Will Longhorn Network Be Served A La Carte?

Eventually it will all be streamed on the internet and thus all become a la carte.

Give me:
 
1. All of the animal nature shows
2. Every sports channel
3. AMC, Spike, History, Travel, HGTV (I heart House Hunters International)
  
And 97% of my viewing is taken care of. I have entire neighborhoods of channels that are nothing but clicker flyover country.

I’m looking forward to the day networks bypass cable operators completely and just go online. Of course then you’ll see TW double their Internet prices…

Technophobe question here:

If it’s streamed over the internet and is ala carte, does that mean I can see it on my computer or smartphone, but not my TV? If so, me no likey!

Jake: In that case everything is “bundled” you are buying all access.

@Jake

Simple fix — get a plugable usb to hdmi adapter — your tv can become a giant monitor.

http://www.amazon.com/Plugable-Multiple-2048×1152-1920×1200-DisplayLink/dp/B0038P1TP4/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1317265310&sr=1-1

I can definitely live without all the hispanic channels as well as anything the govt. has to offer or forces down our throats and there’s almost 50 channels right there! Better yet, just let me buy what I want and I’ll be happy. What Scipio has for starters…

There are a ton of ways to get Internet content on your TV using a box like Apple TV, Google TV, Roku, Xbox or a HTPC (Home Theater PC – Basically a Windows/Mac/Linux computer in a small form factor you connect to your TV). Those products all have the ability to play Netflix content on your TV. ESPN would basically have to do something like that to ensure it’s easy to use and accessible for as many people as possible. A lot of newer TVs are coming out with this functionality built-in.

IP, but who wants a usb cable running from their computer all the way across the house to a TV? Or do I now have to buy another computer to sit next to my TV? So instead of my $5/mth cable box I have to buy a $500 computer, boot it up when I want to watch TV, load up a browser, find the URL of the program I want to watch, and then when the inevitable commercials come, instead of being able to flip channels, I’ll be stuck with trying to find something interesting to do for 2 mins on the internet? I am guessing they will make it easier when the time comes, but this doesn’t sound like progress to me.

I think I have like 100 shopping channels, like 50 radio channels, 10 hispanic channels, and a bunch of other crap I don’t want.

i’m calling grande.

no wait, they’re not available in my neighborhood.

Since I can’t even get ESPN on cable or satellite in Canada, much less any of the regional sports channels, I’m looking forward to the day when it all goes online. Until then, I’m dependent on the kindness of strangers to stream the games. I think I’ll check out that cable, IP Guy. Thanks

Ricky—other options include those suggested by burrito. You can also use a laptop as the computer—I did that for the UT rice game this year. Certainly not the most optimum setup, but it can be effective.

You don’t need to run a cable. The Roku box goes wireless. Streaming has improved tons over the past few years and is constantly improving. It is much better than Veetle and can be HD (and usually is).

Forgot to mention using a laptop. The new ones all have HDMI out which you can run into HDMI into TVs with a simple $8 cable from Fry’s. You play the stream over the laptop and plug it into the TV. The product is very good with that. Netflix over that setup looks like Blu Ray DVD over the TV.

Cable is f’ing crazy. Nobody, and I mean nobody likes anything but a minute percentage of the channels that they pay for.

It’s like walking into a restaurant where you can’t order one thing on the menu. You have to get everything and pay for it.

Back in the early, halcyon days of cable (the 80s) when there weren’t that many channels and you actually stopped to watch programming on a lot of them, it was a beautiful thing.

Now, like most things American, it’s more than we need. I know that the internet will be the demise of 1,000 bundled channels of HighDef manure, I just thought that day would get here a little quicker.

I wonder if someone’s working on a disruptive technology that would allow the channels to sell directly to viewers without going through carriers. Want FX? Turn on your TV, navigate to the channel purchase menu (either on a media box or integrated in the TV), and buy a 1-, 3-, 6-, or 12-month subscription, with the longer ones being cheaper monthly averages. That really isn’t a far leap from what’s currently possible with Netflix.

“It’s like walking into a restaurant where you can’t order one thing on the menu. You have to get everything and pay for it.”

I think they call that a buffet. When I was in college I remember enjoying those quite a bit…

Ribbing aside, I agree with the prognosticators that believe this will all be streamed soon anyway. No need to worry about that future, though, content providers will always make it more than easy to be able to consume their programming, whether it’s over cable or the internet.

When the LHN was announced I just assumed it would be a premium package you had to pay extra for. Kind of an HBO package.

Forcing it as part of a basic package means there is incentive for one major carrier to be a holdout because they will get all the Sooners, Aggy, Husker etc fans that cringe at the thought of 40 cents a month going to their hated rival. There’s a bunch of people that don’t care or just kind of like us (but don’t like us enough to base their pick of a cable package over us), a large alum base of ardent UT fans that will demand the LHN, and an even larger alum base of our rivals that will seek out any carrier that does not have the LHN.

At least that’s what i’d do when choosing between 2 carriers, one of whom carries the Sooner Network and one who doesn’t, but then maybe I’m just spiteful.

Color me skeptical as to how the advent of a la carte cable would affect ESPN properties in particular. The reason ESPN charges so much is because it’s by far the most popular cable TV network. In an a la carte system people could buy the ESPN channels individually or together in a bundle at a slight discount, similar to what iTunes or Steam does. I’m betting an enormous chunk of homes would take the ESPN bundle. In Texas, that bundle would include LHN.

I imagine the a la carte system would suck the most for the channels that depend on remote-surfing “foot traffic” for eyeballs. The History Channel and whatnot.

And just to chime in on my menu preference…give me sports and I’m good. Everything else I don’t need to watch in real time and/or I can find it easily online. That’s why I don’t have cable right now. I’d get it if I could only pay for the sports channels.

Streaming still looks to me like the thing to do. Not “free” streaming, but something along the lines of the NetFlix model – hell, I’d sure enough pay $7.99 a month starting right this fucking INSTANT for a login on longhorns.net (or whatever domain name works).

I wouldn’t mind paying extra for a shot at the “cable” networks streaming the games live – even PPV, for that matter. I’d bet NetFlix could make ESPN an offer that’d be hard to ignore… hell ESPN could do it themselves, although they’d need to make some changes to that incredibly stupid advertising on ESPN3 stuff… I don’t care about advertising one way or the other, for the most part, but running the same annoyingly stupid ad thirty-five times per quarter and fifty times during the half only ensures that I’m going to make certain Miz Long doesn’t even THINK about buying whatever product it is, EVER.

The slow collapse of the cable distributors was noted last January in an article I ran across by accident, and some of the above seems to show acceleration. Puts me in mind of my reply to the local cable company those many years ago, when I called them up to tell them to pull the plug, and the rep asked me if there was a problem with the service… “No, not at all, your service is fine – it’s the PRODUCT I don’t like.” Crickets…

I’m with Dagga. I don’t have cable because I don’t have a need — except for sports. If it weren’t for ESPN3.com, not sure I could hold out as long as I have.

@ IP Guy:

How long is the cord? My study is a long way from my HD TV

I have my cable covered right now, but last the only thing I watch on my tv is football. Last year I just used espn3 and watched that through xboxlive (and catching streams of non-espn games on my computer). With hulu and other streaming programs, I wouldn’t have bothered getting cable if it wasn’t included in my apartment.

Never mind.

I’m still not sure I understand but I think some of you are being myopic. There are a shit ton of people who watch the most TV that don’t give fuck about or know anything about computers, iPhones and streaming. Whatever is coming, it better take that into account is all I got to say.

Me, I watch sports, TNT, FX, movie channels and particularly the premium cable channels such as HBO, Skinamax, Encore, etc. They have been breaking new ground goiing as far back as Dream On, through and including The Sopranos and right up to Game of Thrones, The Borgias and Boardwalk Empire, which cranked back up last weekend. Give me channels, channels and more channels and I’ll sort through what is worthwhile content with my trusty DVR. It makes for great late night viewing and killing time on the lake during winter. Fuck ala carte and streaming if I have to have anymore wires or boxes. I’m just sayin’…

Oh, and watching TV on a laptop…Wow!

Jake – the stream-only thing is strictly generational; on its own it’d take a couple of decades to become anything like the norm. But at the margins that cable companies run at these days, it only takes a fairly small decline in customer growth trend to put a lot of pressure on them to improve their business model.

FWIW, I don’t think any changes will come that would require more wires or boxes. You’d probably just add or subtract channels from your bill the same way you’d order pay-per-view. And I’m sure they’d still carry the same basic-extended-premium packages they do now – they’d just likely add the a la carte option for those who want it. But that’d be a popular option for lots of folk, especially people who are on a tight budget and might otherwise drop cable altogether (i.e., me). If the cable companies can keep people as customers by charging 50% of the bill while cutting back on 80% of the content fees, that’s a good deal for them too. And maybe a necessary one if these trends continue.

No satellite, no cable. Check out movies from library.
When I’m at Mom’s with her satellite TV, I realize there is next to nothing I want to pay for that way.
Yeah, I miss some games on ESPN9876054678, but nothing I can’t live without.
I listened to Longhorn games on the radio in the old days. It still works when I can’t stream it.
At my son’s with his Playstation 3, Netflix, and big screen HDTV, I think I’ve died and gone to heaven. I’ll get there, whether to heaven first (or other) or to Ruko and Netflix first is a toss up.

Not sure why so many cables and cords are needed when you can just wirelessly connect your computer to your television.

That said, I like my TV like I like my buffet dining. Put all the slop out there, I’ll find the ones that I like and that I’m in the mood for on that particular day.

I wonder why ESPN/LHN does not use one of the under used over the Air ABC channels.In my area that would be 8.1 /8.2/8.3 For that matter there is currently 68 × 3= 204 over the air channels in the DFW area alone,These channels come in clear as a bell, all are in HD, provided the show is HD. Many are unused but more added every month. Some already have sports on them, nothing like the LHN, but based on what is shown, it must not cost much to put them on the air. If they were to sell advertising it would produce plenty of revenue, and it would reach recruiting areas that do not have the financial option of a dish or cable. over half the country does not subscribe to cable or sat. It could be used as leverage in negotiation’s with the cable companys.

I met a guy in athletics who actually bragged about being one of the many millions of Americans who don’t use the internet at all, claiming it was stupid for content providers to focus on the internet and miss people like him. I wondered what the world would look like if I’d been limited to cable TV and print media for the last fifteen years, and then I understood his politics. Needless to say, he isn’t working on the LHN deal.

It’s my guess that the desperation of these negotiations stems from a simple demographic fact: there is a huge cultural gulf between the baby boomers and the millennials, one with enormous implications for their consumption. The former group is already starting to slide out of America’s colon, and the latter group is still looking for work. So, consumption sucks now and nobody knows what it will look like in ten years.

20% of Americans don’t use the internet at all, and fully a third doesn’t have broadband. But these people are mostly out of the demo (i.e., old), so advertisers don’t give a shit about them. There are only so many diapers and rare coins they can buy on a fixed income, and then they die. You don’t build a business model on people who are trying to buy one apple with a coupon, holding up the express line while they write a check.

Time to panic.

Really, really interesting. For those that watch TV at all, I cannot possibly fathom how people live lives sans cable. Aside from a handful of quality shows (like Modern Family or Parks & Rec), over-the-air programming is a steaming pile of Reveille crap that appeals to the lowest common denominator.

Cable, with targeted programming, allows the creative juice corner of television to really shine. Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Justified, Archer, etc. and so forth. Heck, even if you like the LCD stuff, cable’s starting to do it better than networks. Check out the slate of USA shows; Suits, for one, is actually pretty damn good. Then you have your targeted channels—HGTV for my girl and Scip, apparently. Food Network is my go-to non-ESPN default (whither LHN?!?). MTV for the tweens. History for the octogenarians. Etc and so forth. That’s not even talking about the premium channels or the copious amount of sports. I think the turnoff for cable is that you’ll tune so often to specific channels you start seeing the filler (TAKEN on fX for the eleventh billion time? Pass). Just flip the channel, dammit.

Anyways, the a la carte option is really intriguing for providers and subscribers, but I wonder how much it’ll affect the actual cable stations. Right now, niche channels subscription fees can still be considered somewhat of a fuzzy area. Sure, there are Nielsen ratings estimating which channels are watched, but at the end of the day, it’s a best guess. Go to an a la carte option, and you’ll know exactly how many Comcasters want to watch, say, Spike. And if those channels can’t hide behind the big, bad, behemoth of the ESPN subscription fee, I wonder what the survival rate will be.

srr specifically wanted to avoid the ala carte cost, but I think that if people knew what their provider was being charged for the Family, they might look at ESPN differently. Basically, it’s a pay network — people just don’t realize it.

Any good estimates out there on what an a la carte ESPN package would cost? I’m guessing around $20+.

“Give me:

1. All of the animal nature shows
2. Every sports channel
3. AMC, Spike, History, Travel, HGTV (I heart House Hunters International)

And 97% of my viewing is taken care of. I have entire neighborhoods of channels that are nothing but clicker flyover country"

Scip. It sounds like you and I would never fight over the remote.

I would hate this model.

I really don’t understand the sports fans on here and shaggy that don’t do the whole cable thing. I want access to any game, any time. I don’t want to have to go to a sports bar, or watch a shitty stream on the internet, even if I can hook it to my tv and deal with buffering, skipping and all that crap. I also don’t know how to hook my tv up to my computer.

Add to this fact that I have a wife and daughter and our tv watching preferences are vastly different.

I want:

All the ESPN’s, Fox Sports Southwest, Versus, all the networks, FX, TNT, TBS, TRU TV (latter three for NBA, playoff baseball and NCAA tournament), USA (I like some of their original programming) and the occasional thing on the History channel, plus HBO. I’m thinking that bill, ala carte, would be pretty high (ESPN 20+, Fox sports regionals in ala carte probably close to 10, and at least $2.00 for all those other channels). I want Fox News and CNN, not b/c I watch them often but b/c when we get in shooting wars, or elections happen I keep abreast a little bit.

My wife couldn’t live without the food network, Bravo, Lifetime, Oprah, E, etc. So I’d have to buy all those stupid chick channels that you guys don’t care about.

My daughter, even though she’s only 8 months old, loves her some Mickey Mouse, so that means we need disney channel. She will one day be old enough where she wants to watch Nick Jr. and Nickelodeon and the Cartoon Network.

Couple that with the fact that I’m a luddite who doesn’t know how to do much more than operate a DVR box (which the wife can’t even always get right) and log on to the internet and streaming/bundling seem like they’d both A) cost more and B) provide me less to watch while also making it harder to watch- DVR’s are awesome and really easy, this streaming thing doesn’t sound like either.

We are a 1 income family that’s growing, so it’s not like we are rollng in cash. We watch a lot of tv (what else are you going to do when your baby is in bed by 7:00 PM every night, has to take 2 naps a day, and going to dinner and the movies means over $100.00 with a baby sitter factored in. $100.00 for tv in our entertainment budget is pretty good.

IF I have to go to a bar to watch a game (say Vince and Colt are playing interesting games at the same time) it is almost impossible to get out for less than $50.00 by the time you eat, drink and tip for locking down some waitresses table or 4 hours at Buffalo Wild Wings. I wouldn’t want to have to make plans to go watch hoops games or the like, when right now I can pay for cable and DVR it and watch it in my free time after the baby gets fed and put down.

I’m only 33. People I know who are 10 or 15 years older than me have their eyes glaze over when talking about things like streaming through X Box or what have you. I can’t imagine going to a streaming solution is going to work for a vast number of people.

This just seems like a lot of hassle and puts it on people to do a lot of work to square away their TV watching situation- work I’m not convinced most people either can or want to do.

I really still see value in the way cable/satelite is taken care of now. I don’t think we are particularly close to the point in time where people are willing or able to figure it out on their own. Maybe I’m a dinasour before my time, but I don’t think this works, or utlimately acts as a boon to the consumer. Could be wrong. I will have to adapt if this happens, but I’m sure others will throw their hands up and not adapt. We shall see.
I’m thinking if we go to Ala Carte my family is going to be spending well in excess of the $100.00 we currently pay, and we will have less options (for example we occasionally watch BBC america and other random channels like that).

"Give me:

1. All of the animal nature shows
2. Every sports channel
3. AMC, Spike, History, Travel, HGTV (I heart House Hunters International)

And 97% of my viewing is taken care of. I have entire neighborhoods of channels that are nothing but clicker flyover country"

My additions would be TruTV and A&E

gotta love Hulk Hogan’s Midget wresting show and some Gene Simmons Family Jewles…

I enjoy some scripted television shows on network and basic cable, cable news (including financials), and some sports. Feature films and documentaries from time to time.

I could certainly do without the following: Tennis, Golf, NHL, MSNBC, Travel, Ion, and Cloo (nee Sleuth). There are probably others, but those are the ones that came to mind immediately. Oh, I love music, but the music channels are decidedly against the ratings they pull from airing their namesake content. Viacom might as well rename those channels Reality Crap 1-Whatever the total they own is up to at this point. Thankfully, music is still to be had elsewhere.

I’m in favor of programming like LHN being included in a sports tier rather than basic nationwide. I don’t care if ESPN doesn’t like it. If a relatively low income person wants basic cable, I don’t want their bill to go up to feed Disney’s desires when they may not even watch sports. For instance, my late aunt was in poor health for a long while but got a lot of enjoyment out of watching HGTV and didn’t keep up with sports at all. I have a feeling there’s enough Longhorn fans to keep LHN in the black from a sports tier.

srr50, thank you for a very insightful, thought-provoking piece. I’m honestly not sure how I feel about LHN right now. I honestly just get a bit angry when I think about it. It’s caused so much strife within the conference (whether our conference members have any right or grounds to bitch is an entirely separate issue), it seems to be THE driving force in realignment discussions, and nobody can see the damn thing. That said, I recognize the potential long-term value in terms of money, exposure, recruiting, etc. I get those, I really do.

I guess I just feel like it hasn’t been handled well from a PR standpoint. We sacrificed control to ESPN, who went around pissing everybody off with the high school content plan, and we’ve basically bought in to a long-term pissing match between ESPN and cable/content providers in which we have no control or negotiating power. And ESPN, by giving us such an over-inflated contract, basically is up against a wall, because there’s a bottom line # they need to reach for it to be profitable. And no, it’s NOT $.40 per subscriber, not even close. Still, whatever it is, it’s a lot to ask for a niche channel, and that’s what it is, a niche channel.

I really don’t know where this goes. I just remember that TWC fought NFL Network for a LONG time.

Every time I try to watch some streaming netflix thing in HD it is delayed half of the time and does not work every 4th or 5th time.

Can you imagine streaming a Texas football game in HD and having to wonder if you get to see the game or not? Now imagine the problem 100 times worse because instead of 1% doing it this way 100% are.

The idea that every Americna will use this method in the sort term is like suggesting I will use rocket packs to get to work in the near future.

“Oh, I love music, but the music channels are decidedly against the ratings they pull from airing their namesake content. Viacom might as well rename those channels Reality Crap 1-Whatever the total they own is up to at this point. Thankfully, music is still to be had elsewhere.”

There seems to be a natural progression of genre/content specific cable channels like MTV, FoodTV, and History that is metaphorically similar to ecological succession. They start off with the obvious mission of bringing a specific content to the viewers. Then over time they become popular through quality shows and upon reaching their zenith head down the reality show path and Idiocracy.

I only watch FX, Showtime, ESPN family and HBO. I waste a fortune on my Dish bill so my kids can watch the 18 Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network and Disney channels.

The writing is on the wall for TV like it has been for music and in the past 5-8 years for movies: Find a business model for downloads/streaming on the internet. If not, consumers will build an underground network to do it for themselves.

It’s already there and growing. If TV/cable channels and access providers don’t get forward thinking soon, they will find themselves falling further and further behind.

From the first day the LHN was announced, I asked around about what they would do to stream it. With providers resisting, ESPN should have been thinking about this option from day 1.

Streaming the channel IMO is more important than getting it on TWC, DirecTV etc. I’d pay $5/month to stream it in HD.

The writing is on the wall for TV like it has been for music and in the past 5-8 years for movies: Find a business model for downloads/streaming on the internet. If not, consumers will build an underground network to do it for themselves.

It’s already there and growing. If TV/cable channels and access providers don’t get forward thinking soon, they will find themselves falling further and further behind.

From the first day the LHN was announced, I asked around about what they would do to stream it. With providers resisting, ESPN should have been thinking about this option from day 1.

Streaming the channel IMO is more important than getting it on TWC, DirecTV etc. I’d pay $5/month to stream it in HD.

@ everyone — if you’re paying full price for your cable/satellite bill, you are officially a sucker. If you call and tell them you want to cancel, they will send you to their cancellation department. This person’s sole job is to keep you with the company. They have pretty wide discretion to give you some free stuff or give you some discounts to your bill.

Obviously, this hassle isn’t worth it for everyone, but if you’re counting pennies, it’s worth it.

I concur with Scipio’s channels of relevance with exception that I’d have to add the Food Network because… well, goddammit Iron Chef has both my wife & I in its grips. That and I’m secretly using my Jedi Mind tricks to get Giada to bail on her hubby for a month long vacation with me in Barbados.

I like to keep my goals realistic. And besides, my wife likes Giada too.

LHN, Club Jenna, ESPN, Weather Channel, HBO (Game of Thrones and Boardwalk Empire) and the networks.

How much would my cable bill be?

@redfoot and jc25:

We guys need to get together and watch some TV. Call me.

And Spider, you nailed the thing as it realtes to the stratifications in the viewing audience.

Me, I think it’s all right for the providers to have an ala carte option so long as they keep the packages as an alternative. I can make up my own mind which one I want (the package at this point) and, since I’ve retired and have more time on my hands than before, I’ve enjoyed exploring many more of the channels that are out there and some cool finds have been a result of blind surfing. For example, I wandered onto (DirecTV) channel 559 last fall and found all the episodes of The Larry Sanders Show, the Onion News Network and The Show, all of which I DVR’d. I also found movies like Pirate Radio and Roadie 1980 on something called MGMHD the other night. If I was ala carte only, I might not even know about these channels.

Different strokes…..

Wulaw Horn gets it.

Was in Austown a while back, for the BYU game. My daughter and her hubby have TW. When I have the remote in my hand there, about the only channels I look at are the 400’s – sports – and usually only 440 if there’s a good football match on. Flipping back and forth through the 400’s I note that one of them is the Big Ten Network, which says it’s $6.99 a month. I doubt I’d watch it, and nor do they… but my point here is that TW is already serving a la carte on that and several other sports channels. I think if I were ESPN and TW, I’d consider coming up with a model to sell LHN the same damn way. Prolly too late now, since Grande and some others bought into the “freebie” deal and apparently ESPN’s only model is for the cables to pay for every subscriber, whether they want to view ESPN or not. It would make a certain amount of sense – particularly with digital delivery – to make all content subject to demand… sure, there has to be a “basic” package, but non-mainstream stuff like LHN (and I’m sure you can think of dozens of others) might benefit from feedback linked to dollars.

Oh, and all of you complaining about shitty pictures and slowth on the ’netcasts… when you croak, you need to be ensconced in the part of hell where the TV is all broadcast and you have to hang tin foil on the rabbit ears to at least minimize the snow and picture tearing and rolling.

TexLong-

Poor comparison. My TV cable runs exactly next to the cable that brings my Internet to the house. The infrastructure is like the same. What advantage in either quality or speed does the Internet have?

That answer is none.

iTunes was cheaper than buying from the store and faster to get. You are suggesting a wholesale change in consumer demand based on….what exactly? If the products are identical to me I am not going to radically change my habits.

Newy- do you not like Texas hoops? You miss 10 games a year without Fox Sports Southwest.

Do you not like the NCAA tournament? You miss the best of the first four days without TNT and TBS and Tru TV.

Do you not watch the NBA playoffs? Can’t watch that without TNT.

Versus has some good college football games, hell UT was on Versus just a couple years ago and might be again.

Missing some playoff baseball without TBS.

My point is that there is definitely some very good stuff for a sports fan that isn’t on your list of channels. You might not watch those channels alot, but I can’t imagine not having the option of watching Durant in a playoff game.

Also, you are missing our upcoming game on FX against Iowa State, you missed OU’s last two football games, and will miss plenty of other decent college football games, along with Always Sunnny, The League and Archer- all fantastic shows imo.

I think it’s really easy for people to say or think that they only watch 10 channels, and 90% of the time that’s probably true, but when the Horns are on some random channel (or our rivals, or just a good game in general) I’m pissed if I don’t have the option to watch, and if I decide to go out to a bar to see it I’m going to see any savings from ala carte cable evaporate in a hurry.

Newy- just those channels I’m betting you are looking at near $50/month in an ala carte pricing scheme.

If everybody isn’t paying $5.00 for ESPN mothership than they are charging something like $20.00 a month I’d bet.

The network bundle is about $5.00 according to Dish (that’s the credit I got from them when they messed up my sat and I only got CBS but not NBC, Fox and ABC for a month).

Club Jenna’s got to be 10/month, right? HBO is $10.00 a month. I’ve already figured you to be around $50.00 a month. You can get the Dish network top 100 with most of that shit for 39.99. Add HBO and Club Jenna and you are looking at $60.00 or whatever, and you still get all the TNT, TBS, FX and what not that see lots of sports on. I don’t think you would come out ahead, but I could be wrong.

Wulaw Horn-

Perhaps you missed the hint of sarcasm in several of these posts about our favorite channel.

When executives talk about internet delivery or ala carte without considering if the demand is actually there from the consumer it usually leads to epic fail 100% of the time.

If some Direct TV exxecutive thinks consumers will love him for swicthing to this package just because it helps with his negoations with ESPN it will end in disaster.

Acer sells a pretty nifty little computer for about $300 that is nothing but a video card, hard drive and an HDMI out for exactly this purpose. I dropped cable last year in favor of Netflix (soon to be cancelled due to their corporate idiocy), Hulu, and the HD local channel antenna that links into Windows media center so I can get the local channels through the computer on to the TV (it even has a DVR feature). It’s been amazing and I saved nearly a G in cable bills. Between ESPN3 and the local channels 95% of my sports needs were met. All that typed, I’m signed up for Uverse again for the next 4 months for one thing and one thing only. Redzone. Once the 4 months is up, I will cancel and go back to streaming well before the introductory rate runs out. If I could pay $10-20 a month for the 10-12 channels I actually watch, my loyalty would be assured. Until then, I’m a tv mercenary.

Newy- I’m sorry that I missed the sarcasm.

There are plenty of people, presumably sports fans, that are making arguments like this on Shaggy and elsewhere around the net that act like this will really help them out- I don’t see it that way. I guess I will have to adjust my meter.

I’m with Jake in saying a la carte would probably work as an option, but keep the current packages together, like sports tiers, HD, etc. I mean, if they put together a package of LHN, Big Ten Network, SEC, etc, I’d pay a fee for it, and I’d expect that fee to be lower than buying them each individually… but that’s me.

It boggles the mind at how dumb we Americans are. We pay top dollar for cable/satellite/whatever, and don’t even flinch when the commercials come on. We should revolt! We’re paying for that crap, and they have the gall to still interrupt programming?!

We’re sheep, and the broadcasters are aggy…

@Texlong:

I get the Big Ten network on DirecTV and I’m certain it’s not ala carte.

Guys, if providers are wanting ala carte, it may have a lot to do with rising costs, but having had a spouse who lobbied for them (still does), I suspect it’s just as much about making it more expensive to get multiple channels by unbundling them from packages, either basic or premium. They think revenue expansion first, with or without real or imagined cost increases. Don’t underestimate that outcome and the real effect it will have on consumers’ cost once they get it and then start wrapping it in a cocoon of favorable legislation, which is the highest subset under the revenue umbrella.

Ala carte only without relatively static package pricing or with no packages at all would be the ultimate win for providers and the ultimate loss for consumers, IMO.

“Ala carte only without relatively static package pricing or with no packages at all would be the ultimate win for providers and the ultimate loss for consumers, IMO.”

This is where this thing called the free market wins out. Some company will break from the pack and not package prices this way and steal everyone’s customers.

In the end for a structure to exist the customer has to demand it. It simply cannot be the will of a media to change the way customers view or pay because it benefits them.

Read the recent train wreck that is the Netflix announcement for a recent example.

This is where this thing called the free market wins out. Some company will break from the pack and not package prices this way and steal everyone’s customers.

In the end for a structure to exist the customer has to demand it.

And if the big boys aren’t quick and smart enough (OK, everyone stop laughing), you wind up with things like Napster and Al Capone. The market will be fed, with or without legitimate vendors.

Honestly. im not buying a subscription for 1 game a year, I stream espn3 and have over the air digital tv,.Been this way for 2 years. Got tired of the Dish bill. Dont miss it. My Espn 3 is HD perfect. If you have a problem streaming you need to check your download speed on one of the speed checkers. I found a HD stream of the rice game, watched a half hour of pre game LHN and a half hour post game before the stream shut down. It was so clean i was sure ESPN put the stream out. Open air tv nowdays is perfect, digital really made a difference. I love thumbing my nose at the dish companys, But the time is coming when the internet will be taxed like cell phone service and will double in cost, at that point i might turn my dish back on.

Jake sez: I get the Big Ten network on DirecTV and I’m certain it’s not ala carte.

I didn’t mention DTV, I mentioned TW. I don’t see the kids’ cable bill, but I can read what’s on the screen on that channel. If paying $6.99 a month for it isn’t a la carte, then I’m misunderstanding the discussion.

My position is, I think, pretty clear. I have no intention whatever of buying cable or satellite service the way it currently is provided. Like many others who also are cable/sat unconnected, I visit places that are connected, and with very, very rare exceptions, I see Newton Minow’s Vast Wasteland. There simply is nothing I want to watch – not at all, and sure as hell not for $30, $40, $50 a month and up. Now – if a cable/sat service provider would let me have LHN and nothing else for $6.99 a month, I’d do it right now. They won’t, so it’s a non-issue.

On the other hand, I have a 6Mbs internet feed from AT&T, not primarily for entertainment purposes, but for my consulting work – it’s a necessity. I think it’s around $25 or $30 a month, and it lets me deal with computers in clients’ offices and stores from Florida to Alaska.

ESPN already has a subscription scheme going – when you read some things on their website(s), you will notice articles cut off after a teaser, with some pimpage about subscribing to get to this great and wonderful “Insider” material. As an AT&T customer, I have access to ESPN3, and I can watch all kinds of stuff, both good and bad. I can’t see much of a stretch for ESPN to combine those two chunks of technology and offer LHN exactly the same way. I cannot believe the idea isn’t kicking around in their offices, and I cannot believe they haven’t trotted it out yet, or even mentioned it. Maybe they have, and I just haven’t noticed it.

If they do offer it, I promise you I will subscribe immediately, whether or not LHN is on cable/sat.

When is ESPN going to wise up and realize that if they let LHN programming be carried PPV on an item-by-item basis, they’d have more people watching at least some of it as opposed to a lot of people watching none of it?

“Meanwhile the Dish Network is in negotiations with ESPN …… Their contract with ESPN runs out at the end of 2011. "

I thought that was DirectTV????

Not wanting to divert the technology conference, but just curious if this change happened say tomorrow any guess what the impact might be on the distribution of the LHN?

Jake, BTN is part of the sports pack, so it’s not an individual choice, but you did choose it in some manner in a group. Not true al a carte, I suppose.

Wulaw… those 10 UT basketball games on FSSW will be on LHN this year.

fx and dishnetwork reeled me in last night with bevo bait as i upgraded for an extra $10 for the next 12 months and a extra $30 for at least the following 12 months. That’s $480 for Texas@Iowa St. Yeah, kid gets disney and nick and I have more choices, but $480.

BiH, I have the Premier Package, which is the highest level package available and it is billed to me in a lump sum price. If I want Gameplan, NBA, MLB, NFL Sunday Ticket or porn channels, none of which I subscribe to, they are separately priced and seasonal, so they would be ala carte for me.

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against the porn channels. It’s just that I have my own porn library and the reruns get the job done since I only watch any one of them for about 5 minutes at a time. TMI?

Looking for an answer. Tier 1,2, and 3 games. What does that mean? Network tv, cable tv, and local or uncommon cable channels? Wouldn’t Texas be picked up by 1 or 2 more than a K-State. Thus giving K-State having way more tier 3 games to sell why splitting all the tier 1 and 2 money evenly. I’m looking for real info on this. If someone has down low on this please share or give link to an answer please.

Saw the following product on an episode of This New House on DIY a few days ago:

http://hsti.com/wirelessmediastick/overview

No idea the quality, but the comments relating to connecting computers and televisions reminded me of it.

Jake, sure, I understand. But if you eliminated things, you’d get to a choice where you didn’t get the BTN. That’s a bulk choice when you make it.

People have to keep in mind that the providers wouldn’t unbundle in order to make less money.

Looking for an answer. Tier 1,2, and 3 games. What does that mean? Network tv, cable tv, and local or uncommon cable channels? Wouldn’t Texas be picked up by 1 or 2 more than a K-State. Thus giving K-State having way more tier 3 games to sell why splitting all the tier 1 and 2 money evenly.

1st and 2nd tier game rights are those owned by the conference, through their TV contracts. Once ABC/ESPN/Fox picks over what they want, the individual Universities can distribute whats left.

Yes K.State has more 3rd tier games to sell, but then again there is a reason for that — they are not as popular, and so getting someone to purchase them is problematical, and so they have to go Pay Per View or local TV or not have them on at all. They may also have to absorb some of the production costs (as in the case of PPV).

3rd tier is a buyers market for most programs.

Now there is word that microsoft is about to make a deal with Comcast and Verizon to bring their TV operations to xbox.

Heya i am for the primary time here. I came across this board and I in finding It truly useful & it helped me out a lot. I’m hoping to give something again and aid others like you aided me.

It’s not on the basic tier at Fios. You have to subscribe to the highest tier package to get it, well over 110 bucks a month. No thank you.

Nur gute Neuigkeiten seit Anfang September und das ist vielleicht nur der Anfang. Sieht aus, als hätten die Jungs den Schalter umgelegt. Was haltet ihr davon?

Seeing Bradford run for 3 yards a carry is going to tire me out too.

Thank you, I’ve recently been looking for info about this subject for a while and yours is the best I’ve found out so far. However, what about the conclusion? Are you certain concerning the source?|What i don’t realize is if truth be told how you are not actually a lot more neatly-favored than you might be now. You are so intelligent.

Wow, amazing weblog structure! How lengthy have you ever been blogging for? you made blogging glance easy. The whole look of your website is wonderful, let alone the content!

Wow, superb weblog format! How long have you ever been running a blog for? you made running a blog glance easy. The overall glance of your web site is fantastic, as neatly as the content material!