roku w/Prime, Tablo w/antenna, YT Basic, and Philo and haven't looked back.
Pretty much the same - fees for what I do not consume always drove me nuts and with the ever increasing amount of my bill including a LOT of things I didn't watch (for me it was sports as well) - I bought a HDHomeRun, Plex Pass and built a Plex server - moved to just streaming and while I may not be saving $100 a month I know it's significantly more than a few bucks.... I watch less random TV too that's a benefit not many talk about - my viewing is more deliberate.
I did the same type of thing. We cut the cable and went with Hulu+LiveTV. Saved $90/mo.
Rather ironic that local stations are killing the hand that is feeding them. Greed never wins.
I find it funny they got by with a lot better content just by selling Ads for decades. Yeah they got greedy the content suffered and so did the Audience.
Kind of a simplistic way to look at it. The local station costs have skyrocketed with the writers strikes, the actor strikes, and all the other strikes that have hit the production companies the last 20 years. Not to mention the cost to carry the sports and the national network. I think it has to do more with the ballooning budgets of the networks/stations. Soon, no one will pay it and only commercials will support these local stations like back in the 1960s before the advent of cable. I saw this coming a long time ago when I left cable 10 years ago and now the masses are leaving which will enable the fall of the networks unless they cut their costs so that commercials can support them.
@@Buc_Stops_Here the only department that my local stations have made cuts in recently has been letting go most of their advertising sales people. No need to work so hard when you have checks rolling in every month for cable and streaming fees. Soon they will be scratching away to rekindle local ad sales.
@@butchmiller3970 I agree. Very short sighted move on their part as Back to the Future is probably more appropriate!
I find it crazy the local abc, cbs ,nbc and fox networks keep putting their hands out for more. When ppl can just put up an antenna for free over the air instead.
Antennas don't work for many people. They are the ones cable companies are $ucking dry.
The local channels issue will work itself out over time. It could be that the local stations will eventually have to accept that they will just earn less money
The greed is sickening. I cut the cord in '17 after DirecTV more than doubled in price over a 10-year span. I won't pay for tv again. If it's not free then I don't need to see it. (To clarify, by "free", I mean in the style of traditional US television with ads, IE - Pluto, Plex, OTA, etc). I remember in the 80's Taco Bell was having issues losing customers. They launched their .59, .79, .99 menu and exploded. You'd think that'd be a lesson on how to win back customers. Apparently though, cable tv providers think milking your last remaining customers of all their money is the way to go. lol Good luck with that. You won't be missed.
The only way to save cable TV is get rid of the ripoff multi-tier cable packages . They should go back to the plain original basic cable only and premium cable channels separately
This is an absolute MUST WATCH!!!!!! I've posted the link to this video on all of my social sites. Luke is right on with this one.
What's not getting a lot of attention is the "mysterious" disappearance of ABC, CBS and FOX for users of the Xfinity stream app on the Firestick. Starting just before labor day, with CFB and NFL starting up, these networks (excluding NBC of course) just disappeared from the TVGO portion of the app, meaning nobody that PAYS for Xfinity cable can watch those channels while away from home. Comcast's pathetic customer support is trying to pass this off as a technical issue but then why is it only broadcast networks that AREN'T owned by Comcast that are being affected? They're literally DRIVING people into the arms of TH-cam TV
Some cable & satellite services have a "local" package, locals and a few add on's. Locals should be sold by all carriers separately. That way people can decide if they want them.
I agree especially when some people who do watch the networks cannot watch them even with an outdoor antenna. I live in such a rural area that an outdoor antenna has difficulty picking up the local NBC affiliate. Sadly enough that NBC affiliate has a subchannel that carries the CW network.
@@jwalach1650 We are lucky out here on the Oregon Coast to have all of the main nets and many sub channels. Including a LPTV with the METV mux. But locals should be a choice.
regional sports fees, taxes, and equipment rental cost us $80 a month, we don't miss them at all.
The FCC charge alone is around $26. You pay local and sales taxes for getting Cable TV. Local channels (ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, FOX, CW, etc) increases the price of basic Cable TV. Not to mention the cost of Cable TV equipment rental. I saved over $200 per month by cutting the Cable TV cord plus more flexibility in viewing options and no contracts.
Over the air broadcast stations should only be able to charge their costs to allow cable systems to connect to them. No per subscriber payments are allowed. If it costs $1000 a month for a cable company to connect, that is all they can be paid. No more no less.
It used to be free, it is only in the last 10 years that local access started demanding the big fees. My local.cable used to have a service that called 'basic outlet' that was local channels, and it was like 10/ month which was the cable back basically. Pre digital cable you could hook up a TV to cable and you would get the channels without a cable box.
If the price for locals gets too high, satellite & cable will be gone. The way 3.0 is being messed with, OTA will not be viable either. I guess Locals will also not exist.
Comcast is not doing well and this is a reality but look how they treated customers over years and no surprise they are struggling right now.
Karma is a c***
Drop the locals. Don't make customers pay for things that are free.
Reason why locals are charging so much? Ad revenue is crashing to almost nothing
They probably realized the majority of Americans are too lazy to buy an antenna and need to watch football so they can charge a lot
@@bitsow For many, it's not easy to get all the locals with an antenna. And you frequently have to move the antenna between channels.
@@KidHorn7001I have a good antenna, but if that didn’t get the local stations in (the PBS station rarely comes in because it’s on VHF) I would just do without them.
Haven't had cable since 2012 and I love it.
Yep, I left in 2014 and love it as well. We were the early adopters 10 to 12 years ago. I have saved thousands of dollars without cable and no one in my family misses it!
Unless I want to watch a football game with an over-the-air antenna, I don't even need locals. News is mostly hyped crud, full of weather reporting that I get from the NOAA/NWS site (where they get it mostly right here in Buffalo, unlike the locals) and I can get anything I need from other sources. I saved more than $100/mo. going to streaming services and never looked back. To me, local channels will eventually die like many newspapers did about 10-20 years ago.
I blame the local channels. If I can watch the channel free with an antenna, why pay so much to get that same channels added to the cable bill
to be able to record stuff on those local channels
@@kngrfdegj5940there are dvr’s you can buy cheap. Mediasonic Converter box is one. It’s a little crude but works.
@@kngrfdegj5940 some cable/ satellite companies have the DVR functionality as an add-on and it's an extra fee to use it. I have ota antenna for the locals and the antenna receiver box has a USB port so I can plug in a thumb drive or external hard drive to record to
@@kngrfdegj5940You know you can record over the air stuff right? We did it for years.
When you say local, I think you mean networks. Their individual affiliates wish the networks gave them a bigger slice of the pie.
Local tv networks are suppose to be free Ota channels
streaming was a perfect fit for us, we don't watch sports and we didn't need cable to get local channels, but they were always part of the cable package
Cable TV is what's killing cable TV! I think most customers only care about what they're getting for the total price, not how it's allocated.
Virtually all of the original programming on basic cable has disappeared! I cut the cord because all my favorite cable channels turned in "zombie channels". Shows like Monk, Psych, Rizzoli & Isles, etc. are no longer being produced for basic cable. I was paying to watch those high quality shows, but now they're only produced for broadcast TV & streaming services.
The problem is not the companies that supply us cable tv but the media companies that supply the content. ESPN signs these huge sports conferences and leagues contracts and expects cable tv suppliers to pay whatever ESPN demands to cover these over inflated contracts. Discovery, Disney, and A&E among others put their new content on their subscription services and us cable customers get reruns from the subscription services that are a year or two old. Plus these media companies want to get paid rates like they are supplying new programming. The cable companies have to say enough. If you are going to sign these huge contracts, you get paid through ad dollars, not subscriber fees. If you are supplying us with reruns from your subscriber services, you are going to get paid less. Also there are no guarantees that the channel will be required to be in the basic service.
It's not cable TV, as they are the middlemen. The programmers are at fault.
As you said, at one time no fee's for locals. That should have never been allowed. It isn't the carriers. All services should get together and drop all locals until the locals drop the price.
That would be illegal though, it's called collousion. If they did that they did that they could face massive fines and possible extra regulatory restrictions. I'm saying this as someone who used to work in antitrust, if TV providers did that they would be in serious trouble.
Time to boycott these providers! I use frndly tv! As a low budget live tv service frndly tv provides basic live tv for $6.99 a few live national OTA like ION+ ION Court tv and Qvc Grit and a few more.
Classic Macgyver is on H and I network also available on Frndly tv. And select season for free on Pluto TV and paramount+.
@kenyattaclay7666 local stations are granted a broadcast license based on the idea they are providing a community service. In exchange for that license, the station has an obligation to have a free OTA signal among other things. And they are allowed to run ads. So when a cable or satellite provider redistributes those local channels, the local stations are demanding they get paid for what is otherwise free. Their license, the reason they exist as stations at all, demands a free signal and they are fine with that. And used to be fine with cable carriers having that signal for free. But the stations got together (hello, collusion?) and demanded they get paid for what is otherwise free. The locals ought to be forced to show why they should be able to demand a dime for their "free" signal. And if they can't, give back their precious license.
They used to be must-carry and were free.
I don't know when the rules changed.
Subscribed to peacock last black friday for 20 for the year knowing olympics were coming. Now 80 to renew. Nope.
I have Spectrum and I cut the cable cord. Just use there internet connection and Wi-Fi connection with ROKU. Now only pay $61/month. 😊😊😊
Gave up cable & television services in 2000. Haven't looked back. I still have a flat screen to play DVDs on if I want. Their free at my library. TH-cam makes up for the rest.
I watch TH-cam more than anything. I finally watched tubi last night after having it for years.
These networks have commercials for paying their bills. They should NOT be charging a single penny to cable companies!!!
If they want to charge anything, then there should NOT be any commercials.
Now in reality I do not care, as I do not use cable TV, nor watch any of these networks as they only have idiotic programing.
The networks should be paying the cable companies to broadcast their channel, not the other way around. That doesn't make sense. If I produce a TV show, I should pay the cable company to get it on the air.
I like the stories about 'niche' streamers followed by NBC's Peacock. NBC recently dropped covering Track & Field coming from Europe (Diamond League) and gave it over to niche operator FloTrack. Flotrack operates a number of niche sports channels but you pay dearly for each of those niche channels - $30/month each. Thats a big NO from me. I'm also interested in knowing if Peacock's numbers drop after the Summer Olympics, maybe after football season ends.
Carriage fees for Local Channels - Considering the lack of unique programming on them the channels should be paying cable providers to carry their broadcasts. Its just day-long variety programs described as "news" (which it is for 10 minutes each hour).
I can't imagine anyone paying 30 dollars a month just to watch Track & Field
I've never understood these high retransmission fees. Broadcast stations are advertiser supported so having Cable systems make their content available to more folks ought to be a plus that helps them charge more to advertisers.
Having said this it is not my day job and we have never had Cable and always relied on OTA antenna TV.
They are greedy and want people to pay through the nose. The way it is going, Network TV may be a sign of the past.
I've got more bad news for them. My kids never watch network TV and I doubt they're alone. We don't need all of these local affiliates and we don't need all of the networks. Network television is dying. If they did a decent job with news, I'd be concerned, but they are propaganda and misinformation.
If I was a cable TV provider I would ditch the locals. Let them
The current model is no longer sustainable for any live service to survive. These billion dollar station contracts are the real issue especially sports.
I can watch my local news on many free apps, so it does look like "On Demand" is the future.
Ques for Luke!! Why don't Cable and Streaming services like TH-cam TV offer packages without Local Channels for those with OTA Antennas? It would lower the cost of TV packages.
The FCC grants licenses to these local stations and they pay the rent by running interminable ads for drugs, car insurance, etc. Plus ATSC let's them slice some of the bandwidth off to make sub channels where again they can run commercials. In the NYC metro area there are 1 or 2 channels that have 4 sub channels. So the idea that they charge cable customers is a joke since they're making boatloads of money from ads.
This has been coming for a long time. I left cable in 2014 ahead of the pack. With only broadcast TV commercials supporting them again with a lot of customers, it is going to be the death of cable. No one is going to pay for the networks much longer. The end is near and now the pain is going to hit the networks in the next 5 years. Local stations are going to be going back to a broadcast to high def antennas for everyone. They are going to lose everyone and go back to the 1960s and 1970s with the tv stations living off of commercials.
This is something i knew for a long time. ABC CBS Fox and NBC is the #1 cause of the high cost of cable, Which is the main reason why Sling tv is my go to when NFL season ends.
You can watch a lot of those games with an antenna.
@@benstandard I am aware of that. However i live in a small and rural town in Kentucky, I am not confident i am closer in range to a tower in order to get a good enough signal with a antenna.
Sling is dead.
@@benstandard its free with antenna if you can pick up 1 or more major networks like CBS< Fox, NBC. ABC.That is best place for major sports like NFL, and local news and weather.
@@Viper_0713 I can get FOX and NBC but local CBS and ABC stations changed their frequency a few yrs ago and I can't pick up with indoor antenna.
Peacock had a $20 or $25 deal for a year prior to the Olympics that likely helped their growth. I'll likely drop it when the year expires
Local stations used to eat their own broadcast expenses to transmit their signal to homes. Now that other companies are paying for the infrastructure to send their channels into homes, locals want to CHARGE them for providing that delivery service? Shouldn't expanded coverage areas be a benefit to locals?
I get ION and ION+ free on my Tablo
Here in Middlesex County NJ, Comcast charges a Broadcast TV fee of $26.70 and a RSN fee of 13.65. I don't have their cable tv, only their internet. I am in the second year of my internet promotion, which is $30/month.
Who still uses cable TV? Why? I use apps to watch the news on those channels, other than that there's nothing there worth paying for. All of those networks have advertisements, there's no way I would pay for that, not one dime and I would not pay for it if they remove the ads because like I said there's nothing there.
Not just that. The content on most newer shows is utterly horrendous and unwatchable.
You do realize that using apps you are still using TV right.
The "news"😂 on those channels is abysmal.
In lots of areas cable tv is the cheapest option.
@@Warp3326 and that is a shame, I would have to move.
In the old days under the CRT (Cable Rights Tribunal), the payments to the local broadcasters were pennies a channel, or a dime or so for all. Talk about inflation!
I cut the cable TV cord a year ago. I'm fine. I have YT Premium at $14 per month.
YT premium is a sca
If you just install a free adblocker you will never see an ad on TH-cam. I have never seen a YT ad since I have watched YT videos. I ain't paying for nothing except my Internet Service.
I had Ad Block installed and it worked well on YT ads but they started blocking me due my ad blocker. So I’m back to ads.
@@MSDOGS1976 I use mozilla firefox as my browser and use Adblocker Ultimate extension (free extension), never seen a YT ad, ever.
In this trash economy where a person has to work 2.5 jobs just to eat who has time to watch TV?
Build Back Better
what are your 2.5 jobs?
Regarding FOX Weather, I have no doubts that it will soon go behind a paywall just like Newsmax did.
Could be. But there is Weather Nation and Accuweather that’s available. For now.
Newsmax 2 is option and its free
Fine, I do not need that either. Plenty of weather apps out there for free.
Corporate greed knows no bounds. Both the cable companies & the local network affiliates share in the blame. The only thing I watch on network tv is football & my wife doesn't watch anything on network tv. I cut the cord almost three years ago & don't know why I paid for their garbage as long as I did.
I like Peacock but I only get it when I get the deal for $20 a year.
Same here.
I could not believe how many commercial breaks are on some cable tv shows and the amount of commercials most times equals the time of the program. When you watch an "hour" show you are actually watching 1/2 hour, the rest is commercials. That's what cable subscribers are actually paying for.
Who the hell even wants to watch ABC, NBC, CBS I’ll pay extra NOT to get them!
People who watch NFL football on Sundays
@@oubriokoAnd watching local news and weather and be able to record them to ff through commercials
In June Peacock had a deal for $20 for the year as well.
Good morning, Luke!😊👋🏽 Your voice is almost there. Glad your feeling and getting better.
Coming from a broadcasting background, I could of told you that decades ago. I blame locals. Just the LOCALS only in my area is $89.00. And I live in a very rural area. Full cable TV package in 2005 with locals was $45.00.
What I hate is you can't pick the channels you want! I use my antenna.
Luke, I think it’s more of a local affiliate fee that is really killing the golden goose here and less of a network thing. Most of the fights are between local affiliates and providers and it appears that that is really what it’s about now so much Disney, universal or Paramount and Fox.. i’m pretty old and back in the day when I was a kid we used to watch television for free and by free. I mean, we weren’t paying an additional fee on a regular basis to somebody to watch television because they sold commercial local and national and they were able to survive on the profits they made on their commercials. But today these local TV stations, instead of being owned by small companies with small groups because back then they limited how many TV stations you can own, these stations are owned by big corporations that own dozens of stations and can control more a command higher fees from providers
Stop the ads
Ion Plus is on the Roku Channel too. 533.
It is absolutely nuts to pay $50 a month just for local channels. Especially seeing that local daytime TV is largely garbage. The only thing worthwhile is the news. And there are plenty of free options for that. As far as prime time shows you can get Paramount+, Peacock and Hulu for under $20 a month. Plus they have a lot more than just the prime time shows. They have original programming plus a lot of movies.
Cable TV will be dead in 10 years.
To be honest, this seems like a loser. Because anyone can buy an antenna and get all those for free, and they already get tons of ad revenue. I just cancelled yttv for the simple reason that most of the content I can watch on TH-cam, Pluto, or Tubi. Cable is not worth paying for.
The new broadcast standard, ATSC 3.0, will fix that for the local stations. They'll activate DRM and demand a subscription.
There are many who live in apartment buildings in areas to get reception for local channels need an outside antenna to receive locals and cannot install one is one scenario.
Also many dvr their shows sports to watch later and most do not have an over the air capable DVR recorder as another reason.
And some people just prefer the simplicity of turning on the TV and all is controlled, received and watched using one service and source to do all and not have to switch between reception or viewing sources or boxes to watch different available content.
@@Banzai51 Thankfully I dont think atsc 3.0 will be happening unless they dont have DRM
@@billwiley7216 You can install antennas inside.
I think local tv, outrageous extra frees and greedy cable companies are why prices for cable or satellite are outrageous. We need to buy smart TVs which are more expensive. At some point we will have to change over to streaming. It totally sucks.
You Tube Premium still shows ads the content creators add whatever product they want to sell to you in there videos it will never be ad free
As these stations kill cable, they are killing themselves.
10 years ago or so, the broadcasters were stating that we aren't going to depend on ad revenue, we will make it up with redistribution fees and use that as the primary revenue stream. It sure seems that is coming true! 🤠👍 Now we wonder why DRM is on ATSC3.0 so that they can charge for "free OTA". They have to make up the fees somehow with cord cutters.
Stop paying to distribute them. Let them pay for their own towers and equipment. Let them pay their own developers. It's like a driver paying the hitchhikers to give them a ride. Stop the insanity. Distributors should never pay any channels.
I never understand the weather channel? My parents can watch it all day sometimes, LOL. And they have phones. And like the other channels, you get 2 minutes of weather, then 5 minutes of ads.
Just background noise - they're not ACTUALLY watching.
What would happen if the Cable Companies stopped offering TV? Why not take all the bandwidth used for TV and use it high margin data service?
TV Networks may soon get a rude awaking!
We are living in bad economy right now.
They should have never been allowed to charge those fees to begin with. They have ads and they don’t charge ota viewers the fee and they would if they could because that’s how bad greedy they are.
The affiliates want more money, 'cause their networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, etc...) & affiliate station owners want more money.
Cable providers would be smart not to provide local channels?
If you want the broadcast networks, streaming is no better. The more people go to streaming the more the prices are going to be raised just like cable. They have to make up that lost revenue. When I first got TH-cam TV, it was $45 a month I believe. When I cancelled last year or earlier this year it was $85. Just like cable, streaming services keep adding bloat that nobody wants yet it sill raises prices to the consumer. A La Carte seriously needs to happen!
The only reason I liked The Weather Channel over other weather channels was the hurricane coverage. Fox weather is I think the best option AccuWeather was good but really no growth in programming.
Except when the one announcer was holding onto a traffic sign as if he was going to blow away but a couple people in the background were just strolling by like nothing was wrong. 😂
What is crazy is these networks are available free to air. Just put an antenna on your roof, people. It's that simple.
Not if you live in a condo.
@@billjones4986 You can still put up an antenna somewhere. On your balcony or something.
@@billjones4986 Try an indoor antenna.
We had just wifi and local TV....NO phone...amd almost 300 a month so we ditched it now just wifi
If I can’t get it off my antenna or if it’s not on a streaming service I subscribe to then I’m not interested. No FOMO when it comes to watching TV. Luke several of those stations you mentioned are included with the FAST channels offered on the 4th Gen Tablo.
Subscribed to Peacock mainly for UCI cycling events.
What would the locals do if everyone went back to ota? I have a hard time grasping how we got here with all these fees. I have paramount+, peacock and Hulu. So I have abc, nbc, cbs and fox the next day. So I'm good. I don't have "live" TV like TH-cam TV. I can watch the network show the next day. And if I want sports I can sign up for Bally sports annually. But the Tigers, why bother. 😄
Sports is behind this, the TV contracts are an 11b a year cost just for the NFL alone. The broadcasters are sincerely hoping it goes away, then they can charge everyone local access fees. Back in the day local channels often had to demand cable carry their signal, and under the access act cable had to carry it. However, they couldn't ask to get paid if the invoked the access law.
The NFL would love broadcast TV to go away. If that happened there would be no more free access to games, it would all be streaming at $$$$_
What I don’t understand is why I have to pay for local when it’s free OTA. There are a few people like myself who live in the wilds of NH (and the like) who lost all access to local when it went digital. Why are locals not available live free on their own app. I pay for peacock and still don’t get nbc free. I’d pay for an app to get local, but don’t want 80 bucks for the privilege of access to reality, real crime cheap as sh@t tv Chanel’s.
I'd say that if the networks are demanding more money for local channels, that Comcast and other cable providers and streaming services give people the option to remove local channels, like NBC ABC, CBS, but not local subchannel networks like MeTV, Dabl, ION for example
Let's face it, old people really hate to switch to apps to watch local channels. It's because them cable companies are still in business, DirectV have an app but my parents hate apps, they want to see a physical cable when they're in reality just the middle man, because they still need internet connection to work! Smart TVs can have an app for local channels only connected to internet, make internet an utility!
Local stations are money grabber trolls, jamming us up with ads, longer than normal ads on TH-cam, joining major sports and the weather channel, being the ad kings. You absolutely will not see the video you clicked without sitting through a long ad.😮
Local stations might charge their way back into the 80's where most houses have a local antenna to pick up their stations.
2). Peacock didn't need the Olympics for me to subscribe. The NBA, B1G Ten, and Big East were more than enough for me to get it.
I think the negotiations aspect between the carrier and channels is another small part. I def don't feel like its very aggressive each year.
.
It is transient. They also have nfl games, but ppl will drop it once those games have passed
I believe that all cable companies should align their contracts start and end dates with Broadcast TV companies. The cable companies should then create a Collective Bargaining group to negotiate the OTA Broadcaster pricing. If they can not reach an agreement then all agree to go "DARK" with the OTA broadcast TV syndicated programming. I would figure that the Broadcast companies would definitely be in deep poop at that point. Granted the public would be affected, but I believe that the public would eventually be the winners, or maybe the cable companies and re streaming companies would get greedy at that point. Maybe there is no solution or maybe a consumer advisory group to interact also.
Peacock will crash once WWE leaves and goes Netflix.
I worked in local tv for for more than 20 years. As ratings went down and networks instituted reverse compensation, stations relied more and more on retransmission revenue to shore up the books. Meanwhile, many stations sold off prime broadcast spectrum because they figured having a weaker signal would force more people to cable, which in turn would mean more retransmission revenue. I’ve always thought retransmission fees were BS. The cable companies are getting the signal that’s generally available for free in front of more eyeballs. I certainly think cable companies could easily dump all but the big 4 stations in most markets and no one would care. They could probably even cut some of the big four in many markets without many complaints.
Local TV stations caused it and then the cable companies make us pay. It's a cycle that kind of is everybody. I'm even thinking about dropping a lot of streaming services because they're really ridiculous. I'm thinking all of that stuff just becoming less and less important anymore.
I'll keep philo bally sports ESPN Plus and local channels tied into my Plex Still way cheaper than paying for DirecTV stream or TH-cam TV for everything I need
Question for Luke. Why can streaming cable tv (TH-cam TV and the like) negotiate only with with the National providers (FOX, NBC, DISNEY etc) but not local affiliates? Yet traditional cable TV (Spectrum, Comcast etc) must negotiate with both. Is this fair. Shouldn't the rules for traditional cable be the same for streaming cable products?
I believe you already know the answer. To not make assumptions, the FCC is forever behind the times and has not labeled streaming as cable TV. This does not seam fair, however things have changed. The definition of Cable TV is now almost irrelevant. Reclassifying youtube TV as cable will only speed up cord cutting 2.0.
@thedude5040 Sounds like the government is picking winners and losers then. Why not let Spectrum and TH-cam TV compete on a level playing field. Spectrum is trying to offset the costs by including streaming services like Max, Disney+, ESPN+, Paramount+, etc but it doesn't seem fair that they have to do that and TH-cam TV doesnt.
@Dutch84 you missed the point. Spectrum can ditch cable and go streaming only, just like TH-cam TV. Traditional cable is over, dead, gone. Cable TV and satellite TV are just a relic hanging on for life support that will never come. Even if they were on your supposed level playing field, people will still choose youtube TV because the modern society watches more content on mobile devices in and outside the home than through cable boxes or home wifi. At my house if the power goes out the internet stays on. If the power and fiber line go out the internet stays on though a LTE connection. If the power, fiber, and phone connection goes down my TV antenna, wifi, and network tuner still let's me watch broadcast TV. Is your cable provider that resilient?
@thedude5040 Spectrum is now streaming their TV and still requires a fee. I'm a Spectrum Streaming only customer, and it has a fee for locals. I haven't canceled because I get a promotion to offset that and because it includes several streaming apps. So the Government makes Spectrum negotiate with locals regardless of how they deliver the product. I use their Xumo Stream Box and pay the same fee as someone with a traditional cable box.
@Dutch84 spectrum needs to abandon their cable tv business. People don't want a cable box to watch content.
I can see w future where live local tv will be part of a streamimg service, like peacock and paramount do today. There is a defunite price point that ppl wont go past, and sports ahd streaming services have to realize this.
Why would you pay for those channels.
great
Luke here is a question. If local TV stations are free over the air do you see a way that local TV channels will start being able to eliminate the free over the air broadcast and start charging everyone no matter how the channels are received? Seems like the next logical step although I do believe federal law requires free broadcast to be available. Love to hear your thoughts.
135 channels and nothing good is on - and sadly, that’s not hyperbole.
I agree it is short sighted, but think that has been the American business model since the 80s; maximize profits at any cost. Basically the stations are hurting cable/satellite companies, in order to keep OTA on the air at least in the short term. If one consider the economy/fewer advertisers, and the higher costs of digital(ie 200-300kw VHF analog back in the day, vs 1000kw UHF station today), their push for more money is understandable, but short sighted. Once cable is gone, have a feeling the networks would try to get rid of, or more tightly control broadcast TV since the networks, would be force to paying more to the stations(ie part of the reason for the push of 3.0 with DRMs, with the possibility of subscription base subchannels,) &/or try to push more people to streaming. Since the networks/parent companies control the content, they would basically cut out the middlemen to effectively form a monopoly
I want to cut the cord because I pay cable $338 a month and I watch maybe four channels but I don’t know where to start
Start by making a list of what you watch and google each one to find out how to watch each one not cable related. Some shows you can find at your library on DVD.