https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/tv-bu...40646.html

Shooting for a $10-20 month price point. Interesting show of power by ESPN, Fox and others though. Apparently many channels will boycott the bundle, even if they themselves don't have sports, because they are related to OTA and cable channels that do have sports and don't want to give any help to this effort. Sounds like the bundle would be limited to Viacom (MTV, Nick etc), AMC, Discovery and Turner (which obviously does have sports on TNT and TBS).

Sling also starts at $20 and includes ESPN. I think this will be a tough sell.

(05-22-2017 12:05 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Sling also starts at $20 and includes ESPN. I think this will be a tough sell.

I agree. They're going to have to get this down closer to $10.

This would probably appeal to a lot of people. I suspect there is a large population of single women who could care less about having any sports networks.

(05-22-2017 11:52 AM)orangefan Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/tv-bu...40646.html

Shooting for a $10-20 month price point. Interesting show of power by ESPN, Fox and others though. Apparently many channels will boycott the bundle, even if they themselves don't have sports, because they are related to OTA and cable channels that do have sports and don't want to give any help to this effort. Sounds like the bundle would be limited to Viacom (MTV, Nick etc), AMC, Discovery and Turner (which obviously does have sports on TNT and TBS).

Sports is the only reason to have some of these "bundles".

If Viacom was really thinking forward and outside the box, they'd offer an à la carte package where people could choose their OWN programming for a monthly fee.

For example, I could give a crap about the NBA or golf but I get those channels. On the other hand, I'd love to have the NFL and NHL channels but they aren't available unless I "upgrade" to the next highest package.

Sorry Viacom, but if I want crap channels, there are plenty of those available for free over the air.

(05-22-2017 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  This would probably appeal to a lot of people. I suspect there is a large population of single women who could care less about having any sports networks.

True, but the whole paradox is that sports are the whole reason why any type of bundling works. What isn't stated in the OP article but has been noted in other news articles over the past few weeks (and why their stock is getting particularly hammered lately) is that Viacom has actually been the *weakest* out of the major cable network companies in terms of getting onto the streaming and skinny bundles. The fact that they don't have sports networks to provide leverage makes them much less attractive to streaming providers, so Viacom channels are getting included in skinny bundles and streaming options at much lower rates compared to Disney, Comcast and Fox networks. This is why Viacom is attempting to strike out on their own with a different streaming service. The fact of the matter is that the people that would be most attracted to non-sports streaming are typically satisfied with a combo of Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu and/or HBO Now. There's almost nothing live on the non-sports channels besides maybe news programming that isn't just as or even more attractive as on-demand streaming options. As a result, non-sports fans don't need any bundles at all (whether fat or skinny). so the value proposition of a skinny bundle without sports is almost entirely lost on that group.

As much as people are looking at subscriber losses at ESPN and other sports networks right now, the fact of the matter is that such sports networks are the most likely channels to survive going forward. Virtually everything else is either commoditized (such as the news) or more attractive as on-demand offerings (scripted programs).

If I want to own a small local cable company. I would do a slim down version. No more Spanish Channels being forced upon people. BET and other African American channels would be limited since most of those channels only shows feature people from the big cities, and not the country life African Americans. No more SEC Network, Big Ten, PAC 12, NFL, NHL, Tennis, Soccer, Golf, NBA, Longhorn and ACC Networks. I treat these as Premium channels like HBO.
I would throw all the other ESPN, FSN, CBS Sports, NBC Sports and some of the cheaper sports channels like MAV TV as basic.
Get rid of the many Religious channels since he are over run with them on the basic. One or 2 would be just fine.
Get rid of the Home Shopping channels. We have way too many of them.

Netflix, Prime and HBO Now don't work for me. Their inventory continues to drop as they devote more resources to self-produced shows. Very few of which appeal to me. I'm a SciFi fan and none of them have anything close to a decent inventory. When I looked at Hulu it was reruns of last weeks broadcast shows. I would pay something for a slim bundle that excluded sports. How much depends on the actual package.

I recently switched from TWC/Spectrum to ATT U-verse. ATT claims they distribute only the channels you are actually watching. Cable distributes all 200+ channels then uses your set-top box to tune to a specific channel. In addition to not wasting bandwidth, I'm hoping this will lead to a pay-per-view scenario where I get a bill at the end of the month that says you owe for 30 hours of ESPN, 12 hours of SyFy, etc. I'm not holding my breath though.

(05-22-2017 01:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  This would probably appeal to a lot of people. I suspect there is a large population of single women who could care less about having any sports networks.

True, but the whole paradox is that sports are the whole reason why any type of bundling works. What isn't stated in the OP article but has been noted in other news articles over the past few weeks (and why their stock is getting particularly hammered lately) is that Viacom has actually been the *weakest* out of the major cable network companies in terms of getting onto the streaming and skinny bundles. The fact that they don't have sports networks to provide leverage makes them much less attractive to streaming providers, so Viacom channels are getting included in skinny bundles and streaming options at much lower rates compared to Disney, Comcast and Fox networks. This is why Viacom is attempting to strike out on their own with a different streaming service. The fact of the matter is that the people that would be most attracted to non-sports streaming are typically satisfied with a combo of Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu and/or HBO Now. There's almost nothing live on the non-sports channels besides maybe news programming that isn't just as or even more attractive as on-demand streaming options. As a result, non-sports fans don't need any bundles at all (whether fat or skinny). so the value proposition of a skinny bundle without sports is almost entirely lost on that group.

As much as people are looking at subscriber losses at ESPN and other sports networks right now, the fact of the matter is that such sports networks are the most likely channels to survive going forward. Virtually everything else is either commoditized (such as the news) or more attractive as on-demand offerings (scripted programs).

The truth is the biggest problem with cable is its current inability (or unwillingness) to battle with streaming competitors on the basis of price. At some point, they will have to pivot to al a carte plans or skinny bundles, one of which will likely be a no-sports option (as the sports channels are among the most expensive).

Technically, for $10 a month, I get all my locals via Spectrum Internet which I can stream through ROKU. Of course the charge $40 more for just internet, so it they throw i in and I get the cheaper rate. Unless you can cut the internet cord and go over wifi, these deals exist today. In addition, I think there was a law passed to create the apps on streaming devices so you don't have to rent a box from them. Maybe someone will have the link. I can say I have been extremly please with PSVUE, only thing I can't get is CBSSPORTS and there is rarely a game on that cable channel I want to see.

(05-22-2017 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 01:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  This would probably appeal to a lot of people. I suspect there is a large population of single women who could care less about having any sports networks.

True, but the whole paradox is that sports are the whole reason why any type of bundling works. What isn't stated in the OP article but has been noted in other news articles over the past few weeks (and why their stock is getting particularly hammered lately) is that Viacom has actually been the *weakest* out of the major cable network companies in terms of getting onto the streaming and skinny bundles. The fact that they don't have sports networks to provide leverage makes them much less attractive to streaming providers, so Viacom channels are getting included in skinny bundles and streaming options at much lower rates compared to Disney, Comcast and Fox networks. This is why Viacom is attempting to strike out on their own with a different streaming service. The fact of the matter is that the people that would be most attracted to non-sports streaming are typically satisfied with a combo of Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu and/or HBO Now. There's almost nothing live on the non-sports channels besides maybe news programming that isn't just as or even more attractive as on-demand streaming options. As a result, non-sports fans don't need any bundles at all (whether fat or skinny). so the value proposition of a skinny bundle without sports is almost entirely lost on that group.

As much as people are looking at subscriber losses at ESPN and other sports networks right now, the fact of the matter is that such sports networks are the most likely channels to survive going forward. Virtually everything else is either commoditized (such as the news) or more attractive as on-demand offerings (scripted programs).

The truth is the biggest problem with cable is its current inability (or unwillingness) to battle with streaming competitors on the basis of price. At some point, they will have to pivot to al a carte plans or skinny bundles, one of which will likely be a no-sports option (as the sports channels are among the most expensive).

One strategy cable is using to battle the skinny bundles seems to be to raise the price of the lowest tier of broadband and then offer a bundled price with TV that places the combined package at a competitive price with skinny bundles. I'm in the former Time Warner Cable area that has converted to Charter. They're lowest priced broadband package is $65/mo (with a $50 per month one year introductory price). For a $90 introductory price they give you standard cable and phone with the same broadband. Fortunately, I'm grandfathered on a broadband plan they don't offer any more, but who knows how long that will last.

(05-22-2017 11:52 AM)orangefan Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/tv-bu...40646.html

Shooting for a $10-20 month price point. Interesting show of power by ESPN, Fox and others though. Apparently many channels will boycott the bundle, even if they themselves don't have sports, because they are related to OTA and cable channels that do have sports and don't want to give any help to this effort. Sounds like the bundle would be limited to Viacom (MTV, Nick etc), AMC, Discovery and Turner (which obviously does have sports on TNT and TBS).

They aren't going to boycott because 80% of viewing household don't watch sports. Verizon already won that battle vs ESPN where they have a base without ESPN and other sports channels.
I'll take a look at it for $10 to $20 a month.

This is VERY bad news for the media 'winners'. I'm looking to ditch my undesired subsidy of the P5, the NFL, MLB, and the NHL. Heck the NFL"s entire business model is make people who don't care about their team, pay them hundreds of dollars a year to get any programming.

Its going to end soon.

All of the existing cable companies have been getting crushed recently. Except Comcast, because they've been lowering their price. But they can't compete with 10 or 20 bucks a month.

(05-22-2017 03:18 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 11:52 AM)orangefan Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/tv-bu...40646.html

Shooting for a $10-20 month price point. Interesting show of power by ESPN, Fox and others though. Apparently many channels will boycott the bundle, even if they themselves don't have sports, because they are related to OTA and cable channels that do have sports and don't want to give any help to this effort. Sounds like the bundle would be limited to Viacom (MTV, Nick etc), AMC, Discovery and Turner (which obviously does have sports on TNT and TBS).

They aren't going to boycott because 80% of viewing household don't watch sports. Verizon already won that battle vs ESPN where they have a base without ESPN and other sports channels.
I'll take a look at it for $10 to $20 a month.

The boycotters will be Disney, Fox and Comcast channels like Disney Channel, Fox News, FX, USA, ABC, Big Fox and NBC. The intent will be to undermine the attractiveness of the non-sports bundle. Disney may even be able to swing keeping A&E, History and Lifetime off these bundles, since they own 50% of A&E Networks. (The other 50% is owned by Hearst, who also owns 20% of ESPN).

(05-22-2017 03:30 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 03:18 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 11:52 AM)orangefan Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/tv-bu...40646.html

Shooting for a $10-20 month price point. Interesting show of power by ESPN, Fox and others though. Apparently many channels will boycott the bundle, even if they themselves don't have sports, because they are related to OTA and cable channels that do have sports and don't want to give any help to this effort. Sounds like the bundle would be limited to Viacom (MTV, Nick etc), AMC, Discovery and Turner (which obviously does have sports on TNT and TBS).

They aren't going to boycott because 80% of viewing household don't watch sports. Verizon already won that battle vs ESPN where they have a base without ESPN and other sports channels.
I'll take a look at it for $10 to $20 a month.

The boycotters will be Disney, Fox and Comcast channels like Disney Channel, Fox News, FX, USA, ABC, Big Fox and NBC. The intent will be to undermine the attractiveness of the non-sports bundle. Disney may even be able to swing keeping A&E, History and Lifetime off these bundles, since they own 50% of A&E Networks. (The other 50% is owned by Hearst, who also owns 20% of ESPN).

The local channels are different and separate from the cable companies. The affiliates of ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and so forth would not do this because they are not part of the cable companies.
ABC and Disney are already under boycott from housewives and others who are still upset about canceling the daytime soaps and that ABC primetime soap Desperate Housewives.
ABC started to tank in both daytime and primetime and Disney was loosing money. Advertisers pulled the plug from ABC who had ads on during All My Children and One Life To Live.
Just last year, it was leaked that Disney wanted to pull the plug on General Hospital, and more hell broke loose. It seems they might have to reverse the damage and bring back the other 2 soaps since everything else they replaced them with failed. The Chew is failing, and is getting less viewers than All My Children.

The problem is the cable companies are killing themselves by shooting themselves in the foot, and not look at what is popular and what is not. They did not take into account that working housewives used Tivo.

(05-22-2017 02:52 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Netflix, Prime and HBO Now don't work for me. Their inventory continues to drop as they devote more resources to self-produced shows. Very few of which appeal to me. I'm a SciFi fan and none of them have anything close to a decent inventory. When I looked at Hulu it was reruns of last weeks broadcast shows. I would pay something for a slim bundle that excluded sports. How much depends on the actual package.

I recently switched from TWC/Spectrum to ATT U-verse. ATT claims they distribute only the channels you are actually watching. Cable distributes all 200+ channels then uses your set-top box to tune to a specific channel. In addition to not wasting bandwidth, I'm hoping this will lead to a pay-per-view scenario where I get a bill at the end of the month that says you owe for 30 hours of ESPN, 12 hours of SyFy, etc. I'm not holding my breath though.

Um HBO has the best self produced shows. They also usually get the best movies through streaming. Netflix is a shell of itself I get the DVD's in the mail because thats a better selection than streaming and Prime is a joke.

Most of the popular cable channels are owned by one of the Big 4 networks who all have their own sports channels they want to prop up.

Viacom, Discovery and AMC networks are the biggest three that would could legit put together a skinny bundle with no sports pushback. Turner networks are up there in expense because although they don't have a sports channel, sports are integrated into their cable networks making them some of the pricer selections.

I just don't see the content providers allowing a skinny bundle without sports. Sling is probably the best you can get.

Does anybody offer a skinny bundle that only includes sports? If they did, how much would it likely cost?

(05-22-2017 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  This would probably appeal to a lot of people. I suspect there is a large population of single women who could care less about having any sports networks.

Until they hit 35 and start to panic, yes.

(05-23-2017 01:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  Does anybody offer a skinny bundle that only includes sports? If they did, how much would it likely cost?

Playstation Vue's Core Slim package is not exclusively sports, but it has virtually everything: ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, SECN, BTN, FS1, FS2, NFL Network, MLBN, NBA TV, NBCSN, Golf Channel, TBS, TNT, BEIN, plus most RSNs and some local channels. Apparently it also provides password access for ACC Network Extra and ESPN3 through the WatchESPN app.

It's $35/month in my area. I believe it costs $5 more in areas where it has all the major locals. The only arguably notable omissions are P12 Network, NHL Network, Tennis Channel and CBSSN.

https://www.playstation.com/en-us/network/vue/channels/