MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Coleman on January 14, 2014, 10:28:59 AM
-
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/01/14/262382556/20-million-directv-customers-just-lost-the-weather-channel?utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=nprfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook
-
Damn, of the 140-whatever channels I have to get it's one of the three I actually watch. But trying to portray it as a safety issue? Reaching just a little bit there.
-
while you're at it Chicos, wtf is it with the ratings directv uses in the guide description for movies? I get the 5 star rating system, easy to follow that, but then why not be consistent and NOT use spilled popcorn 28% or Flixter tomato splatters for others? Try explaining those ratings to 85 YO parents
-
"There's more at issue than money, according to the Times. DirecTV claims many of its customers aren't happy with The Weather Channel's expansion into reality TV. "We have heard from an overwhelming majority of our customers that they want a weather service that's 24/7, not one that's preempted by reality programming 40% of the time," DirecTV says."
A-F*CKING-MEN!!!
I know this is corporate-speak, but I used to watch the Weather Channel all of the time, but now it just has a bunch of silly reality shows that don't interest me in the least.
-
Anyone can get the weather off their phone today. Its local, accurate, and just about as close to real time as you can get; and you can see the local radar of an approaching storm. So who needs the 'climate change channel' anyway. On a more humorous note I know a storm is about 5 minutes away when I lose my satellite signal; what more do you need.
-
It's a safety issue? LOL. It's a money issue.
-
"There's more at issue than money, according to the Times. DirecTV claims many of its customers aren't happy with The Weather Channel's expansion into reality TV. "We have heard from an overwhelming majority of our customers that they want a weather service that's 24/7, not one that's preempted by reality programming 40% of the time," DirecTV says."
A-F*CKING-MEN!!!
I know this is corporate-speak, but I used to watch the Weather Channel all of the time, but now it just has a bunch of silly reality shows that don't interest me in the least.
Evidently just the weather wasn't cutting it for ratings. Same thing happened to MTV.
I used to watch the weather channel a fair amount years ago, now it sucks. Few clicks on my phone and I get better more accurate info.
-
does direct tv's weather channel even give the locals? Dish doesn't, IIRC. Without locals on the 8's, the channel is nothing more than asshats standing in hurricanes and blizzards.
-
Yeah, some random dude gettin' blown oceanside isn't exactly what I wanna see.
-
Evidently just the weather wasn't cutting it for ratings. Same thing happened to MTV.
I used to watch the weather channel a fair amount years ago, now it sucks. Few clicks on my phone and I get better more accurate info.
Haven't watched Weather Channel in over a year ands MTV in about 20. Once the music was gone, so was I.
-
"There's more at issue than money, according to the Times. DirecTV claims many of its customers aren't happy with The Weather Channel's expansion into reality TV. "We have heard from an overwhelming majority of our customers that they want a weather service that's 24/7, not one that's preempted by reality programming 40% of the time," DirecTV says."
A-F*CKING-MEN!!!
I know this is corporate-speak, but I used to watch the Weather Channel all of the time, but now it just has a bunch of silly reality shows that don't interest me in the least.
+1 I just want the local on the 8s.
-
Yeah, some random dude gettin' blown oceanside isn't exactly what I wanna see.
That's not what your pay per view bill says
-
Haven't watched Weather Channel in over a year ands MTV in about 20. Once the music was gone, so was I.
That sounds about right.
Cablevision has a "Metro Weather and Traffic Channel" where every 5 minutes they repeat the current weather forecast followed by the greater New York City traffic situation. I go there knowing I'm going to get the detailed weather forecast when I want to see it. You have to find "MTV Hits" buried somewhere in my channel line-up to see music videos like the way MTV used to show them.
-
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/01/14/262382556/20-million-directv-customers-just-lost-the-weather-channel?utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=nprfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook
Yeah, it's been busy around here....always a contract up, always big decisions to be made.
Simply put, many of our customers are upset that the Weather Channel no longer shows weather all the time, in fact only 60% of the time...much like MTV no longer does music. To pay for their reality type programming that now drives their programming they need money to do so. As a result, we have to look at the value of the programming for the cost. Their viewership over the last two years is down, people can get their weather from local news, national news, their mobile phones, internet, and the new channel we launched called Weather Nation that does one thing 24/7....weather.
What is most interesting and rarely talked about is who owns the Weather Channel. Comcast, Bane, and Blackstone. The latter two is what makes this quite interesting.
The campaign that Weather Channel is waging saying it endangers lives...well the media has crushed that silly argument. This isn't 10 years ago, the weather can be had on many sources. We've made a very fair offer to them for the value of their programming. They didn't like it, contract was up last night at midnight so we immediately moved Weather Nation into their slot.
We'll see where it goes from here, but their strategy is getting killed. The following article is one of many today wondering what they are doing.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/one-pathetic-pr-storm-weather-channels-strategy-in-directv-fight-is-laughable/
-
does direct tv's weather channel even give the locals? Dish doesn't, IIRC. Without locals on the 8's, the channel is nothing more than asshats standing in hurricanes and blizzards.
Yes, we provided local weather based on your zip code on the weather channel through a joint project launched with them a few years ago. Obviously that is currently suspended due to the change.
Lenny is right...safety? That's laughable. It's about money and it's about what our customers have told us they want.
-
chicos, while you're here... any thoughts on this?
http://bgr.com/2014/01/14/net-neutrality-court-ruling/
-
Yeah, it's been busy around here....always a contract up, always big decisions to be made.
Simply put, many of our customers are upset that the Weather Channel no longer shows weather all the time, in fact only 60% of the time...much like MTV no longer does music. To pay for their reality type programming that now drives their programming they need money to do so. As a result, we have to look at the value of the programming for the cost. Their viewership over the last two years is down, people can get their weather from local news, national news, their mobile phones, internet, and the new channel we launched called Weather Nation that does one thing 24/7....weather.
What is most interesting and rarely talked about is who owns the Weather Channel. Comcast, Bane, and Blackstone. The latter two is what makes this quite interesting.
The campaign that Weather Channel is waging saying it endangers lives...well the media has crushed that silly argument. This isn't 10 years ago, the weather can be had on many sources. We've made a very fair offer to them for the value of their programming. They didn't like it, contract was up last night at midnight so we immediately moved Weather Nation into their slot.
We'll see where it goes from here, but their strategy is getting killed. The following article is one of many today wondering what they are doing.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/one-pathetic-pr-storm-weather-channels-strategy-in-directv-fight-is-laughable/
Deonte Burton owns part of the weather channel? Dude's a baller.
-
+1 I just want the local on the 8s.
This is hilarious. I was just wondering if they still had local on the 8's.
-
No mention yet that The Weather Channel was founded by a Marquette guy.
-
+1 I just want the local on the 8s.
You can get local on the 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, 5s, 6s, 7s, 8s, 9s and 0s right here... http://www.weather.com
Ironic that The Weather Channel hasn't made any mention or reference to their website that ranks #25 in the US (Alexa), which is the primary rationale behind the decision to abandon the old "weather" format and adopt the new "reality" format and is the primary hole in their "safety" argument.
-
Yeah, some random dude gettin' blown oceanside isn't exactly what I wanna see.
you sure?
-
Based on everything I've read from Chicos and elsewhere, I have to agree with the big bad provider DirectTV in this case.
But I can't entirely blame the Weather Channel for expanding into alternative programming due to how easy it is to check the weather on an app or online...they needed to try something
What they really should have done is gone deeper with really scientific analysis of weather...like 24/7 Tom Skilling type stuff. That would keep people interested.
-
you sure?
4never is more of a Logo TV and Here TV kinda guy.
-
No mention yet that The Weather Channel was founded by a Marquette guy.
Who would that be?
Frank Batten was one of the two founders, the other is John Coleman. Batten is a UVA and Harvard guy. Coleman is a University of Illinois guy and not a fan of Al Gore.
-
You can get local on the 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, 5s, 6s, 7s, 8s, 9s and 0s right here... http://www.weather.com
Ironic that The Weather Channel hasn't made any mention or reference to their website that ranks #25 in the US (Alexa), which is the primary rationale behind the decision to abandon the old "weather" format and adopt the new "reality" format and is the primary hole in their "safety" argument.
Yeah I do know this. And I know I sound old skool when I bitch about it, but the old Weather Channel was my default when I just wanted something on to watch.
-
Who would that be?
Frank Batten was one of the two founders, the other is John Coleman. Batten is a UVA and Harvard guy. Coleman is a University of Illinois guy and not a fan of Al Gore.
It was in the Marquette Alumni magazine articles like 6 years ago.
-
It was in the Marquette Alumni magazine articles like 6 years ago.
Bill Diederich, and he just worked for a company that created it. http://www.marquette.edu/magazine/winter06/diederich.shtml
Diederich served in several leadership positions at what became Landmark Communications Inc. before retiring in 1990. Although a diversified company, its claim to fame is cable television operations and creation of the Weather Channel, just one of dozens of ideas that Diederich investigated as part of a committee that met to try to identify the next “big thing” that would change the way people get information.
-
Bill Diederich, and he just worked for a company that created it. http://www.marquette.edu/magazine/winter06/diederich.shtml
Yeah, Landmark Communications is where Batten worked, but you are right that Diederich was not a founder of Weather Channel...that goes to Batten and Coleman.
-
chicos, while you're here... any thoughts on this?
http://bgr.com/2014/01/14/net-neutrality-court-ruling/
Still getting my head around it. Lawyers are summarizing what it all means for us.
-
while you're at it Chicos, wtf is it with the ratings directv uses in the guide description for movies? I get the 5 star rating system, easy to follow that, but then why not be consistent and NOT use spilled popcorn 28% or Flixter tomato splatters for others? Try explaining those ratings to 85 YO parents
Chico
You guys should adopt the Penthouse Boner Rating System. Simple, direct, and easy to understand. Bob Guccione was brilliant in many ways. Damn that Al Gore. Damn that man for inventing the internet!
-
I see also where DirecTv is no fan of the new WWE Network
I'm fascinated to see how/where WWE Network goes/succeeds. This is taking NetFlix and Hulu to a much higher, much more game changing level. Their business plan appears to be quite solid, undervalued to begin with, tons and tons of content available, and hugely discounted PPV rights (which is where DirecTv is really pissed).
Interesting that WWE teamed up with MLB TV to develop.
-
chicos, while you're here... any thoughts on this?
http://bgr.com/2014/01/14/net-neutrality-court-ruling/
it means that your ISP can now control your internet content / shape it / do as they please
for example.. ban/throttle torrent traffic. favor bandwidth for Netflix over Hulu. etc etc
hell, they might even slow down your posts / post count !!
-
it means that your ISP can now control your internet content / shape it / do as they please
for example.. ban/throttle torrent traffic. favor bandwidth for Netflix over Hulu. etc etc
hell, they might even slow down your posts / post count !!
Maybe they won't, but I could definitely see Comcast slowing down/preventing use of any streaming/on-demand service outside of their own. Dangerous precedent
-
Bill Diederich, and he just worked for a company that created it. http://www.marquette.edu/magazine/winter06/diederich.shtml
How dare I be mislead by an alumni magazine!
-
while you're at it Chicos, wtf is it with the ratings directv uses in the guide description for movies? I get the 5 star rating system, easy to follow that, but then why not be consistent and NOT use spilled popcorn 28% or Flixter tomato splatters for others? Try explaining those ratings to 85 YO parents
It's part of Rotten Tomatoes rating system for movies, tv shows, etc
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/
-
I see also where DirecTv is no fan of the new WWE Network
I'm fascinated to see how/where WWE Network goes/succeeds. This is taking NetFlix and Hulu to a much higher, much more game changing level. Their business plan appears to be quite solid, undervalued to begin with, tons and tons of content available, and hugely discounted PPV rights (which is where DirecTv is really pissed).
Interesting that WWE teamed up with MLB TV to develop.
Simply put, WWE tried to pitch this channel to every distributor out there. Everyone said no....EVERYONE. This has been going on for the last year +. Teaming up with BAM (MLB) is a no brainer, they are the best in terms of this technology. As I've said here countless times, technology isn't really the issue on delivery (though it is on receipt at the customer's home), its mostly the dollars.
Right now WWE gets a split of all PPV buys (there are plenty of articles out there guessing at what that split is, but I'd say most reporters did their homework well). Now they want to go OTT at the same time while ALSO keeping those splits. So, in essence they want DISH, TWC, Charter, et al to still do the work of order processing, customer service, tying up satellite bandwidth that could be used in other revenue generating ways, etc, etc all while they will sell it direct at a lower price. The irony is that they set the PPV television price, not the distributor.
Well, yes, this could get very interesting as you can see from our latest comments http://www.fiercecable.com/story/directv-fires-warning-shot-over-wwe-network/2014-01-10
This is one of the major reasons why HBO and others have not gone down this path because the distributors do all the heavy lifting for them (marketing, sales, customer service, support, etc). What happens to the guy that used to buy PPV and is a wrestling fan but has no broadband or terrible broadband? Or he wants to watch it on his large tv screen like he always did with 5 buddies over, but now has to watch it on his computer screen because he can't port it over, etc, etc.
If a bunch of distributors say BYE BYE, it will be interesting indeed. Just my two cents. They believe they have all these fans out there ready to stream it, ready to deal with WWE's customer service (non existent), any outages that might happen, buffering, the inability to watch it on their big screen, etc, etc....have fun Vince.
Interesting indeed.
-
http://www.barstoolsports.com/m/philly/super-page/net-neutrality-died-today-heres-what-that-means/
This is a big deal. The net is no longer neutral. I’m watching the Nightly News and they’ve got my boy Brian Williams talking about Chris Christie commercials and crapty water in West Virginia, but it doesn’t look like they’re gonna cover the Net Neutrality decision at all. Here’s basically what it means:
Internet service providers like Kabletown Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, Google, etc now have a lot more power over controlling the speed, pricing, and content of their internet. If Comcast or Time Warner wants to charge more for high-data usage with Netflix, YouTube, or Netflix it’s now legal. If they want to charge people double for an internet “fast lane” and leave everybody else with dial-up speeds it’s now legal. If they want to censor sites or make sites from a specific company or competitor slow for no reason it’s now legal. If Verizon wants to slow down Barstool Sports because they don’t like us it’s now legal. ”Oh you want to visit porn sites? Those are censored unless you pay $15 extra.” Basically what I’m saying in the near future everything will be crapty.
Sucks to be Netflix. And, you know, all of us.
This can’t be what Al Gore envisioned.
-
It's part of Rotten Tomatoes rating system for movies, tv shows, etc
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/
And that is somehow better than the Penthouse Boner System for rating movies??
-
And that is somehow better than the Penthouse Boner System for rating movies??
What can I say, we have to serve a lot of folks who may not be UP for that kind of rating system at this juncture in time.
-
http://www.barstoolsports.com/m/philly/super-page/net-neutrality-died-today-heres-what-that-means/
This is a big deal. The net is no longer neutral. I’m watching the Nightly News and they’ve got my boy Brian Williams talking about Chris Christie commercials and crapty water in West Virginia, but it doesn’t look like they’re gonna cover the Net Neutrality decision at all. Here’s basically what it means:
Internet service providers like Kabletown Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, Google, etc now have a lot more power over controlling the speed, pricing, and content of their internet. If Comcast or Time Warner wants to charge more for high-data usage with Netflix, YouTube, or Netflix it’s now legal. If they want to charge people double for an internet “fast lane” and leave everybody else with dial-up speeds it’s now legal. If they want to censor sites or make sites from a specific company or competitor slow for no reason it’s now legal. If Verizon wants to slow down Barstool Sports because they don’t like us it’s now legal. ”Oh you want to visit porn sites? Those are censored unless you pay $15 extra.” Basically what I’m saying in the near future everything will be crapty.
Sucks to be Netflix. And, you know, all of us.
This can’t be what Al Gore envisioned.
That's our initial reading and something I've spoken about here and elsewhere for quite some time. While people love to say Netflix is only $8 a month, you just wait until the other costs go up. Not just with Netflix, but those that operate the pipes who start to charge those services which will be passed on to the customer.
I still need more information on this, but it has long been our feeling with data caps, etc, that this is where things are going. This is also one of the reasons why when people predict TV is going to end next year (the prediction made not always in jest year after year) a lot of folks don't have a very good grasp of the playing field or how it all works.
Too many illogical comparisons to other industries that don't compare at all. Interesting times ahead, and many more curveballs still to come. True wireless video is going to be very interesting.
-
The cable/telecom lobbies are alive and well in Washington
-
those that operate the pipes who start to charge those services which will be passed on to the customer.
Therein lies the rub. From my work in Corporate Strategy at TMO I can tell you that the pipes are very expensive and the double edged sword is data consumption.
-
The cable/telecom lobbies are alive and well in Washington
Mostly Telecom in this case. Comcast actually supported the FCC in this, while Verizon brought suit against the FCC.
There is a practical reason for the court's decision as well. I know many folks don't like to focus on that and prefer to predict gloom and doom. Many pundits think this is good news for consumers ultimately. Don't forget when the FCC rules were formed, people complained from the left and the right of the political spectrum. The way I understand the ruling, the FCC's power wasn't taken away on this, but they get a second bite at the apple to rewrite the rules again under a different framework.
This has a long way to go IMO.
-
Mostly Telecom in this case. Comcast actually supported the FCC in this, while Verizon brought suit against the FCC.
There is a practical reason for the court's decision as well. I know many folks don't like to focus on that and prefer to predict gloom and doom. Many pundits think this is good news for consumers ultimately. Don't forget when the FCC rules were formed, people complained from the left and the right of the political spectrum. The way I understand the ruling, the FCC's power wasn't taken away on this, but they get a second bite at the apple to rewrite the rules again under a different framework.
This has a long way to go IMO.
The problem I see in practice, is that the courts are saying: well, if you don't like the restrictions put in place by your current company/service, you can just change. But for most locations, including big cities, that's just not reality as you probably only have, at most, 3 options, with many locales only having 1-2.
-
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-net-neutrality-20140114,0,522106.story#axzz2qQ6MMMPu
Net neutrality is dead. Bow to Comcast and Verizon, your overlords
Advocates of a free and open Internet could see this coming, but today's ruling from a Washington appeals court striking down the FCC's rules protecting the open net was worse than the most dire forecasts. It was "even more emphatic and disastrous than anyone expected," in the words of one veteran advocate for network neutrality.
The Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit thoroughly eviscerated the Federal Communications Commission's latest lame attempt to prevent Internet service providers from playing favorites among websites--awarding faster speeds to sites that pay a special fee, for example, or slowing or blocking sites and services that compete with favored affiliates.
Big cable operators like Comcast and telecommunications firms like Verizon, which brought the lawsuit on which the court ruled, will be free to pick winners and losers among websites and services. Their judgment will most likely be based on cold hard cash--Netflix wants to keep your Internet provider from slowing its data so its films look like hash? It will have to pay your provider the big bucks. But the governing factor need not be money. (Comcast remains committed to adhere to the net neutrality rules overturned today until January 2018, a condition placed on its 2011 merger with NBC Universal; after that, all bets are off.)
"AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast will be able to deliver some sites and services more quickly and reliably than others for any reason," telecommunications lawyer Marvin Ammori (he's the man quoted above) observed even before the ruling came down. "Whim. Envy. Ignorance. Competition. Vengeance. Whatever. Or, no reason at all."
The telecom companies claim their chief interest is in providing better service to all customers, but that's unadulterated flimflam. We know this because regulators already have had to make superhuman efforts to keep the big ISPs from degrading certain services for their own benefit--Comcast, for example, was caught in 2007 throttling traffic from BitTorrent, a video service that competed with its own on-demand video.
Amazingly, even after Comcast was found guilty of violating this basic standard of Internet transmission, the FCC greenlighted its acquisition of NBC, which could only give the firm greater incentive to discriminate among the content being pipelined to its customers.
ISPs like Comcast are only doing what comes naturally in an unregulated environment, the way a dog naturally scratches at fleas. "Cable and telephone companies are simply not competing for the right to provide unfettered, un-monetized internet access," wrote Susan Crawford, an expert on net neutrality, around the time of the Comcast case.
This wouldn't be as much of a threat to the open Internet if there were genuine competition among providers, so you could take your business elsewhere if your ISP was turning the public Web into its own private garden. In the U.S., there's no practical competition. The vast majority of households essentially have a single broadband option, their local cable provider. Verizon and AT&T provide Internet service, too, but for most customers they're slower than the cable service. Some neighborhoods get telephone fiber services, but Verizon and AT&T have ceased the rollout of their FiOs and U-verse services--if you don't have it now, you're not getting it.
Who deserves the blame for this wretched combination of monopolization and profiteering by ever-larger cable and phone companies? The FCC, that's who. The agency's dereliction dates back to 2002, when under Chairman Michael Powell it reclassified cable modem services as "information services" rather than "telecommunications services," eliminating its own authority to regulate them broadly. Powell, by the way, is now the chief lobbyist in Washington for the cable TV industry, so the payoff wasn't long in coming.
President Obama's FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski, moved to shore up the agency's regulatory defense of net neutrality in 2010. But faced with the implacable opposition of the cable and telecommunications industry, he stopped short of reclassifying cable modems as telecommunications services. The result was the tatterdemalion policy that the court killed today. It was so ineptly crafted that almost no one in the telecom bar seemed to think it would survive; the only question was how dead would it be? The answer, spelled out in the ruling, is: totally.
The court did leave it up to the FCC or Congress to refashion a net neutrality regime. The new FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, has made noises favoring net neutrality, but he also sounds like someone who's not so committed to the principle.
In an important speech in December and a long essay released at the same time, he's seemed to play on both sides. But that won't work. The only way to defend net neutrality, which prioritizes the interests of the customer and user over the provider, is to do so uncompromisingly. Net neutrality can't be made subject to the "marketplace," as Wheeler suggests, because the cable and telephone firms control that marketplace and their interests will prevail. Congress? Don't make me laugh--it's owned by the industry even more than the FCC.
The only course is for public pressure to overcome industry pressure. That's a tough road, but there's no alternative. Do you want your Internet to look like your cable TV service, where you have no control over what comes into your house or what you pay for it? Then stay silent. If not, start writing letters and emails to your elected representatives and the FCC now. It's the only hope to save the free, open Internet.
-
Still getting my head around it. Lawyers are summarizing what it all means for us.
Just another victory for the "haves". No different than any other situation.
We try to make it about laws, but the power/money win these cases all the time.
Kinda like the criminality of cocaine vs. crack. We don't wanna be puttin' rich people in jail now, do we?
-
That was good analysis of DirecTv/WWE Network Chicos (working off my phone so couldn't copy/quote). I "think" the revenue split from PPV's between WWE & Providers is 50%, no? Or roughly that.
I think you're right on too in regards to watching PPV. If WWE, UFC, or any sport wanted to go this route with their PPV's, I for one would much rather watch it in 1080 on my 65'' screen as a direct feed, rather than linking it via PS3 or my computer. Do you think they'll offer a concession and lower the costs of PPV's to providers? I guess what I'm asking is if the payoff off WWE lowering PPV prices, while conceding revenue for those PPV's to their networks, is it still something for DirecTv to pursue a deal on?
I've heard/read WWE needs a million subscribers to break even. I think they will blow away that number early on. What will be most interesting is the retention percentage after 6 months.
-
The problem I see in practice, is that the courts are saying: well, if you don't like the restrictions put in place by your current company/service, you can just change. But for most locations, including big cities, that's just not reality as you probably only have, at most, 3 options, with many locales only having 1-2.
Due to the current infrastructure, you are correct.
However, if those existing providers start jacking around with pricing, it will open up the marketplace for other options.
A lot of alternate cell phone carriers are popping up right now. They are usually leasing the infrastructure of another provider... but there isn't really anything stopping Virgin Mobile from developing their own towers, their own 10G LTE network*, and provide home internet service as well as mobile.
*(I don't think 10G LTE is a real thing (yet), but you get my point).
Wired connections and infrastructure are REALLY expensive, but, think how far wireless has become in the past 10 years. In theory, there could be a lot more options for home internet in 5-10 years.
-
Due to the current infrastructure, you are correct.
The current infrastructure should be vastly different. But corporations keep screwing over consumers and taxpayers alike. The "haves" win again!
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131012/02124724852/decades-failed-promises-verizon-it-promises-fiber-to-get-tax-breaks-then-never-delivers.shtml
-
The current infrastructure should be vastly different. But corporations keep screwing over consumers and taxpayers alike. The "haves" win again!
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131012/02124724852/decades-failed-promises-verizon-it-promises-fiber-to-get-tax-breaks-then-never-delivers.shtml
I know the consumer is getting screwed (relatively), but I guess my point is, inefficient companies, that profit by "screwing" with consumers usually leave a gaping hole in the marketplace for the competition.
It might not be today, it might not be tomorrow. But, it'll happen.
Google, or amazon, or virgin, or (insert company), will see an opening and run them out of business.
-
Just another victory for the "haves". No different than any other situation.
We try to make it about laws, but the power/money win these cases all the time.
Kinda like the criminality of cocaine vs. crack. We don't wanna be puttin' rich people in jail now, do we?
Lots of laws on the books right now that certain folks aren't enforcing, despite an oath they took the uphold the laws of the land and enforce the constitution.
-
Wired connections and infrastructure are REALLY expensive, but, think how far wireless has become in the past 10 years. In theory, there could be a lot more options for home internet in 5-10 years.
Really really really expensive. An understatement and I know you weren't understating it (you are dead on right). Part of the problem is spending all that money and building out a network that isn't capable of expanding or keeping up with changes. One of the issues that has hurt some carriers in a big way.
You're always going to have the issue, too, of building where the people are. Companies are not going to spend a ton of money building towers or digging ditches if population is sparse. It is one of the reasons satellite has done so well in those areas because it requires neither.
Interesting times ahead. Don't forget with increased bandwidth comes ever bigger bandwidth hogs that will eat it up. 4K is the next to do it, then 8K.
-
Really really really expensive. An understatement and I know you weren't understating it (you are dead on right). Part of the problem is spending all that money and building out a network that isn't capable of expanding or keeping up with changes. One of the issues that has hurt some carriers in a big way.
You're always going to have the issue, too, of building where the people are. Companies are not going to spend a ton of money building towers or digging ditches if population is sparse. It is one of the reasons satellite has done so well in those areas because it requires neither.
Interesting times ahead. Don't forget with increased bandwidth comes ever bigger bandwidth hogs that will eat it up. 4K is the next to do it, then 8K.
Chicos,
What's the future look like for satellite internet? Lack of technology? Lack of market? Costs too high?
-
Chicos,
What's the future look like for satellite internet? Lack of technology? Lack of market? Costs too high?
ViaSat made some headway with their recent launch last year that certainly brought them into a more competitive space, but it is still lacking speeds at a local level. Satellite could do it at amazing download speeds....just think of what we're pushing down or DISH is in terms of data....massive amounts. ViaSat 1 I believe puts out more throughput than any satellite out there and they sell internet broadband.
The problem is the return path (lack of two way).
The market exists, though it isn't huge. Technology is solid one way, not the other. Costs are an issue. IMO
-
ViaSat made some headway with their recent launch last year that certainly brought them into a more competitive space, but it is still lacking speeds at a local level. Satellite could do it at amazing download speeds....just think of what we're pushing down or DISH is in terms of data....massive amounts. ViaSat 1 I believe puts out more throughput than any satellite out there and they sell internet broadband.
The problem is the return path (lack of two way).
The market exists, though it isn't huge. Technology is solid one way, not the other. Costs are an issue. IMO
I am no expert (and that is even giving me too much credit), but although Sat can push down a lot of data (and is for TV), one of the differences with Internet is that its not a discrete number of options all people are looking at, rather the internet is vast and people are accessing all aspects of the internet at any given time. Therefore more total bandwidth is consumed quicker and it is harder to maintain download speeds to large numbers of people.
That doesn't even consider the two-way issues that you mention.
-
Net neutrality is far from over, many more appeals and rules to be written. I'd hold off on the gloom and doom stuff.
-
I am no expert (and that is even giving me too much credit), but although Sat can push down a lot of data (and is for TV), one of the differences with Internet is that its not a discrete number of options all people are looking at, rather the internet is vast and people are accessing all aspects of the internet at any given time. Therefore more total bandwidth is consumed quicker and it is harder to maintain download speeds to large numbers of people.
That doesn't even consider the two-way issues that you mention.
Yup. Efficiency issues.
-
Chicos,
What's the future look like for satellite internet? Lack of technology? Lack of market? Costs too high?
Technology is available. Companies will to commit not so much - favors consumer too much.
-
if we are blaming the high cost of infrastructure, why are speeds and costs so much worse in the US than other places on the globe? this is one of my per peeves (and wth is a peeve?)
http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/the_cost_of_connectivity_2013
-
Net neutrality is far from over, many more appeals and rules to be written. I'd hold off on the gloom and doom stuff.
The impression that I'm getting from the articles and Op/Eds is that the court's decision is merely temporary as legislation is going to come out of this which will effectively allow the FCC to prevail.
-
if we are blaming the high cost of infrastructure, why are speeds and costs so much worse in the US than other places on the globe? this is one of my per peeves (and wth is a peeve?)
http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/the_cost_of_connectivity_2013
a peeve is a pube that she missed while shaving the beav.
-
That's what waxin's for.
-
if we are blaming the high cost of infrastructure, why are speeds and costs so much worse in the US than other places on the globe? this is one of my per peeves (and wth is a peeve?)
http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/the_cost_of_connectivity_2013
Maybe Al Gore can fix it.
Geography is a key cog that so many people forget. Building the infrastructure nationally in South Korea is a lot different than doing it for the USA. As a result, you have sporadic networks serving different areas in this country. Secondly, they aren't factoring in the costs of that builldout in higher taxation, etc, that are levied. Reminds me of when people say health care is "free" in some country. Uhm, it sure as hell isn't. There is an enormous cost and it is paid by many people, just because you didn't get a bill when you left the doctor's doesn't mean you didn't pay handsomely for it. Infrastructure for many of these countries is the same deal be it through subsidies or what have you, but there are dollars being paid via other means that are not calculated in the per cost of the data in these evaluations. Just because your bill says you are paying $39.99 for X MBPS doesn't mean you aren't paying a lot more as a contributor for through other outlays.
-
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/01/14/262382556/20-million-directv-customers-just-lost-the-weather-channel?utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=nprfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook
Back on with public apology from them in hand.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/weather-channel-returns-directv-183200850.html
-
I like the direction of the programming terms they agreed to. The Weather Channel was becoming to weather as The Learning Channel has become to learning.
Show me the f'ing weather and that's it
-
I like the direction of the programming terms they agreed to. The Weather Channel was becoming to weather as The Learning Channel has become to learning.
Show me the f'ing weather and that's it
That was a chief complaint, they finally capitulated.
-
That was a chief complaint, they finally capitulated.
Which is kinda crazy, right? Wouldn't just your basic weather forecasts be the cheapest to produce? If that is in the highest demand and is the easiest to produce, why would you try something else thats more expensive and less in demand?
-
Kind of like MTV without any music videos?
-
Which is kinda crazy, right? Wouldn't just your basic weather forecasts be the cheapest to produce? If that is in the highest demand and is the easiest to produce, why would you try something else thats more expensive and less in demand?
My guess is because people who tune in simply to get the current temperature and that day's forecast flip the channel as soon as they get that information, and you can't make any money when your viewers don't stay long enough to watch the advertisements.
-
My guess is because people who tune in simply to get the current temperature and that day's forecast flip the channel as soon as they get that information, and you can't make any money when your viewers don't stay long enough to watch the advertisements.
I worked the content space strategy at TMO and I remember thinking that widgets were going to kill niche players like the Weather Channel. We are working on an aggregation and integration technology right now that personalizes the UX in ways unimaginable just a few years ago.
-
My guess is because people who tune in simply to get the current temperature and that day's forecast flip the channel as soon as they get that information, and you can't make any money when your viewers don't stay long enough to watch the advertisements.
60+ Demographic
An educated guess says these are the people who complained. Many don't use smartphones and can't with arthritis, not having the dexterity required to use a touch screen, and simply not being comfortable new technology. The weather channel is simple and easy to find for these people.
-
The whole evolution is amazing to me. I consider myself to be a bit of a weather geek (sure chick would agree) and it annoys me to no end that Weather Channel is dominated by reality TV these days. Now in the morning they are trying to be Good Morning America. Just tell me the weather so I know what freakin' coat I need!
Frankly, I'd prefer a more thorough and in-depth look at national and local weather to include thing like regional climatic conditions during prime time features. As an example, a report on current snow conditions in the Rockies would interest me right now as chick and I have a vested interest in the impact that has on the Colorado river basin. Sure I can study the situation via the internet; it has actually been a good snow year. But a TV report would capture my attention for 20 minutes. Other examples exist.
-
My guess is because people who tune in simply to get the current temperature and that day's forecast flip the channel as soon as they get that information, and you can't make any money when your viewers don't stay long enough to watch the advertisements.
Then they should get creative...
Local on the 8s brought to you by________
Banner ads on the bottom of the screen
15 second spots every 2 minutes. And keep the temp and a small forecast at the bottom of the screen during the ads.
There's plenty of ways to get advertising in without doing the traditional 2-4 minute commercial break. It could be done. Especially with how big HD TVs are now dominating the market. There's a lot of real estate on a 52" screen. You could keep an ad in full-time and still have an effective, attractive forecast.
-
I just switched from Cablevision and the one channel I missed is "Metro Weather & Traffic". They alternate giving the latest forecast & radar for the next week with the local traffic conditions in the tri-state area. I rarely went to the Weather Channel that was one channel up. U-Verse has a weather on demand channel that has a video of the days forecast from Accu-weather and the latetst radar. It's not up-to-minute updated.
-
Then they should get creative...
Local on the 8s brought to you by________
Banner ads on the bottom of the screen
15 second spots every 5 minutes.
There's plenty of ways to get advertising in without doing the traditional 2-4 minute commercial break. It could be done.
Ads .... Can we longer go anywhere without seeing ads?
I watched a documentary on North Korea, that showed how the apartments in Pyongyang all had radios. These radios adorned the wall and basically looked like a speaker attached to the wall, with a volume knob. The radios could never be turned off. 24/7 they would spew propaganda.
Our consumer based culture is becoming so prominent that advertisers will stop at nothing to get their image or message across. There is talk about the NBA adopting the practice of advertisements on jerseys quite soon. How long will it be until this happens in the college sport? The internet used to be a place where there were few ads, but now pop ups and banner ads adorn most popular pages. Youtube was an amazing place before they made you watch at least 5 seconds of some stupid ad. It seems as if our society as one parallel with North Korea - we are both bombarded with messages.