Insight into ESPN's thought process

[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 XYZ 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 XYZ 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.

 

[upstater]

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.

So, there are multiple signals in the cable and they haven't knocked one out? Because it's the same outlet I'm using (i.e. I don't have cable connected to anything but my router, unless I want SNY so I switch it).

 

[minidarren]

Exactly. TW would have to send someone out to your house to block out those signals. It most likely an error on their part that you are getting them. Or, TW doesnt find it worthwhile to roll a tech out to your place. I find that hard to believe since you are getting a service that they charge 23 bucks for a month.

 

[upstater]

Exactly. TW would have to send someone out to your house to block out those signals. It most likely an error on their part that you are getting them. Or, TW doesnt find it worthwhile to roll a tech out to your place. I find that hard to believe since you are getting a service that they charge 23 bucks for a month.

The same is true of literally everyone I know with internet only.

 

[minidarren]

Its bizarre from a company/money making standpoint, but I guess possible.

 

[upstater]

Its bizarre from a company/money making standpoint, but I guess possible.

Maybe they figure the vast majority of these people would just watch over-the-air HD, which is what I do now 99% of the time. How many times was UConn men's BB on SNY last year? That's how many times I watched basic cable.

 

[upstater]

By the way, about Pitt fan's contention that I'm stealing. I wonder what he thinks of slingbox. It's legal. But is it stealing?

 

[J187Money]

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.

In the long run, yes. Like the music industry adjusted after Napster. But it will take years, cost a ton of money and be completely disruptive to the ecosystem. They will be more prepared for this than the record companies were and I'm not arguing against it. But it will be painful for those that live inside that ecosystem.

 

[J187Money]

By the way, about Pitt fan's contention that I'm stealing. I wonder what he thinks of slingbox. It's legal. But is it stealing?

It is streaming content you already have rights to, so no it isn't.

 

[progrocks]

This thread is filled with some many people missing each others points....

7 years ago i got internet only from Time Warner for a place I moved into for the summer. Hooked up the cable line to the tv and i had basic cable. 1.5 years ago i went with comcast for internet only since I had Directv. It was cheaper getting a tv/internet package than just internet so I paid for the tv and never used it.

Not everything will go to streaming because the USA does not have the bandwidth to allow for that. And who would be expected to create the bandwidth? The same cable companies that will be f-ed over! Not going to happen.

 

[minidarren]

Sounds like it simply is not worth the time and effort for TW to send a tech out to trap out the TV service for their internet only customers.

Not every company does this as we frequently trap out TV service for internet only customers.

Good for you guys with TW.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[upstater]

It is streaming content you already have rights to, so no it isn't.

Presumably, anyone can use your slingbox account. One at a time though. Say, for instance, someone attaches multiple slingbox units inside their home and passes out their slingplayer IDs to several friends. Only one person is paying for service. Multiple people are watching.

 

[J187Money]

Then yes. Technically.

 

[upstater]

Then yes. Technically.

I'd like to see the law or contract on this. In fact, you can use Slingbox overseas! Unlike, say, Netflix or other streaming services. Slingbox is actually useful anywhere.

 

[J187Money]

I'd like to see the law or contract on this. In fact, you can use Slingbox overseas! Unlike, say, Netflix or other streaming services. Slingbox is actually useful anywhere.

http://www.slingbox.com/get/terms-of-use

Prohibits giving your password to a third party etc. very little risk but they have to cover their ass so the content owners don't go crazy.

 

[upstater]

http://www.slingbox.com/get/terms-of-use

Prohibits giving your password to a third party etc. very little risk but they have to cover their ass so the content owners don't go crazy.

I don't see the prohibition there. It sounds like boilerplate. It has nothing to do with the person who pays for cable. It has everything to do with the person setting up a slingplayer account. There's nothing there that says the slingplayer account person is the same as the cable account. This is why my original example was about multiple slingboxes in the same residence. Each slingbox can only be viewed by one person. Not multiple people. That's how they work. So if several individuals purchased multiple slingboxes, hooked them up, never revealed their passwords to anyone else, they wouldn't be in violation of slingbox's terms. Certainly not illegal anyway.