5 ms·

On the flipside, many have cut the cord because of the high cost of cable, partly due to the cost being inflated by being forced to have channels such as ESPN.

On the flipside, many have cut the cord because of the high cost of cable, partly due to the cost being inflated by being forced to have channels such as ESPN. Amazon purchasing the rights to sports increases the cost for those that do not care about sports.

cellularmitosis 10y ago
There's also an cost inflation problem for cord cutters as well. Having recently moved, I discovered that the slowest cable modem plan which Spectrum (formerly Time Warner) offers is now 100Mbit. It seems the days of $30/mo broadband are over...
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Yes, there's a major conflict of interest here. Entities like Comcast have incentive to impose bandwidth caps because then you'll be forced to acquire video content (by far the most bandwidth-hungry application) over your cable subscription to prevent fees.
- Neliquat 10y ago
  I would kill for anythin beyond the 5mb I can get where I live. Most of my neighbors still cant get high speed internet. I am less than an hour from one of the us's 10 biggest cities.
cookiecaper 10y ago
ESPN is currently quite the quagmire for Disney corporate. Surprisingly, it's the business unit that makes up the largest amount of Disney's revenue, around 30%. [1] The last several posted losses for Disney (including the one just reported this month) have been primarily due to decreasing subscriber counts for ESPN. ESPN royalties are ~$7 per subscriber; $7 of your monthly cable bill goes to Disney just for ESPN [2]. They are obviously collecting that from many people who are uninterested in sports, as most basic cable packages include ESPN (if not ESPN 2 and so forth). Cord cutting is the single biggest threat to Disney right now, and I'm sure this, a major signal that people are excited to consume their sports via the web and that ESPN is inching closer and closer to death, has them crapping their pants. When Amazon buys Disney World, will they replace Cinderella Castle with a giant cardboard box bearing the "Amazon Prime" tape? ;) [1 (PDF)] https://ditm-twdc-us.storage.googleapis.com/q1-fy17-earnings.pdf https://ditm-twdc-us.storage.googleapis.com/q1-fy17-earnings... [2] http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/espns-rising-cable-fee-is-now-up-to-over-7-per-subscriber-per-month.html http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/espns-rising-cable-fee-is-no...
- caseysoftware 10y ago
  Who needs a fairy godmother if you have Amazon Prime Now? ;) (only sorta kidding..)
- martinald 10y ago
  I'm actually surprised how cheap ESPN is. In the UK, adding the two main sports networks (Sky and BT) adds something like $70/month, maybe more, to your bill. It's definitely not included in "basic" packages but i bet millions of people still subscribe to both. It's pretty much the only reason people have payTV, and something like 60% of households do have payTV as a whole.
  - nikcub 10y ago
    You need five channels to get the equivalent of what BT and Sky provide with the Premier League, and you are absolutely bombarded with advertising. European football isn't really suitable to the same business model, so we have to pay for our sports.
- Gorbzel 10y ago
  I'm never one to resist change, but jumping to Bezos buying Walt's land seems a bit premature. Cord cutting may represent a move away from traditional coax cable packages...but actually delivering a non-trivial amount of revenue, subscribers, and staying power in an industry shouldn't be scoffed at. ESPN is in a pickle, but they remain the Worldwide Leader. Sports as an entertainment business is changing (quite a bit at the other end, where new and old media companies wage increasingly expensive wars over content acquisition as the pro sports leagues recognize they have TV deal leverage), but the company has some technical chops and understands scale and being on-site for events in the old world and new that the Valley (and Seattle) shouldn't assume they'll immediately be able to crack. tl;dr: Overpaying for Jim Nantz on Thursday night NFL "absolute poopfests" while running around shouting cord cutters overestimates tech's ability to take over traditional entertainment channels.
fpgaminer 10y ago
Oddly enough, TimeWarner (Spectrum) is giving me an overall discount on my bill ... in exchange for having TV service. What I mean is, my final bill for Internet+TV is _less_ than just Internet. I don't even watch TV. I threw the installation kit in a box and haven't ever set it up. Seemed to me they were doing it to inflate subscriber numbers.
- scarface74 10y ago
  If TW is anything like Comcast, the bill is only lower until you start adding fees. I have six TVs. 5 additional cable boxes would be $50. Plus the "HD Technology Fee" - $10. Plus the sports access, network access, and various other fees, we would pay about $80 a month just in fees. That's more than we pay for Netflix, Sling, CBS All Access and Hulu. We also have Amazon Prime.
  - ganoushoreilly 10y ago
    I'm with you but technically it's not apples to apples. With 5 TV set top boxes you can watch on 5 tv's different content. Each of the streaming services you listed have login limitations so to get 5x streams you are paying double to triple service fees.
    - syshum 10y ago
      The Streaming services charge by Concurrent streams Cable TV is fixed. I have 4 TV's in my home, only watch 1 at a time, rarely 2 may be one at any given time. So I would have to pay for a 2 concurrent stream account. With cable I would have to pay for 4 Boxes 24/7 just for the option of watching TV on them. I remember the days where you paid for Service to the home, not service per device. then the FCC gave the cable companies a special exemption to allow them to start Encrypting the signal that is when they started to screw people over on the Box fees. I cant wait for the day the Electric Company can charge be by the outlet, and then start charging me more based on the type of appliance I plug into said outlet
      - 10y ago

cellularmitosis 10y ago

There's also an cost inflation problem for cord cutters as well. Having recently moved, I discovered that the slowest cable modem plan which Spectrum (formerly Time Warner) offers is now 100Mbit. It seems the days of $30/mo broadband are over...

cookiecaper 10y ago
Yes, there's a major conflict of interest here. Entities like Comcast have incentive to impose bandwidth caps because then you'll be forced to acquire video content (by far the most bandwidth-hungry application) over your cable subscription to prevent fees.
Neliquat 10y ago
I would kill for anythin beyond the 5mb I can get where I live. Most of my neighbors still cant get high speed internet. I am less than an hour from one of the us's 10 biggest cities.

cookiecaper 10y ago

ESPN is currently quite the quagmire for Disney corporate. Surprisingly, it's the business unit that makes up the largest amount of Disney's revenue, around 30%. [1] The last several posted losses for Disney (including the one just reported this month) have been primarily due to decreasing subscriber counts for ESPN. ESPN royalties are ~$7 per subscriber; $7 of your monthly cable bill goes to Disney just for ESPN [2]. They are obviously collecting that from many people who are uninterested in sports, as most basic cable packages include ESPN (if not ESPN 2 and so forth). Cord cutting is the single biggest threat to Disney right now, and I'm sure this, a major signal that people are excited to consume their sports via the web and that ESPN is inching closer and closer to death, has them crapping their pants. When Amazon buys Disney World, will they replace Cinderella Castle with a giant cardboard box bearing the "Amazon Prime" tape? ;) [1 (PDF)] https://ditm-twdc-us.storage.googleapis.com/q1-fy17-earnings.pdf https://ditm-twdc-us.storage.googleapis.com/q1-fy17-earnings... [2] http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/espns-rising-cable-fee-is-now-up-to-over-7-per-subscriber-per-month.html http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/espns-rising-cable-fee-is-no...

caseysoftware 10y ago
Who needs a fairy godmother if you have Amazon Prime Now? ;) (only sorta kidding..)
martinald 10y ago
I'm actually surprised how cheap ESPN is. In the UK, adding the two main sports networks (Sky and BT) adds something like $70/month, maybe more, to your bill. It's definitely not included in "basic" packages but i bet millions of people still subscribe to both. It's pretty much the only reason people have payTV, and something like 60% of households do have payTV as a whole.
- nikcub 10y ago
  You need five channels to get the equivalent of what BT and Sky provide with the Premier League, and you are absolutely bombarded with advertising. European football isn't really suitable to the same business model, so we have to pay for our sports.
Gorbzel 10y ago
I'm never one to resist change, but jumping to Bezos buying Walt's land seems a bit premature. Cord cutting may represent a move away from traditional coax cable packages...but actually delivering a non-trivial amount of revenue, subscribers, and staying power in an industry shouldn't be scoffed at. ESPN is in a pickle, but they remain the Worldwide Leader. Sports as an entertainment business is changing (quite a bit at the other end, where new and old media companies wage increasingly expensive wars over content acquisition as the pro sports leagues recognize they have TV deal leverage), but the company has some technical chops and understands scale and being on-site for events in the old world and new that the Valley (and Seattle) shouldn't assume they'll immediately be able to crack. tl;dr: Overpaying for Jim Nantz on Thursday night NFL "absolute poopfests" while running around shouting cord cutters overestimates tech's ability to take over traditional entertainment channels.

fpgaminer 10y ago

Oddly enough, TimeWarner (Spectrum) is giving me an overall discount on my bill ... in exchange for having TV service. What I mean is, my final bill for Internet+TV is _less_ than just Internet. I don't even watch TV. I threw the installation kit in a box and haven't ever set it up. Seemed to me they were doing it to inflate subscriber numbers.

scarface74 10y ago
If TW is anything like Comcast, the bill is only lower until you start adding fees. I have six TVs. 5 additional cable boxes would be $50. Plus the "HD Technology Fee" - $10. Plus the sports access, network access, and various other fees, we would pay about $80 a month just in fees. That's more than we pay for Netflix, Sling, CBS All Access and Hulu. We also have Amazon Prime.
- ganoushoreilly 10y ago
  I'm with you but technically it's not apples to apples. With 5 TV set top boxes you can watch on 5 tv's different content. Each of the streaming services you listed have login limitations so to get 5x streams you are paying double to triple service fees.
  - syshum 10y ago
    The Streaming services charge by Concurrent streams Cable TV is fixed. I have 4 TV's in my home, only watch 1 at a time, rarely 2 may be one at any given time. So I would have to pay for a 2 concurrent stream account. With cable I would have to pay for 4 Boxes 24/7 just for the option of watching TV on them. I remember the days where you paid for Service to the home, not service per device. then the FCC gave the cable companies a special exemption to allow them to start Encrypting the signal that is when they started to screw people over on the Box fees. I cant wait for the day the Electric Company can charge be by the outlet, and then start charging me more based on the type of appliance I plug into said outlet
    - 10y ago