Virginia Tech AD says ACCN To Launch later This Year

[KBOrange23]

Here is an article with links to other articles on what an ACCN could look like.
ACC Football Rx: ESPN warming up to digital - ACCN next?

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[Toga]

IDK. After all of this time, in a couple of weeks you are able to tap the knowledge of the individual whose knowledge you'd like to have more than any person on earth - and Now you are ready to move?

 

[Moontan]

Sounds like Teel's been reading my posts here wrt the timing.

 

[Scooch]

The cloak and dagger routine about this has made me chuckle for a long, long time.

 

[longtimefan]

The cloak and dagger routine about this has made me chuckle for a long, long time.

Good old arbitragegis.

 

[reedny]

Why would the ACC member schools agree to ESPN charging a monthly fee to stream ACC FB and BB content? That's going backwards. The whole point of the conference contract with ESPN (from the ACC's standpoint) is to air the games and 3T programming - via cable with streaming as an option. Making people pay extra for some of all of that solves nothing: the millenials aren't going to pay and existing cable subscribers are already paying for the content in their cable subscriptions.

So what they're talking about has to involve "unbundling" from cable ... and I don't see why the member schools or the cable services (especially Spectrum/TW) would agree to that.

 

[TheCusian]

Why would the ACC member schools agree to ESPN charging a monthly fee to stream ACC FB and BB content? That's going backwards. The whole point of the conference contract with ESPN (from the ACC's standpoint) is to air the games and 3T programming - via cable with streaming as an option. Making people pay extra for some of all of that solves nothing: the millenials aren't going to pay and existing cable subscribers are already paying for the content in their cable subscriptions. So what they're talking about has to involve "unbundling" from cable ... and I don't see why the member schools or the cable services (especially Spectrum/TW) would agree to that.

The old method is broken. And I think fans will gladly pay $10 a month to see every or near-everything their school does. Everything is unbundling or "re-bundling" in smaller chunks now. The conference would do it if the payout was worth it.

 

[reedny]

The old method is broken. And I think fans will gladly pay $10 a month to see every or near-everything their school does. Everything is unbundling or "re-bundling" in smaller chunks now. The conference would do it if the payout was worth it.

Whether it's broken or not is up for debate, but even so, the solution sounds worse than the problem. Cable subscribers (at present) far outnumber internet streamers. My cable company (TW) was acquired, but at least for now, it advertises itself as "The Home Of Syracuse University Athletics". If not for that, I'd be getting direct TV. I think many SU fans (and other ACC fans) feel the same way. They want their content and the best way to get QUALITY broadcasts is through cable TV.

I don't see any advantage to a separate subscription fee JUST FOR the ACC? That's ridiculous, since B1G and other conferences are getting college FB/BB games as part of their cable subscriptions. So ESPN wants ACC fans to pay a separate fee? Thanks but no thanks. Pretty sure Wildhack would not support that kind of arrangement.

The linear cable TV channel model is not broken. Millions of fans pay cable subscriptions for the right to see their teams play. What's broken is unnecessary middlemen like Raycom, skimming off the top and getting in between the ACC and ESPN, and selling off 2d/3dT games to idiots like Fox that use SU games as bait for MSG3.

 

[Toga]

Whether it's broken or not is up for debate, but even so, the solution sounds worse than the problem. Cable subscribers (at least right now) far outnumber internet streamers. My cable company (TW) was acquired, but at least for now, it advertises itself as "The Home Of Syracuse University Athletics". If not for that, I'd be getting direct TV. I think many SU fans (and other ACC fans) feel the same way. They want their content and the best way to get QUALITY broadcasts is through cable TV.

I don't see any advantage to a separate subscription fee JUST FOR the ACC? That's ridiculous, since B1G and other conferences are getting college FB/BB games as part of their cable subscriptions. So ESPN wants ACC fans to pay a separate fee? Thanks but no thanks. Pretty sure Wildhack would not support that kind of arrangement.

The linear cable TV channel model is not broken. Millions of fans pay cable subscriptions for the right to see their teams play. What's broken is unnecessary middlemen like Raycom, skimming off the top and getting in between the ACC and ESPN, and selling off 2d/3dT games to idiots like Fox that use SU games as bait for MSG3.

Raycom ... grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

[TheCusian]

Whether it's broken or not is up for debate, but even so, the solution sounds worse than the problem. Cable subscribers (at present) far outnumber internet streamers. My cable company (TW) was acquired, but at least for now, it advertises itself as "The Home Of Syracuse University Athletics". If not for that, I'd be getting direct TV. I think many SU fans (and other ACC fans) feel the same way. They want their content and the best way to get QUALITY broadcasts is through cable TV. I don't see any advantage to a separate subscription fee JUST FOR the ACC? That's ridiculous, since B1G and other conferences are getting college FB/BB games as part of their cable subscriptions. So ESPN wants ACC fans to pay a separate fee? Thanks but no thanks. Pretty sure Wildhack would not support that kind of arrangement. The linear cable TV channel model is not broken. Millions of fans pay cable subscriptions for the right to see their teams play. What's broken is unnecessary middlemen like Raycom, skimming off the top and getting in between the ACC and ESPN, and selling off 2d/3dT games to idiots like Fox that use SU games as bait for MSG3.

EDIT: I don't think cable is skating to where the puck is.

 

[Scooch]

The old method is broken. And I think fans will gladly pay $10 a month to see every or near-everything their school does. Everything is unbundling or "re-bundling" in smaller chunks now. The conference would do it if the payout was worth it.

The WWE created a direct-to-consumer streaming network that offers the entire back catalog and access to every pay-per-view (their most premium content) including WrestleMania, for $9.95 a month. They've marketed it incessantly to their rabid fan base, and to-date have gotten just over 1 million people to subscribe.

People really underestimate how incredibly difficult a direct-to-consumer streaming network is to launch, grow, and make profitable.

I'll posit that the WWE has a larger fan base than the ACC. Certainly equal at worst.

 

[reedny]

The WWE created a direct-to-consumer streaming network that offers the entire back catalog and access to every pay-per-view (their most premium content) including WrestleMania, for $9.95 a month. They've marketed it incessantly to their rabid fan base, and to-date have gotten just over 1 million people to subscribe.

People really underestimate how incredibly difficult a direct-to-consumer streaming network is to launch, grow, and make profitable.

I'll posit that the WWE has a larger fan base than the ACC. Certainly equal at worst.

Not that big a subscriber pool .. AND it's content that's not widely available on cable without PPV. Clearly, that's not the case with ACC BB and FB ... content that millions of people expect (and pay) to see on their cable TV. And they get a big, beautiful picture ... not a streaming internet mess that disappears every 10 minutes or is in standard definition.

And no one's explained to me why the B1G and Pk 12 can set up linear cable channels that provide plenary coverage, but somehow ACC fans have to pay a monthly fee (on top of their cable subscription) for a separate service? No way. Something's wrong here. Too many ACC fans up and down the East Coast ... huge fan bases ... F-State, Clemson FB, Duke/SU/UNC basketball ... come on.

 

[reedny]

EDIT: I don't think cable is skating to where the puck is.

Cable's the whole hockey arena. And the puck is a few millenials in the nosebleeds trying to watch a game on their 2" cell phone screens.

 

[TheCusian]

The WWE created a direct-to-consumer streaming network that offers the entire back catalog and access to every pay-per-view (their most premium content) including WrestleMania, for $9.95 a month. They've marketed it incessantly to their rabid fan base, and to-date have gotten just over 1 million people to subscribe. People really underestimate how incredibly difficult a direct-to-consumer streaming network is to launch, grow, and make profitable. I'll posit that the WWE has a larger fan base than the ACC. Certainly equal at worst.

Well sure. But I wonder which path is more viable in the future? What if an SEC/B1G channel model isn't possible for the ACC?

 

[TheCusian]

Cable's the whole hockey arena. And the puck is a few millenials in the nosebleeds trying to watch a game on their 2" cell phone screens.

You're vastly underestimating cord cutters. I'm not sure where you live, but my Apple TV get a better quality stream than what comes through the cable box.

I want to be able to watch the game on any screen in my house, not just the giant one.

My kids don't know what cable is.

 

[Scooch]

Well sure. But I wonder which path is more viable in the future? What if an SEC/B1G channel model isn't possible for the ACC?

Depends on what you consider viable. Tiny margins are viable, theoretically. They're not all that fun though.

 

[Scooch]

You're vastly underestimating cord cutters. I'm not sure where you live, but my Apple TV get a better quality stream than what comes through the cable box. I want to be able to watch the game on any screen in my house, not just the giant one. My kids don't know what cable is.

I won't argue business models, but bundled video services are not going extinct. Sony just launched one on PlayStation. In the next year you'll see offerings from YouTube, Hulu and others. Anywhere from $20 to $60 a month for Internet-delivered TV.

Call it cable, call it digital, it really doesn't matter.

It's likely that your kids and mine will subscribe to a bundles video service someday.

 

[TheCusian]

I won't argue business models, but bundled video services are not going extinct. Sony just launched one on PlayStation. In the next year you'll see offerings from YouTube, Hulu and others. Anywhere from $20 to $60 a month for Internet-delivered TV. Call it cable, call it digital, it really doesn't matter. It's likely that your kids and mine will subscribe to a bundles video service someday.

Yeah - my argument isn't against bundles. I subscribe to SlingTV. I just wanted the option to pick smaller chunks than the 3 pricy ones offered by cable.

More competition is good for the consumer. I've saved roughly $80 a month and don't miss much.

 

[Scooch]

Yeah - my argument isn't against bundles. I subscribe to SlingTV. I just wanted the option to pick smaller chunks than the 3 pricy ones offered by cable. More competition is good for the consumer. I've saved roughly $80 a month and don't miss much.

I assume you know that Sling TV is owned by Dish Network. That's called skating towards where the puck will be.

 

[TheCusian]

I assume you know that Sling TV is owned by Dish Network. That's called skating towards where the puck will be.

Yep. Dish was smart to explore it. Reminds me of everyone getting funny about Netflix adding a streaming option to their disc by mail service, or the choice quotes from Blackberry when the iPhone launched.

And that's what ESPN will be trying to do with the ACCn. I hope.

 

[Millhouse]

I won't argue business models, but bundled video services are not going extinct. Sony just launched one on PlayStation. In the next year you'll see offerings from YouTube, Hulu and others. Anywhere from $20 to $60 a month for Internet-delivered TV.

Call it cable, call it digital, it really doesn't matter.

It's likely that your kids and mine will subscribe to a bundles video service someday.

and people (not cusian) will complain about "paying for things they don't watch" in those bundles

 

[TheCusian]

and people (not cusian) will complain about "paying for things they don't watch" in those bundles

I think the existing cable system is fine for:

A) people who have enough disposable income that cable bills don't matter

B) people who can't or won't do basic math

---

When I had cable I only watched ESPN and the national games on CBS/ABC/NBC/FOX. I get SlingTV primarily for ESPN and TNT (CFB and NBA). I would drop cable altogether but we live in cow country and don't get great over the air TV. We add in Netflix for the kids/wife. I added HBO for GoT and dropped it after the season.

So we get 90% of what we used to watch and save 50% (rough estimate). You can poke fun at it, but that makes a big difference for a lot of people... And that's where the pressure lies.

 

[reedny]

You're vastly underestimating cord cutters. I'm not sure where you live, but my Apple TV get a better quality stream than what comes through the cable box.

I want to be able to watch the game on any screen in my house, not just the giant one.

My kids don't know what cable is.

Well more power to you. I've noticed a lot of cord-cutters insisting it's the "future". But not in the near term ... as cable customers vastly outnumber streamers. We have apple TV in our household also .. and TW as an IP. When we use apple TV, the signal quality is usually pretty good ... but it's not unusual to have a glitch where the signal cuts out, or degrades to standard definition. Since that almost never happens with cable TV, this is a reliability, not a "basic math", issue.

Here are some more examples. When I stream an ESPN game and try to skip the commercials or move the cursor (b/c the SU kid I'm watching in an NBA summer league game isn't on the floor), it often goes haywire. Then I have to start the stream over. One game, an entire half was missing. In several the first 5 minutes were in SD, and I've had multiple games where the audio doesn't run. I mean ... streaming's a crap shoot. And I don't like risks when it comes to my Cuse sports.

Whichever way things go, I hope SU fans get a fair shake. Right now, we see the team play a lot when the ACC starts. But in the fall when the 2d Tier games and Raycom get involved, we get shafted (the SU - Bonnies game was strangely "blacked out" in the prime viewing area even though I was paying for an ESPN game pass to see it). That's the kind of BS that gets my blood boiling ... and I hope Wildhack will level us out with the B1G and Pac12 with our own linear cable channel.

 

[TexanMark]

and people (not cusian) will complain about "paying for things they don't watch" in those bundles

Milly...true but unlike Cable I can cancel hassle free with a few clicks and reactivate later for a few more clicks...