(09-14-2017 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 08:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 06:39 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  I cut the cord in August. I still have local channels because the bundled price for them and internet was lower than just internet. Now using Sling and I have no complaints.

Here's the thing: I don't consider using Sling (or similar streaming bundles) to be cutting the cord. You're still paying for a bundle of channels that can't be altered in the same manner as cable, but the delivery mechanism is different. Others that pointed out that people subscribing to those bundles shouldn't really be counted in these cord cutting figures because cable channels are still getting the same subscriber fees. Essentially, if you're getting ESPN (whether via cable or streaming), which is effectively the litmus test since ESPN is the most hardcore of them all about insisting on being in basic cable packages, you're not really cutting the cord.

I'd say if you use Sling to buy a slimmed-down package, you are cutting "a" cord, meaning whatever channels you used to get on cable that you aren't getting on Sling, but if you are still getting ESPN, you haven't cut that cord, and that's the cord we are concerned with around here.

The term usually used for that is 'Cord-Shaver'. However, even though ESPN is getting carriage fees with the TV streaming companies, I think they don't get same amount as from the cable companies.
If they are then half of you Sling TV bill is ESPN....I don't think the quite get the normal amount from them.....yet.

(09-14-2017 10:35 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 08:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 06:39 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  I cut the cord in August. I still have local channels because the bundled price for them and internet was lower than just internet. Now using Sling and I have no complaints.

Here's the thing: I don't consider using Sling (or similar streaming bundles) to be cutting the cord. You're still paying for a bundle of channels that can't be altered in the same manner as cable, but the delivery mechanism is different. Others that pointed out that people subscribing to those bundles shouldn't really be counted in these cord cutting figures because cable channels are still getting the same subscriber fees. Essentially, if you're getting ESPN (whether via cable or streaming), which is effectively the litmus test since ESPN is the most hardcore of them all about insisting on being in basic cable packages, you're not really cutting the cord.

I'd say if you use Sling to buy a slimmed-down package, you are cutting "a" cord, meaning whatever channels you used to get on cable that you aren't getting on Sling, but if you are still getting ESPN, you haven't cut that cord, and that's the cord we are concerned with around here.

The term usually used for that is 'Cord-Shaver'. However, even though ESPN is getting carriage fees with the TV streaming companies, I think they don't get same amount as from the cable companies.
If they are then half of you Sling TV bill is ESPN....I don't think the quite get the normal amount from them.....yet.

This article says ESPN charges the same for Sling. Half of your bill is ESPN. Makes sense, why would ESPN offer a way for people to get their product for less?

http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2015/01/

(09-14-2017 02:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 10:35 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 08:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 06:39 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  I cut the cord in August. I still have local channels because the bundled price for them and internet was lower than just internet. Now using Sling and I have no complaints.

Here's the thing: I don't consider using Sling (or similar streaming bundles) to be cutting the cord. You're still paying for a bundle of channels that can't be altered in the same manner as cable, but the delivery mechanism is different. Others that pointed out that people subscribing to those bundles shouldn't really be counted in these cord cutting figures because cable channels are still getting the same subscriber fees. Essentially, if you're getting ESPN (whether via cable or streaming), which is effectively the litmus test since ESPN is the most hardcore of them all about insisting on being in basic cable packages, you're not really cutting the cord.

I'd say if you use Sling to buy a slimmed-down package, you are cutting "a" cord, meaning whatever channels you used to get on cable that you aren't getting on Sling, but if you are still getting ESPN, you haven't cut that cord, and that's the cord we are concerned with around here.

The term usually used for that is 'Cord-Shaver'. However, even though ESPN is getting carriage fees with the TV streaming companies, I think they don't get same amount as from the cable companies.
If they are then half of you Sling TV bill is ESPN....I don't think the quite get the normal amount from them.....yet.

This article says ESPN charges the same for Sling. Half of your bill is ESPN. Makes sense, why would ESPN offer a way for people to get their product for less?

http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2015/01/

Wow! Didn't think it would be with the $20 cost and that TV streaming still in its infancy. Have to wonder if many of the Sling customers know that almost half of the cost is just ESPN.

Sling and this bundled outfits are only different from cable and satellite in who pays for the delivery infrastructure to your home.

I have "officially" a 1T cap on my internet from ATT. My wife has health problems and watches a butt load of Netflix while I'm at work, son is living with us while he goes back to school and I watch at least one sports event online a week and we push to about 700G a month. We will pop over 1T if I'm off a few days and we watch more online than normal. 4K programming really eats it up.

(09-14-2017 08:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 06:39 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  I cut the cord in August. I still have local channels because the bundled price for them and internet was lower than just internet. Now using Sling and I have no complaints.

Here's the thing: I don't consider using Sling (or similar streaming bundles) to be cutting the cord.

But that is all that "cutting the cord" refers to ... not subscribing to your content and your content delivery infrastructure as a bundle.

Quote: You're still paying for a bundle of channels that can't be altered in the same manner as cable, but the delivery mechanism is different.

That difference in delivery mechanism is what the term refers to.

Quote: Others that pointed out that people subscribing to those bundles shouldn't really be counted in these cord cutting figures because cable channels are still getting the same subscriber fees.

Or, rather, that cord cutting figures should not be conflated with unbundling figures, because the former overstates the latter ... and as Hulu and Amazon move to being networks of channels, while subscription to cable-like OTT streaming services like Sling grows, the difference between the two will only get bigger over the foreseeable future.

Quote: Essentially, if you're getting ESPN (whether via cable or streaming), which is effectively the litmus test since ESPN is the most hardcore of them all about insisting on being in basic cable packages, you're not really cutting the cord.

You'd be cutting the cord, but the consequence of that is much less than a lot of "cord cutting" discussion suggests. "A bit more fine-grained bundles and a bit more choice in bundles!!!!" is not quite the revolution that the more breathless cord cutting advocates seem to believe in.

So far, the most substantial real differencce in market terms is the freedom to start and stop in any given month. ESPN would, of course, much rather that their carriage had less churn than that implies, but it seems as if they should be able to live with it ... and even if it means they lose some subscribers for part of the year, they probably also pick up some subscribers who wouldn't be taking a "full year, take it or leave it" offer.

(09-14-2017 02:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 10:35 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 08:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 06:39 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  I cut the cord in August. I still have local channels because the bundled price for them and internet was lower than just internet. Now using Sling and I have no complaints.

Here's the thing: I don't consider using Sling (or similar streaming bundles) to be cutting the cord. You're still paying for a bundle of channels that can't be altered in the same manner as cable, but the delivery mechanism is different. Others that pointed out that people subscribing to those bundles shouldn't really be counted in these cord cutting figures because cable channels are still getting the same subscriber fees. Essentially, if you're getting ESPN (whether via cable or streaming), which is effectively the litmus test since ESPN is the most hardcore of them all about insisting on being in basic cable packages, you're not really cutting the cord.

I'd say if you use Sling to buy a slimmed-down package, you are cutting "a" cord, meaning whatever channels you used to get on cable that you aren't getting on Sling, but if you are still getting ESPN, you haven't cut that cord, and that's the cord we are concerned with around here.

The term usually used for that is 'Cord-Shaver'. However, even though ESPN is getting carriage fees with the TV streaming companies, I think they don't get same amount as from the cable companies.
If they are then half of you Sling TV bill is ESPN....I don't think the quite get the normal amount from them.....yet.

This article says ESPN charges the same for Sling. Half of your bill is ESPN. Makes sense, why would ESPN offer a way for people to get their product for less?

http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2015/01/

You do know that the article you linked to is almost 3 years old? As for Sling being a lot like CATV? Yes and no. Just the price alone goes against the idea that it is CATV. The fact that you can cancel anytime and that you can adjust your channel line up at on a whim, not CATV. Are you locked into certain channels depending on what you choose, yes. That is like CATV. The day will come, sooner then later where even Sling is obsolete. We will get to al carte TV. And once it happens, ESPN as you know it today is dead.

(09-15-2017 11:07 AM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 02:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 10:35 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 08:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Here's the thing: I don't consider using Sling (or similar streaming bundles) to be cutting the cord. You're still paying for a bundle of channels that can't be altered in the same manner as cable, but the delivery mechanism is different. Others that pointed out that people subscribing to those bundles shouldn't really be counted in these cord cutting figures because cable channels are still getting the same subscriber fees. Essentially, if you're getting ESPN (whether via cable or streaming), which is effectively the litmus test since ESPN is the most hardcore of them all about insisting on being in basic cable packages, you're not really cutting the cord.

I'd say if you use Sling to buy a slimmed-down package, you are cutting "a" cord, meaning whatever channels you used to get on cable that you aren't getting on Sling, but if you are still getting ESPN, you haven't cut that cord, and that's the cord we are concerned with around here.

The term usually used for that is 'Cord-Shaver'. However, even though ESPN is getting carriage fees with the TV streaming companies, I think they don't get same amount as from the cable companies.
If they are then half of you Sling TV bill is ESPN....I don't think the quite get the normal amount from them.....yet.

This article says ESPN charges the same for Sling. Half of your bill is ESPN. Makes sense, why would ESPN offer a way for people to get their product for less?

http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2015/01/

You do know that the article you linked to is almost 3 years old? As for Sling being a lot like CATV? Yes and no. Just the price alone goes against the idea that it is CATV. The fact that you can cancel anytime and that you can adjust your channel line up at on a whim, not CATV. Are you locked into certain channels depending on what you choose, yes. That is like CATV. The day will come, sooner then later where even Sling is obsolete. We will get to al carte TV. And once it happens, ESPN as you know it today is dead.

Well, if you can show that ESPN has changed what it charges Sling in the last 3 years, I'll bow to that.

As for cable, there is flexibility there. With COX, there are all the premium (HBO type) channels that are optional, and there are different packages that you can buy or not buy. There's a sports package, a variety package, and a movie package. And I can drop and add at will. E.g., if I want the "movie package" for 5 days, I can get it now and drop it 5 days later, and they will pro-rate the amount for the month.

Yes, I do have to buy a certain basic package and that is not changeable. But that's only $10 a month, it includes about 20 channels- all the local OTAs and also some shopping and weather channels. And then you can get an Advanced package on top of that (optional).

No, it's not as flexible as Sling, but it's not nearly as one-size, take-it-or-leave-it monolithic as some seem to make it.

Here are my COX options in Baton Rouge. There are options there:

http://media.cox.com/support/print_media...nrouge.pdf

Until the other services like Roku and Apple TV figure out regional sports networks I will keep my cord

I wouldn't be mildly shocked if ESPN ends up more profitable in the long-term.

Right now they aren't really even trying to monetize ESPN3.

They will eventually sell direct consumer and you can pick a specific sport, specific league, specific time period, they are going to slice, dice, and repackage it a lot of different ways, all while collecting user data they can't get from cable and satellite.

(09-15-2017 11:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-15-2017 11:07 AM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 02:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 10:35 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'd say if you use Sling to buy a slimmed-down package, you are cutting "a" cord, meaning whatever channels you used to get on cable that you aren't getting on Sling, but if you are still getting ESPN, you haven't cut that cord, and that's the cord we are concerned with around here.

The term usually used for that is 'Cord-Shaver'. However, even though ESPN is getting carriage fees with the TV streaming companies, I think they don't get same amount as from the cable companies.
If they are then half of you Sling TV bill is ESPN....I don't think the quite get the normal amount from them.....yet.

This article says ESPN charges the same for Sling. Half of your bill is ESPN. Makes sense, why would ESPN offer a way for people to get their product for less?

http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2015/01/

You do know that the article you linked to is almost 3 years old? As for Sling being a lot like CATV? Yes and no. Just the price alone goes against the idea that it is CATV. The fact that you can cancel anytime and that you can adjust your channel line up at on a whim, not CATV. Are you locked into certain channels depending on what you choose, yes. That is like CATV. The day will come, sooner then later where even Sling is obsolete. We will get to al carte TV. And once it happens, ESPN as you know it today is dead.

Well, if you can show that ESPN has changed what it charges Sling in the last 3 years, I'll bow to that.

As for cable, there is flexibility there. With COX, there are all the premium (HBO type) channels that are optional, and there are different packages that you can buy or not buy. There's a sports package, a variety package, and a movie package. And I can drop and add at will. E.g., if I want the "movie package" for 5 days, I can get it now and drop it 5 days later, and they will pro-rate the amount for the month.

Yes, I do have to buy a certain basic package and that is not changeable. But that's only $10 a month, it includes about 20 channels- all the local OTAs and also some shopping and weather channels. And then you can get an Advanced package on top of that (optional).

No, it's not as flexible as Sling, but it's not nearly as one-size, take-it-or-leave-it monolithic as some seem to make it.

Here are my COX options in Baton Rouge. There are options there:

http://media.cox.com/support/print_media...nrouge.pdf

I have my doubt that ESPN are still charging that, it doesn't matter, I don't have to get ESPN if I don't want to. The big problem with the article is that a Sling viewer can now get Fox1, Fox2, NBCsn, Pac12, ACC and the price, if you ignore the ESPN mess is still $20. If I decide to get the three ESPN channels, you pay $35.

Stick with your cable, it isn't some badge of honor to drop it or a badge of honor to keep it. I just refuse to pay over $100 per month to a crappy cable company when I don't have to. I'm older, but you have to understand that the majority of people under 35 have already told the cable companies to go away. That isn't going to change as they get older. The old model will be dead in a decade. Get used to it.

As for the premium channels. Why would anyone buy a premium channel any longer? That is something I really do not understand.

(09-15-2017 03:34 PM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(09-15-2017 11:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-15-2017 11:07 AM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 02:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 10:35 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The term usually used for that is 'Cord-Shaver'. However, even though ESPN is getting carriage fees with the TV streaming companies, I think they don't get same amount as from the cable companies.
If they are then half of you Sling TV bill is ESPN....I don't think the quite get the normal amount from them.....yet.

This article says ESPN charges the same for Sling. Half of your bill is ESPN. Makes sense, why would ESPN offer a way for people to get their product for less?

http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2015/01/

You do know that the article you linked to is almost 3 years old? As for Sling being a lot like CATV? Yes and no. Just the price alone goes against the idea that it is CATV. The fact that you can cancel anytime and that you can adjust your channel line up at on a whim, not CATV. Are you locked into certain channels depending on what you choose, yes. That is like CATV. The day will come, sooner then later where even Sling is obsolete. We will get to al carte TV. And once it happens, ESPN as you know it today is dead.

Well, if you can show that ESPN has changed what it charges Sling in the last 3 years, I'll bow to that.

As for cable, there is flexibility there. With COX, there are all the premium (HBO type) channels that are optional, and there are different packages that you can buy or not buy. There's a sports package, a variety package, and a movie package. And I can drop and add at will. E.g., if I want the "movie package" for 5 days, I can get it now and drop it 5 days later, and they will pro-rate the amount for the month.

Yes, I do have to buy a certain basic package and that is not changeable. But that's only $10 a month, it includes about 20 channels- all the local OTAs and also some shopping and weather channels. And then you can get an Advanced package on top of that (optional).

No, it's not as flexible as Sling, but it's not nearly as one-size, take-it-or-leave-it monolithic as some seem to make it.

Here are my COX options in Baton Rouge. There are options there:

http://media.cox.com/support/print_media...nrouge.pdf

I have my doubt that ESPN are still charging that, it doesn't matter, I don't have to get ESPN if I don't want to. The big problem with the article is that a Sling viewer can now get Fox1, Fox2, NBCsn, Pac12, ACC and the price, if you ignore the ESPN mess is still $20. If I decide to get the three ESPN channels, you pay $35.

Stick with your cable, it isn't some badge of honor to drop it or a badge of honor to keep it. I just refuse to pay over $100 per month to a crappy cable company when I don't have to. I'm older, but you have to understand that the majority of people under 35 have already told the cable companies to go away. That isn't going to change as they get older. The old model will be dead in a decade. Get used to it.

As for the premium channels. Why would anyone buy a premium channel any longer? That is something I really do not understand.

The old model isn't going anywhere. There will be more people going for the alternatives, but even in the article linked at the top of this post the old model out-volumes the new way 2:1 in five years. And prices will go down for all with the increased competition. It's all good.

(09-15-2017 04:31 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  The old model isn't going anywhere. There will be more people going for the alternatives, but even in the article linked at the top of this post the old model out-volumes the new way 2:1 in five years. And prices will go down for all with the increased competition. It's all good.

And the decelerating growth rates for the alternatives suggests that it will settle in at somewhere not too far from that in ten to twenty years time ... unless there is an unexpected innovation or structural shift. And, of course, it is intrinsically impossible to predict which way unexpected innovations or structure changes will push a market.

(09-15-2017 03:34 PM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(09-15-2017 11:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-15-2017 11:07 AM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 02:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 10:35 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The term usually used for that is 'Cord-Shaver'. However, even though ESPN is getting carriage fees with the TV streaming companies, I think they don't get same amount as from the cable companies.
If they are then half of you Sling TV bill is ESPN....I don't think the quite get the normal amount from them.....yet.

This article says ESPN charges the same for Sling. Half of your bill is ESPN. Makes sense, why would ESPN offer a way for people to get their product for less?

http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2015/01/

You do know that the article you linked to is almost 3 years old? As for Sling being a lot like CATV? Yes and no. Just the price alone goes against the idea that it is CATV. The fact that you can cancel anytime and that you can adjust your channel line up at on a whim, not CATV. Are you locked into certain channels depending on what you choose, yes. That is like CATV. The day will come, sooner then later where even Sling is obsolete. We will get to al carte TV. And once it happens, ESPN as you know it today is dead.

Well, if you can show that ESPN has changed what it charges Sling in the last 3 years, I'll bow to that.

As for cable, there is flexibility there. With COX, there are all the premium (HBO type) channels that are optional, and there are different packages that you can buy or not buy. There's a sports package, a variety package, and a movie package. And I can drop and add at will. E.g., if I want the "movie package" for 5 days, I can get it now and drop it 5 days later, and they will pro-rate the amount for the month.

Yes, I do have to buy a certain basic package and that is not changeable. But that's only $10 a month, it includes about 20 channels- all the local OTAs and also some shopping and weather channels. And then you can get an Advanced package on top of that (optional).

No, it's not as flexible as Sling, but it's not nearly as one-size, take-it-or-leave-it monolithic as some seem to make it.

Here are my COX options in Baton Rouge. There are options there:

http://media.cox.com/support/print_media...nrouge.pdf

I have my doubt that ESPN are still charging that, it doesn't matter, I don't have to get ESPN if I don't want to. The big problem with the article is that a Sling viewer can now get Fox1, Fox2, NBCsn, Pac12, ACC and the price, if you ignore the ESPN mess is still $20. If I decide to get the three ESPN channels, you pay $35.

Stick with your cable, it isn't some badge of honor to drop it or a badge of honor to keep it. I just refuse to pay over $100 per month to a crappy cable company when I don't have to. I'm older, but you have to understand that the majority of people under 35 have already told the cable companies to go away. That isn't going to change as they get older. The old model will be dead in a decade. Get used to it.

As for the premium channels. Why would anyone buy a premium channel any longer? That is something I really do not understand.

Hey, I'd love to have a cable bill of $30 a month, believe me. And i wrestle with COX over their attempts to boost my fees every few months. I just haven't seen any alternative that can get me all the channels that me and my wife want for less money and that I'm confident doesn't involve stealing. I'd switch in a minute if someone did.

As for premiums, I spend $10 a month on HBO because I like their productions (series, docs) and I like their boxing. It's worth that to me.

Sling is great for a bachelor, but the restriction of only one user at a time is a serious impediment for families. Also, don't forget to add in the cost of internet.

Vue sounds great for use at home, but you can't roam with it.

Meanwhile, my Charter bill - which was $175/month before I left for Sling - is now only $89/month for cable + internet. That is comparable to Sling or Vue + Internet, but with more channels.

(09-16-2017 09:24 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Sling is great for a bachelor, but the restriction of only one user at a time is a serious impediment for families. Also, don't forget to add in the cost of internet.

Vue sounds great for use at home, but you can't roam with it.

Meanwhile, my Charter bill - which was $175/month before I left for Sling - is now only $89/month for cable + internet. That is comparable to Sling or Vue + Internet, but with more channels.

Hokie, I have been able to use Vue on the road with the app on my tablet. Maybe that has changed?

(09-15-2017 03:34 PM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  As for the premium channels. Why would anyone buy a premium channel any longer? That is something I really do not understand.

Really? Ever heard of HBO and some little old programs called Game of Thrones, The Sopranos, The Wire, Curb Your Enthusiasm, etc.? Or Showtime and some little old programs called Shameless, Weeds, Homeland, Billions, etc.? I mean no one buys those channels for movies anymore, but they still do for the original programming.

some people want to ignore the reality that 56% of cable subs said they would gladly ditch ESPN and all the other ESPN channels to save $5 a month

ESPN might try and some "bundlers" might try to still force ESPN down the throats of their subscribers, but eventually one of them is going to go at it without ESPN and without Disney channels and when they gain traction and subs others will move to stand up to ESPN and tell them they are going to have to stand on their own and they are not going to force themselves on every subscriber to the tune of $15 or $20 a month

people are not simply moving away from cable TV to alternate methods because access is so much easier and in fact for many people access is not as easy as sit down, hit the clicker and the picture box comes on and you change channels

most streaming services are not that easy just yet for most subs

they are switching to get away from $120 dollar a month cable bills and 250 channels with 2 things they want to watch at any one moment and one of them id a repeat they have already seen being shown in a "marathon"

they are not going to sit back and allow their monthly bill to get crammed back full to $100 dollars and run back up with 250 channels of crap they have no interest in no matter what ESPN and Disney (and Discovery and History) think will be forced on people

that is the issue as much or more than people simply realizing they have pretty much seen everything in cable 3 times now and or they have ZERO interest in watching what they have not already seen

and for those with no interest in live sports or most live sports (those that would ditch ESPN to save $5 a month on their cable bill) they are not going to drop 180 channels of crap and still be forced into paying huge money for ESPN

(09-13-2017 07:27 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 12:54 PM)orangefan Wrote:  56.6 Million U.S. consumers to go without pay TV this year, as cord cutting accelerates
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/56-6-...39060.html

This is obviously going to continue to put pressure on subscription revenues and advertising revenues, and therefore rights fees. Programming that viewers value should still be able to generate revenues, but it may require new business models.

It seems odd that they report the increase in "Pay TV Non-viewers" rather than the decline in Pay TV Viewers. I'm always suspicious of this kind of "almost right" stat. Are they trying to hide something?

They are being misleading because a person will look at the growth in "Pay TV Non-viewers" and assume there will be a drop of the same amount in "Pay TV Viewers". Actually, the US population is growing the whole time so the drop in subscribers will be less than their 30 million increase in Pay TV non-Viewers implies.

(09-17-2017 12:12 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  some people want to ignore the reality that 56% of cable subs said they would gladly ditch ESPN and all the other ESPN channels to save $5 a month

ESPN might try and some "bundlers" might try to still force ESPN down the throats of their subscribers, but eventually one of them is going to go at it without ESPN and without Disney channels and when they gain traction and subs others will move to stand up to ESPN and tell them they are going to have to stand on their own and they are not going to force themselves on every subscriber to the tune of $15 or $20 a month

people are not simply moving away from cable TV to alternate methods because access is so much easier and in fact for many people access is not as easy as sit down, hit the clicker and the picture box comes on and you change channels

most streaming services are not that easy just yet for most subs

they are switching to get away from $120 dollar a month cable bills and 250 channels with 2 things they want to watch at any one moment and one of them id a repeat they have already seen being shown in a "marathon"

they are not going to sit back and allow their monthly bill to get crammed back full to $100 dollars and run back up with 250 channels of crap they have no interest in no matter what ESPN and Disney (and Discovery and History) think will be forced on people

that is the issue as much or more than people simply realizing they have pretty much seen everything in cable 3 times now and or they have ZERO interest in watching what they have not already seen

and for those with no interest in live sports or most live sports (those that would ditch ESPN to save $5 a month on their cable bill) they are not going to drop 180 channels of crap and still be forced into paying huge money for ESPN

I'll give Sling credit, they let choose a package without Disney/ESPN. The blue package cost $5 more but there are 21 extra channels that are not part of the orange package and includes NFL Network. I did an Excel spreadsheet of the difference, I'll see if I can post it.

  Sling TV Blue vs Orange.pdf (Size: 176.56 KB / Downloads: 4)

Anything that is not highlighted shares the same channel on both of Sling's packages. The highlighted channels show the channels that are not available on each package.
I guess we kind of see how much ESPN charges Sling customers. Take away ESPN and add $5 and you get 21 more channels on the blue package. So I think Quo is correct than ESPN charges $7 to Sling.

(09-17-2017 12:12 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  some people want to ignore the reality that 56% of cable subs said they would gladly ditch ESPN and all the other ESPN channels to save $5 a month

ESPN might try and some "bundlers" might try to still force ESPN down the throats of their subscribers, but eventually one of them is going to go at it without ESPN and without Disney channels and when they gain traction and subs others will move to stand up to ESPN and tell them they are going to have to stand on their own and they are not going to force themselves on every subscriber to the tune of $15 or $20 a month

people are not simply moving away from cable TV to alternate methods because access is so much easier and in fact for many people access is not as easy as sit down, hit the clicker and the picture box comes on and you change channels

most streaming services are not that easy just yet for most subs

they are switching to get away from $120 dollar a month cable bills and 250 channels with 2 things they want to watch at any one moment and one of them id a repeat they have already seen being shown in a "marathon"

they are not going to sit back and allow their monthly bill to get crammed back full to $100 dollars and run back up with 250 channels of crap they have no interest in no matter what ESPN and Disney (and Discovery and History) think will be forced on people

that is the issue as much or more than people simply realizing they have pretty much seen everything in cable 3 times now and or they have ZERO interest in watching what they have not already seen

and for those with no interest in live sports or most live sports (those that would ditch ESPN to save $5 a month on their cable bill) they are not going to drop 180 channels of crap and still be forced into paying huge money for ESPN

Translation, please...