ESPN actively planning to offer linear feed directly to consumers, has deals with two leagues
- Thread starter glrush
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 286
- Views 25K
Correct. Because that is the entire history of pay TV.
Where did cable come from? CATV. Rural people who couldn't get OTA TV with an antenna one person could afford paying for a service that could get them ABC, NBC and CBS. Because people wanted ABC, NBC, and CBS.
Only later, when new "cable" channels developed did cable come to the suburbs and cities.
And, while it is true that DBS is the fastest growing consumer electronics product in history, it had one handicap at the beginning. It could not deliver you local channels. You had to either lie and get New York channels, with NY news and NY ads, or switch your TV back and forth between an antenna and the dish, if an antenna worked where you did.
Because people want ABC, NBC, and CBS.
Then came Netflix. A number of people, a minority, decided they could use this service, which was designed as a supplement, as their primary TV. Happy with the estrogen soaked melodramas. Fine. Good for them.
But Big Media panicked. They forgot history. They forgot that access to their programming is what made the bundle, and made them all rich. People want access to shows on ABC? Lets let them buy them from Hulu. People want access to ESPN? Lets toss up some of the games on ESPN+. People want CBS and NBC shows? Toss them up on Paramount and Peacock.
And lose money. Because the streaming services don't make money, and by providing access to the content most people really want without the bundle, the bundle, and the fees that it generates, dies out.
Just plain stupidity.
Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc., 392 U.S. 390 (1968)
Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc.
supreme.justia.com
Because it should be.
Local TV stations are given use of the PUBLIC'S airwaves, in a quasi-monopoly basis (you can't start your own TV station, now can you?). As explained above CATV was just a way for rural people to pay for what city people got free. In its greed, Big Media, sued rural America to force cable companies to pay retransmission consent. And it lost at the Supreme Court.
And Big Media got Congress to change the rules. So now, since even most people who could use an antenna do not, Big Media has gotten fat on retransmission fees. Fact is local TV is plenty profitable, actually obscenely profitable, with just the ad revenue.
Local TV should be free. Any broadcaster who doesn't want its FCC monopoly permit can sign it on the back and send it to me.
All you seem to be doing is extrapolating a single data point. Have you not read a single thread in the Dish Network forum? Prices, prices, prices. It hit a breaking point.
- Costs went up
- Sports and locals really messed things up and consolidation led to larger contractual bundles
- Programming quality on a few shows shot up but generally for one or two flagship shows per network
- ...and programming overall became very redundant.
- Most channels "lost the mission" and became lowest common denominator
- People born after '95, '00 have a different view of media and the economy
- Their economic realities make cable/sat expendible
It was really a way to sell tvs in rural areasCorrect. Because that is the entire history of pay TV.
Where did cable come from? CATV. Rural people who couldn't get OTA TV with an antenna one person could afford paying for a service that could get them ABC, NBC and CBS. Because people wanted ABC, NBC, and CBS.
Only later, when new "cable" channels developed did cable come to the suburbs and cities.
And, while it is true that DBS is the fastest growing consumer electronics product in history, it had one handicap at the beginning. It could not deliver you local channels. You had to either lie and get New York channels, with NY news and NY ads, or switch your TV back and forth between an antenna and the dish, if an antenna worked where you did.
Because people want ABC, NBC, and CBS.
Then came Netflix. A number of people, a minority, decided they could use this service, which was designed as a supplement, as their primary TV. Happy with the estrogen soaked melodramas. Fine. Good for them.
But Big Media panicked. They forgot history. They forgot that access to their programming is what made the bundle, and made them all rich. People want access to shows on ABC? Lets let them buy them from Hulu. People want access to ESPN? Lets toss up some of the games on ESPN+. People want CBS and NBC shows? Toss them up on Paramount and Peacock.
And lose money. Because the streaming services don't make money, and by providing access to the content most people really want without the bundle, the bundle, and the fees that it generates, dies out.
Just plain stupidity.
Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc., 392 U.S. 390 (1968)
Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc.
Because it should be.
Local TV stations are given use of the PUBLIC'S airwaves, in a quasi-monopoly basis (you can't start your own TV station, now can you?). As explained above CATV was just a way for rural people to pay for what city people got free. In its greed, Big Media, sued rural America to force cable companies to pay retransmission consent. And it lost at the Supreme Court.
And Big Media got Congress to change the rules. So now, since even most people who could use an antenna do not, Big Media has gotten fat on retransmission fees. Fact is local TV is plenty profitable, actually obscenely profitable, with just the ad revenue.
Local TV should be free. Any broadcaster who doesn't want its FCC monopoly permit can sign it on the back and send it to me.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 16,186
- 20,837
Nope, it was until DVD came out a few years later-
The Fastest-Selling Consumer Electronics Product in History
According to the results of the DVD Owners Study, released last week by the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), "consumers have overwhelmingly voiced their satisfaction with DVD." The CEA has reported that 1999 was a tremendous year for the DVD player, which became the "fastest-selling...
www.soundandvision.com
It's Official: DVD Now Fastest Consumer Electronics Product in History
The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) has officially declared what most have known for awhile—DVD is the fastest selling consumer electronics product in history...
DVDs Are Fastest Growing Consumer Electronics Product (Markets, Materials and Equipment) - News
Our selection of industry specific magazines cover a large range of topics.
compoundsemiconductor.net
and so many more to post, Google can help with that.
What pie? Streaming loses money. Billions of dollars a quarter. Given a choice, a relative handful of people, decided they could turn Netflix, which was designed as a supplement, as their only form of entertainment. Fine. Good for them.
Nothing else is profitable. What was profitable? Every other form of video delivery. Obsenely profitable. What to watch CBS? Pay for the bundle. Want to watch ESPN? Pay for the bundle. Want to watch Hallmark? Pay for the bundle. Don't want to pay? Enjoy The Queen's Gambit and Another Life.
Big Media killed the goose that laid the golden eggs.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 16,186
- 20,837
That was a great show, even won the Emmy Award for Outstanding Limited or Anthology Series.
From the first time the ISP I worked at live streamed a Charleston Riverdogs MiLB game over the internet in the 90s, it was pretty clear to me that IP would be the future of content delivery. Whether it can be as profitable as legacy distribution methods is a meaningless discussion at this point. The market has shifted enough, it is never going to go back to the way it was. Disruption has happened for better or worse. Now it is simply a matter of determining which things are worth investing in -- AKA what makes money now. The freedom of customers to simply and easily drop something they no longer find valuable is what will drive companies to innovate, but not all of them will. This is very similar to what happened to newspapers, where I also used to work. Adapt or go extinct is the name of the game, and you don't really know what will work until to try a bunch of things.
IP that is just the same big cable packages is not really the future and the laggy, delayed, buffering feeds on unicast are not as good as an multicast feed.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 16,186
- 20,837
I do not know who your broadband provider is, but I have none of those issues with any OTT service like Netflix , Hulu, etc.
Do you watch sports?.. thats where it is most notable...especially if you listen to a game on the radio..the stream is about 5 seconds behind
Yes, broadcast and multicast are much more efficient. However, that is how fewer and fewer people want to consume content. Also, lag, delay, buffering have been largely eliminated for most people.
Not a paper I agree with a lot, but simply correct in this case:
www.latimes.com
Disney, et al, blew up a model that worked for everyone. For Disney and the rest of Big Media; for the talent be they actors, writers, ballplayers or whatever; and for the consumer, who was provided with more entertainment than any generation in history, in a sustainable, profitable, market directed, medium.
They blew it up, when simple math teaches us that less people want what ESPN (or any other channel of any other genre) is selling than it costs to make. They blew it.
Column: Hollywood is on strike because CEOs fell for Silicon Valley's magical thinking
Inspired by the success of Netflix, Hollywood studios pursued Silicon Valley-style hypergrowth with tactics borrowed from the likes of Uber and Lyft.
www.latimes.com
Disney, et al, blew up a model that worked for everyone. For Disney and the rest of Big Media; for the talent be they actors, writers, ballplayers or whatever; and for the consumer, who was provided with more entertainment than any generation in history, in a sustainable, profitable, market directed, medium.
They blew it up, when simple math teaches us that less people want what ESPN (or any other channel of any other genre) is selling than it costs to make. They blew it.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 16,186
- 20,837
Yes, NHL and MNF on ESPN+, NFL on Paramount/Peacock, Michigan Game on Peacock just last Saturday, etc, etc.
I do not care about a 5 second delay, I care about the 1080P/4K picture, the Dolby Digital+ sound ( which is really noticeable since I upgraded my processor), not the ******720P/1080i picture you get with Traditional Providers.
And when I watch, I do not listen to the radio, teams I watch I would not get over local radio, would have to stream anyways, but it is something I would never do.
Many people can't stand the network announcers..they are usually biased or just suck...so they turn the radio on to hear the local team play by play...its a issue for many former cable and satellite viewers who like sports...movies or tv?.. nobody cares
I tend to agree that they tried to do something they were woefully ill-equipped to do. That said, I don't see that they could have been successful with the status quo. People were already cord-cutting before the advent of Paramount+, Peacock, Disney+, etc. I know, because I was one of them, and it was a thing as far back as the mid 2000s through a combination of OTA, Tivos, DVDs, and the original AppleTV ( almost 2 years before Roku).Not a paper I agree with a lot, but simply correct in this case:
Column: Hollywood is on strike because CEOs fell for Silicon Valley's magical thinking
Inspired by the success of Netflix, Hollywood studios pursued Silicon Valley-style hypergrowth with tactics borrowed from the likes of Uber and Lyft.
Disney, et al, blew up a model that worked for everyone. For Disney and the rest of Big Media; for the talent be they actors, writers, ballplayers or whatever; and for the consumer, who was provided with more entertainment than any generation in history, in a sustainable, profitable, market directed, medium.
They blew it up, when simple math teaches us that less people want what ESPN (or any other channel of any other genre) is selling than it costs to make. They blew it.
Netflix streaming was just the thing that broke everything wide open and made cord-cutting popular. Copying their model wasn't going to give traditional studios what they needed be successful in a streaming transition. Dumping billions on prestige content without the subscriptions to justify the outlay is bad business. As is making said content exclusive to the streaming platform, thereby starving your linear channels of content and then eliminating the content from your streaming catalog to get some tax savings. It is like these studios have never had anything become a cult classic years later. Very short-sighted.
Is it that simple? The mere existence of Netflix and digital movie rights bring up the issue of writer and actor and producer rights to their products.Not a paper I agree with a lot, but simply correct in this case:
Column: Hollywood is on strike because CEOs fell for Silicon Valley's magical thinking
Inspired by the success of Netflix, Hollywood studios pursued Silicon Valley-style hypergrowth with tactics borrowed from the likes of Uber and Lyft.
Did you read the article? I know I didn't, paywall. I'm pondering a portion of the issue raised isn't the services, it is the incompatible or indifference sellers of content have with each other that is the problem. Actors/writers are together. Streaming/studios have differing needs. A streaming service will give the house and farm to the actors/writers for anything physical, while it'd be visa versa the other way around.
And then there is the AI issue. AI isn't capable of writing original scripts without learning about the scripts that were already in existence. The Hollywood strike is much more complicated than your pet issue of streaming services existing and endangering the cable/sat model.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 16,186
- 20,837
ESPN may drop MLB National Games because of money.
As I posted before, both the NBA and College Football’s (soon to be expanded) Playoff contracts are coming up, since profits are down because of 30 Million subs leaving ( and more everyday), they have to make hard decisions.
College Football Playoffs should be a no brainer, but that is really only one month of programming, will they make up the , soon to be, extremely high rights fees in advertising and subs.
Those who run the playoffs wants NFL type money, hence why they were going to split it up amongst different providers
NBA is a tough one, they want $5-6 Billion in the new contract, I do not believe it is worth that, but it does attract that under 54 age range that Advertisers love, MLB does not at the level the NBA does.
MLB is even tougher, but I do not believe ESPN will give it up, what else would they have on during the summer.
My guess, keep MLB, try and keep some of the NBA and only some games from College Football Playoffs ( how many depends on the price) and they get split up like it used to be for Bowl Games.
Cord Cutters/Nevers/Dying is really affecting them, they could not afford the Big Ten Deal ( $1 Billion a year from 3 Broadcasters/Streamers) and let them go.
cordcuttersnews.com
As I posted before, both the NBA and College Football’s (soon to be expanded) Playoff contracts are coming up, since profits are down because of 30 Million subs leaving ( and more everyday), they have to make hard decisions.
College Football Playoffs should be a no brainer, but that is really only one month of programming, will they make up the , soon to be, extremely high rights fees in advertising and subs.
Those who run the playoffs wants NFL type money, hence why they were going to split it up amongst different providers
NBA is a tough one, they want $5-6 Billion in the new contract, I do not believe it is worth that, but it does attract that under 54 age range that Advertisers love, MLB does not at the level the NBA does.
MLB is even tougher, but I do not believe ESPN will give it up, what else would they have on during the summer.
My guess, keep MLB, try and keep some of the NBA and only some games from College Football Playoffs ( how many depends on the price) and they get split up like it used to be for Bowl Games.
Cord Cutters/Nevers/Dying is really affecting them, they could not afford the Big Ten Deal ( $1 Billion a year from 3 Broadcasters/Streamers) and let them go.
ESPN May Drop MLB Games But Reportedly Wants To Stream Local MLB Games In a New ESPN+ Tier | Cord Cutters News
The regular 2023 MLB season is now over, and it is one more reminder that Disney will have to decide if it wants to renew its contract with the MLB for Sunday Night games when the 2025 season ends. According to a report from the NY Post, Disney has an out in its contract that […]
cordcuttersnews.com
Very good points!....Only having so few companies making content is where we are now....Just another case of antitrust, that would never of been left to happen 50 years ago.....Now its buy everything and hold people hostage because they can!Correct. Because that is the entire history of pay TV.
Where did cable come from? CATV. Rural people who couldn't get OTA TV with an antenna one person could afford paying for a service that could get them ABC, NBC and CBS. Because people wanted ABC, NBC, and CBS.
Only later, when new "cable" channels developed did cable come to the suburbs and cities.
And, while it is true that DBS is the fastest growing consumer electronics product in history, it had one handicap at the beginning. It could not deliver you local channels. You had to either lie and get New York channels, with NY news and NY ads, or switch your TV back and forth between an antenna and the dish, if an antenna worked where you did.
Because people want ABC, NBC, and CBS.
Then came Netflix. A number of people, a minority, decided they could use this service, which was designed as a supplement, as their primary TV. Happy with the estrogen soaked melodramas. Fine. Good for them.
But Big Media panicked. They forgot history. They forgot that access to their programming is what made the bundle, and made them all rich. People want access to shows on ABC? Lets let them buy them from Hulu. People want access to ESPN? Lets toss up some of the games on ESPN+. People want CBS and NBC shows? Toss them up on Paramount and Peacock.
And lose money. Because the streaming services don't make money, and by providing access to the content most people really want without the bundle, the bundle, and the fees that it generates, dies out.
Just plain stupidity.
Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc., 392 U.S. 390 (1968)
Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc.
Because it should be.
Local TV stations are given use of the PUBLIC'S airwaves, in a quasi-monopoly basis (you can't start your own TV station, now can you?). As explained above CATV was just a way for rural people to pay for what city people got free. In its greed, Big Media, sued rural America to force cable companies to pay retransmission consent. And it lost at the Supreme Court.
And Big Media got Congress to change the rules. So now, since even most people who could use an antenna do not, Big Media has gotten fat on retransmission fees. Fact is local TV is plenty profitable, actually obscenely profitable, with just the ad revenue.
Local TV should be free. Any broadcaster who doesn't want its FCC monopoly permit can sign it on the back and send it to me.
Remember that corporations are people, and money is free speech. They have the money to buy the legislation that helps them. While they can stick it to anyone who wants there servise. I cant get locals were I live, so Im stuck paying for them, and have poor and unreliable internent!
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 160) Show all
- glrush
- saksat
- dhpeeple1
- Foxbat
- user3162
- spiderman865
- N5XZS
- Yespage
- prushing
- MikeD-C05
- evetsmc
- gms49ers
- hwkn
- Mochuf
- bwarning
- johnr475
- dishdude
- brice52
- MartyDe
- Dell00iss
- Rolling Joe
- Elsguy
- Pepper
- savarese04
- ronman
- RaiderPower
- Joe The Dragon
- phlatwound
- osu1991
- Mr Tony
- mc6809e
- ncted
- AZ.
- meStevo
- gpg
- b4pjoe
- llokey
- Bobby
- catamount
- klang
- Bruce
- metzmda
- mrsdrgn
- dlwilkes45
- mljoness
- larry55
- jorgek
- lefatman
- jamieh1
- jimgoe
- Juan
- AkaDoubleG
- Howard Simmons
- forecheck
- stogie5150
- MrMars
- harshness
- bhawley
- cosmo_kramer
- IDisposable
- pamajestic
