Scholarship table
If they have a smart TV, with one swipe on your phone, you can mirror with you're watching on the 60 inch TV in surround sounds. I do it all the time. Don't need $120/month DTV or Cable account.
Depends on your TV brand and your phone. That isn't 100% true for every smart TV/phone combination. Sometimes you also need an accessory like Amazon fire TV or Google Chromecast
Of course you need a DTV or cable account to access most good sporting events, including MU basketball.
Yes, but that isn't always as smooth. I've used streaming a lot, particularly with mlb.tv, but the irregularity of the signal makes me appreciate the steady/reliable picture you get from cable. Being able to quickly flip channels is also a nice bonus with cable.
Remember 90% of the cable subscription don't need this.And the rest can be streamed live. The NFL has started streaming games via twitter. This board has a "steaming option" thread almost every game.The only reason Cable has not collapsed yet is the networks (HBO, ESPN, ABC, CBS, NBC etc.) are not ready to offer a streaming option to compete against Cable/Sat. Right now you need a cable account and have to sign in with that to use their streaming options. They are not offering their services for purchase as stand alone product priced to compete with their cable option. When NBC/CBS/ABC offer themselves as a package for $3/month ... goodbye cable (and ESPN is really screwed).This will happen, and it will not take 20 years.
One of the keys is exclusive content that people want. The local cable provider where I live covers the local high school sports teams. They will not sell that channel stand alone.
1. You can't stream most NFL games without some sort of subscription, whether that is Sling, Vue, cable, DTV, etc. You infer that you can stream any NFL game for free. You are simply wrong.2. Why would people pay $3/ month or whatever for ABC/NBC/ CBS/FOX +plus another dozen or two channels when most people can put out $40-$50 one time on an antenna and watch the networks forever for nothing?3. HBO offers stand alone HBO. 4. CBS is also available standalone. You cannot get it for $3 a month. It won't ever be $3.00 a month.You make many blanket statements. Very few hold up to the truth.#alternativefacts
Quite simply, you are wrong."Besides young people don't even watch TV on some big screen on the wall. They watch it on their devices."What a silly statement. Yes, a minority of young people watch things on their phone. But, you made a blanket statement that was ludicrous.And, there are a myriad of reason why the vast majority of people have cable. Whether you or I disagree with their reason for keeping cable is meaningless.Yes, some will continue to ditch cable. 20 years from now, the majority will still have it.
You're telling me what is the case now and acting these current business models are permanent and will never change. That would be quite the story because these business models are in a big state of flux.
Sounds like you lost this bet a year before you made it!For the First Time, More Than Half of Americans Will Watch Streaming TVDigital movie streaming lags behindFebruary 3, 2016
They will stream it and make money of advertising ... like they do now.
good article to get ya"ll up to speed on the "state" of tv viewing-some of this chit is a little over my head, but as with most of us 50-somethings, we have shown the ability to adapt and utilize to varying degrees of effectiveness. i usually consider myself more average to slightly above with regards to adapting and utilizing the ever evolving technology in every day life. my dad(in his 80's) for example, is more or less lost. my mom however, has utilized just enough to remain dangerous...and somewhat more efficient.but this article, i found to be a pretty good barometer of where things are today and moving forward-http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21716459-peak-tv-its-way-slowly-traditional-tvs-surprising-staying-power
February 10, 2017ESPN Reportedly Losing 10,000 Subscribers Every Dayhttp://www.inquisitr.com/3970090/espn-reportedly-losing-10000-subscribers-every-day/ESPN has become a drag on the earnings of parent company Disney as cord-cutters unsubscribe in droves.“A floundering ESPN, with rising costs and declining viewership, continued to sink Disney’s financial results during its fiscal first quarter,” MarketWatch noted.With its movie franchises and theme parks, Disney is and should be doing fine, but the 1Q revenue was down 3 percent and profit plummeted 14 percent because of its sports media investment.“The world-wide leader in sports lost subscribers, while average viewership and advertising rates declined and programming costs grew,” MarketWatch added.Through the end of 2016, Bristol, Connecticut-based ESPN had lost about 12 million subscribers from a 100 million high in 2011.“At an estimated $7 per subscriber, that dip has been a substantial hit to Disney, especially considering media networks made up 49 percent of Disney’s profits during fiscal 2016,” explained The Wrap about ESPN’s financial troubles.
Again, you claim, this is an ESPN-induced problem.It is not. It is a cable problem.Why not have a headline saying "Comedy Channel loses 10,000 subscribers a day"? Oh, that doesn't fit your agenda.
The sentence I wrote immediately above ...Again, ESPN is suffering from the decline in all cable. But ESPN is the most expensive cable station and far and away has the highest cost. So it has the most to lose.ESPN/ESPN2 cost you $10/month. The Comedy channel cost you about 85 cents a month. So yes the comedy channel is losing subscribers like ESPN. But the comedy channel has no overhead when compared the huge broadcasting rights ESPN has shelled out.And like you said the lower fees will get passed along to the sports leagues and conferences. That is a nice way to say the sports leagues/conferences are screwed and not take it lying down. I expect strikes and problems in the leagues as the realization sets in that payrolls are peaking and may head lower in the coming years. Cities like Milwaukee are going to be choking on their new basketball stadium.
Yes they put out a lot of $$$$$ and the NFL and MLB negotiations in 4 years will tell us a lot about the future.They also rake in about $7,000,000,000 - that;s 7 with a 'B' - more from carriage fees than Fox Sports. They also rake in a ton more advertising $$$$than FOX.ESPN is down about 11 mil viewers in the last 5 years. Still, the money they make from cable carriage fees is up about $2B. Advertising $$$$ are also rising big time.Annual rights fees now run almost $6B a year - nowhere near the $11B -$12B they bring in.We will not totally know where ESPN's financial health is at until the MBL negotiations in 4 years and NFL in 5 years. Let's just say for now that they have no competition.
Yes we know the HISTORY lesson. But the reason DIS stock is struggling is about the future. Investors are worried the number you cite are never to be seen again and they will get worse and worse as we move forward in time.
As a Disney stockholder and former Disney employee (Mouseschwitz is what we used to call it), I'm not worried one iota.They beat earnings, they were short on revenue. Sure the stock will get hit, but just wait until Star Wars next quarter and some of the pipeline content.Put another way, I'm buying Disney today.
I bought some today when it was down about $10.00. May buy some more tomorrow.I love Bob Iger, but thought he was a bit disingenious with his statement that they could go OTT today if they wanted to. From a technical perspective, he's correct. From a contractual perspective, not so fast. More importantly, he knows that if he did the amount of money he stands to lose is huge. That's why they are sticking with the bundle despite a lot of people screaming they shouldn't, because of those people simply don't understand the mechanics or the risk involved.Some day, yes, but not for awhile.
This was 3 1/2 years ago. The stock is lower significantly today. So you been sitting with a loss for at least 3 1/2 years? What is the difference between being "early" and "wrong?"