Slashdot Mirror


Pirate TV Services Are Taking a Bite Out of Cable Company Revenue (arstechnica.co.uk)

TV piracy services are being used by about 6.5 percent of North American households with broadband access, potentially costing legitimate TV providers billions of dollars a year, a new analysis found. From a report: Pirate services that offer live TV channels are apparently responsible for more downstream traffic each night than torrent downloads. Based on these figures, there may be 7 million US and Canadian subscribers to pirate TV services that generally cost about $10 a month, the report by Sandvine said. That amounts to $840 million of revenue a year. We don't know how many people using pirate services would purchase a traditional cable or satellite TV package if the piracy option didn't exist. But if all of those people instead purchased a legal TV package for $50 per month, that would amount to another $4.2 billion revenue a year for North American pay-TV providers, the report said.

89 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Assumptions by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Informative

    But if all of those people instead purchased a legal TV package for $50 per month

    Let me stop you right there...

    These devices cost like $50 - I don't think people would suddenly come up with 12x that just because the little device they picked up on the street was not working.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    1. Re:Assumptions by sanf780 · · Score: 1

      Let us assume every non subscriber is a pirate and a lost sale. And let us not count that series that people talk about are delivered mainly through internet video on demand subscription channels.

    2. Re:Assumptions by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Then consider that the reason people do get a stream is because they don't want to pay $50/month for following a single show. Or $100/month for following a specific sports series that occurs a few weekends per year.

      No wonder people grab a stream if they can. If there were legal pay per view streams that were easy to access and with no side effects like getting a kiloton of promo emails and crap from it then people would probably be attracted to that. Pay $5 to see a F1 race could work - if it could be paid with some convenient method like PayPal.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re:Assumptions by rogoshen1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I know right?

      "If you liked your grey-market TV package at $10, let me tell you about a GREAT deal! For the low, low price of $50 you can get exactly the same thing, with the added benefit of 13 religious channels, a Filipino-language cooking channel, and 75 home shopping channels! Trust me, you'd totally love it at $50. Because we; your poor, downtrodden cable company need your money. The legal expense needed to maintain a nationwide jihad against municipal ISP's and google fiber add up! Please, think of your cable company Subscribe today"

    4. Re:Assumptions by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Not to mention that these devices - despite the pain that Kodi can cause in finding dead streams - work better than the cable box. You just plug the fire stick or whatever into the HDMI slot, hook it to your WiFi, and go. Somehow Comcast can't seem to get things working without a visit from a contractor who - after arriving at some 4 hour window (maybe) - drills holes through the side of your house. And for this honor you pay $100+ per month.

      I feel for the companies competing with the grey market, but not too badly. It's like taxi companies... how bad am I supposed to feel for companies that couldn't figure out how to make a smartphone dispatching app?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:Assumptions by omnichad · · Score: 2

      drills holes through the side of your house

      And they have the audacity to call this "professional installation."

    6. Re:Assumptions by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 2

      Money isn't the only issue. If you could watch any TV show available and just pay for that, I think a lot of people would do it and not engage in piracy. The problem is, that all the providers want to sell subscriptions and bundles, with exclusive content that you can't get anywhere else so you have to buy several bundles and subscriptions, which just aren't a good deal if you just want to watch a few shows and movies.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    7. Re:Assumptions by ewibble · · Score: 1

      low price of $50 you can get exactly the same thing

      I take issue with that, you don't think you get super-set of the same thing, (although I don't subscribe to either cable or pirate streaming), you probably get less shows that you want to seen on cable, because of licensing and regional deals especially if you are not in the US.

      I assume on the pirate channels you get all popular shows no matter who produces them. But that is the battle cry of cable providers, a worse product for a higher price.

      What this article does show is people are willing to pay for content, and convenience, but the product has to be good and the cost has to be reasonable.

    8. Re:Assumptions by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, an amatuer wouldn't know to wrap the cable around the outside of the attic fan once or twice so that it stays in place when the wind picks up.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    9. Re:Assumptions by cmaurand · · Score: 2

      Right idea. Needs to be way less expensive than even you're talking. If I paid $5.00 for everything, then I'd be paying more than if I just grabbed a package from the cable company. $8.00/mon for netflix + 8 for Hulu + 8 for amazon prime +10 for CBS and HBO. What's the point of cutting the cord. I'm not saving anything? It all still sucks.

    10. Re:Assumptions by youngone · · Score: 1

      Isn't your idea exactly what the streaming music services did to kill (or at least reduce) music piracy?
      The stuff I want at a price I can pay. Sounds good.

    11. Re:Assumptions by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Pirate TV, what a crock. The TV is being legally broadcast at it's location, done and finished. You the end user are just digitally placing yourself at that location, it is not being rebroadcast, that is a lie, you are pulling it down, you go to that location to get it, how your route to get there is neither here no there. Just another great big ole fat pigopolist lie. Complete legal broadcast and it is completely legal for you to watch it, whether you travel there in person or do so digitally by what ever avatar ie digital agent you choose.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    12. Re: Assumptions by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      Yes...but... there is some truth to it. I did the math and with the loss of package deals buying into Sling (the other official services suck even more) with the package and the number of concurrent viewers I want I end up with around 15$ less....but no local channels which need to come in through rabbit ears. There is also a significant loss in convenience. Currently I have one cable box remote for everything. Without that service I'd need to get a remote for the PC or use a tablet for a Chromecast (which I have, but it is a crap device that often crashes for no reason) and either way end up juggling two remotes. What is direly needed is a Sling ready small form factor system that can also work with other streaming and web TV services AND that has an ATSC tuner built in that has its signal seamlessly integrated in a decent UI like Sage TV (still bitter that it got killed off, best PC media center app ever). After all that I'm no better off pricewise than with the current solution. The only difference is that my hard earned money goes into the accounts of a different company while risking the chance that the IP service provider gets crazy ideas like capping data rates, throttling, or abusing QoS to sabotage online TV streams.

    13. Re:Assumptions by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      That has to do with the way TV service providers buy content. Disney for example has half a dozen TV channels that people primarily want to watch. Any provider who wants to carry those channels also needs to deliver the five dozen crap channels that are dirt cheap to produce and bring in a decent amount of ad revenue. It is an all or nothing deal that does not allow for buying everything and broadcasting only part of it. TV service providers also like that because then they can claim that they provide over 300 HD channels.

    14. Re:Assumptions by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Just to put this into some context...

      In the UK, I pay a yearly 'tv license' which costs £147 (http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/tv-licence-types-and-costs-top2).
      I then choose to pay for Amazon Prime (which was initially to get the shipping benefits, but now comes with video) - £79/year (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/prime/pipeline/landing)
      I also choose to buy a Netflix service, which just went up to £8/month (£96/year)

      So in total, I pay £322, which Google says is $421 per year - $35/month - AND I get free shipping on all my amazon tut.

      As a general rule, we Brits seem to pay more for everything (eg. a Mac costs about the same in pounds as you pay in dollars - likewise other such products), but on the subject of TV, you guys get ripped off (as indeed you do for broadband).

    15. Re:Assumptions by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      Except it doesn't work. Look at CBS on demand or whatever, all you hear is people complaining about having to buy another service or how it was too expensive. All people will say about a $5 race is, ""This is how you get pirates" haha Archer meme"".

    16. Re: Assumptions by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      Exactly this. Even HBO costs me less while going through Comcast than it does as a stand alone. And with DVR recording shows that aren't on Hulu or Netflix (which I have or have access to) really diminishes the cord cutting value. People thought TV companies would be happy with $1-$5 and they are, as long as you watch their ads they are, "but that's a deal breaker" people scream. I've lost all sympathy for the "give me an easy way to legally stream it and I'll pay" people, because it was all lies by most of them. They just want free content, or so cheap it might as well seem free or with caveats that make it so they still feel morally right when acquiring it without providing compensation.

    17. Re:Assumptions by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      Actually no, that's the whole issue. It isn't legal to get those broadcasts outside of the broadcast area. Simple as that.

    18. Re:Assumptions by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      That is hands-down a better deal than I have. I also pay for Amazon Prime (though we rarely use the video service), Netflix, and Broadband Internet. Recently we also got a basic cable package because... not sure. I think my mother-in-law got bent out of shape that there was no CNN or something. Our internet is quite good - fiber to the house for about $80/month (bundled with unlimited phone... which sits largely unused hooked to the burglar alarm as we use our mobile phones) at 150/150 Mbps and is very reliable. But I understand it is probably expensive compared to Europe. I could get a cheaper 50/50 Mbps plan for something like $30/month, which is actually a really fair price IMHO. But I'm near an urban center and we have two competing telecom companies. I feel bad for people without any competition.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    19. Re:Assumptions by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      To have access to public TV and over air broadcasts in the US we pay nothing except a meager tax from our income that the gov hands to public television. So for that 147 pounds you pay, we pay almost nothing, like 50 cents.

    20. Re:Assumptions by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That IS "professional installation". There's no audacity needed; they're being completely honest. The person drilling big holes through the side of your house is a professional: he does this work every day as a full-time job.

      It's just like when you get your car professionally serviced by a mechanic, and he over-torques the oil drain bolt or the wheel nuts, leaving you with an expensive repair bill. These are professionals, and this is what you can expect from professional servicepeople.

      The question is: where and when did people ever get the idea that "professional" is synonymous with "high quality"?

    21. Re:Assumptions by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Amateurs make money doing things all the time. Don't dilute words.

    22. Re:Assumptions by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      Yes, exactly. How long do think it'll take for the dick-swinging, ego-nursing CEOs of those companies to come around to realising that it's the only effective and feasible way to reduce piracy?

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    23. Re:Assumptions by youngone · · Score: 1

      How long do you think...

      I'm going to assume never, as it's cheaper to buy increasingly stronger and more punitive IP laws.

  2. No, just no by TimothyHollins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    TV piracy services are being used by about 6.5 percent of North American households with broadband access, potentially costing legitimate TV providers billions of dollars a year, a new analysis found.

    potentially costing legitimate TV providers billions of dollars a year, a new analysis found.

    potentially costing legitimate TV providers billions of dollars a year

    potentially

    No. Just no. Not a potential no, a solid diamond-hard no. Like, seriously Chuck Norris testicles-hard no.

    Every study ever on the subject concludes a solid 'no'. Even the frikkin RIAA/MPAA alliance of Evil that has supplanted Satan as the goto source of pure Evil hasn't found a single study to support that losses from poor services translate into increased sales if you muscle the competition out.

    No.

    1. Re:No, just no by Sniper98G · · Score: 2

      The cable industry is really devoted to the "force people to use a shitty service" model.

      If they would start offering services that people actually wanted for a price they are willing to pay they might be able to turn things around, but everyone in big content seems to be really against that idea.

    2. Re:No, just no by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      The only thing they can say is that they're losing the exact same amount that people are paying for those pirate TV services.

      Given the choice between $10 per month for either illegal or legal service, assuming the service was giving them the exact same content, most people would chose the legal service.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:No, just no by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Funny

      No. Just no. Not a potential no, a solid diamond-hard no. Like, seriously Chuck Norris testicles-hard no.

      Ok... sooo... I'll put you down as a "maybe". ;)

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    4. Re: No, just no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They did do this it's called Netflix. Good price, good content.

      The local crap cable ( Foxtel in Australia) markets the crap out of GoT. But even then if you just wait a little you can but the whole season from Google/Apple for a fraction of the subscription price. It boggles the mind that these companies can't use their resources to migrate to a streaming model, they have mountains of content, provide better service and reduce their operating costs.

    5. Re:No, just no by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2
      If you are paying for _pirate_ content, you are not doing it right!

      Even at $10 a month, its hard to see how its worth paying for that dross.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    6. Re:No, just no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only thing they can say is that they're losing the exact same amount that people are paying for those pirate TV services.

      No, they can't even say that because there is no way they'd get 100% conversion.

      We are a 100% Netflix household. I'm sure by their stats we're one of those pesky pirates and "costing them money".

      The problem is, I'm not costing them money. I'm refusing to give them my money, and instead I'm paying someone who delivers exactly what I want.

      And that is no commercials ... no shows which start late because of a sport I don't care about ... or not at all because president McDoofus wanted to yammer ... I don't want to see amber alerts for some fucking kid in a state I don't live in because I don't care if they've been abducted ... I sure as fuck don't want to see some idiot morning show host ... or some prick stumping to get me to send him money because god said so.

      I'm so over the bullshit that is cable it isn't funny. I don't pirate, but oddly that $10 bucks a month is around what you pay for NetFlix.

      The problem is they wish to exist in a world without competition, where we all pay to pad out the bottom line, prop up margins, and otherwise maximize executive bonuses.

      They can't claim they are "losing the exact same amount that people are paying for those pirate TV services", because there are legal alternatives people also use because they have no intention of further enriching a cable company.

    7. Re:No, just no by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but there's absolutely nothing stopping the cablecos from offering their own, stripped-down $10/month streaming services.

      The "pirates" are just taking advantage of an unserviced market.

  3. No commercials by irrational_design · · Score: 2

    Duh. Of course the pirate TV services are preferred, they don't have commercials.

    1. Re:No commercials by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? Since that's not what the article is talking about.

      They not talking about rips put up for upload, they're talking about live tv pirates that stream live TV to users.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    2. Re:No commercials by Frederic54 · · Score: 1

      No, it's not like PPV, it's because, especially in Canada, there is millions of immigrants now, from around the world, who sometimes would like to see the channels they had at their previous home, Being the French who wants to see TF1/France2/France3/whatever to Italians who wants RAI to Belgians who want RTBF to Germans who wants ARD/ZDF to Russian to Arabs to Greek to whatever etc etc etc ad infinitum.

      There is no way to see them legally.

      --
      "Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
    3. Re:No commercials by irrational_design · · Score: 1

      Ah, my mistake. I thought they were talking about sites like tvids.net

  4. Their own fault by OverlordQ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    for not providing reasonably prices a la carte options. Or people *would* give them money.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:Their own fault by cyberchondriac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This.
      Plus, the damn commercials. Everytime I sit down in front of my TV and starting paging through channels to find something interesting to watch (a challenge in itself) the station I invariably settle on is mid-commercial, and then it continues for another 3 to 4 minutes. Finally the program returns, but 5 minutes later, we're back to 12 more commercials back-to-back.
      All the while, because I pay Comcast over a hundred dollars every month, I'm paying them to watch all these commercials! Increasingly, near 50% of my viewing time is now wasted on commercials. And none of them make me want to go out and buy their stupid product.
      Especially the pharmaceuticals: "May cause dizziness, rash, diarrhea, difficulty in breathing, loss of consciousness, extreme pain, bloody stools, flaccidity, amputation, blindness, suicidal thoughts, insanity, lesions, boils, bubonic plague, anal warts, vomiting up toads and lizards, violent convulsions, death, and likely poltergeist activity.

      I'd like to see the whole thing crash and burn, cable television has gotten beyond greedy.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    2. Re:Their own fault by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      for not providing reasonably prices a la carte options. Or people *would* give them money.

      And, upstream, not letting Disney force providers/you to pay for ESPN1-n, ABC Family, etc... in order to get ABC and The Disney Channel.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:Their own fault by sheph · · Score: 1

      Totally. I've gotten to where on the rare occasion when I do watch tv I'll turn it on and pause it, go do something else for a while and then come back so I can FF through all the commercials. And I'm paying $80 per month for this "privilege". I should probably look into these services.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    4. Re:Their own fault by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

      You forgot "Sexual Disfunction" They all list it as a side effect.

    5. Re:Their own fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Some time ago there was only over the air TV that used to be free but there were commercials, then the cable company come saying: we will charge small fee and you will be watching TV without commercials, fast forward to today, you pay for the cable and you also watch commercials.

      Fuck you cable corp, now its time to pay for you own greed!

    6. Re:Their own fault by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Especially the pharmaceuticals: "May cause dizziness, rash, diarrhea, difficulty in breathing, loss of consciousness, extreme pain, bloody stools, flaccidity, amputation, blindness, suicidal thoughts, insanity, lesions, boils, bubonic plague, anal warts, vomiting up toads and lizards, violent convulsions, death, and likely poltergeist activity.

      That's the pharmaceuticals? I thought it was the commercials that had those side-effects!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    7. Re:Their own fault by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      What's reasonable? CBS all access seems reasonable to me yet everyone is shitting on it.

  5. Hulu costs $10 a month by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So does the pirate TV they are talking about.

    Do they think Hulu is a pirate tv channel?

    Are they too stupid to realize that the people that pay for pirate TV would use HULU rather than a cable company if they gave up pirate TV?

    Do they consider people that use rabbit ears antenne to be using 'pirate tv'?

    Article is biased a lot.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  6. From their article.... by Kiralan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The number of cable and satellite TV subscriptions has been dropping for years due to rising prices and Internet-based alternatives, both legal and otherwise.

    My conclusion: Charge fair prices, instead of soaking everyone while you can, and while the market will tolerate it. When the cost and inconvenience of replacing cable with internet alternatives and OTA (Digital antenna) becomes less of a deciding factor, more viewers will do so. Also, the younger generation wants portable media, not one bound to the cable box at home.

    --
    V for Vendetta: People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
  7. Make it worth it by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    But if all of those people instead purchased a legal TV package for $50 per month, that would amount to another $4.2 billion revenue a year for North American pay-TV providers, the report said.

    And if we could actually get TV packages for $50, that would be great. When you factor in fees for "equipment rentals", charges for extra TVs, fee/taxes, and all the other BS, and you are at $100 a month for a package that has the channels you actually want to watch (and about 100 more channels you never even touch).

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Make it worth it by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      My current package with DVR rental, tech fee, taxes, cable internet, HBO, Modem fee, is $124. I can't find many of the old shows I DVR on Hulu, Prime or Netflix (which has had many content issues and will going forward). I could buy my own modem and probably should but I don't feel like dealing with comcast to get it registered on their system and save like $5-8 or something. The internet alone still costs like $70. So I am currently paying $54 for cable and HBO. For Hulu, Amazon Prime, and Netflix along with HBO I'd be paying close to that still be missing shows. So I don't know if it's really a win to drop cable yet. I'm more inclined to drop Netflix at this point (I get Hulu through family). Of course the streams are ad free, and since I DVR most of my shows they are essentially ad free too with the page up skip ahead 30 sec button enabled.

    2. Re:Make it worth it by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Comcast lets you skip ahead in their on-demand programs, uverse doesn't. Even if comcast plays an announcement that you can't skip, it lets me if I use the 5 second skip button I hacked into the remote.

  8. Too Much by Toxiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If 6.5% of your user base not signing up is costing you over $4,200,000,000 in a single year, the issue is that you are way overcharging for your service. Your Whinging about only making $64.5 billion a year is really pulling at my heartstrings.

    1. Re:Too Much by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Their estimate is based on $50/mo. or $600 per year. I wouldn't call it way overcharging - just that they're selling more than I want to buy.

      The fact is, most companies charge way more than $50/mo. too.

  9. What was that by BeemanIT · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think I just heard some whining noise coming from the cable..... Pirate companies like Netflex, Amazon Prime, or Hulu no longer require you to have entire packages with the cable company.... Wait, those are actually legal companies people are watching shows on now..... Cable Cutters Untie!!! and Snip!!

    1. Re:What was that by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Cable Cutters Untie!!! and Snip!!

      Apropos typo :) Untie indeed!

  10. For science and a friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Where does one find one of these Pirate TV services, asking for a friend? Second of all, why would I pay a Pirate TV service money, doesn't that defeat the purpose of Yar, being a pirate?

    Also, please, name a legal cable/satellite company with a package that costs $50. By that I mean a package that consists of more than 10 channels (most of which are FOTA channels), doesn't charge per tv (otherwise we need to factor in the outlet fees), and doesn't require you to sign a contract so they can stick it to you after the first 6 months of a 24 month contract.

    1. Re:For science and a friend by omnichad · · Score: 2

      This is linked from the article:
      https://www.reddit.com/r/IPTV/...

      Also, please, name a legal cable/satellite company with a package that costs $50.

      I think they were underestimating to prove their point. Wrong conclusion, but nice big number.

    2. Re:For science and a friend by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      Many cable companies including Comcast have $50 cable packages. You also have to remember since everyone still needs the internet I think they take that into account on cost estimates.

  11. Offer me what I want or you get NOTHING by DidgetMaster · · Score: 1

    Just like I am for Internet connectivity, I am willing to pay about $40 - $50 per month for TV. But it has to be the kind of TV that I want. Not 100 channels that I would not watch in a million years. Not two channels I like with the rest a bunch of infomercials or reality tv. Since my satellite service wanted over $120/month (didn't include any of the 'premium' channels either), I just cut the cable and got Netflix instead. Now they get ZERO from me for TV.

    1. Re:Offer me what I want or you get NOTHING by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Now they get ZERO from me for TV.

      Unless you're in a Comcast area - any content licensed to Netflix from the NBCUniversal catalog makes Comcast money.

      If physical media weren't so expensive, I would almost prefer to go that route. For those few good shows, $20-40/yr. is much cheaper than $50-100/mo. Digital copies are never discounted at the scale of physical media. Wait until a show has been out for a few years and you can really get a deal.

      For now, most of the content I watch is free OTA and Netflix.

  12. 2 guesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hey, you know what else is taking a bite out of cable company revenues?

    Desktop Linux!

    AMIRIGHT?

  13. The great equalizer by Arzaboa · · Score: 2

    Piracy levels the forces of regulation in any industry. Anyone that sells products that can be pirated or knocked off, knows this well. Its not a fun market force to play against as a business. The reality is that the market will always win. Netflix and HULU are products of these market forces playing out.

    --
    "Beam me up Scotty" - Captain Kirk

  14. Bullshit ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Stupid fucking anti-piracy math:

    there may be 7 million US and Canadian subscribers to pirate TV services that generally cost about $10 a month .... But if all of those people instead purchased a legal TV package for $50 per month, that would amount to another $4.2 billion revenue a year

    So, if all of the people spending $10/month suddenly spent $50/month ... no, no, no. It simply doesn't work that way.

    The cable and copyright cartels don't get to multiply things that are actually spent with what the difference would be if they were being paid and come up with some bullshit number on what that hypothetical revenue would be.

    If people are spending $10/month, and you wish they were paying you $50/month .. you're overcharging by $40/month more than the market will bear and most people are willing to pay.

    They're clearly willing to pay something, but the fact that you've overcharged for it because you feel entitled to it doesn't make that a loss of revenue. It means your overpriced subscription isn't valued by real actual consumers the way you've priced it.

    If everyone on the planet paid me $100/year to point out shit like this, I'd be getting paid $700 billion. So come on you fuckers, you're costing me money by not paying me what I think these posts are worth.

    This is the most deceptive and bullshit math ever. Cable companies feel they deserve this money, but they haven't earned it, aren't entitled to it, and are too stupid to understand they've priced themselves beyond what most people can/will pay.

    Fuck cable companies and their bullshit.

  15. Not all Non-subscribers are pirates by freeze128 · · Score: 2

    Not everyone who doesn't pay for your service is a pirate. There are always other options. Rent DVDs from RedBox, borrow DVD's from the library, go to a friend's house to watch Game of Thrones, etc.

  16. media to garbage ratio by WolfgangVL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A $50.00 cable package includes a ton of additional commercials. At this point it looks pretty close to 50:50 media/interruptions. I suppose all the sponsor breaks might be useful if your in the market for fast-food, trial lawyers and medication (with miles of scary side effects)

    Honestly, I would consider buying back into a cable sub if they did away with all of the commercials. As it stands, cable subs are inferior products at half the asking rate on account of the commercials alone. No wonder everybody pirates like crazy.

    I'd rather read a book.

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
    1. Re:media to garbage ratio by kelemvor4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A $50.00 cable package includes a ton of additional commercials. At this point it looks pretty close to 50:50 media/interruptions. I suppose all the sponsor breaks might be useful if your in the market for fast-food, trial lawyers and medication (with miles of scary side effects)

      Honestly, I would consider buying back into a cable sub if they did away with all of the commercials. As it stands, cable subs are inferior products at half the asking rate on account of the commercials alone. No wonder everybody pirates like crazy.

      I'd rather read a book.

      This exactly. I'd be on cable like white on rice if they'd get rid of the damn commercials and make it as easy to use as kodi type systems. I'd even pay more than cable costs now for that.

      It's not just that pirates are cheap, it's that alternative services are superior.

    2. Re:media to garbage ratio by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I'd be on cable like white on rice if they'd get rid of the damn commercials

      The commercials come from the content provider, not Comcast. The content provider can sell Comcast "local avails" into which Comcast can insert local advertising, but if Comcast didn't use those slots they'll be ads from the content provider anyway.

      Blaming Comcast for the ads is like blaming Santa Clause for snow.

      I'd even pay more than cable costs now for that.

      I doubt that most people would.

    3. Re:media to garbage ratio by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      This exactly. I'd be on cable like white on rice if they'd get rid of the damn commercials and make it as easy to use as kodi type systems.

      So, what's a good kodi type system to check out? Asking for a friend ...

    4. Re:media to garbage ratio by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

      Regardless of where they come from, the commercials drastically lower the value.... to the tune of about 50%

      Offer me commercial free packages, or subsidize MY BILL off of the ad revenue. but don't try to sell me commercials with media breaks and complain when I find a better to way to consume the media.

      To put it another way, if I'm paying for access to your network, and you turn around and rent my eyeballs to 3rd parties for 50% of the time I'm using it, don't get all bent when I stop paying for half a product.

      We are no longer a captive audience. Change or die. Nobody has any sympathy for old broken business models.

      --
      You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
    5. Re:media to garbage ratio by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Offer me commercial free packages, or subsidize MY BILL off of the ad revenue.

      Guess what? They already do. Just like print media is subsidized by ad revenue.

      To put it another way, if I'm paying for access to your network, and you turn around and rent my eyeballs to 3rd parties for 50% of the time I'm using it,

      You're back to blaming the cable company instead of the content provider. The cable company is not putting in anywhere close to 50% ads, and they aren't creating the ad breaks when they do get a local avail, they're using an existing ad time.

      It's the content provider that determines how many ads there are.

      Change or die.

      The cable company cannot change the number of ads you see on a program served via cable. What would they replace them with, dead air? Would you prefer being shown three minutes of cute kitten videos instead?

      Nobody has any sympathy for old broken business models.

      Everyone paying for every bit of content is not a really good new business model, either. You want to pay the entire bill for everything you view, that's ok. I doubt that most viewers would want to do that. I know I don't. My "newer better business model" is that I DVR anything I really want to watch, and five to seven mouse clicks get me through the entire ad block.

      I'd like to hear some unbiased numbers for the CBS/Discovery nonsense. Is the program profitable just from the diehard fans paying for the CBS stream? That's an example of your new business model, and I wonder how well it's doing. Would it do as well for any of the mainstream programming, like sitcoms? The only reason it works for sports is because they charge huge fees -- something I bet would put it beyond what you want to pay. Imagine that kind of price for every program you do want to watch.

    6. Re:media to garbage ratio by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

      I see what your saying, but I think your missing my point.

      I'm blaming the cable companies for CHARGING so much for the commercials. Not the commercials themselves. There is not enough value in the product they are selling (re-transmitting?) for the price they are charging.

      The garbage:media ratio is out of their control, so be it. The price on the other hand... is not. I see cable companies complaining about losing their customer base to alternatives, but at the end of the day, SOMEBODY is charging far to much for the media they provide.

      Google claims Cox commands 2.6 million eyeballs, Comcast 22.3 million, DirectTV 21 million. Nearly 50 million viewers- between the three I've heard of.

      I'd say the negotiation power is there. It's the will that's lacking.

      Somebody aught to find the difference between traditional TV sub cancellations, and streaming service subs, over the last 5 years.

      I bet the numbers will show a pretty clear market shift towards the new and better business model.

      Got to give it to Comcast though, it takes some balls to complain about ONLY having 22.3M*$50.00/month in revenue from a single service......

      --
      You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
  17. Zero point zero. by gatfirls · · Score: 1

    What is "...how many people using pirate services would purchase a traditional cable or satellite TV package if the piracy option didn't exist", Alex.

  18. Less than one in 15 households with broadband ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

    Pirate TV Services Are Taking a Bite Out of Cable Company Revenue ... TV piracy services are being used by about 6.5 percent of North American households with broadband access, potentially costing legitimate TV providers billions of dollars a year, ...

    Less than one in 15 North American households with broadband access subscribe to a TV piracy service.

    FTFY

    Of course that means there's a vast, untapped, market for TV piracy services. If everybody with cable or satellite TV service switched to a piracy service (and dropped their high-priced "legal TV package") that WOULD cost them billions.

    "Quick: We've got to block the rollout of cheap broadband Internet! (Oh, wait. We already did that.)"

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  19. Comcast by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

    Comcast used a pop-up ad during the World Series game last night to advertise and upgrade to X1 or what ever it's called. That was in addition to the split screen battery ads they ran. If it wasn't for their competition being ever worse I would change providers again.

  20. Too bad MOBDRO's not available for Roku. by lkroll4565 · · Score: 1

    Heard that MOBDRO's the bomb, but I don't really want to go the cast route to play such content on my Roku. Oh well. :)

    1. Re:Too bad MOBDRO's not available for Roku. by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      You could probably cast to roku.

  21. Assumption is the mother of all fuckups. by mhkohne · · Score: 1

    >We don't know how many people using pirate services would purchase a traditional cable or satellite TV package if the piracy option didn't exist.
    >But if all of those people instead purchased a legal TV package

    So, they admit they have no idea how many of those would convert if they had to, then they go on to assume 'all of them'. Which is a number that NO research on the subject has EVER supported. In fact, most research suggests 'very few of them' as the right number.

    How can I get paid to write analysis with obviously wrong assumptions?

    --
    A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
  22. Disagree by HermMunster · · Score: 1

    For decades the music and video industry has claimed that copyright violations are costing them untold millions in sales. This has never been proven. There's no proof that a person copying a song or a video would have purchased anything.

    A recent report that the industries hid said that copyright violation had no impact on the industries in question.

    Please stop repeating what the industry is parroting.

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  23. And here I thought it was NFL fees by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Look, HDTV works perfectly fine. Just get an HDTV antenna on Amazon for less than $50 and you can pick up 100 HD 1080p, HD 720p, and SD signals.

    The reason they're going broke is they keep paying for the NFL that we don't want.

    Perfectly happy using the HD Telmundo and Univision broadcasts and turning on SAP to listen to the English version, thanks. It's built into your set.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:And here I thought it was NFL fees by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Just get an HDTV antenna on Amazon for less than $50 and you can pick up 100 HD 1080p, HD 720p, and SD signals.

      I'm glad you live in a good coverage area. Not everybody does.

      The reason they're going broke is they keep paying for the NFL that we don't want.

      Many people do. I would bet that more people want NFL than want the limited services you would want to pay for. The premise is that people who pay for NFL don't want to watch other things that other people pay for. Everyone's money goes into a big pot and buys programming. That's just like everyone's income tax dollars go into a big pot and some of it goes to pay for X and some goes for Y...

      Perfectly happy using the HD Telmundo and Univision broadcasts and turning on SAP to listen to the English version, thanks. It's built into your set.

      Not if you don't have a broadcaster transmitting a Univision or Telemundo signal in your area.

    2. Re:And here I thought it was NFL fees by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Many people do. I would bet that more people want NFL than want the limited services you would want to pay for.

      All the cablecos have to do to make up this missing revenue from "pirate" services is to jack up the prices for the sports fans. The sports addicts will pay anything to keep their sports programming.

  24. Cry me a river by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

    Cable bundles are made in a way to force people to get 2-3 packages to watch their shows. Even if some Cable providers offer a-la-carte packages, they are way too pricy. In Canada the TV providers have to provide a 25$/month package. But you still have to rent a box for each TV, not all channels can be added, so it still comes out to 50$/month.

    Years ago I setup an external antenna, put a ATSC tuner in my BeyondTV machine, and hooked up all my HDTVs to the antenna. Don't have to rent anything, digital decoder for the old TV cost me 20$ on eBay, antenna was given to me. All I had to buy was a mast and the hardware to install it. Total cost was under 100$. total cost is 0$/month and I don't have to mess with unstable cable boxes.

    They shot themselves in the foot, and are now aiming for the other one.

    --
    I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    1. Re:Cry me a river by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Years ago I setup an external antenna, put a ATSC tuner in my BeyondTV machine, and hooked up all my HDTVs to the antenna. Don't have to rent anything, digital decoder for the old TV cost me 20$ on eBay, antenna was given to me. All I had to buy was a mast and the hardware to install it. Total cost was under 100$. total cost is 0$/month and I don't have to mess with unstable cable boxes.

      It also continues to work after local power is lost do to the storm.

  25. Pirate services by PPH · · Score: 1

    I used to use one. But there are only so many sea shanties that I can tolerate.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  26. Basic Cord Cut by speedlaw · · Score: 1

    1. Back to the Future. Do you live near a transmitter, and can you put up an antenna (tvfool.com) 2 If yes, then you need a DVR. Tivo is the easy way for a price. ChannelMaster is almost as good but cheaper-some tech involved. 3. Streaming beyond that is Youtube, a borrowed username and password or a legit username and password. Some channels are locked unless you pay a CableCo for a land subscriotion-bastards !!! Let's just say one could find TopGear, and Grand Tour and Discovery without even really knowing anything.... I get to see cable occasionally when in a hotel. You can't watch without a DVR and half of it is now adverts..for crap

  27. Can't get higher cap without pay TV by tepples · · Score: 1

    Pirate companies like Netflex, Amazon Prime, or Hulu no longer require you to have entire packages with the cable company

    You're right. It's the cable company that requires purchase of an entire TV package before it's willing to sell you a home Internet subscription with a large enough monthly Internet data transfer volume allowance to make Netflix, Amazon Prime, or Hulu worthwhile.

  28. purchased a legal TV package for $50 per month by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    Sure - just guarantee me that there will be no advertisements in this package, and that I have full access to any of the programs on any of the channels at any time after they've aired, with the ability to watch them as many times as I'd like. That's how you get people to buy a service. We're sick of buying advertisement packages with TV shows sprinkled in that we can only watch when the company wants us to watch.

  29. Re:Summary Is Contradictory by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    There's no such thing as "intellectual property."

    I imagine the IP lawyers earning large amounts of money would disagree.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  30. So ... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    So, what's a good kodi type system to check out? Asking for a friend ...

  31. Re:Still not broadly defined enough by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Exactly. People who don't even own TVs or watch TV programming at all are considered "pirates" by these companies.

  32. Arr! Pirates! by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    Who started this pirate meme? I kind of see companies portray people stealing their services as vicious criminals but labeling them as pirates doesn't quite work. Most people's education comes from pirates as portrayed in the movies, this Halloween had several Capt Jack Sparrow costumes. Though in real life pirates were the kind you would never want to encounter even back in the days.

    So when media companies complain about "pirates" stealing all their stuff, it seems the opposite happens and many people want to become a pirate (character created by same media) with the eye patch, parrot, flintlock, and ship and go steal stuff from the media. Yes, a goofy comment.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com