It happened sooner than expected. Is ESPN next? Would this have any impact in future conference TV negotiations? Here's a quote that got my attention:

"HBO and ESPN are the two main reasons why people have cable and satellite TV," says Forrester analyst James McQuivey. "The whole industry has eyed them for years nervous that one day they would decide to do exactly what (HBO) said they'll do in 2015. We don't know until we see pricing and packaging how rapidly this will force a change in the way pay TV operators work, but it will definitely force a change."

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/h...d-26219171

Interesting that pricing and model have apparently not been resolved.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I dropped HBO because it was too much on Cable for how little I watched it.

If HBO can make this work, and if ESPN follows suit, then there will be a cord-cutting avalanche. But in the long run AT&T and Comcast will get your money whether you watch through cable/satellite or the 'net, because most broadband customers won't have good broadband options other than AT&T and Comcast.

(10-15-2014 04:06 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  It happened sooner than expected. Is ESPN next? Would this have any impact in future conference TV negotiations? Here's a quote that got my attention:

"HBO and ESPN are the two main reasons why people have cable and satellite TV," says Forrester analyst James McQuivey. "The whole industry has eyed them for years nervous that one day they would decide to do exactly what (HBO) said they'll do in 2015. We don't know until we see pricing and packaging how rapidly this will force a change in the way pay TV operators work, but it will definitely force a change."

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/h...d-26219171

To me, HBO and ESPN are apples and oranges.

HBO was already operating on the subscription model, just through the cable companies. Plenty of people already add/drop HBO on a regular basis depending on what original programming (like GOT) is airing. This isn't a huge change for them, they are just cutting out the middle man.

On the other hand, ESPN makes much of their money from people like my 81 year old mother, who pays ESPN as much as I do through her monthly cable bill even though she never watches a minute of sports. I have yet to see a subscription scenario that allowed ESPN to replace the "free money" they get from non-sports fan cable subscribers.

(10-15-2014 07:18 PM)krup Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 04:06 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  It happened sooner than expected. Is ESPN next? Would this have any impact in future conference TV negotiations? Here's a quote that got my attention:

"HBO and ESPN are the two main reasons why people have cable and satellite TV," says Forrester analyst James McQuivey. "The whole industry has eyed them for years nervous that one day they would decide to do exactly what (HBO) said they'll do in 2015. We don't know until we see pricing and packaging how rapidly this will force a change in the way pay TV operators work, but it will definitely force a change."

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/h...d-26219171

To me, HBO and ESPN are apples and oranges.

HBO was already operating on the subscription model, just through the cable companies. Plenty of people already add/drop HBO on a regular basis depending on what original programming (like GOT) is airing. This isn't a huge change for them, they are just cutting out the middle man.

On the other hand, ESPN makes much of their money from people like my 81 year old mother, who pays ESPN as much as I do through her monthly cable bill even though she never watches a minute of sports. I have yet to see a subscription scenario that allowed ESPN to replace the "free money" they get from non-sports fan cable subscribers.

Sure there is a free money option. It's the fee they charge internet providers for access to ESPN3. It's why ESPN is beefing up ESPN3 content, they plan to charge more for it when they go to net providers with data about how many hours their customers watch.

(10-15-2014 07:14 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If HBO can make this work, and if ESPN follows suit, then there will be a cord-cutting avalanche.

Forrester analyst James McQuivey noted that while this might not change the TV industry overnight, it is another step that undermines the future of cable providers.

"While pay TV operators are certainly furious today, other cable programmers like Viacom and A&E are thrilled that HBO is shining a light down a path they may all have to contemplate in the future," McQuivey said. "None of them will have as easy a time as will HBO, but they all know they need an escape hatch for that moment when the current, bundled TV model begins to collapse."

http://mashable.com/2014/10/15/hbo-stand...FxcGdrdiJ9

A&E and Viacom sounds like they will be next. The avalanche has began...

(10-15-2014 05:52 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Interesting that pricing and model have apparently not been resolved.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

$15 a month could fly for HBO.

There are people out there that for years have watched HBO almost exclusively with shows the networks wouldn't allow. HBO snob factor will sell quite a few packages.

You know there is a market for Pro Sport packages where you can watch any game in the country. College is a different animal because there is more games on regular cable to begin with and a sense outside of the Biggest 16 programs that a lot of them are not the real deal.

Maybe you will see some bundling by the conferences to cut down al la cart prices.

B1G-MAC
PAC-MWC
SEC-CUSA
ACC-AAC

Cut the $20 dollar college package down to $5.99 each.

Here is the biggest issue I ran into when I tried to cut cable. Cable internet by itself will cost $40+ most places, Netflix is 9, let's say ESPN had a streaming service for $15 a month, and you got Hulu 9$ Plus to catch TV shows that were not available over the free stations.

You can attempt to cut prices by getting DSL internet for 19.99 a month but that is borderline unacceptable unless you are literally only streaming on one device at a time and it's still going to result in poor video quality. So you would be paying about $73 a month for a poor selection of content slow internet.

That's where I got to the point of asking myself is saving $30 a month really worth constantly worrying about bandwidth overages, a lack of content, and inconsistent video quality? This is okay for college students and people on extreme budgets but as much as I hate to say it your better off just paying comcast $100 a month for everything.

It really sounds nice to be able to cut cable but to do so you need internet. And if cable companies start losing TV subscribers then standalone internet prices will soar up because there will be an increased demand on bandwidth.

And I say your better off because this is what my bill looks like

DVR, HBO/Starz/Showtime/Etc, Sports Package, Comcast business class internet, for $110 a month and this is the normal package.

When I cut cable I was spending $60 a year on Amazon instant video, 7.99 Netflix, 7.99 Hulu, $21 on DSL, and was piggy backing of my parents HBO with their cable login. It was about $56 a month and my fiance was always angry we had nothing to watch, I always had to go to bars to watch football games (and ended up spending more money), and was usually getting about 6 megs of speed on the internet which made online gaming unbearable and Netflix would constantly have to buffer.

Not worth it.

(10-15-2014 10:02 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  And I say your better off because this is what my bill looks like

DVR, HBO/Starz/Showtime/Etc, Sports Package, Comcast business class internet, for $110 a month and this is the normal package.

When I cut cable I was spending $60 a year on Amazon instant video, 7.99 Netflix, 7.99 Hulu, $21 on DSL, and was piggy backing of my parents HBO with their cable login. It was about $56 a month and my fiance was always angry we had nothing to watch, I always had to go to bars to watch football games (and ended up spending more money), and was usually getting about 6 megs of speed on the internet which made online gaming unbearable and Netflix would constantly have to buffer.

Not worth it.

The way you are going about it yes I see it.

That is true you have to have couple buy-in for whatever your package is. Often it makes sense to go cable unless your gf is adamant about not having cable either.

Trying to work out a pricing model? AT&T is already testing a pricing model.

For $39/month you can get Amazon Prime, HBO, and internet (up to 45 mps). https://www.att.com/shop/tv/hbo-offers.h...pvVi21ul7z

My beef has always been and always will be comercials. I hate when I have to pay for something and then still have to sit through comercials.

This is why I pay for netflix but do not get hulu plus. This is also why I like hbo and will get HBO after it cuts the cord with cable.

i will never pay for a stand-alone ESPN subscription as long as its content contains comercials.

I will pay for decent sports content if it does not have comercials.

HBO and ESPN are different animals. HBO is a optional buy, ESPN is forced on most cable users even if they don't want it. And the $ #s are huge. I think ESPN 1 gets $8 per house hold. and 2 gets $5. They are in the Billions range before they sell a single commercial. ESPN knows where their toast is buttered. If they hurt the cable companies they are hurting themselves.

(10-15-2014 07:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 07:18 PM)krup Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 04:06 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  It happened sooner than expected. Is ESPN next? Would this have any impact in future conference TV negotiations? Here's a quote that got my attention:

"HBO and ESPN are the two main reasons why people have cable and satellite TV," says Forrester analyst James McQuivey. "The whole industry has eyed them for years nervous that one day they would decide to do exactly what (HBO) said they'll do in 2015. We don't know until we see pricing and packaging how rapidly this will force a change in the way pay TV operators work, but it will definitely force a change."

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/h...d-26219171

To me, HBO and ESPN are apples and oranges.

HBO was already operating on the subscription model, just through the cable companies. Plenty of people already add/drop HBO on a regular basis depending on what original programming (like GOT) is airing. This isn't a huge change for them, they are just cutting out the middle man.

On the other hand, ESPN makes much of their money from people like my 81 year old mother, who pays ESPN as much as I do through her monthly cable bill even though she never watches a minute of sports. I have yet to see a subscription scenario that allowed ESPN to replace the "free money" they get from non-sports fan cable subscribers.

Sure there is a free money option. It's the fee they charge internet providers for access to ESPN3. It's why ESPN is beefing up ESPN3 content, they plan to charge more for it when they go to net providers with data about how many hours their customers watch.

Do you think the cable companies are going to continue to pay ESPN the same huge monthly fee for their family of networks if ESPN tries to do an end around them??

Also, the subscription fee for HBO is $15-20 a month and people are paying it, so their subscription fee can be similar for streaming and HBO still makes their money.

ESPN makes about $8 a month from EVERYBODY, so their monthly subscription fee would need to be much higher, and ESPN would still be hurt by people adopting the same strategy they currently use for HBO (adding/dropping based on the season). I am a huge cfb fan but could care less about baseball and basketball. I would only pay for an ESPN subscription from Sept to Jan.

(10-15-2014 06:58 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  I dropped HBO because it was too much on Cable for how little I watched it.

That's exactly why I dropped cable altogether.

(10-16-2014 07:18 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  HBO and ESPN are different animals. HBO is a optional buy, ESPN is forced on most cable users even if they don't want it. And the $ #s are huge. I think ESPN 1 gets $8 per house hold. and 2 gets $5. They are in the Billions range before they sell a single commercial. ESPN knows where their toast is buttered. If they hurt the cable companies they are hurting themselves.

So what you're saying is, there may be an opportunity for Sport Network #'s 2 & 3 to follow HBO into the ether as they have much less to lose than the King of Cable.

(10-16-2014 09:11 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(10-16-2014 07:18 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  HBO and ESPN are different animals. HBO is a optional buy, ESPN is forced on most cable users even if they don't want it. And the $ #s are huge. I think ESPN 1 gets $8 per house hold. and 2 gets $5. They are in the Billions range before they sell a single commercial. ESPN knows where their toast is buttered. If they hurt the cable companies they are hurting themselves.

So what you're saying is, there may be an opportunity for Sport Network #'s 2 & 3 to follow HBO into the ether as they have much less to lose than the King of Cable.

Call me crazy, but I think NBC might have a case to start charging a monthly subscription to get NBCSN streaming. They have acquired a lot of sports that have small, but fanatical, fanbases like the NHL, EPL, F1, Nascar,etc.

From what I read they only get something like $0.50 a month from cable for NBCSN. That isn't a huge pile of money to risk if they pi** off the cable companies by offering cable cutters something like a $7.99 a month subscription for streaming.

Convenient for me as my two year free subscription to HBO expires in the spring.

Quote:HBO's chief executive, Richard Plepler, announced the move during an investor day where Time Warner's other top executives laid out plans to boost the company's growth.

"In 2015 we will go beyond the wall and launch a standalone, over-the-top service with the potential to produce hundreds of millions in revenue," Plepler said, making a reference to HBO's massive hit show "Game of Thrones."

Plepler cited that 10 million homes in the United States are broadband-only, without cable subscriptions. Half of those homes subscribe to streaming video services. "These consumers have no access to HBO. It's a large opportunity that should not be untapped," he said.

"We will use all means at our disposal to grow. This is the most exciting inflection point both domestically and internationally in the modern history of HBO."

Shares of Time Warner, also home to movie studio Warner Bros and cable network channels Turner Broadcasting, were up 1.4 percent at $71.62 by midday on Wednesday.

Netflix Inc. shares were down 3.1 percent at $435.28 after the announcement. The streaming video company will announce its quarterly results later on Wednesday.

Plepler did not disclose further details about the forthcoming service, including the price. HBO currently allows cable subscribers to access its content on mobile devices through an app known as HBO Go.

The decision to finally free HBO comes as Time Warner is under pressure to boost its share price after it rebuffed an $85 per share offer from Rupert Murdoch's Twenty-First Century Fox in August.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/20...rvice.html