Verizon unbundles cable

[DCHuskyFan]

Anyone have any thoughts about how unbundling cable channels will affect our realignment chances, if it has any affect at all? Because of all the media options out there, is this a trend? I can't imagine that the conference TV networks would like this, or even ESPN for that matter.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/17/media/verizon-fios/

 

[Sportsman5]

Anyone have any thoughts about how unbundling cable channels will affect our realignment chances, if it has any affect at all? Because of all the media options out there, is this a trend? I can't imagine that the conference TV networks would like this, or even ESPN for that matter.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/17/media/verizon-fios/

In terms of us getting into a P5 conference, then it would appear good on the surface because theoretically many people who were forced to get lots of sports channels if they wanted the comprehensive cable package will now not have to get them. We will have to see the details, but i'm assuming the SEC and big ten networks will be in one of the two sports bundles. I'm assuming a ton of people will either go with none or only one of the sports bundles. If it plays out this way, then that would mean less revenue for the conferences, but it would shift the importance from total households in a market (aka rutgers) to the number of househoulds in a market who are willing to pay for the comprehensive sports package to see extra sports channels like the BIG 10 network. UConn would be prime for this since UConn has 4 sports (football, mens basketball, womens basketball, and now hockey) that a household could be very interested in.

 

[Seaa Blue]

Fox can still offer bundled pricing to its carriers, making flagships around NE/NYC still very valuable.

 

[IMind]

It's BS. They still have a basic tier and then you pick other packages... it's slightly more flexible than traditional packages. It's not like you can choose to only pay for 11 channels that you watch and nothing else.

 

[Dooley]

I have Comcast and recently trimmed my lineup way back, but I made sure to tell the Customer support guy that I'd be back in full earnest if UConn got into the B1G. If that doesn't seal the deal for us, I am all out of options.

 

[buddy]

I have Comcast and recently trimmed my lineup way back, but I made sure to tell the Customer support guy that I'd be back in full earnest if UConn got into the B1G. If that doesn't seal the deal for us, I am all out of options.

I Mind is correct and I admire your position. We truly need a la carte cable programming. You only pay for channels that you want, not those that are forced on you as part of a package. I don't want to pay for the BTN if UConn a part of it. I don't want to pay for future ACCN if UConn is not part of it. Why bother if you don't have a horse in the race? We all need to lobby our cable providers to go with a la carte sports programming. UConn will then be P5 in the blink of an eye.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

I want to get a list of channels/programs (free would be best) then be charged for each program I actually watch or record. Just like when I go to a restaurant I want to pay for what I eat, not everything on the menu. Just like when I go to the mall I want to pay for what I take with me, not everything that's for sale. Just like when I use E-Z Pass I want to pay for just the tolls I pass through, not every toll on the road. Not that difficult to understand.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

In terms of us getting into a P5 conference, then it would appear good on the surface because theoretically many people who were forced to get lots of sports channels if they wanted the comprehensive cable package will now not have to get them. We will have to see the details, but i'm assuming the SEC and big ten networks will be in one of the two sports bundles. I'm assuming a ton of people will either go with none or only one of the sports bundles. If it plays out this way, then that would mean less revenue for the conferences, but it would shift the importance from total households in a market (aka rutgers) to the number of househoulds in a market who are willing to pay for the comprehensive sports package to see extra sports channels like the BIG 10 network. UConn would be prime for this since UConn has 4 sports (football, mens basketball, womens basketball, and now hockey) that a household could be very interested in.

...add Men's Lacrosse and UConn would cover 9 months of the year, less the 3 summer months when everyone is at the beach, on the greens, or chugging Bud at the local NASCAR track and are too busy to care about college sports.

 

[storrsroars]

I want to get a list of channels/programs (free would be best) then be charged for each program I actually watch or record. Just like when I go to a restaurant I want to pay for what I eat, not everything on the menu. Just like when I go to the mall I want to pay for what I take with me, not everything that's for sale. Just like when I use E-Z Pass I want to pay for just the tolls I pass through, not every toll on the road. Not that difficult to understand.

A true pay-for-play would be ideal, with one caveat: doing so immediately creates an entirely new (and marketable) set of datapoints about your behavior. While that already exists to some extent (Netflix ordering, internet cookies, etc.), you will now be categorized by your viewing preferences, which will no longer be anonymous. That will be the eventual tradeoff, regardless what any company says about privacy. The value of that kind of psychographic info to marketers is off the charts.

If that existed now, I wonder how UConn really would fare in comparison to other programs? Would you really watch UConn as much if you had to pay for each individual game instead of the current model where you just watch it because it's in your bundle?

 

[whaler11]

I want to get a list of channels/programs (free would be best) then be charged for each program I actually watch or record. Just like when I go to a restaurant I want to pay for what I eat, not everything on the menu. Just like when I go to the mall I want to pay for what I take with me, not everything that's for sale. Just like when I use E-Z Pass I want to pay for just the tolls I pass through, not every toll on the road. Not that difficult to understand.

Yeah that model would lead to high quality programming to watch.

Creating good television is the same scale as opening a restaurant or a store at the mall (or roads that people have to travel on).

 

[whaler11]

If you like sports and root for a la carte cable you should go take 5th grade math.

A la carte cable would make sports on television extremely more expensive for the people that want to watch.

You'll never get a better deal than you have today.

 

[storrsroars]

If you like sports and root for a la carte cable you should go take 5th grade math.

A la carte cable would make sports on television extremely more expensive for the people that want to watch.

You'll never get a better deal than you have today.

Yes, it's going to cost sports fans more. However, it's going to come eventually because it's inevitable, much like the DH in the NL. It's only a question of how long the wait is. But I'd count on it within 10-12 years. The migration of entertainment from cable to online isn't going to slow down.

40 years ago nobody paid for TV and a pittance for phone service. Now it costs most families >$200/month for cable/cell. People pay money to play games on their phone, which IMO is already absurd. They'll pay more for sports if they have to.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

A true pay-for-play would be ideal, with one caveat: doing so immediately creates an entirely new (and marketable) set of datapoints about your behavior. While that already exists to some extent (Netflix ordering, internet cookies, etc.), you will now be categorized by your viewing preferences, which will no longer be anonymous. That will be the eventual tradeoff, regardless what any company says about privacy. The value of that kind of psychographic info to marketers is off the charts.

If that existed now, I wonder how UConn really would fare in comparison to other programs? Would you really watch UConn as much if you had to pay for each individual game instead of the current model where you just watch it because it's in your bundle?

If the value of the data provided is "off the charts," why should I be required to pay anything? In fact, why shouldn't I be the one getting paid?

 

[storrsroars]

If the value of the data provided is "off the charts," why I be required to pay anything? In fact, why shouldn't I be the one getting paid?

Because things don't work that way. If there's an opportunity to get you coming and going, business will find that opportunity and make money from it. You're already on multiple mailings lists because of the merchandise you buy (which isn't free). But I'd think that the value of that information will at least partly offset your cost.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

If you like sports and root for a la carte cable you should go take 5th grade math.

A la carte cable would make sports on television extremely more expensive for the people that want to watch.

You'll never get a better deal than you have today.

I used to get a better deal. Everything used to be FREE! One reason sports on TV is expensive is because ESPN et. al. charge for about 99 hours of sports bullcrap for every hour of actual sport.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Because things don't work that way. If there's an opportunity to get you coming and going, business will find that opportunity and make money from it. You're already on multiple mailings lists because of the merchandise you buy (which isn't free). But I'd think that the value of that information will at least partly offset your cost.

If someone is getting something of value for free a business opportunity exists for someone else. Sooner or later that someone else will act. Advertisers pay to get my attention.

 

[huskypantz]

I Mind is correct and I admire your position. We truly need a la carte cable programming. You only pay for channels that you want, not those that are forced on you as part of a package. I don't want to pay for the BTN if UConn a part of it. I don't want to pay for future ACCN if UConn is not part of it. Why bother if you don't have a horse in the race? We all need to lobby our cable providers to go with a la carte sports programming. UConn will then be P5 in the blink of an eye.

If you have young kids and or a diverse family, a la carte is really a threat. I watch sports (really just UConn and the NFL). My wife watches lifetime/bravo. My kids watch disney/nick jr/sprout. My parents live with me and they watch TWC/Fox news. I would likely want a package that included FX/TBS/TNT etc. So while the concept is cool for a twenty-something or empty nester, it would likely make my existing cable bill more expensive. Nothing about a la carte really works for me.

 

[billybud]

If someone has the money to own rights to the content that the nation wants to watch, they will make money no matter the delivery mechanism or whether bundled or stand alone.

For the next 12 years, if you watch bowl games or the college football playoffs, you watch ESPN.

 

[whaler11]

I used to get a better deal. Everything used to be FREE! One reason sports on TV is expensive is because ESPN et. al. charge for about 99 hours of sports bullcrap for every hour of actual sport.

Yeah and you got nowhere near the quantity, quality and diversity.

If you think 1980 was better than today I guess I'd just assume you don't like sports.

Today you can watch everything from every EPL game to every NBA and NHL game to every MLB game, MLS, golf, college baseball etc.

Literally - today.

When it was free you'd get Wide World of Sports, the same teams on the baseball game of the week The NBA on tape delay and a few hours of golf.

You can stick an antenna on your roof and still probably get more for free than you could in 1980.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Yeah and you got nowhere near the quantity, quality and diversity.

If you think 1980 was better than today I guess I'd just assume you don't like sports.

Today you can watch everything from every EPL game to every NBA and NHL game to every MLB game, MLS, golf, college baseball etc.

Literally - today.

When it was free you'd get Wide World of Sports, the same teams on the baseball game of the week The NBA on tape delay and a few hours of golf.

You can stick an antenna on your roof and still probably get more for free than you could in 1980.

The vast, vast, vast majority of commerce makes money charging people for stuff they want. That product bundlers have (temporarily) found a way to disconnect effect from cause doesn't strike me as the new business paradigm.

As an aside, guessing might not be one of your strengths.

 

[whaler11]

The vast, vast, vast majority of commerce makes money charging people for stuff they want. That product bundlers have (temporarily) found a way to disconnect effect from cause doesn't strike me as the new business paradigm.

As an aside, guessing might not be one of your strengths.

Well you prefered yesteryear where you couldn't watch much to today where you can watch everything because you don't like having a cable bill.

I sort of look forward to when the a la carte brigade ruins sports on television just so I can point out I told you so - but it will suck pretty bad.

Instead of letting tens of millions subsidize your sports viewing you want to pay full freight. Math must not be a strong point of yours.

 

[minidarren]

Whaler is right. A la carte would be nuts o bar expensive. A quick Google search shows that ESPN charges like 5.50 per cable subscriber. Let's say that 20% of the TV subs actually watch the network, which I feel is fair, but couldn't find solid data searching the web. That would mean that in order to offer ESPN as an a la carte service they would need to charge subscribers something like 27.50 bucks to only have ESPN and nothing else. That would equate to something like 33% of someone's cable bill as it stands today (without add on such as DVR or HBO). The other article I read said ESPN could be as expensive as 8.** per sub in the next 3 years.

 

[dayooper]

Well you prefered yesteryear where you couldn't watch much to today where you can watch everything because you don't like having a cable bill.

I sort of look forward to when the a la carte brigade ruins sports on television just so I can point out I told you so - but it will suck pretty bad.

Instead of letting tens of millions subsidize your sports viewing you want to pay full freight. Math must not be a strong point of yours.

Just wait until the streaming brigade gets charged for their data usage.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Math must not be a strong point of yours.

Neither is freeloading. I find something wrong in making others pay for what you enjoy. FWIW, sports is a tiny piece of my complaint. I don't want to pay for "Duck Dynasty" or "Pawn Stars" any more than I want to pay ESPN to air endless hours of heads blathering.

As far as quality of the product goes, no, I don't think the on-field portion of sports entertainment has improved exponentially like the costs of putting it there have.

 

[whaler11]

Neither is freeloading. I find something wrong in making others pay for what you enjoy. FWIW, sports is a tiny piece of my complaint. I don't want to pay for "Duck Dynasty" or "Pawn Stars" any more than I want to pay ESPN to air endless hours of heads blathering.

As far as quality of the product goes, no, I don't think the on-field portion of sports entertainment has improved exponentially like the costs of putting it there have.

Oh it's a moral issue now. Got it. You do realize your free model did the same thing right? Drink Busch but don't watch NASCAR - you are paying for it.

Well it will be tremendous when you get what you want and then there will be nothing that anyone wants to watch.

Rooting for TV to turn into the music industry is one of the stranger things going on the internet.