# ESPN exec is willing to talk to Google, Sony, Intel about IPTV -- if they'll take bundles



## Athlon646464

ESPN exec is willing to talk to Google, Sony, Intel about IPTV -- if they'll take bundles

For those who find sports is the string keeping them from cutting loose of traditional pay-TV services, ESPN president John Skipper's comments today are a bit of good news / bad news.

Speaking to Bloomberg, he revealed the network has had talks to offer its content on internet TV services like the ones we've heard Google, Sony and Intel (among others *cough Apple*) are interested in offering. What he and a network spokesman made clear however, is that any agreement would involve those services offering a package of channels, just like current cable, satellite and telco providers.

Full Story Here









_Engadget_


----------



## WebTraveler

We need to separate the two, the broadcasters hold all the power.


----------



## oldschoolecw

I just don't like bundles being discussed, that is where they are removing choice again from us the consumer. And it will be no different then what is offered today from Cable and Dish


----------



## John W

oldschoolecw said:


> I just don't like bundles being discussed, that is where they are removing choice again from us the consumer. And it will be no different then what is offered today from Cable and Dish


That's not how it will wind up in the end, Skipper just doesn't realize it yet. Or doesn't want to.


----------



## Beerstalker

What I want to know is what do they mean by bundles? Are they talking you have to get an ESPN bundle with all the ESPN channels, or an ESPN/Disney/ABC bundle with all those channels, or a full blown bundle like Choice/Choice Extra where they are tied to channels from other companies as well? If it's just an ESPN or ESPN/Disney/ABC bundle then it is at least something a little bit new/different and it would be interesting to see how it works out, but if it's not then there is nothing new to see here.


----------



## kevinwmsn

If the bundle is just ESPN channels, that would be ok with me. Disney needs to be separated from ESPN for channel packages. If they want to offer a combination of the two along with a ESPN and a Disney one, I'm ok with that too. Just offer us real choices.


----------



## Athlon646464

Sounds to me like an opening bargaining position. They have to start somewhere.

The interesting part of this is that it is happening at all. IPTV today is far different than it was just 6 months ago.......


----------



## PCampbell

Disney makes a lot of money from ESPN and only a fool will believe Disney will give that up for free or cheep.


----------



## CincySaint

Folks -- I know everyone wants a la carte offerings but to say Disney "has to this" or "should do this" is not relevant. They are a private business that can sell their products in whatever form they see fit.

Hopefully (based on the tone of the Bloomberg article), they are talking about an ESPN bundle. But don't be shocked when the price is high -- they are already getting an estimated $5/mo/sub from cable/satellite. To avoid cannibalizing their current bundles (which include ABC properties) and avoid pissing off their cable/sat partners, the cost of a standalone ESPN package could be considerably higher than $5 a month.


----------



## Athlon646464

^^^

For the sake of argument, let's say they charge double, $10 per sub.

If all I want is sports, locals, news and movies - and don't want all of those 'other' channels I never watch - then I can see where my total cost may be less than what I am paying now.

ESPN package - $10
Amazon Prime - I had it even before their current included video offering, so I won't count it here.
Netflix - Already have it - so same as Amazon

I could then see me adding an Intel, Sony or Google service for about $30 giving me some of the other stuff I want.

MLB would be about the same, and I'm thinking the NFL will eventually be delivered like MLB is today.

I'm seeing this as the future of TV.

Folks under 30 want this. Most of them don't even know OTA exists. They live in a 'connected' world, and to them paying $125 per month for TV is insane. This is one of the chief reasons why total subs for cable and satellite dropped last quarter. Most of them will never have a land-line phone for the same reason.

Thing is, 6 months ago I thought this was years away. Now I'm not so sure - I think it's here, certainly before the end of this decade. When names like Intel, Google and Sony get bandied about as they have in the last 45 days, it's interesting to see an ESPN (really Disney) say something about it as well.


----------



## PCampbell

I can see ESPN on IPTV but knowing Disney it will not be less than they get from Cable/Sat, when is the last time Disney lowered there price on anything. They also must cover what they pay to teams to get the rights and that is a LOT of money. Yes at 10 a month it would be great but it will be more like 25 a month.


----------



## oldschoolecw

Athlon646464 said:


> ^^^
> 
> For the sake of argument, let's say they charge double, $10 per sub.
> 
> If all I want is sports, locals, news and movies - and don't want all of those 'other' channels I never watch - then I can see where my total cost may be less than what I am paying now.
> 
> ESPN package - $10
> Amazon Prime - I had it even before their current included video offering, so I won't count it here.
> Netflix - Already have it - so same as Amazon
> 
> I could then see me adding an Intel, Sony or Google service for about $30 giving me some of the other stuff I want.
> 
> MLB would be about the same, and I'm thinking the NFL will eventually be delivered like MLB is today.
> 
> I'm seeing this as the future of TV.
> 
> Folks under 30 want this. Most of them don't even know OTA exists. They live in a 'connected' world, and to them paying $125 per month for TV is insane. This is one of the chief reasons why total subs for cable and satellite dropped last quarter. Most of them will never have a land-line phone for the same reason.
> 
> Thing is, 6 months ago I thought this was years away. Now I'm not so sure - I think it's here, certainly before the end of this decade. When names like Intel, Google and Sony get bandied about as they have in the last 45 days, it's interesting to see an ESPN (really Disney) say something about it as well.


Same here with Amazon Prime & NetFlix.

And if Cable isn't careful they could fall big time, I think Comcast has gotten the hint with there new X1 & X2 receivers coming with Internet apps built in from what I've read. The only thing Cable TV has going for it in the years to come is high speed, it maybe there only saving grace. I can't see how DirecTV and Dish Network will survive another 10 years if they can't figure a way to get high speed technology working with there dishes at a reasonable price and bandwidth.


----------



## jdskycaster

Choice is great but how do the "under 30's" (that do not pay $125/mo for TV service) get connected in the first place? No way I can live with streaming everything to my home via my ATT 4G cell service. Between the intermittent slow-downs and capping it is not practical. My only other option for streaming is via DSL as I do not have cable to my home as an option so I have to maintain my landline in order to get high speed internet access. Minimum cost for that is another $90/mo. 

Bottom line for me is that the cost of ESPN as part of my Dish package is of little concern when I add up all my monthly access costs:

Landline with high speed access: $90
Cell Service: $100 for my line and another $179 for the remainder of the house
Dish: $110

Minimum monthly cost for all services: $300. I am not including Amazon streaming costs in here because I cannot replace everything I have with any single streaming service today.

You can easily see why saving a few bucks by unbundling the channel packages is immaterial to me. Depending on how the separate costs shake out I am not sure buying them ala-carte would actually end up saving me any money at all.


----------



## oldschoolecw

jdskycaster said:


> Choice is great but how do the "under 30's" (that do not pay $125/mo for TV service) get connected in the first place? No way I can live with streaming everything to my home via my ATT 4G cell service. Between the intermittent slow-downs and capping it is not practical. My only other option for streaming is via DSL as I do not have cable to my home as an option so I have to maintain my landline in order to get high speed internet access. Minimum cost for that is another $90/mo.
> 
> Bottom line for me is that the cost of ESPN as part of my Dish package is of little concern when I add up all my monthly access costs:
> 
> Landline with high speed access: $90
> Cell Service: $100 for my line and another $179 for the remainder of the house
> Dish: $110
> 
> Minimum monthly cost for all services: $300. I am not including Amazon streaming costs in here because I cannot replace everything I have with any single streaming service today.
> 
> You can easily see why saving a few bucks by unbundling the channel packages is immaterial to me. Depending on how the separate costs shake out I am not sure buying them ala-carte would actually end up saving me any money at all.


From what I have read and heard, the under 30 crowd watches a ton of youtube for there entertainment. I have no idea how they do it, I would be bored out of my mind if that was my means of entertainment all the time.


----------



## Athlon646464

Don't assume our internet connections will always be what they are today, hell, for most they aren't what they were 3 years ago.

Technology moves quickly, and the current delivery systems will not be what they are now for very long. As much as things have changed in the last year, that is nothing compared to what it will be 3 years from now.

Netflix, for example, is on the verge of turning into what HBO was just 10 years ago.


----------



## PCampbell

Athlon646464 said:


> Don't assume our internet connections will always be what they are today, hell, for most they aren't what they were 3 years ago.
> 
> Technology moves quickly, and the current delivery systems will not be what they are now for very long. As much as things have changed in the last year, that is nothing compared to what it will be 3 years from now.
> 
> Netflix, for example, is on the verge of turning into what HBO was just 10 years ago.


The internet will get faster but Disney will not lose money on anything for long. At Disney World if something dose not make as much money as they need they close it. We pay 5 dollars each for ESPN but not all want it, if only those that want it pay for it then it will have to be much more and Disney dose not care how we watch ESPN as long as they get the money.


----------



## jdskycaster

oldschoolecw said:


> From what I have read and heard, the under 30 crowd watches a ton of youtube for there entertainment. I have no idea how they do it, I would be bored out of my mind if that was my means of entertainment all the time.


I have also seen some of those statistics and completely agree with you. Quite possibly it is because they are so engrossed in social media that they have little attention span for entertainment that requires one to dedicate some time to it in order to really enjoy it. Just as they could care less if their music is compressed they seem to have the same attitude toward video entertainment as well. Merely background noise while they continuously check their facebook pages and texts.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Athlon646464 said:


> ^^^
> 
> For the sake of argument, let's say they charge double, $10 per sub.


ESPN, a la carte, would be priced at b/w 25 to 30 dollars.

Very few parties are more concerned about Google approaching the folks at NFL/ST than the people in Burbank.


----------



## Satelliteracer

John W said:


> That's not how it will wind up in the end, Skipper just doesn't realize it yet. Or doesn't want to.


I would argue that's exactly what he wants. Just as Chase Carey last week said A La Carte is a fantasy.


----------



## Athlon646464

Gloria_Chavez said:


> ESPN, a la carte, would be priced at b/w 25 to 30 dollars.


Where do you get those numbers from? Also - they are no longer the only 'game' in town. FOX1, NBC Universal, CBSSports etc.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Athlon646464 said:


> Where do you get those numbers from? Also - they are no longer the only 'game' in town. FOX1, NBC Universal, CBSSports etc.


I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation about 18 months ago, and came up with 25. Then, a few weeks ago...

------------------

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/07/17/a_la_carte_espn_would_cost_30_a_month.html

A La Carte ESPN Would Cost $30 A Month

By Matthew Yglesias

Posted Wednesday, July 17, 2013, at 1:41 PM

The subject of "à la carte" cable pricing has attracted renewed attention since John McCain proposed federal legislation to force cable operators to shift to that model, and it's important to understand anyway because the long-term evolution of streaming video strongly militates toward unbundling. Laura Martin, a pay TV analyst with Needham & Co. in Boston, recently came out with an analysis concluding that an à la carte ESPN would charge about $30 a month to extract revenue out of big-time sports fans rather than subsisting on the single digit carriage fees it currently obtains from all cable subscribers.

Another way of thinking about it is that if ESPN started offering a paid standalone Watch ESPN app rather than making it a free throw-in for cable subscribers, they'd probably charge $30 a month.
---------------------------------

That's why I'm saying, 25 to 30.


----------



## PCampbell

Athlon646464 said:


> Where do you get those numbers from? Also - they are no longer the only 'game' in town. FOX1, NBC Universal, CBSSports etc.


There cost is the same. Directv has20M customers at 5 dollars each is100M , it has beed said that 25% watch ESPN.100M dollars/5M is 20 dollars. What I do not get is why people think Disney will lower there cost when there cost is not going down. If people drop Directv and go to IPTV ESPN is not going to gain customers. As for Fox now there more bidders for the sports programming, more bidders drives the cost up.


----------



## Satelliteracer

PCampbell said:


> there cost is the same. Directv has20M customers at 5 dollars each is100M , it has beed said that 25% watch ESPN.100M dollars/5M is 20 dollars. What I do not get is why people think Disney will lower there cost when there cost is not going down. If people drop Directv and go to IPTV ESPN is not going to gain customers. As for Fox now there more bidders for the sports programming, more bidders drives the cost up.


Correct. Disney's cost are continuing to go up (NFL Monday Night Football deal, MLB deal, new SEC deal, etc). They have to monetize those costs someway and if that means fewer subscribers it has to translate into much higher costs. Simple math. This is why I've never understood why people think that this stuff going to Google or Intel or Netflix or whatever is going to be cheaper. It won't be. The end user will be writing the same checks regardless of what pipe \ distributor they use. Disney isn't going to undercut their existing deals, nor is Fox or Viacom or any of the others.


----------



## Athlon646464

I understand what you all are saying. Basically, someone has to pay their bills. And, in the end, you may be correct.

However, what if someday the content providers were forced to live on the folks who actually watch? Are you saying that lower demand equals a higher price?

For example, MLB is experiencing that problem right now, and has for a few years. Attendance is down, and ticket prices have dropped, not gone up. IMHO we've seen the last A-Rod type contract in MLB. The Yankees cannot fill that new stadium, and they are re-thinking their business model. NESN & Yes have had shrinking viewership numbers the last couple of years. Ad revenue is down. Partly to do with the economy, yes, but also the splintering of delivery systems for the games and fewer fans at the same time.

The fewer fans piece is the bigger problem. There are so many choices to keep folks entertained today. So much competition. And fewer younger fans - a huge problem on the horizon.

Are you saying the remaining fans costs will rise because they will each have to take on a larger piece of the cost pie? That sounds like a problem for the providers, not the remaining fans. Something would have to give or MLB will collapse under that model.

I'm not saying I know what the answer is, nor do I profess to know what will happen. Perhaps Intel, Sony and Google think they know what _might_ happen, and that's why they are jumping in.

I do think big changes are on the way. You may be correct, and in the end we'll pay the same. I'm still not convinced, however, given all the new competition and splintering (lowering of demand) of end users.


----------



## PCampbell

One of the root causes is we pay players WAY to much money and the same goes for actors. When the cost gets to high people will drop pay TV ( direct and Google) because they cant afford it. The same goes for all sports, if the player pay keeps going up and most working folks pay is the sane or less then something will have to give and it wont be us getting the same product for less money. In 1976 as a kid I went to Disney world and it was 12 dollars a day that's 49.26 in todays money (Bureau of labor Statistics). Then they were the only park in Orlando area, today with lots of parks in Orlando the cost is over 100.00 dollars. Like I said Disney never lowers there price but they will close any underperforming product.


----------



## Athlon646464

ESPN TO STREAM ALL CHANNELS ONLINE?

ESPN is reportedly considering making all of their channels available on an Internet TV service for a fee, according to The Verge. The online provider would pay for all of the channels under the ESPN umbrella as well as for access to Watch ESPN at a comparable rate to what cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner pay. ESPN is talking to Sony, Apple, Intel, and Google about the package.

With more and more people cutting the cord and moving away from cable and satellite, the option to receive ESPN without having a cable or satellite contract to deal with would likely end up pushing more people towards that avenue. If this really ends up happening, I can see providers going nuclear and a standoff happening when the first contract ESPN has expires.

From ESPN's perspective, this is a risky, but wise, move. The behemoth has begun the slow leak of subscribers tied to people cutting the cord, and by cutting a deal with an Internet TV provider, they'd be effectively hedging their bets against any further drop in cable or satellite subscribers. Yet, because of the potential for a major showdown with a provider (something that Time Warner seemingly relishes), there's a huge risk involved for them if providers balk at their massive fees and continual hikes.

Full Story Here


----------



## PCampbell

Just because you can buy it stoneware else dose not mean it will cost you less. I see this as a way for ESPN to hang on to its customers.


----------



## Athlon646464

If ESPN's value perception is changing (hanging on as you say), they may not have a choice.......


----------



## sigma1914

PCampbell said:


> One of the root causes is we pay players WAY to much money and the same goes for actors. When the cost gets to high people will drop pay TV ( direct and Google) because they cant afford it. The same goes for all sports, if the player pay keeps going up and most working folks pay is the sane or less then something will have to give and it wont be us getting the same product for less money. In 1976 as a kid I went to Disney world and it was 12 dollars a day that's 49.26 in todays money (Bureau of labor Statistics). Then they were the only park in Orlando area, today with lots of parks in Orlando the cost is over 100.00 dollars. Like I said Disney never lowers there price but they will close any underperforming product.


A better statement would be, "We pay *some *players way too much." The average salary in the NFL is $1.75 Million. Not everyone is making Payton Manning money ($15 million base). A good friend was a 6th round draft pick this year, and he's not even making $500k this year.


----------



## jdskycaster

I think the excitement here is always centered on making the possibility of cord cutting a reality for more people. I will reiterate the bottom line for me. Choice is a great thing for consumers and letting the market decide (how they want to acquire a product or service) is much better than government imposed regulation. 

For my personal situation I see these multiple outlets as more choices for everyone not necessarily reduced costs for me or for anyone else for that matter. If the trend is cord cutting that just means a shift in costs from one model to the other. If you like ESPN you will pay more to receive it a' la carte. If you do not, and have the opportunity to take a pass on it, you will just be paying more for those channels you do like because a portion of the cord cutters are not subsidizing them for you.

As many have already stated here. Revenues will not decrease they will just be redistributed. If you like TV (like me) you will just pay more for what you like but will have an opportunity to offset some of that increased cost by dropping what you don't. For the majority I think costs will continue to rise.


----------



## Athlon646464

^^^

I agree with everything you've said, except for the revenue piece. With declining viewers (and fans), I don't see how revenue streams can sustain these levels over time.


----------



## jdskycaster

^^^ I do hope you are right and my costs overall decline in the future but the new outlets for me still continue to amount to further additional added monthly costs. I pay more now than ever before for the programming I choose to receive. Could I lower these costs that just continue on an upward trend? Sure, but then I would just receive less programming.


----------



## Satelliteracer

John Skipper or ESPN talks A La Carte

*A LA CARTE NOT PRACTICAL*: Skipper addressed several other topics during a 90-minute meeting with the assembled media. He said an a la carte pricing system for cable channels "is not a good solution for whatever the issue is here." Skipper: "It is not particularly beneficial to anybody. Right now there is an issue of price pressure. But the $73 for 200-plus channels kind of works for almost everybody, other than some people for whom it's a financial burden. It subsidizes a big system of content. There is better content now to consume on video than there's ever been. There's a discussion about the golden age of television -- this is the only golden age of television. ... This ecosystem works to provide lots and lots of choice for a very insignificant cost on any sort of metric. If you break it up and charge it on a per-program basis or per-network basis -- which by the way has very little chance of happening, despite there being a couple senators floating this around -- it just won't work." Skipper said 83% of households that get ESPN watch the network. He added of a la carte ever becoming a reality: "Because of the rights we hold, we'd be fine. ... But channels 65 through 250 are going to go out business, or start producing inexpensive content, which will be lousy. There won't be this beautiful content that you have this opportunity to pick from, because they won't be able to afford it." Skipper said, "Specialty channels, serving specialty interests, will not survive in an a la carte world. However, we're talking hypotheticals. That's just not getting ready to happen."


----------



## Athlon646464

Although I agree with most of what Skippy says, he is biased of course. I mostly agree with the notion there will be fewer 'channels' than we have today. At the same time, however, we'll have more to watch and more to divert our attention. YouTube anyone?

As for the very last thing he said - I actually hope he's correct in that assessment, but I just don't think he is. Intel, Sony and Google - they can't all be stupid, and they're jumping in. I hope he doesn't have his head in the sand like many in the print media did 10 years ago and are out of a job today.

Not saying I have an answer for him, but I'm thinking brighter minds will figure it out. They usually do. Progress.


----------



## Satelliteracer

I've said here for years that specialty channels would die on the vine, I 100% agree with him on that. I also don't see the studios giving up their revenues, which means they are happy to sell their content to Google, Intel, etc, but at the same costs as everyone else. Makes no sense for them to undercut their current revenue streams, especially in light of what they have on the books in expenses for the next 10 years. A la carte pretty much everyone loses, including the customer on a value proposition. IMO.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

There really is no cord-cutting except in name-only unless you stop watching TV. The literal cord-cutting is only possible for cable where you are connected via "cord" to your provider... but most consider satellite in the "cord cutting" as well.

But... how are you going to get that IPTV or internet-delivered content? You need an ISP and internet connection... and any decent connection is going to run you $50 just for that, before you even start paying for that content you want.

People like to talk about Netflix costing "only" $8... but Netflix is useless unless you have high-speed internet... and yeah, you can use that internet for other things... but when you are streaming or downloading HDTV you are taking a lot of your broadband bandwidth to do that.

Somehow nobody considers cost-of-delivery in their cable/satellite bills... they expect channels to cost them $1-$2 per channel and don't consider any other expenses.

We also aren't even considering the bandwidth caps and overlimit charges that many ISPs are going to now... and your internet-delivered cord-cut TV is going to cost you bandwidth at some point.

I really don't see any scenario where the long-term prices of "Cord-cutting" will ever favor the customer/consumer.


----------



## PCampbell

sigma1914 said:


> A better statement would be, "We pay *some *players way too much." The average salary in the NFL is $1.75 Million. Not everyone is making Payton Manning money ($15 million base). A good friend was a 6th round draft pick this year, and he's not even making $500k this year.


Each NFL team is allowed to have 53 players on its roster (plus a five-player practice squad). As of 2011, the NFL has 32 teams, making a total of 1,696 players. According to an estimate by Plunkett Research, the average NFL player salary in the 2010-2011 season was $1.9 million

1.9m X 1696 is 3,222,400,000 that's a lot of money and that's only Football, now add Baseball Hockey ETC. 
Read more: Total Players in the NFL | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/total-players-nfl.html#ixzz2cp4Pl0RP


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I can't argue that some athletes and actors aren't paid more money than perhaps I think they "deserve" for the amount of work that they do...

BUT... as long as the company they work for (the team, and the NFL) is taking in ticket sale and other revenue at an amount that they can afford to pay those salaries... it is hard to argue the players should not get most of it, considering that fans pay to see the players.

I think tickets to games cost too much too... but I just don't go. As long as they make enough money on people wanting to go, the money is in the coffer.

McDonald's is a billion dollar company that I wish would pay its frontline employees more money proportional to the amount of profit they generate for the corporation... just as an example.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Stewart Vernon said:


> There really is no cord-cutting except in name-only unless you stop watching TV. The literal cord-cutting is only possible for cable where you are connected via "cord" to your provider... but most consider satellite in the "cord cutting" as well.
> 
> But... how are you going to get that IPTV or internet-delivered content? You need an ISP and internet connection... and any decent connection is going to run you $50 just for that, before you even start paying for that content you want.
> 
> People like to talk about Netflix costing "only" $8... but Netflix is useless unless you have high-speed internet... and yeah, you can use that internet for other things... but when you are streaming or downloading HDTV you are taking a lot of your broadband bandwidth to do that.
> 
> Somehow nobody considers cost-of-delivery in their cable/satellite bills... they expect channels to cost them $1-$2 per channel and don't consider any other expenses.
> 
> We also aren't even considering the bandwidth caps and overlimit charges that many ISPs are going to now... and your internet-delivered cord-cut TV is going to cost you bandwidth at some point.
> 
> I really don't see any scenario where the long-term prices of "Cord-cutting" will ever favor the customer/consumer.


Netflix only $8 is going to be changing. They have $5 billion in liabilities due in the coming months and years. That's a tremendous amount of coin. They barely make a profit today...barely....a few million on $1 billion in revenue. Unsustainable.


----------



## PCampbell

Stewart Vernon said:


> I can't argue that some athletes and actors aren't paid more money than perhaps I think they "deserve" for the amount of work that they do...
> 
> BUT... as long as the company they work for (the team, and the NFL) is taking in ticket sale and other revenue at an amount that they can afford to pay those salaries... it is hard to argue the players should not get most of it, considering that fans pay to see the players.
> 
> I think tickets to games cost too much too... but I just don't go. As long as they make enough money on people wanting to go, the money is in the coffer.
> 
> McDonald's is a billion dollar company that I wish would pay its frontline employees more money proportional to the amount of profit they generate for the corporation... just as an example.


The Detroit Lions sell out every game and they lost money last year. Something has to give.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

PCampbell said:


> The Detroit Lions sell out every game and they lost money last year. Something has to give.


But...

Did they lose money OR did they "lose" money?

Pro teams that claim to "lose" money often make money but only "lose" it due to creative accounting. I mean, IF they truly were losing money, then they absolutely could not afford to keep paying everyone's high salaries. Since nobody's paychecks are bouncing, I have to think they are only "losing" money on paper.


----------



## satexplorer

I wouldn't pay ESPN if they do that. If Congress can act on the a-la-carte proposal. How about launching SportsCenter On-Demand.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Athlon646464 said:


> ^^^
> 
> For the sake of argument, let's say they charge double, $10 per sub.
> 
> If all I want is sports, locals, news and movies - and don't want all of those 'other' channels I never watch - then I can see where my total cost may be less than what I am paying now.
> 
> ESPN package - $10
> Amazon Prime - I had it even before their current included video offering, so I won't count it here.
> Netflix - Already have it - so same as Amazon
> 
> I could then see me adding an Intel, Sony or Google service for about $30 giving me some of the other stuff I want.
> 
> MLB would be about the same, and I'm thinking the NFL will eventually be delivered like MLB is today.
> 
> I'm seeing this as the future of TV.
> 
> Folks under 30 want this. Most of them don't even know OTA exists. They live in a 'connected' world, and to them paying $125 per month for TV is insane. This is one of the chief reasons why total subs for cable and satellite dropped last quarter. Most of them will never have a land-line phone for the same reason.
> 
> Thing is, 6 months ago I thought this was years away. Now I'm not so sure - I think it's here, certainly before the end of this decade. When names like Intel, Google and Sony get bandied about as they have in the last 45 days, it's interesting to see an ESPN (really Disney) say something about it as well.


and then the cable ISP will just jack up the price of HSI or do say $10+ per 50gb block.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Stewart Vernon said:


> There really is no cord-cutting except in name-only unless you stop watching TV. The literal cord-cutting is only possible for cable where you are connected via "cord" to your provider... but most consider satellite in the "cord cutting" as well.
> 
> But... how are you going to get that IPTV or internet-delivered content? You need an ISP and internet connection... and any decent connection is going to run you $50 just for that, before you even start paying for that content you want.
> 
> People like to talk about Netflix costing "only" $8... but Netflix is useless unless you have high-speed internet... and yeah, you can use that internet for other things... but when you are streaming or downloading HDTV you are taking a lot of your broadband bandwidth to do that.
> 
> Somehow nobody considers cost-of-delivery in their cable/satellite bills... they expect channels to cost them $1-$2 per channel and don't consider any other expenses.
> 
> We also aren't even considering the bandwidth caps and overlimit charges that many ISPs are going to now... and your internet-delivered cord-cut TV is going to cost you bandwidth at some point.
> 
> I really don't see any scenario where the long-term prices of "Cord-cutting" will ever favor the customer/consumer.


Somehow nobody considers cost-of-delivery in their cable/satellite bills I think all of the high outlet fees / box rent fess can cover that.


----------



## sigma1914

Stewart Vernon said:


> But...
> 
> Did they lose money OR did they "lose" money?
> 
> Pro teams that claim to "lose" money often make money but only "lose" it due to creative accounting. I mean, IF they truly were losing money, then they absolutely could not afford to keep paying everyone's high salaries. Since nobody's paychecks are bouncing, I have to think they are only "losing" money on paper.


Exactly.

As a writer said, "The Lions might have a different view of their bottom line, but from the outside, their spending appears quite competitive and hardly protective of tight finances."


----------



## Athlon646464

JoeTheDragon said:


> and then the cable ISP will just jack up the price of HSI or do say $10+ per 50gb block.


Oh well, I guess what we have today will be this way forever..........


----------



## jdskycaster

I am banking on the reality of increased access, but getting it for a lower cost? Not holding my breath on that one.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

jdskycaster said:


> I am banking on the reality of increased access, but getting it for a lower cost? Not holding my breath on that one.


Exactly. I'm sure we will see more tv-on-internet in the future... and the quality will probably go up (quality of content and quality of delivery)... so we will have increased options of how and when/where to watch TV... but I don't think the prices will go lower unless and until people in general sour on TV-watching. I don't see that trend happening, though.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

jdskycaster said:


> I am banking on the reality of increased access, but getting it for a lower cost? Not holding my breath on that one.


ESPN has an EBITDA margin of 38%. Other programmers have content margins in excess of 45%. DirecTv has cash flow margins of 28%.

Clearly, the monthly PayTv bill can decrease, and all the parties can continue to make money. Not as much as they have been making, but a substantial amount.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Stewart Vernon said:


> Exactly. I'm sure we will see more tv-on-internet in the future... and the quality will probably go up (quality of content and quality of delivery)... so we will have increased options of how and when/where to watch TV... but I don't think the prices will go lower unless and until people in general sour on TV-watching. I don't see that trend happening, though.


Today, more people listen to more music than ever before. Yet, the global market for music is 50% smaller than its 2001 peak.

More people worldwide read the New York Times today than ever before. Yet, twelve years ago, the New York Times had an EBIT margin of 25%. Today, it's margin is about 3%, and only after letting go of many good reporters.


----------



## sigma1914

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Today, more people listen to more music than ever before. Yet, the global market for music is 50% smaller than its 2001 peak.
> 
> More people worldwide read the New York Times today than ever before. Yet, twelve years ago, the New York Times had an EBIT margin of 25%. Today, it's margin is about 3%, and only after letting go of many good reporters.


You constantly bring up music when it's not the same as TV.


----------



## jdskycaster

Gloria_Chavez said:


> ESPN has an EBITDA margin of 38%. Other programmers have content margins in excess of 45%. DirecTv has cash flow margins of 28%.
> 
> Clearly, the monthly PayTv bill can decrease, and all the parties can continue to make money. Not as much as they have been making, but a substantial amount.


Again, not holding my breath that at the annual meeting of shareholders the topic is - "Our margins are just too high, let's consider a vote to lower them."


----------



## Stewart Vernon

jdskycaster said:


> Again, not holding my breath that at the annual meeting of shareholders the topic is - "Our margins are just too high, let's consider a vote to lower them."


Please... call me when that meeting happens!


----------

