This would be problematic for league networks--especially B1G

[Millhouse]

If I remember correctly it was something along the lines of (and I won't use quotes because I do not remember the wording exactly...)

----if you think you are just going to punch up an Internet address and get access to any broadcast content you want, then you can (I've got a bridge to sell .. or maybe it was land in Florida..)

This is how I remember it - and I certainly do not ever remember you disclaiming it before now (an certainly not 3 times). If you want to say it never happened - or that you don't believe it fine - I will pick on some other supposed media guru to pick on.

john mccain can make bundling illegal, but that will not mean you will get access to any broadcast content you want.

 

[IthacaMatt]

That was my 30 second thought.

Let me give you a more compelling example of how I think google can enrich my sports viewing.

Google opens up their fiber tv platform to third party developers through APIs. Under Armour hires an agency (or an indy app developer builds it) to create an "instant analysis" app. The app is installed on a mobile device and the google TV platform.

Say I'm a big Alabama fan, but live in Austin and watch most of the games from home.

Alabama has a SUTomcat like fan. A fan that can provide incredible insights during the game. But with traditional cable he has to post on a message board or hammer out his insights on twitter during the game... not fun.

But if AlabamaTomcat has a mobile device, he could open the instant analysis app press one big button. The app would begin to record sound and video when pressed.

AlabamaTomcat rips 20-30 seconds of insightful points about what is happening through out the game. Each time he presses stop. The video is automatically uploaded to a server and transmitted to my google fiber platform television.

Once I reeve a video, a small picture in picture starts to automatically play (or I manually start it depending on my preference settings) the main picture volume goes silent and the AlabamaTomcat picture in picture plays with his on location, 20-30 sec insights. At the end of the pic-in-pic video, the pic in pic disappears and sound returns to the main screen.

That would be sweet and is very very feasible.

Now this app could be sponsored by under armor with a quick "under armor presents" at the start or it could be a service I pay say 50 cents for a game, with the app developer keeping half and AlabamaTomcat keeping the other.

Everybody wins.

http://www.al.com/alabamafootball/index.ssf/2012/09/alabama_upgrades_its_wireless.html

Yes I have a man crush AlabamaTomcat.

Disclaimer I'm assuming AlabamaTomcat does not have a face for radio like yours truly.

You could do private chat rooms, essentially, for watching games as a social media endeavor.

 

[Phillymoose]

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. The idea of ESPN being $2-3 a month is ludicrous.

You hit the nail on the head. You can't compare cable prices to yesteryear without comparing the content, from the NFL, NBA, pro wrestling to Mad Men, The Sopranos, The Shield, Breaking Bad to as you said, Jersey Shore and it's ilk.

Viewership goes away from networks to cable every single year. There's a simple solution to people with high cable bills...cut the cord. This is not like increases in electricity or water or even broadband. People want cable programming more than ever before, but don't want to pay more than they ever have before.

A la carte, whether delivered by cable or internet or wireless broadband, will benefit those people who watch one or two very popular channels ONLY, just like paying by the episode works if you like just one or two shows. You can get most cable shows on Amazon for $2 an episode. Makes sense if you ONLY watch Mad Men. But how many families watch less than 10 shows between them? That's $80 right there, cable bill territory.

There's no doubt it will work great for some (I'm one of them), but the majority will not like what it looks like.

The content distributers make money in 2 ways... distribution (e.g. subscription) and advertising. These two things are inter-dependent. Advertising dollars are driven by eyeballs, and then premiums are derived from the ability to hit targeted or focussed demo/psycho- graphics. So if I am AMC - and I am a cable company that distributes AMC, the fact that it has great viewership (because it invests heavily in programming) drives advertising revenue for both parties.

The subscription is the gate. If the content owner/creator (e.g. AMC and ESPN) have great content, then it is net positive on the advertising side for the cable company to carry the programming. This should be the base model on which programming value is calculated, which would actually mean the price a channel with really premium programming such as ESPN should actually be LOWER - driving it to be more widely distributed - allowing ad revenues to increase. However - the model is completely screwed up because of legacy and anachronistic approaches - including bundling, that allow absurdities to occur. (And before Millhouse has a meltdown, I will say that there is nothing wrong with bundling per se - it has a place, but based on true market forces - not what is out there today.) We have no better example of such an absurdity than looking at the B1G network and how it impacted re-alignment and Rutgers. People can explain it left and right, but at the end of the day, we are left with a decision that was not driven by demand or even market forces. It was driven by legacy, anachronistic business practices in the cable TV industry. I would love to argue this point..

In media, the more popular something is - and the more widely distributed it is - the more money it will make on its own. How in the world did ABC and NBC survive for all those years while being distributed ABSOLUTELY FOR FREE? And, if they made shows as good as Madmen and Breaking Bad - they still make a lot of money.

Mega-disruption has just begun in this space. I don't pretend to know how it will end, but (as this thread began), I'd be shocked of some of the blatant absurdities stood the test of time and market.,

 

[Phillymoose]

john mccain can make bundling illegal, but that will not mean you will get access to any broadcast content you want.

Red Herring. I don't support the legislation, and I don't link the two concepts at all.
Bundling is not the enemy. It is a perfectly legitimate way of packaging product. My argument is just that legacy business practices and limited technology have made a mess of it - - as opposed to what would arise by pure market forces.

(edited - here is a great example of bundling that makes market sense. NHL Center Ice. If I buy the package (bundle) then I get access to all the playoffs. Maybe I just follow one team.. and dont 'want the package - too bad, that is how the NHL has decided to make money. It is a lucid market driven decision. Now - my quibble with them is they haven't figured out the advertising side yet - so prices are still ridiculously high - partly because they sold off ad rights to the other distributors, and are not allowed to sell their own ads for the online broadcasts. legacy business practice..)

 

[TheCusian]

i don't know how many times I can say this but of course netflix is a competitor to cable and the market for cable can shrink

but that still has nothing to do with how cable companies sell their product. even if cable were not as popular, that still wouldn't change the economics of bundling. it would just mean they have fewer subscribers.

and yes, i do assume that families watch more than one channel.

Look the writing is on the wall. Live sports are highly valued because its becoming the only reason to have cable - at all. Young people are caring less about cable, bundle or no-bundle. The economics will be change or become just an ISP. This kind of future will force change in one way or another.

Netflix is the "other channels" families need. My son is 4 and has never seen a kids show with a commercial. Ever. My wife complains about there being nothing on cable, while being amped at being able to watch full seasons of her TV shows, back to back. We have no desire for appointment viewing (outside of live sports) and don't want the half measure of the DVD.

Finally - there is too much pressure economically for change not happen. Netflix and all that is mentioned above is cheap. Especially when compared to paying 6x as much for the four channels we want to watch live sports on. The disparity is too great.

 

[Scooch]

If I remember correctly it was something along the lines of (and I won't use quotes because I do not remember the wording exactly...)

----if you think you are just going to punch up an Internet address and get access to any broadcast content you want, then you can (I've got a bridge to sell .. or maybe it was land in Florida..)

This is how I remember it - and I certainly do not ever remember you disclaiming it before now (an certainly not 3 times). If you want to say it never happened - or that you don't believe it fine - I will pick on some other supposed media guru to pick on.

I'm pretty sure I didn't say something like that because it makes no sense, at least your recollection of it.

And you called me out about this recollection the last time this kind of thread occured, a few months back I'm sure, and I told you then you were misremembering it.

But you seem to enjoy feeling superior to this poor supposed media guru, so keep at it. I like to make people happy, I'm a pretty nice guy.

 

[Millhouse]

Look the writing is on the wall. Live sports are highly valued because its becoming the only reason to have cable - at all. Young people are caring less about cable, bundle or no-bundle. The economics will be change or become just an ISP. This kind of future will force change in one way or another.

Netflix is the "other channels" families need. My son is 4 and has never seen a kids show with a commercial. Ever. My wife complains about there being nothing on cable, while being amped at being able to watch full seasons of her TV shows, back to back. We have no desire for appointment viewing (outside of live sports) and don't want the half measure of the DVD.

Finally - there is too much pressure economically for change not happen. Netflix and all that is mentioned above is cheap. Especially when compared to paying 6x as much for the four channels we want to watch live sports on. The disparity is too great.

for the millionth time, i'm all for competition.

netflix is great. i'll be curious to find out how much it costs and how good it is if cable goes away. lots of content ends up on netflix after it's been on cable or in theaters. you're not going to get the same quality of programming for 10 bucks a month if that's the only revenue. netflix is the equivalent of an empty seat on an airplane costing less after everyone else has booked.

you get to watch your expensive shows on cheap netflix because you don't mind waiting and content providers have already gotten paid. when netflix has to develop all their content (i know they have that kevin spacey show), netflix is going to cost more or the content is going to be very cheap

one way or another, you're either going to pay for the content you like or you're going to get less content

 

[Millhouse]

Red Herring. I don't support the legislation, and I don't link the two concepts at all.
Bundling is not the enemy. It is a perfectly legitimate way of packaging product. My argument is just that legacy business practices and limited technology have made a mess of it - - as opposed to what would arise by pure market forces.

(edited - here is a great example of bundling that makes market sense. NHL Center Ice. If I buy the package (bundle) then I get access to all the playoffs. Maybe I just follow one team.. and dont 'want the package - too bad, that is how the NHL has decided to make money. It is a lucid market driven decision. Now - my quibble with them is they haven't figured out the advertising side yet - so prices are still ridiculously high - partly because they sold off ad rights to the other distributors, and are not allowed to sell their own ads for the online broadcasts. legacy business practice..)

that's not why they bundle. out of town blackhawks fans and out of town penguins fans might watch a little of the other team in the early rounds, but they're not going to pay what the other teams fans will want to pay. they bundle because everyone is better off. it's not a "too bad" issue

 

[Phillymoose]

that's not why they bundle. out of town blackhawks fans and out of town penguins fans might watch a little of the other team in the early rounds, but they're not going to pay what the other teams fans will want to pay. they bundle because everyone is better off. it's not a "too bad" issue

It is simply an issue of what they feel will bring them the most return. As long as that is the calculus - more power too them.

 

[Phillymoose]

I'm pretty sure I didn't say something like that because it makes no sense, at least your recollection of it.

And you called me out about this recollection the last time this kind of thread occured, a few months back I'm sure, and I told you then you were misremembering it.

But you seem to enjoy feeling superior to this poor supposed media guru, so keep at it. I like to make people happy, I'm a pretty nice guy.

I don't enjoy feeling superior...

These sorts of discussions have been occurring here for years - and I work in media and technology. Actually trying to be one of the disruptors, so I am aggressive on this topic. Aggressive doesn't necessarily mean 'right' mind you, but I do have my opinions.

Apologies if I 'misremember' it. It was definitely a discussion that took place many years ago - and I was probably being over-the-top in my technological evangelism/predictions of the future.

 

[TheCusian]

for the millionth time, i'm all for competition.

netflix is great. i'll be curious to find out how much it costs and how good it is if cable goes away. lots of content ends up on netflix after it's been on cable or in theaters. you're not going to get the same quality of programming for 10 bucks a month if that's the only revenue. netflix is the equivalent of an empty seat on an airplane costing less after everyone else has booked.

you get to watch your expensive shows on cheap netflix because you don't mind waiting and content providers have already gotten paid. when netflix has to develop all their content (i know they have that kevin spacey show), netflix is going to cost more or the content is going to be very cheap

one way or another, you're either going to pay for the content you like or you're going to get less content

I think this is the first conversation I've had with you on this topic - but either way it's good to hear your opinion.

So - basically, we are saying the same thing. You just said that Netflix is cheap so you get old or less than high quality content (House of Cards, aside - that's a damn good show). To take $40 dollars off the price? A lot of people are choosing that over the brand new stuff (plus, we can already buy some new shows from iTunes should we get bored with the old stuff). Renting HD movies through the Apple TV is solid and competitive with on demand stuff.

Some will choose to ditch cable and some won't. I don't know what the numbers are now or what they will be in the future - I just know that $12 plus ESPN/MSG would probably be cheaper than the $50-70 bill we pay now.

And that's what I think we're getting at - there is or will be serious pressure on the cable companies in both content delivery and as ISP. Hopefully that results in more choice and less money.

 

[WickedOrange]

You, of course, chose to ignore the point...

Nope not ignoring it. I think the solution for me is to put my dad's bill in my name. They continue to live at their residence, pay the bill, and have no idea what streaming is. I get to stream WatchESPN with my login.

Any issues with this (serious question)?

 

[Moontan]

If you're paying for it (and admit that you haven't completely cut the cord), then I guess it's OK, though it's still not completely "clean"... but possibly the best that you can do (today).

In your current setup, I'm sure that your father/brother were in violation of their agreement with ESPN and their provider. Not to mention that you were/are a complete hypocrite.

 

[WickedOrange]

Well, my goal is to keep a cable box out of my house and create my own bundle: OTA, Netflix, and WatchEspn.

If this scenario does not fall under the true definition of a cordcutter, it does not matter to me.

I get the sense you take great pride in the cable industries ability to limit my choices as a consumer.

 

[WickedOrange]

the first cracks in the current big 10 model?

http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/11/6135737/verizon-internet-tv-coming-mid-2015

Verizon's internet-based TV service will arrive sometime in mid-2015, CEO Lowell McAdam said today. And apparently the company is finding broad support for its effort. At that time, consumers will be able to subscribe to a programming bundle that includes the big four networks (ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC), and also "custom channels." McAdam didn't expand on this much, according toDeadline, but he gave a nod to "very exciting" programming like DreamWorks Animation's AwesomenessTV, which will presumably factor into Verizon's plans.

There's even better news, though. At least for, it sounds like Verizon doesn't want to overwhelm customers with hundreds of channels they have zero interest in ever watching. "Everyone understands it will go to a la carte," McAdam said. That might sound surprising coming from the boss of the company behind Verizon FiOS, which is just like any other traditional cable company when it comes to programming choice.


But moving pay-TV (or something resembling it) to the internet calls for a different approach, McAdam said. "The question is what does that transition look like," he added. Verizon picked up the scraps for its internet TV project from Intel, which abandoned plans to launch its own platformafter struggling to bring in the popular content people do want to see. But those same content providers are now changing their tune, according to McAdam. "Over the last six months to a year that dialogue has changed dramatically." We still need to hear far more about what Verizon, Sony, and other companies have planned to know whether "internet TV" will become the cord cutter's dream, but it's sounding pretty good as of today.

 

[cuseinchina]

No one said you had to... Just cancel cable - or whatever service you're subscribing to.

But since you have cable (or a satellite provider) you've already AGREED to buy the package(s) that they are offering.

No one said to had to buy the super-duper triple platinum pack with 950+ channels. You can keep it pretty basic if you so desire.

If you don't want the package as is, buy a different package or find a cheaper provider.

Sometimes I only want two hotdogs while at the grocery, but they're sold in 8-packs... Should I have my congressman contact the major grocery chains so that I can purchase the exact number of hot dogs I desire?

I don't need half the bells and whistles on my mobile phone, but I can't force them to make a cheaper version because I don't want/need a camera that shoots HD video. I simply find a phone that comes with the features I desire for a price I'm willing to pay.

Forcing the system to change via legislation won't make things better for the greater majority of television viewers... The system will adapt when it must do so in order to compete.

Oligopoly pricing requires regulation.

Unbundling will happen...and this will shift the pricing power to the right party - the content provider who provides either popular content that lots of people want, or unique content that a few people will pay a lot for.

The cable company will be able to earn a decent utility like rent on their network and they will be able to increase prices at the rate of inflation or above that rate if they invest in new/better equipment.

The only people who think that things are good now are people who work in media (either content or advertising) and the cable company. consumers who prefer bundles may like it also, but they will still be able to buy their bundle.

 

[Moontan]

Get ready for steep Internet service rate increases.

"So, you want to stream all that HD content? Did you see the data cap on your service agreement? Yes, it's in the fine print. Thanks for cutting the cord."

 

[Crusty]

If it passes, it will indeed be a devastating blow to the B1G.

It would be pretty humorous if the B1G added RU and UMd based on

1) a business model that was obsolete before these schools ever play a conference game, and

2) a desperate move to try and keep Penn State from leaving

and Penn State ends up leaving anyway.

Call it the RU curse. Whatever they touch dies immediately.

It simply doesn't gt any better than that.

 

[upperdeck]

Oligopoly pricing requires regulation.

Unbundling will happen...and this will shift the pricing power to the right party - the content provider who provides either popular content that lots of people want, or unique content that a few people will pay a lot for.

The cable company will be able to earn a decent utility like rent on their network and they will be able to increase prices at the rate of inflation or above that rate if they invest in new/better equipment.

The only people who think that things are good now are people who work in media (either content or advertising) and the cable company. consumers who prefer bundles may like it also, but they will still be able to buy their bundle.

unbundling will raise prices. 80% of the channels will die, there will be less competition with less shows on, companies will still need to make the same profit so will be forced to raise prices , people will get 10 channels and endup paying for what then now get 100 channels.

 

[javadoc]

Get ready for steep Internet service rate increases.

"So, you want to stream all that HD content? Did you see the data cap on your service agreement? Yes, it's in the fine print. Thanks for cutting the cord."

We cut the cord when we moved to Atlanta last month. We have Comcast internet only, at the lowest service tier. We're not a heavy-usage streaming household, and rely on Netflix for "TV". Once we get into our own owned home, I'm going to look into OTA to get the major networks, primarily for football.

If I could buy an ESPN package subscription from Comcast that gave me the suite of channels, plus the ability to use WatchESPN and ESPN3, I would be set. Better yet, have ESPN sell that package directly, for internet only.

Once the price goes up on internet, other providers will start to find ways to get signal and bandwidth into your house. The electric companies will do so. Some locales will let Google come in and wire everyone up.

Amateur take, anyway.

 

[TheCusian]

unbundling will raise prices. 80% of the channels will die, there will be less competition with less shows on, companies will still need to make the same profit so will be forced to raise prices , people will get 10 channels and endup paying for what then now get 100 channels.

Will never be that extreme. But I have come around to the idea that unbundling may not be a win win for the consumer.

The system is broken at it's core: ISP's and cable companies basically run a huge monopoly and make the competition that would drive down prices an impossibility. Google wants in every home - but I don't trust them snooping my every move more than they already do.

 

[Moontan]

We cut the cord when we moved to Atlanta last month. We have Comcast internet only, at the lowest service tier. We're not a heavy-usage streaming household, and rely on Netflix for "TV". Once we get into our own owned home, I'm going to look into OTA to get the major networks, primarily for football.

If I could buy an ESPN package subscription from Comcast that gave me the suite of channels, plus the ability to use WatchESPN and ESPN3, I would be set. Better yet, have ESPN sell that package directly, for internet only.

Once the price goes up on internet, other providers will start to find ways to get signal and bandwidth into your house. The electric companies will do so. Some locales will let Google come in and wire everyone up.

Amateur take, anyway.

I've long been of the opinion that the gas companies stand the most to gain here. They have right-of-way and can run fiber along their gas lines. Google has no chance in existing communities without legislative change.

You can do OTA in Atlanta. I even have an OTA DVR. It works with time-based recordings. To be really useful it would need to be program-based. It's possible, but not with that device as I believe it's abandon-ware. Advanced Guide data costs money, it's embedded in traditional DVR fees.

Something like SiliconDust matched with a proper tuning/recording device would be ideal.

 

[HtownOrange]

My brother is 28. He makes plenty of $ as an engineer from RIT. He has never had cable or satellite. He does have Netflix (or similar). Has a huge TV that he controls wirelessly via his iPhone. The technology has changed.

We cut the cable over 5 years ago. I don't control the TV with my phone, but my girls do. I'm apparently too lazy to get that app and figure it out. Fortunately, they enjoy watching Syracuse sports as much as I do so we don't have any real issues over who controls the TV.

 

[Moontan]

We cut the cable over 5 years ago. I don't control the TV with my phone, but my girls do. I'm apparently too lazy to get that app and figure it out. Fortunately, they enjoy watching Syracuse sports as much as I do so we don't have any real issues over who controls the TV.

Not too many Syracuse sports to watch without access to ESPN.

 

[HtownOrange]

Not too many Syracuse sports to watch without access to ESPN.

I generally find the stuff on another channel/partner or other means. If worse comes to worst, or quite often in hoops season because of my schedule, I watch the replay on ESPN 3. I get the benefit of most games not being blacked out by ESPN on a regional basis.

I would pay for ESPN and a few others but to get the channels I want will cost me more than $100/month under the current cable/satellite offerings in my area (outside of Houston). I don't mind bundling, but the cable companies have clearly planned their bundles well so as to force people to get what they really don't want or pay out the nose to get the few they want. Even if I did not end up with all of the channels I want, I would still select a few and be content with those while saving money.

I would consider flexible bundles, too. Pay for ESPN, throw in 3-5 junk channels, maybe of my choosing. I don't see a la carte as a threat to the cable companies, they will simply get creative with their offers. People will still pay more than they should for entertainment and the cable companies will still make money.

In the end, live sports and live shows are the only reason most people keep cable/satellite. With digital technology and most people already having internet service, every thing else can be viewed on a library basis, when you want, where you want, how you want.

I may reconsider cable once the kids finish college and my schedule clears a bit, but for now, I simply don't watch enough TV to make it worth paying $100+/month. My girls' schedules are so diverse that they love Netflix and other sources, they simply watch what they want when they want.