FNG said:

---

We cut the cord about five years ago. And by cord I mean satellite.

We still stream something on Netflix from time to time, but daily watching is rare. We binged Stranger Things over a weekend and I'll stream a football game a couple times per year, but my time is more valuable to me now and sitting in front of the tube for hours is not a priority.
.

---

I did the same thing well over a year ago and am very happy to have my time back. I've been to three Longhorn games (ND, OU and Baylor) and one A&M game (UCLA) this year. I haven't streamed anything live. I read about teams/games and watch highlights online.

Some of you might be surprised at how much more enriching your life is while not tied to a couch all day Saturday (and/or Sunday).

The entire concept of a channel you tune into is dead.

If programs aren't live, stream them on demand.

If they are live, stream them on the internet.

To the extent that one sports institution will get nuked, MLB will be the first. Their pay model is broken far more than even the XII is.

culdeus said:

---

The entire concept of a channel you tune into is dead.

If programs aren't live, stream them on demand.

If they are live, stream them on the internet.

To the extent that one sports institution will get nuked, MLB will be the first. Their pay model is broken far more than even the XII is.

---

I can't stream HD quality programs live, and neither can millions of other people. People with super fast internet assume everyone has it. That's not the case, and won't be for quite some time.

Furthermore, streaming does not ipso facto lead to a la carte programming. It's one thing for content providers to offer the programming with fewer strings attached through streaming when it constitutes a small part of the market. But, as that market share increases, they will be under pressure to apply the same bundling packages for streaming content as they do through cable and satellite providers. Content providers aren't stupid, and they aren't going to cut their own throats. The real threat to content providers isn't the a la carte modeal, it is that people will simply consume less television, as illustrated by a few examples on this thread.

FNG said:

---

We cut the cord about five years ago. And by cord I mean satellite.

We still stream something on Netflix from time to time, but daily watching is rare. We binged Stranger Things over a weekend and I'll stream a football game a couple times per year, but my time is more valuable to me now and sitting in front of the tube for hours is not a priority.

I'll put some dvd/bluray shows on for background noise while I work around the house or on my laptop, but we don't miss broadcast tv.

News I can check in five minutes online.
Weather even faster.
If I don't attend an Aggie game, I'll usually listen on the radio while working in the garage unless I stream some of it if the stream is free.

I can watch the TAMU Highlights in a couple of days after the game and see what I need to see. The money and time just are t worth it to me anymore.

---

Quote:

---

The real threat to content providers isn't the a la carte modeal, it is that people will simply consume less television, as illustrated by a few examples on this thread.

---

I think they will consume the same amount of television, but would no longer be forced to subsidize channels they don't watch.

20 years ago I remember someone saying that in the future there would be only one "channel": Everything, anytime, anywhere. We are getting close to that now. In fact I think we are closer technologically than we are with the business models of how content is delivered.

And look for massive political interfere to help preserve the buggy whip makers for w good while before it sorts out.

Quite a bit of blaming of "millennials" and sjws for the fall of ESPN when ESPN knew this was going to happen and was trying to get all those other people into watching their channels with these stories. If they really thought there wasn't a market for those stories they wouldn't be showing them.

reddestass16 said:

---

Quite a bit of blaming of "millennials" and sjws for the fall of ESPN when ESPN knew this was going to happen and was trying to get all those other people into watching their channels with these stories. If they really thought there wasn't a market for those stories they wouldn't be showing them.

---

Maybe. Did those producing all of the anti-war flops like Rendition and In The Valley of Elah, etc. think there was a market for that? Maybe. Did it matter to them? Maybe not.

ESPN may not have even set out to produce (consciously) a lot of the SJW drivel they put out. It may simply be that when SJW types produce anything anymore it drips of their political worldview. They simply can't leave their politics out of anything. Even sports.

In any event, the downward trend in subscribers was going to happen. The question is whether their new, improved, socially conscious, designed to enlighten programming is accelerating or stemming the decline. I think it is the former.

(Side Note: Is it just me, or did Hollywood stop making stuff like Rendition around, like, 2009?)

aggiehawg said:

---

Hhmmm.

Quote:

---

This shouldn't come as a surprise, but two of Hulu's co-owners Fox and Disney have just reached agreements to offer their programming for the live streaming video service it plans to launch early next year.

The deals will provide Hulu with more than 35 networks, including ABC and Fox.

Disney will also offer ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN-SEC and ESPN 3, Disney Channel, Disney XD, Disney Junior, and Freeform.

---

Quote:

---

The lineup from Fox will include Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2, BTN, Fox News, Fox Business, FX, FXX, FXM, National Geographic, Nat Geo Wild, and Fox Regional Sports Networks from what the company describes as "dozens of key national markets."

"We're building a service that offers subscribers the most sought-after programming on television and channels from 21st Century Fox and The Walt Disney Company are essential to that mix," Hulu CEO Mike Hopkins says. "With these two new deals in place, and additional partners to come, Hulu will soon give TV fans of all ages live and on-demand access to their favorite programs in a whole new, more flexible, highly personalized way."

Hulu had previously reached a deal to offer Time Warner channels including TNT, TBS, CNN, Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, truTV, Boomerang and Turner Classic Movies.

Comcast also is a co-owned of Hulu.

---

Uhmm? Where's the LHN??

LINK

---

This might be just what I need to cut the cord.

When we can live stream that many networks on Hulu or other internet services, Directv is officially gone.

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

The real threat to content providers isn't the a la carte modeal, it is that people will simply consume less television, as illustrated by a few examples on this thread.

---

I think they will consume the same amount of television, but would no longer be forced to subsidize channels they don't watch.

20 years ago I remember someone saying that in the future there would be only one "channel": Everything, anytime, anywhere. We are getting close to that now. In fact I think we are closer technologically than we are with the business models of how content is delivered.

And look for massive political interfere to help preserve the buggy whip makers for w good while before it sorts out.

---

Why would content providers move to a model where they make less money? They are dipping their toes in the water right now, and early adapters are finding some deals, but if streaming becomes the dominant platform, content providers will take their bundling model with them, leaving you a choice between watching whatever you want and only watching that which is available without the strings attached (which won't be much). Netflix and the like would really have to become content giants, willing to sell premium content a la carte, in order to break the bundling stranglehold.

From the shag's realignment thread:

Quote:

---

I don't see any way that I would PPV any conference network. They have no live games that I want to watch and everything else is filler. I don't see that changing. In addition, the number of fun units per dollar for going to football games at stadiums has just reached the point where even hard core fans are wondering why they're spending the money.

This, all over the place. You could maybe get me to PPV for Longhorn football, but for Kansas - Iowa State women's soccer? What are you, nuts? My guess is that illegal streams will never be shut down effectively, and whatever revenue model might be used to justify conference networks has already died, it just doesn't know it yet.

---

You can tell they never watch the SECN during basketball and baseball seasons. From the end of August until June, the SECN has live content. Sure it has soccer and volleyball and gymnastics, too. But it has far more content than just a couple of "filler," games.

From another poster. He might just be getting it:

Quote:

---

Tier 3 is probably one of things best sold by all of D1 as a group and sold as a single streaming option.

Even the biggest schools with strong traditions have extremely limited revenue potential selling T3 content on their own, without a special, save-the-conference deal.

The conferences have slightly better options but still nothing to make much money on straight viewership. But if you put everyone's games together, even if a lot of the content wasn't live, you could probably generate decent revenue through scale alone. Maybe part of the pool is a guaranteed payout to each school and then there are bonuses for schools who actually drive viewership.

---

Yeah, the LHN sucks and is non-profitable, but then there is that pesky "we want more $$$ than everyone else anyway," attitude again.

Sips gotta sips.

FrickinFracker said:

---

Maybe if Disney would get their head out of their ass and allow online subscription directly to ESPN, instead of having to pay a **** cable company with a bunch of extra **** cable channels, they would be alright

---

This. I cut the cable this year, and have just been using a family member's cable login. Haven't missed single game that I wanted to watch.

1. Definitely not my candidate.

2. It's a family member that I help out regularly. In return, he gave me his login.

MiniShrike said:

---

Not his to give.

---

Most networks know this is going on and are perfectly fine with it. Because, this gives them access to a larger audience to gather bulk data on. This allows them to gear content to viewers specifically. If cable companies and networks did not want this system to be used this way (or cared for that matter), I have a hard time believing it'd be this damn easy to do.

DeepEastTxAg said:

---

MiniShrike said:

---

Not his to give.

---

Most networks know this is going on and are perfectly fine with it. Because, this gives them access to a larger audience to gather bulk data on. This allows them to gear content to viewers specifically. If cable companies and networks did not want this system to be used this way (or cared for that matter), I have a hard time believing it'd be this damn easy to do.

---

You could call them and ask. I'd be interested in their answer.

I was without car for about 10 years. Way more productive without it. The. We signed a 2 year agreement with comcast and are 13 months into it. I can't wait to cut the cord. Not sure if I can break my contract now or if I have to ride it out. Same with the phone bill. Spend way too much on the both of them and it's the biggest part of the budget we can take down.

Several representatives from streaming services such as Netflix and HBO have been quoted saying that cracking down on account sharing isn't even a topic of discussion right now because, either it will cost too much to develop a system of prevention without any reward, or they simply have much bigger issues at hand. I'm guessing a lot of both.

Sorry, I didn't know using my immediate family's account, which the concurrent streams offered by these services were intended for, was somehow dishonest. I will try my best to do better next time.

I think the WWE Network is a great example of what these companies should do. Previously one would have to pay $60 for a PPV. Now, you get the PPV for $10 plus a lot of content that you can either take or leave. I imagine it will be the conferences doing this or perhaps the networks if they come up with a decent value.

I think this shows that programs need to tighten spending now in case TV revenue takes a big drop in the next round of negotiations

TexAg15 said:

---

I think the WWE Network is a great example of what these companies should do. Previously one would have to pay $60 for a PPV. Now, you get the PPV for $10 plus a lot of content that you can either take or leave. I imagine it will be the conferences doing this or perhaps the networks if they come up with a decent value.

---

I don't think it will be a PPV type thing. At least I'd have no interest myself in that. What I would purchase is, say, a college football season pass either at a network level or conference level. All college games for $x.99.

I was a big fan of Hurd's before this year. As kindly as it can be said, he hasn't been getting it done. It would be natural to blame it on the offensive line, but the Vols have three other backs who seem to be thriving with that same line. A year ago, I thought Hurd was the second coming of Jamal Lewis or Travis Stephens. Now I think he's the second coming of Arian Rogers.

vol4ever said:

---

I was a big fan of Hurd's before this year. As kindly as it can be said, he hasn't been getting it done. It would be natural to blame it on the offensive line, but the Vols have three other backs who seem to be thriving with that same line. A year ago, I thought Hurd was the second coming of Jamal Lewis or Travis Stephens. Now I think he's the second coming of Arian Rogers.

---

wtf?

Remember: Call your internet service provider and ask for the longhorn network!

DeepEastTxAg said:

---

Sorry, I didn't know using my immediate family's account, which the concurrent streams offered by these services were intended for, was somehow dishonest. I will try my best to do better next time.

---

Don't try better "next time", stop stealing now and do better this time.

Not stealing. Concurrent streaming is a service intended for immediate family members. Read the terms of service.