Verizon: Traditional TV is Dead Verizon has always been a little less "head in the sand" about the cord cutting revolution than many of its contemporaries. While many cable operators spent years trying to pretend that cord cutting either wasn't happening or wasn't important, Verizon has long acknowledged the rise of cheaper streaming alternatives is a very real, very large paradigm shift. After all, even some Verizon execs have admitted they cut the cord, and you'll recall Verizon was sued by ESPN for daring to offer what many consumers want: cheaper TV bundles without expensive sports programming.

Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam reiterated that the company knows where the future is going, and it's not traditional "linear" television. "We made our bet several years ago before we bought AOL and Yahoo and combined them together to do Oath that we weren’t going to be investing in the linear TV model,” McAdam told attendees of a presentation at an industry event. “I’ve said this a couple of times, I think the linear model is dead, it’s just going to take a long time to die ." Verizon has long been trying to cook up its own streaming video alternative to traditional cable, but the company has had difficulty securing the licensing rights to get its dream product off the ground, and now seems resigned to partnering with another, existing streaming service when it launches 5G services over the next few years. “Our view is we should partner with those that are in the linear game, let them be very good at what they do," McAdam said in an interview this week. “We’ll add digital content to that mix and we’ll position ourselves for where we become more of an over-the-top video culture versus the linear model that we have today." And with Verizon successfully having killed net neutrality as of June 11, there's an ocean of "creative" ways that Verizon can give its own service an advantage in what's becoming a crowded streaming market. Whatever Verizon's streaming alternative looks like, McAdam said it's slated to launch in the fourth quarter of this year. And with Verizon successfully having killed net neutrality as of June 11, there's an ocean of "creative" ways that Verizon can give its own service an advantage in what's becoming a crowded streaming market. Whatever Verizon's streaming alternative looks like, McAdam said it's slated to launch in the fourth quarter of this year.







News Jump WISPs Get CBRS Range As Great As Six Miles At 100 Mbps Speeds; Windstream Officially Exits Bankruptcy; + more news Charter Relaunches Free 60-day Internet And Wi-Fi Offer; NCTA: FCC Should Stick With 25/3 Speed Threshold; + more news Comcast Shuts Off Internet for Subs Who Were Sold Service Illegally; AT&T, Verizon Team To Stop T-Mobile 5G; + more news California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 58 comments

Frodo

join:2006-05-05 11 recommendations Frodo Member Internet Protocol Whether it is telephone, television, or something else that I can't think of at the moment, all of it is moving towards being delivered over an Internet Protocol pipeline, wired or wireless. 5G should take care of any bottlenecks in the wireless department.



The only way I see the cable companies counteracting that is to start allowing ali-carte channel selection instead of requiring people to subscribe to channels they have no intention of watching.

maartena

Elmo

Premium Member

join:2002-05-10

Orange, CA 7 recommendations maartena Premium Member TCP/IP As Frodo above is also saying, we are headed to a world where homes will have a Internet connection, and everything, all sorts of services, including voice and video, will be delivered over TCP/IP.



The old style "channels in a grid guide" we have been accustomed to since the 1950s when the grids were printed in the paper, to the 1980s with the "TV Guide Channel", and the 2000s with digital TV and DVR's with the same grid guides.... is going to disappear. While there will be always a need for live programming such as sports and news, eventually ALL pre-recorded programming and content will simply be available as an on-demand service from some library.



The current OTT offerings of smaller amounts of channels for less money delivered over TCP/IP, is only a stop-gap measure between old-style linear cable and what will eventually be a 90% delivery of content on demand.



At this moment in time, "cord cutting" is largely driven by the wish to save money in exchange for less channels, and a more flexible way of watching them - such as on different types of devices in different locations. But there are also plenty of cord cutters who have "channels" type service whatsoever, and are already pretty much completely "on-demand".



Some people call it "Cable 2.0", such as our staunch anonymous @rr.com "Cable 1.0" defender. And if that's a term that sticks, fine. But by now, it should be clear that "Cable 1.0" providers aren't going to be flexible to its customers. And to them there is only one message: Step aside and make way for the future. Your services are no longer required. SArcanine

join:2009-11-09

New York 7 recommendations SArcanine Member This is for shareholders He is saying this to keep share prices from suffering because of the losses in TV subscribers. If internet subscriptions were to drop, he would say the same about that. The only thing that matters to Verizon under their current CEO is wireless. Lazlow

join:2006-08-07

Saint Louis, MO 5 recommendations Lazlow Member ATSC 3.0 While I agree that cable 1.0 is dying, I think broadcast (OTA 3.0) TV has a good chance of survival. Although I think their OTT linkages will fail. The changes in signal methods should regain the coverage area that was lost in the digital transition. The ability for each market to easily carry 30+ channels should be (depending on the channels) a strong (or stronger) incentive to drop current cable.



Where (or when) it could get interesting is after traditional cable drops significantly (30% or less). Channels that are now cable only (nationally) may consider moving to broadcast. Companies like Sinclair have the station footprint and the resources to take channels like TBS, WGN, or similar, to a national broadcast channel. It all depends on how the economics drop out. People who like OTT do not like commercials (who does) but they are also unlikely to want to pay a subscription for that type of content. Leaving an opening for OTA. Also as OTT becomes the norm the price of internet is likely to sky-rocket, either directly or through the use of caps. IF ATSC 3.0 is handled properly, it MAY be able to prevent this. en103

join:2011-05-02 3 recommendations en103 Member Verizon is basically correct Why is anyone wanting to pay for 'traditional' TV service. Most 'traditional' TV services start at $40/month (promo) and end up being at least $60 to$100 depending on what packages/features you want.

There is the old statement of '500 channels and nothing on' which is mostly true.



The only reason that I currently have 'traditional' TV is due to bundling.

My 'complete' bundle of 300/20 with 2 tiers, OnDemand and unlimited phone is $147 after tax/fees.

Internet 300/20 is 'normally' $104.99 (would be bumped to 400/20), but I have a $10/month 'bundle' discount as well as a $30/month for 36 month promo discount.

Packeteers

Premium Member

join:2005-06-18

Forest Hills, NY ·Verizon FiOS

·Charter

Asus RT-AC3100

(Software) Asuswrt-Merlin

2 recommendations Packeteers Premium Member lucky me i'm so glad i can get fios knowing the company does not chase after tv pipe dreams that end up being subsidized by my internet only subscription like you see with charter and others. hopefully verizon won't neglect their isp only customers by giving us better speeds for less money and not wasting so much money on marketing bundle play junk to us we clearly don't want from them. in addition if verizon ends up partnering with a major streamer such as sony vue - let's hope they pass along their bulk purchase buying to the end users, like getting sony vue $10/mo less thru verizon fios than i could using another isp. yeah, i know it's all wishful thinking, but today's new increases the chance my wish may come true microphone

Premium Member

join:2009-04-29

Parkville, MD 2 recommendations microphone Premium Member Make cable entirely a la carte Allow 15 free viewing minutes per month of every channel in the system per month. This will allow people to discover channels they may not be aware of. Allow customers to subscribe/unsubscribe at the remote and online. Subscriptions to a channel would last for an agreed upon time interval. Provide discounts for subscribing to multiple channels within a group. Provide discounts for subscribing to a channel for longer time intervals.



Simple.

jmn1207

Premium Member

join:2000-07-19

Sterling, VA 2 recommendations jmn1207 Premium Member Channels Going Away Clearly Verizon is not spending any more money on traditional TV. It seems like every week there is a new message about channels disappearing with an excuse blaming the content providers asking for too much money. At this point, I would not be surprised if major channels went away after the next contract negotiations come up.



My bill continues to increase, so at least some traditions are solidly entrenched. Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO 2 recommendations Skippy25 Member Embrace it or suffer Whether the traditional licensing system likes it or not, they are going to need to figure out a way to embrace it. If they don't, people will take the path of least resistance and start using sites/services that get around their licensing shenanigans.



I personally, want one portal I can go to and get any content I want without paying an arm and a leg for it. If that means the portal itself has to license and work with many different company's streaming apps and be transparent to me, then so be it. If they can't or won't do that, then I will use alternatives that allow for it.



Ultimately, I think what is going to need to happen is content owners/creators are going to have to stop being so adamant about not changing anything in the way of licensing and start rethink how they want to license their material that is still beneficial to them, but also beneficial to their potential consumers.