http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...1949947414

For non-subscribers, who can't read it, Direct TV is expected to add access to WatchESPN in 2015. ESPN has a post-cable strategy but they say it is a long way off. ESPN is having trouble securing some rights because leagues want to own their own streaming rights.

I don't think the post cable world is that far off myself personally.

With premium cable packages now pushing 250 dollars subscribers are looking everywhere for a way out. That is not counting wireless providers that have everyone now locked into unlimited minutes for 100 dollars a month now.

(01-28-2014 11:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...1949947414

For non-subscribers, who can't read it, Direct TV is expected to add access to WatchESPN in 2015. ESPN has a post-cable strategy but they say it is a long way off. ESPN is having trouble securing some rights because leagues want to own their own streaming rights.

They don't need a post-cable strategy, in the sense that cable is being supplemented and not yet replaced, but mobile internet viewing is going to become bigger soon, and that's what ESPN wants to be ready for.

IIRC, things like WatchESPN and Pac-12 "TV Everywhere" and whatever the Big Ten has are still limited to cable/satellite subscribers, i.e., I can watch on any of my devices because I'm a subscriber, but cord-cutters don't have access.

(01-28-2014 11:56 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 11:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...1949947414

For non-subscribers, who can't read it, Direct TV is expected to add access to WatchESPN in 2015. ESPN has a post-cable strategy but they say it is a long way off. ESPN is having trouble securing some rights because leagues want to own their own streaming rights.

They don't need a post-cable strategy, in the sense that cable is being supplemented and not yet replaced, but mobile internet viewing is going to become bigger soon, and that's what ESPN wants to be ready for.

IIRC, things like WatchESPN and Pac-12 "TV Everywhere" and whatever the Big Ten has are still limited to cable/satellite subscribers, i.e., I can watch on any of my devices because I'm a subscriber, but cord-cutters don't have access.

The price wont change. In fact, I suspect it will just increase. There is always a premium for the guys that make the content and the guys who owns the last mile of cable into the home. As bandwidth use spirals upward, the internet providers will simply jack up their prices and charge by the data-bit. Think electricity bill meter--in other words---metered usage internet is the next big profit center.

But different people will be making the money. Changes bring winners and losers. The colleges may not be a winner.

(01-28-2014 11:56 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 11:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...1949947414

For non-subscribers, who can't read it, Direct TV is expected to add access to WatchESPN in 2015. ESPN has a post-cable strategy but they say it is a long way off. ESPN is having trouble securing some rights because leagues want to own their own streaming rights.

They don't need a post-cable strategy, in the sense that cable is being supplemented and not yet replaced, but mobile internet viewing is going to become bigger soon, and that's what ESPN wants to be ready for.

IIRC, things like WatchESPN and Pac-12 "TV Everywhere" and whatever the Big Ten has are still limited to cable/satellite subscribers, i.e., I can watch on any of my devices because I'm a subscriber, but cord-cutters don't have access.

Also, if you read the article, they are expecting post-cable. They are carefully milking it as long as they can while preparing for a different future.

(01-28-2014 11:56 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 11:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...1949947414

For non-subscribers, who can't read it, Direct TV is expected to add access to WatchESPN in 2015. ESPN has a post-cable strategy but they say it is a long way off. ESPN is having trouble securing some rights because leagues want to own their own streaming rights.

They don't need a post-cable strategy, in the sense that cable is being supplemented and not yet replaced, but mobile internet viewing is going to become bigger soon, and that's what ESPN wants to be ready for.

IIRC, things like WatchESPN and Pac-12 "TV Everywhere" and whatever the Big Ten has are still limited to cable/satellite subscribers, i.e., I can watch on any of my devices because I'm a subscriber, but cord-cutters don't have access.

Unless the sports market changes, I cannot imagine cord-cutting. Other than my Major League Soccer streaming account and smattering of ESPN3 games of interest it just won't work for my interests.

But I absolutely now expect that I have the ability to watch content on a smartphone or preferably my iPad mini.

Hard to see where I can ever come out ahead financially unless there is an aggregator out there selling to massive numbers of people because the prices on bits and pieces will be staggering.

Right now, sports fans are being subsidized. The non-sports fans are going to be heavy among the cord cutters or never connected.

(01-28-2014 11:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...1949947414

For non-subscribers, who can't read it, Direct TV is expected to add access to WatchESPN in 2015. ESPN has a post-cable strategy but they say it is a long way off. ESPN is having trouble securing some rights because leagues want to own their own streaming rights.

I found this article that isn't subscription the day before:
http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headl...-2-436550/

(01-28-2014 12:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 11:56 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 11:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...1949947414

For non-subscribers, who can't read it, Direct TV is expected to add access to WatchESPN in 2015. ESPN has a post-cable strategy but they say it is a long way off. ESPN is having trouble securing some rights because leagues want to own their own streaming rights.

They don't need a post-cable strategy, in the sense that cable is being supplemented and not yet replaced, but mobile internet viewing is going to become bigger soon, and that's what ESPN wants to be ready for.

IIRC, things like WatchESPN and Pac-12 "TV Everywhere" and whatever the Big Ten has are still limited to cable/satellite subscribers, i.e., I can watch on any of my devices because I'm a subscriber, but cord-cutters don't have access.

The price wont change. In fact, I suspect it will just increase. There is always a premium for the guys that make the content and the guys who owns the last mile of cable into the home. As bandwidth use spirals upward, the internet providers will simply jack up their prices and charge by the data-bit. Think electricity bill meter--in other words---metered usage internet is the next big profit center.

I honestly believe a move to such a model for wireline internet will cause a major recession. These companies should be careful what they wish for.

Video of the article's author talking about the story: http://live.wsj.com/video/espn-internet-...37BD0934BD

Full article now available for free.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...1949947414

I'd characterize ESPN's approach as "staying the course" on the current cable model, but "keeping future options open" as television evolves. My take continues to be that the creation of ESPN3 and WatchESPN provides ESPN a platform to respond to changes in the video marketplace and protect its position as the leading sports programming provider.

(01-30-2014 11:48 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Full article now available for free.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...1949947414

I'd characterize ESPN's approach as "staying the course" on the current cable model, but "keeping future options open" as television evolves. My take continues to be that the creation of ESPN3 and WatchESPN provides ESPN a platform to respond to changes in the video marketplace and protect its position as the leading sports programming provider.

Agreed. Cable/satellite won't disappear in the next few years. If cord-cutting becomes more popular, the networks and cable/satellite co's will try to lure some cord-cutters back by offering options like buying channels a la carte, and/or internet transmission of their favorite programming. Those are the short-term possibilities that ESPN is ready for.

(01-28-2014 12:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 11:56 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 11:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...1949947414

For non-subscribers, who can't read it, Direct TV is expected to add access to WatchESPN in 2015. ESPN has a post-cable strategy but they say it is a long way off. ESPN is having trouble securing some rights because leagues want to own their own streaming rights.

They don't need a post-cable strategy, in the sense that cable is being supplemented and not yet replaced, but mobile internet viewing is going to become bigger soon, and that's what ESPN wants to be ready for.

IIRC, things like WatchESPN and Pac-12 "TV Everywhere" and whatever the Big Ten has are still limited to cable/satellite subscribers, i.e., I can watch on any of my devices because I'm a subscriber, but cord-cutters don't have access.

Unless the sports market changes, I cannot imagine cord-cutting. Other than my Major League Soccer streaming account and smattering of ESPN3 games of interest it just won't work for my interests.

But I absolutely now expect that I have the ability to watch content on a smartphone or preferably my iPad mini.

Hard to see where I can ever come out ahead financially unless there is an aggregator out there selling to massive numbers of people because the prices on bits and pieces will be staggering.

I understand that I'm a dinosaur, and there's a meteor headed my way. When I read threads like this one, they might as well be written in Chinese as far as I'm concerned. I have enjoyed watching sports for the last 60 years. I still do. Especially in my den, with a few friends, drinking beer or whatever. Watching in solitary, on an iPad or some other device that cuts me off from most human contact, just isn't appealing to me. Maybe, with luck, I'll be dead before that's what sports broadcasting evolves to. Carry on.

(01-30-2014 12:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 12:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 11:56 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 11:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...1949947414

For non-subscribers, who can't read it, Direct TV is expected to add access to WatchESPN in 2015. ESPN has a post-cable strategy but they say it is a long way off. ESPN is having trouble securing some rights because leagues want to own their own streaming rights.

They don't need a post-cable strategy, in the sense that cable is being supplemented and not yet replaced, but mobile internet viewing is going to become bigger soon, and that's what ESPN wants to be ready for.

IIRC, things like WatchESPN and Pac-12 "TV Everywhere" and whatever the Big Ten has are still limited to cable/satellite subscribers, i.e., I can watch on any of my devices because I'm a subscriber, but cord-cutters don't have access.

Unless the sports market changes, I cannot imagine cord-cutting. Other than my Major League Soccer streaming account and smattering of ESPN3 games of interest it just won't work for my interests.

But I absolutely now expect that I have the ability to watch content on a smartphone or preferably my iPad mini.

Hard to see where I can ever come out ahead financially unless there is an aggregator out there selling to massive numbers of people because the prices on bits and pieces will be staggering.

I understand that I'm a dinosaur, and there's a meteor headed my way. When I read threads like this one, they might as well be written in Chinese as far as I'm concerned. I have enjoyed watching sports for the last 60 years. I still do. Especially in my den, with a few friends, drinking beer or whatever. Watching in solitary, on an iPad or some other device that cuts me off from most human contact, just isn't appealing to me. Maybe, with luck, I'll be dead before that's what sports broadcasting evolves to. Carry on.

Cord cutting isnt necessarily about being solitary as much as it is about having options and cutting costs. The only thing I lost when I cut the cord is ESPN. But cutting the cord and reducing my TV bill from $150/month to $25/month while still having 60 HD channels via antenna plus everything else I want to watch via Hulu Plus, Netflix and Amazon Instant makes up for the loss of E$PiN. I can watch programming on my iPad or streamed on my 40 inch TV with friends and family. Eventually they (ESPN) will get it. Meanwhile if I was some G5 league I would package my third tier programming along with any first and second tier games that dont get televised and sell it for $3.99 a month. Sell commercial time to one or two advertisers and profit.

(01-30-2014 12:34 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 12:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 12:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 11:56 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 11:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...1949947414

For non-subscribers, who can't read it, Direct TV is expected to add access to WatchESPN in 2015. ESPN has a post-cable strategy but they say it is a long way off. ESPN is having trouble securing some rights because leagues want to own their own streaming rights.

They don't need a post-cable strategy, in the sense that cable is being supplemented and not yet replaced, but mobile internet viewing is going to become bigger soon, and that's what ESPN wants to be ready for.

IIRC, things like WatchESPN and Pac-12 "TV Everywhere" and whatever the Big Ten has are still limited to cable/satellite subscribers, i.e., I can watch on any of my devices because I'm a subscriber, but cord-cutters don't have access.

Unless the sports market changes, I cannot imagine cord-cutting. Other than my Major League Soccer streaming account and smattering of ESPN3 games of interest it just won't work for my interests.

But I absolutely now expect that I have the ability to watch content on a smartphone or preferably my iPad mini.

Hard to see where I can ever come out ahead financially unless there is an aggregator out there selling to massive numbers of people because the prices on bits and pieces will be staggering.

I understand that I'm a dinosaur, and there's a meteor headed my way. When I read threads like this one, they might as well be written in Chinese as far as I'm concerned. I have enjoyed watching sports for the last 60 years. I still do. Especially in my den, with a few friends, drinking beer or whatever. Watching in solitary, on an iPad or some other device that cuts me off from most human contact, just isn't appealing to me. Maybe, with luck, I'll be dead before that's what sports broadcasting evolves to. Carry on.

Cord cutting isnt necessarily about being solitary as much as it is about having options and cutting costs. The only thing I lost when I cut the cord is ESPN. But cutting the cord and reducing my TV bill from $150/month to $25/month while still having 60 HD channels via antenna plus everything else I want to watch via Hulu Plus, Netflix and Amazon Instant makes up for the loss of E$PiN. I can watch programming on my iPad or streamed on my 40 inch TV with friends and family. Eventually they (ESPN) will get it. Meanwhile if I was some G5 league I would package my third tier programming along with any first and second tier games that dont get televised and sell it for $3.99 a month. Sell commercial time to one or two advertisers and profit.

LOL. That's what I'm talking about. I picked up a few words from that (TV, ESPN, and the like) but most of it is way over my head. I may need to start planning my ultimate exit strategy.

(01-30-2014 12:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 12:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 11:56 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 11:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...1949947414

For non-subscribers, who can't read it, Direct TV is expected to add access to WatchESPN in 2015. ESPN has a post-cable strategy but they say it is a long way off. ESPN is having trouble securing some rights because leagues want to own their own streaming rights.

They don't need a post-cable strategy, in the sense that cable is being supplemented and not yet replaced, but mobile internet viewing is going to become bigger soon, and that's what ESPN wants to be ready for.

IIRC, things like WatchESPN and Pac-12 "TV Everywhere" and whatever the Big Ten has are still limited to cable/satellite subscribers, i.e., I can watch on any of my devices because I'm a subscriber, but cord-cutters don't have access.

Unless the sports market changes, I cannot imagine cord-cutting. Other than my Major League Soccer streaming account and smattering of ESPN3 games of interest it just won't work for my interests.

But I absolutely now expect that I have the ability to watch content on a smartphone or preferably my iPad mini.

Hard to see where I can ever come out ahead financially unless there is an aggregator out there selling to massive numbers of people because the prices on bits and pieces will be staggering.

I understand that I'm a dinosaur, and there's a meteor headed my way. When I read threads like this one, they might as well be written in Chinese as far as I'm concerned. I have enjoyed watching sports for the last 60 years. I still do. Especially in my den, with a few friends, drinking beer or whatever. Watching in solitary, on an iPad or some other device that cuts me off from most human contact, just isn't appealing to me. Maybe, with luck, I'll be dead before that's what sports broadcasting evolves to. Carry on.

It's not just about iPads and smartphones. It's about Roku and Apple TV, both of which provide a wide variety of content for viewing on your TV in your den such as Netflix, but also including ESPN3, MLB@Bat, and NHL and NBA out of market packages. Cord cutters and "cord nevers" (folks that have never had cable) have great alternatives to cable, particularly if they are not die hard sports fans. For this reason, cable and satellite subscriptions are down this year for the first time. ESPN has lost 1.5 million subscribers from their peak in 2012 at around 100 million.

The big question is whether traditional cable/satellite business is simply going to be flat (or decline very slowly) or whether this is an inflection point and we're going to start seeing significant annual drops. If the latter occurs, ESPN and others have to be ready to revise their business model. Their WatchESPN/ESPN3 service provides a platform that could easily be adapted. For instance, Amazon Prime includes a combination of unlimited streaming of some programming with on demand pay per view offerings. ESPN could easily modify its service to do the same. In my view, though, sports programming continues to be extremely valuable because it is live and because it has excellent demographics. Therefore, I am confident that ESPN and others will find ways to monetize the rights fees to which they are committed.

As someone who has a sports tier on cable, used the firstrow sports links posted, used espn streaming, and has used Net Flix....

Live tv via streaming has been horrid.... compression in the broadcasts...floating in and out of great quality to pretty poor SD quality are very annoying versus a pretty consistent quality of cable tv.

expanding the window of a first row link on my laptop, they sometimes have poor compression as well...some streams get unwatchable. Especially if you want to go with full screen viewing.

Going antenna sounds great but in my house, there are so many antenna dead zones ( doesn't matter if its a $10 antenna or a $70+ one) that just a cable line was worth it versus dealing with reception headaches.

What folks will need to watch out for is everyone will offer "free" intro offers then start charging....then on your internet backbone your provider will want more money for all the usage you take up streaming everything. Think about those overages on cellphone data plans or say your ISP charging you for going over your limit.

I get the cost cutting, but you end up paying somewhere. And once everyone sees they can nickel and dime you for whatever nich programming you want you might just enjoy the economies of scale of bulk offerings.

(01-30-2014 06:49 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  As someone who has a sports tier on cable, used the firstrow sports links posted, used espn streaming, and has used Net Flix....

Live tv via streaming has been horrid.... compression in the broadcasts...floating in and out of great quality to pretty poor SD quality are very annoying versus a pretty consistent quality of cable tv.

expanding the window of a first row link on my laptop, they sometimes have poor compression as well...some streams get unwatchable. Especially if you want to go with full screen viewing.

Going antenna sounds great but in my house, there are so many antenna dead zones ( doesn't matter if its a $10 antenna or a $70+ one) that just a cable line was worth it versus dealing with reception headaches.

What folks will need to watch out for is everyone will offer "free" intro offers then start charging....then on your internet backbone your provider will want more money for all the usage you take up streaming everything. Think about those overages on cellphone data plans or say your ISP charging you for going over your limit.

I get the cost cutting, but you end up paying somewhere. And once everyone sees they can nickel and dime you for whatever nich programming you want you might just enjoy the economies of scale of bulk offerings.

The Major League Soccer streams are usually top-notch. ESPN3/WatchESPN is getting better.
Outlaw streams tend to be horrible.

Once again, it's always be careful what you wish for. As I've pointed out previously, Sky in the UK, (owned by Rupert Murdoch), which owns several top channels and the British equivalent of ESPN (they own most Premier League games, so that's like a single network here owning most NFL games in terms of market power) has started some streaming options.

Their movie package costs about the same as Netflix.

Their TV package costs about the same as Hulu.

Their sports package, which is the equivalent of buying just the ESPN lineup of channels here, costs 9.99 GBP, or about $16.50... per DAY. That translates to about $500 per month.

I don't think many people quite grasp how much sports are worth to cable companies compared to standard TV shows and movies. That Sky pricing is a preview where there charge more for just 24 hours of access to sports than they do for an entire month of access to TV and movies. There will be people that would save money via chord cutting, but it won't be sports fans like us. The pricing will be at a level where it's financial insanity to not just buy the basic cable package if you're watching more than 1 sports event per week.