Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Lou_C, post: 2145615, member: 3201"]
Thanks for the link...here's the money quote:

[I]Although the audience for traditional satellite and cable is declining, there’s a raft of new services—including [URL='https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-02-28/youtube-bets-it-can-convince-youngs-to-pay-for-tv']Google’s YouTube TV[/URL], Dish Network’s Sling TV, Sony’s PlayStation Vue, and a [URL='https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-10/a-e-is-in-viacom-out-in-hulu-s-new-live-online-tv-service']soon-to-be-launched one from Hulu[/URL]—that are offering channel packages that look suspiciously like cable bundles, and that uniformly include ESPN. [URL='https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-03-17/cord-cutting-millennials-may-break-america-s-internet']Aimed at millennials[/URL], these online services are designed for smartphones and devices such as Roku and AppleTV and cost from $20 to $50 a month. Even though these plans are cheaper than a traditional cable subscription, ESPN gets paid its usual $7 per subscriber by [URL='https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GOOGL:US']Google[/URL] and the other newcomers, according to people with knowledge of the agreements.
[/I]
That's something I've been wondering, how much of a haircut ESPN was taking from these over the top services.  If they're really getting their full fee, and the fact that none of these services have dared to launch without ESPN in the lineup, that tells me ESPN is going to be OK.  The margins may never quite be what they were, but they aren't DYING.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?