Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Intel to Offer A La Cart?


  • Please log in to reply
458 replies to this topic

#51 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 426 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 04 January 2013 - 01:56 PM

Part of the problem not discussed too, is that, I believe, some content providers now require a certain portion of their programming be sent to a percentage of a companies customer base, or penetration rate.
--
Maybe Satracer can confirm this, but I believe I read in another post that the penetration requirement for ESPN is something ungodly, in the 90%'s, which is why you only see one package without it, the Family package 29.99.
--
It would also explain why some packages include certain channels above others. I"m pretty sure package bundling isn't just one thing, but a multitude of things. Providers also have to go through the 'bundle hell' with networks.
--
DTV could tell Disney we just want your main Disney channel and they will so, no, to get it you have to take A, B, C and D. You get the picture.


But but... they'll just have to change that because that's what i want them to do!:nono2:

...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#52 OFFLINE   unixguru

unixguru

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 680 posts
Joined: Jul 09, 2007

Posted 04 January 2013 - 02:41 PM

That's all great that your freinds are using cheap equipment to make small time videos (no disrespect intended). But videos for DJs that most of america has never heard of and doesn't care about, local commercials, and youtube videos doesn't exactly translate into a multi-billion dollar entertainment industry. YouTube and ESPN video clips have been around for quite a while (at least in tech terms) and they have failed to be disruptive to the traditional model. Clerks and ND might be indie, cult favorites, but on their best day they never garnered the attention of an Avatar or even a John Carter. Think about that. John Carter, a universally labeled flop and a horrible 2 hours of film if ever there was, grossed nearly 8x more than ND. Why? Well - my belief is that independent movies and art house cinema just don't garner the maintstream's interest. And independents such as your friends just don't have the financial backing to produce something like Avatar. Or John Carter. A music video is a far cry from a full length feature film or even 60 minutes of well produced television. And again - no dispresect - they'll never get the backing to produce something like Avatar. or John Carter. Or Game of Thrones. without a business model that provides some reasonable degree of certainty of financial success.


I agree with you that quality can't be ignored nor the need to generate profit.

But Avatar is interesting in the context of cable/sat. It was so successful (box office, Blu-Ray/DVD) that it didn't need either. You can buy it from iTunes or Vudu and probably others. I imagine at some point it will be rentable this way too.

It is arguably the only really successful 3D movie. It single-handedly started the 3D TV wave.

What if it wasn't available on cable/sat but only on the internet? That could change the paradigm quickly. I'm sure these movie companies have no problem with cable/sat as it's just another delivery path along a long chain and why pass up a buck? But if the paradigm changes I'm pretty certain they could care less. George Lucas and Cameron have enough clout to do anything they want.

So I'm thinking big movies are the least impacted by cable/sat.

Then take just about anything on SyFy. We always imagine greater... and never get it. Most of the movies they create look like they were filmed by a community college film class. Looks to me like a few decent cameras and Macs and a little skill is all it took. Obviously didn't spend any money on special effects, sets/location, story, or actors.

Surprisingly there are some really good things being made by the pay-movie channels. Game of Thrones, Dexter, Strike Back, True Blood, Homeland, Borgias. All of these could easily make it on their own A La Cart. Only thing preventing it is that the non-cable/sat distributions are one or more seasons behind. I don't think any of them are all that closely bonded to the network that carries them - except for contracts, etc. The creative people behind those will likely go on to create new series that are associated with different distributors.

The opinion in my house is that all the good stuff could easily be prosperous independent of any broadcast method. We would gladly pay for them directly and drop sat.

There is a set of programs we watch that are good enough to watch but not good enough to pay much for - and we find that just about all of them are OTA.

In our view it wouldn't take much to push the paradigm switch in our house. If Apple or Intel or anybody does it right then we're sold.

#53 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 447 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 04 January 2013 - 02:56 PM

Part of the problem not discussed too, is that, I believe, some content providers now require a certain portion of their programming be sent to a percentage of a companies customer base, or penetration rate.
--
Maybe Satracer can confirm this, but I believe I read in another post that the penetration requirement for ESPN is something ungodly, in the 90%'s, which is why you only see one package without it, the Family package 29.99.
--
It would also explain why some packages include certain channels above others. I"m pretty sure package bundling isn't just one thing, but a multitude of things. Providers also have to go through the 'bundle hell' with networks.
--
DTV could tell Disney we just want your main Disney channel and they will so, no, to get it you have to take A, B, C and D. You get the picture.


Yep, and that's why the current model won't be changed easily. ESPN has no problem over-bidding for TV rights to all the sports leagues because they'll just pass on the costs to ALL cable/sat subscribers. There is a limit, but it hasn't been reached yet.

#54 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,956 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 04 January 2013 - 04:00 PM

Surprisingly there are some really good things being made by the pay-movie channels. Game of Thrones, Dexter, Strike Back, True Blood, Homeland, Borgias. All of these could easily make it on their own A La Cart. Only thing preventing it is that the non-cable/sat distributions are one or more seasons behind. I don't think any of them are all that closely bonded to the network that carries them - except for contracts, etc. The creative people behind those will likely go on to create new series that are associated with different distributors.

The opinion in my house is that all the good stuff could easily be prosperous independent of any broadcast method. We would gladly pay for them directly and drop sat.

There is a set of programs we watch that are good enough to watch but not good enough to pay much for - and we find that just about all of them are OTA.


The problem is that you know of this good stuff because of the current distribution system. And they largely exist because it is a good bet. Take Game of Thrones. While a successful sci-fi book, HBO went for it as an expensive endeavor (and it would pale horribly if it were done on the cheap) because they knew they had the distribution mechanism for it. And it got lots of eyeballs because it was on HBO. Do you really think it would have been anything near the phenom it was/is without an HBO behind it. Heck, a lot of people just watch the new HBO series because it is HBO and they have a track record. Meanwhile, HBO knows it will get return on investment and kicks the quality ante up, which, in turn, makes the show more popular.

Now, tell me who was going to invest in a long run, quality version of Game of Thrones without any sure distribution mechanism?

Then you quote OTA programming as a staple at your house? Wow. That is exactly the distribution mechanism we are talking about. This nonsense about a la carte is because of a handful of expensive channels. No one really cares about the nickel and dime channels. Those make your bill pretty much nothing. It is all about ESPN and other sports greed. But kill the whole thing and go a la carte or a la programme and you are killing the whole system, including OTA, which is the biggest bargain out there.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#55 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 426 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 04 January 2013 - 04:43 PM

I agree with you that quality can't be ignored nor the need to generate profit.

But Avatar is interesting in the context of cable/sat. It was so successful (box office, Blu-Ray/DVD) that it didn't need either. You can buy it from iTunes or Vudu and probably others. I imagine at some point it will be rentable this way too.

It is arguably the only really successful 3D movie. It single-handedly started the 3D TV wave.

What if it wasn't available on cable/sat but only on the internet? That could change the paradigm quickly. I'm sure these movie companies have no problem with cable/sat as it's just another delivery path along a long chain and why pass up a buck? But if the paradigm changes I'm pretty certain they could care less. George Lucas and Cameron have enough clout to do anything they want.

So I'm thinking big movies are the least impacted by cable/sat.

Then take just about anything on SyFy. We always imagine greater... and never get it. Most of the movies they create look like they were filmed by a community college film class. Looks to me like a few decent cameras and Macs and a little skill is all it took. Obviously didn't spend any money on special effects, sets/location, story, or actors.

Surprisingly there are some really good things being made by the pay-movie channels. Game of Thrones, Dexter, Strike Back, True Blood, Homeland, Borgias. All of these could easily make it on their own A La Cart. Only thing preventing it is that the non-cable/sat distributions are one or more seasons behind. I don't think any of them are all that closely bonded to the network that carries them - except for contracts, etc. The creative people behind those will likely go on to create new series that are associated with different distributors.

The opinion in my house is that all the good stuff could easily be prosperous independent of any broadcast method. We would gladly pay for them directly and drop sat.

There is a set of programs we watch that are good enough to watch but not good enough to pay much for - and we find that just about all of them are OTA.

In our view it wouldn't take much to push the paradigm switch in our house. If Apple or Intel or anybody does it right then we're sold.


Don't read too much into my reference of Avatar. It could be any large big budget movie that generates hundreds of millions of dollars.... Dark Knight Rises, Battleship, John Carter. My point is that independent film makers with a laptop and a cheap HD camera do not have the ability - regardless of how talented they may or may not be - to produce content on par with the quality of some of Hollywood's larger productions. You only get that ability with companies with deep pockets behind you, and those companies are not going to back a horse that's distribution model doesn't gaurantee them maximum return. And for better or worse - that's not a guy whose plan is to put it on YouTube. A

You are correct that something like huge budget movies being available on the internet "could" change the paradigm. But none of your a la carte advocates have yet made the case as to why Cameron or Lucas or Warner Bros should even try. Right now, on the one hand, you have a license to print money that you know works. On the other, you have a ton of risk and a billion dollar property that you are taking chances with. CEOs get fired for taking smaller risks than that. I'm sorry but you and Saleen just wanting it and promising it will work is simply not enough for large corporations to gamble that much on. To your point, it's just another distribution method so why should any of them care enough to lift a finger to change a paradigm?

You mention HBO. You say they could make it a la carte. Perhaps. Yet they choose to continue down the current path, restricting access to HBO GO to only customers who subscribe to linear channels. You think their management is just dumb? That they don't evaluate these things with armies of finance guys/gals that determine that their best opportunity to maximize rev/profit is to continue down this model? It's not about "making" it. It's about killing it and swimming in Scrooge McDuck pools of money. And if they leave even $1 on the table, it's not acceptable. This is how every large business in the world is run. It's just a fact.

The only thing that's really going to shift the paradigm is consumer cutting the cord in mass. And to date - that just hasn't happened. And i don't really see it happening. This is a chicken and egg situation. People won't change until they are assured of the content they way on the big screen, and companies won't put it there until there's enough of an audience to make the same or better. Stalemate.

Edited by tulanejosh, 04 January 2013 - 05:39 PM.


#56 OFFLINE   Sanderson K.

Sanderson K.

    Duplicate User (Account Closed)

  • Banned User
  • 9 posts
Joined: Jan 04, 2013

Posted 04 January 2013 - 05:56 PM

Not directed at you... but whoever brought google fiber up really misses the point on what Google is trying to do with that experiment. Google really wants America to have gigabit internet. It wants its ISP partners to invest in it. Google is trying to show then that it can be done profitably, but Google itself has no intention of embarking on a national fiber build out. While they might have $72B in assets on hand, that's not where close to what it would cost to build something like google fiber out nationally. Verizon and ATT are much much larger companies than Google and have way more cash on hand, and even they are hesitating at the cost of build out.


Funny since Google isn't even publicly sure what its plans for fiber are yet.

http://www.businessi...e-fiber-2012-12
http://www.dslreport...sas-City-120809

And its believed that Verizon may have halted roll out of FiOS due to a deal with Comcast.

http://www.dslreport...-is-Over-118949

#57 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 426 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 04 January 2013 - 06:31 PM

Funny since Google isn't even publicly sure what its plans for fiber are yet.

http://www.businessi...e-fiber-2012-12
http://www.dslreport...sas-City-120809

And its believed that Verizon may have halted roll out of FiOS due to a deal with Comcast.

http://www.dslreport...-is-Over-118949


You do the math... $72B in assets vs $140B to cover nationally.

#58 OFFLINE   jessshaun

jessshaun

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 158 posts
Joined: Sep 13, 2005

Posted 04 January 2013 - 06:58 PM

Someone will eventually do it, I just know it, but perhaps a better solution than ala-cart would be programming bundles.... a "family" tier, a "movie" tier, a "sport" tier, that sorta thing... don't say it can't be done, because that's how my local cable company bundles their digital networks. THAT I truly think could work, but individual channels? no. it wouldn't.

#59 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,042 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 04 January 2013 - 07:30 PM

Someone will eventually do it, I just know it, but perhaps a better solution than ala-cart would be programming bundles.... a "family" tier, a "movie" tier, a "sport" tier, that sorta thing... don't say it can't be done, because that's how my local cable company bundles their digital networks. THAT I truly think could work, but individual channels? no. it wouldn't.


From a technology perspective, absolutely. From a business perspective...will ESPN let themselves be contained in a sports only tier? Will CNN and FOX be contained in a news tier? What about a channel that does movies and family and something else? I don't know. Hard to see how that works.
DIRECTV employee

All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#60 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,371 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 05 January 2013 - 10:08 AM

From a technology perspective, absolutely. From a business perspective...will ESPN let themselves be contained in a sports only tier? Will CNN and FOX be contained in a news tier? What about a channel that does movies and family and something else? I don't know. Hard to see how that works.


Why not have a entertainment + package with no sports and no EPSN but all the other channels in the higher level packs?

or a BIG sports pack with espn / rsn's / golf / nbc sports / nfl / ect....

A big sports pack is still basic like but it's can be different then a sports tier.
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#61 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,658 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 05 January 2013 - 11:10 AM

Why not have a entertainment + package with no sports and no EPSN but all the other channels in the higher level packs?

or a BIG sports pack with espn / rsn's / golf / nbc sports / nfl / ect....

A big sports pack is still basic like but it's can be different then a sports tier.


The point is that these networks have a say in that when negotiating retrans deals.
DTV = Digital Television

#62 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,956 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 05 January 2013 - 12:13 PM

The point is that these networks have a say in that when negotiating retrans deals.


And you will never get espn to agree to go in any tier. Not having espn is commercial suicide and they know it.

Unfortunately, this all really comes down to espn. And towns with too many RSNs. The cost is what is making people desire a la carte. It ain't MTV that is driving the talk.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#63 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 21,192 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 05 January 2013 - 01:35 PM

1. HD cameras are now dirt cheap, can be hand held and produce stunning HD/Movie quality video

The camera bodies aren't the issue. It is the lenses, mounts and the manpower to run and direct the cameras that cost money. The same is true of professional still photography that still seems to be around after many years of cheap consumer cameras.

If you want to shoot something in the style of The Blair Witch Project or The Walking Dead that's one thing but if you're looking for the flexibility to give you all-condition HQ PQ, that's unlikely to come from a device that has Handycam emblazoned on it.
Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK

#64 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 21,192 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 05 January 2013 - 01:37 PM

And you will never get espn to agree to go in any tier. Not having espn is commercial suicide and they know it.

It is fast coming to a point where not carrying ESPN is going to be a selling point for a few million households. The same is probably true for the other channels in the Disney stable that, while appealing to an important market, don't have any appeal to large sections of the population.
Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK

#65 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,956 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 05 January 2013 - 04:27 PM

It is fast coming to a point where not carrying ESPN is going to be a selling point for a few million households. The same is probably true for the other channels in the Disney stable that, while appealing to an important market, don't have any appeal to large sections of the population.


Not enough to overcome those who want it. If you think otherwise, I guess you think every provider is idiotic.

People always say they don't watch such and such channel but then they watch the one thing that is on that channel.... For example, Disney. I can largely do without it, except for Phineas and Ferb. Oops. Now I want it.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#66 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,371 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 05 January 2013 - 05:08 PM

Not enough to overcome those who want it. If you think otherwise, I guess you think every provider is idiotic.

People always say they don't watch such and such channel but then they watch the one thing that is on that channel.... For example, Disney. I can largely do without it, except for Phineas and Ferb. Oops. Now I want it.


Disney channel should go back to being a pay channel also they will no longer advertise or promote any food or beverage that does not meet strict nutritional guidelines, on any of its media properties aimed at children, which includes Disney Channel.

so less ad's = a high price forced on all of us. Make it a pay channel get full control over ad's as well.
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#67 OFFLINE   Tubaman-Z

Tubaman-Z

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 525 posts
Joined: Jul 30, 2007

Posted 05 January 2013 - 10:16 PM

Then take just about anything on SyFy. We always imagine greater... and never get it. Most of the movies they create look like they were filmed by a community college film class. Looks to me like a few decent cameras and Macs and a little skill is all it took. Obviously didn't spend any money on special effects, sets/location, story, or actors.


Oh come on. They have such great actresses as Tiffany and Jewel, and cameos by Roger Corman. And I almost forgot, Mariel Hemingway and LeVar Burton starred in "Rise of the Zombies". :lol:

Kevin

My top 5 wishlist: 1) Free MRV HR to HR 2) Fix Channels I Receive so that it is accurate 3) > 50 SeriesLink 4) Usage of both internal and external drives concurrently 5) Support for other video providers as DoD (i.e. Hulu, CBS)   

DirecTV HR21-200, 2008 (DirecTV anniversary gift)
DirecTV HR20-100 (2TB eSATA), 2007
DirecTV since 1995

<><


#68 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 21,192 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 06 January 2013 - 03:06 PM

Not enough to overcome those who want it. If you think otherwise, I guess you think every provider is idiotic.

I don't think they're idiotic. Rather I think that they continue to demonstrate that they don't have the cojones to do battle with the content providers to get only what their customers want/need and nothing else.
Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK

#69 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,658 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 06 January 2013 - 03:10 PM

I don't think they're idiotic. Rather I think that they continue to demonstrate that they don't have the cojones to do battle with the content providers to get only what their customers want/need and nothing else.


Focus on the failures of your chosen provider.
DTV = Digital Television

#70 OFFLINE   wmb

wmb

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 454 posts
Joined: Dec 17, 2008

Posted 06 January 2013 - 04:52 PM

And you will never get espn to agree to go in any tier. Not having espn is commercial suicide and they know it.


I am curious about ESPN viewership. Its been reported that only 25% of cable customers watch it. Does that mean that it is only watched in 25% of cable-subscribing households, or only 25% of the people in cable-subscribing households watch it.

Also, what is the time period for this? Is it any given day, week, month, or year.

#71 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,956 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 06 January 2013 - 05:13 PM

I am curious about ESPN viewership. Its been reported that only 25% of cable customers watch it. Does that mean that it is only watched in 25% of cable-subscribing households, or only 25% of the people in cable-subscribing households watch it.

Also, what is the time period for this? Is it any given day, week, month, or year.


I'd like to understand that number, too. Seems low if it is 25% ever watch. The 2011 BCS game drew 15% of all households. The number would be a higher percentage of cable/satellite households.

But even if the number is 25%, not having espn on your system would be suicide.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#72 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,123 posts
  • LocationWinters, CA, between Napa and Sacramento
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 06 January 2013 - 05:19 PM

I am curious about ESPN viewership. Its been reported that only 25% of cable customers watch it. Does that mean that it is only watched in 25% of cable-subscribing households, or only 25% of the people in cable-subscribing households watch it.

Also, what is the time period for this? Is it any given day, week, month, or year.


Who cares what cable subs do?? :D

Where did you see that reported? Sorry don't know the answer to your query....
"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#73 OFFLINE   wmb

wmb

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 454 posts
Joined: Dec 17, 2008

Posted 06 January 2013 - 05:35 PM

In this alternative to cable/satellite discussion, seems to me the issue is that no one has put the product together in the right way. Some of it is that the technology is not yet developed, and some of it is marketing. Examples, the iPod wasn't the first portable mp3 player. Another is tablets... I remember a manager that had a Toshiba tablet that ran pen-based Windows XP. The iPad brought touch-based interface to the tablet and made it a success.

How many people remember active desktop from Windows 98? Now, look at Windows 8, tiles are active desktop implemented on modern technology with high speed internet.

Fifteen years ago, how many entertainment industry execs predicted that video rental stores like Blockbuster would disappear and be replaced by Netflicks?

Also, remember the recent thrust of D* channel agreements was authentication, and now we have DirecTV anywhere and growing on-demand offerings. As a side note, we are no longer tied to viewing at a time or a place. We are also becoming more willing to search through lists for a show we want to watch that rather than be tied to linear channels.

For those worried about production quality, shows like Honey Boo-Boo, Pawn Stars and Storage Wars are quite popular and cheap to produce. These low production cost type of shows could be used as a springboard to lure "professional" production companies away from the current distribution models.

Speaking of distribution models, there are a growing number of shows canceled by networks that are being picked up by cable channels. This year its "Cougar Town" being picked up be TBS.

Times change. I have two teenagers that I bet will never have a landline telephone. For that matter, I doubt they will subscribe to cable/satellite TV. They'll have a cell phones and will stream content on demand.

That said, I still don't think we'll see a la cart cable.

I can't help but get a feeling that cable/satellite/content provider execs are worried about the future of their cash cow.

#74 OFFLINE   wmb

wmb

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 454 posts
Joined: Dec 17, 2008

Posted 06 January 2013 - 05:37 PM

Who cares what cable subs do?? :D

Where did you see that reported? Sorry don't know the answer to your query....


The number that is used is that it costs cable ~$5/month for ESPN that only 25% of people watch, so it would cost $20/month for a la carte purchase.

I seen the 25% a number of places in threads here, and it was in an article linked above.

#75 OFFLINE   KyL416

KyL416

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 2,879 posts
  • LocationTobyhanna, PA
Joined: Nov 10, 2005

Posted 06 January 2013 - 05:46 PM

The number that is used is that it costs cable ~$5/month for ESPN that only 25% of people watch, so it would cost $20/month for a la carte purchase.

I seen the 25% a number of places in threads here, and it was in an article linked above.

That's just ESPN though, it doesn't account for what else they would lose if every ESPN viewer left. The money coming in from nearly every subscriber who purchases a pro sports package and most people who purchase Boxing and UFC events on PPV.




Protected By... spam firewall...And...