ESPN argues against a la carte television programming

[minidarren]

To accommodate the increasing size of high definition video content/streaming carriers typically need to update the cable to each home from bandwidth-limited copper, to fiber optic cable. Other upgrades to the network are also required to maintain speed, signal integrity, switching, synching, mobile/cell, etc.

You know this how?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

 

[itgoeslike]

You know this how?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

OK, you got me, I made it up. . . no, actually, I develop technology solutions for related industries. What sounded so outlandish in my response?

 

[minidarren]

I am referring to companies running fiber to the home.

Nothing sounded outlandish other than the fact that there is only one company positioned to do such a thing.

Verizon has I believe one town in in CT where their Fios is offered. AT&T is still hanging copper for their service and have announced they are no longer extending their Uverse services out to additional subs. Verizon has told investors the same. See below.

Technologies exist for HFC plants to insane speeds over existing coax.

Cable providers have prepared for a shift to wireless products by purchasing wireless spectrum at the AWS auctions. The spectrum later to be traded for a partnership with VZW. This leaves AT&T to play by themselves.

http://www.ntca.org/new-edge/video/att-no-more-u-verse-build-out

http://stopthecap.com/2012/09/25/ve...nt-franchise-obligations-cfo-tells-investors/

http://transition.fcc.gov/transaction/verizonwireless-spectrumcocox.html

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

 

[itgoeslike]

I am referring to companies running fiber to the home.

Nothing sounded outlandish other than the fact that there is only one company positioned to do such a thing.

Verizon has I believe one town in in CT where their Fios is offered. AT&T is still hanging copper for their service and have announced they are no longer extending their Uverse services out to additional subs. Verizon has told investors the same. See below.

Technologies exist for HFC plants to insane speeds over existing coax.

Cable providers have prepared for a shift to wireless products by purchasing wireless spectrum at the AWS auctions. The spectrum later to be traded for a partnership with VZW. This leaves AT&T to play by themselves.

http://www.ntca.org/new-edge/video/att-no-more-u-verse-build-out

http://stopthecap.com/2012/09/25/ve...nt-franchise-obligations-cfo-tells-investors/

http://transition.fcc.gov/transaction/verizonwireless-spectrumcocox.html

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

The cost of running fiber is expensive, especially to each home, and there has been battle over who should bear the cost. Having said that, fiber still needs be run, even to accommodate wireless technologies, perhaps not to each home, but in most cases they will get it close. In my response, I started writing about other alternative technologies, including wireless, but thought it would be a bit long-winded and overkill and opted to delete (mistake). I did mention mobile/cellular infrastructure. I also mentioned "WiMax" earlier. I happen to be in the wireless camp.

New technology, whether its compression, preserving signal integrity over distance (including copper), integration of wireless, etc., will temper the costs. But at the end of the day, telecom companies will still need to spend some money to accommodate larger files and increased traffic, whether landline or wireless. Also, the last article you copied me on talks about integrating wireline and wireless products (obviously mobile is driving this).

 

[whaler11]

Took me a couple of days to remember where I read it...

Cable providers consider cutting out sports to lower your TV bill: http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/15/4524502/sports-networks-a-la-carte-high-costs-att-csn-houston

>>Sports programming is driving up your television bill, and cable providers aren't happy about it. Though football, basketball, and baseball may seem to be some of the most watched content around, that's far from the truth: TV tracking firm Nielsen found that only four percent of households tune in to watch sports outside of the NFL, reports The Wall Street Journal. But despite the low viewership, cable providers are paying disproportionately huge sums in order to carry networks like ESPN — and they're passing those costs along to consumers.<<

In any respect, lotsa conversations and opinions being floated.

Only 4% of households watch any sports outside of the NFL? Come on, there is no way that's true. Individual teams pull that in their markets. Hell we have a women's basketball team that pulls higher ratings than that. Ohio State pulls 20 ratings for games against Akron in Columbus.

Game 7 of the NBA Finals just got a 17.7 rating nationally.

I doubt that's what the WSJ article says but it's behind the pay wall.

 

[huskymedic]

Only 4% of households watch any sports outside of the NFL? Come on, there is no way that's true. Individual teams pull that in their markets. Hell we have a women's basketball team that pulls higher ratings than that. Ohio State pulls 20 ratings for games against Akron in Columbus.

Game 7 of the NBA Finals just got a 17.7 rating nationally.

I doubt that's what the WSJ article says but it's behind the pay wall.

It actually does say it:

>>It is a well-kept secret of sports on television: Aside from the National Football League and the biggest games of the year in a handful of other sports, such as Tuesday night's Major League Baseball All-Star Game, the TV audience for sports is tiny, amounting to about 4% or less of households on average, according to media-research firm Nielsen's data provided by a major media company. Less than 3% of households with television in any given market, on average, will tune in to watch their hometown National Basketball Association teams play, and less than 2% will watch their National Hockey League teams.

Yet in the average market, sports channels such as ESPN and regional sports networks account for 19.5% of fees paid by cable and satellite operators, according to media-research firm SNL Kagan. The average monthly cable bill in the U.S., before taxes, is now $73.44, Kagan estimates.<<

Interview and WSJ Story. Not a SME to vouch for accuracy or how they compiled data from Nielsen.

 

[whaler11]

Saying that only 4% of households tune into sports that aren't the NFL and saying the average rating for other sports is around 4 aren't even close to the same thing.

I'm not sure you could come to a more incorrect conclusion.

 

[huskymedic]

Saying that only 4% of households tune into sports that aren't the NFL and saying the average rating for other sports is around 4 aren't even close to the same thing.

I'm not sure you could come to a more incorrect conclusion.

Write the WSJ...

 

[whaler11]

Write the WSJ...

It wasn't the WSJ that said that it was the first linked article that referenced it.

 

[Vowelguy]

Consumers and most content owners want a-la-cart programming.

I don't. I discover new channels and new shows all the time. If the biz goes a la carte, all the smaller and niche channels will die.

 

[junglehusky]

If you think you'd get the volume and quality of content a-la-carte that you get today...

If you think you'll be able to stream programming paying what you pay for the internet today...

Be careful what you wish for.

Volume and quality of content... like what? I know there are folks out there who still watch sitcoms, melodrama, and reality TV, but the only things I find worthwhile to watch are a handful of "golden age of TV" shows like Mad Men or Walking Dead in addition to live sports. I suppose I'd watch some PBS shows if I had cable but a lot of those you can even watch on their website. Now - I would revive my comcast subscription, or get satellite if I buy a house, if I can get a package of internet and TV including sports channels for ~100 bucks. $130-150 a month is too much, (at least as long as episodes of Mad Men and Game of Thrones are available through alternate means).

 

[whaler11]

Volume and quality of content... like what? I know there are folks out there who still watch sitcoms, melodrama, and reality TV, but the only things I find worthwhile to watch are a handful of "golden age of TV" shows like Mad Men or Walking Dead in addition to live sports. I suppose I'd watch some PBS shows if I had cable but a lot of those you can even watch on their website. Now - I would revive my comcast subscription, or get satellite if I buy a house, if I can get a package of internet and TV including sports channels for ~100 bucks. $130-150 a month is too much, (at least as long as episodes of Mad Men and Game of Thrones are available through alternate means).

Everyone has their own threshold. I'd much rather keep the current system and access from one place rather than piecing together a bunch of online subscriptions.

As for what will be gone. Anything quality dies on the vine. The things that survive are the mass market dregs like American Idol and Big Bang Theory.

Shows like Mad Men work no differently than sports. They can be created because the masses bear the cost for the tiny minority to enjoy.

 

[woomba]

...according to media-research firm Nielsen's data provided by a major media company. Less than 3% of households with television in any given market, on average, will tune in to watch their hometown National Basketball Association teams play, and less than 2% will watch their National Hockey League teams.

They're not looking at the Neilsen data directly but a subset provided by another company - and they only look at the stats for people tuning into their howetown team vs tuning into a game in general.

For example, if someone into Oakland tuned into a Giants game instead of the A's it won't be part of that metric. I guess that's useful data for some advertisers but it seems like a pretty poor way to look at overall popularity.

 

[junglehusky]

Valid point about Mad Men... some articles are saying those handful of shows are not sustainable. So that's why I'm bailing now

 

[whaler11]

Valid point about Mad Men... some articles are saying those handful of shows are not sustainable. So that's why I'm bailing now

Bail away, to each their own. Just don't expect to get the same or more for less in the future. If you like watching sports the numbers show the opposite.

 

[minidarren]

In recent news...

Time Warner Cable drops, then restores CBS, http://fxn.ws/16xCiwz - Sent via the FOX News Android App.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2