[kwlug-disc] OT: Broadcast TV in trouble?

[B.S.]

> a la carte is the only sane way forward.

Yes and no.

No: Goes back to the reason for CRTC existence, and the spaghetti mess that that concept is currently.
- what a mess.
- and I suspect is what will be captured/contained in the base bundle.

Yes: Agreed, let the market be the market, and everyone to sink or swim. Either your business model is viable, or its not.


But when bundles are base + pick 2 = more expensive, the pricing usually makes the idea of a skinny package a farce. To date. e.g. $20 + $1.50 + $1.50 is not sufficiently different from $40 to make most people not take the $40 anyways. Making 'skinny' a farce. (Apparently, psychologically, 'sales' are successful because people fear missing out and buy whether they need it or not. I expect the same is true here with package choice.)

So my point is that base cancon outside of the base package is just silly - and counter to the point and intent of skinny. e.g. Canadian news (channels). Never mind the CBC news channel alone, and the mess of the mandate and funding of the CBC.


> The barrier to watching a broadcast station is now not much lower than 
> access to a web stream.

Not so, actually but I only recently switched my viewpoint from yours.

It feels to me like only post-babyboomer's (> mid-1960's), have 'sourcing saturated' social media, youtube, etc, as the content presentation mechanism. And I have pondered if shomi isn't the next cable TV service - how long before current and live network programming is available on it. Same content - different delivery mechanisms and endpoints.

And although it feels like babyboomers (< 1960), that massive population bubble moving along, may participate in youtube and social media, it's something they pick up and put down - not live. e.g. E-mail is instant messaging, not memos, to them.

And for them, they want to turn the TV on, press guide, click a channel to show me 'this', and get on with their day. Not futz around with the underpinings of how that content arrives at the screen, nor multiple pathways within their home by which a picture appears on the screen.

(Minus the diminishing population such as populates this list.)

So, I don't think the TV, the remote, and 'broadcasting' (or 'TV') as we know it, is likely going to really change any time in the next 3 decades. The pathway by which it travels - yes, but the consumers largely want to not care / have to think about that. I expect. They will always want turnkey - press a button, consume.


----- Original Message -----
> From: Andrew Kohlsmith (mailing lists account) <aklists at mixdown.ca>
> To: KWLUG discussion <kwlug-disc at kwlug.org>
> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2015 10:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [kwlug-disc] OT: Broadcast TV in trouble?
> 
>>  On Dec 11, 2015, at 11:33 PM, B.S. <bs27975 at yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>  When pick and pay comes in, I expect there will be quite a few more 
> bankruptcies. Stations that managed to get must carry status may not be able to 
> survive when things are unbundled and they lose their must carry status.
> 
> This can only be a good thing. There are MANY stations that have no business 
> being stations because their target is so small. Broadcasting is expensive and 
> its audience is shrinking. Youtube channels (and all the other video streaming 
> services) are infinitely cheaper, have revenue streams from ads built-in, can 
> gather exact viewership metrics… It’s the future.
> 
>>  IIRC, when I came across blurbs about pick and pay and the new minimum 
> mandated skinny package, I noted that neither CBC nor CTV's news channels 
> were included in it. Which seems ridiculous. Most will want such, making such a 
> skinny package too skinny to be meaningful - negating the whole point of having 
> a skinny package in the first place.
> 
> a la carte is the only sane way forward. As much as I love the idea of broadcast 
> TV and have enjoyed experimenting with antennas and baluns and MythTV and ATSC 
> drivers… The barrier to watching a broadcast station is now not much lower than 
> access to a web stream. All these bundling ideas end up bad in the end because 
> you can’t please everyone with your bundle choices.