Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
ESPN Could Lose More Viewers If No Agreement Be Made With Altice/Suddenlink
Author Message
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,618
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 978
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #21
RE: ESPN Could Lose More Viewers If No Agreement Be Made With Altice/Suddenlink
(10-01-2017 05:29 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 04:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol....As usual, you make my case with your own points. 56% would take the discount over having ESPN. That means nearly HALF (43%) of their subscribers WANT ESPN. Case closed. No sane provider is risking the loss of HALF their subscriber base. Ive said it before, you clearly must work for a government agency or academia, because you wouldn't last a week in the private sector. ESPN didnt become the highest cost network for no reason. They have the clout to demand that high subscriber fee because carriers know they have a large number of subscribers that will leave if they cant offer ESPN. Its basically the same reason the SEC Network is such a success. The moment ESPN no longer is a desired network by a significant portion of their subscribers, the leverage will shift to the carriers---but right now---content is king and ESPN has the content enough people want that ESPN still commands great leverage.


typical dem coogs doh fan response (the same group that thinks people would suddenly want the PAC12n if dem coogs doh were in the conference)

that does not at all mean that the other 46% of the population WANTS ESPN (much less demands it) it simply means that % might put up with paying that $5 dollars a month if they had no other choice

but of course you are ignorant of the fact that ESPN and the others are well over $5 a month and getting higher and thus the % of people that will not want to pay for them will most likely go up as that price goes up

you are still oblivious to the fact that all but Dish Network that provide "cable" are also ISPs and while in the case of Direct TV AT&T is not an ISP in all areas that can get Direct TV because AT&T is not a CLEC/ILEC/or a coax cable provider all over the USA where AT&T provides UVerse they are also an ISP

so again these cable MSOs/ISPs have OPTIONS to retain customers and that is to retain them as an internet subscriber while they drop cable and go find a streaming service to get the sports they want or they can work deals with streaming services to offer that to their internet only customers or to customers that take a lower level of cable and still look to stream

you must not work anywhere that requires intelligence because you are oblivious to the fact that Disney/ESPN can deliver nothing to anyone without a last mile connection and right now with the exception of Dish Network and all the other major cable/TV last mile providers are also internet providers (and with the exception of Direct TV subs in areas without UVerse or DSL or Cable provide by AT&T)

ESPN is so profitable because they have existed in a time when consumers had ZERO choice about a great deal of the cable channels they were forced to pay for and like Disney/ESPN you seem ignorant to the fact of that coming to an END

ESPN is simply not going to forever be able to hang on to subscribers that do not want their product especially at an ever increasing cost and the sooner they realize that the sooner they can control how that happens

but like you Disney and ESPN seem to be ignorant of that fact and they believe they can hang on to them forever......when the last mile providers that Disney and ESPN are dependent on are letting them know that will end because it is killing those last mile providers as well

the last mile providers are going to get their money and it is up to Disney/ESPN how many and how much of those subs money they get especially those that do not want their product

and the answer from ESPN and clowns like you that do not understand a competitive market seems to be "keep forcing it on them at any price because some want it"

while the answer of cable MSOs and ISPs is "we are going to give our subs options"

and once those MSOs and ISPs find that many subs are taking the option of no ESPN the flood gates are opened and they will not be closed

Disney/ESPN is dependent on the last mile.....the subscriber is dependent on the last mile.....those that control the last mile will make the decisions in the future about the choices those subs have not Disney/ESPN and the higher the price of Disney/ESPN the sooner and faster those increased options become available and the faster that Disney/ESPN lose dollars from subs that never wanted them in the first place

and I am sure Disney/ESPN (like you) is dumb enough to think they will just make that up by charging those that "must have them" more for the same crappy product, but they will soon find like dem coogs doh found that people are not demanding something as much as you think they are

just like people that live in areas filled with PAC 12 teams and that care nothing about the PAC12n are not going to start demanding the PAC12n if dem coogs doh get added to the PAC 12.....because there is no economic threshold where suddenly there is enough of something that someone does not want to make them all the sudden want it

56% of the people that have cable do not want ESPN at a price well below what ESPN charges now and unlike you anyone with a brain knows that does not mean the other 46% MUST HAVE IT especially at any price

and when those 46% that MIGHT WANT IT at some price have multiple options to get it and the last mile providers have the ability to collect money from them o provide it they are going to do so as cheaply as possible and they are not going to cram it on others that do not want it and lose them as well

you are oblivious to the fact that cable subs are dropping like flies and it is NOT because they cannot get ESPN for many it is because of ESPN and others they do not want being crammed on them

and you are oblivious to the fact that all cable MSOs but Dish Network and Direct TV (in non AT&T areas) are also ISPs and thus they have the option to try and please cable subs that do not want ESPN AND to provide internet to those that might want ESPN and will stream it

ESPN has the option of dealing with that and trying to keep as many paying customers as possible in the process....and they like you think the answer is keep forcing it on people at a higher price because the "cable company" has their hands tied.....when the reality is the "cable company" with the exception of Dish Network and non AT&T area Direct TV customers controls the delivery methods and in many areas that choice is still limited

lol....typical Todd Rodge. Cluesless to the end. Stopped reading at the bold comment. The question put to the survey respondent was would you prefer us to drop ESPN in exchange for a $10 discount. 56% said yes. Even a moron can figure out that those answering "no" clearly WANT ESPN. If you cant even figure out something so basic, then its not worth wading through the rest of the ill informed grammatically challenged wall of text in a futile attempt at meaningful discussion.
(This post was last modified: 10-01-2017 06:57 PM by Attackcoog.)
10-01-2017 06:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MWC Tex Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,085
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 118
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #22
RE: ESPN Could Lose More Viewers If No Agreement Be Made With Altice/Suddenlink
(10-01-2017 06:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 06:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 12:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 10:20 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 10:12 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  What you are not considering is how this is an incredibly dangerous gamble by Suddenlink. In an environment where cable customers are leaving cable providers in droves, Suddenlink is going to go dark on ESPN and ABC in the middle of the college and NFL football seasons? What will happen is droves of football fans will take the opportunity to leave Suddenlink and go to competitors like a Comcast, ATT, Direct Tv, Dish, or to one of the newer streaming options like VUE, HULUtv, or Sling. So Suddenlink could literally end up losing a quarter to half their subscriber base. No football fan is sticking with Suddenlink just because the bill is $10 cheaper-----not when VUE would be half of the reduced price of Suddenlink and provides all the ESPN+ABC networks.

They might fall ass-backwards into the strategy of being the lower-cost, lower-programming provider. Switch to Altice and get a free digital antenna, combined with the lowest rates on internet service with some cable TV thrown in. (When we tried to go internet-only with Time WArner, they gave us a package that threw in very-basic-cable--ESPN, CNN, no Comedy Central--for $5 less than Internet-plus-landline-no-cable would have been.)

Plenty of people do not care about sports, and aren't super particular about their TV.

Quote:The French ownership can't afford to black out ESPN and ESPN knows it.

The point is, I'm not certain that the head office in France knows it, in the same way that Comcast and AT&T know it.

They may not know that they cant dump ESPN. Its also true that plenty of cable subscribers dont care about sports. But I dont know a single cable company willing to lose 25% to 50% of its subscriber base. These days, whats left of cable subscribers tends to run to an older demographic that DOES like sports. Plus, a significant portion of that subscriber base probably watches some shows on ABC or other Disney networks. Trying to cut out ESPN/ABC while everyone else is carrying the networks (inclusding streaming options that are less than half the price of your service) is a losing strategy. I mean--you can be the low price cable provider---but why would that be an attractive niche when price sensitive consumers are the most likely to cut the cord and move to cheaper streaming options? Suddenlink is going to be a huge loser if they try to push this for very long. They just dont have much leverage.

Because you'd BE the cheaper streaming option. Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, whatever--the money is in being your Internet provider. Internet plus a digital antenna equals being the low cost option. Content is nothing, the wires running into your house are everything, in this model.

Those providers are paying the same price for ESPN as the traditonal cable outlets. There are no free rides. Suddenlink can go cheaper without ESPN---but they just are going to see a big drop off in subscribers. ATT, VUE, HUle, Comcast, etc are all for Suddenlink dropping ESPN.

Heck, if Suddenlink drops ESPN and lowers there price for the basic package, I might be willing to subscribe to them.
10-01-2017 07:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,052
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 124
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #23
RE: ESPN Could Lose More Viewers If No Agreement Be Made With Altice/Suddenlink
(10-01-2017 06:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 06:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 12:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 10:20 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 10:12 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  What you are not considering is how this is an incredibly dangerous gamble by Suddenlink. In an environment where cable customers are leaving cable providers in droves, Suddenlink is going to go dark on ESPN and ABC in the middle of the college and NFL football seasons? What will happen is droves of football fans will take the opportunity to leave Suddenlink and go to competitors like a Comcast, ATT, Direct Tv, Dish, or to one of the newer streaming options like VUE, HULUtv, or Sling. So Suddenlink could literally end up losing a quarter to half their subscriber base. No football fan is sticking with Suddenlink just because the bill is $10 cheaper-----not when VUE would be half of the reduced price of Suddenlink and provides all the ESPN+ABC networks.

They might fall ass-backwards into the strategy of being the lower-cost, lower-programming provider. Switch to Altice and get a free digital antenna, combined with the lowest rates on internet service with some cable TV thrown in. (When we tried to go internet-only with Time WArner, they gave us a package that threw in very-basic-cable--ESPN, CNN, no Comedy Central--for $5 less than Internet-plus-landline-no-cable would have been.)

Plenty of people do not care about sports, and aren't super particular about their TV.

Quote:The French ownership can't afford to black out ESPN and ESPN knows it.

The point is, I'm not certain that the head office in France knows it, in the same way that Comcast and AT&T know it.

They may not know that they cant dump ESPN. Its also true that plenty of cable subscribers dont care about sports. But I dont know a single cable company willing to lose 25% to 50% of its subscriber base. These days, whats left of cable subscribers tends to run to an older demographic that DOES like sports. Plus, a significant portion of that subscriber base probably watches some shows on ABC or other Disney networks. Trying to cut out ESPN/ABC while everyone else is carrying the networks (inclusding streaming options that are less than half the price of your service) is a losing strategy. I mean--you can be the low price cable provider---but why would that be an attractive niche when price sensitive consumers are the most likely to cut the cord and move to cheaper streaming options? Suddenlink is going to be a huge loser if they try to push this for very long. They just dont have much leverage.

Because you'd BE the cheaper streaming option. Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, whatever--the money is in being your Internet provider. Internet plus a digital antenna equals being the low cost option. Content is nothing, the wires running into your house are everything, in this model.

Those providers are paying the same price for ESPN as the traditonal cable outlets. There are no free rides. Suddenlink can go cheaper without ESPN---but they just are going to see a big drop off in subscribers. ATT, VUE, HUle, Comcast, etc are all for Suddenlink dropping ESPN.

ypu are too stupid to understand that the vast majority of the companies you listed are not in competition with Altice/Suddenlink

Comcast and Altice/Suddenlink most likely compete in NO MARKET and it would be rare that AT&T and Altice/Suddenlink compete in most markets

there might be a few where AT&T competes with them, but not many

even more ignorant you are too dense to figure out as I explained that to get VUE or HULU you need a damn ISP and that can just as easily be Altice/Suddenlink as any other available one

you do not understand how this works

"cable TV" has the most competition and that competition is with Direct TV (exclusive of AT&T Uverse or coax cable) and Dish Network which with a few exceptions are available to everyone in the USA

after that some people in the USA will have the choice of a coax cable company and a copper pair or fiber provider and even fewer will have an over builder coax provider or a twister pair copper or fiber CLEC provider or over builder

so for a "cable MSO" of any method (be it coax, copper pair, fiber, or sat) to compete they need to have the most options available and the lowest cost available to their subscribers

that is why a CABLE company (of any of the above methods) will want to have the LOWEST COST OPTIONS available to their subs because people with a brain understand that cable subscriptions are dropping like flies and it is not because cable companies are not offering ESPN it is because cable companies have refused to stand up to ESPN and other channel/bill crammers

so in the case of Dish Network especially for them to compete they HAVE TO cater to the 56% that could care less about ESPN

because Dish Network has ZERO ISP/Internet options ot offer their subscribers

next for a cable MSO to compete with Dish or Direct and to compete if there is a coax over builder or a FIOS or UVerse or fiber over builder in the area then they need to pay attention to the 56% that want nothing to do with ESPN

because that 56% has the most options to choose from and they are eventually going to gravitate to the one that stands up to ESPN and others

you can't seem to understand that 56% is the largest % of subscribers by a meaningful amount and also they are going to be the ones with the most options......you think the 46% that MIGHT want ESPN are the coveted subscriber when they are not

especially when all but Dish Network and Direct TV in non-AT&T copper pair/fiber/coax areas are the only ones that do not offer those same ESPN consumers other options for them to get ESPN

like VUE or HULU.....THAT REQUIRE AN INTERNET CONNECTION WHICH IS OFTEN PROVIDED BY THE SAME COMPANY THAT CAN PROVIDE "CABLE TV"

you are too damn dense to understand that the most competition is for the consumer that does not care about ESPN and that is 56% of cable consumers

you are also too dense to understand that with the exception of Dish Network and Direct TV areas that are not AT&T coax/fiber/copper pair all the other areas are going to have a "cable company" that is also an ISP and thus that cable company that is ALSO AN ISP has the ability to provide a service to those that desire ESPN not only can utilize, but that they NEED to "stream" ESPN

the only one at risk of having nothing to offer are Dish Network, Direct TV in non AT&T coax/copper pair/fiber and most importantly ESPN

because ESPN NEEDS A LAST MILE PROVIDER TO GET STREAMED OR DELIVERED ON "cable"

cable companies (with the exception of Dish Network and Direct Tv in non AT&T coac/copper pair/fiber areas) do not give a damn how someone gets their ESPN of they want it what they give a damn about is having the most options to offer ALL OF THEIR SUBSCRIBERS especially the 56% that does not give a damn about ESPN

because as long as that "cable company" is also an ISP they CAN STILL GET THAT SUBSCRIBER TO ESPN......and more importantly if they stand up to ESPN and other channel crammers they can also offer a product to the 56% of consumers that do not care about ESPN

only a stupid person cannot understand how that works

as a company you cannot ignore the will of 56% of your consumers when that 56% of consumers has the largest amount of choice coming to them AND when you have the ability to satisfy the other 46% of your consumers with OTHER PRODUCTS that the consumer MUST HAVE to get ESPN exclusive of "cable TV"

only Dish Network is in the poor position of needing to really worry about totally alienating people that must have ESPN because they have no ISP option to offer and yet at the same time they have to worry about the 56% that do not want ESPN because if you can get Dish Network you can get Direct TV as well

and only Direct TV in areas that are not also served by AT&T coax/copper pair/fiber has that concern as well and yet they also in many areas do have an ISP option so they can afford to stand up to ESPN

all other "cable companies" can satisfy those that MUST HAVE ESPN with an ISP offering and streaming and thus they need to focus on retaining their cable customers that DO NOT WANT ESPN because those are the ones that could leave them the easiest
(This post was last modified: 10-01-2017 07:56 PM by TodgeRodge.)
10-01-2017 07:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,789
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 114
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #24
RE: ESPN Could Lose More Viewers If No Agreement Be Made With Altice/Suddenlink
(10-01-2017 06:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 06:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 12:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 10:20 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 10:12 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  What you are not considering is how this is an incredibly dangerous gamble by Suddenlink. In an environment where cable customers are leaving cable providers in droves, Suddenlink is going to go dark on ESPN and ABC in the middle of the college and NFL football seasons? What will happen is droves of football fans will take the opportunity to leave Suddenlink and go to competitors like a Comcast, ATT, Direct Tv, Dish, or to one of the newer streaming options like VUE, HULUtv, or Sling. So Suddenlink could literally end up losing a quarter to half their subscriber base. No football fan is sticking with Suddenlink just because the bill is $10 cheaper-----not when VUE would be half of the reduced price of Suddenlink and provides all the ESPN+ABC networks.

They might fall ass-backwards into the strategy of being the lower-cost, lower-programming provider. Switch to Altice and get a free digital antenna, combined with the lowest rates on internet service with some cable TV thrown in. (When we tried to go internet-only with Time WArner, they gave us a package that threw in very-basic-cable--ESPN, CNN, no Comedy Central--for $5 less than Internet-plus-landline-no-cable would have been.)

Plenty of people do not care about sports, and aren't super particular about their TV.

Quote:The French ownership can't afford to black out ESPN and ESPN knows it.

The point is, I'm not certain that the head office in France knows it, in the same way that Comcast and AT&T know it.

They may not know that they cant dump ESPN. Its also true that plenty of cable subscribers dont care about sports. But I dont know a single cable company willing to lose 25% to 50% of its subscriber base. These days, whats left of cable subscribers tends to run to an older demographic that DOES like sports. Plus, a significant portion of that subscriber base probably watches some shows on ABC or other Disney networks. Trying to cut out ESPN/ABC while everyone else is carrying the networks (inclusding streaming options that are less than half the price of your service) is a losing strategy. I mean--you can be the low price cable provider---but why would that be an attractive niche when price sensitive consumers are the most likely to cut the cord and move to cheaper streaming options? Suddenlink is going to be a huge loser if they try to push this for very long. They just dont have much leverage.

Because you'd BE the cheaper streaming option. Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, whatever--the money is in being your Internet provider. Internet plus a digital antenna equals being the low cost option. Content is nothing, the wires running into your house are everything, in this model.

Those providers are paying the same price for ESPN as the traditonal cable outlets. There are no free rides. Suddenlink can go cheaper without ESPN---but they just are going to see a big drop off in subscribers. ATT, VUE, HUle, Comcast, etc are all for Suddenlink dropping ESPN.



Here, we only have Suddenlink and CenturyTel as providers. Suddenlink is a bundle of cable, phone and internet. CenturyTel is phone and internet. There are really no other cable and phone providers, and not much internet providers either. Suddenlink used to be Cox Cable, and we were piggybacking off of Cox servers for Internet. For a while, we were listed as Cox IP address.
10-01-2017 07:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,789
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 114
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #25
RE: ESPN Could Lose More Viewers If No Agreement Be Made With Altice/Suddenlink
Charter founders were also founders of Suddenlink before they sold that to Altice.

The only Internet providers where I am at are Earthlink, CenturyTel and Suddenlink. All three suck on internet speed.
10-01-2017 07:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanMark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,614
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 641
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Gulfport, FL
Post: #26
RE: ESPN Could Lose More Viewers If No Agreement Be Made With Altice/Suddenlink
Altice appears to close to an agreement...the ACC and SEC Networks will get coverage.

Disney-Altice Deal Proves Operators Will Still Pay for Sports TV
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/artic...ew-yorkers
(This post was last modified: 10-02-2017 06:14 AM by TexanMark.)
10-01-2017 08:08 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,618
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 978
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #27
RE: ESPN Could Lose More Viewers If No Agreement Be Made With Altice/Suddenlink
(10-01-2017 08:08 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Alice appears to close to an agreement...the ACC and SEC Networks will get coverage.

Disney-Altice Deal Proves Operators Will Still Pay for Sports TV
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/artic...ew-yorkers

lol...ToddRodge proven wrong again. Thanks for the link TexanMark. They agreed just before Disney was about to cut the feed. Like I said, when close to half of your subs demand a network, you have to offer it or you'll lose a massive chunk of your subscriber base. Its just business 101. Stay in the public sector ToddRodge. 04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 10-01-2017 08:33 PM by Attackcoog.)
10-01-2017 08:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
PGEMF Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 445
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #28
RE: ESPN Could Lose More Viewers If No Agreement Be Made With Altice/Suddenlink
(10-01-2017 05:29 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 04:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol....As usual, you make my case with your own points. 56% would take the discount over having ESPN. That means nearly HALF (43%) of their subscribers WANT ESPN. Case closed. No sane provider is risking the loss of HALF their subscriber base. Ive said it before, you clearly must work for a government agency or academia, because you wouldn't last a week in the private sector. ESPN didnt become the highest cost network for no reason. They have the clout to demand that high subscriber fee because carriers know they have a large number of subscribers that will leave if they cant offer ESPN. Its basically the same reason the SEC Network is such a success. The moment ESPN no longer is a desired network by a significant portion of their subscribers, the leverage will shift to the carriers---but right now---content is king and ESPN has the content enough people want that ESPN still commands great leverage.


typical dem coogs doh fan response (the same group that thinks people would suddenly want the PAC12n if dem coogs doh were in the conference)

that does not at all mean that the other 46% of the population WANTS ESPN (much less demands it) it simply means that % might put up with paying that $5 dollars a month if they had no other choice

but of course you are ignorant of the fact that ESPN and the others are well over $5 a month and getting higher and thus the % of people that will not want to pay for them will most likely go up as that price goes up

you are still oblivious to the fact that all but Dish Network that provide "cable" are also ISPs and while in the case of Direct TV AT&T is not an ISP in all areas that can get Direct TV because AT&T is not a CLEC/ILEC/or a coax cable provider all over the USA where AT&T provides UVerse they are also an ISP

so again these cable MSOs/ISPs have OPTIONS to retain customers and that is to retain them as an internet subscriber while they drop cable and go find a streaming service to get the sports they want or they can work deals with streaming services to offer that to their internet only customers or to customers that take a lower level of cable and still look to stream

you must not work anywhere that requires intelligence because you are oblivious to the fact that Disney/ESPN can deliver nothing to anyone without a last mile connection and right now with the exception of Dish Network and all the other major cable/TV last mile providers are also internet providers (and with the exception of Direct TV subs in areas without UVerse or DSL or Cable provide by AT&T)

ESPN is so profitable because they have existed in a time when consumers had ZERO choice about a great deal of the cable channels they were forced to pay for and like Disney/ESPN you seem ignorant to the fact of that coming to an END

ESPN is simply not going to forever be able to hang on to subscribers that do not want their product especially at an ever increasing cost and the sooner they realize that the sooner they can control how that happens

but like you Disney and ESPN seem to be ignorant of that fact and they believe they can hang on to them forever......when the last mile providers that Disney and ESPN are dependent on are letting them know that will end because it is killing those last mile providers as well

the last mile providers are going to get their money and it is up to Disney/ESPN how many and how much of those subs money they get especially those that do not want their product

and the answer from ESPN and clowns like you that do not understand a competitive market seems to be "keep forcing it on them at any price because some want it"

while the answer of cable MSOs and ISPs is "we are going to give our subs options"

and once those MSOs and ISPs find that many subs are taking the option of no ESPN the flood gates are opened and they will not be closed

Disney/ESPN is dependent on the last mile.....the subscriber is dependent on the last mile.....those that control the last mile will make the decisions in the future about the choices those subs have not Disney/ESPN and the higher the price of Disney/ESPN the sooner and faster those increased options become available and the faster that Disney/ESPN lose dollars from subs that never wanted them in the first place

and I am sure Disney/ESPN (like you) is dumb enough to think they will just make that up by charging those that "must have them" more for the same crappy product, but they will soon find like dem coogs doh found that people are not demanding something as much as you think they are

just like people that live in areas filled with PAC 12 teams and that care nothing about the PAC12n are not going to start demanding the PAC12n if dem coogs doh get added to the PAC 12.....because there is no economic threshold where suddenly there is enough of something that someone does not want to make them all the sudden want it

56% of the people that have cable do not want ESPN at a price well below what ESPN charges now and unlike you anyone with a brain knows that does not mean the other 46% MUST HAVE IT especially at any price

and when those 46% that MIGHT WANT IT at some price have multiple options to get it and the last mile providers have the ability to collect money from them o provide it they are going to do so as cheaply as possible and they are not going to cram it on others that do not want it and lose them as well

you are oblivious to the fact that cable subs are dropping like flies and it is NOT because they cannot get ESPN for many it is because of ESPN and others they do not want being crammed on them

and you are oblivious to the fact that all cable MSOs but Dish Network and Direct TV (in non AT&T areas) are also ISPs and thus they have the option to try and please cable subs that do not want ESPN AND to provide internet to those that might want ESPN and will stream it

ESPN has the option of dealing with that and trying to keep as many paying customers as possible in the process....and they like you think the answer is keep forcing it on people at a higher price because the "cable company" has their hands tied.....when the reality is the "cable company" with the exception of Dish Network and non AT&T area Direct TV customers controls the delivery methods and in many areas that choice is still limited

What does "dem coogs doh" mean?
10-01-2017 08:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,789
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 114
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #29
RE: ESPN Could Lose More Viewers If No Agreement Be Made With Altice/Suddenlink
Then, the other 56% will start cutting the cord. There are more people that don't want ESPN.
10-01-2017 08:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,052
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 124
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #30
RE: ESPN Could Lose More Viewers If No Agreement Be Made With Altice/Suddenlink
(10-01-2017 08:39 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Then, the other 56% will start cutting the cord. There are more people that don't want ESPN.

exactly even David State can figure it out

cable subscribers are leaving at in larger numbers and at a faster rate than anyone expected and the answer by at least one cable company is to "stand up" and then cave in

so now they can watch subscribers leave them at an even faster rate

all the worse when it is the subscribers with the most choice and the least reason to stay with a company that capitulates to ESPN

of course coogattack thinks that continuing to do the same thing that has resulted in larger and more rapid subscriber losses is somehow a good strategy

just because a business makes a decision that does not mean it is a good one especially when all real world evidence suggest they have no grasp of the issue and are continually surprised by the size and speed of the issue developing around them

NYSE: ATUS <- long term short opportunity to make a lot of money
10-01-2017 09:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,618
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 978
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #31
RE: ESPN Could Lose More Viewers If No Agreement Be Made With Altice/Suddenlink
(10-01-2017 09:00 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 08:39 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Then, the other 56% will start cutting the cord. There are more people that don't want ESPN.

exactly even David State can figure it out

cable subscribers are leaving at in larger numbers and at a faster rate than anyone expected and the answer by at least one cable company is to "stand up" and then cave in

so now they can watch subscribers leave them at an even faster rate

all the worse when it is the subscribers with the most choice and the least reason to stay with a company that capitulates to ESPN

of course coogattack thinks that continuing to do the same thing that has resulted in larger and more rapid subscriber losses is somehow a good strategy

just because a business makes a decision that does not mean it is a good one especially when all real world evidence suggest they have no grasp of the issue and are continually surprised by the size and speed of the issue developing around them

NYSE: ATUS <- long term short opportunity to make a lot of money

Its only a short if your running it. Your "solution" is to chase off 44% of your subscribers in one month. Thats why they didnt even allow ABC to cut it off for a day. Look, the point of the discussion here was to predict what was going to happen and you were, as usual, completely wrong. The fact is, Im not saying the current set up is the long term solution. Im saying right now cutting off ESPN would have been a horribly bad move for Suddenlink and that they had little leverage. I was correct.

The truth is, there actually are answers out there to address cord cutting---but the fact is the current cable bundle system is still viable and making more money for cable companies than the alternatives. Cable frankly isnt even really even trying to solve the cord cutter issue. Eventually, as the business continues to erode the cord cutters will become enough of an issue that cable companies will begin to fight back with skinny bundles and a la carte. To my knowledge, Dish is the only cable provider I know of that has finally begun to utilize some of the options available to traditional cable providers to combat the cord cutters. My feeling is that eventually this type of thing (see Dish offer below) will be common among all providers.

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/08/06/dis...-channels/
(This post was last modified: 10-01-2017 09:33 PM by Attackcoog.)
10-01-2017 09:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MWC Tex Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,085
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 118
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #32
RE: ESPN Could Lose More Viewers If No Agreement Be Made With Altice/Suddenlink
(10-01-2017 09:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 09:00 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 08:39 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Then, the other 56% will start cutting the cord. There are more people that don't want ESPN.

exactly even David State can figure it out

cable subscribers are leaving at in larger numbers and at a faster rate than anyone expected and the answer by at least one cable company is to "stand up" and then cave in

so now they can watch subscribers leave them at an even faster rate

all the worse when it is the subscribers with the most choice and the least reason to stay with a company that capitulates to ESPN

of course coogattack thinks that continuing to do the same thing that has resulted in larger and more rapid subscriber losses is somehow a good strategy

just because a business makes a decision that does not mean it is a good one especially when all real world evidence suggest they have no grasp of the issue and are continually surprised by the size and speed of the issue developing around them

NYSE: ATUS <- long term short opportunity to make a lot of money

Its only a short if your running it. Your "solution" is to chase off 44% of your subscribers in one month. Thats why they didnt even allow ABC to cut it off for a day. Look, the point of the discussion here was to predict what was going to happen and you were, as usual, completely wrong. The fact is, Im not saying the current set up is the long term solution. Im saying right now cutting off ESPN would have been a horribly bad move for Suddenlink and that they had little leverage. I was correct.

The truth is, there actually are answers out there to address cord cutting---but the fact is the current cable bundle system is still viable and making more money for cable companies than the alternatives. Cable frankly isnt even really even trying to solve the cord cutter issue. Eventually, as the business continues to erode the cord cutters will become enough of an issue that cable companies will begin to fight back with skinny bundles and a la carte. To my knowledge, Dish is the only cable provider I know of that has finally begun to utilize some of the options available to traditional cable providers to combat the cord cutters. My feeling is that eventually this type of thing (see Dish offer below) will be common among all providers.

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/08/06/dis...-channels/

Dish doesn't offer that anymore. They are back to their 4 tier bundles like before. Their lowest price bundle is the Top 120 @ $70/month for existing customers. New customers can get it for $50/month for 1 year....but there are hardly any new customers.
10-02-2017 08:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,052
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 124
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #33
RE: ESPN Could Lose More Viewers If No Agreement Be Made With Altice/Suddenlink
(10-01-2017 09:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 09:00 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 08:39 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Then, the other 56% will start cutting the cord. There are more people that don't want ESPN.

exactly even David State can figure it out

cable subscribers are leaving at in larger numbers and at a faster rate than anyone expected and the answer by at least one cable company is to "stand up" and then cave in

so now they can watch subscribers leave them at an even faster rate

all the worse when it is the subscribers with the most choice and the least reason to stay with a company that capitulates to ESPN

of course coogattack thinks that continuing to do the same thing that has resulted in larger and more rapid subscriber losses is somehow a good strategy

just because a business makes a decision that does not mean it is a good one especially when all real world evidence suggest they have no grasp of the issue and are continually surprised by the size and speed of the issue developing around them

NYSE: ATUS <- long term short opportunity to make a lot of money

Its only a short if your running it. Your "solution" is to chase off 44% of your subscribers in one month. Thats why they didnt even allow ABC to cut it off for a day. Look, the point of the discussion here was to predict what was going to happen and you were, as usual, completely wrong. The fact is, Im not saying the current set up is the long term solution. Im saying right now cutting off ESPN would have been a horribly bad move for Suddenlink and that they had little leverage. I was correct.

The truth is, there actually are answers out there to address cord cutting---but the fact is the current cable bundle system is still viable and making more money for cable companies than the alternatives. Cable frankly isnt even really even trying to solve the cord cutter issue. Eventually, as the business continues to erode the cord cutters will become enough of an issue that cable companies will begin to fight back with skinny bundles and a la carte. To my knowledge, Dish is the only cable provider I know of that has finally begun to utilize some of the options available to traditional cable providers to combat the cord cutters. My feeling is that eventually this type of thing (see Dish offer below) will be common among all providers.

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/08/06/dis...-channels/

1. I never "predicted" what would happen I stated the position that Altice was in to finally help their business long term and they screwed that up

2. you are not even intelligent enough to understand that to offer "skinny bundles" and a la carte the first step is to stand up to the content providers on cramming and shoving mass content people do not want for too much money down their throats

Altice was stupid enough to cave to that to the detriment of 56% of their subscribers and the group of subs that is cutting the cord the most and the ones they will never get back once they are gone

Altice as an ISP in addition to a cable company had the ability to retain subscribers that wanted ESPN because they can still provide them internet and those subs can get a stream with ESPN

that is exactly what YOU state needs to happen in the future

but of course YOU are not intelligent enough to understand that the future is NOW and subscribers that do not want ESPN are leaving NOW to NEVER return

and Altice took their chance to correct that and flushed it down the toilet and somehow in spite of the fact that YOU stated exactly what needs to happen which is reduced bundles and a la carte YOU cannot grasp that Altice has not lost the ability to make that happen AGAIN

at some point when you are losing a large number of customers at a fast rate you have to stand up to those that are causing it.....Altice choose to not do that

kicking the can down the road is only going to lose then the subs that they have the largest chance to lose and that is those that do not want ESPN and those that have the most other options for a "traditional cable" provider because as I laid out the "cable" market is the one with the most competition in the market Vs the "ISP" market place

Altice being the one that is going to see these Disney/ESPN rate increases first will also be the one that allows other cable companies to monitor the reaction of subscribers and if Altice sees their traditional cable subs leaving in even larger numbers well then other cable companies are going to react to that and hopefully not make the same mistake by caving in to ESPN/Disney

you are so dense you lay out what needs to happen for the future and then in a feigned attempt to be "right" you congratulate the company for making the exact choice that prevents them from doing what YOU said needs to happen for the future

cable companies and the "experts" have only been wrong month after month and quarter after quarter on the number and rate of increase of cord cutting

yet you sit here and pretend that all is well while a company does the EXACT OPPOSITE of what YOU state needs to happen for the future

all while failing to understand that the cable MSO that is also an ISP has the best ability to meet the needs of those that want ESPN and those that do not and the largest number of their subs DO NOT and those are the ones with the most choice and the ones that are leaving cable the fastest

but hey what is a couple more years of larger and larger subscriber losses when you just bought a company with a massive amount of debt on the books with service in a very competitive market that is not exactly sports crazy
10-02-2017 10:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 29,733
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 280
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #34
RE: ESPN Could Lose More Viewers If No Agreement Be Made With Altice/Suddenlink
I think something folks fail to realize is there's more than just ESPN. Also included is Disney Channel. Which a lot of kids watch feverishly. And for several places, local ABC stations.
10-02-2017 11:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,618
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 978
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #35
RE: ESPN Could Lose More Viewers If No Agreement Be Made With Altice/Suddenlink
(10-02-2017 10:09 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 09:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 09:00 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 08:39 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Then, the other 56% will start cutting the cord. There are more people that don't want ESPN.

exactly even David State can figure it out

cable subscribers are leaving at in larger numbers and at a faster rate than anyone expected and the answer by at least one cable company is to "stand up" and then cave in

so now they can watch subscribers leave them at an even faster rate

all the worse when it is the subscribers with the most choice and the least reason to stay with a company that capitulates to ESPN

of course coogattack thinks that continuing to do the same thing that has resulted in larger and more rapid subscriber losses is somehow a good strategy

just because a business makes a decision that does not mean it is a good one especially when all real world evidence suggest they have no grasp of the issue and are continually surprised by the size and speed of the issue developing around them

NYSE: ATUS <- long term short opportunity to make a lot of money

Its only a short if your running it. Your "solution" is to chase off 44% of your subscribers in one month. Thats why they didnt even allow ABC to cut it off for a day. Look, the point of the discussion here was to predict what was going to happen and you were, as usual, completely wrong. The fact is, Im not saying the current set up is the long term solution. Im saying right now cutting off ESPN would have been a horribly bad move for Suddenlink and that they had little leverage. I was correct.

The truth is, there actually are answers out there to address cord cutting---but the fact is the current cable bundle system is still viable and making more money for cable companies than the alternatives. Cable frankly isnt even really even trying to solve the cord cutter issue. Eventually, as the business continues to erode the cord cutters will become enough of an issue that cable companies will begin to fight back with skinny bundles and a la carte. To my knowledge, Dish is the only cable provider I know of that has finally begun to utilize some of the options available to traditional cable providers to combat the cord cutters. My feeling is that eventually this type of thing (see Dish offer below) will be common among all providers.

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/08/06/dis...-channels/

1. I never "predicted" what would happen I stated the position that Altice was in to finally help their business long term and they screwed that up

2. you are not even intelligent enough to understand that to offer "skinny bundles" and a la carte the first step is to stand up to the content providers on cramming and shoving mass content people do not want for too much money down their throats

Altice was stupid enough to cave to that to the detriment of 56% of their subscribers and the group of subs that is cutting the cord the most and the ones they will never get back once they are gone

Altice as an ISP in addition to a cable company had the ability to retain subscribers that wanted ESPN because they can still provide them internet and those subs can get a stream with ESPN

that is exactly what YOU state needs to happen in the future

but of course YOU are not intelligent enough to understand that the future is NOW and subscribers that do not want ESPN are leaving NOW to NEVER return

and Altice took their chance to correct that and flushed it down the toilet and somehow in spite of the fact that YOU stated exactly what needs to happen which is reduced bundles and a la carte YOU cannot grasp that Altice has not lost the ability to make that happen AGAIN

at some point when you are losing a large number of customers at a fast rate you have to stand up to those that are causing it.....Altice choose to not do that

kicking the can down the road is only going to lose then the subs that they have the largest chance to lose and that is those that do not want ESPN and those that have the most other options for a "traditional cable" provider because as I laid out the "cable" market is the one with the most competition in the market Vs the "ISP" market place

Altice being the one that is going to see these Disney/ESPN rate increases first will also be the one that allows other cable companies to monitor the reaction of subscribers and if Altice sees their traditional cable subs leaving in even larger numbers well then other cable companies are going to react to that and hopefully not make the same mistake by caving in to ESPN/Disney

you are so dense you lay out what needs to happen for the future and then in a feigned attempt to be "right" you congratulate the company for making the exact choice that prevents them from doing what YOU said needs to happen for the future

cable companies and the "experts" have only been wrong month after month and quarter after quarter on the number and rate of increase of cord cutting

yet you sit here and pretend that all is well while a company does the EXACT OPPOSITE of what YOU state needs to happen for the future

all while failing to understand that the cable MSO that is also an ISP has the best ability to meet the needs of those that want ESPN and those that do not and the largest number of their subs DO NOT and those are the ones with the most choice and the ones that are leaving cable the fastest

but hey what is a couple more years of larger and larger subscriber losses when you just bought a company with a massive amount of debt on the books with service in a very competitive market that is not exactly sports crazy

lol...another long post. You were wrong. Lengthy posts wont change that. You simply dont understand business 101. The bottom line is you were plain wrong and ---worse yet---you're too stupid to realize it and continue to spin away in an effort to convince yourself you're right. Its actually pretty entertaining. 04-cheers

I love the whole last half of your post about how all the cable companies are "wrong". Again, you continue to show a complete lack of business acumen. Cable management is not "wrong". They are sticking with the current bundle strategy for one simple reason. They are still making more money with the bundle model than they would with any other strategy. Simple as that. For all the publicity around cord cutting---it still represents a very small portion of their customer base. Furthermore, cord cutters largely represent the lowest margin cable customers. That said, the cable companies are well aware that at some point they will need to change---we just are not at that point yet. You've dug your self into a hole. You probably need to stop digging and move on. Since the issue has been decided---this will be my last post on this subject.
(This post was last modified: 10-03-2017 09:43 AM by Attackcoog.)
10-02-2017 12:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,789
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 114
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #36
RE: ESPN Could Lose More Viewers If No Agreement Be Made With Altice/Suddenlink
(10-02-2017 12:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-02-2017 10:09 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 09:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 09:00 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 08:39 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Then, the other 56% will start cutting the cord. There are more people that don't want ESPN.

exactly even David State can figure it out

cable subscribers are leaving at in larger numbers and at a faster rate than anyone expected and the answer by at least one cable company is to "stand up" and then cave in

so now they can watch subscribers leave them at an even faster rate

all the worse when it is the subscribers with the most choice and the least reason to stay with a company that capitulates to ESPN

of course coogattack thinks that continuing to do the same thing that has resulted in larger and more rapid subscriber losses is somehow a good strategy

just because a business makes a decision that does not mean it is a good one especially when all real world evidence suggest they have no grasp of the issue and are continually surprised by the size and speed of the issue developing around them

NYSE: ATUS <- long term short opportunity to make a lot of money

Its only a short if your running it. Your "solution" is to chase off 44% of your subscribers in one month. Thats why they didnt even allow ABC to cut it off for a day. Look, the point of the discussion here was to predict what was going to happen and you were, as usual, completely wrong. The fact is, Im not saying the current set up is the long term solution. Im saying right now cutting off ESPN would have been a horribly bad move for Suddenlink and that they had little leverage. I was correct.

The truth is, there actually are answers out there to address cord cutting---but the fact is the current cable bundle system is still viable and making more money for cable companies than the alternatives. Cable frankly isnt even really even trying to solve the cord cutter issue. Eventually, as the business continues to erode the cord cutters will become enough of an issue that cable companies will begin to fight back with skinny bundles and a la carte. To my knowledge, Dish is the only cable provider I know of that has finally begun to utilize some of the options available to traditional cable providers to combat the cord cutters. My feeling is that eventually this type of thing (see Dish offer below) will be common among all providers.

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/08/06/dis...-channels/

1. I never "predicted" what would happen I stated the position that Altice was in to finally help their business long term and they screwed that up

2. you are not even intelligent enough to understand that to offer "skinny bundles" and a la carte the first step is to stand up to the content providers on cramming and shoving mass content people do not want for too much money down their throats

Altice was stupid enough to cave to that to the detriment of 56% of their subscribers and the group of subs that is cutting the cord the most and the ones they will never get back once they are gone

Altice as an ISP in addition to a cable company had the ability to retain subscribers that wanted ESPN because they can still provide them internet and those subs can get a stream with ESPN

that is exactly what YOU state needs to happen in the future

but of course YOU are not intelligent enough to understand that the future is NOW and subscribers that do not want ESPN are leaving NOW to NEVER return

and Altice took their chance to correct that and flushed it down the toilet and somehow in spite of the fact that YOU stated exactly what needs to happen which is reduced bundles and a la carte YOU cannot grasp that Altice has not lost the ability to make that happen AGAIN

at some point when you are losing a large number of customers at a fast rate you have to stand up to those that are causing it.....Altice choose to not do that

kicking the can down the road is only going to lose then the subs that they have the largest chance to lose and that is those that do not want ESPN and those that have the most other options for a "traditional cable" provider because as I laid out the "cable" market is the one with the most competition in the market Vs the "ISP" market place

Altice being the one that is going to see these Disney/ESPN rate increases first will also be the one that allows other cable companies to monitor the reaction of subscribers and if Altice sees their traditional cable subs leaving in even larger numbers well then other cable companies are going to react to that and hopefully not make the same mistake by caving in to ESPN/Disney

you are so dense you lay out what needs to happen for the future and then in a feigned attempt to be "right" you congratulate the company for making the exact choice that prevents them from doing what YOU said needs to happen for the future

cable companies and the "experts" have only been wrong month after month and quarter after quarter on the number and rate of increase of cord cutting

yet you sit here and pretend that all is well while a company does the EXACT OPPOSITE of what YOU state needs to happen for the future

all while failing to understand that the cable MSO that is also an ISP has the best ability to meet the needs of those that want ESPN and those that do not and the largest number of their subs DO NOT and those are the ones with the most choice and the ones that are leaving cable the fastest

but hey what is a couple more years of larger and larger subscriber losses when you just bought a company with a massive amount of debt on the books with service in a very competitive market that is not exactly sports crazy

lol...another long post. You were wrong. Lengthy posts wont change that. You simply dont understand business 101. The bottom line is you were plain wrong and ---worse yet---you're too stupid to realize it and continue to spin away in an effort to convince yourself you're right. Its actually pretty entertaining. 04-cheers

I love the whole last half of your post about how all the cable companies are "wrong". Again, you continue to show a complete lack of business acumen. Cable management is not "wrong". They are sticking with the current bundle strategy for one simple reason. They are still making more money with the bundle model than they would with any other strategy. Simple as that. For all the publicity around cord cutting---it still represents a very small portion of their customer base. Furthermore, cord cutters largely represent the lowest margin cable customers. That said, the cable companies are well aware that at some point they will need to change---we just are not at that point yet. You've dug your self into a hole. You probably need to stop digging and move on. Since the issue has been decided---this will be last post on this subject.


Smaller cable companies went out of business thanks to ESPN because they do not have that many subscribers to began with to afford all that. Some went out of business simply in recent years that ESPN forced them to have all these other sports Network on the basic.
10-02-2017 04:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Artifice Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,926
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation: 85
I Root For: Beer
Location:
Post: #37
RE: ESPN Could Lose More Viewers If No Agreement Be Made With Altice/Suddenlink
This thread may be the most ridiculous example of overuse of long nested quotes that I have ever seen. Just do a regular reply. Good grief.
10-03-2017 10:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,490
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 824
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #38
RE: ESPN Could Lose More Viewers If No Agreement Be Made With Altice/Suddenlink
Well Altice has agreed to terms with ESPN. And the SECN and ACCN will be part of the package.
10-03-2017 11:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,444
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 552
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #39
RE: ESPN Could Lose More Viewers If No Agreement Be Made With Altice/Suddenlink
(10-03-2017 11:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Well Altice has agreed to terms with ESPN. And the SECN and ACCN will be part of the package.

[Image: giphy.gif]
10-03-2017 12:45 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ColKurtz Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 150
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 22
I Root For: Virginia Tech
Location: Raleigh
Post: #40
RE: ESPN Could Lose More Viewers If No Agreement Be Made With Altice/Suddenlink
The biggest risk of saying No to Disney and being the "low cost" provider is that if customer pressure, subscription underruns, or other factors eventually push them change their mind, their customers are going to be pissed at the big jump in their bills... pushing even more defections.
10-03-2017 10:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.