CSNbbs

Keep an eye on this issue as it may relate to the amount of money available for new TV deals:

http://apnews.excite.com/article/2011081...A3KG0.html

I wouldn't worry too much about that... for now. While the cable industry may have lost 1% of its subscribers, subscriber fees paid to networks that carry sports are skyrocketing. So for now, it is still a net gain. Five years from now though, this may be more serious.

(08-10-2011 11:05 AM)TerryD Wrote: [ -> ]Keep an eye on this issue as it may relate to the amount of money available for new TV deals:

http://apnews.excite.com/article/2011081...A3KG0.html

I think it will also decrease the revenue for any conference sponsored network already in existence. Less subscribers means less money for the Big Ten, Pac Ten, Big 12, and Mountain West networks to pay out to each school. I guess it won't affect the SEC and ACC deals. But that's just off the top of my head. I may be mistaken.

(08-10-2011 11:19 AM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote: [ -> ]Less subscribers means less money for the Big Ten, Pac Ten, Big 12, and Mountain West networks to pay out to each school.

Not quite. The MWN is just a TV contract just like the rest: there is no ownership interest. So their pay would not be affected. And in theory, since the Big XII and Pac 12 have yet to receive anything from their not yet in existance networks, you can't lose money you never had. And even the Big Ten will have gained more subscribers (Nebraska addition) than they lost.

ESPN3,HULU Plus,and Netflix are all that I have. I cut cable over a year ago and just don't have the need for it anymore. I don't like watching or paying for a bunch a crap that I don't want or like. Now if the cable companies switch to a system were I just pay for what I want then I might switch back.

(08-10-2011 12:22 PM)hawghiggs Wrote: [ -> ]ESPN3,HULU Plus,and Netflix are all that I have. I cut cable over a year ago and just don't have the need for it anymore. I don't like watching or paying for a bunch a crap that I don't want or like. Now if the cable companies switch to a system were I just pay for what I want then I might switch back.

I am with you!!!

In Wilmington, NC, I have ATT internet so I can get ESPN3 and I pay for netflix. I bought an antenna from Walmart and get the Big 4 networks, plus PBS and ION w/ no monthly fee. I use standard HULU instead of a DVR/TIVO. The only thing sports wise that I would like to have access to is Carolina Hurricanes games on FSN. Other than that I get to watch everything I want without paying an addtional $60.00 minimum/month

(08-10-2011 12:22 PM)hawghiggs Wrote: [ -> ]Now if the cable companies switch to a system were I just pay for what I want then I might switch back.

Lots of people say this. It seems "American" on its face to have an a la carte choice. However, this setup screws sports fans more than anyone else. It's not the 100 crappy channels that make your cable bill expensive. It's the handful of channels that people actually watch en masse - the ESPN channels, your applicable RSN, TNT, TBS, USA, FX - that take up the bulk of your cable bill, and in turn those would be the only ones that could possibly survive in an a la carte world (thereby having the effect of actually concentrating media power in a handful of channels even more than today).

(08-10-2011 12:22 PM)hawghiggs Wrote: [ -> ]ESPN3,HULU Plus,and Netflix are all that I have. I cut cable over a year ago and just don't have the need for it anymore. I don't like watching or paying for a bunch a crap that I don't want or like. Now if the cable companies switch to a system were I just pay for what I want then I might switch back.

Solid decision I'd love to do that, but my wife LOVES to pay $70 a month to flip channels between stuff she doesn't want to watch.

(08-10-2011 01:11 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote: [ -> ]I'd love to do that, but my wife LOVES to pay $70 a month to flip channels between stuff she doesn't want to watch.

Are you gay? I only ask because your "wife" sounds an awful lot like a man.

It's a situation that conflicts me greatly since I consider myself to be a free market libertarian.

Short-term, a la carte and Internet options sound great because those hundreds of channels are still out there right now producing content.

Long-term, though, no one is going to be able to afford to produce that content without revenue that's equivalent to what they're getting right now for cable subscriber fees, so either (1) prices will rise for Internet subscriptions (or even the Internet in general) to compensate and/or (2) there will be a whole lot less content available.

The newspaper industry has already gone through this. In terms of sheer readers, newspapers actually have more than with the power of the Internet. However, they still haven't figured out a way to monetize all of those readers, and they've been trying to do it for over 15 years! As a result, newspapers are dying off and the ones that are still alive have been cut to the bone in terms of staffing. We've completely regressed as a country in terms of reporting quality.

So, nothing in life is for free. If you want the same quality content long-term, you're eventually going to have to pay for it. Maybe more of your money will end up going to your Internet service provider instead of your cable provider (assuming they aren't the same, which is a HUGE logistical roadblock to a la carte pricing ever coming to fruition), but you're going to pay for it in some form or fashion (or else that content will die off just like the newspapers).

She's not a man, but still loves her TV.

(08-10-2011 01:20 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]It's a situation that conflicts me greatly since I consider myself to be a free market libertarian.

Short-term, a la carte and Internet options sound great because those hundreds of channels are still out there right now producing content.

Long-term, though, no one is going to be able to afford to produce that content without revenue that's equivalent to what they're getting right now for cable subscriber fees, so either (1) prices will rise for Internet subscriptions (or even the Internet in general) to compensate and/or (2) there will be a whole lot less content available.

The newspaper industry has already gone through this. In terms of sheer readers, newspapers actually have more than with the power of the Internet. However, they still haven't figured out a way to monetize all of those readers, and they've been trying to do it for over 15 years! As a result, newspapers are dying off and the ones that are still alive have been cut to the bone in terms of staffing. We've completely regressed as a country in terms of reporting quality.

So, nothing in life is for free. If you want the same quality content long-term, you're eventually going to have to pay for it. Maybe more of your money will end up going to your Internet service provider instead of your cable provider (assuming they aren't the same, which is a HUGE logistical roadblock to a la carte pricing ever coming to fruition), but you're going to pay for it in some form or fashion (or else that content will die off just like the newspapers).

Agree...more people that cancel cable and rely on ESPN3 as there way to watch sports like I have just means the price of ESPN3 will rise to compensate for the decrease in ESPN subscriber fees. Maybe I should quit telling people to cancel their cable haha

(08-10-2011 01:23 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote: [ -> ] She's not a man, but still loves her TV.

If we didn't have 2 TVs, my wife would drive me bonkers. She wakes up (highly p!ssed too) when you turn her TV off when she's asleep...