Canary in the Coal Mine?

[TheCusian]

How cord-cutting can change the entire landscape of college football

 

[sutomcat]

This sounds like a really big deal to the future of college football. I think it is a good illustration of why it is wise to hitch your wagon to ESPN/Disney...


...
But what if conference television networks are no longer such a smashing success? Cable television is not a growth industry, with cord-cutting dropping the number of basic cable consumers blindly paying in, and cable providers mindful of keeping bills low as to not scare away existing customers.

It becomes easy to drop low-rated networks, and for all the hype about these channels, they struggle to draw regular viewers, especially beyond live football and men’s basketball games. There are just only so many fans, let alone ones willing to pay for it.

Which is one reason why cable giant Comcast is threatening to pull the Big Ten Network (as well as FS1, which shows league games) off basic cable packages. It already did outside the league footprint on second-tier packages. Now it is saying BTN will no longer be on basic cable in communities in the league area as of September 1.

Hence, Silverman’s alarm.

“BTN is now facing our biggest challenge since the launch of the network,” Silverman said at Big Ten Media Days in Chicago. “Our 10-year agreement with Comcast expires at the end of August. A few months ago, BTN was removed from out-of-market cable systems on Comcast, which is the leading cable provider in the country. … It’s extremely concerning.”

Comcast isn’t just the No. 1 cable provider in the country; it’s No. 1 in the 11 Big Ten states – five of those (Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan and New Jersey) rank in the top 11 nationally and have a combined population alone of 56.1 million. If the channel stops being carried, not only will fewer fans be able to watch games through cable television, a lot fewer dollars will come into the Big Ten.
...

 

[chugg21]

Fine with me if these channels go away. What a ridiculous money grab they were to begin with.

 

[gbo]

And yet the ACC is coming out with its own channel in 2019...

 

[Hoo's That]

And yet the ACC is coming out with its own channel in 2019...

Different pricing model. It was always going to be on premium sports tiers, not the basic cable model used by the BTN. A lot of speculation centers on the ACC Network as replacing ESPNews on cable systems. I've been on two cable systems in the last 15 years. Both of them have ESPNews, ESPNU, and the SEC network in their premium sports packages.

"Cutting the cable" is a misnomer. People are going to get rid of the stations they don't want and pay some sort of a provider for the ones that they do want. The Raycom over-the-air "free" broadcasts of ACC football and basketball are probably going away. To see the bulk of football games you will need access to some ESPN channel since there are only 2 slots available on ABC (3:30 and 8 PM). You are not going to get those ESPN games for free; you will have to pay someone (Sling, etc.) to get access and they will have to pay ESPN/Disney for the broadcast. ESPN may not get as much money as it did in the past, but it will continue to get money. ESPN has much more to offer than the BTN does.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Different pricing model. It was always going to be on premium sports tiers, not the basic cable model used by the BTN. A lot of speculation centers on the ACC Network as replacing ESPNews on cable systems. I've been on two cable systems in the last 15 years. Both of them have ESPNews, ESPNU, and the SEC network in their premium sports packages.

We have Spectrum Cable in Syracuse.

Currently ESPNNews and ESPNU are only available on the "Silver" package ($20/month higher than Basic).

ESPN Classic is only available on the "Gold" package (even more $$$/month).

I fear than ESPN Classic will be the new ACCN.

 

[Hoo's That]

We have Spectrum Cable in Syracuse.

Currently ESPNNews and ESPNU are only available on the "Silver" package ($20/month higher than Basic).

ESPN Classic is only available on the "Gold" package (even more $$$/month).

I fear than ESPN Classic will be the new ACCN.

That was another possibility many people mentioned.

 

[jgeorge322]

Honestly, i wish i could just buy all acc team games for a monthly price, say $20. Then $10 netflix, $10 for hbo and use antenna for local channels. Id be good w that over the $170 i pay spectrum per month. Maybe add in all espn platforms for another $20/month. Thatd be $60 and id be getting everything i need.

 

[elimunelson]

the bundle is cheaper at end of day still unfortunately. i have tried to figure out a way to cut the chord in an intelligent way. The issue keeps coming back to my ability to buy an ISN independent of the cable company. The bundle allows me to get really fast Internet.

Until someone gets into "internet only" space in my area and it's cheaper than what i'm paying Verizon, i'm bundling

 

[upperdeck]

would you really? and when all the channels become ala carte the money they need to survive will come from netflix rate changes.

and the internet dudes once they lose cable money will have to bump the internet access rates too and if you stream everything you will end up paying the same money for way less

netflix is already raising its rates, next thing they will start enforcing multi user limits and before long it will be $20 a month to watch just old shows and netflix stuff.

cord cutting is a self defeating thing. people better hope everyone has fiber some day to support the stream buffers that will follow

watching sports streams suck compared to having a solid DVR cable/sat feed.

 

[texascpa]

All I need is ESPN lineup of channels (and only during college football/basketball season), TBS, TNT, FXX and TVLand. I rarely watch any other channel. Yet, here I am paying for almost 200 channels!

 

[Shark58]

Sting is a dick

true story

 

[sufandu]

All I need is ESPN lineup of channels (and only during college football/basketball season), TBS, TNT, FXX and TVLand. I rarely watch any other channel. Yet, here I am paying for almost 200 channels!

Do you have a wife that watches anything else?

Here's my multlayered reasoning for not cutting the cord yet. The quality of sports streaming is still too inconsistent, my wife and kids watch different channels than me, and we still channel surf. It's not uncommon for us to find shows on random channels that we wouldn't have if we went with one of the alternatives. By the time we upgraded to higner speed internet and subscribed to all the different streaming services to got all the cool shows everybody talks about, we wouldn't save any money. My hope is that ultimately the competition will keep cable prices in check.

 

[orangemass]

I'm fine if they remove the Big ten network... can honestly say I've never watched it...

 

[TheCusian]

would you really? and when all the channels become ala carte the money they need to survive will come from netflix rate changes.

and the internet dudes once they lose cable money will have to bump the internet access rates too and if you stream everything you will end up paying the same money for way less

netflix is already raising its rates, next thing they will start enforcing multi user limits and before long it will be $20 a month to watch just old shows and netflix stuff.

cord cutting is a self defeating thing. people better hope everyone has fiber some day to support the stream buffers that will follow

watching sports streams suck compared to having a solid DVR cable/sat feed.

I don't know. For now, I stream everything for a fraction of what I was paying before including just about every Syracuse game I want.

Even if all shifts and I end up paying more in the future, it's nice now to save a lot and only pay for the small group of things I actually watch compared to the giant bundles of yesteryear.

Worth the disruption, IMO.

 

[TheCusian]

Do you have a wife that watches anything else?

Here's my multlayered reasoning for not cutting the cord yet. The quality of sports streaming is still too inconsistent, my wife and kids watch different channels than me, and we still channel surf. It's not uncommon for us to find shows on random channels that we wouldn't have if we went with one of the alternatives. By the time we upgraded to higner speed internet and subscribed to all the different streaming services to got all the cool shows everybody talks about, we wouldn't save any money. My hope is that ultimately the competition will keep cable prices in check.

Must have older kids. My 9 and 6 year old watch YouTube and Netflix till their eyes bleed. Channel surfing is completely alien to them. My wife and I watch Netflix or HBO stuff.

I run my Roku on ethernet and haven't had a buffering issue watching live sports in a year. World Cup was crisp too.

 

[texascpa]

Do you have a wife that watches anything else?

Here's my multlayered reasoning for not cutting the cord yet. The quality of sports streaming is still too inconsistent, my wife and kids watch different channels than me, and we still channel surf. It's not uncommon for us to find shows on random channels that we wouldn't have if we went with one of the alternatives. By the time we upgraded to higner speed internet and subscribed to all the different streaming services to got all the cool shows everybody talks about, we wouldn't save any money. My hope is that ultimately the competition will keep cable prices in check.

Nope. This is what we watch - reruns of Big Bang Theory on TNT during the week, reruns of movies on FXX, TBS and TNT on weekends (if we watch anything at all on the weekend), King of Queens and Everybody Loves Raymond reruns on TVLand weeknights before bed, sports on ESPN (just me), and once in a while a Directv PPV movie. Heck, she was watching something on Amazon Fire Stick Sunday. My daughter has her own TV and watches HULU, Netflix and my son rarely watches TV as he's usually on his computer.

 

[Hoo's That]

All I need is ESPN lineup of channels (and only during college football/basketball season), TBS, TNT, FXX and TVLand. I rarely watch any other channel. Yet, here I am paying for almost 200 channels!

You've got to be very careful when you say this. For a lot of these channels, you're paying the bulk of the fee for a channel you want and the owners (Disney, Discovery, A&E, etc.) are throwing in the other channels they own for "free" or a fraction of their total fee they charge to the provider that really wouldn't make much of a difference in your bill if they were gone. To make a wild, generalized example just to illustrate the pricing scheme, let's say you like watching the main Discovery Channel and they charge $1 to your provider for all their channels. You don't watch Investigation Discovery or the non-primary Discovery channels and you want them gone. OK, to continue to get the main Discovery channel they'll now charge you 98 cents.

 

[FrancoPizza]

My daughter has her own TV and watches HULU, Netflix and my son rarely watches TV as he's usually on his computer.

Getting your kids into sports and extracirricular school activities might be a healthier alternative. I dread giving my kids their own computer/TV when they get older. They'll never leave their bedroom.

 

[Hoo's That]

Nope. This is what we watch - reruns of Big Bang Theory on TNT during the week, reruns of movies on FXX, TBS and TNT on weekends (if we watch anything at all on the weekend), King of Queens and Everybody Loves Raymond reruns on TVLand weeknights before bed, sports on ESPN (just me), and once in a while a Directv PPV movie. Heck, she was watching something on Amazon Fire Stick Sunday. My daughter has her own TV and watches HULU, Netflix and my son rarely watches TV as he's usually on his computer.

To link this to the example I created, you're paying 49 cents for TNT, 49 cents for TBS and 2 cents for all the other Turner-owned channels they throw in since they charge the most for TBS and TNT. TVLand is one of the inexpensive add-ons to Nickelodeon, IIRC.

 

[upperdeck]

and all the shows that so many watch reruns of will no longer exist once we cut down all the channels.

you watch big bang reruns but dont watch it live? its like people watch movies but dont go to the theatre. someone needs to see them or they never get made to stream

 

[sufandu]

Must have older kids. My 9 and 6 year old watch YouTube and Netflix till their eyes bleed. Channel surfing is completely alien to them. My wife and I watch Netflix or HBO stuff.

I run my Roku on ethernet and haven't had a buffering issue watching live sports in a year. World Cup was crisp too.

No. I have a preschooler and a baby. Lots of disney jr, curious george, sesame street, etc.

My wife dvr's stuff I don't care about and I do the same with stuff she doesn't like. She likes to sometimes play music videos on cmt or gac in the morning. We'll watch ridiculousness on mtv or impractical jokers on trutv (I found that randomly), I like car shows on velocity etc. We're all over the place.

 

[texascpa]

You've got to be very careful when you say this. For a lot of these channels, you're paying the bulk of the fee for a channel you want and the owners (Disney, Discovery, A&E, etc.) are throwing in the other channels they own for "free" or a fraction of their total fee they charge to the provider that really wouldn't make much of a difference in your bill if they were gone. To make a wild, generalized example just to illustrate the pricing scheme, let's say you like watching the main Discovery Channel and they charge $1 to your provider for all their channels. You don't watch Investigation Discovery or the non-primary Discovery channels and you want them gone. OK, to continue to get the main Discovery channel they'll now charge you 98 cents.

Ah yeah, I know how it works.

 

[sufandu]

You've got to be very careful when you say this. For a lot of these channels, you're paying the bulk of the fee for a channel you want and the owners (Disney, Discovery, A&E, etc.) are throwing in the other channels they own for "free" or a fraction of their total fee they charge to the provider that really wouldn't make much of a difference in your bill if they were gone. To make a wild, generalized example just to illustrate the pricing scheme, let's say you like watching the main Discovery Channel and they charge $1 to your provider for all their channels. You don't watch Investigation Discovery or the non-primary Discovery channels and you want them gone. OK, to continue to get the main Discovery channel they'll now charge you 98 cents.

And of course I'm constantly finding cool unique stuff to watch on those fringe channels. Who wants to support me financially so I can quit my job and overdose on my tv habit?

 

[Orijinal]

I don't know. For now, I stream everything for a fraction of what I was paying before including just about every Syracuse game I want.

Even if all shifts and I end up paying more in the future, it's nice now to save a lot and only pay for the small group of things I actually watch compared to the giant bundles of yesteryear.

Worth the disruption, IMO.

So, how do you stream just about every Syracuse game you want but not have cable or something like it? Isn't access to ESPN streaming tied to actual subscriptions of cable, dish, and direcTV?