4 ms·

I noticed no ESPN. This might have helped get the price down. Good riddance.

reaperducer 8y ago
The problem with ESPN is three-fold. First, ESPN is expensive. I read in a trade magazine not too long ago that it's the most expensive cable channel for providers to carry. Second, it is very hard for television providers to carry ESPN without also carrying a massive bundle of other marginally-popular ESPN channels that few people want. This is because some cable channels base their advertising rates on the number of subscribers, not the number of people watching a program. Though sometimes it's a combination. Third, (and this is really the suck) if a television provider provides local TV channels that are owned by a company that also owns cable channels (Disney, Kabletown, Cox, etc...) then usually they aren't allowed to carry the local OTA channel without also carrying a bunch of cable channels the provider doesn't want. For example, if a local cable company wants to carry KTRK for its subscribers in Houston, Disney requires it to also take ESPN and DisneyXd and a bunch of other unrelated channels, which the local cable company has to then pass the price of on to its subscribers. AT&T not providing sports or local channels with its new plan keeps the price way way down.
- rhizome 8y ago
  it is very hard for television providers to carry ESPN without also carrying a massive bundle of other marginally-popular ESPN channels that few people want. This is because some cable channels base their advertising rates on the number of subscribers, not the number of people watching a program The reason you get all the ESPN "Ocho" channels is because ESPN requires cable companies to carry them in order to offer ESPN at all. Cable companies pay ESPN for the privilege.[1] 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/bidding-war-between-networks-sports-leagues-will-increase-price-of-cable-tv/2015/01/23/d0cb19f4-9db8-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/bidding-war-...
rconti 8y ago
yeah, this is probably why it compares so favorably with YouTube TV which I'm using for my first month for $40. I did the trial just to play with it; accidentally let it run over by a day but I'll keep it for FS1 during the world cup.

The problem with ESPN is three-fold. First, ESPN is expensive. I read in a trade magazine not too long ago that it's the most expensive cable channel for providers to carry. Second, it is very hard for television providers to carry ESPN without also carrying a massive bundle of other marginally-popular ESPN channels that few people want. This is because some cable channels base their advertising rates on the number of subscribers, not the number of people watching a program. Though sometimes it's a combination. Third, (and this is really the suck) if a television provider provides local TV channels that are owned by a company that also owns cable channels (Disney, Kabletown, Cox, etc...) then usually they aren't allowed to carry the local OTA channel without also carrying a bunch of cable channels the provider doesn't want. For example, if a local cable company wants to carry KTRK for its subscribers in Houston, Disney requires it to also take ESPN and DisneyXd and a bunch of other unrelated channels, which the local cable company has to then pass the price of on to its subscribers. AT&T not providing sports or local channels with its new plan keeps the price way way down.

rhizome 8y ago
it is very hard for television providers to carry ESPN without also carrying a massive bundle of other marginally-popular ESPN channels that few people want. This is because some cable channels base their advertising rates on the number of subscribers, not the number of people watching a program The reason you get all the ESPN "Ocho" channels is because ESPN requires cable companies to carry them in order to offer ESPN at all. Cable companies pay ESPN for the privilege.[1] 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/bidding-war-between-networks-sports-leagues-will-increase-price-of-cable-tv/2015/01/23/d0cb19f4-9db8-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/bidding-war-...

rconti 8y ago

yeah, this is probably why it compares so favorably with YouTube TV which I'm using for my first month for $40. I did the trial just to play with it; accidentally let it run over by a day but I'll keep it for FS1 during the world cup.