(04-08-2018 01:34 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-08-2018 08:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2018 08:34 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I pay $80/mo. for internet access with Cox Cable. But, I don't really count that as a "television" expense because I would pay that even if I didn't watch any television.

Sling costs $40/mo. That provides the ESPN stations, including ACC Network Extra.

That allows me to watch ND basketball and baseball games and most ND away football games.

I have Amazon Fire Sticks on all of our TV's. WatchESPN is an app on there. So is NBC Sports, which allows me to watch ND home hockey games.

I get NBC with an OTA antenna. That allows me to watch ND home football games.

I have Netflix. So, $40 for Sling and $10 for Netflix. Done.

That is all the television access that I need.

Seems like you've managed to do achieve what i would like to achieve. I pay $185 a month for cable + internet, and as you say the internet part is basically non-negotiable, have to have that.

But you get both for around $130 a month. That's what I would like. COX keeps trying to raise the price of the TV part such that it would push me up to $200 a month, too much. I struggle with them every 9 months or so to keep it where it is but there is creep, it was $160 three years ago.

In the end, I keep giving ground because I don't see a viable option, but your plan could be just that.

You like having a lot of the movie channels right?

What I found is negotiating free HBO, Showtime, Starz ect in with a starter cable package is possible. Then you could electively add a sports pack in.

I'm in with an everyday price of $139 with HBO & Showtime included. Within that price I'm paying $21 for the HD/Internet box and another $25 for the broadcast TV fees. My bill was going to be $183 with ESPN included so I'm saving $44 dollars without having the mouse and the sports pack.

Base price is $93. If I go in with a promotion I could probably get it for 12 months at $60 dollars and I can try and push them into giving me Starz free. That would drop the total bill down to $106 for internet/cable with HBO/Showtime/Starz included.

You lose the sports. For me I'm at an age where I can't get through a 3 hour game on TV anymore even if my own team is playing. Live its a different story as its a social event.

I appreciate that, but i still gotta have the sports.

(04-08-2018 02:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2018 01:34 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-08-2018 08:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2018 08:34 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I pay $80/mo. for internet access with Cox Cable. But, I don't really count that as a "television" expense because I would pay that even if I didn't watch any television.

Sling costs $40/mo. That provides the ESPN stations, including ACC Network Extra.

That allows me to watch ND basketball and baseball games and most ND away football games.

I have Amazon Fire Sticks on all of our TV's. WatchESPN is an app on there. So is NBC Sports, which allows me to watch ND home hockey games.

I get NBC with an OTA antenna. That allows me to watch ND home football games.

I have Netflix. So, $40 for Sling and $10 for Netflix. Done.

That is all the television access that I need.

Seems like you've managed to do achieve what i would like to achieve. I pay $185 a month for cable + internet, and as you say the internet part is basically non-negotiable, have to have that.

But you get both for around $130 a month. That's what I would like. COX keeps trying to raise the price of the TV part such that it would push me up to $200 a month, too much. I struggle with them every 9 months or so to keep it where it is but there is creep, it was $160 three years ago.

In the end, I keep giving ground because I don't see a viable option, but your plan could be just that.

You like having a lot of the movie channels right?

What I found is negotiating free HBO, Showtime, Starz ect in with a starter cable package is possible. Then you could electively add a sports pack in.

I'm in with an everyday price of $139 with HBO & Showtime included. Within that price I'm paying $21 for the HD/Internet box and another $25 for the broadcast TV fees. My bill was going to be $183 with ESPN included so I'm saving $44 dollars without having the mouse and the sports pack.

Base price is $93. If I go in with a promotion I could probably get it for 12 months at $60 dollars and I can try and push them into giving me Starz free. That would drop the total bill down to $106 for internet/cable with HBO/Showtime/Starz included.

You lose the sports. For me I'm at an age where I can't get through a 3 hour game on TV anymore even if my own team is playing. Live its a different story as its a social event.

I appreciate that, but i still gotta have the sports.

You can still get Joe 6 pack sports if you are in the mood to throw something up on the TV.

Better than obligating the time for the team sports.

(04-07-2018 06:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-07-2018 06:04 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-07-2018 05:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  It was costing me 34 a month on my cable bill, good riddance.

Good for you.
Get it again in September to catch Maction. Don't forget this time that you'll need ESPN, ESPNU, ESPN2 to get ESPN3 and to be able to purchase ESPN +. You can't get ESPN3 and ESPN plus without paying for all of it.

NO NO NO NO NO
ESPN+ is a pure standalone. You pay you get it without regard to whether you have cable/sat/IPTV

It doesn't get you ESPN/2/U/News content but you get the ESPN+ content.

The fact that this has to be explained this often on a message board of die hards shows me ESPN+ will probably fail. To say nothing about being TRIPLE DIPPED (TV/cable fee, ISP WatchESPN fee, and now ESPN+).

Fuhrer Mickey is holding open auditions for the part of David.

(04-08-2018 08:17 AM)Chappy Wrote:  I tried sling but settled on YouTube tv. I pay about $100/mo for internet, Netflix, and YouTube TV and get more than I could ever watch.

We're in the same boat. And I cancel YouTubeTV when it isn't football or basketball season. I'm waiting for a family member to kill off Charter TV too then I can split YouTube TV within the family. I'd probably keep it year round then.

(04-08-2018 12:18 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  What I found doing some research from a power consumption standpoint is that those little old ladies on their iPhone's all day have got it right and computer gamers are racking up the power bills.

It's OT but I'll bite.

Only if you're talking high end equipment. Even the PC enthusiast space has low power high performance options these days. nVidia makes discrete GPUs that can play all modern games (granted, not on highest quality settings) at under 100W. That's less power draw than most CPUs in serious PC systems. The days of needing a 1,250W monster PSU to run a serious gaming rig are long gone. 750W is enough for anybody not running a $1,000+ GPU with a $1,000+ CPU. Even SLI/Crossfire (multi-GPU) is on the way out.

But to your point if you take a SERIOUS machine and disable all power settings and max it out running Prime95 and GPU mining of Bitcoin ... and you ran it 24/7 for a month ... it would pull around 550 kWh. At $0.10/kWh, that's $55/mo in power to run. Now when you scale this up to an entire building now you know why power draw is the number one issue in datacenters today, particularly as enterprise equipment gets smaller and smaller and the power densities get higher and higher.

That being said I could easily configure a gaming PC that could be set the same workload and only cost about $25/mo in power if running maxed 24/7 for a month. And if $25/mo in power is a bank breaker, I don't know how you sleep at night given that nearly everything in your house plugged in draws phantom power. I wouldn't be surprised if the average home user payed more in phantom power than they did to power their PC.

(04-08-2018 03:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-07-2018 06:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-07-2018 06:04 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-07-2018 05:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  It was costing me 34 a month on my cable bill, good riddance.

Good for you.
Get it again in September to catch Maction. Don't forget this time that you'll need ESPN, ESPNU, ESPN2 to get ESPN3 and to be able to purchase ESPN +. You can't get ESPN3 and ESPN plus without paying for all of it.

NO NO NO NO NO
ESPN+ is a pure standalone. You pay you get it without regard to whether you have cable/sat/IPTV

It doesn't get you ESPN/2/U/News content but you get the ESPN+ content.

The fact that this has to be explained this often on a message board of die hards shows me ESPN+ will probably fail. To say nothing about being TRIPLE DIPPED (TV/cable fee, ISP WatchESPN fee, and now ESPN+).

As someone who does currently pay a cable company to get ESPN's full menu of English language channels - ESPN, 2, News, U, Classic, and SECN - i was stunned to find out I don't automatically get "+" but rather will have to pay an extra $5 fee to get that just like someone who currently doesn't buy any ESPN channels.

That pisses me off, because I think it obvious that some content that previously I was getting for what I pay for those ESPN channels, e.g. content that was being provided for "free" to me on WatchESPN, is going to be shifted to "+" such that i won't be getting it any more.

Nuts to that.

While the silly game is still going and people keep paying the ransom the SEC and ACC will do well. If this empire of dirt ever collapses though the Pac-12 and B1G will feel a lot better about themselves for having control over their channel and thus the ability to offer their own content directly to the customer without washing it through Bristol, CT first. I hope Fuhrer Mickey gets obliterated for a number of reasons including their bottomless greed and perversion of copyright law. But I hope that happens just before the ACC GOR expires.

(04-08-2018 03:31 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-08-2018 12:18 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  What I found doing some research from a power consumption standpoint is that those little old ladies on their iPhone's all day have got it right and computer gamers are racking up the power bills.

It's OT but I'll bite.

Only if you're talking high end equipment. Even the PC enthusiast space has low power high performance options these days. nVidia makes discrete GPUs that can play all modern games (granted, not on highest quality settings) at under 100W. That's less power draw than most CPUs in serious PC systems. The days of needing a 1,250W monster PSU to run a serious gaming rig are long gone. 750W is enough for anybody not running a $1,000+ GPU with a $1,000+ CPU. Even SLI/Crossfire (multi-GPU) is on the way out.

But to your point if you take a SERIOUS machine and disable all power settings and max it out running Prime95 and GPU mining of Bitcoin ... and you ran it 24/7 for a month ... it would pull around 550 kWh. At $0.10/kWh, that's $55/mo in power to run. Now when you scale this up to an entire building now you know why power draw is the number one issue in datacenters today, particularly as enterprise equipment gets smaller and smaller and the power densities get higher and higher.

That being said I could easily configure a gaming PC that could be set the same workload and only cost about $25/mo in power if running maxed 24/7 for a month. And if $25/mo in power is a bank breaker, I don't know how you sleep at night given that nearly everything in your house plugged in draws phantom power. I wouldn't be surprised if the average home user payed more in phantom power than they did to power their PC.

That $25 dollar a month max figure looks pretty consistent with some of the research I did. Its not a huge number but in the cord cutting game every dollar counts.

Some of the numbers I came up with on the OTT thread:

Set Top Box => 93.81 per year in electric
Desktop PC 24hr usage => 87.61 per year in electric
90W 55" TV 24hr usage => 82.79 per year in electric
60W Laptop Computer normal 24hr usage => 55.19 per year in electric
Wifi Router 24 hour usage => 5.52 per year in electric
5W 24 hour Cell Phone Charging => 4.38 per year in electric
Printer 30 minutes a day usage => 0.77 per year in electric

For the LapTop, a TV that is on all the time and a Set Top Box which is on all the time comes out to 231.76 or $19.3 dollars per month.

If you cut the cord entirely, that throws out the Set Top Box entirely. Then if you dropped to very occasional use of the TV and Laptop you could save maybe $15 dollars a month on the electric.

(04-08-2018 07:29 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  While the silly game is still going and people keep paying the ransom the SEC and ACC will do well. If this empire of dirt ever collapses though the Pac-12 and B1G will feel a lot better about themselves for having control over their channel and thus the ability to offer their own content directly to the customer without washing it through Bristol, CT first. I hope Fuhrer Mickey gets obliterated for a number of reasons including their bottomless greed and perversion of copyright law. But I hope that happens just before the ACC GOR expires.

Love this post. I want espn to fail as everyone on here knows. I do want it to fail much much quicker than 3036 though...I’m rooting for 2020, after the AAC has moved on.

(04-08-2018 08:12 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-08-2018 07:29 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  While the silly game is still going and people keep paying the ransom the SEC and ACC will do well. If this empire of dirt ever collapses though the Pac-12 and B1G will feel a lot better about themselves for having control over their channel and thus the ability to offer their own content directly to the customer without washing it through Bristol, CT first. I hope Fuhrer Mickey gets obliterated for a number of reasons including their bottomless greed and perversion of copyright law. But I hope that happens just before the ACC GOR expires.

Love this post. I want espn to fail as everyone on here knows. I do want it to fail much much quicker than 3036 though...I’m rooting for 2020, after the AAC has moved on.

At what point could ESPN go standalone at say $15 dollars like HBO?

Does the popularity of the cord fade to the point where this happens?

(04-08-2018 08:17 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  At what point could ESPN go standalone at say $15 dollars like HBO?

Does the popularity of the cord fade to the point where this happens?

ESPN as we know it wouldn't survive only getting that much revenue per viewer. There is a METRIC CRAPLOAD of stuff that can be cut at ESPN as they've been doing for a while now. They have way too much on air "talent". The non-sports content not named PTI/Sportscenter is atrocious. Trying to brand SportsCenter differently for different timeslots with different anchors is also atrocious. Doing SportsCenter on different content from a different location depending upon the hour is also not a value add. ESPN would do better killing nearly all non-sports content in favor of a first time broadcast re-air of events that only carried via ESPN+/WatchESPN during the day. DVR is a thing, it would get used. They make more money than they want to admit re-airing P5 football games 2-5 times the week after the game. The costs are already sunk. The demand is still there particularly for junkies.

And of course I can't let this go without saying how bitter I am that ESPN is perverting Goal Line with every chance they can. Charter doesn't send it in HD. The content has shifted from truly cutting to game to game with compelling moments and highlights to clear "fudging" of the content. For example, when ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU go on their unified commercial break ... Goal Line will more often than you can possibly believe switch to a FCS game. It use to go from Noon to Midnight. And they went hard all the way until 10:30 PM or so when the switching would slow way down to just a few MWC/P12 games. Now it goes 3 PM to a stated 11:30 PM which is more often than not somewhere around 10:45 PM. They even use to have recaps of what happened over the course of the day that were fairly in depth. Now they just do the one big summary at the end which typically sounds like the SportsCenter "here's what the Top 10 ranked factories did" overly condensed summary. BLAHHHHHHHHHHHHH. Goal Line used to be an amazing slice of nirvana. It's a pathetic shadow of its former self now.

(04-08-2018 01:34 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-08-2018 08:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2018 08:34 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I pay $80/mo. for internet access with Cox Cable. But, I don't really count that as a "television" expense because I would pay that even if I didn't watch any television.

Sling costs $40/mo. That provides the ESPN stations, including ACC Network Extra.

That allows me to watch ND basketball and baseball games and most ND away football games.

I have Amazon Fire Sticks on all of our TV's. WatchESPN is an app on there. So is NBC Sports, which allows me to watch ND home hockey games.

I get NBC with an OTA antenna. That allows me to watch ND home football games.

I have Netflix. So, $40 for Sling and $10 for Netflix. Done.

That is all the television access that I need.

Seems like you've managed to do achieve what i would like to achieve. I pay $185 a month for cable + internet, and as you say the internet part is basically non-negotiable, have to have that.

But you get both for around $130 a month. That's what I would like. COX keeps trying to raise the price of the TV part such that it would push me up to $200 a month, too much. I struggle with them every 9 months or so to keep it where it is but there is creep, it was $160 three years ago.

In the end, I keep giving ground because I don't see a viable option, but your plan could be just that.

You like having a lot of the movie channels right?

What I found is negotiating free HBO, Showtime, Starz ect in with a starter cable package is possible. Then you could electively add a sports pack in.

I'm in with an everyday price of $139 with HBO & Showtime included. Within that price I'm paying $21 for the HD/Internet box and another $25 for the broadcast TV fees. My bill was going to be $183 with ESPN included so I'm saving $44 dollars without having the mouse and the sports pack.

Base price is $93. If I go in with a promotion I could probably get it for 12 months at $60 dollars and I can try and push them into giving me Starz free. That would drop the total bill down to $106 for internet/cable with HBO/Showtime/Starz included.

You lose the sports. For me I'm at an age where I can't get through a 3 hour game on TV anymore even if my own team is playing. Live its a different story as its a social event.

Nope. I do without HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, etc....

Don't miss them at all.

There is Netflix and then free Fire Stick movie apps like Crackle, Tubi TV, etc...

Cutting cable very soon. Only thing keeping me was watching FSU. Can't stand ESPN anymore and their BS (especially politics).

Hopefully sling gets me FSU games but regardless. Cutting ESPN and cable. No more of my $ (at least at the current level)

Got to love subsidizing a bunch of conference TV channels I don't watch. When teams like Iowa State make $30 million that money comes from everyone....even grandma.

I cancelled this weekend, went from Sling Orange to Blue. Never been more happy to cancel a channel in my life. I only used it to watch ESPN3 content, since that's getting behind an additional $5 pay wall that was the straw that broke the camel's back. I'll probably flip it back during college football season, but cancel after bowl season.

(04-08-2018 08:34 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I pay $80/mo. for internet access with Cox Cable. But, I don't really count that as a "television" expense because I would pay that even if I didn't watch any television.

Sling costs $40/mo. That provides the ESPN stations, including ACC Network Extra.

That allows me to watch ND basketball and baseball games and most ND away football games.

I have Amazon Fire Sticks on all of our TV's. WatchESPN is an app on there. So is NBC Sports, which allows me to watch ND home hockey games.

I get NBC with an OTA antenna. That allows me to watch ND home football games.

I have Netflix. So, $40 for Sling and $10 for Netflix. Done.

That is all the television access that I need.

you should check out Youtube TV Terry. Unless you want NFL network you get more sports bang for your buck with the $40 You Tube TV package v the $40 Sling Orange/Blue Package.

(04-07-2018 10:31 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Sling. $20/month with ESPN, ESPN2, TNT, TBS, HGTV, and a number of others. Worth it.

$100 cable bills? Youre out of your mind this day and age.

I saw $45/mo for Sling wuth sports
??

(04-09-2018 09:14 AM)westwolf Wrote:  

(04-07-2018 10:31 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Sling. $20/month with ESPN, ESPN2, TNT, TBS, HGTV, and a number of others. Worth it.

$100 cable bills? Youre out of your mind this day and age.

I saw $45/mo for Sling wuth sports
??

$20 for Sling Orange, which has ESPN, ESPN2, ACCN Extra, TBS and TNT
$25 for Sling Blue, which has FS1, NBCSN, NBC and FOX RSNs, TBS and TNT
$40 for Sling Orange + Blue
$5-10 for Sports Extra packs, depending on your base package.

As a Syracuse fan, Sling Orange is a great deal (maybe that's the reason it's called Sling Orange?). I can also add ESPNU, SECN and around 10 other sports channels for $5/mo .

(04-08-2018 08:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-08-2018 08:17 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  At what point could ESPN go standalone at say $15 dollars like HBO?

Does the popularity of the cord fade to the point where this happens?

ESPN as we know it wouldn't survive only getting that much revenue per viewer. There is a METRIC CRAPLOAD of stuff that can be cut at ESPN as they've been doing for a while now. They have way too much on air "talent". The non-sports content not named PTI/Sportscenter is atrocious. Trying to brand SportsCenter differently for different timeslots with different anchors is also atrocious. Doing SportsCenter on different content from a different location depending upon the hour is also not a value add. ESPN would do better killing nearly all non-sports content in favor of a first time broadcast re-air of events that only carried via ESPN+/WatchESPN during the day. DVR is a thing, it would get used. They make more money than they want to admit re-airing P5 football games 2-5 times the week after the game. The costs are already sunk. The demand is still there particularly for junkies.

And of course I can't let this go without saying how bitter I am that ESPN is perverting Goal Line with every chance they can. Charter doesn't send it in HD. The content has shifted from truly cutting to game to game with compelling moments and highlights to clear "fudging" of the content. For example, when ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU go on their unified commercial break ... Goal Line will more often than you can possibly believe switch to a FCS game. It use to go from Noon to Midnight. And they went hard all the way until 10:30 PM or so when the switching would slow way down to just a few MWC/P12 games. Now it goes 3 PM to a stated 11:30 PM which is more often than not somewhere around 10:45 PM. They even use to have recaps of what happened over the course of the day that were fairly in depth. Now they just do the one big summary at the end which typically sounds like the SportsCenter "here's what the Top 10 ranked factories did" overly condensed summary. BLAHHHHHHHHHHHHH. Goal Line used to be an amazing slice of nirvana. It's a pathetic shadow of its former self now.

I suspect usage data for Goalline is what has basically killed it. Numbers weren't there to fight for it. Zombie channel riding out its contract time.

(04-08-2018 04:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2018 03:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-07-2018 06:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-07-2018 06:04 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-07-2018 05:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  It was costing me 34 a month on my cable bill, good riddance.

Good for you.
Get it again in September to catch Maction. Don't forget this time that you'll need ESPN, ESPNU, ESPN2 to get ESPN3 and to be able to purchase ESPN +. You can't get ESPN3 and ESPN plus without paying for all of it.

NO NO NO NO NO
ESPN+ is a pure standalone. You pay you get it without regard to whether you have cable/sat/IPTV

It doesn't get you ESPN/2/U/News content but you get the ESPN+ content.

The fact that this has to be explained this often on a message board of die hards shows me ESPN+ will probably fail. To say nothing about being TRIPLE DIPPED (TV/cable fee, ISP WatchESPN fee, and now ESPN+).

As someone who does currently pay a cable company to get ESPN's full menu of English language channels - ESPN, 2, News, U, Classic, and SECN - i was stunned to find out I don't automatically get "+" but rather will have to pay an extra $5 fee to get that just like someone who currently doesn't buy any ESPN channels.

That pisses me off, because I think it obvious that some content that previously I was getting for what I pay for those ESPN channels, e.g. content that was being provided for "free" to me on WatchESPN, is going to be shifted to "+" such that i won't be getting it any more.

Nuts to that.

I think I have figured out what the ESPN+ strategy is

As GTS notes in a different message it is mathematically impossible for ESPN to move the ESPN family over to streaming at a price that is in line with HBO/Netflix.

I think the sports press is missing the answer assuming ESPN+ is just going to ESPN3 with a monthly fee detached from cable or an ISP.

ESPN+ we see today is the 2018 version of Netflix streaming, it debuted with 1,000 movies and roughly 900 of those you hadn't heard of.

It's the flag plant to draw in the hardcore and they can build from there.

I've seen claims that the RSN's ESPN is buying from Fox pull in anywhere from $1 a month to $6.50 (for YES).

If you live in Atlanta or Dallas, cord cutting is easier. You will have at least two high speed internet providers to choose from possibly more and with an indoor antenna you can likely pull 40+ channels with no issue, maybe 60+. So you have a lot of OTA programming and you have choices and some degree of competition for your ISP dollar. 5G cellular depending on the data limits has the potential to rival many wired internet providers.

The urban marketplace is perfect for the cord-cutter. Very different from the situation for my brother where he gets four PBS channels and has one high speed internet provider or for my uncle who can get four PBS channels and doesn't have high speed internet option except satellite with the lag it offers. I have two internet provider options and can get 40ish channels except 7 of those are only watchable maybe one day a week when the weather is just right.

Fox is eager to ditch the RSNs. That suggests that they may see this as a chance to ditch those rights fees contracts before they take a big hit because the cord cutting is hitting them.

I think the next play for ESPN+ is going to be those local rights.

They will let the cable and satellite providers move the RSNs to more expensive packages in order to start selling local rights via ESPN+

$4.99 gets you ESPN+ but ESPN+ St. Louis with the Blues and Cardinals will cost you another $5-$10 a month. ESPN+ Dallas will get your the Rangers, Mavericks and Stars.

$4.99 per month or $49.99 per year is just the get you in the door price.

ESPN is going to nuke the bulk of the Fox sports news staff. They'll set up a green screen studio that will be in Bristol or Charlotte and do localized sports news for ESPN+ Atlanta and ESPN+ Nashville the same as the company in Little Rock that does "local" news for stations around the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_News_Network

ESPN+ St. Louis will have a local program that will re-air a few times per day on the linear channel on cable with the rest of the time filled with games, a SportsCenter simulcast or two or five, some stuff out of the ESPN vault and infomercials.

Online when you bring up the ESPN+ app the ESPN+ St Louis sportscast will be there either live or on-demand.

ESPN is going to fire a crap ton of people, hire some other people to shoot video as contractors at press conferences and post-game and upload it to the ESPN+ News Central or if it has national significance fire it on to Bristol for SportsCenter.

Phase II of ESPN+ is going to be about local content.