I, for one, welcome our new overlords (from ESPN)

[heyabbott]

My channel choices would be humiliating.

I would go with Bravo and History before ESPN.

The channel I watch the most is Food Network. By a landslide.

There are times, too often, that we watch Diners, Drive-ins and Dives, while eating dinner. smh

 

[JackReacher]

There's a package that doesn't include ESPN? I assumed that was on every package. Except for the bare-bones, 4-5-7-9 package, if they still offer those.

Interesting.

The "TV Select" plan for Fios (might be botching the name) is one step above the bare-bones package. No sports channels at all.

Basically, I have the networks, TBS, CNN, and a handful of basic cable channels (Discovery, Food, Nick, etc.).

Ah. Gotcha. Wonder what the price difference is per month between that package and the top-line package. I recently switched to FIOS and got the top-line package and it was very cheap compared to what I used to have with DirecTV.

 

[FileNotFound]

100 million households subscribe to pay TV?

I think they mean pay as in "cable" or "satellite," not as in "HBO/Showtime/etc."

That's easily believable.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau website, there are only 114,761,359 households in the U.S. If that's the case, there are not 100 million households with cable or satellite.

Here is just one Google search that shows U.S. pay-TV penetration to be 86 percent. If that's the case, it's about exactly 100 million households.

http://www.marketingcharts.com/wp/television/us-among-top-10-countries-by-pay-tv-penetration-34936/

Cable alone, without satellite, regularly discusses monopoly concerns with the FCC. The threshold is that if cable is in 70 percent of homes, they get treated more strictly. So they always come in just under that in the reported numbers. Throw in the 15-20 percent that go satellite and, yeah, that's 85-90 percent, or 100 million households.

I would easily believe that in any random group of 100 people, I'm the only person who doesn't have cable or satellite.

 

[silent_h]

I recently wrote about everything that's being discussed here - and moreover, the Atlantic writer who penned the article in the first post was one of the people I spoke to while reporting. Derek Thompson. Pretty sharp. He's been writing good stuff on ESPN, bundle pricing, etc. for a while. His earlier magazine piece "Prisoners of Cable" is also worth a read.

Anyway, I'm going to share the link to my because I think it will help inform the discussion:

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/53498716

My overall take: an a la carte world would hurt - but not fatally wound - ESPN. Still a lot of money to be made, and they have positioned themselves to survive regardless.

However, I do think it could have a pretty significant impact on the amount of money sloshing around sports in general. At the very least, we'd get a much better idea of what sports fans are actually willing to pay for programming.

 

[LongTimeListener]

That's a very good article. And I would love to see ESPN holding the bag on its MNF contract when a la carte comes in and ESPN finds out not all that many people consider ESPN indispensable. But I don't think a la carte is ever happening. Too much lobbying money against it.

However, I do think it could have a pretty significant impact on the amount of money sloshing around sports in general. At the very least, we'd get a much better idea of what sports fans are actually willing to pay for programming.

This is a lot like newspapers -- everything was great until there was an actual way to measure the impact of ads. All of the sudden the "250,000 customers!!!!!!!" theoretically seeing that back-page ad instead became a reality-based number.

 

[imjustagirl]

Oops, I forgot Olbermann is back at ESPN. I might have to pony up then.

 

[Sea Bass]

100 million households subscribe to pay TV?

I think they mean pay as in "cable" or "satellite," not as in "HBO/Showtime/etc."

That's easily believable.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau website, there are only 114,761,359 households in the U.S. If that's the case, there are not 100 million households with cable or satellite.

Here is just one Google search that shows U.S. pay-TV penetration to be 86 percent. If that's the case, it's about exactly 100 million households.

http://www.marketingcharts.com/wp/television/us-among-top-10-countries-by-pay-tv-penetration-34936/

Cable alone, without satellite, regularly discusses monopoly concerns with the FCC. The threshold is that if cable is in 70 percent of homes, they get treated more strictly. So they always come in just under that in the reported numbers. Throw in the 15-20 percent that go satellite and, yeah, that's 85-90 percent, or 100 million households.

I stand corrected. Surprised, but corrected.

100 million households subscribe to pay TV?

I think they mean pay as in "cable" or "satellite," not as in "HBO/Showtime/etc."

That's easily believable.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau website, there are only 114,761,359 households in the U.S. If that's the case, there are not 100 million households with cable or satellite.

Here is just one Google search that shows U.S. pay-TV penetration to be 86 percent. If that's the case, it's about exactly 100 million households.

http://www.marketingcharts.com/wp/television/us-among-top-10-countries-by-pay-tv-penetration-34936/

Cable alone, without satellite, regularly discusses monopoly concerns with the FCC. The threshold is that if cable is in 70 percent of homes, they get treated more strictly. So they always come in just under that in the reported numbers. Throw in the 15-20 percent that go satellite and, yeah, that's 85-90 percent, or 100 million households.

I would easily believe that in any random group of 100 people, I'm the only person who doesn't have cable or satellite.

What do people in the U.S. pay per month for the average cable package? I think I'm paying about $80-85 (including the cost of the HD DVR receiver), and I don't get any 'pay' channels like HBO Canada or anything like that.

I know plenty of people who in the past 2-3 years have said fork it and scrapped cable, choosing to watch over-the-air shows online on the networks' sites, and to simply download cable shows. I'm considering it myself.

 

[Songbird]

Also great when you can watch pretty much any game, any sport at firstrow or find websites that upload shows within minutes after they're on TV.

 

[old_tony]

100 million households subscribe to pay TV?

I think they mean pay as in "cable" or "satellite," not as in "HBO/Showtime/etc."

That's easily believable.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau website, there are only 114,761,359 households in the U.S. If that's the case, there are not 100 million households with cable or satellite.

Here is just one Google search that shows U.S. pay-TV penetration to be 86 percent. If that's the case, it's about exactly 100 million households.

http://www.marketingcharts.com/wp/television/us-among-top-10-countries-by-pay-tv-penetration-34936/

Cable alone, without satellite, regularly discusses monopoly concerns with the FCC. The threshold is that if cable is in 70 percent of homes, they get treated more strictly. So they always come in just under that in the reported numbers. Throw in the 15-20 percent that go satellite and, yeah, that's 85-90 percent, or 100 million households.

I stand corrected. Surprised, but corrected.

Are business accounts -- bars, restaurants, hospitals, hotels -- included among "households" or would those be additional accounts helping reach that 100 million number?

 

[Fly]

And I am proud to say, as someone who has neither cable nor satellite TV, I have not contributed one dime to that total.

Proof-positive that vegetarians DO think they're better than everyone else [/crossthread]

 

[DanOregon]

If I was Fox Sports One I would have tried to label ESPN as "your dad's cable sports station" and gone out of my way to staff shows with people under 40, similar to the way ESPN launched their magazine 20 years ago.

 

[SpeedTchr]

If I didn't have to as part of my cable line-up (U-Verse), i wouldn't pay a dime to keep ESPN. Or any sports channels, for that matter, now that Fox Soccer doesn't have the BPL.