http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/env...story.html

More news that will lead to reduced future revenues for all entities that generate significant sums from the cable model. The trend is accelerating and given that the B1G has a contract coming due soon I think it's wise to shoot for two nationwide OTA broadcasts per week (1pm & 5pm) in addition to whatever cable deal they strike. Too much to lose in terms of visibility if you have most of your content on cable and people don't see you.
I'm not saying the cable model is dead but it is certainly retreating as costs increase for customers. The tide is ebbing and you can either try to fight the trend or work with it, I vote work with it.

if anything, the focus should be on cutting the length of games and dead time during the game. The BigTen should experiment with games on BTN, removing commercial time outs from games until the 4Q. you still have commercials, but the game keeps playing while the commercials are on. Once the commercial is over, they can quickly show replays to catch up.

(05-09-2015 07:08 AM)goofus Wrote:  if anything, the focus should be on cutting the length of games and dead time during the game. The BigTen should experiment with games on BTN, removing commercial time outs from games until the 4Q. you still have commercials, but the game keeps playing while the commercials are on. Once the commercial is over, they can quickly show replays to catch up.

Split screen.

(05-09-2015 06:40 AM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/env...story.html

More news that will lead to reduced future revenues for all entities that generate significant sums from the cable model. The trend is accelerating and given that the B1G has a contract coming due soon I think it's wise to shoot for two nationwide OTA broadcasts per week (1pm & 5pm) in addition to whatever cable deal they strike. Too much to lose in terms of visibility if you have most of your content on cable and people don't see you.
I'm not saying the cable model is dead but it is certainly retreating as costs increase for customers. The tide is ebbing and you can either try to fight the trend or work with it, I vote work with it.

The impact of Unbundling will be interesting to watch. if ESPN isn't collecting 6 dollars from the 100s of millions of people who don't watch it....

(05-09-2015 07:08 AM)goofus Wrote:  if anything, the focus should be on cutting the length of games and dead time during the game. The BigTen should experiment with games on BTN, removing commercial time outs from games until the 4Q. you still have commercials, but the game keeps playing while the commercials are on. Once the commercial is over, they can quickly show replays to catch up.

I'm biased so I may not be the best person to speak on the subject, but I think the length of games is fine. They have to "pay the bills" by airing commercials which allows occasional potty runs and/or grabbing some food. But IMO that is why sports in particular are so valuable... people watch them live so they'll also watch the commercials.

(05-09-2015 08:23 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(05-09-2015 06:40 AM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/env...story.html

More news that will lead to reduced future revenues for all entities that generate significant sums from the cable model. The trend is accelerating and given that the B1G has a contract coming due soon I think it's wise to shoot for two nationwide OTA broadcasts per week (1pm & 5pm) in addition to whatever cable deal they strike. Too much to lose in terms of visibility if you have most of your content on cable and people don't see you.
I'm not saying the cable model is dead but it is certainly retreating as costs increase for customers. The tide is ebbing and you can either try to fight the trend or work with it, I vote work with it.

The impact of Unbundling will be interesting to watch. if ESPN isn't collecting 6 dollars from the 100s of millions of people who don't watch it....

I think unbundling would hurt all content providers but sports would be the least impacted. To put it bluntly, people want their sports. Given the opportunity to individually select which channels you want a lot of people will choose a heavy sports package. Of course there are people who don't care about sports, but there are more people that don't care for Oxygen or Lifetime...

So maybe those B1G Network projections might not come true? Hopefully so as it is extortion for most typical Americans.

I've cut the cord (basically) I use Sling/Roku/Amazon Prime/OTA and lifeline cable/Internet so I don't have to pay for useless crap I don't watch. I'm saving about $100 a month.

I could be wrong but I don't think this pertains as much to sports viewers as it does to others. It's not that sports viewers aren't cutting the cord either as we see with TexanMark but I don't think sports viewers will be doing that to the same degree and percentages as other viewers. Other viewers have many options now, as TexanMark displayed some of those options, for their programming but Live Sports is still limited.

Let me just remind everyone of a little known but extremely important fact. Cable companies rent pole space from the power company. Guess what happens when they cant pay as much? Guess who makes up for that loss of revenue to the power company? The situation is more complex than most self centered citizens realize.

How about big time advertisers, how do you think they feel about all of this? Do you think they like the much more predictable and traditional model of cable tv?

(05-09-2015 09:44 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I could be wrong but I don't think this pertains as much to sports viewers as it does to others. It's not that sports viewers aren't cutting the cord either as we see with TexanMark but I don't think sports viewers will be doing that to the same degree and percentages as other viewers. Other viewers have many options now, as TexanMark displayed some of those options, for their programming but Live Sports is still limited.

Let me just remind everyone of a little known but extremely important fact. Cable companies rent pole space from the power company. Guess what happens when they cant pay as much? Guess who makes up for that loss of revenue to the power company? The situation is more complex than most self centered citizens realize.

How about big time advertisers, how do you think they feel about all of this? Do you think they like the much more predictable and traditional model of cable tv?

lol, as somebody who works for the local electric company, and who has been involved in cable tv rental agreemenst to attach to utility poles, that amount of revenue is so meaningless, customers will not notice at all on their electric bills if cable companies went out of business.

Now if you asked me if electric companies are worried about the potential utility death cycle, or if TESLA home batteries will have any impact on the industry, well, thats another subject.

(05-09-2015 09:23 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  So maybe those B1G Network projections might not come true? Hopefully so as it is extortion for most typical Americans.

I've cut the cord (basically) I use Sling/Roku/Amazon Prime/OTA and lifeline cable/Internet so I don't have to pay for useless crap I don't watch. I'm saving about $100 a month.

I personally have cut the cord as well because it seemed ridiculous to pay a monthly sum that large just for sports and movies. For my movie content I do Netflix streaming and DVDs for stuff not available on stream. My wife will do Hulu stuff as well as going to the network websites to watch shows she missed. The only problem is sports so I'll go to a sports bar or friend/family to watch games I want.

Also regarding future revenues the SEC is the monster. The SEC network in year 1 is twice as valuable as the BTN in the seventh year of operation.

(05-09-2015 09:44 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I could be wrong but I don't think this pertains as much to sports viewers as it does to others.

I think that's right. Cord cutters are more likely to be people who don't give a about watching sports on TV. On average, the people who really really really want their NF'inL or their NBA or their SEC football are going to keep their cable/satellite service.

It would be interesting, though, if the major pro sports leagues and college conferences start to offer subscription services for over-the-internet or "TV everywhere" viewing of all their games that don't require a cable/satellite subscription. That might lead to a rush of cord cutting among sports fans.

(05-09-2015 09:22 AM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  

(05-09-2015 08:23 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(05-09-2015 06:40 AM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/env...story.html

More news that will lead to reduced future revenues for all entities that generate significant sums from the cable model. The trend is accelerating and given that the B1G has a contract coming due soon I think it's wise to shoot for two nationwide OTA broadcasts per week (1pm & 5pm) in addition to whatever cable deal they strike. Too much to lose in terms of visibility if you have most of your content on cable and people don't see you.
I'm not saying the cable model is dead but it is certainly retreating as costs increase for customers. The tide is ebbing and you can either try to fight the trend or work with it, I vote work with it.

The impact of Unbundling will be interesting to watch. if ESPN isn't collecting 6 dollars from the 100s of millions of people who don't watch it....

I think unbundling would hurt all content providers but sports would be the least impacted. To put it bluntly, people want their sports. Given the opportunity to individually select which channels you want a lot of people will choose a heavy sports package. Of course there are people who don't care about sports, but there are more people that don't care for Oxygen or Lifetime...

We will keep some sports channels, but we will get rid of the SECNetwork since we did not ask for it.

(05-09-2015 11:14 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-09-2015 09:44 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I could be wrong but I don't think this pertains as much to sports viewers as it does to others.

I think that's right. Cord cutters are more likely to be people who don't give a about watching sports on TV. On average, the people who really really really want their NF'inL or their NBA or their SEC football are going to keep their cable/satellite service.

It would be interesting, though, if the major pro sports leagues and college conferences start to offer subscription services for over-the-internet or "TV everywhere" viewing of all their games that don't require a cable/satellite subscription. That might lead to a rush of cord cutting among sports fans.

Yeah, it possibly could BUT I think those Leagues would have to work in coordination with each other in order to maximize that enough to have a major affect. That is what we see the likes of ESPN doing now.

(05-09-2015 10:17 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(05-09-2015 09:44 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I could be wrong but I don't think this pertains as much to sports viewers as it does to others. It's not that sports viewers aren't cutting the cord either as we see with TexanMark but I don't think sports viewers will be doing that to the same degree and percentages as other viewers. Other viewers have many options now, as TexanMark displayed some of those options, for their programming but Live Sports is still limited.

Let me just remind everyone of a little known but extremely important fact. Cable companies rent pole space from the power company. Guess what happens when they cant pay as much? Guess who makes up for that loss of revenue to the power company? The situation is more complex than most self centered citizens realize.

How about big time advertisers, how do you think they feel about all of this? Do you think they like the much more predictable and traditional model of cable tv?

lol, as somebody who works for the local electric company, and who has been involved in cable tv rental agreemenst to attach to utility poles, that amount of revenue is so meaningless, customers will not notice at all on their electric bills if cable companies went out of business.

Now if you asked me if electric companies are worried about the potential utility death cycle, or if TESLA home batteries will have any impact on the industry, well, thats another subject.

Down here in Arizona the power companies have already been successful at attacking the viability of the roof solar panel industry.

(05-09-2015 09:22 AM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  

(05-09-2015 08:23 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(05-09-2015 06:40 AM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/env...story.html

More news that will lead to reduced future revenues for all entities that generate significant sums from the cable model. The trend is accelerating and given that the B1G has a contract coming due soon I think it's wise to shoot for two nationwide OTA broadcasts per week (1pm & 5pm) in addition to whatever cable deal they strike. Too much to lose in terms of visibility if you have most of your content on cable and people don't see you.
I'm not saying the cable model is dead but it is certainly retreating as costs increase for customers. The tide is ebbing and you can either try to fight the trend or work with it, I vote work with it.

The impact of Unbundling will be interesting to watch. if ESPN isn't collecting 6 dollars from the 100s of millions of people who don't watch it....

I think unbundling would hurt all content providers but sports would be the least impacted. To put it bluntly, people want their sports. Given the opportunity to individually select which channels you want a lot of people will choose a heavy sports package. Of course there are people who don't care about sports, but there are more people that don't care for Oxygen or Lifetime...

There are projections out already that only 30% of people would elect to have ESPN. People like sports sure but those that aren't fans will still get their fix through the OTA broadcasts. Things like the superbowl get super ratings but it's a cultural thing not bc they're all avid sports fans.

(05-09-2015 10:25 AM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  

(05-09-2015 09:23 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  So maybe those B1G Network projections might not come true? Hopefully so as it is extortion for most typical Americans.

I've cut the cord (basically) I use Sling/Roku/Amazon Prime/OTA and lifeline cable/Internet so I don't have to pay for useless crap I don't watch. I'm saving about $100 a month.

I personally have cut the cord as well because it seemed ridiculous to pay a monthly sum that large just for sports and movies. For my movie content I do Netflix streaming and DVDs for stuff not available on stream. My wife will do Hulu stuff as well as going to the network websites to watch shows she missed. The only problem is sports so I'll go to a sports bar or friend/family to watch games I want.

Also regarding future revenues the SEC is the monster. The SEC network in year 1 is twice as valuable as the BTN in the seventh year of operation.

False.

All it means is that ESPN is a tyrant, forcing distributors to carry the SECN on popular tiers in order to have access to the main channels. You think that many people are picking up their phones to specifically order the SECN as a special? Please.

And the SEC pays the price for that, obviously. Because for all this supposed revenue, where is the corresponding payouts to the schools? Not there.

Cable wants those games on cable so you'll buy cable.

It might be hard to turn down the $$ that cable is currently able to afford.

(05-09-2015 03:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-09-2015 10:25 AM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  

(05-09-2015 09:23 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  So maybe those B1G Network projections might not come true? Hopefully so as it is extortion for most typical Americans.

I've cut the cord (basically) I use Sling/Roku/Amazon Prime/OTA and lifeline cable/Internet so I don't have to pay for useless crap I don't watch. I'm saving about $100 a month.

I personally have cut the cord as well because it seemed ridiculous to pay a monthly sum that large just for sports and movies. For my movie content I do Netflix streaming and DVDs for stuff not available on stream. My wife will do Hulu stuff as well as going to the network websites to watch shows she missed. The only problem is sports so I'll go to a sports bar or friend/family to watch games I want.

Also regarding future revenues the SEC is the monster. The SEC network in year 1 is twice as valuable as the BTN in the seventh year of operation.

False.

All it means is that ESPN is a tyrant, forcing distributors to carry the SECN on popular tiers in order to have access to the main channels. You think that many people are picking up their phones to specifically order the SECN as a special? Please.

And the SEC pays the price for that, obviously. Because for all this supposed revenue, where is the corresponding payouts to the schools? Not there.

Tyrant or not the distribution is there and the ask price being forced down everyone's throat is much higher than BTN or Pac12. As far as revenue distributed... it's year one and there are startup costs. That value isn't twice BTN for no reason... they were wise to team up with an entity that could get carriage.

(05-09-2015 03:34 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  Cable wants those games on cable so you'll buy cable.

It might be hard to turn down the $$ that cable is currently able to afford.

I'm not saying put all games OTA, heck you could even put the most desirable game Tier 1 on cable and have the next game OTA. But I think that as more people cut the cord... the exposure that is provided OTA is important.

(05-09-2015 12:25 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-09-2015 10:17 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(05-09-2015 09:44 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I could be wrong but I don't think this pertains as much to sports viewers as it does to others. It's not that sports viewers aren't cutting the cord either as we see with TexanMark but I don't think sports viewers will be doing that to the same degree and percentages as other viewers. Other viewers have many options now, as TexanMark displayed some of those options, for their programming but Live Sports is still limited.

Let me just remind everyone of a little known but extremely important fact. Cable companies rent pole space from the power company. Guess what happens when they cant pay as much? Guess who makes up for that loss of revenue to the power company? The situation is more complex than most self centered citizens realize.

How about big time advertisers, how do you think they feel about all of this? Do you think they like the much more predictable and traditional model of cable tv?

lol, as somebody who works for the local electric company, and who has been involved in cable tv rental agreemenst to attach to utility poles, that amount of revenue is so meaningless, customers will not notice at all on their electric bills if cable companies went out of business.

Now if you asked me if electric companies are worried about the potential utility death cycle, or if TESLA home batteries will have any impact on the industry, well, thats another subject.

Down here in Arizona the power companies have already been successful at attacking the viability of the roof solar panel industry.

interesting. i know Illinois just passed legislation to try increase solar applications. It has not really taken off in the Midwest yet. I hear California has a bunch, which is no surprise. but so does Mass., which is a surprise.

I have not heard much about solar in Arizona, but you would think it would the ideal state for solar, even more than California. I think I will try to read more on the subject. thanks