vince Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 CableCos and content providers and sports rights owners were all complicit. 5-6% compounded growth in fees or rights or subscriptions can't continue unabated for 20 years. Trees don't grow to the sky. I don't necessarily disagree with that statement in the sense that as some point of continual increase, the price will not represent the utility/value of the product. But I stand by what I said originally that the product still represents good value at least when measured similarly against the value of other entertainment assets. A movie for a family of 4 at the theater is approaching 60 bucks (no snacks) where I live. Obviously a superior activity but not even close in terms of total value. I couldn't resist one more thought....the distributor actually makes no money anymore on the product. Instead of still being frustrated with cable cos (the problem lies with the programmers) people should be reasonably satisfied. I realize they dont act this way in the interests of consumers but there are other options available to the distributors that are arguably more profitable...Cabo employed a different strategy that no doubt leaves their video customers worse off and their ebitda margins are 47% and climbing, 1000 basis points better than they would have been and a lot less headaches to boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 True or False? Charter is becoming a 5G wireless provider & can offer better bundles than Verizon. --- Rutledge said this was what he wanted to do back in 2010 as COO of Cablevision. https://gigaom.com/2010/03/01/419-cablevision-sees-alternative-path-to-entering-the-wireless-market/ https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/charter-looks-beyond-mvno-model-as-it-prepares-to-launch-wireless-next-year He has also stated multiple times that he wants to (and apparently now can) offload as much traffic as possible to their own system instead of using Verizons network & that initially using the MVNO agreement was for testing purposes. --- https://newtmobile.com/content/uploads/2018/09/Competition-in-Wireless-Telecommunications-Michelle-Connolly.pdf Abridged version: --- https://www.bbcmag.com/rural-broadband/5g-is-not-the-answer-for-rural-broadband --- The NY lawsuit mansplained? With a few interesting data points. https://stopthecap.com/2017/02/16/charter-ceo-admits-may-sharing-internet-connection-499-neighbors/ --- I'm pretty confident in CHTR & CMCSA's ability to take a lot of business from legacy MNO's. If it doesn't happen then it means Rutledge has wayyy overstated what CHTR is actually doing in wireless. I believe it makes much more sense to see how their mobile business is doing before they start investing heavily in mobile infrastructure. They will continue working on the best way to do it as they utilize and learn from the mvno/wifi combination. But as they (if they) approach say 5 million customers it makes more sense. In the meantime, both sides continue to posture (with cable in the stronger position right now but that could change quickly) to get the most favorable terms in the inevitable tie-ups that are coming. The economics are just way to compelling for it not to happen. Cam, don't take this the wrong way but you should definitely read the 3rd link in DD's post. Before reading I spent half hour on the author and concluded no obvious reasons for bias and very capable imo (i'm obviously bias in saying that even though I truly believe it, can't imagine what I would think of her had she wrote a negative cable article, lol). I can't wait until someone asks John Legere, ceo of T-Mobile what he now thinks about cable's foray into mobile. He laughed at the thought originally....I can't stand that guy!! By the way he talks you would think he has the biggest and best mobile network and cable network too. Where do these guys get the skill to, without shame, talk (and criticize) like they are sitting up top when they are undeniably at bottom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogermunibond Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 Vince, actually agree with you there. Personally I'm not a cord cutter because the value proposition is still there for me and it's easier than putting together my own bundle and then switching to Roku/AppleTV or the like. CableCos and content providers and sports rights owners were all complicit. 5-6% compounded growth in fees or rights or subscriptions can't continue unabated for 20 years. Trees don't grow to the sky. I don't necessarily disagree with that statement in the sense that as some point of continual increase, the price will not represent the utility/value of the product. But I stand by what I said originally that the product still represents good value at least when measured similarly against the value of other entertainment assets. A movie for a family of 4 at the theater is approaching 60 bucks (no snacks) where I live. Obviously a superior activity but not even close in terms of total value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 CableCos and content providers and sports rights owners were all complicit. 5-6% compounded growth in fees or rights or subscriptions can't continue unabated for 20 years. Trees don't grow to the sky. Do you think that what they offer has also grown during that time? More channels? More expensive films and TV series? More niches served? More sports? Better image and sound quality (people don't realize that the switch to 1080P and then 4K meant more money had to be spent on physical sets and on CGI, on top of rising expectations for better versions of all those regardless of resolution)? The golden age of TV isn't free, someone has to pay for all those movie actors that are now doing TV, for realistic CGI and on-location shoots and movie quality scripts and all that.. The problem is that they bundle it all, so customers end up being over-served and paying more than they wish they would. But you definitely get a lot more today for the average subscription than you did 20 or 30 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameronfen Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 True or False? Charter is becoming a 5G wireless provider & can offer better bundles than Verizon. --- Rutledge said this was what he wanted to do back in 2010 as COO of Cablevision. https://gigaom.com/2010/03/01/419-cablevision-sees-alternative-path-to-entering-the-wireless-market/ https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/charter-looks-beyond-mvno-model-as-it-prepares-to-launch-wireless-next-year He has also stated multiple times that he wants to (and apparently now can) offload as much traffic as possible to their own system instead of using Verizons network & that initially using the MVNO agreement was for testing purposes. --- https://newtmobile.com/content/uploads/2018/09/Competition-in-Wireless-Telecommunications-Michelle-Connolly.pdf Abridged version: --- https://www.bbcmag.com/rural-broadband/5g-is-not-the-answer-for-rural-broadband --- The NY lawsuit mansplained? With a few interesting data points. https://stopthecap.com/2017/02/16/charter-ceo-admits-may-sharing-internet-connection-499-neighbors/ --- I'm pretty confident in CHTR & CMCSA's ability to take a lot of business from legacy MNO's. If it doesn't happen then it means Rutledge has wayyy overstated what CHTR is actually doing in wireless. I believe it makes much more sense to see how their mobile business is doing before they start investing heavily in mobile infrastructure. They will continue working on the best way to do it as they utilize and learn from the mvno/wifi combination. But as they (if they) approach say 5 million customers it makes more sense. In the meantime, both sides continue to posture (with cable in the stronger position right now but that could change quickly) to get the most favorable terms in the inevitable tie-ups that are coming. The economics are just way to compelling for it not to happen. Cam, don't take this the wrong way but you should definitely read the 3rd link in DD's post. Before reading I spent half hour on the author and concluded no obvious reasons for bias and very capable imo (i'm obviously bias in saying that even though I truly believe it, can't imagine what I would think of her had she wrote a negative cable article, lol). I can't wait until someone asks John Legere, ceo of T-Mobile what he now thinks about cable's foray into mobile. He laughed at the thought originally....I can't stand that guy!! By the way he talks you would think he has the biggest and best mobile network and cable network too. Where do these guys get the skill to, without shame, talk (and criticize) like they are sitting up top when they are undeniably at bottom? I'll take a look thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 CableCos and content providers and sports rights owners were all complicit. 5-6% compounded growth in fees or rights or subscriptions can't continue unabated for 20 years. Trees don't grow to the sky. Do you think that what they offer has also grown during that time? More channels? More expensive films and TV series? More niches served? More sports? Better image and sound quality (people don't realize that the switch to 1080P and then 4K meant more money had to be spent on physical sets and on CGI, on top of rising expectations for better versions of all those regardless of resolution)? The golden age of TV isn't free, someone has to pay for all those movie actors that are now doing TV, for realistic CGI and on-location shoots and movie quality scripts and all that.. The problem is that they bundle it all, so customers end up being over-served and paying more than they wish they would. But you definitely get a lot more today for the average subscription than you did 20 or 30 years ago. I agree. But I would say this, shrinking the bundle is not gonna help much with price. The reason you get so many channels for that price is the bundle. There is no other providers that can put a full package together at anywhere near those prices. Anyone that try's to get what they want a la carte quickly finds out how much a bargain the bundle really is. It's just that when you have 200 channels and only use 15, it's human nature to feel like you arent getting full value because your not using the product like you would other products so your natural reaction is that you must be paying too much. If people learned to measure the value in a different way, many people would appreciate the value more. And the terrible way customers have been treated historically makes the situation much worse!!! I don't understand why cable doesnt educate the public more, through their marketing communications, who is raising prices and capturing the margins and how to more accurately measure the value. I'm not a communications guy so I apologize if that's just the stupidist thing they could do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 True or False? Charter is becoming a 5G wireless provider & can offer better bundles than Verizon. --- Rutledge said this was what he wanted to do back in 2010 as COO of Cablevision. https://gigaom.com/2010/03/01/419-cablevision-sees-alternative-path-to-entering-the-wireless-market/ https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/charter-looks-beyond-mvno-model-as-it-prepares-to-launch-wireless-next-year He has also stated multiple times that he wants to (and apparently now can) offload as much traffic as possible to their own system instead of using Verizons network & that initially using the MVNO agreement was for testing purposes. --- https://newtmobile.com/content/uploads/2018/09/Competition-in-Wireless-Telecommunications-Michelle-Connolly.pdf Abridged version: --- https://www.bbcmag.com/rural-broadband/5g-is-not-the-answer-for-rural-broadband --- The NY lawsuit mansplained? With a few interesting data points. https://stopthecap.com/2017/02/16/charter-ceo-admits-may-sharing-internet-connection-499-neighbors/ --- I'm pretty confident in CHTR & CMCSA's ability to take a lot of business from legacy MNO's. If it doesn't happen then it means Rutledge has wayyy overstated what CHTR is actually doing in wireless. I believe it makes much more sense to see how their mobile business is doing before they start investing heavily in mobile infrastructure. They will continue working on the best way to do it as they utilize and learn from the mvno/wifi combination. But as they (if they) approach say 5 million customers it makes more sense. In the meantime, both sides continue to posture (with cable in the stronger position right now but that could change quickly) to get the most favorable terms in the inevitable tie-ups that are coming. The economics are just way to compelling for it not to happen. Cam, don't take this the wrong way but you should definitely read the 3rd link in DD's post. Before reading I spent half hour on the author and concluded no obvious reasons for bias and very capable imo (i'm obviously bias in saying that even though I truly believe it, can't imagine what I would think of her had she wrote a negative cable article, lol). I can't wait until someone asks John Legere, ceo of T-Mobile what he now thinks about cable's foray into mobile. He laughed at the thought originally....I can't stand that guy!! By the way he talks you would think he has the biggest and best mobile network and cable network too. Where do these guys get the skill to, without shame, talk (and criticize) like they are sitting up top when they are undeniably at bottom? I'll take a look thanks. I think you will be pleasantly surprised how the article also stresses the emerging threat from wireless broadband and how 20% of broadband customers already get their broadband entirely from their wireless plans. I do think that the standard combination at Charter with unlimited, very fast internet and their mobile offering for 135 bucks will prove to be a much more competitive product in comparison to whatever offer these people originally looked at and will be too good of an offer to pass up. I also wanted to paste one paragraph that I found particularly interesting....."Xfinity Mobile is currently only available to Comcast internet customers. Despite this initial limitation, and having only introduced this service in April of 2017, there were 781,000 Xfinity mobile subscribers by the end of the second quarter of 2018. The addition of 204,000 Xfinity subscribers in the second quarter of 2018 exceeded that of 199,000 at Verizon and 46,000 at AT&T.48" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glorysk87 Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 ^Just look at Europe. ADSL is a strictly inferior product than cable. But even if it costs just the same to build out, because telcos can offer it as a byproduct of fixed line buildout and it became culturally accepted, it damages the entire economics of cable in Europe. Profound misunderstanding of the cable business in Europe. The industry is fundamentally different. Cable access is generally either nationalized or regulated by the government. eg. Ofcom in the UK. The regulator then requires the owner of the infrastructure (following our UK example this would be BT) to allow access to its broadband network at wholesale rates. So the cable guys aren't able to achieve operating leverage like cable companies in the US are. That's why economics of cable sucks in Europe. It's also why the networks are upgraded painfully slowly, because there's no incentive to sink dollars into more fiber since they generally are unable to achieve attractive economics and operating leverage off those investments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 Can anyone tell me how much it is for an unlimited mobile plan for 1 person in the united states Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwy000 Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 Can anyone tell me how much it is for an unlimited mobile plan for 1 person in the united states It's not quite that simple. T-Mobile has unlimited for $70. You can probably get cheaper from a Straight Talk or other MVNO. But all of these plans have various levels of throttling above a usage limit (50gbs for the tmobile plan). In addition, using the phone as a hotspot will have other throttling limits and is generally on 3G instead of 4G. You can't really compare them to in home broadband which (for the most part) in the US is either unlimited or with such high limits very few people will come close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 ^Just look at Europe. ADSL is a strictly inferior product than cable. But even if it costs just the same to build out, because telcos can offer it as a byproduct of fixed line buildout and it became culturally accepted, it damages the entire economics of cable in Europe. Profound misunderstanding of the cable business in Europe. The industry is fundamentally different. Cable access is generally either nationalized or regulated by the government. eg. Ofcom in the UK. The regulator then requires the owner of the infrastructure (following our UK example this would be BT) to allow access to its broadband network at wholesale rates. So the cable guys aren't able to achieve operating leverage like cable companies in the US are. That's why economics of cable sucks in Europe. It's also why the networks are upgraded painfully slowly, because there's no incentive to sink dollars into more fiber since they generally are unable to achieve attractive economics and operating leverage off those investments. Glory, do u have an idea as to why things changed. What happened that caused customer growth to slow and the competitive environment to get tough, in a lot of countries and all close to the same time? Also, when you say the economics are way worse, you should explain that because ebitda margins are way higher (presumably because programming cost differences) which I believe makes ROIC similar to the states. My knowledge of Europe is lacking a little so any commentary would be appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 Can anyone tell me how much it is for an unlimited mobile plan for 1 person in the united states It's not quite that simple. T-Mobile has unlimited for $70. You can probably get cheaper from a Straight Talk or other MVNO. But all of these plans have various levels of throttling above a usage limit (50gbs for the tmobile plan). In addition, using the phone as a hotspot will have other throttling limits and is generally on 3G instead of 4G. You can't really compare them to in home broadband which (for the most part) in the US is either unlimited or with such high limits very few people will come close. Thank you, I realize that you cant make a good comparison in terms of capacity. However, if 2 mobile phone plans are just as expensive as Charter's combination of mobile and Fixed broadband, then you can probably conclude a migration is likely. I realize that maybe Charter's mobile will not be as good in terms of service quality (I'm not sure of this) but you have true unlimited mobile with Charter. Plus u are basically getting a higher quality unlimited fixed broadband. The cfo just described that on one of their calls for 135 bucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spekulatius Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 Can anyone tell me how much it is for an unlimited mobile plan for 1 person in the united states It's not quite that simple. T-Mobile has unlimited for $70. You can probably get cheaper from a Straight Talk or other MVNO. But all of these plans have various levels of throttling above a usage limit (50gbs for the tmobile plan). In addition, using the phone as a hotspot will have other throttling limits and is generally on 3G instead of 4G. You can't really compare them to in home broadband which (for the most part) in the US is either unlimited or with such high limits very few people will come close. Cheapest I have seen in the US from an MVNO for 5GB (not unlimited) on ATT network is $220/year/person. My family (3 of us) are on such a plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 Can anyone tell me how much it is for an unlimited mobile plan for 1 person in the united states It's not quite that simple. T-Mobile has unlimited for $70. You can probably get cheaper from a Straight Talk or other MVNO. But all of these plans have various levels of throttling above a usage limit (50gbs for the tmobile plan). In addition, using the phone as a hotspot will have other throttling limits and is generally on 3G instead of 4G. You can't really compare them to in home broadband which (for the most part) in the US is either unlimited or with such high limits very few people will come close. Cheapest I have seen in the US from an MVNO for 5GB (not unlimited) on ATT network is $220/year/person. My family (3 of us) are on such a plan. Much appreciated. But that isnt going to be sufficient for your broadband needs, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 Can anyone tell me how much it is for an unlimited mobile plan for 1 person in the united states It's not quite that simple. T-Mobile has unlimited for $70. You can probably get cheaper from a Straight Talk or other MVNO. But all of these plans have various levels of throttling above a usage limit (50gbs for the tmobile plan). In addition, using the phone as a hotspot will have other throttling limits and is generally on 3G instead of 4G. You can't really compare them to in home broadband which (for the most part) in the US is either unlimited or with such high limits very few people will come close. Cheapest I have seen in the US from an MVNO for 5GB (not unlimited) on ATT network is $220/year/person. My family (3 of us) are on such a plan. Much appreciated. But that isnt going to be sufficient for your broadband needs, correct? And you have to wonder how in the world the mvno is making any money whatsoever. If I remember correctly, the cable cos are paying 5 dollars a gig wholesale, monthly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spekulatius Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 Can anyone tell me how much it is for an unlimited mobile plan for 1 person in the united states It's not quite that simple. T-Mobile has unlimited for $70. You can probably get cheaper from a Straight Talk or other MVNO. But all of these plans have various levels of throttling above a usage limit (50gbs for the tmobile plan). In addition, using the phone as a hotspot will have other throttling limits and is generally on 3G instead of 4G. You can't really compare them to in home broadband which (for the most part) in the US is either unlimited or with such high limits very few people will come close. Cheapest I have seen in the US from an MVNO for 5GB (not unlimited) on ATT network is $220/year/person. My family (3 of us) are on such a plan. Much appreciated. But that isnt going to be sufficient for your broadband needs, correct? No, it’s not. We have separate broadband (Fios) for 100 MPs for $50/month. That’s a very typical price for broadband. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WayWardCloud Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 Since we're doing anecdotal I have Spectrum broadband at 400mb/20mb for $70/m + Google Fi for $20/m + $10 per Gig on their Sprint/T-Mobile MVNO and I usually spend 2Gb/m so total for my phone is around $40/m. I don't know how to measure my home broadband utilization rate but I' guess it's over 1 TB/m. I considered signing up for Spectrum's 1G plan but couldn't justify the price of $110/m. What would make me pay that price would be a symmetrical 1G connection bundled with a big cloud storage space (10TB+) and a powerful file sharing system (think WeTransfer but for 50GB+ files). Wouldn't it be cool if Spectrum took their higher tier seriously and added that kind of "pro" options? There's tons of features to bundle with the broadband access. Yes, I said BUNDLE :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorpioncapital Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 Within the field of commodity type services or products there is a wide spread. People tend to lump commodity products or services in the same basket but this is not the case. For example - food products. 110% commodified...but there is huge personal preference within that group. And now with say gluten free eating and speciality products you can actually have islands of advantage within a very liquid commodity field. Turning to something like broadband delivery , here you have a product which I think most people do not care where it comes from as long as it meets just three variables, speed, total limit, and cost. In a way, it is an ultra-commodity. Completely uniform for the most part. Without some duopoly structure or protection of return on investment by governments, these businesses could compete to the point of not profitable. We see a little more of this dynamic in europe than the usa. 5G may add the variable of untethering, or seamless spatial integration which may cater to some lifestyles and IoT. Still, for the retail home user the 3 variables are key. But this doesn't mean a new entrant can't come in, subsidized - perhaps foolishly by a government and destroy the other business. We don't know what will happen but I think this is alot more like utility investing. Perhaps we can look to utilities to see how that has played out. Although in that field, local energy resources don't change so much. New sources of energy don't pop up overnight to serve a population. In fact, in energy, unless the costs make sense, it is very unlikely to ever displace the current utility companies. Perhaps it will be similar in broadband. As for cable video/channels, I'm already writing this off as a semi-dead business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 Within the field of commodity type services or products there is a wide spread. People tend to lump commodity products or services in the same basket but this is not the case. For example - food products. 110% commodified...but there is huge personal preference within that group. And now with say gluten free eating and speciality products you can actually have islands of advantage within a very liquid commodity field. Turning to something like broadband delivery , here you have a product which I think most people do not care where it comes from as long as it meets just three variables, speed, total limit, and cost. In a way, it is an ultra-commodity. Completely uniform for the most part. Without some duopoly structure or protection of return on investment by governments, these businesses could compete to the point of not profitable. We see a little more of this dynamic in europe than the usa. 5G may add the variable of untethering, or seamless spatial integration which may cater to some lifestyles and IoT. Still, for the retail home user the 3 variables are key. But this doesn't mean a new entrant can't come in, subsidized - perhaps foolishly by a government and destroy the other business. We don't know what will happen but I think this is alot more like utility investing. Perhaps we can look to utilities to see how that has played out. Although in that field, local energy resources don't change so much. New sources of energy don't pop up overnight to serve a population. In fact, in energy, unless the costs make sense, it is very unlikely to ever displace the current utility companies. Perhaps it will be similar in broadband. As for cable video/channels, I'm already writing this off as a semi-dead business. Obviously well known but utility rates are regulated and you have to work like hell to get a cost advantage that only helps regulator acceptance into new markets. As I have said repeatedly, cable has some important (cost advantage looks durable for forseeable future) advantages in a market thats not price regulated. Charters footprint includes roughly 55-60 percent of households that have only them to provide more than 25 mbps speeds. So there are barriers protecting the quality of the product as well. This second advantage may be less durable, but that is speculation at this point. Yes 5G can offer competitive speeds maybe but it won't be as reliable and who knows how long it will take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 I agree. But I would say this, shrinking the bundle is not gonna help much with price. The reason you get so many channels for that price is the bundle. There is no other providers that can put a full package together at anywhere near those prices. Anyone that try's to get what they want a la carte quickly finds out how much a bargain the bundle really is. It's just that when you have 200 channels and only use 15, it's human nature to feel like you arent getting full value because your not using the product like you would other products so your natural reaction is that you must be paying too much. If people learned to measure the value in a different way, many people would appreciate the value more. And the terrible way customers have been treated historically makes the situation much worse!!! I don't understand why cable doesnt educate the public more, through their marketing communications, who is raising prices and capturing the margins and how to more accurately measure the value. I'm not a communications guy so I apologize if that's just the stupidist thing they could do. I generally agree. I've heard it described as the bundle being a rare case of "socialism that works". The biggest difference might be for people who don't want sports but are currently paying for them through a bundle, since sports are quite expensive. Also, crappy channels that don't have a very good value proposition but have been able to free-load on more popular channels will also have a hard time, and could help bring down costs a bit (or at least redirect it to more valuable content through VOD where explicit demand is more obvious). But I still think the bundle will fall and almost everything will move over to VOD over time, except for inherently live experiences (sports, some live shows and events). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 This recent quote from Altice CEO (in response to the question of his latest views on the 5G threat) is potentially a bias view but is consistent with the overwhelming majority of material that I have researched....."Well, I mean, listen, this is a -- we keep on getting asked the same question. I think there's a couple of things. One, our demographic is probably the most insulated demographic relative to somebody trying to launch 5G in the near term and trying to substitute our fixed-line broadband product with a 5G product. Because we have a FiOS overbuild and because we're in -- Suddenlink footprint in very less dense rural areas. But by and large, if you really look at all the material around it, all the discussions around 5G, all the timetables associated with it and really nailing down the true performance on a long, big breadth of footprint, it seems like this is something that still remains quite materially far off, number one. Number two, it's going to cost a significant amount of capital and time to deploy a deep fiber network to the pole effectively, in order to be able to deliver the types of speeds that we've tested in our sister company and they've tested in their labs and tested in very, very small increments that Verizon has in its 4 cities that they've launched in. So I think this is going to be a kind of a slow burn for quite some time, but we'll be watching and seeing what's out there. I just do think that outside of the time and capital outlay that they require, and even if our footprint is insulated, the business plan, from our standpoint, looks shaky in terms of what they actually are going to be competing against when they start launching a product in any breadth to be speaking about. Particularly, as we're seeing our average download -- downloaded amount of data increasing 25% year-over-year, our average usage is about 240 gigs now and that's growing 20% a year. Our average speeds today are 160 mg and that's growing 20%, 25% a year, but in massive increments because you start moving people from 200 mg entry-level product, 90%, 95% of our gross adds are taking 200 mg or above. Now we're starting pushing them to 300, 300 to 400 mg and above. Those types of step change movements are going to be regular over the next several years, and I don't think we're the only ones doing that. I think our friendly peers in the MVPD world are doing the same products. So when you start launching something of any meaningful sense on 5G, what are you going to be up against in terms of speeds, amount of downloaded data, no caps, those types of things and real performance of the product. I think it's going to be difficult given the price points, right?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogermunibond Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 CableCos and content providers and sports rights owners were all complicit. 5-6% compounded growth in fees or rights or subscriptions can't continue unabated for 20 years. Trees don't grow to the sky. Do you think that what they offer has also grown during that time? More channels? More expensive films and TV series? More niches served? More sports? Better image and sound quality (people don't realize that the switch to 1080P and then 4K meant more money had to be spent on physical sets and on CGI, on top of rising expectations for better versions of all those regardless of resolution)? The golden age of TV isn't free, someone has to pay for all those movie actors that are now doing TV, for realistic CGI and on-location shoots and movie quality scripts and all that.. The problem is that they bundle it all, so customers end up being over-served and paying more than they wish they would. But you definitely get a lot more today for the average subscription than you did 20 or 30 years ago. First the bundle isn't socialism. It's microeconomics. That's why it works. So IMO there are a couple things that broke the bundle. 1) ESPN/DIS pricing power, 2) RSN local pricing power, 3) network affiliate fees ruling (kind of disagree with allowing this, 4) set top fees. I don't think most cable users should have to bear the cost for digital-1080P-4K transitions. Those aren't requested by customers. Digital was somewhat mandated, but the other two were pushed by the flat panel makers (Sony, Samsung, LG, Panasonic, Vizio). I think cable didn't make the case for better integration with the equipment manufacturers. Why keep the set top box separate from the display? They should license that to the display manufacturers and lower costs for everyone. But they like the equipment depreciation and rents they get from charging $120/yr. Docsis 3.1 improvements are funded collectively - plant equipment costs for upgrading to Docsis 3.1 should be part of the cost of business. Not passed onto subs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 First the bundle isn't socialism. It's microeconomics. That's why it works. That was a quip, Roger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 CableCos and content providers and sports rights owners were all complicit. 5-6% compounded growth in fees or rights or subscriptions can't continue unabated for 20 years. Trees don't grow to the sky. Do you think that what they offer has also grown during that time? More channels? More expensive films and TV series? More niches served? More sports? Better image and sound quality (people don't realize that the switch to 1080P and then 4K meant more money had to be spent on physical sets and on CGI, on top of rising expectations for better versions of all those regardless of resolution)? The golden age of TV isn't free, someone has to pay for all those movie actors that are now doing TV, for realistic CGI and on-location shoots and movie quality scripts and all that.. The problem is that they bundle it all, so customers end up being over-served and paying more than they wish they would. But you definitely get a lot more today for the average subscription than you did 20 or 30 years ago. First the bundle isn't socialism. It's microeconomics. That's why it works. So IMO there are a couple things that broke the bundle. 1) ESPN/DIS pricing power, 2) RSN local pricing power, 3) network affiliate fees ruling (kind of disagree with allowing this, 4) set top fees. I don't think most cable users should have to bear the cost for digital-1080P-4K transitions. Those aren't requested by customers. Digital was somewhat mandated, but the other two were pushed by the flat panel makers (Sony, Samsung, LG, Panasonic, Vizio). I think cable didn't make the case for better integration with the equipment manufacturers. Why keep the set top box separate from the display? They should license that to the display manufacturers and lower costs for everyone. But they like the equipment depreciation and rents they get from charging $120/yr. Docsis 3.1 improvements are funded collectively - plant equipment costs for upgrading to Docsis 3.1 should be part of the cost of business. Not passed onto subs. Roger, you missed probably the biggest factor responsible for the increased pricing and that is broadcast retransmision fees which didn't even exist not to long ago and have now grown to be huge. I know you probably include that in ur 3rd bullet but I wanted to mention it anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogermunibond Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 Vince - yeah the same thing - network affiliate fee or broadcast retrans fee. The former is what station owners call it so I used that term. Liberty - oh ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now