RiccochetJ
Gold Member
Seriously, look into Sling TV. They'll even subsidize the cost of Roku or Amaonf Fire TV device.
I'll look into it now! Thanks!
Seriously, look into Sling TV. They'll even subsidize the cost of Roku or Amaonf Fire TV device.
I wonder though if ESPN is the last thing tying a lot of people to paying for cable. Purely anecdotal, but that's honestly the only reason I still pay for my satellite package.
probably because ESPN covers like 5 teams & Lebron
This has nothing to do with the issue. People aren't "unsubscribing" to ESPN and "subscribing" to Fox Sports 1. Those sports channels are in the same boat. This is the result of people just choosing to cut cable and no longer paying for packages that include ESPN (which is basically all of them).
Nope. Verizon offers packages without ESPN now. Theyve been marketing it heavily.
Verizon is not a significant presence in cable.Nope. Verizon offers packages without ESPN now. Theyve been marketing it heavily.
"Nope" what?
Verizon is not a significant presence in cable.
"Nope" what?
http://www.ibtimes.com/verizon-fios-cuts-espn-core-tv-bundle-lower-your-cable-bill-1890887When Verizon’s service was announced this weekend, the sports juggernaut voiced public objections, saying it runs afoul of terms that prohibit ESPN from being relegated to separate bundles. Verizon’s new “Customized TV Plan” offers a core package of 35 channels -- including CNN, AMC, CW and others -- for $54.99 a month. Customers who want ESPN and ESPN2 will have to sign up for an additional sports-themed add-on package, one of several genre-specific packages the service offers. The first two add-on packages are free, but additional packages cost $10 more a month each.
http://www.cnet.com/news/espn-sues-verizon-over-new-skinny-bundles-for-cable-tv/ESPN isn't a fan of Verizon's new way of offering cable channels under its Fios TV service.
The sports network has sued Verizon for allegedly breaching its contract, which was earlier reported by CNBC.com. The lawsuit was filed in the New York Supreme Court.
This is the inherent danger in rooting yourself so firmly in a static business model when there are signs decades in advance of what's to come.
Everything except the NFL is in big trouble once the sports TV rights bubble pops in the US.
All it'll take is the NFL, NBA or MLB deciding it can make more money by creating a streaming app service for games. Subscribe and get all of them live.
If ESPN doesn't do it first, it's a matter of time.
I think his point is that people literally are "unsubscribing" from ESPN in a pretty particular way. Cable providers are (apparently, according to him) providing cable packages that specifically exclude ESPN to keep costs down.
In that way, this isn't just cable cutters, it's also people keeping cable but getting rid of ESPN.
NBA is doing absolutely fantastic on TV. Interest in it is rising and is exploding overseas.Everything except the NFL is in big trouble once the sports TV rights bubble pops in the US.
I don't honestly believe in the "if you like live sports you NEED cable/ESPN" idea much anymore.
What live events does ESPN even broadcast anymore?
NFL - MNF, has been a disaster for years. They don't even get to air a playoff game on ESPN (wild card game is aired on ABC with ESPN production)
NBA - Do they still do the Friday night showcase? That was once a week. They definitely get more playoff coverage though but TNT has taken a chunk out of that.
MLB - Sunday Night game of the week. That's all I know of. They used to do a Wednesday game as well but I have no idea if they still do.
College football is their bread and butter at this point, but that's only 5 months a year and is spread so thin across all their programming.
It seems like the idea should be "if you like sports analysts you NEED cable/ESPN" anymore. Because that seems to make up a huge percentage of prime time programming.
1. Cord cutting.I know a cord cutter that stopped watching sports because he is fighting the good fight against evil cable companies.
Are there lots of cord cutters now or it just seems that way because cord cutters will go out of their way to tell you they are cord cutters and make you listen to their rants about how evil cable companies are? The weird thing is that some of these people still pay the "evil" cable company for Internet. Whatever. I'll enjoy paying $45 a month so I don't have to try to watch some spotty sketchy Russian pirate stream to enjoy the sports I like. Putting cable companies out of business wouldn't be in the top 1000 issues of changes I would like to see in the world.
I await the day ESPN has to go back to airing sail boat races, men's softball, sumo, and Australian rules rugby.
My point is that people aren't "subscribing" from one sports cable channel to "subscribe" to another. And my point about the lower numbers explicitly said people were no longer subscribing to packages with ESPN. I did describe them as cord cutters because that is obviously where the overwhelming majority of the numbers are coming from. Even the article mentions this. Nothing I said and nothing Verizon is doing contradicts this in any way worth mentioning.
I understand. I'm only trying to explain his argument for clarity, since you seemed confused.
It wasn't a "clarity" problem. There is nothing I my post to say "nope" to. d.
This is the result of people just choosing to cut cable and no longer paying for packages that include ESPN
You said this:
That is what I said no to. Did you read my post?
I made it just fine without an espn sub last year. I just went to a bar anytime I need a game on that channel. Local cable for 19.99 does me just fine with a Netflix subscription
Also yeah espn is useless now with so many good sports websites
Yes, people have largely discovered that they can do without a 24/7 sports channel if it means saving $150/month.
I also wonder how many cord cutters end up using WatchESPN from a family / friend's active cable account for their fix when they need it.
Why bother with that? They can just get SlingTV.I also wonder how many cord cutters end up using WatchESPN from a family / friend's active cable account for their fix when they need it.
These people are dumb, put everything on the Internet, charge a reasonable price and enjoy your profit. I don't know much about Cable TV in the US but it sucks in Brazil. I'll never pay a cable subscription just to get ESPN.
Here is an interesting article about how it is a myth that cable subscribers are down, that is always cheaper, and it is easy to get sports.
http://lifehacker.com/the-biggest-myths-about-cutting-the-cable-cord-1566140265
These people are dumb, put everything on the Internet, charge a reasonable price and enjoy your profit. I don't know much about Cable TV in the US but it sucks in Brazil. I'll never pay a cable subscription just to get ESPN.
Yes, people have largely discovered that they can do without a 24/7 sports channel if it means saving $150/month.
Everything except the NFL is in big trouble once the sports TV rights bubble pops in the US.