|
|
ESPN+
Apr 11, 2018 21:30:06 GMT -5
Post by The Cats on Apr 11, 2018 21:30:06 GMT -5
The free ride with ESPN3 is mostly over. IMO all SoCon content that was formally on ESPN3 will now go to the new ESPN+, and it starts this weekend.
|
|
|
|
ESPN+
Apr 12, 2018 6:49:20 GMT -5
Post by wcatradio75 on Apr 12, 2018 6:49:20 GMT -5
That sucks. I didn't know that. It's not always about the money - it's never NOT about the money. ESPN is losing viewers and now advertisers in droves so they are making it up with subscriptions. Like Microsoft and everyone else.
They get us hooked on watching all those games and then start charging.
|
|
|
|
ESPN+
Apr 12, 2018 7:29:29 GMT -5
Post by Old Catamount on Apr 12, 2018 7:29:29 GMT -5
Wait till you see the impact ESPN's loss of revenue is going to have on the Power 5 and Group of 5 conferences in the very near future. The gravy train is getting ready to derail.
|
|
|
|
ESPN+
Apr 12, 2018 9:09:18 GMT -5
Post by wcugrad95 on Apr 12, 2018 9:09:18 GMT -5
For better or worse, this is really more about the way people consume content now. ESPN (Disney really) and many of the other providers are seeing the success of outlets like Netflix, and seeing the demise of things like newspapers and cable subscriptions and they are adapting. Disney has already outlined their intention to offer this sports service first, a Disney-content service next, and a 3rd service would seem inevitable if the Fox acquisition goes through (which includes a large stake in Hulu). I don't know how long it will take, but eventually we will be back to the big networks over the air (antenna) as the only "TV" we have and EVERYTHING else will be a pay for what you want subscription over the Internet. I actually wish it was already here - I could pay $2-$10 for each of the providers I care about, pay $30-$40 for Internet service, and then have hopefully a slightly smaller overall bill but be paying ONLY for the stuff that I want. And most of it without commercials that I can watch when I want outside of live events.
I agree it will suck for a little while until it becomes more widespread and we all feel comfortable cutting the cord completely (my wife won't do it because of certain shows/channels she likes we can't get as individual services or we can't get them all through something like DirectNow or SlingTV or the like). But I could be happy right now getting rid of my cable provider EXCEPT that I still get Internet through them - and they'll probably just hike that through the roof.
The point is ESPN is having to adapt to the changing landscape - not sure people are fleeing ESPN as much as they are simply fleeing the cable companies. I totally agree that the sports landscape will also have to adapt - we already see it with several of the P5 conferences with their own channels/networks.
|
|
|
|
ESPN+
Apr 12, 2018 22:44:33 GMT -5
Post by wcuecu2010 on Apr 12, 2018 22:44:33 GMT -5
For better or worse, this is really more about the way people consume content now. ESPN (Disney really) and many of the other providers are seeing the success of outlets like Netflix, and seeing the demise of things like newspapers and cable subscriptions and they are adapting. Disney has already outlined their intention to offer this sports service first, a Disney-content service next, and a 3rd service would seem inevitable if the Fox acquisition goes through (which includes a large stake in Hulu). I don't know how long it will take, but eventually we will be back to the big networks over the air (antenna) as the only "TV" we have and EVERYTHING else will be a pay for what you want subscription over the Internet. I actually wish it was already here - I could pay $2-$10 for each of the providers I care about, pay $30-$40 for Internet service, and then have hopefully a slightly smaller overall bill but be paying ONLY for the stuff that I want. And most of it without commercials that I can watch when I want outside of live events. I agree it will suck for a little while until it becomes more widespread and we all feel comfortable cutting the cord completely (my wife won't do it because of certain shows/channels she likes we can't get as individual services or we can't get them all through something like DirectNow or SlingTV or the like). But I could be happy right now getting rid of my cable provider EXCEPT that I still get Internet through them - and they'll probably just hike that through the roof. The point is ESPN is having to adapt to the changing landscape - not sure people are fleeing ESPN as much as they are simply fleeing the cable companies. I totally agree that the sports landscape will also have to adapt - we already see it with several of the P5 conferences with their own channels/networks. Good assessment and you are correct on the way cable and subscription channels are coming for the future. ESPN+ would be great if it was offered as a complete subscription based service w/o having to have a cable subscription but ESPN+ is moreso just essentially a pay ESPN4 service since ESPN3 is still available. It would make more since to say charge $20 a month or say a discounted yearly subscription that allows for "ALL ESPN" services because honestly, ESPN is really the only thing that is keeping me to keep satellite. (I know about Sling, DirectTV Now, HULU, PSVue etc and have experimented with all of them) but if ESPN could offer a complete subscription service I would be able to go straight Outdoor Antenna and since between my wife, stepson and I the channels that are consumed are CBS,ABC, NBC, Fox (gotta have my Gotham lol) and ESPN plus those other OTA channels are better than some offered on cable. For my wife its HBO, Showtime, Starz (but not Skinemax lol). my stepson consumes nothing but Youtube and ESPN. But honestly a good antenna, my MLB.TV subscription (Go Tribe!!!), someway to listen or watch the Catamounts and Pirates (whether its online radio or ESPN) and an Amazon Firestick (to download Kodi and Terriaum TV) is all that is needed. When my satelitte contract runs out next year that is likely the method I will head. Could honstly cut my bill to $30-50 a month depending on how reliable Kodi/Terriaum TV continues to work. |
|
|
|
ESPN+
Apr 13, 2018 7:34:08 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by wcugrad95 on Apr 13, 2018 7:34:08 GMT -5
I think the ESPN4 reference is probably a good one to begin with. ESPN still has contractual obligations to cable companies and to certain conferences and events. I think the smaller original cost represents the smaller offering. The long game for Disney will be to have a full sports offering that will have ALL the ESPN content, but they can't do that yet.
|
|
|
|
ESPN+
Apr 13, 2018 13:10:53 GMT -5
Post by wcatradio75 on Apr 13, 2018 13:10:53 GMT -5
95 - Are you really paying $30-$40 for internet? I wish. I get 40Mb/s service from AT&T for $60. No way I can get a quality stream on 2 TV's simultaneously with TV coming in on copper DSL wires at 40Mb. There's no good deal for internet here in Atlanta. In the very few places that Google Fiber is available, it starts @ $70.
|
|
|
|
ESPN+
Apr 14, 2018 6:34:54 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by wcugrad95 on Apr 14, 2018 6:34:54 GMT -5
Currently "bundled in" I get 100 MBPS in Orlando and that shows as $44.99 from the cable company. But my expectation is that with the deregulation of Internet providers, the telecom companies and in particular the wireless companies will drastically invest and ramp-up their technology and offerings in order to crack the home ISP market. I'd rather pay Verizon another $30-$40 per month on top of my crazy wireless bill for them to give me 100 MB wirelessly and spend another $50 specifically on the content I want than to keep giving Bright House (now Spectrum) $160+ every month.
Today - yes, fiber or Gigabet offerings here are $65-$85 per month. But in all honesty high-speed Internet has been available for going on 20 years now. It should keep getting faster, and with more providers it ***should*** get cheaper. So my $30-$40 was the hopeful future Internet cost for at least what I currently have.
|
|
