That's what I don't get about these skinny packages. It's still a bundle of channels just fewer channels. I'd rather get more channels and know I'm getting the ones I want than fewer and am missing ones I frequently watch.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Enlists Networks to Negotiate With Local Affiliates in Streaming TV Talks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not necessarily to the consumers. But, it's extremely important to the broadcasters that operate the local channels. Every person they lose to a streaming service is a set of eyeballs they can't sell to their advertisers, and it reduces their revenue.
The National Association of Broadcasters is very powerful on Capitol Hill. It's the reason that DirecTV and Dish Network have to dedicate a lot of bandwidth to re-broadcast local TV stations to customers that are within the broadcasters reception area. They can't just broadcast a network feed directly from CBS/ABC/FOX/NBC.
I always thought this was a huge waste of bandwidth: DirecTV and Dish should have just negotiated a larger payment to the local broadcaster for every subscriber, and transmit the network feed. They could have offset some of the cost by selling commercials in the spots normally reserved for local commercials. And, they would have been able to deliver a high-bandwidth feed, instead of the compressed crap they deliver now. Of course, subscribers wouldn't get the local news, but these days I don't think that's a real problem.
Apple TV has the same problem: they can't stream CBS/ABC/FOX/NBC programmers to someone that lives in a broadcaster's footprint. They have to stream the local broadcaster's signal, unless they are able to negotiate a payment like I proposed above.
No, it's not to pay $0, it's to pay less. Content creators aren't giving this stuff away. Cable cutting will also allow for the content you want, not the 100 channels you've never heard of and won't watch.
You are wrong.
The basic idea of cable or cord cutting is to avoid paying for the ever-increasing overpriced content from providers that have very little competition. It is not paying $0. By your logic, services like Netflix would be considered the same thing as a cable company.
With the average price of TV (not counting internet) service in the U.S. costing over $120 a month, paying a fraction of that would be ideal for many people, although maybe not all.
How would you be better off not cutting cable if you are one of the people paying double, triple, or more for service that you could get via Apple, Netflix, Hulu or others?
AT&T (and Verizon) is effectively a cable franchise. Under federal law, broadcasters can either offer their signal for free (and it must be carried in the reception area), or they can require a fee and it's the cable companies choice to carry it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry#United_States
Apple TV Tip of The Day I want to like this, but like most Americans I'd still be paying Comcast for internet service. In my current plan, it was actually cheaper to bundle cable and internet than to get internet alone. Unfortunately I don't see this being cost-effective for most people and I don't think Apple will bring anything new to the table to make it worth it.
I'm happy with Netflix, Hulu and HBONOW. but I would like a cooking channel to start streaming like foodnetwork for my wife.
I don't know who would want just regular stations like fox and abc and stuff do they offer better "cable" like channels now? I don't watch tv much these days.
I don't know who would want just regular stations like fox and abc and stuff do they offer better "cable" like channels now? I don't watch tv much these days.
Hahahaha! You're a genius! Wait 60 years and bring that and terrestrial radio back. You'll be w billionaire.
I'd rather a la carte, but the fact that this is on demand, and I can presumably watch it on my other devices no matter where I'm at is a huge plus. I can watch live, or watch on demand, anywhere. Also, I don't have to deal with a terrible interface, bad customer service, dumb technicians, or additional hardware. Sounds like a win to me.
A locally broadcast channel is only "free" if the broadcaster offers to the cable company for free. If they do so, the cable company must carry it.
The broadcaster can demand a per-subscriber fee, but the cable company then has the choice whether to carry the channel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry#United_States
AT&T already has local channel contracts. And, it's not available everywhere.
I've wanted cord cutting options for years, but a terrible reality is coming to fruition...it ain't gonna be cheap!
Yes, the right for the public to get them is FREE - but the right to RE-BROADCAST them for money is not free.
Thanks for your much more polite correction, without starting off your reply post with "You are wrong.".
Apple ABSOLUTELY MUST make this BETTER than cable! NO COMMERCIALS/ADS! PERIOD. ...Netflix is without commercials...and THAT is why it is the most popular subscription service!!
At the very least we better be able to SKIP COMMERCIALS...with cable/sat. one can skip or fast forward commercials, not so with the free channels on Apple TV.
One thing with watching any TV show via the internet, whether it's on a computer or set-top box, they all make it so that you cannot skip or fast forward past the ads. They are slipping this by people without most seeming to notice!!
Many reading this may not remember or be old enough to know, when Cable TV started, you paid for TV that was without commercials, and that is what we need to go back to...pay for TV, no commercials...free TV, have to put up with commercials. End of discussion.
I will not pay for Apple TV channels if it means no way around commercials!!
EVERYONE DEMAND NO COMMERCIALS!
http://www.apple.com/feedback/appletv.html
At the very least we better be able to SKIP COMMERCIALS...with cable/sat. one can skip or fast forward commercials, not so with the free channels on Apple TV.
One thing with watching any TV show via the internet, whether it's on a computer or set-top box, they all make it so that you cannot skip or fast forward past the ads. They are slipping this by people without most seeming to notice!!
Many reading this may not remember or be old enough to know, when Cable TV started, you paid for TV that was without commercials, and that is what we need to go back to...pay for TV, no commercials...free TV, have to put up with commercials. End of discussion.
I will not pay for Apple TV channels if it means no way around commercials!!
EVERYONE DEMAND NO COMMERCIALS!
http://www.apple.com/feedback/appletv.html
No, that's not when it "only" free. It's free anytime it is broadcast over public spectrum and I am within range of their signal. As it happens to be, upwards of 80% of the US population are within range of a signal.
It is to me!!! Even though I live 8 miles from "the towers", I get crappy signal due to buildings blocking/reflecting the signal. Every time a commuter train goes by my tv freezes and even completely loses the station. And no, I cannot use an outside antenna because I rent and cannot drill holes in the wall to feed the cable through. So now I have to subscribe to U-Verse to get the local (and national) feeds clearly.
So yes...it can be important to a lot of us. Then the question becomes...is it going to be any cheaper to use an Apple TV service than U-Verse, probably not or marginally at best. Apple TV service will have to offer something to differentiate it from other options. How about iCloud DVR function?
What are you talking about?
It costs over $100/month for cable or satellite service right now. Up to $150 or $200/month depending on the channels you get. Dropping the price to less than $50 is amazing.
Yes. I have no desire to deal with antennas and figure out how to get the stream fed into my Apple TV (I have tried before). Hulu is a nice option and it will handle most of my needs but it is not complete and there is no live option which is important to some. I prefer delayed for 90% and my dream would be to have a cost option to pay for no commercials (at the right price). To be clear my family watch a not of network TV.
Yes a huge plus if we can watch live TV, especially sports, on any device, anywhere, anytime. But I'll believe that when I see it.
It's cheap if you are willing to settle for cheaply produced content in relatively high supply but low demand e.g. web shows on vimeo, youtube, etc. These are options you never had in years past.
If you want Game of Thrones.... well, prepare to pay accordingly.
You are welcome to your opinion. But, I'm citing federal law. If you don't like it, write your Congressman.
But, as I pointed out earlier: the National Association of Broadcasters is very powerful on Capitol Hill.