(09-13-2017 01:11 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Stadium is going to be a bigger player not only with having a 24/7 OTA channel but they are able to be streamed for free on multiple platforms.
So in essence I think the OTA only customers are now approaching 20% of US households if it isn't just over that right now.

(09-13-2017 01:11 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  So it is worse than previous thought.
The 3rd Qtr ends this month, so we'll see some new numbers sometime in October from Sat and Cable companies. What is going to be curious is the Sling TV numbers since they are included in the overall number. Dish still had big loss last quarter with Sling TV...meaning people cutting the cord aren't signing up for TV streaming packages.

Stadium is going to be a bigger player not only with having a 24/7 OTA channel but they are able to be streamed for free on multiple platforms.
So in essence I think the OTA only customers are now approaching 20% of US households if it isn't just over that right now.

(09-13-2017 01:11 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  So it is worse than previous thought.
The 3rd Qtr ends this month, so we'll see some new numbers sometime in October from Sat and Cable companies. What is going to be curious is the Sling TV numbers since they are included in the overall number. Dish still had big loss last quarter with Sling TV...meaning people cutting the cord aren't signing up for TV streaming packages.

Stadium is going to be a bigger player not only with having a 24/7 OTA channel but they are able to be streamed for free on multiple platforms.
So in essence I think the OTA only customers are now approaching 20% of US households if it isn't just over that right now.

(09-13-2017 12:54 PM)orangefan Wrote:  56.6 Million U.S. consumers to go without pay TV this year, as cord cutting accelerates
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/56-6-million-u-consumers-152539060.html

This is obviously going to continue to put pressure on subscription revenues and advertising revenues, and therefore rights fees. Programming that viewers value should still be able to generate revenues, but it may require new business models.

(09-13-2017 01:51 PM)YNot Wrote:  Do you work for Stadium? I have literally only heard about Stadium from your posts on this site.

(09-13-2017 01:51 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 01:11 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  So it is worse than previous thought.
The 3rd Qtr ends this month, so we'll see some new numbers sometime in October from Sat and Cable companies. What is going to be curious is the Sling TV numbers since they are included in the overall number. Dish still had big loss last quarter with Sling TV...meaning people cutting the cord aren't signing up for TV streaming packages.

Stadium is going to be a bigger player not only with having a 24/7 OTA channel but they are able to be streamed for free on multiple platforms.
So in essence I think the OTA only customers are now approaching 20% of US households if it isn't just over that right now.

Do you work for Stadium? I have literally only heard about Stadium from your posts on this site.

(09-13-2017 02:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 12:54 PM)orangefan Wrote:  56.6 Million U.S. consumers to go without pay TV this year, as cord cutting accelerates
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/56-6-million-u-consumers-152539060.html

This is obviously going to continue to put pressure on subscription revenues and advertising revenues, and therefore rights fees. Programming that viewers value should still be able to generate revenues, but it may require new business models.

201 million watching "pay TV" in 2016 versus 182 million in 2021. The optimistic, Disney/Fox/Turner/etc. spin on this will be: "Five years from now, we will still have 90% of what we have today."

(09-13-2017 12:54 PM)orangefan Wrote:  56.6 Million U.S. consumers to go without pay TV this year, as cord cutting accelerates
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/56-6-million-u-consumers-152539060.html

This is obviously going to continue to put pressure on subscription revenues and advertising revenues, and therefore rights fees. Programming that viewers value should still be able to generate revenues, but it may require new business models.

(09-13-2017 05:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The numbers are probably even better, and by better I mean bad for big cable companies.

I do not count on this list because I have a basic cable package because its wrapped into my internet price.

But, I never watch TV.

(09-13-2017 07:27 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 12:54 PM)orangefan Wrote:  56.6 Million U.S. consumers to go without pay TV this year, as cord cutting accelerates
...

It seems odd that they report the increase in "Pay TV Non-viewers" rather than the decline in Pay TV Viewers. I'm always suspicious of this kind of "almost right" stat. Are they trying to hide something?

(09-13-2017 01:36 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 01:11 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  So it is worse than previous thought.
The 3rd Qtr ends this month, so we'll see some new numbers sometime in October from Sat and Cable companies. What is going to be curious is the Sling TV numbers since they are included in the overall number. Dish still had big loss last quarter with Sling TV...meaning people cutting the cord aren't signing up for TV streaming packages.

Stadium is going to be a bigger player not only with having a 24/7 OTA channel but they are able to be streamed for free on multiple platforms.
So in essence I think the OTA only customers are now approaching 20% of US households if it isn't just over that right now.

The footnotes state that Sling customers are counted in the cord cutters and cord nevers, not Pay TV. Presumably other internet bundles are treated the same. Therefore, the number of subscribers to channels such as ESPN is by definition not shrinking as fast the drop off in Pay TV subscribers.

(09-13-2017 10:09 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Seems like to me they should be included in pay Tv numbers. You are paying for a TV package of channels the same way as for FIOS, satellite and cable. No cords? My FIOS is all wireless but it is included in the pay TV section I assume.

(09-13-2017 02:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 01:51 PM)YNot Wrote:  Do you work for Stadium? I have literally only heard about Stadium from your posts on this site.

FWIW, I hadn't heard of them either, then last week I found out Southern University vs USM was going to be on Stadium, so I went to the web site and watched some of it.

Production values were good and the video signal was clear, well done.

(09-14-2017 06:39 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  I cut the cord in August. I still have local channels because the bundled price for them and internet was lower than just internet. Now using Sling and I have no complaints.

(09-14-2017 08:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 06:39 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  I cut the cord in August. I still have local channels because the bundled price for them and internet was lower than just internet. Now using Sling and I have no complaints.

Here's the thing: I don't consider using Sling (or similar streaming bundles) to be cutting the cord. You're still paying for a bundle of channels that can't be altered in the same manner as cable, but the delivery mechanism is different. Others that pointed out that people subscribing to those bundles shouldn't really be counted in these cord cutting figures because cable channels are still getting the same subscriber fees. Essentially, if you're getting ESPN (whether via cable or streaming), which is effectively the litmus test since ESPN is the most hardcore of them all about insisting on being in basic cable packages, you're not really cutting the cord.

(09-14-2017 08:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 06:39 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  I cut the cord in August. I still have local channels because the bundled price for them and internet was lower than just internet. Now using Sling and I have no complaints.

Here's the thing: I don't consider using Sling (or similar streaming bundles) to be cutting the cord. You're still paying for a bundle of channels that can't be altered in the same manner as cable, but the delivery mechanism is different. Others that pointed out that people subscribing to those bundles shouldn't really be counted in these cord cutting figures because cable channels are still getting the same subscriber fees. Essentially, if you're getting ESPN (whether via cable or streaming), which is effectively the litmus test since ESPN is the most hardcore of them all about insisting on being in basic cable packages, you're not really cutting the cord.