It seems like the newest trend is for the big conferences to form their own cable conference network channel and then dream of ever increasing subscription fees for these networks via cable.

The Big Ten, Pac 10, and now the SEC.

The one problem I see is that to form these networks they all must pull content off of the free OTA syndicated NBC/CBS/ABC/Fox channels and even ESPN to provide the content to launch these networks like the Big Ten Network. There was an article posted here a while back that even claims that the SEC rose to prominence and the Big Ten started to fall in competition on the field when the Big Ten launched their network. The theory went that the Big Ten pulled their primetime ESPN Saturday slot to give to the BTN and the SEC stepped in and took it over an the recruits loved watching the SEC while the BTN is a smaller mostly regional network.

The same goes for the OTA syndicated packages. For instance the ACC/Raycom sports network broadcasts ACC games all over the OTA NBC/CBS syndicate affiliates and they reach a large audience. The SEC currently does this too but will pull a bunch of content to launch their cable network.

At what point does the G5 conferences step in and take over those prime antenna OTA slots and gain larger viewers? Sports will always be in demand and once the SEC pulls out then other conferences will step in.

The cable cutters are abandoning cable at an alarming pace and each time a new sports conference demands a higher subscription rate and cable rates go up it only makes the cable subscribers go down faster.

The 2013 Ownership Survey and Trend Report, part of The Home Technology Monitor research series, found that 19.3% of all U.S. households with TVs rely solely on over-the-air signals to watch TV programming; this compares with 17.8% of homes reported as broadcast-only last year. Overall, GfK estimates that 22.4 million households representing 59.7 million consumers receive television exclusively through broadcast signals and are not subscribing to a pay TV service (i.e., a traditional pay TV service such as cable, satellite, Verizon FIOS or AT&T U-Verse).

https://www.nab.org/documents/newsroom/p...sp?id=3168

Curiously to those who think moving from OTA to Cable is an irreversible trend, the NFL who is the king of them all just sold its NFL Network Thursday night package and demanded only OTA broadcasters bid on it because they wanted to boost ratings and reach 60 million more viewers.

What does the NFL know that others dont? Thoughts?

Could the SEC be reaping large short-term revenue now, but hurting themselves in the long-run? Could ESPN be using them to try and force people from dropping cable by pulling content to cable only but it all backfire as cable subscribers and ESPN subscribers are actually falling faster and faster as they currently are?

(02-09-2014 11:18 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  It seems like the newest trend is for the big conferences to form their own cable conference network channel and then dream of ever increasing subscription fees for these networks via cable.

The Big Ten, Pac 10, and now the SEC.

The one problem I see is that to form these networks they all must pull content off of the free OTA syndicated NBC/CBS/ABC/Fox channels and even ESPN to provide the content to launch these networks like the Big Ten Network. There was an article posted here a while back that even claims that the SEC rose to prominence and the Big Ten started to fall in competition on the field when the Big Ten launched their network. The theory went that the Big Ten pulled their primetime ESPN Saturday slot to give to the BTN and the SEC stepped in and took it over an the recruits loved watching the SEC while the BTN is a smaller mostly regional network.

The same goes for the OTA syndicated packages. For instance the ACC/Raycom sports network broadcasts ACC games all over the OTA NBC/CBS syndicate affiliates and they reach a large audience. The SEC currently does this too but will pull a bunch of content to launch their cable network.

At what point does the G5 conferences step in and take over those prime antenna OTA slots and gain larger viewers? Sports will always be in demand and once the SEC pulls out then other conferences will step in.

The cable cutters are abandoning cable at an alarming pace and each time a new sports conference demands a higher subscription rate and cable rates go up it only makes the cable subscribers go down faster.

The 2013 Ownership Survey and Trend Report, part of The Home Technology Monitor research series, found that 19.3% of all U.S. households with TVs rely solely on over-the-air signals to watch TV programming; this compares with 17.8% of homes reported as broadcast-only last year. Overall, GfK estimates that 22.4 million households representing 59.7 million consumers receive television exclusively through broadcast signals and are not subscribing to a pay TV service (i.e., a traditional pay TV service such as cable, satellite, Verizon FIOS or AT&T U-Verse).

https://www.nab.org/documents/newsroom/p...sp?id=3168

Curiously to those who think moving from OTA to Cable is an irreversible trend, the NFL who is the king of them all just sold its NFL Network Thursday night package and demanded only OTA broadcasters bid on it because they wanted to boost ratings and reach 60 million more viewers.

What does the NFL know that others dont? Thoughts?

They aren't giving up over-the-air spots. The only thing I've seen is ABC/ESPN seems to be doing more 2 way splits on regional coverage than 3 way splits. Going to 14 is to have enough inventory to feed the network and fill all day Saturday.

CBS-1 game
ABC-1 or 2 games
ESPN-3 games
ESPN 2-4 games
Fox-4-7 games

So that is 11-17 games on Saturday. Add 9 for the SECN, P12N and BTN and that gets you to 20-26. There are 64 teams in the P5 conferences for 32 games if every game that week is in conference, more if not. G5 isn't getting more exposure because of these networks.

A model based on forcing people who aren't interested to fund your network is not a model that can last. I don't think it changes quickly, but I also don't think conference networks being massive money makers is a permanent fixture. When forced carriage is no longer significant, they will be a pay channel. If being a pay channel was so great, we wouldn't have all these fights to get it on a lower tier where there is forced carriage.

At that point, will conferences think 10-12 makes more sense than 14 or 15?

If conference networks become pay channels, where the only subscribers will be those who choose to pay $5/month, then diehards become far more valuable than casual fans. 1,000 people in Nebraska will be worth more to the Big Ten Network than 100,000 people in Maryland.

When the SEC cut their deal initially, they had a fat offer from Comcast to do an SEC Network on the terms of the B1G Network. The SEC presidents and AD's opposed the deal because the 12:30E/11:30C syndicated network was seen as too important.

ESPN offered some fat money to keep them from going that way.

It wasn't until they needed a way to reap the benefit of TAMU and Mizzou that the SEC Network idea was revived but until then the SEC really wanted to make sure an OTA network remained.

(02-10-2014 09:23 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  When the SEC cut their deal initially, they had a fat offer from Comcast to do an SEC Network on the terms of the B1G Network. The SEC presidents and AD's opposed the deal because the 12:30E/11:30C syndicated network was seen as too important.

ESPN offered some fat money to keep them from going that way.

It wasn't until they needed a way to reap the benefit of TAMU and Mizzou that the SEC Network idea was revived but until then the SEC really wanted to make sure an OTA network remained.

The Sun Belt should work to fill the 12:30E syndicated timeslot that they abandon then. Lots of people used to watching football on those channels at those times. I doubt many will rush out and buy cable too. Could be a huge boost for the Sun Belt as the SEC sells themselves out for a few quick bucks on the backs of the declining cable subscribers.

I don't see any problem here. Even when the conferences reach the point of controlling all their inventory (currently Tier 1 - 3), they can sell games to whoever they want (for maximum exposure or money) without a middle-man.

(02-09-2014 11:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  They aren't giving up over-the-air spots. The only thing I've seen is ABC/ESPN seems to be doing more 2 way splits on regional coverage than 3 way splits. Going to 14 is to have enough inventory to feed the network and fill all day Saturday.

CBS-1 game
ABC-1 or 2 games
ESPN-3 games
ESPN 2-4 games
Fox-4-7 games

So that is 11-17 games on Saturday. Add 9 for the SECN, P12N and BTN and that gets you to 20-26. There are 64 teams in the P5 conferences for 32 games if every game that week is in conference, more if not. G5 isn't getting more exposure because of these networks.

Yes, this is correct. The Big Ten, for instance, has more games on ABC and ESPN than they ever did BEFORE the Big Ten Network was created. The BTN was never intended to be a replacement for broader coverage on OTA networks or ESPN. Instead, it is a place where games that used to be only shown via syndication or locally are now given a national platform. The SEC Network will largely operate in the same manner.

So, the key is that these conference networks are a supplement to OTA/ESPN coverage as opposed to being a replacement. The G5 isn't getting any of those slots (and, if anything, they are going to get more squeezed because all of the power conferences except for the Big 12 are larger with more inventory compared to 5 years ago).

That is a pretty amazing stat how the OTA viewers are increasing. I'm surprised at how high the percentage is (I was thinking like 8-10%) but I'm not surprised that the numbers are increasing with the pay tv rates increasing. I myself have thought about cancelling my whole TV package. I do know Dish offers a Welcome and Starter package that is reasonable for me, but I'm not at that breaking point yet...just at the edge. More interesting, is how many OTA channels there are in some of these larger metro areas.
As for the G5 related to this, living in San Antonio I saw WAC football games on the independent channels that are also OTA. So a G5 conference like the MW maybe able to get the indy networks to broadcast games to gain more exposure for the increasing OTA viewers.

I don't believe that the conference networks are cutting into OTA games at all. If anything, there are more games than ever with FOX having added its OTA package of P12 and B12 games.

The conference networks are absolutely cutting into conference syndication packages, though. The BTN resulted in the end of the B1G syndication package, and I assume that the SECN will have the same impact on the SEC syndication package. This should create some channel openings for conferences that continue to offer a syndicated package. This is a great opportunity for somebody like the American to gain exposure.

As far as cord cutters go, it's still pretty slow. Overall MSO (Cable/Satellite/IPTV) subscriptions are down around 3% from the all time high. The big question is whether and by how much this will accelerate - a slow gentle decline or sudden fall off a cliff? Also, the suggestion that these are all OTA homes is mistaken. A large percentage of new MSO-free homes get their video content primarily from the internet.

ESPN just got rid of its entire ESPN Regional schedule of OTA syndicated games. The website doesn't even exist anymore. SEC, AAC, games all gone and MAC syndicated package next as we negotiate. Maybe national OTA games are the same, but the OTA syndicate packages are toast. Raycom Sports ACC games next.

(02-10-2014 02:25 PM)orangefan Wrote:  As far as cord cutters go, it's still pretty slow. Overall MSO (Cable/Satellite/IPTV) subscriptions are down around 3% from the all time high. The big question is whether and by how much this will accelerate - a slow gentle decline or sudden fall off a cliff? Also, the suggestion that these are all OTA homes is mistaken. A large percentage of new MSO-free homes get their video content primarily from the internet.

It's probably fair to assume that very few of the cord-cutters are big sports watchers. The squeeze on the TV sports bubble is going to be that a smaller number of non-sports fans are continuing to subsidize the TV sports provided to a static number of sports fans.

Youre forgetting the First Row factor. ESPN is hanging by a thread and they dont know it.

(02-10-2014 08:51 PM)panama Wrote:  Youre forgetting the First Row factor. ESPN is hanging by a thread and they dont know it.

I know. Their profits only increased by 34%/$325 million last quarter. (ESPN makes over $5 billion per year in profits on $10 billion in revenues)

(02-10-2014 09:18 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 08:51 PM)panama Wrote:  Youre forgetting the First Row factor. ESPN is hanging by a thread and they dont know it.

I know. Their profits only increased by 34%/$325 million last quarter. (ESPN makes over $5 billion per year in profits on $10 billion in revenues)

You're talking today. It's a snapshot. They are losing subscribers. Cord cutting isn't going to reverse itself. When you reduce your TV bill by 90% you while still having 99% of your programming you are not going to come back. It all looks great today but it will not be in 7 to 10 years.

(02-11-2014 01:34 AM)panama Wrote:  When you reduce your TV bill by 90% you while still having 99% of your programming you are not going to come back.

That's not going to happen, ever. Netflix alone costs 10% of my cable bill, operates on pretty thin margins, and it doesn't provide even 25% of cable's programming and you need to pay for high speed internet to deliver it on top of the programming cost.

Programming costs money, probably 1/2 the cost of your cable bill or more. It will undoubtedly be disaggregated, so that you buy programming separately from the physical delivery (broadband), but if you want that programming (something more than old movies and last year's episodes of prerecorded shows), you will have to pay. And, if cable companies can't recover their costs from TV service, they'll have to increase broadband charges to cover the costs of the physical delivery system.

CBS, CW, NBC, Fox, ABC all have 3 hours of new prime-time programming every night for free. Its not all old programming. There are plenty of live sports on the weekend. Amazon Prime is basically free to anybody who is a regular Amazon shopper and Crackle is totally free.

A 3mbps internet connection will power Amazon movies in HD just fine so if you got suckered into paying more than $29 for higher speed internet than you are overpaying. ESPN3 is free with your internet and has more NCAA basketball games than you could ever possibly watch and the NFL entire season and playoffs is free. If you have a must see TV show on basic cable like Discovery Channel than just pay $1.99 to watch on VUDU. MLB even gives away one free game a day on Roku.

For $29 a month for your internet there is nothing really you cant get with a Roku, TV Antenna, Sports Radio, and ESPN3.

Best of all instead on spending your entire evening and weekends being an unproductive couch potato watching TV all day, you can get some stuff done or go play a pickup game of basketball instead of gaining an extra 10 lbs.

How do most people get their internet? Either from the local cable company or the local phone company.

Neither wants their product to be a dumb pipe. They don't want to sell you access to the pipe, they want to sell the water in the pipe.

For all of Google's saber-rattling about getting in the pipe business they've done virtually nothing and it has been aimed mostly at fairly high density upper middle class neighborhoods.

Cable and phone are going to price internet access so that you bundle with TV content.

(02-11-2014 09:23 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  How do most people get their internet? Either from the local cable company or the local phone company.

Neither wants their product to be a dumb pipe. They don't want to sell you access to the pipe, they want to sell the water in the pipe.

For all of Google's saber-rattling about getting in the pipe business they've done virtually nothing and it has been aimed mostly at fairly high density upper middle class neighborhoods.

Cable and phone are going to price internet access so that you bundle with TV content.

Data and info becomes cheaper, not more expensive. Remember when the phone companies charged $0.25 per minute for long distance? Its free now. Remember when you had to pay to read the newspaper? Its free now. Remember how expensive cell phones used to be, they are also declining in price and also offer internet service. There are more and more free wifi hot-spots popping up all over.

Internet will basically be free in the future. If you live downtown in a city you dont need to even pay for cell phone service anymore. Just buy an iPhone with wifi and walk around the city. There is not a street block that you can't catch a free Starbucks/McDonalds type wifi that you can use to make and receive free phone calls and connect on the internet from or text away for free.

The younger generation gets this and thats why they are the highest group who doesn't have cable or internet. Its not that they cut the cord and refused to quit paying, its that they never had a cord or subscription to begin with as they don't need it.