-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
ESPN driving up the cost of cable, now averaging $4.69 per household per month
- Thread starter Ripclawe
- Start date
- Status
)I have kids. I don't go to the bar for every single sporting event, just the big games. Do you not have an SO or someone that can watch the kids for you once a month or so?
But mostly I just follow the games online. And watch them at home if/when they are on broadcast networks.
megashock5
Member
Wish I could cut ESPN off of my channel list and save that $4.69.
They no longer show NHL hockey, so I have no need for them whatsoever.
They no longer show NHL hockey, so I have no need for them whatsoever.
AlanzTalon
Member
It is just a matter of value. I love sports, but I just took the last few months and actually paid attention to how much i actually actively watched (not just background noise while i do other shit) and which channels and how much that was worth to me...major events are OTA, and until baseball is in full swing i dont need RSNs.
I'd rather put an extra $80 in my pocket every month and maybe have to deal with missing a game here and there than keep paying for 1000 channels of shit I don't care about just to be able to watch a handful.
As opposed to the great internet with buffering, bandwidth caps, variable quality, and wondering if too many people are watching and break it down (see Netflix some nights)? IP is clearly the future, but Cable still has some nice advantages.
jamesinclair
Banned
Um, almost every NFL game is on free TV. Even the premiere league can be found on network TV. Besides Fox airing some live games, at least one of my local channels airs the games (on a delay, but on free TV)
And not everyone feels the need to shit out kids and then complain they cant have fun. maybe...dont have kids? Its not my fault you made a bad life decision.
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
Worth every penny.
Not for out of market fans or if you're not a Dallas fan that for whatever fuck reason gets a million prime-time/natl games a year.
layzie1989
Member
i'm with the opinion that a la carte programming would kill the little networks with not as much budget (amc i'm looking at you), and kill programming like mad men, breaking bad, and walking dead, which have already had budget issues, but i'm ready for change.
jamesinclair
Banned
What kind of traitor is a fan of an out-of-market team, hmmmm?
lol wow. Have you never heard of blackouts? A lot of teams don't get their games aired unless they have a sell-out. Especially on the national level.
And this is assuming the teams you want to watch are playing locally.
And as for your 2nd paragraph. lol you're an idiot.
This is true. The system as it works today is largely consumers subsidizing other consumer interest.
If anyone should complain it's people who watch popular things, no matter what they are.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
If content makers could sell their content directly to the viewers, you would have the best and most creative programming since the invention of the TV.
FACT
This is the same that happened with the music industry, and is now happening with books, games, and software (apps).
It is absolutely inevitable.
That's the real problem with what the sports networks are doing. Bundling has probably lowered my cable bill. However, it won't last if these networks keep spending ridiculous amounts of money for broadcast rights. The market just can't support this escalation.
Pollux
Member
Amen.
The kind who has to move at some point in his life. Hell, I didn't even move very far. I'm in Middle Georgia and I rarely get to see Jags games.
Pretty much dropped MLB and NBA. NFL I can get on the major networks. I stream MNF & NHL action through 'other' sources.
CBS also has a contract with the SEC, which ESPN loves. But I guess it's harder to ignore the SEC than CUSA. The SEC didn't get as much attention until they started winning football championships.
It is super easy to follow the NFL without cable since if you are local the games are broadcast OTA and if you are not, there is only one game a week, so escaping to a bar for 3 hours shouldn't be a problem, even if you have kids.
if they could change blackout rules so that i can buy subscriptions from the leagues and watch my local team i'd have no use for cable... and i work at a cable company. Some internal work is moving some parts of cable into the 21st century, but content providers ultimately hold rights to how and when things are shown to customers by the balls.
Ninja Scooter
Member
LOL if you think your cable company would pass the savings on to you.
This is why ISPs are trying to cap American internet hard. They're trying to prevent this from happening before it even starts. They know it's coming, they're scared.
AlanzTalon
Member
Companies with shareholders will always always always take the guaranteed money that Cable operators will throw at them. It is a business first. They won't mess around with the model for unknown quantities of direct app subscribers that can come and go quarterly until that model can prove it makes them more money than the check they get every year from Cable operators.
it would take a huge, deep pocketed disruption to break the model...AT&T, google, MS, or apple with the content backing of like Dish or DTV. and even they are really going to be able to break that model anytime soon. it is delivery (pipes, headends, cables underground) and Content (getting ESPN/CBS/etc on board) and then convincing people to actually pick up a phone and switch (maybe the hardest part).
Pessimism should be the default position on any content delivery shift. gonna be a decade before content "apps" are free from a backend cable subscription.
it would take a huge, deep pocketed disruption to break the model...AT&T, google, MS, or apple with the content backing of like Dish or DTV. and even they are really going to be able to break that model anytime soon. it is delivery (pipes, headends, cables underground) and Content (getting ESPN/CBS/etc on board) and then convincing people to actually pick up a phone and switch (maybe the hardest part).
Pessimism should be the default position on any content delivery shift. gonna be a decade before content "apps" are free from a backend cable subscription.
dead souls
Member
Agreed. Direct funding by 'the fans' would result in nearly every good show ceasing to exist. Bye bye Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Justified, and so on and so forth. There simply aren't enough people who would be willing to pay directly for them, just like in a true ala carte system networks like FX and AMC would fold almost immediately.
Plus in a direct funded system, how does a show get made in the first place? I'm not paying for something based on spec that I have no idea if it will be any good or not.
no CUSA gets shafted by ESPN because nobody's interested in CUSA.
The funny thing is HBO and ESPN are two providers in the best position to shake things up. They don't have to worry about threats from the Cable Companies to stop carrying them because subscribers will riot. They *need* those channels. So both channels could simply say "We're offering our product online as well now, deal with it" and there's little they could do about it.
I believe the cable providers are seeing this and I'm thinking one of the main reasons it took us (Time Warner) subscribers to get HBO Go...a free service...is that TWC probably made HBO agree to not go direct to consumers. It's anti-competitive and I hate our government for not doing anything about it.
I believe the cable providers are seeing this and I'm thinking one of the main reasons it took us (Time Warner) subscribers to get HBO Go...a free service...is that TWC probably made HBO agree to not go direct to consumers. It's anti-competitive and I hate our government for not doing anything about it.
For real. What the fuck is CUSA?
Ninja Scooter
Member
Yeah SEC has a contract with CBS but it doesn't stop ESPN from being all over their balls. I think that's a case of nobody giving a shit about cusa.
A mid-major cesspool of schools that want to get into a big conference.
Kinda like what the Big East is now.
GoldenEye 007
Member
CUSA is a pretty solid basketball conference. And I KNOW people aren't talking shit about the Big East in a basketball capacity. How many teams did they send to the tournament last year? 11?
And football-wise there are definitely much worse football conferences (AQ and nonAQ) out there than the Big East.
And football-wise there are definitely much worse football conferences (AQ and nonAQ) out there than the Big East.
pedrothelion
Member
You can watch any NBA, MLB or NFL game through their respective online services. Most college sports can be watched through ESPN 3. Unless you want to be subjected to ESPN's absurd and unabashed manipulation, I don't see the point of subscribing to cable or satellite simply for ESPN. I cut the chord long ago and aside from missing MNF I could care less about not having ESPN.
Basketball doesn't matter. Didn't you pay attention to the whole Big East mess? All basketball schools and it really didn't matter... everyone wants to get the football money.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Yeah, I have. My school is in the middle of it. I never said basketball drove the bus, I was just replying to a comment stating BE sucks and I said it is a premiere BB conference and FB wise it is at least better than ACC.
Despite the fact that somehow the ACC escapes the same criticism the BE gets.
THIS.
If you have kids the 100-200 cable bill isn't even close to how much you will spend on a parasite to live in your house.
Glad the gf doesn't want kids unless we happen to be old and stupid rich at the same time. Otherwise fuck no.
Usually the ACC ends up with an 11-1 team. VT, as bad as their BCS bowl appearances are, is respectable enough to keep the ACC safe from major criticism.
If it wasn't for VT the ACC would be considered as bad as the BE.
Basketball-wise the ACC is down hard this year, but should improve next year. (not counting Syracuse and Pitt even)
GoldenEye 007
Member
In the BCS era, BE is better and it isn't even close. VT being 11-1 some years coupled with their abysmal bowl and BCS bowl record tells you enough the conference is just bad at the middle and bottom. At least with the BE, one can argue the teams just beat up each other in conference as they usually do well in the BCS games and overall bowl games.
I mean, this season alone you saw WVU - a team in a three way tie for the BE championship, drop 70 on the outright ACC champ. Completely embarrassed them. Shouldn't have even been on the same field - it was like watching a BCS AQ team vs. an FCS team in week 1. Historically the ACC has been terrible in the BCS era. Heck, the Mountain West Conference has either one more or the same amount of BCS bowl wins as the ACC.
Thing is the ACC's middle hangs with the Big East's top just fine. Just like the SEC's bottom hands with the ACC's middle just fine.
As for Clemson, they were the worst ACC champ in years, they got blown out by NCSU- that should tell you something. NCSU (yeah I'm a State fan) weren't good at all this year, it took a miracle for them to get to a bowl, yet they handled Louisville (a BE co-champ) pretty easily. Clemson and South Carolina should switch mascots given the number of eggs Clemson has laid over the years.
Yeah, NCSU got embarassed by Cincinnati early in the year, but I'm going to play the injury excuse card (a fullback was playing on the defensive line that game). They didn't really start gelling/getting healthy until the UNC game.
The real problem with the ACC is that no team has managed to push VT consistently. FSU flopped with Bowden going senile. Miami shot itself in the foot with cheating. UNC paid for an SEC defense, but Butch Davis was such a terrible coach he couldn't get over 8 wins, and they're going to get made an example of soon by the NCAA.
A conference isn't good if it just has one elite team. One elite team is better then none though. Really though, ACC vs Big East football debate would be like watching Fight Club at Yamaku. The ACC deserves the same criticism the BE gets, to a degree. VT is a credible team though.
BTW if you're a UCF fan, congrats on getting into the BCS, you guys do deserve it, and I think your basketball will get credible in the BE in a hurry.
As for Clemson, they were the worst ACC champ in years, they got blown out by NCSU- that should tell you something. NCSU (yeah I'm a State fan) weren't good at all this year, it took a miracle for them to get to a bowl, yet they handled Louisville (a BE co-champ) pretty easily. Clemson and South Carolina should switch mascots given the number of eggs Clemson has laid over the years.
Yeah, NCSU got embarassed by Cincinnati early in the year, but I'm going to play the injury excuse card (a fullback was playing on the defensive line that game). They didn't really start gelling/getting healthy until the UNC game.
The real problem with the ACC is that no team has managed to push VT consistently. FSU flopped with Bowden going senile. Miami shot itself in the foot with cheating. UNC paid for an SEC defense, but Butch Davis was such a terrible coach he couldn't get over 8 wins, and they're going to get made an example of soon by the NCAA.
A conference isn't good if it just has one elite team. One elite team is better then none though. Really though, ACC vs Big East football debate would be like watching Fight Club at Yamaku. The ACC deserves the same criticism the BE gets, to a degree. VT is a credible team though.
BTW if you're a UCF fan, congrats on getting into the BCS, you guys do deserve it, and I think your basketball will get credible in the BE in a hurry.
- Status