Insight into ESPN's thought process

[UPitt]

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?

If you don't pay for it and you are watching it, that is the definition of stealing cable. But like I said, if you read the fine print those stations are probably included in the $55 dollars a month you pay.

 

[upstater]

If you don't pay for it and you are watching it, that is the definition of stealing cable. But like I said, if you read the fine print those stations are probably included in the $55 dollars a month you pay.

No, they are not included. No, it's not the definition of stealing. Look up the definition in the dictionary. "To take without permission or without returning it." It's simply a technological fact that cable signals for internet and basic run on the same line, so when you connect to a modem and out to your TV, it's the same signal. On my bill, it says internet cable, but who knows what the fine print actually says. Maybe I just contracted for the signal. Don't know.

Look at it this way. Cable companies used to charge you monthly for cable signal per outlet. Don't know if they still do. This was before the age of wifi. Presumably, if you wanted cable at multiple points, you would have had to pay them. But now, you can disperse the signal all over the house on your own without the cable company even knowing, and you can do it to multiple devices including wifi TV.

I've already installed an ala carte system by subscribing to services without cable (I get it on my Roku). Soon, this will be available: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/21/hbo-go-without-cable_n_2926926.html

 

[upstater]

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.

I pay for cable internet. I don't think the cable company has anything to do with content.

 

[SubbaBub]

There's no eyeroll big enough for this thread.

You will pay the same or more, not less with a la carte. You will certainly get fewer stations. You may not care, but the cable companies certainly do. They pay next to nothing or are paid to allow those channels on their systems. You think comcast is going to turn over $30/month out of the $130 you pay to ESPN? Not bloody likely. They will most certainly bundle channels together. Want ESPN? Here it is with the Fashion Network for $8/mo. Want the BTN? It comes with SECN, P12N, and the ACCn for $17/mo.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[upstater]

There's no eyeroll big enough for this thread.

You will pay the same or more, not less with a la carte. You will certainly get fewer stations. You may not care, but the cable companies certainly do. They pay next to nothing or are paid to allow those channels on their systems. You think comcast is going to turn over $30/month out of the $130 you pay to ESPN? Not bloody likely. They will most certainly bundle channels together. Want ESPN? Here it is with the Fashion Network for $8/mo. Want the BTN? It comes with SECN, P12N, and the ACCn for $17/mo.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

That's ala carte?

 

[upstater]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/21/hbo-go-without-cable_n_2926926.html

Part of the reason for even having cable is watching HBO. Soon, a big reason for having cable will be obliterated.

 

[UPitt]

No, they are not included. No, it's not the definition of stealing. Look up the definition in the dictionary. "To take without permission or without returning it." It's simply a technological fact that cable signals for internet and basic run on the same line, so when you connect to a modem and out to your TV, it's the same signal. On my bill, it says internet cable, but who knows what the fine print actually says. Maybe I just contracted for the signal. Don't know.

I think you will find that the basic cable stations are included in your subscription. In my area I can not purchase cable internet without at least purchasing the basic cable tier.

If these stations are not included in you package and you are watching them, then you are guilty of passive theft of cable.

Types and Definitions

· Cable theft laws break down the crime into several categories. While prosecutors may wish to treat the different kinds of cable theft differently, all constitute as illegal.
The most visible form of cable theft is what is known as active theft, in which a user installs a descrambler device of some kind to access a cable signal in a home that does not subscribe to the service.
Premium theft, also known as pay theft, occurs when a cable subscriber uses a device to access premium content, including channels that are not included in the subscriber's standard package.
Finally, passive theft occurs when a user receives cable service without the knowledge of the cable company. This is most common when an individual moves into an apartment with existing service and uses the cable without subscribing or notifying the cable provider of the error.
Enforcement

· While cable companies have battled cable theft for decades, the biggest change in cable theft law occurred in 1994 when the Federal Communications Commission ruled that the use of cable descrabmlers is in violation of federal laws that protect programmers and service providers. Citing this ruling, cable companies may threaten legal action when they identify a case of cable theft, offering to settle with the thief, or in more malicious cases, taking the case to a criminal trial.
Most major cable providers manage a public awareness campaign, either through televised commercials or literature sent to subscribers. These materials ask subscribers to report illegal cable theft and cite the fact that cable theft lowers the quality of the signal and forces the provider to charge higher rates.

Penalties

· Because the specific state laws regarding cable theft vary, so too do the penalties that have been applied to cable thieves. Under a combination of federal and state guidelines, perpetrators of cable theft can receive a prison term that may range from a probation period to more than a decade behind bars.
Prison terms are often accompanied by a fine, which can range from several hundred dollars to several million. In general, smaller fines are levied against individuals who steal cable, while larger fine and jail time are reserved for those who sell descramblers or charge individuals to install an illegal connection

 

[upstater]

I think you will find that the basic cable stations are included in your subscription. In my area I can not purchase cable internet without at least purchasing the basic cable tier.

If these stations are not included in you package and you are watching them, then you are guilty of passive theft of cable.

Types and Definitions

· Cable theft laws break down the crime into several categories. While prosecutors may wish to treat the different kinds of cable theft differently, all constitute as illegal.
The most visible form of cable theft is what is known as active theft, in which a user installs a descrambler device of some kind to access a cable signal in a home that does not subscribe to the service.
Premium theft, also known as pay theft, occurs when a cable subscriber uses a device to access premium content, including channels that are not included in the subscriber's standard package.
Finally, passive theft occurs when a user receives cable service without the knowledge of the cable company. This is most common when an individual moves into an apartment with existing service and uses the cable without subscribing or notifying the cable provider of the error.
Enforcement

· While cable companies have battled cable theft for decades, the biggest change in cable theft law occurred in 1994 when the Federal Communications Commission ruled that the use of cable descrabmlers is in violation of federal laws that protect programmers and service providers. Citing this ruling, cable companies may threaten legal action when they identify a case of cable theft, offering to settle with the thief, or in more malicious cases, taking the case to a criminal trial.
Most major cable providers manage a public awareness campaign, either through televised commercials or literature sent to subscribers. These materials ask subscribers to report illegal cable theft and cite the fact that cable theft lowers the quality of the signal and forces the provider to charge higher rates.

• 
  [ ]

Penalties

· Because the specific state laws regarding cable theft vary, so too do the penalties that have been applied to cable thieves. Under a combination of federal and state guidelines, perpetrators of cable theft can receive a prison term that may range from a probation period to more than a decade behind bars.
Prison terms are often accompanied by a fine, which can range from several hundred dollars to several million. In general, smaller fines are levied against individuals who steal cable, while larger fine and jail time are reserved for those who sell descramblers or charge individuals to install an illegal connection

I'm not doing any of those. I don't know why you get confused so often when you read my posts, but it happens in every thread. There was no service in my house. I ordered the cable company to install internet service. They did. It's the same signal as basic. I pay for internet. They know I get the signal. There is no error. Everyone understands this except for you. If I called tomorrow and told them, "Hey, you know I get basic without paying for it, right?" They'd say, "That's the way it is, nothing we can do about it." They may want to keep that a secret however. Don't know. The truth is I never watch it other than the SNY games that aren't blacked out, because antenna HD is so much better than anything coming through the cable signal. Never watch TBS, TNT or ESPNU.

 

[UPitt]

I'm not doing any of those. I don't know why you get confused so often when you read my posts, but it happens in every thread. There was no service in my house. I ordered the cable company to install internet service. They did. It's the same signal as basic. I pay for internet. They know I get the signal. There is no error. Everyone understands this except for you. If I called tomorrow and told them, "Hey, you know I get basic without paying for it, right?" They'd say, "That's the way it is, nothing we can do about it." They may want to keep that a secret however. Don't know. The truth is I never watch it other than the SNY games that aren't blacked out, because antenna HD is so much better than anything coming through the cable signal. Never watch TBS, TNT or ESPNU.

I'm not confused. I clearly said that the basic cable was most likely part of your plan. And that only if it was not would it be stealing.

 

[upstater]

I'm not confused. I clearly said that the basic cable was most likely part of your plan. And that only if it was not would it be stealing.

It's not part of my plan. I could ask them to add it tomorrow, and they wouldn't even have to come by. Why? There is no way to turn it off, no way to turn it on.

 

[frankthetank]

It's not part of my plan. I could ask them to add it tomorrow, and they wouldn't even have to come by. Why? There is no way to turn it off, no way to turn it on.

It seems like people are focused way too much on the delivery method compared to what is actually in substance. Whether you receive your channels via hardline cable through your walls, a satellite dish, or the Internet, it's all the same pricing model. I *think* what upstater is saying is that he pays $55 per month for Internet cable, which is really no different than paying the same amount for traditional TV cable or satellite services. ESPN, TBS, TNT, SNY and every other channel he's receiving would still be getting a certain subscriber fee per month, so it's definitely NOT free. Now, if what he's saying is that he's getting those channels simply by signing up for basic Internet service, then I'm honestly flummoxed. That doesn't exist outside of the Internet company making a mistake and giving it to him for free (which is certainly possible - I had a cable provider once accidentally turn on every single channel available that cost 4 times as much as the package that I was paying for).

 

[bmayuc]

2 points:

1. Look, netflix/prime/hulu/spotify have shown us the future.( I subscribe to 3 or those 4)

HD streaming sports is already available its just Spotty. Its only a matter of time before everything is direct subscription through the internet. In time only non-internet savvy people will be patronizing cable companies (why do we need 2 cable data line in our house?). These are likely the same people that still pay for and use AOL internet. Slow adopters.

2. Will prices go up? Who knows? Maybe they will. Maybe though it will go the other way and that cable companies should not b investing in broadcasting, but currently do invest in because they are flush with cash from bundles (think - Southern conference football, the beef obradys no one gives a sh#t bowl) will stopped being produced.

That is how a market works. It becomes efficient by supply and demand. Price too high and they will figure it out.

For a country that talks about the "market" in hushed godlike tones we are sure big p*ssies when it comes to doing its job.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

 

[upstater]

That doesn't exist outside of the Internet company making a mistake and giving it to him for free (which is certainly possible - I had a cable provider once accidentally turn on every single channel available that cost 4 times as much as the package that I was paying for).

This is incorrect. The signal for basic cable and internet is the same. Everyone I know in my town with internet only has the exact same thing happening. It is through Time Warner. I imagine many people don't know about it because not many households are internet only, no TV. But even though I don't watch basic, it is still being pumped into my house whether I watch it or not. If I want to turn it off, I have to turn my internet service off. Obviously, I see no point in paying for something I don't use.

You're right about the other stuff. My $55 a month bill is my entertainment bill (using Roku).

As for the channels, ESPN is not a basic channel up here. There are a good many, but I don't even know what they are because I barely ever turn it on (I think there's Country Music Channel and Discover but I can't be sure).

 

[RS9999X]

ESPN is looking to double their carrier fees between now and 2020. How do they do it? By forcing Cable Carriers to pay the VIG or ESPN will sell internet streaming in their market at $29.95 a Month. Same with the BIG.

Today TBS and TNT announced streaming for cable subscribers.

The old model will hold for a while longer as Congress pushes for faster infrastructure -- or else.

 

[J187Money]

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

That way, you get consumer choice around pricing. But you will get less choice around content. And without a built in profit margin new channels are less likely to launch. Maybe that's ok, but increasing one set of choices will decrease the other. I think that's what he is really saying. People will lose the option to just "discover" things. If you only think you care about 5 things, and then someone tells you to watch you may not be able to.

OTOH, I'm consuming more and more TV through apps (Hulu/MaxGo/HBOGo/Sho Anytime/Netflix) and even buying lots of things on iTunes (long commute need things to watch). So in the long run it may not make any difference. And my kids spend most of their time on YouTube/Netflix/Hulu so their habits are very different. But if you do go a la carte you won't have nearly the content you do now...someone has to pay for it.

 

[frankthetank]

ESPN is looking to double their carrier fees between now and 2020. How do they do it? By forcing Cable Carriers to pay the VIG or ESPN will sell internet streaming in their market at $29.95 a Month. Same with the BIG.

Today TBS and TNT announced streaming for cable subscribers.

The old model will hold for a while longer as Congress pushes for faster infrastructure -- or else.

TBS and TNT will be using authenticated models for TV anywhere, which means that you still need to be a cable/satellite subscriber in order to stream those shows. It's the same premise behind which events that you can now see on ESPN3 (events that are on ESPN and ESPN2 are now less readily available on the ESPN3 platform compared to a year ago) or NCAA Tournament games (where you need to a cable/satellite login to get the TBS/TNT games). The Big Ten Network has authenticated TV anywhere, as well. That's a bit different than streaming a la carte, as the streaming is still only available that are paying for basic cable on another platform.

 

[HuskyHawk]

It's not part of my plan. I could ask them to add it tomorrow, and they wouldn't even have to come by. Why? There is no way to turn it off, no way to turn it on.

What cable company is this? $55 is normally about the price for internet plus basic cable as a package.

The ala-carte concept is evolving. Right now the providers subsidize the ISP business with cable and especially VOIP based phone. It it were to break up, then most of your content would come via streaming. The first thing that would happen is that getting the internet bandwidth to your house to handle the streaming would get more expensive. The internet cost would go way up. They you could get HULU (only $8 now) and the other content providers would bundle thier services. Disney would offer up all the Disney channels as a package and ESPN channels as a package, and probably offer a cheaper one if you get both, plus ABC family etc. Comcast/NBC would do the same, and Turner, and Fox, Discovery/NG etc.

It's evolving. The DVR is driving the change more than anything. Sports are valued because of the need to watch live, and thus, watch the ads. Streaming carries similar value. Watch HULU and you will see fewer ads, but you can't fast forward them. The industry likes that model (which is why they formed HULU). If streaming takes over, one possible outcome is that the value of sports relative to other content may drop.

 

[upstater]

What cable company is this? $55 is normally about the price for internet plus basic cable as a package.

The ala-carte concept is evolving. Right now the providers subsidize the ISP business with cable and especially VOIP based phone. It it were to break up, then most of your content would come via streaming. The first thing that would happen is that getting the internet bandwidth to your house to handle the streaming would get more expensive. The internet cost would go way up. They you could get HULU (only $8 now) and the other content providers would bundle thier services. Disney would offer up all the Disney channels as a package and ESPN channels as a package, and probably offer a cheaper one if you get both, plus ABC family etc. Comcast/NBC would do the same, and Turner, and Fox, Discovery/NG etc.

It's evolving. The DVR is driving the change more than anything. Sports are valued because of the need to watch live, and thus, watch the ads. Streaming carries similar value. Watch HULU and you will see fewer ads, but you can't fast forward them. The industry likes that model (which is why they formed HULU). If streaming takes over, one possible outcome is that the value of sports relative to other content may drop.

Turbo internet with Time Warner. It's actually $62 but I've got a deal for $55.

 

[bmayuc]

That way, you get consumer choice around pricing. But you will get less choice around content. And without a built in profit margin new channels are less likely to launch. Maybe that's ok, but increasing one set of choices will decrease the other. I think that's what he is really saying. People will lose the option to just "discover" things. If you only think you care about 5 things, and then someone tells you to watch you may not be able to.

OTOH, I'm consuming more and more TV through apps (Hulu/MaxGo/HBOGo/Sho Anytime/Netflix) and even buying lots of things on iTunes (long commute need things to watch). So in the long run it may not make any difference. And my kids spend most of their time on YouTube/Netflix/Hulu so their habits are very different. But if you do go a la carte you won't have nearly the content you do now...someone has to pay for it.

I think everyone is really off-base on thinking like the second paragraph. Removing the "bundle" does not automatically reduce revenue/spell the destruction of TV. People have an insatiable need for content. It is just that the revenue sources will become more varied and more personalized.

I currently spend $90 on TV/mo. If my bundle breaks up, I would definetly spend 50 on ESPN/SPORTS, $20 on a monthly UCONN network, $10 here or there for AMC/FX/HBO. The money will still be there to spend, it will just be encumbent on LAZY TV EXECUTIVES TO ACTUALLY WORK. you know, like other industries. Innovate, offer creative programming, compete for ACTUAL REVENUE.

The difference in this setup is that my money goes directly as patronage to the prodcuts/channels that deliver the content that interests me, making for a much more instructive, informative buying process. ESPN produces great content, so it has great, loyal subscribers.

Mystifying that people believe some networks wont absolutely make the change and thrive. and the ones that dont, duck them they will be replaced by new content providers.

too much doom and gloom. Every other industry I know of says " Change is good". Same applies for TV but for some weird reason everyone is scared of change.

 

[minidarren]

Turbo internet with Time Warner. It's actually $62 but I've got a deal for $55.

Upstater, do us all a favor and call Time Warner to see if they offer their Basic TV package free to any internet subscriber. I find it extremely difficult to believe that Time Warner doesnt care about the $22.75 that they would normally be charging someone for the basic TV subscription. Please also tell Time Warner that you are receiving those basic cable channels at your home.

Then please let us know how many days go by before Time Warner comes and out knocks your TV service out.

With this being said, I do not doubt that you are getting those channels. What I doubt is that you are getting them because they are included with your internet service. This simply is not the case.

 

[RS9999X]

RS9999X said:

ESPN is looking to double their carrier fees between now and 2020. How do they do it? By forcing Cable Carriers to pay the VIG or ESPN will sell internet streaming in their market at $29.95 a Month. Same with the BIG.

Today TBS and TNT announced streaming for cable subscribers.

The old model will hold for a while longer as Congress pushes for faster infrastructure -- or else.

TBS and TNT will be using authenticated models for TV anywhere, which means that you still need to be a cable/satellite subscriber in order to stream those shows. It's the same premise behind which events that you can now see on ESPN3 (events that are on ESPN and ESPN2 are now less readily available on the ESPN3 platform compared to a year ago) or NCAA Tournament games (where you need to a cable/satellite login to get the TBS/TNT games). The Big Ten Network has authenticated TV anywhere, as well. That's a bit different than streaming a la carte, as the streaming is still only available that are paying for basic cable on another platform.

Of this I'm aware. Much like the music industry and newspapers things will slowly rot. Building out a solid streaming infrastructure including archives is happening while cable morphs into a delivery provider of legacy cable and advanced internet DELIVERY services including WiFi Hot Sprint and LTE (look for T-Mobile and Sprint to be bundling with Cable companies on competition with ATT .) DishTV is in hot pursuit to to be the first true all wireless Network carrier.


Each of these deals are another brick in the wall. The problem: content underwrites new infrastructure as a hidden tax. The Cable Carriers and LTE Carriers have some leverage with Congress here. More so than the record companies or newspapers. The next cry babies will be local network affiliates. For now the cable subscriber model of streaming protects their turf

 

[Carl Spackler]

I think everyone is really off-base on thinking like the second paragraph. Removing the "bundle" does not automatically reduce revenue/spell the destruction of TV. People have an insatiable need for content. It is just that the revenue sources will become more varied and more personalized.

I currently spend $90 on TV/mo. If my bundle breaks up, I would definetly spend 50 on ESPN/SPORTS, $20 on a monthly UCONN network, $10 here or there for AMC/FX/HBO. The money will still be there to spend, it will just be encumbent on LAZY TV EXECUTIVES TO ACTUALLY WORK. you know, like other industries. Innovate, offer creative programming, compete for ACTUAL REVENUE.

The difference in this setup is that my money goes directly as patronage to the prodcuts/channels that deliver the content that interests me, making for a much more instructive, informative buying process. ESPN produces great content, so it has great, loyal subscribers.

Mystifying that people believe some networks wont absolutely make the change and thrive. and the ones that dont, them they will be replaced by new content providers.

too much doom and gloom. Every other industry I know of says " Change is good". Same applies for TV but for some weird reason everyone is scared of change.

I like this. Nice post. The reason people fear change in this industry from all angles - is because in the vast majority of households across this country, the television, is the center piece of the home living quarters. Everyone gathers around the TV in most homes, and very quickly over the past few decades, corporate giants, from Newscorp, to Disney, to General Electric, etc... have incredible percentages of their entire corporate profits built around both what people are watching on those TV sets, and how they access it.

 

[minidarren]

Of this I'm aware. Much like the music industry and newspapers things will slowly rot. Building out a solid streaming infrastructure including archives is happening while cable morphs into a delivery provider of legacy cable and advanced internet DELIVERY services including WiFi Hot Sprint and LTE (look for T-Mobile and Sprint to be bundling with Cable companies on competition with ATT .) DishTV is in hot pursuit to to be the first true all wireless Network carrier.


Each of these deals are another brick in the wall. The problem: content underwrites new infrastructure as a hidden tax. The Cable Carriers and LTE Carriers have some leverage with Congress here. More so than the record companies or newspapers. The next cry babies will be local network affiliates. For now the cable subscriber model of streaming protects their turf

MSO's have already attempted this game with Sprint with the Pivot branding of wireless systems. That quickly deteriorated and all entities pulled out. MSO's during the AWS auctions purchased huge quantities of wireless spectrum for their future use. Cox Communications started it own wireless system, branded Cox Wireless, using Sprint's network for quick market entry while building their own network. Market saturation and inability to access "iconic" handsets proved to be too much to over come.

Several MSO's have entered into deals with Verizon Wireless to bundle their products in an attempt to combat the growth of AT&T. This allows the MSO's to offer a wireless solution with a proven provider, completing their Quad Play. The spectrum that the MSO's hold is their bargaining chip with VZW in these efforts. Soon you will see cable operator products being offered in VZW stores and vis versa.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/cox-stops-selling-wireless-service/2011-11-16
http://www.comcast.com/wireless
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57...verizon-cable-spectrum-deal-means-to-you-faq/

 

[upstater]

Upstater, do us all a favor and call Time Warner to see if they offer their Basic TV package free to any internet subscriber. I find it extremely difficult to believe that Time Warner doesnt care about the $22.75 that they would normally be charging someone for the basic TV subscription. Please also tell Time Warner that you are receiving those basic cable channels at your home.

Then please let us know how many days go by before Time Warner comes and out knocks your TV service out.

With this being said, I do not doubt that you are getting those channels. What I doubt is that you are getting them because they are included with your internet service. This simply is not the case.

I never said they are included in my service. I said it's the same signal as internet. Those are two different things. Every single person I know in Buffalo who has internet service only also gets the same channels. Why would TW knock out my internet service? I'm paying for it.

 

[minidarren]

I said they would knock out your TV, not your internet. Basic analog cable and internet are hardly the same signal. Your understanding of RF is far from accurate.