The Death of Broadcasting

[xjim1]

[Now that I can't enjoy a beer at the pub, perhaps a virtual bar will do. So, pull up a stool, or that ez-chair, and join me for virtual happy hour. You don't even have to put pants on. ]

A friend of mine and I were enjoying a beer at the local pub awhile back (before the age of social distancing) when the topic of cord cutting came up. Some time ago, he had cancelled his satellite sub ($120+/mo) and started subscribing to streaming services via an Amazon stick and a Roku box.

After I got him to admit he's still paying up to $80/mo, the conversation naturally drifted toward OTA. He knows all too well my enthusiasm for Sage, but says he can get all the network programming he wants thru OTT streaming(and at a $40/mo savings!). He then made an heretical claim: Broadcasting is dead.

Using our elbow bending expertise, and maybe one too many Guiness, our 'analysis' yielded a startling possibility; that its demise has already begun.

Parts of this may been discussed in various threads previously, but wanted to put the argument forward.

The industry is already in its 2nd(?) repacking w/in the last 10 years, and along with wireless interests breathing down their neck, competition for broadcast frequencies will only get hotter. Channel sharing by different stations has been tested, and I've read that speculators, such as Michael Dell have even been buying broadcast stations around the country, then letting their station license expire, essentially freeing up the frequency by shutting the station down.

More and more new content is moving toward streaming, such as CBS's All Access, where they can identify and track you, and target advertising more effectively. At first, I was excited to see a revival of retro-programming on OTA channels, though even that has become stale.

Since then, I've been doing a little more reading on the topic, and with the advent of ATSC 3.0, there is at least a battle going on between broadcasters, cable companies, and wireless interests. But since the FCC isn't forcing broadcasters to migrate, I wonder if it will only be cost effective in large metro markets. Smaller communities and rural areas will be left behind, just as they have been with broadband Internet and will be with 5G.

How will Sage handle 3.0 compliant files? I thought I read it doesn't have an H.265 codec. Is it easy enough to add one?

With 4k programming, I wonder what video quality will look like -even with more efficient compression on HEVC- given we're still stuck with the same 6mhz frequency band. Add to that, different networks actually sharing that same channel, how much video can be shoved thru before bandwidth constrictions makes us wish we hadn't thrown out our old tube tv's.

How does all this affect SageTV's future?

Ok, gotta go see a man about a horse now.

[pjpjpjpj]

I don't have any answers, but I will use my antennas and SageTV until neither work any longer.

Tangent (which eventually kinda comes back to the topic):
With me working at home now and two kids distance learning, my (embarrassing to admit how bad) internet is struggling to keep up. We are on phone company DSL from when we moved here 15 years ago (best option at the time). The phone company has rolled out fiber but our neighborhood has underground utilities and the phone company has made it clear that they have no intention of digging up yards to get fiber anywhere past the head end of our neighborhood. My kids are young enough that I don't have a situation where my wife and I are watching streaming and the kids are both off streaming their own stuff (Netflix or whatever)... and what little stuff they learn about and want to watch from a streaming service, I generally will proactively download using PlayOn PlayLater (set to run overnight) and then they watch it in Sage.

My house (based on distance from the neighborhood head) is limited to a "serviceable" speed to stream video, but three two-way video calls at once is breaking it. I have wanted to upgrade (cable company) for a while now but my wife uses the email address from the phone company account and has literally 50+ accounts (shopping, social media, etc.) tied to her account. There was never any impetus to get her to start changing over to her gmail account (which she has for Android phone but doesn't use at all), because she just viewed my request as me "wanting to play around with it". I can get cable company internet at 8 times faster than what I'm currently getting for the exact same price, but at the cost of her having to change 50+ accounts.

So in doing my research this past weekend into changing ISPs (while my wife was busy writing down every account she has...), I learned that my next-door neighbor is currently paying $200/month for cable/internet/phone, and my other neighbor is doing the exact same thing I am doing through the phone company (though it's he and his wife so they'll never need more... two streams at once is the most they'll need).

How does this all tie to the topic here? It confirmed my suspicion I've always had (which I expressed here as long as a decade ago in various discussions) that the people on this forum are generally tech-forward, or at least not "tech-afraid", but there are still LOTS of people out there who are not going to change. A good amount of America is extremely change-averse. It's mostly age-proportional, of course, and things are changing... but every month when we hear how many people cut the cord, we forget how many still haven't. Witness: I have one neighbor is afraid of learning how to use Netflix, Hulu, etc., and is fine with just doing what she's always done, even if it means paying $2400 a year (since I've had SageTV and been OTA, she's paid ~$30,000 to the cable company). I have another neighbor who doesn't need any more than the circa-2010-bandwidth that he can get, and the ISP has determined there aren't enough viable customers in our neighborhood to bother providing any better than that. I'm the tech-forward one, and I've been stuck for years with what I have because my wife is too stubborn to change and we've never had a "driving reason" (um, thanks coronavirus?).

The other thing I have been seeing a lot in social media is from educators, complaining about teachers grading students on home learning, rather than just giving a participation grade, because grading students is effectively grading "privelege and ableism". In other words, millions of students don't have access to a computer, to high-speed internet, etc. This drives home the point that, most likely, neither do the adults in said households. If those people want TV, they need an antenna and free network TV.

I'm rambling but in general... a decade ago folks here argued with me that within 5 to 10 years, cable would be dead, OTA would be dead, and everyone would be streaming everything. I argued what I said above - it would not be that soon - simply for the reason that we're a minority and we forget that and get biased. We have tech knowledge, or more importantly, we don't have tech-fear... and (presumably) we have a reasonable amount of wealth. Lots of folks don't, and they need the status quo to remain.

[JustFred]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

I have wanted to upgrade (cable company) for a while now but my wife uses the email address from the phone company account and has literally 50+ accounts (shopping, social media, etc.) tied to her account.

Depending on your current ISP, those email accounts might still remain usable (for free) even though you switch to a different ISP. It's true of the old Bells and Comcast. In my case, I dumped AT&T (sbcglobal.net, nee pacbell.net, nee att.com) over a decade ago, but continue to use over a dozen of the associated old email accounts, as well as the "disposable" (myname+shopping@yahoo.com) ones. (All of those email accounts, including several other old ISPs like flash.net & earthlink.net, were ultimately provided by Yahoo). They're still accessible via the web interface, or any email client. They can also be forwarded to gmail.

Treat yourself to some decent bandwidth

[wayner]

I think that broadcasting is dead and that we are seeing this in the difference between the transition from SD to HD and the transition from HD to UHD(4K).

15-20 years or so ago when we went from SD to HD, OTA was one of the first places where HD became available as stations started setting up ATSC 2.0 transmitters early on in the process. I got my first HDTV in March 2002 (I remember buying it just before my first child was born as I knew I would be staying home more oftne) and OTA from HD channels was readily available. Some of the first events that I watched in HD were the 2002 NCAA tourament and the Masters.

Now OTA is WAY behind the adoption of UHD. Netflix has been streaming UHD for six years now, my cable company, Rogers cable, began providing all Toronto Blue Jays home games in 4K four years ago in 2016. So at least some cable providers are showing some 4K content and have been for years.

But where are we with UHD/4K/ATSC 3.0 for OTA? Is anyone broadcasting it? Do TV sets have ATSC 3.0 tuners? Can I buy an ATSC 3.0 tuner card for my TV?

The final issue is content. IMHO the best content is on non-broadcast channels/services like Netflix, HBO, Amazon Prime, etc. The only thing that I care to watch on OTA is sports, and more and more sporting events are moving from OTA to pay channels. The only decent sports left on OTA are NFL football, some golf, and a few other events.

[wnjj]

I don't think you can compare the shift from SD->HD to HD->UHD. In my opinion the switch to HD wasn't motivated as much by improving quality as it was to reduce the precious bandwidth mentioned previously while also providing additional sub channels. There simply isn't as much to be gained for broadcasters or the FCC to move to a higher quality picture (I assume at a bandwith increase?). Also, the switch over didn't happen here until 2009 so it's really only 11 years old. Perhaps some geographies switched a bit earlier.

Personally I couldn't care less for UHD and am fine with HD. I don't want to keep buying new hardware to do the same job and would prefer to keep the storage footprint smaller as well. I suspect there are many more (semi-Luddites) like me out there.

Our internet connection is via WiFi and isn't well suited to streaming anyway so we've also yet to try any. We have been fine with the amount of quality shows provided via OTA for the past 11 years. I know there are some great shows we've missed elsewhere but we really don't have more time for TV anyway. Sports are not a priority either so I can't speak to that.

Good discussion though. Maybe my opinion is based as much in desire as reality but I don't think it's going away any time soon. Far too many will be impacted.

[wayner]

I think your internet situation is unusual as a very high proportion of the population has access to very high speed internet. I can get 1Gbps (or more) from two carriers in my neighborhood, but so far I have stuck with my lowly 500Mpbs down / 20 Mbps up service.

That is where things are going. I am happy to keep my OTA tuner but I really find so little compelling content there, plus I prefer the higher level of a control that you get with streaming content - but SageTV helps with that to a certain extent.

[Tiki]

Originally Posted by wayner

I think your internet situation is unusual as a very high proportion of the population has access to very high speed internet. I can get 1Gbps (or more) from two carriers in my neighborhood, but so far I have stuck with my lowly 500Mpbs down / 20 Mbps up service.

That is where things are going. I am happy to keep my OTA tuner but I really find so little compelling content there, plus I prefer the higher level of a control that you get with streaming content - but SageTV helps with that to a certain extent.

I think you’ve got that backwards- it sounds like you’re the one with an unusual internet situation. Most Americans would be lucky to get 50Mbs down/ 5Mbs up. Most do not have a choice of multiple providers (or they have a false choice of cable vs DSL vs satellite). And I would expect that most just use the built in WiFi that comes with their cable modems (the average person is not fishing Ethernet cables through their walls to every room in their house).

Streaming only gives you more control than OTA if you assume no DVR. With a DVR like Sage, you have much more control. Sage allows you to store as much as you want for as long as you want. Shows come and go all the time from streaming services, so there is no guarantee you will be able to watch the shows you want when you want. And Sage’s transport controls (skip fwd/back, etc) are so much better than what you get on most streaming players.

Still streaming services are getting better all the time. When I first got Amazon Prime, watching their streaming videos was almost unbearable. The quality was terrible and constantly froze and stuttered. But now the quality for HD content seems about the same as what I get from cable.

[wayner]

Originally Posted by Tiki

I think you’ve got that backwards- it sounds like you’re the one with an unusual internet situation. Most Americans would be lucky to get 50Mbs down/ 5Mbs up. Most do not have a choice of multiple providers (or they have a false choice of cable vs DSL vs satellite). And I would expect that most just use the built in WiFi that comes with their cable modems (the average person is not fishing Ethernet cables through their walls to every room in their house).

I would think that most homes built in the last decade have ethernet run to several rooms in the house. My house was built in the 50s and had additions in the 80s and 90s and didn't have ethernet or cable wiring but I had ethernet run to most parts of the house shortly after I moved in. I also use MOCA to get to a few rooms where I couldn't run ethernet as easily. But I agree that most people can't afford, or are too lazy/unsophisticated to use anything other than their ISP's wifi solution. To be honest, it is getting harder to not use their equipment if you also get cable TV from your ISP as they often use VLANs on your Wifi network to deliver TV to STBs.

But are you sure about the broadband availability? About 80% of Americans live in urban areas. I would be surprised that they wouldn't have internet speeds of at least 100Mbps which is good enough for several UHD streams. And don't most places have an incumbent phone company (say Verizon) in addition to cable (say Time Warner cable) as potential ISPs?

I live in the inner suburban part of Toronto and I can get 1Gbps from Rogers Cable or 1.5Gbps from Bell Canada. (As I said above I don't bother to get the fastest service) Pretty much all of the area around Toronto is in a similar situation. I realize that this is not typical in North America, but I would think it isn't that unusual for people living in urban areas, which is most people, to get at least a few hundred Mbps.

Originally Posted by Tiki

Streaming only gives you more control than OTA if you assume no DVR. With a DVR like Sage, you have much more control. Sage allows you to store as much as you want for as long as you want. Shows come and go all the time from streaming services, so there is no guarantee you will be able to watch the shows you want when you want. And Sage’s transport controls (skip fwd/back, etc) are so much better than what you get on most streaming players.

I don't totally agree with this. The benefit of streaming providers vs linear TV is the launching of entire seasons at once. With streaming services I can binge watch multiple episodes of a series, which I prefer. To do this with linear TV and Sage, including HBO, you need to wait several weeks to gather up the content. But when it comes to sports using SageTV and its great transport controls is WAY better than any of the streaming options like NBA League Pass, etc.

[NetworkGuy]

I have the same problem with streaming services as I do with Cable TV.

I have over 200+ channels on cable, yet I only watch about a dozen of them.

The shows I want to watch are spread across 4+ streaming services and I will probably only watch a few of the shows that each streaming service offers.

If I total up the cost of multiple streaming services and high-speed internet, it costs as much (or more) than my current cable bill.

At least with cable, I can use SageTV record the shows I want and watch them whenever I want. That is not an option with streaming services unless I want to setup a HDMI capture and manually record each episode of every show.

[RonBoyd]

Originally Posted by NetworkGuy

At least with cable, I can use SageTV record the shows I want and watch them whenever I want. That is not an option with streaming services unless I want to setup a HDMI capture and manually record each episode of every show.

I use PlayOn to record streaming services. (I record to local media but they do have a cloud option.) https://www.playon.tv/ Wouldn't that work for you as well?

[wayner]

Originally Posted by RonBoyd

I use PlayOn to record streaming services. (I record to local media but they do have a cloud option.) https://www.playon.tv/ Wouldn't that work for you as well?

But usually there is no need to record streaming services as there content is always available and it is available on more platforms than SageTV - phones, tablets, PCs, smart TVs, etc.

I guess the one reason to do this is if you want to cycle around the services - sign up for Netflix, record a whole bunch of shows, cancel. Then do the same with Disney+ or whatever. Most of us will continue to get Amazon Prime as that comes attached to the regular Prime membership.

[MattHelm]

Originally Posted by wayner

... I don't totally agree with this. The benefit of streaming providers vs linear TV is the launching of entire seasons at once. With streaming services I can binge watch multiple episodes of a series, which I prefer. To do this with linear TV and Sage, including HBO, you need to wait several weeks to gather up the content. ...

I just binge watched 3 years of a show. Yes, the series was over, but you have to wait until the series is over to binge watch a streaming series, don't you???

[wayner]

Netflix releases entire seasons at once. They just released the third season of Ozark and all ten episodes are posted at the same time.

[RonBoyd]

Originally Posted by wayner

But usually there is no need to record streaming services as there content is always available and it is available on more platforms than SageTV - phones, tablets, PCs, smart TVs, etc.

I guess the one reason to do this is if you want to cycle around the services - sign up for Netflix, record a whole bunch of shows, cancel. Then do the same with Disney+ or whatever. Most of us will continue to get Amazon Prime as that comes attached to the regular Prime membership.

Actually, I posted only to correct your "is not an option with streaming services" statement.

In any event, some shows will be around for a long time but others are not... AXS, for instance, doesn't keep shows "on deck" for very long. And Netflix, for instance, has a list every month of the shows that are being dropped.

YMMV. I only mentioned PlayOn because it is an available option.

Interestingly, PlayOn has a really good deal going right now. https://www.playon.tv/offers/upgrade/

[VCRUser]

Between Sage and PlayOn, I'm never dependent on when a show is on, what else is on at the same time, when it might be pulled from whatever streaming service it's on, and when my cable provider has one of its "Watchathons," when stuff like HBO is free for everyone. On those occasions i gobble up with PlayOn whatever looks like I might want to watch it sometime. I do have ethernet in my 60-year-old house, but my Internet speed is (I think) 50mb down 5mb up. I could pay $ for more speed, but haven't had a need for more speed, and pay through the nose already for internet + a low-end channel package. Way too much of the price goes to support sports, which is never watched here. Why won't they let me opt out of that? (Rhetorical question - they do it for the $).

[NetworkGuy]

Originally Posted by RonBoyd

I use PlayOn to record streaming services. (I record to local media but they do have a cloud option.) https://www.playon.tv/ Wouldn't that work for you as well?

I have a lifetime subscription to PlayOn and also use it to record from streaming services. (I have also tried the cloud option.)

The problem is that PlayOn is not available for all streaming services, only the top half dozen. In addition, it usually breaks a few times a year when the streaming services changes something.

[pjpjpjpj]

Wayner, please don't take this the wrong way, but you made a perfect example of what I mentioned in the later paragraphs of my post up top (second in this thread). We here are generally privileged, and it's easy to be jaded about what we think is the "majority". We have tech knowledge and most of us presumably have enough wealth to do this whole SageTV/HTPC thing.

You talk about most people having high-speed internet... you talk about houses built in the last 10-20 years. Do you know what percentage of America lives in those conditions? Not a lot.

I mentioned my embarrassing internet that I'm finally upgrading in my earlier post. I live in an upscale neighborhood (I admit it). My house was built in 1987 - not new, but just before the "McMansion" era and relatively young. The neighborhood has underground utilities (upscale) but because of that, the phone company won't run fiber throughout. I am switching to cable because my city - a large metropolitan city, Cincinnati, Ohio - only has two real options (Cincinnati Bell or Spectrum Cable). Since CB isn't running fiber underground but coax cable has been underground since the neighborhood was built in the late 1980s, if you are not right near the CB fiber head end, your only option for anything relatively high speed is one single company, and it's a company most people loathe. I'm holding my nose and signing up because my internet can't handle my work meetings and my kids' school Zooms.

Tiki said "most people can only get 50/5". Ha! I live in an upscale neighborhood in a large city and you know what my CB DSL gets me right now? 25/1. I'm a fairly tech-forward guy - hey, I've been using SageTV for over 12 years - but my internet is 25 down, and 1 up (in reality, 23 down and 0.7 up). One of my neighbors has the same as me, the other has a bundle through Spectrum and has faster internet but doesn't know anything about it and admitted to me in the driveway the other night that her computer "started asking for dial-up so I don't know what to do and I will have to call someone". For every one or two people with 1000 up/100 down, there is someone with no internet, or maybe glorified dial-up speed.

The death of broadcast requires:
1. Enough people have access to and can afford high speed internet
2. Those people watch enough content to bother paying for streaming service(s)
3. Those people are also "tech-brave enough" to try streaming (think about older folks who needed to have their hand held just to try surfing the internet)
4. 4K UHD becomes desirable enough (over HD) and the equipment becomes the predominant viewing platform in enough people's homes that it becomes the so much demand yet broadcast doesn't keep up

I just don't see it for quite some time.

[wayner]

I guess it depends on what we mean by "Death of Broadcasting". We are kind of mixing the death of OTA and cord-cutting, or getting rid of cable/satellite.

Here are a few grahics on the state of broadband in the US in mid-2019. (It looks like Ohio isn't doing so well). Assuming that this data is correct than 90% of the US population has access to 100Mbps. Affordability is another matter.

In terms of willingness to pay for streaming services - I have to think that the coronavirus will have two effects. First, people are suffering financial stress so they may cut discretionary spending, like streaming services. But there is also the effect that people currently can't go out to movie theaters, restaurants, there is no sports on TV, etc so there is less competition for streaming services.

In terms of current penetration - Netflix currently has 61M subscribers in the US. Assuming that there is one sub per household that means that 50% of the population currently subscribes to Netflix as there are about 128M households in the US.

[KeithAbbott]

Wow, 74% of Alaska has access to 500Mbps internet? That seems hard to believe...

[RonBoyd]

Originally Posted by NetworkGuy

The problem is that PlayOn is not available for all streaming services, only the top half dozen.

Yes, that is an important issue. I am guessing that PlayOn is pedaling as fast as it can to "grow big enough" to be the top dog but is just not there... yet. Which is why I keep promoting it. I would not want it to go away, from lack of support, even with all the faults. I know of no replacement at this time.

Did I mention, the "commercial skipping" is, to me, one of the major advantages over VOD.

FWIW: I have, for instance, a subscription to ATT TV NOW which gives me PlayOn access to the whole channel lineup... HULU the same. Yes, Sling and VIDGO are missing but they are trying to change that.