(10-06-2014 02:14 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 02:01 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 01:53 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:54 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:45 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I am often sarcastic, but not this time.

I don't want or need bundled channels that I don't watch.

I don't want to have to pay for things I don't want or need.

I don't want to pay any money for the BTN or SEC network, nor do I want a dime of mine to go there.

Rather than pay $150 for 300 useless channels I would rather pay $250 for 20 channels I actually may watch, as long as the BTN and SEC subscribers pay for those channels out of their own pocket, not mine.

What good are all of these extra channels to me? I never watch them.

I want the choice to pay for the channels I choose, even if it costs me more money every month.

Completely agree.

Maybe I missed something?

You would rather pay $250 for the 20 channels you watch, rather than $150 for those 20 channels plus 280 "useless" channels?

First off, your dollar amount is arbitrary. Where did you pull $250 from, your nether region? I'm not paying much more than $100/month regardless of what it gets me, but at least it's my choice. If you don't get that, then walk off the cliff like a good little lemming.

Also if a network prices itself out of existence, then so be it. That's how the market works. This bubble of continuous price hikes has to stop somewhere, and if TV dollars are CFB's cash cow, then i'll be happy to be a part of its downfall, as my cash is the only input I have in the process.

The numbers I used are what the person I posed the question to used. It was in his statement, not my made up numbers.

Maybe read the thread again.

Personally, I'd like to not pay the portion of my property taxes that go to the schools (I have no kids in school any more).

I also hate how my car insurance company can estimate what their DUI payout should be every year and factor that into rates (I don't even drink).

Your going to be sorely disappointed in life if you think you will always have total control over how things work.

What it is NOW is how the market for TV works. Don't buy it if you don't want it.

That's the plan. Now you're getting it.

(10-06-2014 02:18 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 02:14 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 02:01 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 01:53 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:54 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Completely agree.

Maybe I missed something?

You would rather pay $250 for the 20 channels you watch, rather than $150 for those 20 channels plus 280 "useless" channels?

First off, your dollar amount is arbitrary. Where did you pull $250 from, your nether region? I'm not paying much more than $100/month regardless of what it gets me, but at least it's my choice. If you don't get that, then walk off the cliff like a good little lemming.

Also if a network prices itself out of existence, then so be it. That's how the market works. This bubble of continuous price hikes has to stop somewhere, and if TV dollars are CFB's cash cow, then i'll be happy to be a part of its downfall, as my cash is the only input I have in the process.

The numbers I used are what the person I posed the question to used. It was in his statement, not my made up numbers.

Maybe read the thread again.

Personally, I'd like to not pay the portion of my property taxes that go to the schools (I have no kids in school any more).

I also hate how my car insurance company can estimate what their DUI payout should be every year and factor that into rates (I don't even drink).

Your going to be sorely disappointed in life if you think you will always have total control over how things work.

What it is NOW is how the market for TV works. Don't buy it if you don't want it.

That's the plan. Now you're getting it.

This is why I dropped my cable months ago. I was tired of dropping packages and still paying more. Now I pay zero but still have access to most things I want. I'm not against paying for service, but what I was paying for what I was getting didn't add up. Plus the service sucked and the channels were going out half the time. I'll never pay Cox another dime.

You shouldnt be such a smartass Knightsweat since you kind of came off looking pretty silly right here since you obviously didn't read what you said you "completely agree" too. SMH

(10-06-2014 02:18 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 02:14 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 02:01 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 01:53 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:54 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Completely agree.

Maybe I missed something?

You would rather pay $250 for the 20 channels you watch, rather than $150 for those 20 channels plus 280 "useless" channels?

First off, your dollar amount is arbitrary. Where did you pull $250 from, your nether region? I'm not paying much more than $100/month regardless of what it gets me, but at least it's my choice. If you don't get that, then walk off the cliff like a good little lemming.

Also if a network prices itself out of existence, then so be it. That's how the market works. This bubble of continuous price hikes has to stop somewhere, and if TV dollars are CFB's cash cow, then i'll be happy to be a part of its downfall, as my cash is the only input I have in the process.

The numbers I used are what the person I posed the question to used. It was in his statement, not my made up numbers.

Maybe read the thread again.

Personally, I'd like to not pay the portion of my property taxes that go to the schools (I have no kids in school any more).

I also hate how my car insurance company can estimate what their DUI payout should be every year and factor that into rates (I don't even drink).

Your going to be sorely disappointed in life if you think you will always have total control over how things work.

What it is NOW is how the market for TV works. Don't buy it if you don't want it.

That's the plan. Now you're getting it.

Good luck!!!!

(10-06-2014 02:26 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 02:18 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 02:14 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 02:01 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 01:53 PM)Topkat Wrote:  Maybe I missed something?

You would rather pay $250 for the 20 channels you watch, rather than $150 for those 20 channels plus 280 "useless" channels?

First off, your dollar amount is arbitrary. Where did you pull $250 from, your nether region? I'm not paying much more than $100/month regardless of what it gets me, but at least it's my choice. If you don't get that, then walk off the cliff like a good little lemming.

Also if a network prices itself out of existence, then so be it. That's how the market works. This bubble of continuous price hikes has to stop somewhere, and if TV dollars are CFB's cash cow, then i'll be happy to be a part of its downfall, as my cash is the only input I have in the process.

The numbers I used are what the person I posed the question to used. It was in his statement, not my made up numbers.

Maybe read the thread again.

Personally, I'd like to not pay the portion of my property taxes that go to the schools (I have no kids in school any more).

I also hate how my car insurance company can estimate what their DUI payout should be every year and factor that into rates (I don't even drink).

Your going to be sorely disappointed in life if you think you will always have total control over how things work.

What it is NOW is how the market for TV works. Don't buy it if you don't want it.

That's the plan. Now you're getting it.

Good luck!!!!

Keep it. I don't need it.

(10-06-2014 11:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  My educated guess is that "available to people that aren't cable or satellite TV subscribers" means ESPN3 (which is distinct from WatchESPN). That means that your ISP has to be paying the exact same type of subscriber fee to ESPN as your cable company does (only in a different format). Like I've said many times before: anyone that thinks we're getting the same amount of content for less money is fooling themselves. We might pay more for more content, or we might pay less for less content. There's no proverbial free lunch here in between the two.

I suspect cord cutters are going to see a number of "exciting" announcements over the next few years.

Announcements like "your bill is going up $10 a month but you are going to have access to all ESPN programming via WatchESPN.

Basically Comcast et.al. will start offering you access to cable programming via your internet connection and you are going to pay more and they are going to forego the box rental income and make you buy your own device or maybe they'll rent you a Roku, Amazon, or Apple box.

10ths tiresome egotistical snobbery aside.

As a G5 fan the only time I give a damn one way or another about conference networks is when my team is on one of them and I don't care if they get some of my money. I'm paying for lots of channels I not only don't watch, I've deleted them from my program guide.

I watch a bunch of channels that are heavily subsidized by people who don't watch them and you can cut the math any way you like but a package of just the ESPN, Fox Sports, and NBC Sports channels offered to only those who want to want to watch them is going to cost more than than what I pay now for a lot of channels I don't watch. As long as the schmucks watching E, Lifetime, and OWN are subsidizing my viewing habits I'm fine with it.

(I haven't read this entire thread.)

What I think is happening is that cable companies are testing some ideas. AT&T U-Verse is testing a $39/month offer that gives you internet, Amazon Prime (Netflix alternative), and HBO Go. https://www.att.com/shop/tv/hbo-offers.h...<br>

Let's say you like this offer. Couldn't U-Verse offer you additional services like NBA TV online service by the season, by the team, or by the game? For example, for $199 you get the entire league season, for $99 you get the Chicago Bulls season, and for $5.99 you get the game of your choice.

The NCAA basketball tournament could work the same way.

The SEC Network, BTN, ACC Network, Pac 12 Network, etc... could work the same way, too.

For the argument, this could really damage the Big Ten Network, who fought to be on the basic cable service to collect fees from all cable subscribers if the U-Verse offer is mass adopted. Sports may become more regional.

(10-07-2014 06:50 AM)chess Wrote:  (I haven't read this entire thread.)

What I think is happening is that cable companies are testing some ideas. AT&T U-Verse is testing a $39/month offer that gives you internet, Amazon Prime (Netflix alternative), and HBO Go. https://www.att.com/shop/tv/hbo-offers.h...<br>

Let's say you like this offer. Couldn't U-Verse offer you additional services like NBA TV online service by the season, by the team, or by the game? For example, for $199 you get the entire league season, for $99 you get the Chicago Bulls season, and for $5.99 you get the game of your choice.

The NCAA basketball tournament could work the same way.

The SEC Network, BTN, ACC Network, Pac 12 Network, etc... could work the same way, too

For the argument, this could really damage the Big Ten Network, who fought to be on the basic cable service to collect fees from all cable subscribers if the U-Verse offer is mass adopted. Sports may become more regional.

A lot depends on how this service will be structured but rumors are that ESPN/NBA want to make this channel available globally to ISP's along with mobile carriers. There are billions of smart phones & tablets & this could be a huge revenue stream for both.

Verizon is planning to offer it next year.

Verizon takes the lead....

(10-06-2014 01:38 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:29 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 11:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  My educated guess is that "available to people that aren't cable or satellite TV subscribers" means ESPN3 (which is distinct from WatchESPN). That means that your ISP has to be paying the exact same type of subscriber fee to ESPN as your cable company does (only in a different format). Like I've said many times before: anyone that thinks we're getting the same amount of content for less money is fooling themselves. We might pay more for more content, or we might pay less for less content. There's no proverbial free lunch here in between the two.

I want to pay more for less content (of my choice).

I have a feeling that everyone will be paying more money for less service. And not just sports channels. A la carte will not reduce anyone's cost. It will just make all channels more expensive. Bet on it.

I'd be ok with it if my money only went to the places I want it to go.

(10-07-2014 02:47 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'd be ok with it if my money only went to the places I want it to go.

They can donate $5.00 of each of my bill to Al Queda is it means I save $10 per month.

"As more people abandon pricey cable and satellite services, the pay-TV industry may be finally waking up to the reality that if it wants to survive, it's going to have to give consumers what they desire.

And that's a la carte programming — paying only for the channels you watch.

Sounds right to me. But don't worry, there are some cheerleaders on here that will say otherwise. Starting to wonder if they work for Comcast or something.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-la...olumn.html

And YES, we get it, the SEC and Big Ten channel price will go MUCH, MUCH higher for less content.... No kidding, it should for the few people who watch it. A bunch of SEC Network cheerleaders gloating about how much money their schools will be getting for smoothie bars in their favorite teams weight rooms will soon be pining for the free Raycom Sports days.... Foolishly cheering on the raising of their own cable bills.

(10-07-2014 03:57 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Sounds right to me. But don't worry, there are some cheerleaders on here that will say otherwise. Starting to wonder if they work for Comcast or something.on the raising of their own cable bills.

No. You are just saying the same thing people have been saying for 25 years. That has never happened.

You also seem to ignore the idea that you will pay more. The funny part is, no one has ever said it would "never" happen. What we said was it would not be cheaper for the same product. And despite how many articles you quote, you have yet to find one to disprove that. Not a single one.

So right now, it is YOU who are the "cheerleader."

Per the Article: Optik isn't purely a la carte. You begin with a base package of about 40 Canadian and U.S. channels starting at $26 a month. Customers can then customize their lineup by adding a "theme pack" of additional channels, such as a half-dozen more movie or news channels, for an additional $8 a month. Or they can add up to 100 individual channels for about $3.50 each. These include popular channels such as IFC, the Food Network, FX and Animal Planet.

So Time Warner's Preferred Cable is $50/month. Lets say I want movie theme pack and a news theme pack. I am at $42/month. Then I add two individual channels and I am at $49/month. My savings is nill and I get significantly less content.

Im all for a la carte but I also expect that it wont be saving anyone the money they think it will. However delivering the service over the internet instead of the traditional methods could eliminate the need for equipment and the monthly equipment rental fees which turn Time Warner's $50/month prefered cable into at least $60/month but closer to $80 when throwing in a box for an additional bedroom and DVR service. Equipment fees are the silent cost killer making cable ridiculously expensive. I got my own modem/router for $20.00 and am saving $20/month in rental fees.

(10-07-2014 05:57 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Per the Article: Optik isn't purely a la carte. You begin with a base package of about 40 Canadian and U.S. channels starting at $26 a month. Customers can then customize their lineup by adding a "theme pack" of additional channels, such as a half-dozen more movie or news channels, for an additional $8 a month. Or they can add up to 100 individual channels for about $3.50 each. These include popular channels such as IFC, the Food Network, FX and Animal Planet.

So Time Warner's Preferred Cable is $50/month. Lets say I want movie theme pack and a news theme pack. I am at $42/month. Then I add two individual channels and I am at $49/month. My savings is nill and I get significantly less content.

Im all for a la carte but I also expect that it wont be saving anyone the money they think it will. However delivering the service over the internet instead of the traditional methods could eliminate the need for equipment and the monthly equipment rental fees which turn Time Warner's $50/month prefered cable into at least $60/month but closer to $80 when throwing in a box for an additional bedroom and DVR service. Equipment fees are the silent cost killer making cable ridiculously expensive. I got my own modem/router for $20.00 and am saving $20/month in rental fees.

Are they talking US dollars in the article? 3.50 for individual channels like IFC, the Food Network, FX and Animal Planet?

Maybe we're not talking apples to apples. Isn't the BTN under 1.00 and the SECn about 1.30 on US cable/sat? I would guess the Food Network is well under .50 per month on US cable/sat bundled?

In any event, it looks like they also bundle to bring prices down.

I'd have to look up the web site and price some things out, i just had a quick look at the article.

(10-07-2014 06:11 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 05:57 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Per the Article: Optik isn't purely a la carte. You begin with a base package of about 40 Canadian and U.S. channels starting at $26 a month. Customers can then customize their lineup by adding a "theme pack" of additional channels, such as a half-dozen more movie or news channels, for an additional $8 a month. Or they can add up to 100 individual channels for about $3.50 each. These include popular channels such as IFC, the Food Network, FX and Animal Planet.

So Time Warner's Preferred Cable is $50/month. Lets say I want movie theme pack and a news theme pack. I am at $42/month. Then I add two individual channels and I am at $49/month. My savings is nill and I get significantly less content.

Im all for a la carte but I also expect that it wont be saving anyone the money they think it will. However delivering the service over the internet instead of the traditional methods could eliminate the need for equipment and the monthly equipment rental fees which turn Time Warner's $50/month prefered cable into at least $60/month but closer to $80 when throwing in a box for an additional bedroom and DVR service. Equipment fees are the silent cost killer making cable ridiculously expensive. I got my own modem/router for $20.00 and am saving $20/month in rental fees.

Are they talking US dollars in the article? 3.50 for individual channels like IFC, the Food Network, FX and Animal Planet?

Maybe we're not talking apples to apples. Isn't the BTN under 1.00 and the SECn about 1.30 on US cable/sat? I would guess the Food Network is well under .50 per month on US cable/sat bundled?

In any event, it looks like they also bundle to bring prices down.

I'd have to look up the web site and price some things out, i just had a quick look at the article.

Current prices are at the bundled rate. They would go up under a la carte. No way you could add the BTN or SEC Network for under $2/month.

(10-07-2014 07:45 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 06:11 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 05:57 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Per the Article: Optik isn't purely a la carte. You begin with a base package of about 40 Canadian and U.S. channels starting at $26 a month. Customers can then customize their lineup by adding a "theme pack" of additional channels, such as a half-dozen more movie or news channels, for an additional $8 a month. Or they can add up to 100 individual channels for about $3.50 each. These include popular channels such as IFC, the Food Network, FX and Animal Planet.

So Time Warner's Preferred Cable is $50/month. Lets say I want movie theme pack and a news theme pack. I am at $42/month. Then I add two individual channels and I am at $49/month. My savings is nill and I get significantly less content.

Im all for a la carte but I also expect that it wont be saving anyone the money they think it will. However delivering the service over the internet instead of the traditional methods could eliminate the need for equipment and the monthly equipment rental fees which turn Time Warner's $50/month prefered cable into at least $60/month but closer to $80 when throwing in a box for an additional bedroom and DVR service. Equipment fees are the silent cost killer making cable ridiculously expensive. I got my own modem/router for $20.00 and am saving $20/month in rental fees.

Are they talking US dollars in the article? 3.50 for individual channels like IFC, the Food Network, FX and Animal Planet?

Maybe we're not talking apples to apples. Isn't the BTN under 1.00 and the SECn about 1.30 on US cable/sat? I would guess the Food Network is well under .50 per month on US cable/sat bundled?

In any event, it looks like they also bundle to bring prices down.

I'd have to look up the web site and price some things out, i just had a quick look at the article.

Current prices are at the bundled rate. They would go up under a la carte. No way you could add the BTN or SEC Network for under $2/month.

I think that was the point.

People are complaining about subsidizing the conference networks at the bundled rate, but seem willing to pay a 600%+ per channel markup to add their channels a la carte, based on the 3.50 per channel price in the article (that's more than the SECn and BTN combined under bundle).

At those kind of rates, it won't take many a la carte channel additions to your account to make upgrading to the next package (bundle) more feasable (even though you have to deal with all those pesky channels you don't watch).

Who knows, maybe Verizons price structure will be different.

Things change the only variable that could cost the change to fail is excessive cost.

(10-06-2014 10:11 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I want a la carte but I think it will be rough initially. First off ... Discovery Networks and Disney (which includes ESPN) would probably be bankrupted by a la carte. They are huge bundlers, and have scores of low-use channels. Secondly, I think you would see the first real expansion of broadcast TV in this country in a considerable amount of time. I think you'd see probably Fox Sports 1 (by virtue of piggy backing off Fox) be the first nationwide broadcast station to do only sports. And I think that would be huge. Viewership would be immense. CBS-SN could go the same route piggy backing off CBS. ESPN could partner with ABC, but they would be behind compared to CBS-SN and FS1. Then you'd see niche stuff like BTN and LHN and SECTV and ACCN go to the MLB.com model. Watch all the games including ones not on broadcast. Everybody wins. Cable TV costs go down as they don't shoulder the brunt of Discovery and Disney. They can slash your rate WHILE increasing their margin. The sports providers, after large initial outlay, will net even more viewers and advertising dollars. And you the consumer will pay less for what you're getting now, and probably still less if you pick up a niche package MLB style. While OP dreams of not giving a dime to other conferences, I think that is unrealistic and HUGELY short sighted for his own conference. I watch nearly all the #MACtion games during the week on ESPN. If it goes a la carte, I will not pay for a single one. Leaving the MAC with quite a revenue shortfall until the broadcast networks are, in theory, built out.

Not to single you out. But The Mouse is so ready for A la carte. They sold a lot of their library content to Netflix a few years ago. The deal starts in 2016. Not only that. Just take a look at how many media companies they own. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ass...29.2C_Inc. If everything goes a la carte. Disney will finally destroy its competition.