No College Football On Spectrum/ESPN | Page 6 | Syracusefan.com

No College Football On Spectrum/ESPN

Cable uses coax. Fios/AT&T use fiber-optics. I don't think any company would find it cost-effective to build out a cable network anymore. Fiber offers much faster, and consistent speeds, especially with uploads.
I guess my point is for decades because of an agreement/contract with the city, no other competitor could provide services within the city - whether coax or fiber. I probably wasn’t clear on it in my post.
 
These companies are ALL greedy bastards. Truly.

I have an easy solution. How about you don't pay some dude 30-40 million dollars a year to play a sport. It's also not just players obviously - owners and the like are swimming in cash too. The problem is that someone has to take a cut - but it's usually the customer because we have little leverage. The only leverage we have is not subscribing to the cable companies and streaming services when they do this crap - but that's not happening. Therefore, they will just keep hiking up our monthly bills so that we can pay athletes, their owners, and networks $$$.
Actually, the easy solution from a consumer standpoint is to stop watching.

Enough people stop watching and it all unravels.
 
I've heard many mention YouTube TV as a way to livestream the game today. When I put my zip in (Rochester area), the program listing includes ACCN, ESPN, ect...but no ESPN+ or ACCN+. I currently have Spectrum and will subscribe to YouTube if I can get the game.
 
I have Spectrum. Getting sick of paying for access to stuff and not getting it.

Spectrum might be telling customers resolution is expected shortly but their CEO makes it sound like this dispute might never get resolved. It really appears to be a seminal showdown for the future of TV in the US and I expect it will last a long time. The stakes are too high to cave quickly for either side.


I thankfully can get Verizon Fios in my neighborhood. Looks like I am going to be switching shortly.
Based on the reading I've done on this, Spectrum standing its ground is a good thing.

The content distributors have held the upper hand for years in this relationship.

This is why you have to pay for a gazillion channels that you don't watch.

The content distributors, like Disney, have insisted on that approach so they get paid, effectively, by both those who watch channels and those who don't.

Companies, like Charter, now make very little money on cable so they have reached the point where resisting is no longer economic suicide the way it used to be as they make most of their money from broadband.

I believe that, if Charter does win, then there is the possibility that more customized bundles will be available that will allow the consumer to choose, and only pay for, more of the channels he\she wants to watch rather than having to choose from a few large bundles where the consumer could care less about 95% of the channels in the bundle.

For example, if I could just pay for a bundle that included local channels, Bloomberg TV and the sports channels, I think that would cover 95+% of the channels that we watch.

I only watch sports and Bloomberg TV on cable and my wife watches whatever shows she watches on ABC CBS & NBC.

We almost never watch any other channel. Maybe the weather channel during a hurricane and TBS, TNT and TruTV during the NCAA tournament. For everything else, we are streaming.

I should be able to get that package for $50 (? - I do not know what cable pays for each sports channel to the content distributor) a month.
 
I've heard many mention YouTube TV as a way to livestream the game today. When I put my zip in (Rochester area), the program listing includes ACCN, ESPN, ect...but no ESPN+ or ACCN+. I currently have Spectrum and will subscribe to YouTube if I can get the game.
ACCN+ is online only, you’ll have access through YouTube TV though
 
Based on the reading I've done on this, Spectrum standing its ground is a good thing.

The content distributors have held the upper hand for years in this relationship.

This is why you have to pay for a gazillion channels that you don't watch.

The content distributors, like Disney, have insisted on that approach so they get paid, effectively, by both those who watch channels and those who don't.

Companies, like Charter, now make very little money on cable so they have reached the point where resisting is no longer economic suicide the way it used to be as they make most of their money from broadband.

I believe that, if Charter does win, then there is the possibility that more customized bundles will be available that will allow the consumer to choose, and only pay for, more of the channels he\she wants to watch rather than having to choose from a few large bundles where the consumer could care less about 95% of the channels in the bundle.

For example, if I could just pay for a bundle that included local channels, Bloomberg TV and the sports channels, I think that would cover 95+% of the channels that we watch.

I only watch sports and Bloomberg TV on cable and my wife watches whatever shows she watches on ABC CBS & NBC.

We almost never watch any other channel. Maybe the weather channel during a hurricane and TBS, TNT and TruTV during the NCAA tournament. For everything else, we are streaming.

I should be able to get that package for $50 (? - I do not know what cable pays for each sports channel to the content distributor) a month.
The point of bundling is that everyone helps subsidize the channels that others watch, and in the end it produces a cheaper product for everyone.

You watch some networks, your wife watches others, and you both get cheaper entertainment because of that.

It’s been proven time and time and time again… when the bundle unravels (and we’re close to that point) and a la carte is the sole model, you’re going to pay much, much more for the things you want.

Don’t get me wrong, both the cable operators and the programmers share blame across a slew of issues. Poor customer service, poor user experience, egregious ad clutter, and ever escalating prices have all doomed the industry.

But the day is coming where you’re going to pay $75-100 a month just for the variety of sports steaming services you’ll need to follow your favorite team. It’s coming, trust me.
 
Sports are getting boring anyway.

Football, all they do is pass. Basketball is a 3 point contest. Baseball is a home run or a strike out. Players are all a bunch of personal trainer created clones with no creativity, grit, or flair to their games. None of these guys were ever outside as kids.

The games take place in between commercial breaks. Commentators mostly suck. Sports fans only talk about gambling and fantasy sports, nobody has any good takes.

If these stupid companies keep playing games, I’ll just drop them all and not even watch TV.

Rant over.
 
The point of bundling is that everyone helps subsidize the channels that others watch, and in the end it produces a cheaper product for everyone.

You watch some networks, your wife watches others, and you both get cheaper entertainment because of that.

It’s been proven time and time and time again… when the bundle unravels (and we’re close to that point) and a la carte is the sole model, you’re going to pay much, much more for the things you want.

Don’t get me wrong, both the cable operators and the programmers share blame across a slew of issues. Poor customer service, poor user experience, egregious ad clutter, and ever escalating prices have all doomed the industry.

But the day is coming where you’re going to pay $75-100 a month just for the variety of sports steaming services you’ll need to follow your favorite team. It’s coming, trust me.
bloomburg type channels go away without bundles..

and to get the customer service people want would mean upping the rates as well and people dont want that.
 
It’s been proven time and time and time again… when the bundle unravels (and we’re close to that point) and a la carte is the sole model, you’re going to pay much, much more for the things you want.
Just curious...where has it been proven time and time again if the unbundling hasn't yet happened?

Can you provide a few examples?

This is a point that the articles have not addressed...the ultimate impact to the consumer of unbundling.
 
Just curious...where has it been proven time and time again if the unbundling hasn't yet happened?

Can you provide a few examples?

This is a point that the articles have not addressed...the ultimate impact to the consumer of unbundling.
in the beginning channels negotiated the rates with the cable companies. I think it became pretty clear early it was better for most of these channels to make 10 cents from everybody than $10 from a few.

Look at ESPN/HBO
 
I've heard many mention YouTube TV as a way to livestream the game today. When I put my zip in (Rochester area), the program listing includes ACCN, ESPN, ect...but no ESPN+ or ACCN+. I currently have Spectrum and will subscribe to YouTube if I can get the game.

ESPN+ and ACCN+ are apps. Game isn’t on YTTV. You have to subscribe to YTTV and use those credentials to then watch the game on the app without a blackout. If you try to watch the game on the app with your spectrum log in it will be blocked. But the game isn’t on YTTV directly.
 
in the beginning channels negotiated the rates with the cable companies. I think it became pretty clear early it was better for most of these channels to make 10 cents from everybody than $10 from a few.

Look at ESPN/HBO
That doesn't necessarily make Scooch's point true (or make it not true either).

If I am paying 10 cents for each channel but have to buy 500 channels, that is not cheaper than just buying HBO and ESPN for $10 each.

If each channel were offered a la carte, I think it would depend on how extensive my a la carte channel demands are compared to the bundled pricing.
 
Charter wants the Disney+ content, etc if they are to pay a gajillion dollars for espn, etc.

It makes sense - why pay more to an entity that is killing your business?

Back in the day it made sense bc you needed the cable subs. But charter now is selling internet as priority.

ESPN doesn’t have the leverage of demands bc without it you won’t get the cable subs. Either Disney gives in on the other content or Charter just holds knowing people need their internet service.

At best, Charter ends up with espn and Disney+ content. But they aren’t going to be held hostage based on a dying business model.

[edit: the other thing is that most of the best shows are now on streaming. Cable doesn’t even have those anymore]
 
I've already prepped for these types of things by building an HTPC and having a VPN. Also I'm going to recommend people start looking to over the air (OTA) for locals, especially with ATSC 3.0 rolling out.
 
Just curious...where has it been proven time and time again if the unbundling hasn't yet happened?

Can you provide a few examples?

This is a point that the articles have not addressed...the ultimate impact to the consumer of unbundling.
I’ll use ESPN as an example. Right now their suite of networks costs about $10-12 dollars a month “wholesale”. Meaning that’s what a cable operator pays for those networks. That translates to roughly $8.5 billion a year in annual revenue in a world of 65 million subscribing Hoisehold a.

When unbundled, ESPN needs to price their suite of networks in a direct to consumer model so that they at least maintain their annual revenue. In that world, they’d be extremely fortunate to attract even half that amount of subscribers. Likely less than that. So now we’re talking about needing to charge $25-30 or more a month.

That same calculus will apply to every network group. Want to watch football on Fox and FS1? $20 a month. NBC and USA? Peacock goes up to $20 a month. TNT? Add it to Max and that’s up to $25 a month.

Plus the regional sports network model is dying, so much of those rights are going to go to streaming. Instead of YES costing $5 a month in a bundle, it’s $20 a month direct to consumer.

You see where this is going. Now instead of spending $75-80 a month for cable basic, which gets you all the sports plus news and entertainment. Now you’ll be plunking down $100+ for the same sports content. But you still might buy Netflix and Hulu for dramas and comedies.

Every Wall Street and consumer analyst who has studied this shows that sports fans are going to lose when the cable bundle dies.

Granted, for those who don’t watch sports it’s a different proposition.
 
ESPN+ and ACCN+ are apps. Game isn’t on YTTV. You have to subscribe to YTTV and use those credentials to then watch the game on the app without a blackout. If you try to watch the game on the app with your spectrum log in it will be blocked. But the game isn’t on YTTV directly.
Thanks qdawgg and Cuse181. I bit the bullet and subscribed. I see how I can see the game. I am a Knicks and Bills fan so I will probably keep Spectrum for my internet and MSG. Expensive though. Can't get FIOS out where I live. Thanks again guys.
 
I’ll use ESPN as an example. Right now their suite of networks costs about $10-12 dollars a month “wholesale”. Meaning that’s what a cable operator pays for those networks. That translates to roughly $8.5 billion a year in annual revenue in a world of 65 million subscribing Hoisehold a.

When unbundled, ESPN needs to price their suite of networks in a direct to consumer model so that they at least maintain their annual revenue. In that world, they’d be extremely fortunate to attract even half that amount of subscribers. Likely less than that. So now we’re talking about needing to charge $25-30 or more a month.

That same calculus will apply to every network group. Want to watch football on Fox and FS1? $20 a month. NBC and USA? Peacock goes up to $20 a month. TNT? Add it to Max and that’s up to $25 a month.

Plus the regional sports network model is dying, so much of those rights are going to go to streaming. Instead of YES costing $5 a month in a bundle, it’s $20 a month direct to consumer.

You see where this is going. Now instead of spending $75-80 a month for cable basic, which gets you all the sports plus news and entertainment. Now you’ll be plunking down $100+ for the same sports content. But you still might buy Netflix and Hulu for dramas and comedies.

Every Wall Street and consumer analyst who has studied this shows that sports fans are going to lose when the cable bundle dies.

Granted, for those who don’t watch sports it’s a different proposition.

Awesome awesome content, thank you.
 
ESPN/Disney/Hulu all going up in price this month.
I just went to cancel Hulu and they offered it to me for 6 months at $3 a month.

Went to cancel Peacock and got it for $2.50 a month for 3 months.

Last 2 times I canceled amazon prime they gave me a free month, so I haven’t paid for that since June.

This is my new way of operating. Make it practically free, or I’m out because I don’t really care all that much.
 
I’ll use ESPN as an example. Right now their suite of networks costs about $10-12 dollars a month “wholesale”. Meaning that’s what a cable operator pays for those networks. That translates to roughly $8.5 billion a year in annual revenue in a world of 65 million subscribing Hoisehold a.

When unbundled, ESPN needs to price their suite of networks in a direct to consumer model so that they at least maintain their annual revenue. In that world, they’d be extremely fortunate to attract even half that amount of subscribers. Likely less than that. So now we’re talking about needing to charge $25-30 or more a month.

That same calculus will apply to every network group. Want to watch football on Fox and FS1? $20 a month. NBC and USA? Peacock goes up to $20 a month. TNT? Add it to Max and that’s up to $25 a month.

Plus the regional sports network model is dying, so much of those rights are going to go to streaming. Instead of YES costing $5 a month in a bundle, it’s $20 a month direct to consumer.

You see where this is going. Now instead of spending $75-80 a month for cable basic, which gets you all the sports plus news and entertainment. Now you’ll be plunking down $100+ for the same sports content. But you still might buy Netflix and Hulu for dramas and comedies.

Every Wall Street and consumer analyst who has studied this shows that sports fans are going to lose when the cable bundle dies.

Granted, for those who don’t watch sports it’s a different proposition.

The ESPNs and Foxes wouldn't need to charge so much if they didn't shell out so much to the leagues for broadcasting rights. Maybe those need to come down?
 
Thanks qdawgg and Cuse181. I bit the bullet and subscribed. I see how I can see the game. I am a Knicks and Bills fan so I will probably keep Spectrum for my internet and MSG. Expensive though. Can't get FIOS out where I live. Thanks again guys.

Bills games should largely be on YTTV through your local network. I was a huge Knicks fan going back to the Ewing years and completely stopped watching them until the end of last year. So watching the Knicks I can’t offer any insight if YTTV is viable option or not. But I’m a bears fan. I used to, years ago, pay for cable and directtv half the year to get Sunday ticket. Now YTTV has Sunday ticket but for like $10 a month (it might even be like $7) the NFL app will show all full games BUT replay right after the game ends. With an 8 yr old in soccer, I can’t watch games live often anymore anyway. So this has worked out awesome for me. For like $50 a year I see every Chicago game (I live in the Albany area) and save a ton of $. After season ends, I cancel the NFL app and start it up again in preseason.
 

Similar threads

Forum statistics

Threads
166,500
Messages
4,642,587
Members
5,880
Latest member
Ncountryfan

Online statistics

Members online
305
Guests online
1,146
Total visitors
1,451


Top Bottom