Insight into ESPN's thought process

[upstater]

ABC announced their Streaming Deal this week and its contingent on a Cable Subscription. Pay your provider $13 a month (Plus taxes) and if you have free WiFi stream away.

For people who have to pay for their internet at home there's not many ways to save money via streaming and a la carte presently. Currently its estimated Cable marks up their stations by 100% to 200% depending on the vendor. ESPN inclusive might be as low as $14.95. I doubt it would go lower. Fine if you have free WiFi. Add $5o.00 for broadband and the advantage of a la pricing goes downhill fast. Local Basic and 50Mbps runs around $80 a month plus taxes. Add ESPN for $15.00 a month and a cable card and a Netflix subscription and Spotify and now its $120 a month.

Internet cable is a must. The rest of the stuff--I can live without. In other words, I start this whole debate at $55 a month (which is what I pay for internet cable). Above that, the way I spend my money is open.

 

[minidarren]

With all this realignment stuff you still haven't learned. Its about the eyes that could possibly see the TV set. You remove 80% of the viewers and that rate will sky rocket. Why do you think it hasn't been done yet? The costs prohibit this model. It will never happen with any of the major TV providers. Maybe with an internet based solution.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[upstater]

With all this realignment stuff you still haven't learned. Its about the eyes that could possibly see the TV set. You remove 80% of the viewers and that rate will sky rocket. Why do you think it hasn't been done yet? The costs prohibit this model. It will never happen with any of the major TV providers. Maybe with an internet based solution.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

No one is paying $150 for ESPN. Therefore ESPN will not charge $150.

 

[whaler11]

No one is paying $150 for ESPN. Therefore ESPN will not charge $150.

$150 is hyperbole.

The reality of a la carte is fewer options at higher prices.

Look at the contracts. Look at what other television costs to produce. Look at the ratings for games. Clearly take away that sports fans would be hurt the most by a la carte.

 

[minidarren]

Thank you whaler.

 

[RS9999X]

When it gets more competitive prices will come down.

During the transition it will be more about features including internet streaming for cable customers.

In 5 years it will cost the same. The bundle will include more bandwidth, full streaming, public WiFi hotspots, and an an LTE device option instead of the VOIP phone options today.


The Cable Carriers will sell Congress that rolling out 100 Mbps in all homes and building out a 50 Mbps Advanced LTE network requires packaged bundles to subsidize the infrastructure hardware.

 

[progrocks]

sports are the only thing that using torrents does not work for.

 

[J187Money]

http://mobile.slate.com/articles/bu...rte_cable_bill_is_bad_deal_for_consumers.html

Commentary on a la carte pricing.

 

[upstater]

$150 is hyperbole.

The reality of a la carte is fewer options at higher prices.

Look at the contracts. Look at what other television costs to produce. Look at the ratings for games. Clearly take away that sports fans would be hurt the most by a la carte.

I'm a sports fan. I definitely will not be hurt. Like I said, ESPN and 2 would be the extent of my choices.

 

[whaler11]

I'm a sports fan. I definitely will not be hurt. Like I said, ESPN and 2 would be the extent of my choices.

I'm pretty sure sports fans need more than ESPN and ESPN2.

Last I checked Fox, RSNs, NBCS, ESPNU, TNT, TBS, CBS, BTN, SECN, PAC12Net, MLB, NFL, NHL plus others are all on cable.

 

[bmayuc]

I'm a sports fan. I definitely will not be hurt. Like I said, ESPN and 2 would be the extent of my choices.

I like yglesias, but here is my problem with that article. It is depressingly paternal.

Force csbke companies to offer a la carte services along with their packages. Consumers make their choices. If its a good deal people will do it. If its not, some may opt out.

Either way, more consumer choice the better.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

 

[upstater]

I'm pretty sure sports fans need more than ESPN and ESPN2.

Last I checked Fox, RSNs, NBCS, ESPNU, TNT, TBS, CBS, BTN, SECN, PAC12Net, MLB, NFL, NHL plus others are all on cable.

Uh, Fox is free as is TNT, TBS. I don't even recognize some of the others, and since ESPNU comes for free off my internet feed onto my TV (don't ask why, it's right after QVC) and I've never seen a single show on it, I'm thinking I'll have very little interest. The networks are free over the air. MLB requires a subscription, it's not sports tier. No interest in NHL.

Like I said, the networks, ESPNs are enough

 

[UPitt]

No one is paying $150 for ESPN. Therefore ESPN will not charge $150.

Question to everyone, Assume that Disney puts together a sports package in "a la carte" that includes ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNNEWS, and ESPNU. ESPN is the clear anchor of this package with ESPN2 providing some ratings support. ESPNEWS and ESPNU do not drive ratings enough to impact price and would be included at almost no additional cost.

Without thinking about it, how much would you pay per month to have access to these channels?

How much would you pay per day? $1/day? $2/day? $3/day? More?

If you are willing to pay $1, $2, or $3 a day, you are willing to pay $30, $60, or $90 dollars a month to watch a few sports channels. Then add in your local sports channel at $0.50/day or $1/day and you are willing to pay another $15/month or $30/month. And your wife likes that popular show her friends all watch. That channel is $0.25/day or $8/month. And then you have to add on a monthly premium for "a la carte" to help cover the additional costs of distribution involved in "a la carte".

I think the price in "a la carte" can quickly escalate without the customer realizing. Production companies and the current cable infrastructure have costs that will need to be covered no matter how you order your cable (bundle or "a la carte"). Sports are very expensive to produce, and I think sports fans should consider this before pushing for "a la carte".

I do not see the cost of watching TV decreasing, until the cost of production and the cost to distribute can be decreased. The cost of production is not going to decrease but rather increase because we the customers demand HD 1080 with 20+ camera angles. The cost of distribution could be lowered with technology advancements, but as customers we are demanding that we have more available options for distribution. We demand that we can see all 20 camera angles and have them available on TV, computer, cell phone, notebook, and in the headset of your car. In essence, when you are watching a game the production company and distributor have made 20 games available to you on 5 different devises. Basically, sports customers are not demanding lower costs, but rather we are demanding that we have the best experience available and will pay any price to receive it.

 

[UPitt]

I like yglesias, but here is my problem with that article. It is depressingly paternal.

Force csbke companies to offer a la carte services along with their packages. Consumers make their choices. If its a good deal people will do it. If its not, some may opt out.

Either way, more consumer choice the better.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

I completely agree with you. More options is almost always better for the customer. And your suggestion is probably the most fair way to pay for cable. But in this model, the cost to sports fans (that's us) will still go up. Like I said before, for every grandma that saves $50/month to watch knitting only, a group of sports fans buying ESPN "a la carte" or in a budle will have to pick up the tab.

 

[whaler11]

Uh, Fox is free as is TNT, TBS. I don't even recognize some of the others, and since ESPNU comes for free off my internet feed onto my TV (don't ask why, it's right after QVC) and I've never seen a single show on it, I'm thinking I'll have very little interest. The networks are free over the air. MLB requires a subscription, it's not sports tier. No interest in NHL.

Like I said, the networks, ESPNs are enough

LOL. You are totally lost if you think TNT and TBS are free. Maybe you've heard of the two new Fox networks?

I'm pretty sure you'll see a need for ESPNU when 90% of AAC games are on there.

You might be the one guy who does better. Most sports fans want things like the MLB and NBA playoffs, the NCAA tourney, and their local NBA, NHL, MLB teams....

 

[UPitt]

Uh, Fox is free as is TNT, TBS. I don't even recognize some of the others, and since ESPNU comes for free off my internet feed onto my TV (don't ask why, it's right after QVC) and I've never seen a single show on it, I'm thinking I'll have very little interest. The networks are free over the air. MLB requires a subscription, it's not sports tier. No interest in NHL.

Like I said, the networks, ESPNs are enough

We do not receive TNT or TBS for free in my location. We only receive CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, QVC, and a few junk channels. FOX has also threatened to go to cable only, but I do not expect those threats to be taken seriously.

 

[upstater]

LOL. You are totally lost if you think TNT and TBS are free. Maybe you've heard of the two new Fox networks?

I'm pretty sure you'll see a need for ESPNU when 90% of AAC games are on there.

You might be the one guy who does better. Most sports fans want things like the MLB and NBA playoffs, the NCAA tourney, and their local NBA, NHL, MLB teams....

One, you are confused about the package the AAC signed with ESPN. Read it closely.
Two, TNT and TBS come in on my basic internet cable feed. It's simply part of the $55 a month I pay for cable TV internet. It's the same signal as my internet in other words. I don't even have basic cable. Most households aren't even aware that your internet feed is also a cable feed. Try it sometime. I get SNY, TNT, TBS and ESPNU on these feeds. Personally, I never watch anything other than SNY (and even during the NCAA tourney, I end up watching multiple games with my Madness app rather than switch to TNT or Tru or whatever).

 

[zls44]

One, you are confused about the package the AAC signed with ESPN. Read it closely.
Two, TNT and TBS come in on my basic internet cable feed. It's simply part of the $55 a month I pay for cable TV internet. It's the same signal as my internet in other words. I don't even have basic cable. Most households aren't even aware that your internet feed is also a cable feed. Try it sometime. I get SNY, TNT, TBS and ESPNU on these feeds. Personally, I never watch anything other than SNY (and even during the NCAA tourney, I end up watching multiple games with my Madness app rather than switch to TNT or Tru or whatever).

If you think that wouldn't change in an a-la-carte model...

 

[whaler11]

One, you are confused about the package the AAC signed with ESPN. Read it closely.
Two, TNT and TBS come in on my basic internet cable feed. It's simply part of the $55 a month I pay for cable TV internet. It's the same signal as my internet in other words. I don't even have basic cable. Most households aren't even aware that your internet feed is also a cable feed. Try it sometime. I get SNY, TNT, TBS and ESPNU on these feeds. Personally, I never watch anything other than SNY (and even during the NCAA tourney, I end up watching multiple games with my Madness app rather than switch to TNT or Tru or whatever).

You do realize that would change with a la carte and the networks would most certainly get paid on every person who is getting the feed.

 

[upstater]

If you think that wouldn't change in an a-la-carte model...

It wouldn't even matter. Other than TBS and TNT (which I don't watch) I go to antenna because of the better HD picture.

 

[upstater]

You do realize that would change with a la carte and the networks would most certainly get paid on every person who is getting the feed.

The networks are over-the-air, and over-the-air is actually a much sharper picture than through cable. You think the networks are going to give up their air rights?

 

[UPitt]

One, you are confused about the package the AAC signed with ESPN. Read it closely.
Two, TNT and TBS come in on my basic internet cable feed. It's simply part of the $55 a month I pay for cable TV internet. It's the same signal as my internet in other words. I don't even have basic cable. Most households aren't even aware that your internet feed is also a cable feed. Try it sometime. I get SNY, TNT, TBS and ESPNU on these feeds. Personally, I never watch anything other than SNY (and even during the NCAA tourney, I end up watching multiple games with my Madness app rather than switch to TNT or Tru or whatever).

First you said TNT and TBS were free. Then they were part of you basic internet cable feed. Then you said you don't even have basic cable. I suspect that if you read the terms of your contract, you will find that your cable TV internet plan also comes with some bacis cable TV stations on your TV. If not, you are stealing those stations and driving up the cost for us that pay for them.

What makes you think that cable TV will go to "a la carte", but your cable TV internet plan will not?

 

[upstater]

First you said TNT and TBS were free. Then they were part of you basic internet cable feed. Then you said you don't even have basic cable. I suspect that if you read the terms of your contract, you will find that your cable TV internet plan also comes with some bacis cable TV stations on your TV. If not, you are stealing those stations and driving up the cost for us that pay for them.

What makes you think that cable TV will go to "a la carte", but your cable TV internet plan will not?

How am I stealing it? I pay for internet cable. No basic cable is involved. The signal is simply the same. Who am I stealing it from? They are the ones who hooked it up. They are the ones who control my box. I've never been in there even once.

Your last question is nonsensical. ala carte what? there are two choices. I want cable internet. I don't want cable internet. What ala cart are you referring to?

 

[DobbsRover2]

Love how stuck in the muck most sports fans are in their thinking, living way back in the ancient past of 2011 or something. Most of the young who will be driving the media access of the future don't give two farts about TV options and are moving to internet choices at a rapidly expanding rate. So if cable does start charging the proverbial $150 for a station, the rush to abandon cable will just escalate. As the saying goes, "It's the economy, stupid," and if cable does institute a la carte pricing that is still more onerous, customers will start streaming for the exit in even larger numbers due to the non-economics of an antiquated restrictive system. Sure, ESPN will still figure out ways to pull decent revenue off the internet, but there is far less control and much more of a "give it to me free" attitude on the net. And there's so much free sports on the web that young sports fans can learn to change their viewing habits without much trouble. Yeah, old timers who are flush enough to not care about the money will probably still be wrapped around cable for many years down the road when much of America's youth has moved on.

 

[UPitt]

One, you are confused about the package the AAC signed with ESPN. Read it closely.
Two, TNT and TBS come in on my basic internet cable feed. It's simply part of the $55 a month I pay for cable TV internet. It's the same signal as my internet in other words. I don't even have basic cable. Most households aren't even aware that your internet feed is also a cable feed. Try it sometime. I get SNY, TNT, TBS and ESPNU on these feeds. Personally, I never watch anything other than SNY (and even during the NCAA tourney, I end up watching multiple games with my Madness app rather than switch to TNT or Tru or whatever).

Do you mean you pay for cable internet TV? Or do you pay for cable internet?

Cable internet TV will go "a la carte" as well.