@mattsarz: Per @WSJSports via @theScore the NBA online video service ESPN would manage would be a nod to cord cutting. Would not be part of WatchESPN.

In a significant move for ESPN, which derives its huge profits from the pay-TV ecosystem, that service will be open to people who aren’t cable or satellite TV customers.

http://www.thescore.com/nba/news/597417


This is great for cord-cutters. If we want to watch we can (article even mentioned a possible per game option). But if we don't want to watch then our bills will go down and only NBA fans will be responsible for the $2.8 billion per year fees. NBA viewers will see their bills sky-rocket. Cant wait until this spreads to the SEC and Big Ten conferences, etc. Let those fans pay triple what they are paying now and leave the rest of us alone. I won't be watching any NBA, SEC, or Big Ten games.

This is great news that this is the new trend.

Interesting....

Side note- See we just scheduled you 2017...

http://recode.net/2014/10/05/why-espn-th...tv-bundle/

I think the key phrase in the article is its another revenue stream. In my mind that means they will probably charge more for the streaming pay per view to protect their core cable/sat business.

Interest and Perception of the NBA as a top tier major sporting league was built on getting on TV. All of those NBA playoff games that preempted normal TV channel lineups.

The same goes for the B1G and SEC. It was the only game that you could watch so that is how they developed bandwagon legions of support. Its the 12-16 schools that were on TV predominantly every Saturday that developed into 100,000 seat stadium programs.

Until it gets to the point that a business traveler can walk into a hotel room and flip on the A la carte to quickly get anything they want on this model is going to cause viewership to go down. People are reluctant to watch anything that is pay per view out o habit and if they have to spend 5.99 to watch a basketball game at a hotel, they won't do it.

I want a la carte but I think it will be rough initially. First off ... Discovery Networks and Disney (which includes ESPN) would probably be bankrupted by a la carte. They are huge bundlers, and have scores of low-use channels. Secondly, I think you would see the first real expansion of broadcast TV in this country in a considerable amount of time. I think you'd see probably Fox Sports 1 (by virtue of piggy backing off Fox) be the first nationwide broadcast station to do only sports. And I think that would be huge. Viewership would be immense. CBS-SN could go the same route piggy backing off CBS. ESPN could partner with ABC, but they would be behind compared to CBS-SN and FS1. Then you'd see niche stuff like BTN and LHN and SECTV and ACCN go to the MLB.com model. Watch all the games including ones not on broadcast. Everybody wins. Cable TV costs go down as they don't shoulder the brunt of Discovery and Disney. They can slash your rate WHILE increasing their margin. The sports providers, after large initial outlay, will net even more viewers and advertising dollars. And you the consumer will pay less for what you're getting now, and probably still less if you pick up a niche package MLB style. While OP dreams of not giving a dime to other conferences, I think that is unrealistic and HUGELY short sighted for his own conference. I watch nearly all the #MACtion games during the week on ESPN. If it goes a la carte, I will not pay for a single one. Leaving the MAC with quite a revenue shortfall until the broadcast networks are, in theory, built out.

If it really leads to lower rates I'm all for it. I have no desire to watch the NBA or college football. My desire to watch the NFL has been fading over the last decade to where I only watch a game or two a year. About the only sports I watch anymore are MLB (Kansas City) and college basketball. I will watch some hockey and soccer when available but wouldn't pay extra for it.

The ESPN digital deal doesn't look like it will be ala carte per se since Turner is keeping all of the NBA's digital properties including league pass. So these games may be sold to ISP's & mobile phone carrier's

My educated guess is that "available to people that aren't cable or satellite TV subscribers" means ESPN3 (which is distinct from WatchESPN). That means that your ISP has to be paying the exact same type of subscriber fee to ESPN as your cable company does (only in a different format). Like I've said many times before: anyone that thinks we're getting the same amount of content for less money is fooling themselves. We might pay more for more content, or we might pay less for less content. There's no proverbial free lunch here in between the two.

It is odd to me how much the OP is so desperate for ala carte to work, primarily way to spite large college conferences.

(10-06-2014 11:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  My educated guess is that "available to people that aren't cable or satellite TV subscribers" means ESPN3 (which is distinct from WatchESPN). That means that your ISP has to be paying the exact same type of subscriber fee to ESPN as your cable company does (only in a different format). Like I've said many times before: anyone that thinks we're getting the same amount of content for less money is fooling themselves. We might pay more for more content, or we might pay less for less content. There's no proverbial free lunch here in between the two.

I don't think anybody is saying they expect the same amount of content for less or even the same. Some just don't want that content at all, period. And are sick of subsidizing everybody else who are getting it cheaper than market price. I don't want to ever watch a NBA, SEC, or Big Ten game (along with most others). I don't want to pay for it.

I expect a la carte to drastically raise prices for those fans but lower it for the rest of us who don't want to pay. Cord cutters causing this, either cut the non-sports watchers some slack on cable, or risk losing them cable all together.

(10-06-2014 11:48 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  It is odd to me how much the OP is so desperate for ala carte to work, primarily way to spite large college conferences.

Yeah, it's strange. Note that the Big Ten and SEC also still have the most over-the-air TV coverage out of any league by far. More importantly, there isn't going to be some type of "reverse jinx" that suddenly makes the MAC more powerful than the Big Ten and SEC if widespread a la carte comes to fruition. Instead, ESPN (who owns all of the MAC's TV rights) will just adjust and push its MAC content further down the food chain to get more Big Ten, SEC, ACC, Pac-12 and Big 12 games on in whatever format (whether it's more games on ABC or online streaming) that becomes more prevalent. A la carte also might not be preferable for the BTN and SEC Network, but those conferences at least have the fan bases to make that model viable (unlike the G5 leagues).

(10-06-2014 11:48 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  It is odd to me how much the OP is so desperate for ala carte to work, primarily way to spite large college conferences.

Its coming whether you hope it doesn't or not. And it will be more expensive. All the yahoos on here cheering for their team's big payouts from the new SEC Channel will soon wish that they are back in the Raycom Sports days when they understand how much their bill goes up to pay Saban's contract and the new smoothie bar in the Alabama weight room.

You hoping it isn't so doesn't stop what is clearly already headed that way. Don't be bent out of shape that I'm not going to help split the bill with you.

Take you argument up with ESPN, NBA, Dish World online, etc... And convince them they aren't doing what they clearly already are working towards. Im not the one to argue toward.


.

(10-06-2014 11:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  My educated guess is that "available to people that aren't cable or satellite TV subscribers" means ESPN3 (which is distinct from WatchESPN).

This is not ESPN3.

This is going to be the NBA's version of MLB.TV and MLB.com At Bat. You'll be able to buy a season pass (maybe also a monthly pass) to watch games over the internet on your laptop, desktop, tablet, or smartphone, and perhaps on your TV through a device like Roku. It might be subject to blackouts of home-market games and/or some games broadcast on national TV, as with the MLB products.

And like the MLB products, it is just an alternative to the televised games over the league's TV partners, it doesn't replace those telecasts.

(10-06-2014 11:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 11:48 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  It is odd to me how much the OP is so desperate for ala carte to work, primarily way to spite large college conferences.

Yeah, it's strange. Note that the Big Ten and SEC also still have the most over-the-air TV coverage out of any league by far. More importantly, there isn't going to be some type of "reverse jinx" that suddenly makes the MAC more powerful than the Big Ten and SEC if widespread a la carte comes to fruition. Instead, ESPN (who owns all of the MAC's TV rights) will just adjust and push its MAC content further down the food chain to get more Big Ten, SEC, ACC, Pac-12 and Big 12 games on in whatever format (whether it's more games on ABC or online streaming) that becomes more prevalent. A la carte also might not be preferable for the BTN and SEC Network, but those conferences at least have the fan bases to make that model viable (unlike the G5 leagues).

If the MAC gets silly trying to charge for its content I won't watch it either. You two act like there is no where to run and we'll all still be forced to subsidize Iowa football. Not gonna happen. I much more enjou spending my money on actual season tickets and listening on radio while I do yardwork. Love the irony of "sports" fans who eat pizza and drink beer on the couch every day idolizing somebody else do whay they are too lazy to do.

(10-06-2014 11:57 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 11:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  My educated guess is that "available to people that aren't cable or satellite TV subscribers" means ESPN3 (which is distinct from WatchESPN). That means that your ISP has to be paying the exact same type of subscriber fee to ESPN as your cable company does (only in a different format). Like I've said many times before: anyone that thinks we're getting the same amount of content for less money is fooling themselves. We might pay more for more content, or we might pay less for less content. There's no proverbial free lunch here in between the two.

I don't think anybody is saying they expect the same amount of content for less or even the same. Some just don't want that content at all, period. And are sick of subsidizing everybody else who are getting it cheaper than market price. I don't want to ever watch a NBA, SEC, or Big Ten game (along with most others). I don't want to pay for it.

I expect a la carte to drastically raise prices for those fans but lower it for the rest of us who don't want to pay. Cord cutters causing this, either cut the non-sports watchers some slack on cable, or risk losing them cable all together.

But you ARE paying for it. If you're watching MAC games on ESPN3, then you're paying for it via your ISP. It is absolutely no different than what's occurring on your cable bill. As more content moves online (which I'd agree is inevitable), costs from your ISP (which is also cable service provider more often than not) will rise accordingly. We might be in that interim transition period where a combo of Netflix and Hulu is relatively cheap compared to cable, but at some point in the near future, (a) investors will demand actual profits instead of just pure subscriber growth (in the case of Hulu, they have not made any profits at all since it has been created and Netflix still garners much larger profit margins from its old school DVD-by-mail service than streaming) and (b) content creators will raise prices in selling content to streaming services (which is already happening with Amazon and Netflix getting into bidding wars), all of which will raise prices for the end user consumer. The money might move from the cable pocket to the Internet pocket at Comcast or AT&T, but we're all going to be paying that money somehow (whether it's in the form of new streaming subscriber fees in the way that ESPN3 has done, more stringent data caps, more expensive Internet service and/or some combination of the above).

Trust me: Comcast and AT&T aren't in the business of letting their cable profits disappear into thin air. They have their Internet service business to completely hedge against that and transfer revenue from one area to another. Unless you're in a market lucky enough to have Google Fiber, that's going to be the reality for consumers.

Ala carte will kill off smaller niche channels . Either way this NBA/ESPN channel replaces the rumored third network package that FS1 was in the lead to get IMO .

(10-06-2014 11:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  My educated guess is that "available to people that aren't cable or satellite TV subscribers" means ESPN3 (which is distinct from WatchESPN). That means that your ISP has to be paying the exact same type of subscriber fee to ESPN as your cable company does (only in a different format). Like I've said many times before: anyone that thinks we're getting the same amount of content for less money is fooling themselves. We might pay more for more content, or we might pay less for less content. There's no proverbial free lunch here in between the two.

I want to pay more for less content (of my choice).

(10-06-2014 12:29 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 11:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  My educated guess is that "available to people that aren't cable or satellite TV subscribers" means ESPN3 (which is distinct from WatchESPN). That means that your ISP has to be paying the exact same type of subscriber fee to ESPN as your cable company does (only in a different format). Like I've said many times before: anyone that thinks we're getting the same amount of content for less money is fooling themselves. We might pay more for more content, or we might pay less for less content. There's no proverbial free lunch here in between the two.

I want to pay more for less content (of my choice).

My sarcasm meter is broken, is this post sarcastic?

(10-06-2014 12:35 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:29 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 11:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  My educated guess is that "available to people that aren't cable or satellite TV subscribers" means ESPN3 (which is distinct from WatchESPN). That means that your ISP has to be paying the exact same type of subscriber fee to ESPN as your cable company does (only in a different format). Like I've said many times before: anyone that thinks we're getting the same amount of content for less money is fooling themselves. We might pay more for more content, or we might pay less for less content. There's no proverbial free lunch here in between the two.

I want to pay more for less content (of my choice).

My sarcasm meter is broken, is this post sarcastic?

I'll say no... Terry doesn't want any of the Conference networks on his packages.

(10-06-2014 12:35 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:29 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 11:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  My educated guess is that "available to people that aren't cable or satellite TV subscribers" means ESPN3 (which is distinct from WatchESPN). That means that your ISP has to be paying the exact same type of subscriber fee to ESPN as your cable company does (only in a different format). Like I've said many times before: anyone that thinks we're getting the same amount of content for less money is fooling themselves. We might pay more for more content, or we might pay less for less content. There's no proverbial free lunch here in between the two.

I want to pay more for less content (of my choice).

My sarcasm meter is broken, is this post sarcastic?

I am often sarcastic, but not this time.

I don't want or need bundled channels that I don't watch.

I don't want to have to pay for things I don't want or need.

I don't want to pay any money for the BTN or SEC network, nor do I want a dime of mine to go there.

Rather than pay $150 for 300 useless channels I would rather pay $250 for 20 channels I actually may watch, as long as the BTN and SEC subscribers pay for those channels out of their own pocket, not mine.

What good are all of these extra channels to me? I never watch them.

I want the choice to pay for the channels I choose, even if it costs me more money every month.