That 20 million viewers part confounds me. Where exactly did that number come from? It just seems to be "our best guess" kind of data. Second quarter ratings fo

That 20 million viewers part confounds me. Where exactly did that number come from? It just seems to be "our best guess" kind of data. Second quarter ratings for this year seem to average at 1.3 million nightly primetime viewers. You could say the number of uniques varies because people only watch the sports seasons they're interested in, but then they also assume that people would pay a monthly fee for ESPN during seasons they have no interest in. Never mind the fact their ratings have been dropping. Plus, ESPN makes revenue in more ways that just cable TV subscriptions. Does this data reflect that in some way? It mentions ad revenue for instance but I have to believe that ESPN has more than two channels of revenue. I can easily see ESPN expanding into areas outside of cable TV and I would say that they started this years ago. The article doesn't mention other avenues of viewing AMC content that's available today. Older seasons on Netflix and current seasons on Amazon. The article also doesn't explore the third option that I currently employ: not paying for either. I don't have cable TV, therefore ESPN gets none of my money and AMC gets a bit through Amazon/Netflix. I'm quite happy with that arrangement. Why is these type of articles always assume there's only two choices; bundling and a la carte of cable TV subscriptions? The cable TV subscription model isn't dead yet, but its future is limited and the cable companies know it.