(07-12-2015 06:13 PM)billings Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 12:37 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 11:42 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Cord cutting accelerated during the first quarter of 2015:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/.../27133979/

If I was running a cable company, I'd be pissed.

I would be telling the directors something like this:

"they think we're just going to sit around and let them use one half of our traditional revenue stream to bypass and suck dry every last cent from the other half??? Piss on that! Internet prices are going up 2X across the board!!"


While that's an exaggeration, sure, there is still some truth to it. Ten years ago, if you wanted TV and internet ... you just lived with the fact that each one cost $50 a month. That was life. But nowadays, people think they should only need to pay $50 a month for internet and get TV for free from the internet.

Cable companies biggest failure was allowing that attitude to propagate and not squashing it in the bud.

It's too late now. The cat is out of the bag. People want TV for free.

Cable company es are becoming internet companies. Hell in parts of the west basic tv is thrown in free if you get internet services. I doubt any conference sees an increase in their. tv contracts. Hbo now and other services, will accelerate r.the move away from cable tv but cable companies will make more $$ as they are now not paying for content and that is becoming a losing proposition anyway,,

Yep, 57 Channels and Nothing On has become 257 channels and nothing on.

(07-12-2015 10:40 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-11-2015 07:31 PM)lance99 Wrote:  

(07-11-2015 09:00 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  That is the big question. Will there be enough?

There is not.

I have said in other threads that ESPN basically overplayed their hand in the content game and they will have to go to the Cable/ Satellite companies and demand $10/sub when the contracts come up for renewal. At that point, they will simply walk away and make a very public PR nightmare for ESPN/Disney. They fell(along with many posters here) into the Market/ Content trap that was unsustainable long term.

Trust me, there are many people that will NOT pay $15/month, regardless of content because the NFL/NBA/MLB will never go for it.

Nonsense.

Explain yourself.


As I just said, demand for live telecasts of college football games is as high as it has ever been. $15/mo is just fine, to get every content that is normally shown under all ESPN branded channels plus all the games that are shown under the ESPN3 brand.

We are paying like more than $50 dollars a month for just all the sports channels combined including ESPN Networks. Smaller cable companies do not have the power to negotiate for lower prices like Cox, Time-Warner and Comcast can.

(07-12-2015 06:18 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  We are paying like more than $50 dollars a month for just all the sports channels combined including ESPN Networks. Smaller cable companies do not have the power to negotiate for lower prices like Cox, Time-Warner and Comcast can.

No one is paying $50 per month for sports channels on basic or expanded cable. The ESPN Networks together (nationally) come in under $7.00 per household. Add another $2-$5 per household for RSN's, depending on how many you have, and $5.00 for other sports/semi sports channels (TNT, TBS, FS1, NFL Network, NBA TV, etc) and you paying $17.00 per month per sports. And note several of the RSN's are not on basic cable. And since sports channels give a LOT of commercial time to local cable networks, they really are not the issue to them (ESPN sometimes gives half it's commercial time to local cable companies for some programs).

Even smaller cablers often get favored nation clauses that protects them should someone else get a lower offer (which is why the PAC cannot offer a discount to DirecTV to get on, for example).

(07-12-2015 06:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 06:18 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  We are paying like more than $50 dollars a month for just all the sports channels combined including ESPN Networks. Smaller cable companies do not have the power to negotiate for lower prices like Cox, Time-Warner and Comcast can.

No one is paying $50 per month for sports channels on basic or expanded cable. The ESPN Networks together (nationally) come in under $7.00 per household. Add another $2-$5 per household for RSN's, depending on how many you have, and $5.00 for other sports/semi sports channels (TNT, TBS, FS1, NFL Network, NBA TV, etc) and you paying $17.00 per month per sports. And note several of the RSN's are not on basic cable. And since sports channels give a LOT of commercial time to local cable networks, they really are not the issue to them (ESPN sometimes gives half it's commercial time to local cable companies for some programs).

Even smaller cablers often get favored nation clauses that protects them should someone else get a lower offer (which is why the PAC cannot offer a discount to DirecTV to get on, for example).

Well, our cable company added a $30 sure charge on the sporis alone this month. The sports package is like $20.

(07-12-2015 03:32 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 09:31 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  Does anyone know how much ESPN3.com charges the ISPs to give its customers access?

Roughly $1.00 per person. The charge additional to cable companies for WatchESPN.

(07-10-2015 12:37 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 11:42 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Cord cutting accelerated during the first quarter of 2015:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/.../27133979/

If I was running a cable company, I'd be pissed.

I would be telling the directors something like this:

"they think we're just going to sit around and let them use one half of our traditional revenue stream to bypass and suck dry every last cent from the other half??? Piss on that! Internet prices are going up 2X across the board!!"


While that's an exaggeration, sure, there is still some truth to it. Ten years ago, if you wanted TV and internet ... you just lived with the fact that each one cost $50 a month. That was life. But nowadays, people think they should only need to pay $50 a month for internet and get TV for free from the internet.

Cable companies biggest failure was allowing that attitude to propagate and not squashing it in the bud.

It's too late now. The cat is out of the bag. People want TV for free.

You make a good point. But the one thing to consider is that many of those deals are timed. You used to see companies/studios sell their content to VOD services for pennies because it was just additional income. As it's income, they become more of a primary, they are charging more. Look at the recent deals signed for Seinfeld, Friends, and CSI for VOD services.

(07-10-2015 07:52 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I hope that they fire skip baseless and stephen a mouth. Also, They over paid for the NBA. For those prices, Espn could have built its own sports league. Spring football anyone?

.
People may dislike them but they are certainly not overpaid. it is by far the highest rated non-event show they have, and is two hours per day to boot. They more than earn their money. Same with mike and Mike.

(07-11-2015 08:42 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 10:27 PM)krup Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 08:53 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Doesn't bode well for conf needing to re work deals soon.

College sports contracts aren't ESPN's problem. All of their college conference contracts added together, which provide innumerable hours of live content for their family of channels, don't come close to equaling what ESPN is paying the NFL to shown one football game a week.

It is the NFL and NBA contracts that have ESPN in jeopardy, because what they will need to charge for a subscription in an unbundled world is way too high because of those contracts.

What's way too high?

I'd probably pay $15/mo to have all the content in the WatchESPN Apple TV app/channel unlocked. That gives everything they have on every ESPN branded channel, plus a lot of other games on top of that (with the same quality).

I don't see why that wouldn't be feasible, given enough paying subscribers.

Here is an idea of what ESPN would cost ala carte. The Disney channel used to be a ala carte like HBO, and it cost the same price as HBO does, which is currently $15-$20 per month. Disney costs $1.00 per month now. ESPN woudl cost at least double HBO, if not more. Food for thought.

I don't follow how you go from Disney costing $15/mo stand alone, to costing $1/mo now ... to ESPN costing $30/mo stand alone.

(07-12-2015 08:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I don't follow how you go from Disney costing $15/mo stand alone, to costing $1/mo now ... to ESPN costing $30/mo stand alone.

Are you that bad at math? If Disney currently costs $1.00 per month wholesale and woudl cost $15.00 per month retail, then ESPN which costs over $5.00 per month wholesale, it would cost (at least) double what Disney does.

(07-12-2015 08:33 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 08:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I don't follow how you go from Disney costing $15/mo stand alone, to costing $1/mo now ... to ESPN costing $30/mo stand alone.

Are you that bad at math? If Disney currently costs $1.00 per month wholesale and woudl cost $15.00 per month retail, then ESPN which costs over $5.00 per month wholesale, it would cost (at least) double what Disney does.

Yes, assuming 20M faithful subscribers (if I did the math correctly, it is late) ESPN would need those 20M subscribers under the new system to pay about $37.00 per month to get what they were receiving at the height of their popularity in subscriber fees for 2013 for all of their channels - ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNNews, and ESPN Classic.

Obviously the price comes down if there are more faithful subscribers and would need to be increased if less than that.

Cheers,
Neil

HBO has nearly 30 million subscribers, so I think that would be a good starting point. But... then again we are talking about something 2.5 times the cost (or more) potentially.

(07-12-2015 08:33 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 08:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I don't follow how you go from Disney costing $15/mo stand alone, to costing $1/mo now ... to ESPN costing $30/mo stand alone.

Are you that bad at math? If Disney currently costs $1.00 per month wholesale and woudl cost $15.00 per month retail, then ESPN which costs over $5.00 per month wholesale, it would cost (at least) double what Disney does.

No one would pay $15/mo to just get the Disney channel stand alone, now. So that is false.

(07-12-2015 09:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 08:33 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 08:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I don't follow how you go from Disney costing $15/mo stand alone, to costing $1/mo now ... to ESPN costing $30/mo stand alone.

Are you that bad at math? If Disney currently costs $1.00 per month wholesale and woudl cost $15.00 per month retail, then ESPN which costs over $5.00 per month wholesale, it would cost (at least) double what Disney does.

No one would pay $15/mo to just get the Disney channel stand alone, now. So that is false.

You do realize this literally happened 20 years ago, right? The Disney Channel was a pay TV channel just like HBO and people paid $10 per month for HBO at the time. . It doesn't matter what you think, this actually happened. It is the reason why Disney shows little to no commercials (aside from previews of their shows) because it was a commercial free channel for so long.

So if we go to an ala carte world Disney channel, as THE HIGHEST RATED CABLE CHANNEL today, would easily claim (and require) that amount)

(07-12-2015 09:40 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  HBO has nearly 30 million subscribers, so I think that would be a good starting point. But... then again we are talking about something 2.5 times the cost (or more) potentially.

If they get 30M faithful subscribers that pay month in and month out, then at $25 a month, that is $300 for the year in subscription fees. Three hundred times 30M subscribers would produce $9 billion in revenue from fees alone. Which is slightly more than subscription fees produced back in 2013 when they had 97 million subs for both ESPN and ESPN2, 75 million subs for ESPNU and ESPNNews, and 30 million subs for ESPNClassic.

Here's a link from April this year trying to project the costs of certain channels if the new system takes hold.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/20...carte.aspx

I think they are only projecting a little over 16M faithful subscribers to get the nearly $7B in subscriber fees that ESPN by itself gets.

Cheers,
Neil

I sort of hedged my bet. I would think they could get as many subscribers as HBO.. but then again the cost is double or more, so who knows? But in such an environment, where everyone is ala carte, I think they would.

(07-12-2015 10:19 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I sort of hedged my bet. I would think they could get as many subscribers as HBO.. but then again the cost is double or more, so who knows? But in such an environment, where everyone is ala carte, I think they would.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I would pay for ABC, CBS, NBC, CW, TNT, TBS, ESPN, HBO, and SHO.

Add those to Netflix and Amazon and I'd be fine.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-12-2015 10:29 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Can't speak for anyone else, but I would pay for ABC, CBS, NBC, CW, TNT, TBS, ESPN, HBO, and SHO.

Add those to Netflix and Amazon and I'd be fine.

Cheers,
Neil

Using current and reverse engineering costs (like we did for ESPN)that equates to [ABC, CBS, NBC, CW, TNT ($18.00), TBS ($15.00), ESPN ($35.00), HBO ($15.00), and SHO ($15.00)] almost $100.00 per month, assuming the OTA channels free, and before accounting for the highspeed internet to service them. And we have not even accounted for Netflix and Amazon, whose prices will skyrocket as they have to sign new deals and if those studios see this as primary revenue instead of ancillary like it is now.

I currently pay $124 for internet, expanded cable, HBO, Showtime, TMC, and Cinemax.

(07-12-2015 09:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 08:33 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 08:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I don't follow how you go from Disney costing $15/mo stand alone, to costing $1/mo now ... to ESPN costing $30/mo stand alone.

Are you that bad at math? If Disney currently costs $1.00 per month wholesale and woudl cost $15.00 per month retail, then ESPN which costs over $5.00 per month wholesale, it would cost (at least) double what Disney does.

No one would pay $15/mo to just get the Disney channel stand alone, now. So that is false.

Disney/ABC Family/ESPN all networks are bundled to our cable company as one. If you add up all those channels alone? You get a lot of money being charged. Plus, my cable company lost many subscribers lately because people can not afford what ESPN is charging our cable company.

(07-12-2015 10:29 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 10:19 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I sort of hedged my bet. I would think they could get as many subscribers as HBO.. but then again the cost is double or more, so who knows? But in such an environment, where everyone is ala carte, I think they would.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I would pay for ABC, CBS, NBC, CW, TNT, TBS, ESPN, HBO, and SHO.

Add those to Netflix and Amazon and I'd be fine.

Cheers,
Neil

We have the bundle pack. Internet/Phone/Cable. We pay over $200 now for it all with extended. We don't have HBO, Showtime, Encore, Starz, Showtime and all that. We are thinking dropping the extended pack to lower our bill under $200 again. Suddenlink was also recently had a bid of an hostile take over from some telecommunication company from overseas. That CEO wants to take and merged with Cox, Cable One and 3 other cable companies.

(07-12-2015 10:55 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 10:29 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Can't speak for anyone else, but I would pay for ABC, CBS, NBC, CW, TNT, TBS, ESPN, HBO, and SHO.

Add those to Netflix and Amazon and I'd be fine.

Cheers,
Neil

Using current and reverse engineering costs (like we did for ESPN)that equates to [ABC, CBS, NBC, CW, TNT ($18.00), TBS ($15.00), ESPN ($35.00), HBO ($15.00), and SHO ($15.00)] almost $100.00 per month, assuming the OTA channels free, and before accounting for the highspeed internet to service them. And we have not even accounted for Netflix and Amazon, whose prices will skyrocket as they have to sign new deals and if those studios see this as primary revenue instead of ancillary like it is now.

I currently pay $124 for internet, expanded cable, HBO, Showtime, TMC, and Cinemax.

There is a limit to how much prices can go up -- and that's how much we are all willing to pay. Maybe we don't know what that limit is yet, but it exists. If almost no one is willing to pay $30/month for each of ESPN, NBC, HBO, etc., then the price is not going to be $30 each for very long. They'll have to lose money, cut back on expensive programming, cut every suit's salary in half, whatever, if the gross amount they can get from subscriptions isn't enough to cover their own overhead.

And if that happens, everyone downstream that gets money from ESPN, NBC, Fox, etc. will feel it. One sports example: The guys who have paid $1 billion or so recently for a pro sports franchise, whose value is largely dependent on the nutty amounts of money they get annually from TV networks, are going to own franchises worth less than they bought them for, if the league's TV revenue is cut in half or more. And I'd bet a large sum of money that some of those owners are leveraged up to their eyeballs because they have borrowed huge sums and used their franchise or its assets as collateral. Maybe a few NFL or NBA franchises would go belly up if their next round of TV deals pays one-third of the current round.

(07-12-2015 10:15 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 09:40 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  HBO has nearly 30 million subscribers, so I think that would be a good starting point. But... then again we are talking about something 2.5 times the cost (or more) potentially.

If they get 30M faithful subscribers that pay month in and month out, then at $25 a month, that is $300 for the year in subscription fees. Three hundred times 30M subscribers would produce $9 billion in revenue from fees alone. Which is slightly more than subscription fees produced back in 2013 when they had 97 million subs for both ESPN and ESPN2, 75 million subs for ESPNU and ESPNNews, and 30 million subs for ESPNClassic.

Here's a link from April this year trying to project the costs of certain channels if the new system takes hold.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/20...carte.aspx

I think they are only projecting a little over 16M faithful subscribers to get the nearly $7B in subscriber fees that ESPN by itself gets.

Cheers,
Neil

The thing is, we have real world evidence that in an a la carte world you don't get "faithful subscribers that pay month in and month out". HBO actually doesn't even release its subscriber numbers, probably because of this point... People add and drop HBO based on what original programming is being shown that month, and that is at a price point of $15-20 a month.

ESPN will experience the same thing. Football is a lot more popular than basketball, so it is ridiculous to expect that everyone willing to pay $25, 30, 35 a month for ESPN from August to January would be willing to pay that for February through July.

I will stick to my $6.99 Netflix, and 9.99 Amazon prime plus over the air. I get CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, PBS, plus 24 more over the air. Add on $49 more for internet.

(07-12-2015 10:11 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 09:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 08:33 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 08:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I don't follow how you go from Disney costing $15/mo stand alone, to costing $1/mo now ... to ESPN costing $30/mo stand alone.

Are you that bad at math? If Disney currently costs $1.00 per month wholesale and woudl cost $15.00 per month retail, then ESPN which costs over $5.00 per month wholesale, it would cost (at least) double what Disney does.

No one would pay $15/mo to just get the Disney channel stand alone, now. So that is false.

You do realize this literally happened 20 years ago, right? The Disney Channel was a pay TV channel just like HBO and people paid $10 per month for HBO at the time. . It doesn't matter what you think, this actually happened. It is the reason why Disney shows little to no commercials (aside from previews of their shows) because it was a commercial free channel for so long.

So if we go to an ala carte world Disney channel, as THE HIGHEST RATED CABLE CHANNEL today, would easily claim (and require) that amount)

Seriously, I trust your claims about as far as I can throw you (not very far).

Where are you getting that people paid $15/mo for the Disney channel 20 years ago and that it is now the highest rated cable channel?

Maybe the first is true but zero chance the second is true.