So anyone coming over to the dark side on realignment yet?

[Moontan]

Alternatively, Congress, or the courts, could mandate the cable companies operate like the phone (and in some areas power) companies, which is to say the companies pay line charges but consumers have the choice of their provider. Competition really does work.

We'll see... most of suburban America around major population centers have 4 different choices [cable, telco (FiOS or UVerse), and two satellite providers]. Some people will be surprised (err, disappointed) by the costs of a-la-carte pricing of video content. "I only get 1/3 of the channels as before but still pay 75% of what I used to. What's up with that?"

 

[Scooch]

The NFL model was Pete Rozelle sitting down with Wellington Mara, and getting the owner of the most lucrative franchise to agree to revenue sharing. I don't think anyone would be able to get the presidents of Ohio St, Mich, ND, USC, not to mention half of the SEC, to make similar concessions.

I have zero illusions that it will ever happen.

All those guys would make more money if they did it, but they're all so far gone at this point it doesn't even matter.

 

[kingottoiii]

The NFL model was Pete Rozelle sitting down with Wellington Mara, and getting the owner of the most lucrative franchise to agree to revenue sharing. I don't think anyone would be able to get the presidents of Ohio St, Mich, ND, USC, not to mention half of the SEC, to make similar concessions.

But that is exactly what they are doing with each and every expansion. If the Big 5 all pooled their TV contracts wouldn't that cause a huge bidding war? You are limiting the product to Big 5 or one of the G5.

 

[orange79]

That would be a good thing. Lets hope none of these conferences with all the $$$ have politicians in their back pockets.

Well, those politicians went to college somewhere - let's hope they all went to MAC and Mountain West schools.

 

[HtownOrange]

We'll see... most of suburban America around major population centers have 4 different choices [cable, telco (FiOS or UVerse), and two satellite providers]. Some people will be surprised (err, disappointed) by the costs of a-la-carte pricing of video content. "I only get 1/3 of the channels as before but still pay 75% of what I used to. What's up with that?"

Did you watch the other 2/3? Are you happy saving some $$ if you don't care about the other 2/3 channels?

Many young people are ignoring cable completely and getting everything over the internet. That is the real future. Cable and satellite are going to have to compete with that.

 

[SmilinBob]

Well, those politicians went to college somewhere - let's hope they all went to MAC and Mountain West schools.

I'm hoping the people that paid their way towards their election win went to the MA and the like because where the puppet goes means very little, you need their master.

 

[Scooch]

Did you watch the other 2/3? Are you happy saving some $$ if you don't care about the other 2/3 channels?

Many young people are ignoring cable completely and getting everything over the internet. That is the real future. Cable and satellite are going to have to compete with that.

Where are those young people getting their internet service?

 

[HtownOrange]

Whatever they want, they do no use it for TV, though.

You can get most TV shows at your convenience on Hulu or from the broadcaster themselves. They stream live sports and use netflix for old TV and movies, too. My kids in college watch more on their computer that they do on TV, including movie rentals, probably at least 10-1 in time spent viewing entertainment.

 

[Moontan]

Did you watch the other 2/3? Are you happy saving some $$ if you don't care about the other 2/3 channels?

Many young people are ignoring cable completely and getting everything over the internet. That is the real future. Cable and satellite are going to have to compete with that.

That's not the point.
Many people are under the impression that a-la-carte pricing will save them a fortune.
This is a false impression.

 

[billsin01]

Sadly, there has never been (and I suspect never will be) a Pete Rozelle-type figure in college sports. Someone who could get the 75 or so major athletics programs together and convince them how working together would be far more lucrative, and less stressful, than trying to croak each other.

This is what I've been saying for a long time. I've never quite understood why folks want RU and Uconn and others to wither and die. I like playing relatively "local" teams and forging some rivalry and history. I hate that UConn got donyell marshall but it stoked what eventually became a really good hoops series and back-and-forth battle between two giants in college hoops.

You can hate schiano but RU becoming a legit program, while it hurts us short term, should be a good thing long-term b/c it's a meaningful regional rival. Yes, it hurts us in recruiting to a degree but you have to simply figure that out and find a way to beat them.

And there are the examples of the after-effects of the move -- BC moved conferences and the only thing they have more of is money. They haven't killed it in recruiting by any means, it's still not a job coaches are lining up to get, they don't have any more fans or more interest than they did. They simply have more money and more travel.

But I think the biggest point the powers that be seem to be missing is that while TV rights are really important, respect, interest and long-term stability comes from building a conference that makes sense and is marketable. Take the ACC -- it's hoops have been pretty brutal for a while but ask a talking head about the best conference in america and you'll at least get an ACC mention in the discussion. Why? B/c they have marketed themselves as this hoops heavyweight forever and sold the whole tobacco road narrative to the rest of the country.

But now, a random program like UMD from the east coast signs up to play a bunch of midwest schools when it's only true identity is that of a strong basketball school in an 'elite' hoops conference is gone. What they become in the Big 10 is a complete mystery. They have to be looking at BC right now and thinking, "That won't be us, right?"

 

[Moontan]

Whatever they want, they do no use it for TV, though.

You can get most TV shows at your convenience on Hulu or from the broadcaster themselves. They stream live sports and use netflix for old TV and movies, too. My kids in college watch more on their computer that they do on TV, including movie rentals, probably at least 10-1 in time spent viewing entertainment.

You kind of dodged Scooch's question.

In the US most video services are offered by broadband service providers. If these providers see profits in one part of their business go down they will more than likely attempt to make up for that deficit in their other business component.

Internet access isn't free and it isn't unlimited.

 

[DNABB5]

Where are those young people getting their internet service?

I get my internet from my phone carrier, Sprint.

To go online on my laptop I have to tether it to my phone. Unlimited 4G service.

time warner in their ass. Dinosaurs.

Cable companies right now are like Newspapers 10 years ago. Doomed.

 

[DNABB5]

Internet access isn't free and it isn't unlimited.

Not free, but included in my phone plan, yes.

As of yet, Sprint has not figured it out that I can circumvent their "hot spot" charges.

 

[zeekay]

Google Fiber already has one city hooked up to free internet and is expected to be nationwide in 20 years if congress and lobbyists don't stop them. Free internet since you get to see their homepage and ads on it. Higher tier costs for more speed.

However for next decade or so BigTen is going to make a fortune by forcing YES subscribers in NYC metro area to get BigTen network as a package deal. They don't care if two people in the whole city are watching it. Everyone will still be paying for it from their cable bills. Cable monopolies are making all this BS happen.

 

[Scooch]

Google Fiber already has one city hooked up to free internet and is expected to be nationwide in 20 years if congress and lobbyists don't stop them. Free internet since you get to see their homepage and ads on it. Higher tier costs for more speed.

However for next decade or so BigTen is going to make a fortune by forcing YES subscribers in NYC metro area to get BigTen network as a package deal. They don't care if two people in the whole city are watching it. Everyone will still be paying for it from their cable bills. Cable monopolies are making all this BS happen.

Google Fiber in KC is an exact replica of the traditional cable bundle. They are packaging the subscription costs of TV and Internet. Google is no dummy, they see the value of the cable model and are literally copying it in KC. The only difference is that they are also building out infrastructure. They can't support that entirely on ads, there has to be a subscription underpinning to that kind of massive capital investment as well.

 

[Scooch]

Whatever they want, they do no use it for TV, though.

You can get most TV shows at your convenience on Hulu or from the broadcaster themselves. They stream live sports and use netflix for old TV and movies, too. My kids in college watch more on their computer that they do on TV, including movie rentals, probably at least 10-1 in time spent viewing entertainment.

Jurrie, got it. Your kids are paying some company for high-speed internet access. Or you are. Or their college is. Point is that someone is paying a subscription for that service. So, as Jurrie noted, if one of those companies starts to see meaningful revenue declines on the TV subscription side of their ledger, and it is directly attributable to cannibalistic viewing taking place via Internet access, then they will certainly jack up the rates on that side of the ledger.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I have zero illusions that it will ever happen.

All those guys would make more money if they did it, but they're all so far gone at this point it doesn't even matter.

The thing I don't understand - where does the $$$ go?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[HtownOrange]

You kind of dodged Scooch's question.

In the US most video services are offered by broadband service providers. If these providers see profits in one part of their business go down they will more than likely attempt to make up for that deficit in their other business component.

Internet access isn't free and it isn't unlimited.

Internet is separate from cable in billing. Internet is available from wireless providers. Nothing avoided here. I understand the business model argument, but with more options, dinosaurs die off. Can you buy a Pontiac?

 

[Scooch]

Internet is separate from cable in billing. Internet is available from wireless providers. Nothing avoided here. I understand the business model argument, but with more options, dinosaurs die off. Can you buy a Pontiac?

Verizon and AT&T own TV businesses.

I believe Sprint is the last wireless provider left that doesn't have TV assets, and they've been on the brink of ruin for years.

Anytime someone reverts to the "dinosaur" line of debating an issue I know that we're not going to have a productive discussion. I'm not advocating for any "side", just telling you about certain financial realities of the communiations business. Feel free to ignore it and believe like others here that someday you'll be streaming original productions like the quality of Lost, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, etc via your free super-duper-high-speed Internet connection.

 

[HtownOrange]

Jurrie, got it. Your kids are paying some company for high-speed internet access. Or you are. Or their college is. Point is that someone is paying a subscription for that service. So, as Jurrie noted, if one of those companies starts to see meaningful revenue declines on the TV subscription side of their ledger, and it is directly attributable to cannibalistic viewing taking place via Internet access, then they will certainly jack up the rates on that side of the ledger.

Really, my internet costs $100 more now because my kids are streaming TV and movies? I haven't seen it. I understand your argument but cable as we have known it for several decades is a dinosaur and will die off. It has been overpriced and other options are proving this point. Again, maybe we pay more for sports access, but we will not have to pay for 100 other channels we never view.

It is very possible to pay more for a la cart access while saving on the overall bill because we don't have access to crap we will never watch anyway. It's still a savings.

As internet access increases, people will demand much more from the providers. There is always an equilibrium. Further, as internet access increases businesses will look for other options and fight harder against monopolies as they are big users.

You are welcome to status quo. Hope you enjoy it while it lasts.

 

[kingottoiii]

You kind of dodged Scooch's question.

In the US most video services are offered by broadband service providers. If these providers see profits in one part of their business go down they will more than likely attempt to make up for that deficit in their other business component.

Internet access isn't free and it isn't unlimited.

You are assuming that the only options for high speed internet now and in the future will be the cable companies. That is a faulty assumption. Sure the cable companies might try and recover losses in cable TV service by increasing what they charge for internet service. But if someone isn't using cable TV, then they can choose any internet provider they want. Including companies who do not offer cable. Why would those companies jack up their prices? If anything they would keep them the same to steal customers from the cable companies.

 

[Scooch]

Really, my internet costs $100 more now because my kids are streaming TV and movies? I haven't seen it. I understand your argument but cable as we have known it for several decades is a dinosaur and will die off. It has been overpriced and other options are proving this point. Again, maybe we pay more for sports access, but we will not have to pay for 100 other channels we never view.

It is very possible to pay more for a la cart access while saving on the overall bill because we don't have access to crap we will never watch anyway. It's still a savings.

As internet access increases, people will demand much more from the providers. There is always an equilibrium. Further, as internet access increases businesses will look for other options and fight harder against monopolies as they are big users.

You are welcome to status quo. Hope you enjoy it while it lasts.

Can you please stop with the 'welcome to status quo' nonsense. If you want to trade barbs feel free, but it won't be with me.

 

[Scooch]

You are assuming that the only options for high speed internet now and in the future will be the cable companies. That is a faulty assumption. Sure the cable companies might try and recover losses in cable TV service by increasing what they charge for internet service. But if someone isn't using cable TV, then they can choose any internet provider they want. Including companies who do not offer cable. Why would those companies jack up their prices? If anything they would keep them the same to steal customers from the cable companies.

Sure, that can happen.

Verizon and AT&T have instituted data caps because they're networks are sagging under dramatically increased video bandwith.

Years ago I got free dial-up access from Lycos, and all I had to do was let them serve me some ads. Then the Internet stock bubble burst, the ad money dried up, and Lycos went away.

Lots of things can happen, but you guys need to listen to Jurrie. Broadband requires capital investment. There are real costs associated with delivering high-speed data, video and audio.

 

[Moontan]

Not free, but included in my phone plan, yes.

As of yet, Sprint has not figured it out that I can circumvent their "hot spot" charges.

And you're going to stream Syracuse's BET championship game on ESPN to your HDTV via that connection?

hmmmm, doesn't look like that'll work* unless you go to thefirstrow.eu and that likely won't be an HD signal.

* ESPN's streaming application (WatchESPN) only works if you already pay for video service from one of ESPN's partners.

Oh, and by the way, if all Sprint subscribers were to attempt to max out on their mobile IP usage (all streaming all the time), Sprint will be forced to make some service changes... or go out of business.

The same holds true for non-sports content... expecting great content to be provided while those that create the content have no means of receiving revenue is another model that's sure to fail. One can only wonder how much force-streamed ads from content providers really pay for the overall expenses. Do they pay for the content provider's hosting/streaming costs? Maybe. Do they pay for the actual creation of that content? I highly doubt it.

It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out. TNSTAAFL

 

[Scooch]

And you're going to stream Syracuse's BET championship game on ESPN to your HDTV via that connection?

hmmmm, doesn't look like that'll work* unless you go to thefirstrow.eu and that likely won't be an HD signal.

* ESPN's streaming application (WatchESPN) only works if you already pay for video service from one of ESPN's partners.

Oh, and by the way, if all Sprint subscribers were to attempt to max out on their mobile IP usage (all streaming all the time), Sprint will be forced to make some service changes... or go out of business.

The same holds true for non-sports content... expecting great content to be provided while those that create the content have no means of receiving revenue is another model that's sure to fail. One can only wonder how much force-streamed ads from content providers really pay for the overall expenses. Do they pay for the content provider's hosting/streaming costs? Maybe. Do they pay for the actual creation of that content? I highly doubt it.

It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out. TNSTAAFL

Ah, shut up, you DINOSAUR!!!