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

[kingottoiii]

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

Cable TV will be needed for Live programming (mostly sports). I can't see that changing until there is a breakthrough in delivery. Streaming is not viable currently. You can watch HD CBS, NBC, FOX, and ABC without cable through the airwaves and at a higher quality HD. But for the cable networks (ESPN, etc) you need cable.

How much original content is there anymore on TV? BTW isn't the best content from subscription networks? Wouldn't costs be covered through direct subscriptions to websites? As well as DVD sales? How much money from cable subscriptions trickle down to the shows anyway?

 

[HtownOrange]

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.

Sure, if you stop with the "world is doomed", "the sky is falling because I don't want to change" and "change is bad". Yes, we all realize that things can change for the worse, but when things are bad already (cable monopolies) change is generally better. We can disagree, that is fine, I don't expect to change anyone's thinking via one post from a board made of opinions. However, when accused of dodging, I responded. You didn't like the response. O.K.

 

[Scooch]

Sure, if you stop with the "world is doomed", "the sky is falling because I don't want to change" and "change is bad". Yes, we all realize that things can change for the worse, but when things are bad already (cable monopolies) change is generally better. We can disagree, that is fine, I don't expect to change anyone's thinking via one post from a board made of opinions. However, when accused of dodging, I responded. You didn't like the response. O.K.

I didn't say any of that. I just explained the current model, which a lot of people don't really understand.

 

[HtownOrange]

I didn't say any of that. I just explained the current model, which a lot of people don't really understand.

Correct, you did not say the exact words, you did give the impression of such. Your explanation of the current model was not in discussion, a future model was. We all know nothing is free, we will pay in some manner or another, for everything. However, since most of us do not want 200 channels of useless TV, many would gladly pay $10 or more/month for a sports package, sans the extra crap versus $75, $100, or $200/for the useless channels. My point is that people are going to get what they want and the market makes it easier to do so, which usually translates into better deals for people.

ESPN isn't going anywhere. I do believe they are moving to a point where they can sell packages or possibly individual games via internet access. They will finds a way to maximize their value and new media is not going away.

I would not be surprised to see them use advertising to do so, much like hulu already does. On hulu the shows are free to the user, but ads are shown to provide income to the producer/owner. Though, in ESPN's case, I would still expect to see a premium for the games.

 

[Scooch]

Correct, you did not say the exact words, you did give the impression of such. Your explanation of the current model was not in discussion, a future model was. We all know nothing is free, we will pay in some manner or another, for everything...

No, really, go back and read what I wrote again. Tell me how I gave any impression of "doom" or whatever the heck you thought I said.

And yes, the current model is very much in discussion, because you can't get to a future state without changing the current model.

As to knowing "nothing is free"... there's a lot of people who don't seem to know that. They think that watching video on the internet is somehow "free".

 

[orange79]

Correct, you did not say the exact words, you did give the impression of such.

I didn't take that from his posts. He was just explaining how things currently work which, as he says above, many here do not seem to fully comprehend. They don't feel they need to pay for anything on the internet unless it's from Amazon. We'll never go back to the early novelty days. This ain't your father's ARPnet.