It is currently Thu Nov 21, 2024 11:05 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 243 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23915
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
My part of Algonquin didn't get cable until about 1987. I had to go over to the subdivisions to watch scrambled porn.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 27055
Hatchetman wrote:
My part of Algonquin didn't get cable until about 1987. I had to go over to the subdivisions to watch scrambled porn.


illinois also has around 2% fiber internet adoption, while hillbilly wisconsin has 6%. the rest of the country has like 16% or more

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92037
Location: To the left of my post
DAC wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:

Though, hopefully, cable packages just become cheaper and cheaper and the whole idea of cord cutting ends up seeming like a way to have a lot of aggravation to save $15 a month.

There really is no aggravation to it when you find that singular service which offers what you want (Vue in my case)
The problem is that the content providers are already taking control. This service mentioned here is a separate streaming service. Disney is doing the same with much of their content. The premium cable channels are all doing the same thing. The sports leagues are already able to do it and don't because they still get good tv contracts.

It could very well end up like this:
2 sports subscriptions(MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, College networks)
Netflix
HBO
Showtime
Disney
Philo
Amazon Prime
Vue/Youtube TV(for local channels and everything else until they go in as a CBS, NBC, Fox, ABC streaming service).

That's what happens when the content providers start to realize that Vue is nothing more than a cable company stealing profit they can do themselves. To top it off, the broadband delivery networks raise prices too.

Now, obviously you can choose to simply not sign up for those things and save money but that's not really a good answer either.


It absolutely is a good answer. I don't watch ESPN and the Big 10 network and I sure as hell don't want to support them. With the format you lay out, I can pick out what I want to pay for. Sure, it will be more for the individual channel or league package but I will save overall. Currently, I have to have a $110 a month (+ fees) Direct TV bill so I can get the channels I want. Netflix and a couple league passes is not going to cost over $1000 year.

That's not a good answer for most people. You aren't even getting networks unless you use an antanae and that sucks. If you can go with two sports and Netflix you are missing a ton of shows.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:28 pm
Posts: 3899
Location: Tinley Park
pizza_Place: zzzzzz
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
DAC wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:

Though, hopefully, cable packages just become cheaper and cheaper and the whole idea of cord cutting ends up seeming like a way to have a lot of aggravation to save $15 a month.

There really is no aggravation to it when you find that singular service which offers what you want (Vue in my case)
The problem is that the content providers are already taking control. This service mentioned here is a separate streaming service. Disney is doing the same with much of their content. The premium cable channels are all doing the same thing. The sports leagues are already able to do it and don't because they still get good tv contracts.

It could very well end up like this:
2 sports subscriptions(MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, College networks)
Netflix
HBO
Showtime
Disney
Philo
Amazon Prime
Vue/Youtube TV(for local channels and everything else until they go in as a CBS, NBC, Fox, ABC streaming service).

That's what happens when the content providers start to realize that Vue is nothing more than a cable company stealing profit they can do themselves. To top it off, the broadband delivery networks raise prices too.

Now, obviously you can choose to simply not sign up for those things and save money but that's not really a good answer either.


It absolutely is a good answer. I don't watch ESPN and the Big 10 network and I sure as hell don't want to support them. With the format you lay out, I can pick out what I want to pay for. Sure, it will be more for the individual channel or league package but I will save overall. Currently, I have to have a $110 a month (+ fees) Direct TV bill so I can get the channels I want. Netflix and a couple league passes is not going to cost over $1000 year.

That's not a good answer for most people. You aren't even getting networks unless you use an antanae and that sucks. If you can go with two sports and Netflix you are missing a ton of shows.


That's your opinion. I'm not missing anything I want to watch.

_________________
Lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92037
Location: To the left of my post
Ok. It's good for people that don't watch tv shows. :lol:

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:28 pm
Posts: 3899
Location: Tinley Park
pizza_Place: zzzzzz
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Ok. It's good for people that don't watch tv shows. :lol:


So we should all have bundled packages to keep the costs down for people who want everything?

_________________
Lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:56 pm
Posts: 37831
Location: ...
i don't think a lot of people are seeing the bigger picture. like it's only cable that got of hand and gouged people. those who think that these little services where it's "pick what you like" are going to save them a ton of money aren't realizing that down the road, just like cable, prices will go up. the premium will keep rising with demand, and while cable might be extinct, in the end you will have replaced one giant behemoth bill with another.

sure it might look cheaper now, but it's just a carrot tied to a stick.

i would love it if this type of thing was a reality, because the biggest problem i have with cable is paying for channels i don't watch. but i like to have a lot more variety and options than most people i know. yet every one of them always tells me...there are days they really miss cable. just not paying for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92037
Location: To the left of my post
DAC wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Ok. It's good for people that don't watch tv shows. :lol:


So we should all have bundled packages to keep the costs down for people who want everything?
The short answer is that for most people the answer is yes. If you only watch a small amount of tv, as you described just having Netflix and two sports packages, then you would save money without bundling for now. However, those two sports packages are going to raise in price by a good margin when they no longer have tv deals to offset the cost of them. It's not like the leagues are going to say "Oh, people don't have cable any more. Let's just make a lot less money!".

The larger point here is that you are giving up a lot of convenience and choice to save what amounts to as low as $200 a year.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:28 pm
Posts: 3899
Location: Tinley Park
pizza_Place: zzzzzz
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
DAC wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Ok. It's good for people that don't watch tv shows. :lol:


So we should all have bundled packages to keep the costs down for people who want everything?
The short answer is that for most people the answer is yes. If you only watch a small amount of tv, as you described just having Netflix and two sports packages, then you would save money without bundling for now. However, those two sports packages are going to raise in price by a good margin when they no longer have tv deals to offset the cost of them. It's not like the leagues are going to say "Oh, people don't have cable any more. Let's just make a lot less money!".

The larger point here is that you are giving up a lot of convenience and choice to save what amounts to as low as $200 a year.


Leagues won't have a choice. Just because they want to make as much as they do now due to bundled cable deals doesn't mean they will raise package prices to completely make up the difference in the future. Most fans are not fanatical. If some league increases its package to $400 a year, their viewership will plummet which is not good for the league. Leagues want people watching their product.

_________________
Lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40645
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
My feeling is the people that are buying these packages are a niche. The vast majority of sports fans are not buying the premium packages like NFL Ticket. In fact, very few can even get that one. ESPN and other sports sources can charge but I seriously doubt the market will support a price that in turn will support the major sports.

What I think we may see is contraction of the sports business. Rights fees will go down and everything else will have to reset. Perhaps that is good.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:28 pm
Posts: 3899
Location: Tinley Park
pizza_Place: zzzzzz
pittmike wrote:
My feeling is the people that are buying these packages are a niche. The vast majority of sports fans are not buying the premium packages like NFL Ticket. In fact, very few can even get that one. ESPN and other sports sources can charge but I seriously doubt the market will support a price that in turn will support the major sports.

What I think we may see is contraction of the sports business. Rights fees will go down and everything else will have to reset. Perhaps that is good.


I agree. Sports had a cash cow through cable TV that is starting to dry up. There will be some rollbacks in the future.

_________________
Lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:36 pm
Posts: 19368
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
ESPN can't really cut costs much either with the next round of contracts as the tech is now easily there for the leagues to provide the content directly. They have to overpay or lose them.


So if ESPN has been over paying for content, how will the sports league make up that money if they are selling directly? There are not that many fanatical fans out there willing to pay and make up the billions ESPN pays.

_________________
Frank Coztansa wrote:
conns7901 wrote:
Not over yet.
Yes it is.


CDOM wrote:
When this is all over, which is not going to be for a while, Trump will be re-elected President.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92037
Location: To the left of my post
DAC wrote:
Leagues won't have a choice. Just because they want to make as much as they do now due to bundled cable deals doesn't mean they will raise package prices to completely make up the difference in the future. Most fans are not fanatical. If some league increases its package to $400 a year, their viewership will plummet which is not good for the league. Leagues want people watching their product.
The fact that they are fanatical is why they will raise prices. The casual fan isn't paying $150 or $400 a year.

The packages are already in the $100-$250 range and that doesn't include local games. The NFL one is already like $300 and many games are on tv.

You think prices are staying the same if they become the only option to watch? No chance.

That still ignores the larger point here, in that even if they only go up to $200 a year, that's $400 a year. Add in Netflix at $150 a year and you are already at $550 a year with no other options besides the Netflix library and two sports. You don't have any networks, or cable channels, or premium channels. Add in even two more services to get AMC, FX, HBO, Showtime, or Hulu and all of a suddenly you are at $850 a year. So, you lose a ton of channels you may only watch occasionally, don't have a unified dvr or guide, and when FX comes out with a show you are interested in trying out you either have to wait for it to show up somewhere else or buy the FX package.

Now, it seems like for you it will be fine as you claim to not watch any television shows besides Netflix, but for most people this will not save them any money with less choice and more hassle. But hey, at least my grandma can watch Hallmark Channel on the Hallmark Channel app on her roku that she doesn't have!

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92037
Location: To the left of my post
conns7901 wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
ESPN can't really cut costs much either with the next round of contracts as the tech is now easily there for the leagues to provide the content directly. They have to overpay or lose them.


So if ESPN has been over paying for content, how will the sports league make up that money if they are selling directly? There are not that many fanatical fans out there willing to pay and make up the billions ESPN pays.
For the same reason Disney pulled their stuff off Netflix and are doing their own streaming service, and for the same reason all those channels you posted are doing the same.

I'm guessing the leagues will lose some money compared to the current overpay that ESPN did for NBA and the NFL but there are a lot of ways to make it back when you control the content distribution. They'll raise prices on their packages, and they will control the advertising too.

I can't believe you guys think that the leagues are going to provide these games direct to consumers cheaply.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40645
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
The leagues will be cutting out the middle man so to speak. So they will have make up in the form of collecting the ad revenue rather than the networks.

I still am not convinced the fan base in general of any sport will pay in large enough numbers to get games out of their own regional interests.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:28 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
DAC wrote:
Leagues won't have a choice. Just because they want to make as much as they do now due to bundled cable deals doesn't mean they will raise package prices to completely make up the difference in the future. Most fans are not fanatical. If some league increases its package to $400 a year, their viewership will plummet which is not good for the league. Leagues want people watching their product.
The fact that they are fanatical is why they will raise prices. The casual fan isn't paying $150 or $400 a year.

The packages are already in the $100-$250 range and that doesn't include local games. The NFL one is already like $300 and many games are on tv.

You think prices are staying the same if they become the only option to watch? No chance.

That still ignores the larger point here, in that even if they only go up to $200 a year, that's $400 a year. Add in Netflix at $150 a year and you are already at $550 a year with no other options besides the Netflix library and two sports. You don't have any networks, or cable channels, or premium channels. Add in even two more services to get AMC, FX, HBO, Showtime, or Hulu and all of a suddenly you are at $850 a year. So, you lose a ton of channels you may only watch occasionally, don't have a unified dvr or guide, and when FX comes out with a show you are interested in trying out you either have to wait for it to show up somewhere else or buy the FX package.

Now, it seems like for you it will be fine as you claim to not watch any television shows besides Netflix, but for most people this will not save them any money with less choice and more hassle. But hey, at least my grandma can watch Hallmark Channel on the Hallmark Channel app on her roku that she doesn't have!


You are right

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:36 pm
Posts: 19368
I think pro sports are in for a rude awakening in the next 10-15 years. It has been a solid decade since I have taught/coached kids that show anything more than a passing interest in watching sports and it has only gotten worse. All of their free time is spent on playing video games, social media and watching netflix.

I would say the under 25 crowd at this point cares much less about sports than at any point in the last 30 years.

_________________
Frank Coztansa wrote:
conns7901 wrote:
Not over yet.
Yes it is.


CDOM wrote:
When this is all over, which is not going to be for a while, Trump will be re-elected President.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:09 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
conns7901 wrote:
I think pro sports are in for a rude awakening in the next 10-15 years. It has been a solid decade since I have taught/coached kids that show anything more than a passing interest in watching sports and it has only gotten worse. All of their free time is spent on playing video games, social media and watching netflix.

I would say the under 25 crowd at this point cares much less about sports than at any point in the last 30 years.


Probably true BUT we're getting older and we have more disposable income. We're also living longer.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40645
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
My kids and their are the same as you describe with not wanting to watch sports. I notice though that as they age that changes and also as they are playing less sports. I still think once you get to college many pick up the sports watching fever.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 3:07 pm
Posts: 7929
Location: A large oak tree.
pizza_Place: Nowhere
I'm seeing it with the kids I'm around. I watched Sports from the time I was 4 or 5 probably because my mom loved her baseball and bears and we only had the one tv so it was on those channels if their was a game. My kids and my friends' kids gave more options and it shows. My daughter is in high school now and she likes Hockey but she might watch three or four games a year with me as she has other things to do. She's been trying to get s friend to go to a game with her and and none have any interest in going to a live game. It's odd.

My boys are starting to find interest but they are a bit younger. The high school kids I know have some interest but it's much more an after thought for them than it was for me growing up. You were ostracized on Monday after a Bears game when I was in junior high if you hadn't watched the game and if you had tickets to something you had people waiting in line to go with you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92037
Location: To the left of my post
conns7901 wrote:
I think pro sports are in for a rude awakening in the next 10-15 years. It has been a solid decade since I have taught/coached kids that show anything more than a passing interest in watching sports and it has only gotten worse. All of their free time is spent on playing video games, social media and watching netflix.

I would say the under 25 crowd at this point cares much less about sports than at any point in the last 30 years.
Outside of the 90s Bulls I was pretty close to the same though. I remember watching some Bears games though but that was because my dad did.

Nothing lasts forever though.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:23 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
The NFL will be fine. They will find another stream of revenue. It's in the best interest of too many people for them to find it.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40645
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
conns7901 wrote:
I think pro sports are in for a rude awakening in the next 10-15 years. It has been a solid decade since I have taught/coached kids that show anything more than a passing interest in watching sports and it has only gotten worse. All of their free time is spent on playing video games, social media and watching netflix.

I would say the under 25 crowd at this point cares much less about sports than at any point in the last 30 years.
Outside of the 90s Bulls I was pretty close to the same though. I remember watching some Bears games though but that was because my dad did.

Nothing lasts forever though.


I see the points you are making but I think your forecast is not really going to come any time soon. NFL and MLB kind of do last forever if you look backward.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92037
Location: To the left of my post
pittmike wrote:
I see the points you are making but I think your forecast is not really going to come any time soon. NFL and MLB kind of do last forever if you look backward.
I mean the insane popularity of the NFL won't last forever. Preseason games get higher ratings than just about everything else done by any sport here in America. It literally owns a day of the week and every other sport programs away from it as best as they can. It does this while college football is huge too. It's not going to last like that forever and that is alright.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40645
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
pittmike wrote:
I see the points you are making but I think your forecast is not really going to come any time soon. NFL and MLB kind of do last forever if you look backward.
I mean the insane popularity of the NFL won't last forever. Preseason games get higher ratings than just about everything else done by any sport here in America. It literally owns a day of the week and every other sport programs away from it as best as they can. It does this while college football is huge too. It's not going to last like that forever and that is alright.


I have said many times that I care less about ratings and who else is watching. As long as I can watch the game I want who cares what everyone else does or within reason the cost is.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Nas wrote:
conns7901 wrote:
I think pro sports are in for a rude awakening in the next 10-15 years. It has been a solid decade since I have taught/coached kids that show anything more than a passing interest in watching sports and it has only gotten worse. All of their free time is spent on playing video games, social media and watching netflix.

I would say the under 25 crowd at this point cares much less about sports than at any point in the last 30 years.


Probably true BUT we're getting older and we have more disposable income. We're also living longer.


But it seems to me that around 45 or so, the business of sports starts to lead many of us to lose the interest we'd already had waning from all the time spent parenting (& missing live pro sports).

Between watching my sons, then watching college games, I tend not to really invest in pro sports anymore by week 3. And GarPax has killed the NBA for me except for the TNT broadcasts

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 3:07 pm
Posts: 7929
Location: A large oak tree.
pizza_Place: Nowhere
Yeah, my kids killed my ability to follow sports as closely as I did pre kids. It started for me when I moved out west and was out of market for my teams. But was starting to watch again as the kids came but have been slowly but surely dropping games. Started with out of market stuff and has progressed to not watching much NBA at all anymore and with the Bears being hit garbage of late I've dropped off on NFL in mid season recently.

As they've gotten a little bit older I've managed to pick up a little bit but I doubt I will ever stay up late watching a west coast regular season baseball game again in my life. At least not past the 5th or 6th. Unless one of my boys becomes a fanatic which I doubt.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22454
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
DAC wrote:
Netflix and a couple league passes is not going to cost over $1000 year.


It will when your internet package costs $100 a month with a data cap.

The thing is Internet prices are likely going to drop in many markets as fiber companies are starting to enter the market and undercharge what cable charges. You'll see it in urban-suburban markets first, but it will expand. We just had it happen where I live and I'm in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. If it happens here, it happens in other markets too.


That's true, but MANY markets are still years, possibly a decade away from a ubiquitous fiber network, and even then, who is to say it's not ultimately one of the heavy-hitting ISP's at the controls? Comcast has a fiber network all around Illinois to get to their Last Mile residential networks, and they could easily pull the fiber into people's homes without having to build a new network from scratch like a competitor would.

And with 4K streaming coming online everywhere, I don't think people understand just how crazy their data usage is going to get, and there's no way TWC, Comcast, etc., do away with data caps anytime soon unless the government stops them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:28 pm
Posts: 3899
Location: Tinley Park
pizza_Place: zzzzzz
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
DAC wrote:
Leagues won't have a choice. Just because they want to make as much as they do now due to bundled cable deals doesn't mean they will raise package prices to completely make up the difference in the future. Most fans are not fanatical. If some league increases its package to $400 a year, their viewership will plummet which is not good for the league. Leagues want people watching their product.
The fact that they are fanatical is why they will raise prices. The casual fan isn't paying $150 or $400 a year.

The packages are already in the $100-$250 range and that doesn't include local games. The NFL one is already like $300 and many games are on tv.

You think prices are staying the same if they become the only option to watch? No chance.

That still ignores the larger point here, in that even if they only go up to $200 a year, that's $400 a year. Add in Netflix at $150 a year and you are already at $550 a year with no other options besides the Netflix library and two sports. You don't have any networks, or cable channels, or premium channels. Add in even two more services to get AMC, FX, HBO, Showtime, or Hulu and all of a suddenly you are at $850 a year. So, you lose a ton of channels you may only watch occasionally, don't have a unified dvr or guide, and when FX comes out with a show you are interested in trying out you either have to wait for it to show up somewhere else or buy the FX package.

Now, it seems like for you it will be fine as you claim to not watch any television shows besides Netflix, but for most people this will not save them any money with less choice and more hassle. But hey, at least my grandma can watch Hallmark Channel on the Hallmark Channel app on her roku that she doesn't have!


But you are missing the bigger point in that people should not have to purchase a bundle to get individual channels. You can argue that I am missing a ton of shows and channels but the reality is that I should not be forced to pay for channels I don't want in order to watch what I do want.

And you fail to mention that an inexpensive antenna will give you a lot of free television. There will be an easy DVR solution in the future for an antenna to accommodate all the cord cutters.

_________________
Lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92037
Location: To the left of my post
DAC wrote:
But you are missing the bigger point in that people should not have to purchase a bundle to get individual channels. You can argue that I am missing a ton of shows and channels but the reality is that I should not be forced to pay for channels I don't want in order to watch what I do want.
Well, you could buy those shows on itunes or on dvd if you wanted. I hate to inform you of this but even Netflix is bundling content together for you. Your sports package will bundle all the games either for your team or the whole league.

DAC wrote:
And you fail to mention that an inexpensive antenna will give you a lot of free television. There will be an easy DVR solution in the future for an antenna to accommodate all the cord cutters.
Using an antenna sucks. There is a reason we got them out. What's next? You going to suggest we just watch VHS tapes?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 243 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group