(10-06-2014 12:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(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.

I understand I am paying for it via ISP subscription to ESPN3, but it is an acceptable price. I have a non-big cable/ISP provider who actually has a page on their website railing against high sports costs. There are cable and internet providers who's model is to be the cheaper alternative to Comcast and ATT.

I pay exactly $29 for 15Mbps internet and a virtually free VOIP "landline" from Nettalk Duo. I have my own modem I bought used on eBay for $15 and dont rent one for $10 per month. I get ESPN3 as part of the service and get 20 channels free with antenna. I have a DVR box that works with the antenna that provides a channel guide and allows me to rewind and pause etc. Im not even sure I need internet because my cell phone/iPad has internet. If my ISP tries to raise my internet I'll switch or drop them. I litterally had a dozen college football games thay I watched on Saturday on Fox (Big12), NBC (Notre Dame), CBS (SEC), ABC (Big Ten), Raycom Affiliate (ACC), and Sinclair (CUSA, CAA). Then I went to the gym Sunday morning in time to get back to 1pm CBS/Fox NFL games, listened to the 4:30 NFL game on radio while I mowed the lawn, and then had Sunday Night Football. All the highlights and sportscenter clips are free on Roku and website from NFL and ESPN to catch me up on highlights. Im exhausted from watching sports and won't watch MNF tonight as I'll play a pickup basketball league and then have dinner with the family.

Im as big a "sports" fan as anybody on here and played the sport at the highest level, but I can't spend every second on the couch watching and refuse to pay for channels I'll never ever ever watch and will drop watching MAC if they get silly too. There is enough on TV already and I prefer actually playing pickup "sports" over watching other dudes all the time. I also have season tickets to real games.

But you keep on thinking you have me trapped in a corner doling out $150 every month for Iowa to keep you cable bill down.

(10-06-2014 12:45 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(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.

Completely agree.

(10-06-2014 12:45 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(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.

Ditto.

Someone needs to tell ESPN that they can make a butt load off the G5 with "ESPN Spite" An ESPN channel that charges you $5 a month but promises that none of the profits will go to the big bad P5 conference thats keeping your G5 school down! They wont go to your G5 school either but thats not the point, sticking it to the mean old (P5 conference I hate because they wont invite my school) IS!

(10-06-2014 01:01 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Someone needs to tell ESPN that they can make a butt load off the G5 with "ESPN Spite" An ESPN channel that charges you $5 a month but promises that none of the profits will go to the big bad P5 conference thats keeping your G5 school down! They wont go to your G5 school either but thats not the point, sticking it to the mean old (P5 conference I hate because they wont invite my school) IS!

Posts like this are really ironic coming from someone so full of spite towards the Big 12. We all know what they say about people who live in glass houses.

(10-06-2014 01:01 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Someone needs to tell ESPN that they can make a butt load off the G5 with "ESPN Spite" An ESPN channel that charges you $5 a month but promises that none of the profits will go to the big bad P5 conference thats keeping your G5 school down!"

It's a simple concept. If those P5 conferences are limiting our welfare, then why should those disillusioned G5 fans be forced to pay anything that supports that effort. I want nothing to do with supporting the SEC network, and should have choice. Don't know why you're butthurt about that. If those G5 fans are so small, it shouldn't affect the SEC's TV money, right?*

Ala carte will thankfully change the game, which is long overdue. I could only hope it destroys the SEC and LHN networks.

Quote:Posts like this are really ironic coming from someone so full of spite towards the Big 12. We all know what they say about people who live in glass houses.

Um no, I havent said anything spiteful to the Big 12 since the realignment hubbub died down.

But you seem to have this very anti-A&M streak and feel the need to constantly portray us in bad light. If its about the Seahawks...man just let it go, no one cares.

(10-06-2014 01:09 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 01:01 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Someone needs to tell ESPN that they can make a butt load off the G5 with "ESPN Spite" An ESPN channel that charges you $5 a month but promises that none of the profits will go to the big bad P5 conference thats keeping your G5 school down!"

It's a simple concept. If those P5 conferences are limiting our welfare, then why should those disillusioned G5 fans be forced to pay anything that supports that effort. I want nothing to do with supporting the SEC network, and should have choice. Don't know why you're butthurt about that. If those G5 fans are so small, it shouldn't affect the SEC's TV money, right?*

Ala carte will thankfully change the game, which is long overdue. I could only hope it destroys the SEC and LHN networks.

yeah...clearly no butthurt at work there...

(10-06-2014 01:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 01:09 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 01:01 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Someone needs to tell ESPN that they can make a butt load off the G5 with "ESPN Spite" An ESPN channel that charges you $5 a month but promises that none of the profits will go to the big bad P5 conference thats keeping your G5 school down!"

It's a simple concept. If those P5 conferences are limiting our welfare, then why should those disillusioned G5 fans be forced to pay anything that supports that effort. I want nothing to do with supporting the SEC network, and should have choice. Don't know why you're butthurt about that. If those G5 fans are so small, it shouldn't affect the SEC's TV money, right?*

Ala carte will thankfully change the game, which is long overdue. I could only hope it destroys the SEC and LHN networks.

yeah...clearly no butthurt at work there...

Deservedly. Suck it.

(10-06-2014 01:10 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

Quote:Posts like this are really ironic coming from someone so full of spite towards the Big 12. We all know what they say about people who live in glass houses.

Um no, I havent said anything spiteful to the Big 12 since the realignment hubbub died down.

Just in the past couple weeks you've made several wishful-thinking posts about UT/OU leaving and the Big 12 turning into the new Big East. I understand you're salty about Aggy's AD turning down the opportunity to split what eventually became the LHN with Texas, but it's not the Big 12's fault.

(10-06-2014 01:14 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 01:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 01:09 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 01:01 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Someone needs to tell ESPN that they can make a butt load off the G5 with "ESPN Spite" An ESPN channel that charges you $5 a month but promises that none of the profits will go to the big bad P5 conference thats keeping your G5 school down!"

It's a simple concept. If those P5 conferences are limiting our welfare, then why should those disillusioned G5 fans be forced to pay anything that supports that effort. I want nothing to do with supporting the SEC network, and should have choice. Don't know why you're butthurt about that. If those G5 fans are so small, it shouldn't affect the SEC's TV money, right?*

Ala carte will thankfully change the game, which is long overdue. I could only hope it destroys the SEC and LHN networks.

yeah...clearly no butthurt at work there...

Deservedly. Suck it.

I always said you had the soul of a poet! ;P

(10-06-2014 01:16 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 01:14 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 01:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 01:09 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 01:01 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Someone needs to tell ESPN that they can make a butt load off the G5 with "ESPN Spite" An ESPN channel that charges you $5 a month but promises that none of the profits will go to the big bad P5 conference thats keeping your G5 school down!"

It's a simple concept. If those P5 conferences are limiting our welfare, then why should those disillusioned G5 fans be forced to pay anything that supports that effort. I want nothing to do with supporting the SEC network, and should have choice. Don't know why you're butthurt about that. If those G5 fans are so small, it shouldn't affect the SEC's TV money, right?*

Ala carte will thankfully change the game, which is long overdue. I could only hope it destroys the SEC and LHN networks.

yeah...clearly no butthurt at work there...

Deservedly. Suck it.

I always said you had the soul of a poet! ;P

Only when provoked.

(10-06-2014 01:15 PM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 01:10 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

Quote:Posts like this are really ironic coming from someone so full of spite towards the Big 12. We all know what they say about people who live in glass houses.

Um no, I havent said anything spiteful to the Big 12 since the realignment hubbub died down.

Just in the past couple weeks you've made several wishful-thinking posts about UT/OU leaving and the Big 12 turning into the new Big East. I understand you're salty about Aggy's AD turning down the opportunity to split what eventually became the LHN with Texas, but it's not the Big 12's fault.

Ohhhhh you're a closet UT fan (no one else but them uses that tired "you should have agreed to share the LHN" talking point). Well that explains the saltiness to A&M!

Here are a couple pointers for you:

1) This is the realignment board. We discuss realignment possibilities. Just because you don't like a potential scenario doesn't make it spiteful or salty. If you don't want to hear scenarios you don't like, don't click on them.

2) If OU and UT leave (which by the way I didn't originally suggest) then yes, the leftover Big 12 is the new Big East. Sorry you don't like it but again, thats not spite, it's just the truth whether you like it or not.

3) Sharing LHN! LoLz! so glad we were smart enough not to take that dumb deal! 0.0 ratings, less money and on channels no one gets!

(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).

I have a feeling that everyone will be paying more money for less service. And not just sports channels. A la carte will not reduce anyone's cost. It will just make all channels more expensive. Bet on it.

(10-06-2014 12:45 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(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.

I agree with everything you just posted. Funny thing is, I always cringe when I read something along the lines of "agree 100%", and I just essentially did the same.

Also, I only asked if you were being sarcastic because I didn't want to post something in response. Only to find out you were being sacrastic.

(10-06-2014 12:54 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:45 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(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.

Completely agree.

Maybe I missed something?

You would rather pay $250 for the 20 channels you watch, rather than $150 for those 20 channels plus 280 "useless" channels?

(10-06-2014 01:53 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:54 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:45 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

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

(10-06-2014 12:29 PM)TerryD Wrote:  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.

Completely agree.

Maybe I missed something?

You would rather pay $250 for the 20 channels you watch, rather than $150 for those 20 channels plus 280 "useless" channels?

First off, your dollar amount is arbitrary. Where did you pull $250 from, your nether region? I'm not paying much more than $100/month regardless of what it gets me, but at least it's my choice. If you don't get that, then walk off the cliff like a good little lemming.

Also if a network prices itself out of existence, then so be it. That's how the market works. This bubble of continuous price hikes has to stop somewhere, and if TV dollars are CFB's cash cow, then i'll be happy to be a part of its downfall, as my cash is the only input I have in the process.

(10-06-2014 01:38 PM)bitcruncher 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).

I have a feeling that everyone will be paying more money for less service. And not just sports channels. A la carte will not reduce anyone's cost. It will just make all channels more expensive. Bet on it.

Good luck getting my antenna to charge me more. So you are right and is what I have been saying all along. "YOUR" expenses will be going up, "MINE" will continue to be free. Thats the way it should be. I don't want to watch the Mountaineers.


I've also been happy that more free OTA channels and programming have been popping up lately.
I get two new channels, "Game On" highlights produced by Liberty U, and now Sinclairs American Sports Network who I think will add college hockey and minor league hockey next for winter programming.

So Im actually getting MORE content for the same low price of ZERO.
And I will continue to pay ZERO. Bet on it.

.

(10-06-2014 02:01 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 01:53 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:54 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:45 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

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

Completely agree.

Maybe I missed something?

You would rather pay $250 for the 20 channels you watch, rather than $150 for those 20 channels plus 280 "useless" channels?

First off, your dollar amount is arbitrary. Where did you pull $250 from, your nether region? I'm not paying much more than $100/month regardless of what it gets me, but at least it's my choice. If you don't get that, then walk off the cliff like a good little lemming.

Also if a network prices itself out of existence, then so be it. That's how the market works. This bubble of continuous price hikes has to stop somewhere, and if TV dollars are CFB's cash cow, then i'll be happy to be a part of its downfall, as my cash is the only input I have in the process.

The numbers I used are what the person I posed the question to used. It was in his statement, not my made up numbers.

Maybe read the thread again.

Personally, I'd like to not pay the portion of my property taxes that go to the schools (I have no kids in school any more).

I also hate how my car insurance company can estimate what their DUI payout should be every year and factor that into rates (I don't even drink).

Your going to be sorely disappointed in life if you think you will always have total control over how things work.

What it is NOW is how the market for TV works. Don't buy it if you don't want it.

I've always been told that diversity is the key to building sustainable growth.

Eggs in a basket analogy and such.