Television services and online video discussion.
82 posts Page 8 of 9
by virtualmike » Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:18 pm
thulsa_doom wrote:
In this case I'd inclined to call in plausible. ESPN's business model revolves around squeezing money out of people that neither watch their programming nor pay for advertising.

Agreed, and it's working. And the article makes some valid points. However, I have natural skepticism about a single article in a publication intended for the entertainment industry that says, "Keep doing what you're doing."

In the early 1980s, plenty of articles were written that claimed the divestiture of AT&T would stifle innovation and lead Ma Bell and the Baby Bells to financial failure. Instead, the opposite happened.

I hear the content factories' arguments, but I remain unconvinced. Let the people who want the channels pay for them.
by Dennis N » Tue Dec 03, 2013 1:42 am
Please excuse me for resurrecting this thread.

I would gladly pay double the rate for Sonic DSL if it were to include ESPN3.

Actually, I was a happy customer of a couple years ago until college basketball season started. I refused to pay for cable TV and thought Sonic would come through for me. Nope. I switched back to Comcast for ESPN3.

Since then, Comcast changed its policies. A customer needs to subscribe to Xfinity internet AND TV to get ESPN3. And I'm pissed. In my complex it's Comcast or satellite, and satellite won't get you ESPN3.

The Variety article that bmcdonnell posted was hilarious. Thank you for posting that! "A la carte would decimate the pay TV industry, resulting in loss of $70 billion in revenue" is a Debbie Downer way of saying "A la carte would disrupt the pay TV industry (that no one likes), saving customers $70 billion" :-D
by Dennis N » Tue Dec 03, 2013 1:58 am
Live sports is the #1 thing keeping people on traditional cable and satellite TV. We've seen sports fans spend exorbitant amounts of money on sports. The evidence is there - big screen TV revenue surges before the Super Bowl, massive and popular upcharges for TV sports packages, and huge asking prices for dumb things like collectable balls and vintage jerseys. A measly $30 upcharge for decent access to live and recorded sports sounds like a no-brainer that could cause a huge disruption. Heck you could charge me an extra $10 a month on top of that if I could stick it to Comcast and knock out their last leg.

I'm painfully considering getting Xfinity TV just to watch college basketball and MNF. It will cost me an extra $60-$100/mo for the STBs and plan on top of internet. Are we really quibbling over a $30 optional upcharge on Sonic? Please. This could save people lots of money. Sign me up!
by dane » Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:22 am
If we could sell it to you Dennis and not charge everyone else, that would be ideal. The issue is that it would result in a price hike for all customers.
Dane Jasper
by abhikris » Fri May 09, 2014 10:41 am
Ahh the ever lasting ESPN3 debate. I've been following it for the past couple of years. I keep checking to see if ESPN has changed their minds or if there is anyway this can be fixed. IT seems impossible. Yes, I will pay the extra $5/mo because it is worth it for me to be able to watch FIFA World Cup, Premier League games, Tennis etc. Otherwise, I have to rely on dead links I have to search every saturday morning for live feeds. I can't use Directv since my HOA doesn't allow for such things on the building. So, I am in a bind. I was with AT&T and I'm in the process of switching to Sonic.Net. I wish there was a solution for me. Either way, the no-cap & speed bump compared to at&t alone is worth the switch. Though I really really really do wish I had access to sports.
by virtualmike » Fri May 09, 2014 11:02 pm
abhikris wrote:
... I can't use Directv since my HOA doesn't allow for such things on the building.
Your HOA may be in violation of FCC rules. ... ite-dishes
by abhi.kris » Mon May 19, 2014 12:32 pm
virtualmike wrote:
abhikris wrote:
... I can't use Directv since my HOA doesn't allow for such things on the building.
Your HOA may be in violation of FCC rules. ... ite-dishes

You are very likely correct, I'm not sure if it is expressly prohibited. I'm renting the space from the owner. But it is certainly discouraged and I don't have the stomach for a fight. I don't need it that badly. Looking forward to a resolution, what it maybe to watch some sports online. I'm not hurting. But if it is a possibility then I'd be willing to put up some money.
by khampton1 » Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:25 pm
Like others here I am a former ATT customer who switched to Sonic. In general, I hated ATT and would be loath to return to it. That being said, I used ESPN3 nearly every day. In glancing at the thread I see talk about the "costs" of adding ESPN3 but I did not see anything explicit from Sonic (I.e. how much extra it would cost them to carry ESPN3.) I'm skeptical that it would be $5.00 per customer, a figure I saw mentioned on this thread. I am a big fan of ESPN3 and found it a valuable resource. Some explicit discussion of cost would be helpful.

Keith Hampton
by dane » Sat Mar 07, 2015 11:04 am
We have the cost info, but it is a non-disclosure restricted item.

But on this topic, the Sling TV service includes ESPN, so it's now possible to stream those channels! That's a big new change, the first time ESPN is available completely over the top.

Seven day free trial too:
Dane Jasper
by virtualmike » Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:38 pm
"The Other Half of Network Neutrality - Content Neutrality" ... neutrality

Well said...
82 posts Page 8 of 9

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 999 on Mon May 10, 2021 1:02 am

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests