The mouse is buying one-third interest in MLB's digital video unit. Widely regarded as the leader in delivering quality streaming video and providing services for a number of streaming video companies.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/topstorie...msnmoney11

So a Marvel and a Star Wars movie away from owning the vast majority of MLB content.

And they say they have to cut spending in sports packages which ESPN was hurt the most?

MLBAM is going to be driving a lot of sports content onto mobile devices and "over the top", not just MLB games.

Quote:The unit of MLB, which is jointly owned by the 30 baseball teams, is poised to grow as online viewership increases and more sports leagues and content owners like ESPN look to offer their programming directly to fans in an online format. It already handles video streaming for WatchESPN, where cable-TV subscribers can see live broadcasts and other content online. It also runs World Wrestling Entertainment Inc.’s WWE Network, a $9.99-a-month online service.

And, the NHL is also using MLBAM to deliver its games to mobile devices and over the 'net. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-d...13433.html

This ensures that ESPN is set with a technology platform that allows them to go over the top if/when the cable model starts to disintegrate more rapidly. It's already ready (as used by MLB) for consumers to purchase games a la carte or to buy an entire package of games.

(07-01-2016 04:58 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  So a Marvel and a Star Wars movie away from owning the vast majority of MLB content.

This isn't about MLB content. MLB built and developed MLB Advanced Media for MLB.com, and then once they had it and the bugs were worked out, everyone realized that the technology and the setup existed, and there was no point re-inventing the wheel.

Which is why ESPN contracted with them for WatchESPN, and why WWE contracted with them to run the WWE Network.

I half-remember an article about the valuation of some MLB team that sold, and 1/3 of the value was their ownership stake in MLBAM.

(07-01-2016 05:11 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  And they say they have to cut spending in sports packages which ESPN was hurt the most?

They don't "have to" cut spending in sports packages. Disney just mandated that ESPN produce even greater short-term returns on their revenue.

Thanks Johnbragg

I'm long on Disney. It's still the number one media company ahead of Comcast in my eyes (I forget the market cap comparison). They just need better TV or streaming content. MLB is a start. They need more college stuff "on the go" along with better TV. They need to acquire a big time premium content provider. They have everything but a network like Starz or HBO. Lions gate just snatched one up themselves.

(07-01-2016 07:33 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I'm long on Disney. It's still the number one media company ahead of Comcast in my eyes (I forget the market cap comparison). They just need better TV or streaming content. MLB is a start.

They're not buying the rights to MLB games. They're buying the platform MLB developed to deliver up to 15 simultaneous live-game broadcasts to phones, laptops, and whatever box you have hooked up to your TV and to the internet. It's the software and hardware behind WatchESPN.

This is most likely about distributing what they already have the rights to through ESPN.

(07-01-2016 07:33 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I'm long on Disney. It's still the number one media company ahead of Comcast in my eyes (I forget the market cap comparison). They just need better TV or streaming content. MLB is a start. They need more college stuff "on the go" along with better TV. They need to acquire a big time premium content provider. They have everything but a network like Starz or HBO. Lions gate just snatched one up themselves.

They basically have Netflix.

This is obviously about getting ready to launch the ACC network!

If "over the top" means what it literally says -- ie, streaming as a side-show, in addition to the main product, like Sling is to the actual DISH DBS service -- then fine.

But I think (at least on here) people have been using "over the top" as an euphemism for "ala carte". In that case: no. Rejected. There will be no such ala carte service of Disney channel properties offered directly to those with internet access. Your wish is denied.

(07-02-2016 10:58 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  If "over the top" means what it literally says -- ie, streaming as a side-show, in addition to the main product, like Sling is to the actual DISH DBS service -- then fine.

But I think (at least on here) people have been using "over the top" as an euphemism for "ala carte". In that case: no. Rejected. There will be no such ala carte service of Disney channel properties offered directly to those with internet access. Your wish is denied.

For $20/month I get both ESPN and Disney... And I don't have cable or Dish.

You don't pay Disney directly for an account to a service that directly streams Disney content to your devices via the internet.

That's the discussion.

(07-02-2016 10:58 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  If "over the top" means what it literally says -- ie, streaming as a side-show, in addition to the main product, like Sling is to the actual DISH DBS service -- then fine.

Like many phrases in use in a particular industry, "over the top" means what it literally says if you bear in mind the context. Some anon wikipedia editor(s) wrote (or plagiarized) that:

Quote: In broadcasting, over-the-top content (OTT) is the delivery of audio, video, and other media over the Internet without the involvement of a multiple-system operator in the control or distribution of the content. The Internet provider may be aware of the contents of the Internet Protocol packets but is not responsible for, nor able to control, the viewing abilities, copyrights, and/or other redistribution of the content.

So it means "over the top" of the Internet network, and doesn't really address whether things are paid for one at a time, or in a bundle of content available on demand, or in bundle of content delivered in a linear channel, or in a bundle of content delivered over a number of linear channels.

As things are progressing at DISH, with Sling the source of subscription growth that is partly offsetting the steep decline of subscriptions to their DBS service, it is a matter of time until the DBS service is the sideshow. But in either case, that would be subscription television delivered as a bundle of content delivered over a number of linear channels.

Quote: But I think (at least on here) people have been using "over the top" as an euphemism for "ala carte". In that case: no. Rejected. There will be no such ala carte service of Disney channel properties offered directly to those with internet access. Your wish is denied.

Truly a la carte media delivery is not the common way that current OTT consumers get most of their video content. They get it primarily from bundled on-demand subscriptions ... Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime On Demand, and etc.

At one time a la carte through music stores was a main way that music was delivered OTT, but Apple, for example, is now looking to phase out song purchases in favor of bundled subscriptions to music access.

Great post Bruce!

I guess it comes down to how you want to organize the way you think about people consuming video content.

The wikipedia definition you gave is closer to my latter suggestion, in my opinion, than my former suggestion. Though it's technically saying that OTT strictly just refers to streaming content directly from a service via the internet, with the ISP "not really counting" as a middle man the way that Comcast (and moreso, its proprietary network) is a middle man.


So in that sense, you can have OTT services that are "on demand" like you said (Netflix, etc.) and OTT services that are bundles of "linear channels" like you said (Sling, VUE).


To me, "ala carte" means a service that allows a consumer to pay for any single linear channel or any combination of linear channels they want, without having to pay for any other channels.

This is a pure fantasy that was conjured out of thin air. It has never happened and never will happen.

(07-03-2016 09:24 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Great post Bruce!

I guess it comes down to how you want to organize the way you think about people consuming video content.

The wikipedia definition you gave is closer to my latter suggestion, in my opinion, than my former suggestion. Though it's technically saying that OTT strictly just refers to streaming content directly from a service via the internet, with the ISP "not really counting" as a middle man the way that Comcast (and moreso, its proprietary network) is a middle man.

Precisely. Your ISP is in most cases not a middleman when it comes to paying for the content ... the exception being sometimes ESPN3.

The traditional cable company both owns the physical delivery system and contracts with bundlers to carry their channels. The normal satellite subscription TV services own the physical delivery system and contract with bundlers to carry their channels. Some of the original TV over IP services provides by ISP's operated in the same way.

Like a traditional electrical utility.

In OTT, the customer contracts with some company for content. That company is often a bundler who is the middleman for content producer by others. But the physical delivery is just provided as a communication network.

A little bit like some "deregulated" electrical utilities, where the regulated utility provides the transmission and distribution, and customers can sign up for a different electricity provider if they want to.

Quote: To me, "ala carte" means a service that allows a consumer to pay for any single linear channel or any combination of linear channels they want, without having to pay for any other channels.

That's still a bundle, its just a smaller one. You are still "paying for shows you don't watch", it's just that you are not using that service at all, instead of using the same service to watch something else on some other channel.

Genuine a la care is Pay Per View, like Google Play or shows/movies bought or rented individually on the original iTunes.

For pure Video On Demand, there is no channel.

For linear streaming, there doesn't need to be any, each feed can just have it's own link. That's not all that infrequent for pay per view access to lower profile content where the stream is provided by the event organizer. That is how some American bike races are made available for a fee.

But when the content provider is offering a branded channel, having channels is a sensible way to do linear streaming. And if linear streaming works for some content, it will likely continue to be part of the mix, because there are substantial bandwidth savings available by feeding one stream to an ISP that then duplicates the stream to the customers viewing that stream.

(07-03-2016 09:24 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Great post Bruce!

I guess it comes down to how you want to organize the way you think about people consuming video content.

The wikipedia definition you gave is closer to my latter suggestion, in my opinion, than my former suggestion. Though it's technically saying that OTT strictly just refers to streaming content directly from a service via the internet, with the ISP "not really counting" as a middle man the way that Comcast (and moreso, its proprietary network) is a middle man.


So in that sense, you can have OTT services that are "on demand" like you said (Netflix, etc.) and OTT services that are bundles of "linear channels" like you said (Sling, VUE).


To me, "ala carte" means a service that allows a consumer to pay for any single linear channel or any combination of linear channels they want, without having to pay for any other channels.

This is a pure fantasy that was conjured out of thin air. It has never happened and never will happen.

I think you are wrong. A la carte is coming. It's really the only way cable could conceivably compete with cord cutting options. A la carte would allow consumers to ultimately decide how expensive or how cheap their cable bundle is. That would give consumers complete control over cost---which is what they want.

The cable bundle model is dying. I can see it remaining as a purchase option, but if cable hopes to survive, a la carte is going to be part of thier survival package. It likely will end with the consumer paying more for each individual network----but less overall because they will simply purchase fewer networks.

Coog,

Nope. Always been the dream of a few, never happened and never will happen. Content producers of any channel that has any kind of popularity won't allow distributors to only buy just that channel. They'll require more channels to be purchased, because that's how their money is maximized. In turn, the distributors won't allow end users to buy just single channels, because that's how their money is maximized.

It's vastly more value to the end user, in any case.

(07-04-2016 09:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Coog,

Nope. Always been the dream of a few, never happened and never will happen. Content producers of any channel that has any kind of popularity won't allow distributors to only buy just that channel. They'll require more channels to be purchased, because that's how their money is maximized. In turn, the distributors won't allow end users to buy just single channels, because that's how their money is maximized.

It's vastly more value to the end user, in any case.

Two issues----

That is how you maximizpze profit----but how much money do they make when a person just says no to cable? That model works when people have no alternative. Tha days of the bundle are rapidly nearing an end because people can just buy an on demand service like Ntflix or Hulu for $10 and cut the cord. That option didn't exist when the cable bundle model was hatched.

Second issue---content providers are not necessarily the same thing as networks. Sports falls into this category---but so do a number of content providers like movie studios and even some scripted shows. Thier interests and cable interests are not necessarily congruent.

(07-01-2016 09:37 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 07:33 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I'm long on Disney. It's still the number one media company ahead of Comcast in my eyes (I forget the market cap comparison). They just need better TV or streaming content. MLB is a start. They need more college stuff "on the go" along with better TV. They need to acquire a big time premium content provider. They have everything but a network like Starz or HBO. Lions gate just snatched one up themselves.

They basically have Netflix.

How? Because of all the Marvel and probably Star Wars shows to come? They need to buy Netflix outright or at least a major stake there. They need adult programming "on the go" or subscription based.