SEC Network update: Cable providers balking at cost

[badger]

$1.30 per subscriber in their 11-state conference footprint, $0.25 outside.

Link (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/01/13/Media/SEC-net.aspx)

They have Dish Network and AT&T U-verse, but don't have Cox, Time Warner and Comcast.

So anyways, haha ESPN and SEC (even though I fully expect deadly shooting (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/12/02/deadly-shooting-over-alabama-loss-to-auburn/3819905/) and tree poisoning (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/11/13/Man-who-poisoned-Auburn-trees-to-pay-800000-in-restitution/UPI-24391384356516/) if the SEC fans don't get their games televised)

[BoulderSooner79]

$1.30 per subscriber in their 11-state conference footprint, $0.25 outside.

Link (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/01/13/Media/SEC-net.aspx)

They have Dish Network and AT&T U-verse, but don't have Cox, Time Warner and Comcast.

So anyways, haha ESPN and SEC (even though I fully expect deadly shooting (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/12/02/deadly-shooting-over-alabama-loss-to-auburn/3819905/) and tree poisoning (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/11/13/Man-who-poisoned-Auburn-trees-to-pay-800000-in-restitution/UPI-24391384356516/) if the SEC fans don't get their games televised)

I would expect stronger action such as tipping them into SECession. Then they could televise all the games on state run TV and have their own national championship (which they believe is the SEC CCG anyway).

[KantoSooner]

I'm not an expert, but are those prices really out of line? I had thought that History Channel, etc went for somewhere between $0.50 and $1, so these prices don't seem too terrible.

[badger]

I'm not an expert, but are those prices really out of line? I had thought that History Channel, etc went for somewhere between $0.50 and $1, so these prices don't seem too terrible.

Compared to other sports conference networks like Big Ten and Pac 12 networks, yes. Compared to other ESPN channels, no.

[KantoSooner]

Ah, got it.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

What is LHN going for? Ha!

[badger]

What is LHN going for? Ha!

Since you asked... (http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/numbers/) (all numbers per subscriber)

ESPN: $5.54
ESPN2: $0.68
Longhorn Network (at its launch): $0.40
ESPNU: $0.18

By comparison, Pac 12 is $0.80 per, while Big Ten (on average) is $0.36 per. I am quite confident the costs are higher in-conference states than outside for Big Ten.

[picasso]

Mint Juleps and Coon huntin'.

[jkjsooner]

I'm really sick of being forced to pay for channels I don't want. That is especially true when it means paying for channels I fundamentally disagree with like the LHN and SEC Network.

It's time we have ala carte TV.

[cvsooner]

We have a la carte TV. It's called an antenna.

[cvsooner]

Actually, I think 25 cents is about what's it worth, not that I would subscribe anyway. I figured they'd probably go for something like $10.00, since it's the SEC-SEC-SEC and all better than everything else. You figure it'd be worth that to them to see, say, Tennessee play Kentucky.

[rock on sooner]

I see they have Dish but no Direct TV so that's good, since I have Direct.
Even if they did have Direct I'd put it on ignore 'cept if the Sooners are there.

I was in Target today in the cold beer section. A vendor was working the
wine area and saw my Sooner sweat and said "sure glad you guys beat Bama
in the Sugar Bowl." Said," me, too. Bama fans are still in shock!" Got a big
grin back!

[yermom]

I'm really sick of being forced to pay for channels I don't want. That is especially true when it means paying for channels I fundamentally disagree with like the LHN and SEC Network.

It's time we have ala carte TV.

the socialist in me understands it. the ESPNs pay for the IFCs and Discovery Channels of the world

on the other hand, let me pay $5 a month for ESPN Online...

i'm not really sure what i would be willing to pay for just live sports, since that's all i really miss from not having cable/DVR, but it's not worth having full cable to me anymore

[oupride]

Texas sucks.

[mainline13]

I'm not an expert, but are those prices really out of line? I had thought that History Channel, etc went for somewhere between $0.50 and $1, so these prices don't seem too terrible.

Before the Sugar Bowl, those prices weren't too bad. After we exposed the mighty SEC, those prices are too high.

I believe I will continue to think of the situation this way, 'cause it makes me smile. :smile:

[Soonerjeepman]

I haven't had cable for over 3 years....it sucks. Yes there are some things on reg tv but I've missed a lot of games...

If I could just pay for sports, reg tv, and a few channels...history, military...etc I'd be happy

[jkjsooner]

I haven't had cable for over 3 years....it sucks. Yes there are some things on reg tv but I've missed a lot of games...

If I could just pay for sports, reg tv, and a few channels...history, military...etc I'd be happy

Do you watch video via online streaming services? Do you use a cable company as your broadband supplier? If yes then you better be concerned about the recent net neutrality ruling.

They say they won't but I don't believe Comcast, Time Warner, or even Verizon won't at some point block or slow down Hulu, Netflix, etc.

By the way, I misread the post I responded to. I thought it was that the cable companies suck and that you are for the most part better without them. On second reading I see you said it sucks not having the games, etc.

[ouflak]

They say they won't but I don't believe Comcast, Time Warner, or even Verizon won't at some point block or slow down Hulu, Netflix, etc.

Ofcourse they will. They'd be crazy not to. Heck, as much as I despise the cable companies for doing it, if I were them in their position I'd do it. Simple business logic really. That's the competition. Kill the competition.

It seems the government will protect this anti-competitive behavior for the time being. But I'm not sure how long they can hold off this tsunami of change. Eventually cable companies 'forcing' people onto bloated TV viewing packages by means of killing their internet access to the same programs will just resonate too unsoundly with anti-trust laws, and it will all come tumbling down. Until then, many will suffer. So be it.

[Soonerjeepman]

Do you watch video via online streaming services? Do you use a cable company as your broadband supplier? If yes then you better be concerned about the recent net neutrality ruling.

They say they won't but I don't believe Comcast, Time Warner, or even Verizon won't at some point block or slow down Hulu, Netflix, etc.

By the way, I misread the post I responded to. I thought it was that the cable companies suck and that you are for the most part better without them. On second reading I see you said it sucks not having the games, etc.

lol..yes it does...no worries. No I don't catch games on net. I just go watch games at GF's house, but with my kids, her kids, work, dog...and she's 30 min away...some nights it'd be nice to just sit home and watch. I tap into my neighbor's wifi and pay him a few bucks every now and then. I am pulling myself out of a divorce so here in about 6 months the ch support stops and the ex will be paying half of the 18 yr olds health insurance instead of me paying for it all. Then in another 3 yrs no more alimony!!!!

I'm planning on DISH or Direct here in the next month...but might just wait til next fall...summer don't watch much.

[8timechamps]

What's to stop a "start up" company offering online only cable access? Seems like that would be a worthwhile (albeit expensive) venture.

So many people would gladly go that route. It's only a matter of time anyway.

As it is now, I can watch a large amount of channels online (through Comcast), and it seems like there are more being added everyday.

Also, what's to keep ESPN from offering things like the LHN/SECN ala cart online?

[ouflak]

What's to stop a "start up" company offering online only cable access?

Nothing. But it is likely a cable company owns the ISP and/or actual physical lines on which their data is sent. All the ISP has to do is turn down or off that "start up's" bandwidth and... *poof*... no more start-up offering cable access. That was the point of the net neutrality legislation. It basically forbid any of the ISP's from doing just that.


Also, what's to keep ESPN from offering things like the LHN/SECN ala cart online?

Nothing really. But the whole point of networks such as the B1G network, LHN, PAC network, etc... is that they are forced onto the most basic cable package. This way, the people who are customers of any package the cable company provides are paying for that network. Whether they want it or not, even if they never watch it or know it exists, they pay for that sports network. That's guaranteed income and lots of it. The online stuff if pure subscription. You can't force that on anybody.

[Boomer.....]

I would also love a la carte tv subscriptions, but I don't see it working. The prices per channel would be much higher than they are today since people could pick and chose. They would gouge you on the channels that most people watch.

[UteSooner]

Has anyone read any projections for how much this network will profit each team within the SEC (this isn't rhetorical...has there been talk of this)?

Also, if the Big 10, Pac 12, and SEC really start to make the big bucks with their networks (say the SEC and Pac networks get their desired distribution), how much longer before the Big 12 blows up again over 3rd tier rights?

[8timechamps]

Nothing. But it is likely a cable company owns the ISP and/or actual physical lines on which their data is sent. All the ISP has to do is turn down or off that "start up's" bandwidth and... *poof*... no more start-up offering cable access. That was the point of the net neutrality legislation. It basically forbid any of the ISP's from doing just that.



Nothing really. But the whole point of networks such as the B1G network, LHN, PAC network, etc... is that they are forced onto the most basic cable package. This way, the people who are customers of any package the cable company provides are paying for that network. Whether they want it or not, even if they never watch it or know it exists, they pay for that sports network. That's guaranteed income and lots of it. The online stuff if pure subscription. You can't force that on anybody.

Interesting. I saw yesterday that there was a ruling against Netflix (something to do with the massive amount of bandwidth they use and how the ISPs could charge them now), I would think that something like that could be a gamechanger. I'll admit, I haven't stayed up on the net neutrality stuff, but I have this place to keep me "educated".

[8timechamps]

Has anyone read any projections for how much this network will profit each team within the SEC (this isn't rhetorical...has there been talk of this)?

Also, if the Big 10, Pac 12, and SEC really start to make the big bucks with their networks (say the SEC and Pac networks get their desired distribution), how much longer before the Big 12 blows up again over 3rd tier rights?

I haven't head any estimations, but I suspect it's going to be big.

Good question (about the tier 3 thing), I don't know how the LHN plays into that, but I think it has some impact. Ultimately, a conference network is probably better for everyone (unless you have your own deal with ESPN). I just don't know, now that the LHN isn't the runaway success they thought it would be, the conference can agree on something that benefits everyone. Then again, OU has invested a lot into SoonerSports TV, so I don't know if that would even make sense at this point.

[aurorasooner]

I would also love a la carte tv subscriptions, but I don't see it working. The prices per channel would be much higher than they are today since people could pick and chose. They would gouge you on the channels that most people watch. As long as the cable/sat providers keep the price around 10 buck/Mos, then I'll probably keep the sports tier.
? though. Outside of Big 12 football, wth good is Fox and all their channels? We have, I think, 5 (including the sports tier). Big Fox, FS-1, and the 3 Sports Tier Channels, FS Pacific, Midwest, and Atlantic. I haven't seen didly on their network ever since FB season ended, and their programming on FS-1 is pathetic. I can't believe they launched a FS-2 (which we don't get). With the lame programming on FS-1, I can't imagine what the programming is like on FS-2, although it couldn't be any worse than FS-1.
Not only that, none of the major sports channels sub-channels on the sport's tier ever replay any CFB games unless it's in FB season (mid-August thru Mid-January). Which seems kind of strange, because I'd sure as he!! rather watch the replay of a good CFB game than some lame replay of a Big East, WAC, or SEC basketball game.
If we had a la carte programming, I could eliminate about 2/3 of the sport's channels and be happy, especially from the middle of January to Mid-August.
As far as the SEC network goes, I could take it or leave it. I seldom watch the PAC-12 network anymore (and we've got 2 channels of that network (and they mostly simulcast the same programming) and honestly didn't watch much of it during FB season unless there was the replay of a close game and there was nothing else on.

[King Barry's Back]

I haven't head any estimations, but I suspect it's going to be big.

Good question (about the tier 3 thing), I don't know how the LHN plays into that, but I think it has some impact. Ultimately, a conference network is probably better for everyone (unless you have your own deal with ESPN). I just don't know, now that the LHN isn't the runaway success they thought it would be, the conference can agree on something that benefits everyone. Then again, OU has invested a lot into SoonerSports TV, so I don't know if that would even make sense at this point.

That's what makes me mad about LHN. a conference network is a great idea. It's natural footprint covers many states/cities, lots of schools, lots of fan bases.

There are many events to cover, and there's mountains of historical programming. A Big XII Network marathon could show an OU-Neb game from the 70s, a great Tex-A&M matchup from the 80s, a Baylor-Houston game (or whatever) to decide the Cotton Bowl back in 60s, and OSU's Fiesta Bowl win. That's interesting.

And multiply it by all the sports.

An LHN is tex doing this, tex doing that, tex did this, tex did that. Who but a Texas fan could ever be interested in that? And honestly, I am a pretty obsessed Sooner fan, but how many times can you watch the same old games over and over?

I think a Big XII Network could have been great. It would have locked up the Great Plains, WVU would have given it an East Coast appeal, and Tex would still have called most of the shots. I just can't believe Tex killed that to feed their own egos.

[ouflak]

...a la carte tv subscriptions.... The prices per channel would be much higher than they are today since people could pick and chose. They would gouge you on the channels that most people watch.

I wouldn't mind this at all. Even the higher prices. It's all simple supply and demand. If they can charge it, and stay in business then good for them. If I'm willing to pay for it, and I think I'm getting my money's worth, then good for me. If I can't afford it, too bad. If most fans can't afford it, those companies go out of business or find a way to provide the same entertainment for less and stay in business.

Right now the economics are artificially skewed. Many of us are paying for hundreds of channels outside of the normal supply/demand curve, that is channels that I wouldn't even pay one penny for to watch ever. This is done under the guise of subsidy and the excuse that these garba... er... ummm... 'extra' channels help keep prices of the premium channels lower. I'm paying an awfully big satellite bill just to basically watch sports (and that's really only college sports and tennis), documentary channels and the occasional movie (maybe once a week?). I'd be really interested in seeing how those perhaps twenty channels, and I'm being very generous there, could come to $160 a month... and rising... as I type this....

If the net neutrality laws go by the wayside, that will basically be the government saying that it will allow artificial manipulation of the economics of entertainment broadcasting for atleast the time being. That's not forever. And indeed historically the government has eventually stepped in and broken this sort of thing up in a variety of industries. It is almost inevitable that they will here as well, especially since it is becoming obvious that more and more people are simply willing to do without paying anything rather than paying so much for so much that they don't use or want, a trend that in the long run, will hurt everybody.

[jkjsooner]

I would also love a la carte tv subscriptions, but I don't see it working. The prices per channel would be much higher than they are today since people could pick and chose. They would gouge you on the channels that most people watch.

Of course the cost per channel would be higher and for some the total cost might be more.

Cost will be determined less on popularity as viewers are not competing for a limited commodity. The more viewers the more money the network will make. The cost will be decided by how much the viewer is willing to pay not how many of them there are.

[Wishboned]

Also, what's to keep ESPN from offering things like the LHN/SECN ala cart online?

I would say nothing, and it would probably be a smart move.

The WWE recently announced that they will have a streaming network online. For $9.99 a month you get access to their video on demand library. Encores of their broadcast shows. Original programming. And access to all 12 of their yearly pay per view events at no extra charge.

[jkjsooner]

Interesting. I saw yesterday that there was a ruling against Netflix (something to do with the massive amount of bandwidth they use and how the ISPs could charge them now), I would think that something like that could be a gamechanger. I'll admit, I haven't stayed up on the net neutrality stuff, but I have this place to keep me "educated".

First off , the ISP only provides a tiny fraction of the transmission lines that are used. People refer to it as the "last mile" but I'm not sure how the local networks are set up. In either case the way to control bandwidth is to charge the end user for his use. Web sites pay for their portion on the other end. I pay Time Warner to be a pipe to the Internet. I don't want to pay them to provide content. It's none of their business what passes throughout their pipes. Charge me if I use too many bytes...