New Low For ESPN

BradyFTW! said:

Not necessarily, plenty of cable providers exclude ESPN from their lowest-tier package. And lots of other people are just cutting the cord entirely because the whole package payment system is a racket.

Click to expand...

I don't know about this whole cord cutting thing. When you have to start paying 10 bucks a month of each network you want, it adds up quick.

I guess I'll never know. I'm not clicking the link.

Love the self righteous anti barstool warriors in here lol

rochrist said:

I don't know about this whole cord cutting thing. When you have to start paying 10 bucks a month of each network you want, it adds up quick.

Click to expand...

Sure, if you had to actually pay $10 per channel that wouldn't work at all. But most networks currently charge networks well under a dollar per subscriber. If the trend toward cord-cutting continues, at some point it'll become more profitable for the networks to offering streaming capability for $1-2 per month. I don't think any non-premiums would be dumb enough to try to charge 10, that's more than Netflix.

In fact, right now you can get a bunch of the most popular cable channels for $20/month combined: https://www.sling.com/package. And that package includes ESPN, TNT, and Disney, which are 3 0f the most expensive networks out there; packages including other channels would almost certainly have to be cheaper than that.

Soon ESPN will be just a long forgotten media company, a vague memory called forth in whispers of bewilderment at brown formica desks in darkened library cubicles read from torn microfilm or compressed jpgs found in old archived issues of TV Guide. It's already happening. Cord cutters, started the trickle. Now it's a river. Soon it'll be a flood. Once cable companies realize ESPN has nowhere near the dedicated viewers or viewer loss impact to blackmail them into paying $5+ per user fees, they are going to be dropped and slashed in an instant.

Deflatemyballs said:

Love the self righteous anti barstool warriors in here lol

Click to expand...

Who is anti barstool and why?

BradyFTW! said:

Not necessarily, plenty of cable providers exclude ESPN from their lowest-tier package. And lots of other people are just cutting the cord entirely because the whole package payment system is a racket.

Click to expand...

Interestingly enough I just ran across:

Comcast raises prices just as CEO says “you can’t raise the price forever”

at http://arstechnica.com/business/201...as-ceo-says-you-cant-raise-the-price-forever/

BradyFTW! said:

If the trend toward cord-cutting continues, at some point it'll become more profitable for the networks to offering streaming capability for $1-2 per month. I don't think any non-premiums would be dumb enough to try to charge 10, that's more than Netflix.

Click to expand...

I hope you are correct because I'm a recent cord cutter, but I really have to wonder how quick we'll see channels at that price. The $1/$2/$4 per month that the cable providers pay to content providers is so low just because they extract it uniformly from large blocks of subscribers and then present it to the content providers as a lump sum. Think of it as a wholesale price instead of a retail price. It'll be hard for content providers to hit those prices points when they're dealing with the individual subscribers directly and also paying for server and network bandwidth themselves.

And as per the linked article above, Big Cable has the way to get their income: just keep raising prices on their Internet service. They don't have a monopoly on "the last mile" of broadband but they sure have a huge chunk of it. As the above link also points out, the ultimate competition is all the various ways to pirate video, but even that requires internet bandwidth.

If you are a typical Pats fan in New England, our recent cable cutters thread points out the best bang for the buck: just get an acceptable OTA antenna and get most of the NFL content for free.

Annoying and stupid. But nowhere near as bad as ESPN has done in the past.

signbabybrady said:

Who is anti barstool and why?

Click to expand...

All of the "I'm not gonna click that link" posts. And I don't know

Bill Lee said:

Interestingly enough I just ran across:

Comcast raises prices just as CEO says “you can’t raise the price forever”

at http://arstechnica.com/business/201...as-ceo-says-you-cant-raise-the-price-forever/



I hope you are correct because I'm a recent cord cutter, but I really have to wonder how quick we'll see channels at that price. The $1/$2/$4 per month that the cable providers pay to content providers is so low just because they extract it uniformly from large blocks of subscribers and then present it to the content providers as a lump sum. Think of it as a wholesale price instead of a retail price. It'll be hard for content providers to hit those prices points when they're dealing with the individual subscribers directly and also paying for server and network bandwidth themselves.

And as per the linked article above, Big Cable has the way to get their income: just keep raising prices on their Internet service. They don't have a monopoly on "the last mile" of broadband but they sure have a huge chunk of it. As the above link also points out, the ultimate competition is all the various ways to pirate video, but even that requires internet bandwidth.

If you are a typical Pats fan in New England, our recent cable cutters thread points out the best bang for the buck: just get an acceptable OTA antenna and get most of the NFL content for free.

Click to expand...

If you have a spare computer and external HD lying around, it's pretty much trivial to repurpose that as a Plex server, and just get a Roku streaming stick for your TV. As long as you're comfortable with downloading TV shows and movies, you'll never miss cable if you have that setup. Otherwise, a Netflix and Hulu Plus subscription goes a long way.

Deflatemyballs said:

All of the "I'm not gonna click that link" posts. And I don't know

Click to expand...

I think they assumed the link was ESPN.

signbabybrady said:

I think they assumed the link was ESPN.

Click to expand...

Hopefully right

I now feel dumber by watching 4 seconds of that.

BradyFTW! said:

Sure, if you had to actually pay $10 per channel that wouldn't work at all. But most networks currently charge networks well under a dollar per subscriber. If the trend toward cord-cutting continues, at some point it'll become more profitable for the networks to offering streaming capability for $1-2 per month. I don't think any non-premiums would be dumb enough to try to charge 10, that's more than Netflix.

In fact, right now you can get a bunch of the most popular cable channels for $20/month combined: https://www.sling.com/package. And that package includes ESPN, TNT, and Disney, which are 3 0f the most expensive networks out there; packages including other channels would almost certainly have to be cheaper than that.

Click to expand...

If they do that, you're correct. But so far, all the channels that have begun offering streaming seem to be around that 8-10 dollar price point. I know about the $20 thing. You say other channels would have to be cheaper, but the reality is, they aren't right now.

Suppose you wanted HBO, MAX, Showtime and A&E as well. That's 20+10+10+10+10, $60 right there. Toss in CBS say, for another 10. It adds up.

Plus, there's the issue that all these things require high speed internet. Suppose you're a Comcast customer and you're in one of the areas of the country (and there are many of them) where Comcast has their 30GB data cap. That's not gonna go very far if you try to move all you're watching to stream based. Are data caps going to get worse? I don't know, I certainly hope not but you can't put anything past these companies. If they're threatened by cable cutters (who aren't really cutting the cable to be honest, merely shifting the bits around), then you can expect them to strike back.

rochrist said:

If they do that, you're correct. But so far, all the channels that have begun offering streaming seem to be around that 8-10 dollar price point. I know about the $20 thing. You say other channels would have to be cheaper, but the reality is, they aren't right now.

Suppose you wanted HBO, MAX, Showtime and A&E as well. That's 20+10+10+10+10, $60 right there. Toss in CBS say, for another 10. It adds up.

Plus, there's the issue that all these things require high speed internet. Suppose you're a Comcast customer and you're in one of the areas of the country (and there are many of them) where Comcast has their 30GB data cap. That's not gonna go very far if you try to move all you're watching to stream based. Are data caps going to get worse? I don't know, I certainly hope not but you can't put anything past these companies. If they're threatened by cord-cutters (who aren't really cutting the cable to be honest, merely shifting the bits around), then you can expect them to strike back.

Click to expand...

That's a pretty severe case of cherrypicking there. Sure, you could order those channels a la carte if you felt the need to spend extra money for no reason. Or you could just get CBS OTA like people have been doing for the last 50 years, and spend $35 per month for HBO, A&E, and 20-something other channels for good measure. That would leave you without Cinemax and Showtime, but the entire point of cord-cutting is to stop paying for crappy, overpriced channels like those ones in the first place. If you want those channels, then by all means you should have cable. If you only watch a third of the channels you pay for, then cord-cutting is likely already feasible, and if not it probably will be in the nearish future. As for the data caps, that's an entirely separate issue that anyone can get around if they want to. Just have to get higher-tier internet, which is worth it in its own right.

Also, the main point that you seem to be overlooking is that I said it's becoming feasible for everyone. It's already feasible for me and people like me; for the rest of you, just give it time. As cable networks continue to feel the squeeze from cord-cutters and see their carriage fees shrink, they'll have to find a way to reach that crowd that they're no longer reaching through cable. It's an existential threat, so ignoring it simply won't be an option.

Will cable providers strike back? Sure, they might try to. They already lost the net neutrality battle, though, so if they do it'll have to be so draconian that it pisses pretty much everyone off. And if it does get to that point, then that's where Google Fiber or Elon Musk's next big project or something else of that nature will have to come in.

BradyFTW! said:

That's a pretty severe case of cherrypicking there. Sure, you could order those channels a la carte if you felt the need to spend extra money for no reason. Or you could just get CBS OTA like people have been doing for the last 50 years, and spend $35 per month for HBO, A&E, and 20-something other channels for good measure. That would leave you without Cinemax and Showtime, but the entire point of cord-cutting is to stop paying for crappy, overpriced channels like those ones in the first place. If you want those channels, then by all means you should have cable. If you only watch a third of the channels you pay for, then cord-cutting is likely already feasible, and if not it probably will be in the nearish future. As for the data caps, that's an entirely separate issue that anyone can get around if they want to. Just have to get higher-tier internet, which is worth it in its own right.

Also, the main point that you seem to be overlooking is that I said it's becoming feasible for everyone. It's already feasible for me and people like me; for the rest of you, just give it time. As cable networks continue to feel the squeeze from cord-cutters and see their carriage fees shrink, they'll have to find a way to reach that crowd that they're no longer reaching through cable. It's an existential threat, so ignoring it simply won't be an option.

Will cable providers strike back? Sure, they might try to. They already lost the net neutrality battle, though, so if they do it'll have to be so draconian that it pisses pretty much everyone off. And if it does get to that point, then that's where Google Fiber or Elon Musk's next big project or something else of that nature will have to come in.

Click to expand...

They've lost the net neutrality fight. FOR NOW. Don't think it won't be revisited. If the GOP wins the election I'd expected to be gone immediately.

Also, you misunderstanding the data cap thing. That was on so-called /unlimited/ accounts. Comcast throttles you (in many areas) after 30GB when you have what they bill as an unlimited data account. Additionally, a lot of these companies price the internet side of things lower because they're making it up on the tv side. If they lose the tv side, you think they'll leave the internet side as low as it is now? Competition, you'll say. Maybe for some people. In my area, there is zero competition. It's Charter or nothing (barring cell service which is not really a substitute).

As for cherry picking, yes, but it's also true, for me at least, that there are shows I want to see on all the networks I listed. I'm dubious I could get CBS very well here (hills west of Boston). TL;DR I suspect all of these people are going to arrange things so that it costs you more or less the same as it does now, unless you're willing to forgo a lot of what is included in the typical package today.

Silver Blue&Red said:

I guess I'll never know. I'm not clicking the link.

Click to expand...

The link is barstool sports making fun of it not ESPN. I had the same reaction at first until I noticed that.