Quote:Dish Network, the satellite provider, is trying to lure younger viewers back to paying for television with the start of a web-based offering that includes ESPN and a number of other popular networks for $20 a month, about a fifth the cost of the average household bill for cable and satellite service.

Announced at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas on Monday, the new service is called Sling TV, and provides live and on-demand television delivered via an Internet connection to television sets, computers and mobile devices.

Dish executives said that the service was cheaper and more convenient than traditional cable service. And they boasted that it delivered more choices for viewers looking to pay for a slimmed-down group of television networks and programs they want to watch, as well as more options as to when, where and how they want to watch them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/busine...ering.html

Not sure what you want Swofford to do with this information. A la carte makes starting a conference network riskier because you can't force people to pay for it that don't want it like the current model does.

This shows that networks based upon bundlers are not nearly so viable or lucrative in the long term ... and possibly even the medium term. The ultimate way forward for the ACC network is MLB.tv style. With the full back catalog available. Then apps for everything. Apps for PSN. Apps for XBox. Apps for Roku. Apps for Apple TV. Apps for iOS. Apps for Android. Apps for Chromecast. Apps for FireTV.

(01-05-2015 10:51 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Not sure what you want Swofford to do with this information. A la carte makes starting a conference network riskier because you can't force people to pay for it that don't want it like the current model does.

That's why the Acc should go direct to the consumer, similar to Netflix, maybe even have the channel on Netflix. That way they can cut out the middleman, and get even higher subscriber fees than the chump change that ESpn would have shared with the Acc network.

(01-05-2015 11:12 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  This shows that networks based upon bundlers are not nearly so viable or lucrative in the long term ... and possibly even the medium term. The ultimate way forward for the ACC network is MLB.tv style. With the full back catalog available. Then apps for everything. Apps for PSN. Apps for XBox. Apps for Roku. Apps for Apple TV. Apps for iOS. Apps for Android. Apps for Chromecast. Apps for FireTV.

It's app mania all up in herr!

http://www.clubapplebees.com/half-price-appetizers

http://workwithus.applebees.com/

http://www.franchiseinformation.us/apple...nchise.php

...so many apps!

(01-05-2015 11:23 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 10:51 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Not sure what you want Swofford to do with this information. A la carte makes starting a conference network riskier because you can't force people to pay for it that don't want it like the current model does.

That's why the Acc should go direct to the consumer, similar to Netflix, maybe even have the channel on Netflix. That way they can cut out the middleman, and get even higher subscriber fees than the chump change that ESpn would have shared with the Acc network.

We'll go door to door! You want to see the ACC in action?! Screw TV! We'll play in your back yard! Heck, we'll let you play. Go long.....

Your move, Big Ten.

Kind of need a network before any of this matters.

Doesn't Espn own all the conference content? Literally cannot do anything without them. This is what is so scary about Espn, we saw them have the Big East whacked when they stepped out of line. In time, they may do the same to this conference. It seems crazy that they can own conferences like they own Star Wars or Marvel... but it seems like they do.

Let's see if this Dish thing flies first. It is a very open question whether they are going to make money on it or not.

Keep and eye on the WWE network, which has been a massive failure so far, and they are offering free PPVs for $10/mo.

The subscriber base for an ACC direct network would be incredibly small. I'm not saying that it isn't the future, but there is a lot of ground to be covered before anything like that is a viable money-maker. We'll have a lot better idea of the landscape as our contract approaches the end.

What interests me a lot more than an ACC standalone network over the internet, is the idea of what will happen when an entity like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu or maybe something like Xbox decides that they want to get into the live sports game. To me, that's closer to being a viable reality.

This is exactly why cable providers who OWN most of the broadband internet in this country are considering switching to data rate payment system of their internet services like cell phone companies do. People started using app services to text and call long distance and changed the way carriers made money, so they started charging more for data and limiting/slowing data if you didn't pay for more expensive upgrades.

Same will happen with internet services... if you're going to bypass the cable's main product with internet based viewing, they'll find ways to make more money off internet and blame the bandwidth usage on slowing things down and charging way more. Depending on your speed and the plan, customers of TWC are already paying between $20-70 a month of their cable bill for internet - more people start slicing cable programming and you'll watch that number jump quickly!

This not al a carte. It's still a bundle. I'm thinking this is not the future.

(01-06-2015 02:09 PM)CardinalZen Wrote:  This not al a carte. It's still a bundle. I'm thinking this is not the future.

Yes, technically Sling TV (if that's what you were referring to) IS a bundle... 11 channels for $20 / month, including some of the channels you normally can't get without the full standard cable package.

No idea whether it's the future or just a flash in the pan.

It could be an introductory teaser. ESPN charges a low amount now but rapidly raises the rate once a person is subscribed.

If you look at it from Disney and ESPN's point of view, is this service costing them any money? Right now, they aren't getting anything from the cord cutters anyway. ESPN is paying these conferences not the cable companies. Who is wagging the dog?

(01-06-2015 02:09 PM)CardinalZen Wrote:  This not al a carte. It's still a bundle. I'm thinking this is not the future.

It is a stepping stone on the way to a la carte.

(01-06-2015 05:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 02:09 PM)CardinalZen Wrote:  This not al a carte. It's still a bundle. I'm thinking this is not the future.

It is a stepping stone on the way to a la carte.

I don't think so. This is a niche service. It's one that I think it great, and I'll probably subscribe, but still niche.

A La Carte options may indeed become more prevalent, but that will be a niche too. There are just not that many people that want just 3-5 channels. Once you get the channels you want, your wife wants, your kids want, you're up to 10-15 channels, and paying nearly as much as you were paying for 200 channels.

A la carte channels aren't going to cost $1-2 a piece. They're going to cost $10+. We'll see what HBO Go launches at. Most people will choose a bundle of 200 for $70 a month over $50-60 for 15 channels.

I'm not against a la carte, it would be nice to have options. I have a wife that doesn't like to watch tv and teenagers who are the same way. We could live with ESPN, AMC and HBO or something like that. But bundling will remain a better deal for most people.

(01-06-2015 05:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 02:09 PM)CardinalZen Wrote:  This not al a carte. It's still a bundle. I'm thinking this is not the future.

It is a stepping stone on the way to a la carte.

While its possible we may see the availability of true a la carte, my guess is that bundled packages will remain more common. If you are a sports fan, buying ESPN alone is not enough. You still need additional channels to have a complete package of all the games you want or need.

This Dish Sling bundle is a good example. With ESPN, ESPN2, TBS and TNT, you get the highest quality national cable packages of NFL. NCAAF, NCAAB, and the NBA, plus two of the three major national MLB packages. It's still missing some pieces, but it's a pretty robust combination.

A la carte will work better for single team or league channels. Fans of specific teams or leagues will need to buy these to supplement a national bundle such as Dish. As a Syracuse and a Red Sox fan in New England, I may want to buy NESN plus a newly created ACCN a la carte. If I lived outside of New England, I might buy MLBTV plus ACCN a la carte.

(01-07-2015 09:09 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 05:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 02:09 PM)CardinalZen Wrote:  This not al a carte. It's still a bundle. I'm thinking this is not the future.

It is a stepping stone on the way to a la carte.

I don't think so. This is a niche service. It's one that I think it great, and I'll probably subscribe, but still niche.

A La Carte options may indeed become more prevalent, but that will be a niche too. There are just not that many people that want just 3-5 channels. Once you get the channels you want, your wife wants, your kids want, you're up to 10-15 channels, and paying nearly as much as you were paying for 200 channels.

A la carte channels aren't going to cost $1-2 a piece. They're going to cost $10+. We'll see what HBO Go launches at. Most people will choose a bundle of 200 for $70 a month over $50-60 for 15 channels.

I'm not against a la carte, it would be nice to have options. I have a wife that doesn't like to watch tv and teenagers who are the same way. We could live with ESPN, AMC and HBO or something like that. But bundling will remain a better deal for most people.

It won't be that much a la carte except on big sports channels. Channels will have to rely on the advertiser primarily. I bet some would be free and entirely ad supported. And you'd see more aggressive OTA national build out. And you'd have a la carte discount bundles too. Discounts for buying a year up front. Etc.

Free tv channels? I've heard it all now! Sign me up for that!

(01-07-2015 10:37 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 09:09 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 05:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 02:09 PM)CardinalZen Wrote:  This not al a carte. It's still a bundle. I'm thinking this is not the future.

It is a stepping stone on the way to a la carte.

I don't think so. This is a niche service. It's one that I think it great, and I'll probably subscribe, but still niche.

A La Carte options may indeed become more prevalent, but that will be a niche too. There are just not that many people that want just 3-5 channels. Once you get the channels you want, your wife wants, your kids want, you're up to 10-15 channels, and paying nearly as much as you were paying for 200 channels.

A la carte channels aren't going to cost $1-2 a piece. They're going to cost $10+. We'll see what HBO Go launches at. Most people will choose a bundle of 200 for $70 a month over $50-60 for 15 channels.

I'm not against a la carte, it would be nice to have options. I have a wife that doesn't like to watch tv and teenagers who are the same way. We could live with ESPN, AMC and HBO or something like that. But bundling will remain a better deal for most people.

It won't be that much a la carte except on big sports channels. Channels will have to rely on the advertiser primarily. I bet some would be free and entirely ad supported. And you'd see more aggressive OTA national build out. And you'd have a la carte discount bundles too. Discounts for buying a year up front. Etc.

With all due respect, I think you are completely wrong. There's virtually no possibility that a network could produce the type of programming they currently do with the revenue from purely ad-supported or a nominal charge.

What you could get with that is stuff like Funny or Die, or repackaged Youtube clips, etc. Stuff with a negligible financial investment in content. The kind of stuff that currently exists. But you're not going to get original programming like say the History Channel or SyFy on that model.

Advertising revenue is going to be almost nil without bundling. How much do you think can be charged for advertising available to 700-800k people, which is currently available to 20 million?

There is no model where anything that is currently thought of as a major cable network is available for small costs, and continues to look anything like it does. Smaller more niche networks will just go away completely without the "socialism" of bundling.

The more logical outcome will be more variety in bundles, both of an online nature, and from traditional cable companies. Probably also some a la carte services made available. There will create things to go after that group of people who really have dumped cable, but would be willing to pay for a couple channels. Getting $20 from those folks instead of nothing will be worth it.

But true 100% a la carte will never be the norm, because for the vast majority of consumers, they won't want it when they see what it looks like. They just want some more varieties of bundles at lower costs.