Time Warner/ESPN

[APieperFan3]

I have been seeing a lot of commercials about Time Warner and ESPN's contract ending on Sept. 2nd.

Is there any realistic way that they will not come to an agreement...? I would think that Time Warner would be digging their own grave?

Anybody in the know?

[KipsBayEagle]

Yes they could, happen before out east with a few other chqannels, they lost them for a week then got them back.  I think they werent exactly big name channels, i wanna say the food network and like bravo or something, but it does happen.  These are contracts both companies will have to live with for the next 10 to 15 years, and since each makes up such a sizable portion of the others buisness, both are really looking to get a lot out of the next contract.  Its almost like the possible nfl holdout next year.  No one can believe it will happen since both sides stand to make so much money, but all that money is the reason there could be one.

[foreverwarriors]

TWC actually held the same stance on Fox at the beginning of this year. When the deadline passed without a deal, they extended the previous contract on a day by day basis until they got something figured out.

[GGGG]

Yes they could, happen before out east with a few other chqannels, they lost them for a week then got them back.  I think they werent exactly big name channels, i wanna say the food network and like bravo or something, but it does happen. 

If Bravo ever goes out in my house, you will *not* want to be around Mrs. Sultan.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This is the way of the world now.  With the economy in the crapter still, the ad revenues are down so these programmers are demanding really high fees from cable, telco and satellite.  TWC will come to a deal, but your monthly bill will be going up more and more in the next two years because so much of the industry is in renewals right now with Disney, Fox, CBS NBC, etc.

Pretty much everyone is going through it in 2010 and 2011.

DISH Network about 6 weeks ago pulled down the HD versions of much of their Disney programming (ESPNews, etc) as part of their pissing match with Disney.

[chapman]

Most annoying radio / tv commercials out there: Time Warner and whatever company they can't come to an agreement with both taking up ad time to whine about it as if I care.

[Brewtown Andy]

Hopefully TW's new deal with ESPN will allow ESPN3 to be carried on RoadRunner.

[NWarsh]

Speaking of Time Warner...I am trying to get rid of them because they may be the worst run organization in the country and am looking to get DirectTV, does anybody with that know if there is a way to still watch the away MU games with it?  Would I have to get the sports package or would I be out of luck trying to watch them?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Speaking of Time Warner...I am trying to get rid of them because they may be the worst run organization in the country and am looking to get DirectTV, does anybody with that know if there is a way to still watch the away MU games with it?  Would I have to get the sports package or would I be out of luck trying to watch them?

If you live in the New York area with Directv and SNY is considered a "local RSN", you will not have to pay extra for the Sports Pack on DIRECTV to watch MU games.

[Mr. Nielsen]

Sept. 2 is the start of college football. There is no way that ESPN & TWC will make the screen go black on that day.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Sept. 2 is the start of college football. There is no way that ESPN & TWC will make the screen go black on that day.

And ESPN knows it, which is why they are getting around $4.00 per sub per month, whether you like sports or not.  This is why a la carte won't work.  Only about 40% of people in this country identify themselves as sports fans.  If ESPN was forced as A la carte, you would be paying about $10.00 per month just for that channel.  ESPN and a few others has MSOs by the short hairs.

[brewcity77]

Hopefully TW's new deal with ESPN will allow ESPN3 to be carried on RoadRunner.

+1000

I can't even begin to say how much I would rather have U-Verse available at my place for this reason alone. Unfortunately, our condo complex has an exclusive with TWC, so we can't go with anyone else

[Brewtown Andy]

+1000

I can't even begin to say how much I would rather have U-Verse available at my place for this reason alone. Unfortunately, our condo complex has an exclusive with TWC, so we can't go with anyone else

If ESPN3 became available, I'd actually think about giving up the cable, since I'll be able to get ESPN3 over my Xbox 360 soon.

[martyconlonontherun]

And ESPN knows it, which is why they are getting around $4.00 per sub per month, whether you like sports or not.  This is why a la carte won't work.  Only about 40% of people in this country identify themselves as sports fans.  If ESPN was forced as A la carte, you would be paying about $10.00 per month just for that channel.  ESPN and a few others has MSOs by the short hairs.

It's crazy to think how much they charge per subscriber. They basically have a monopoly and TWC by the balls. If you don't have ESPN on Sept. 2, you aren't calling ESPN to complain, you are calling TWC.

[ChicosBailBonds]

It's crazy to think how much they charge per subscriber. They basically have a monopoly and TWC by the balls. If you don't have ESPN on Sept. 2, you aren't calling ESPN to complain, you are calling TWC.

Ding ding ding ding.  It's a drug, and ESPN knows it.  They are by FAR the single highest paid programmer out there that has content on a basic tier.  It's not even close.   There are some programmers that get more, but they are on tiered services (like the HBO's of the world)

[ChicosBailBonds]

As of today, TWC is balking at the ESPN3 part of the deal.  Just a fyi on the scuttlebutt within the biz.

They may cave, but it sounds like most of the issue is surround authentication rights and rights fees for things like AppleTV, NetFlix, etc and them wanting the same terms they are cutting with those entities (Apple, etc)

[Skatastrophy]

As of today, TWC is balking at the ESPN3 part of the deal.  Just a fyi on the scuttlebutt within the biz.

Can they really balk, though?  Is sounds like Disney is taking the "Buy ESPN3, too, or you aren't going to carry any ESPNs" tack on these talks.

It's always interesting watching heavyweights duke these things out.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Chico's,

With the the widespread proliferation/combination of internet/television, are the traditional cable providers (as we know them) in trouble?

Example: In another couple of years, would (insert network) even need a cable company for distribution? If they were advanced enough in their business operations, couldn't they just take the product to the end consumer via the internet?

To that end, does the Big East even need ESPN? At some point couldn't the BEAST launch its own "network" that is really just Bigeast.com? Subscribers could pay X amount for the whole package which includes all of the games, (this would include traditional commercial advertising in game).

I know television production is expensive, but there has to be some savings by cutting out middle men. Time Warner is making money. If ESPN or even the Big East can cut out either the cable company or the even the traditional networks, there has to be some $ to be made.

[martyconlonontherun]

Chico's,

With the the widespread proliferation/combination of internet/television, are the traditional cable providers (as we know them) in trouble?

Example: In another couple of years, would (insert network) even need a cable company for distribution? If they were advanced enough in their business operations, couldn't they just take the product to the end consumer via the internet?

To that end, does the Big East even need ESPN? At some point couldn't the BEAST launch its own "network" that is really just Bigeast.com? Subscribers could pay X amount for the whole package which includes all of the games, (this would include traditional commercial advertising in game).

I know television production is expensive, but there has to be some savings by cutting out middle men. Time Warner is making money. If ESPN or even the Big East can cut out either the cable company or the even the traditional networks, there has to be some $ to be made.

I may be misunderstanding your question but heres my shot...
The difference is that the audience levels are infinitely small for the BEAST compared to ESPN. They would be able to charge 3 or 4 per subscriber but I don't think they would have enough to get a la cart audeinces online nor a big enough hand to push TWC like ESPN. At that point I don't think it would be cost effective.

ESPN is something every customer wants and TWC would be screwed if they didn't pay for it. Why would someone like ESPN pull out when they get $4 from every house in the nation?

I could be wrong, but I don't see anyone pulling out of TWC. Maybe in 10 years when everyone watches tv on the computer, but too many people prefer tv sets. You can't sit around a computer drinking beers with the fellas and people are too lazy to connect the tv to the computer.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I may be misunderstanding your question but heres my shot...
The difference is that the audience levels are infinitely small for the BEAST compared to ESPN. They would be able to charge 3 or 4 per subscriber but I don't think they would have enough to get a la cart audeinces online nor a big enough hand to push TWC like ESPN. At that point I don't think it would be cost effective.

ESPN is something every customer wants and TWC would be screwed if they didn't pay for it. Why would someone like ESPN pull out when they get $4 from every house in the nation?

I could be wrong, but I don't see anyone pulling out of TWC. Maybe in 10 years when everyone watches tv on the computer, but too many people prefer tv sets. You can't sit around a computer drinking beers with the fellas and people are too lazy to connect the tv to the computer.

I hear what you are saying, but I just watched a movie with a bunch of buddies over the weekend on netflix. His TV is wifi capable and he subscribes to netflix.com

How long before a network develops this delivery system? I know Time Warner pays $4 per viewer for ESPN, but somehow TWC is still making a profit.

Couldn't ESPN cut TWC out of the equation and charge the end consumer to receive their content via the internet?

I'm not saying this is going to happen this year, I'm just curious what will happen in the next 5 years. We are really getting to the point where computers and televisions are autonomous, and how we receive our content/programing is going to evolve.

The days of running coax cable in every room for a television are soon coming to an end.

[martyconlonontherun]

I hear what you are saying, but I just watched a movie with a bunch of buddies over the weekend on netflix. His TV is wifi capable and he subscribes to netflix.com

How long before a network develops this delivery system? I know Time Warner pays $4 per viewer for ESPN, but somehow TWC is still making a profit.

Couldn't ESPN cut TWC out of the equation and charge the end consumer to receive their content via the internet?

I'm not saying this is going to happen this year, I'm just curious what will happen in the next 5 years. We are really getting to the point where computers and televisions are autonomous, and how we receive our content/programing is going to evolve.
The days of running coax cable in every room for a television are soon coming to an end.

I think the difference is TWC is the bad guy in the current system because they are the ones actually charging us more. Most people don't realize how much they pay for ESPN currently. They are ok paying cable bills but it is more noticeable receiving a bill directly from ESPN every week. You also have to take into account that the price per subscriber will go up dramatically since not everyone in the nation is paying. You are looking at $10+ per subscriber for 3 channels. I think ESPN prefers the route through timewarner cable. I'm a huge sports fan and not sure I would pay $10+ a month for a special ESPN set up. There are just too many other options now.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I think the difference is TWC is the bad guy in the current system because they are the ones actually charging us more. Most people don't realize how much they pay for ESPN currently. They are ok paying cable bills but it is more noticeable receiving a bill directly from ESPN every week. You also have to take into account that the price per subscriber will go up dramatically since not everyone in the nation is paying. You are looking at $10+ per subscriber for 3 channels. I think ESPN prefers the route through timewarner cable. I'm a huge sports fan and not sure I would pay $10+ a month for a special ESPN set up. There are just too many other options now.

I understand, in terms of the specific ESPN vs TWC debate, it's going to be a standard contract deal that they will eventually settle on.

I guess let's just long term picture:

TWC's overhead comes from paying for installers, vehicles, coax cable, maintenance of the large boxes in neighborhoods, installation in new housing developments, customer service, etc. The rest of their overhead comes from paying for content (like ESPN).

So, they have to charge consumers $X per month to cover all of those costs and make a profit.

Flash forward 5 years from now: Widget Wireless finally has 5g or 9g whatever g speed available for all of their handsets and home computer use.

Their overhead comes from customer service, and paying for the wireless towers (or leasing them in some cases). No extra installers, no residential vehicles, residential installations, no coax cable, etc. etc.

Their labor costs should be considerably lower, and if they work with the networks (like ESPN) they could provide content very easily. In fact, a small niche network could sign an exclusive deal with this carrier (think NFL Sunday ticket). When you turn on your TV, it detects the wireless signal, you click on the NFL Sunday Ticket App, and you're off to the races.

Now, extrapolate this out 10 years down the road, and does a league/program even need a "network"? Could they just create their own "network" online and sell ad space for it? Obviously it takes skill to manage the sale of ads and  generate revenue, so it's not that easy.

But, the infrastructure of "network" (NBC, ABC, etc.) and "cable company" delivering content is shattered. You don't need it.

Sure ESPN cuts a big check to the Big East to carry it's games, but that's because ESPN makes a lot of $ selling ads for those games. That's $ that could be put in the Big East's pocket. Also, the ad content could be customized per consumer, like google does now. Highly targeted 2 min. ads during a basketball game. No more Rosen Rosen Rosen ads for me because I'm not interested in a Kia.

Sorry for the long winded post. I just think we're on the cusp on "cable companies" going the way of the "phone company". The model is changing fast, and the delivery of that content is going to be drastically different in 10 years. There is still going to be a need/want for "traditional cable", but a lot of people will adopt a different delivery system.

I know there are some smart guys around here. Am I smoking crack, or is this likely?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Can they really balk, though?  Is sounds like Disney is taking the "Buy ESPN3, too, or you aren't going to carry any ESPNs" tack on these talks.

It's always interesting watching heavyweights duke these things out.

Well, someone will have to give, that's probably the easiest give for Disney.  I found an article today basically stating the same thing, that TWC was balking.  See below.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100829/media_nm/us_timewarnercable_disney

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chico's,

With the the widespread proliferation/combination of internet/television, are the traditional cable providers (as we know them) in trouble?

Example: In another couple of years, would (insert network) even need a cable company for distribution? If they were advanced enough in their business operations, couldn't they just take the product to the end consumer via the internet?

To that end, does the Big East even need ESPN? At some point couldn't the BEAST launch its own "network" that is really just Bigeast.com? Subscribers could pay X amount for the whole package which includes all of the games, (this would include traditional commercial advertising in game).

I know television production is expensive, but there has to be some savings by cutting out middle men. Time Warner is making money. If ESPN or even the Big East can cut out either the cable company or the even the traditional networks, there has to be some $ to be made.

In my opinion, no.  There are certainly folks that want to make those predictions but this isn't the recording industry where Apple came in and basically changed the world.  Here's why....the programmers get over $50 billion a year from Time Warner, DIRECTV, DISH, Comcast, etc, etc.  ESPN, etc doesn't exist without that money and they know it.  Plus you have so many deals out there that have MFNs that would prevent them from doing just that.  In other words, the ESPNs of the world cannot go out there and undercut by selling for free or a different rate without violating that MFN.

No question the world will get more interesting but we're a long long way away from content providers bypassing the $$$ and distribution you need.  The least of which is the delivery infrastructure.  Imagine trying to get 2 or 3 HD streams into your home for a 50 inch television where you could be recording one show, watching another and your wife is watching another in the other room.  That is going to take a helluva pipe via internet that very few people have access to, let alone the 114.9 million television households that are out there, the majority of which still aren't even hooked up to broadband connections yet.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I understand, in terms of the specific ESPN vs TWC debate, it's going to be a standard contract deal that they will eventually settle on.

I guess let's just long term picture:

TWC's overhead comes from paying for installers, vehicles, coax cable, maintenance of the large boxes in neighborhoods, installation in new housing developments, customer service, etc. The rest of their overhead comes from paying for content (like ESPN).

So, they have to charge consumers $X per month to cover all of those costs and make a profit.

Flash forward 5 years from now: Widget Wireless finally has 5g or 9g whatever g speed available for all of their handsets and home computer use.

Their overhead comes from customer service, and paying for the wireless towers (or leasing them in some cases). No extra installers, no residential vehicles, residential installations, no coax cable, etc. etc.

Their labor costs should be considerably lower, and if they work with the networks (like ESPN) they could provide content very easily. In fact, a small niche network could sign an exclusive deal with this carrier (think NFL Sunday ticket). When you turn on your TV, it detects the wireless signal, you click on the NFL Sunday Ticket App, and you're off to the races.

Now, extrapolate this out 10 years down the road, and does a league/program even need a "network"? Could they just create their own "network" online and sell ad space for it? Obviously it takes skill to manage the sale of ads and  generate revenue, so it's not that easy.

But, the infrastructure of "network" (NBC, ABC, etc.) and "cable company" delivering content is shattered. You don't need it.

Sure ESPN cuts a big check to the Big East to carry it's games, but that's because ESPN makes a lot of $ selling ads for those games. That's $ that could be put in the Big East's pocket. Also, the ad content could be customized per consumer, like google does now. Highly targeted 2 min. ads during a basketball game. No more Rosen Rosen Rosen ads for me because I'm not interested in a Kia.

Sorry for the long winded post. I just think we're on the cusp on "cable companies" going the way of the "phone company". The model is changing fast, and the delivery of that content is going to be drastically different in 10 years. There is still going to be a need/want for "traditional cable", but a lot of people will adopt a different delivery system.

I know there are some smart guys around here. Am I smoking crack, or is this likely?

Way way down the road, perhaps.  You could make the argument that they wouldn't need a network and everything essentially becomes source to end user.  It comes down to the adaption rate of those type of technologies and would someone like the Big East want to bypass the hardlined world?  In my mind, these new technologies will work together but not against one another because you cut your own throat in terms of distribution otherwise.  Either through sour business relationships or simply because 60% of the country won't have this stuff for years and years.  Think of just today, we can't even get a solid 3G network across this country, let alone in many major cities as calls are dropped, etc.  We have a long way to go...it's exciting stuff but a long way to go.