You're gradually convincing me, Adam. But what about sports? I don't have a TV, and this is the one thing I really miss. Even the few online packages I've pursued are no help: I can't watch the games because they are broadcast locally . . .
This is something that a la carte _could_ address.
Adam Thierer
· 11 months ago
Tim, thanks for your comment.
As you probably know, in many ways, the a la carte debate is being driven by sports programming. Many people don't like paying for a bundle of television programming that includes expensive sports channels that may drive up the aggregate cost of service. Of course, it is also true that if we stripped sports programming out of the mix and required it all to be purchased on a per-event basis, we could witness a serious escalation of live televised sports programming. (Look what pay-per-view boxing and MMA already costs for an indication). So, bundles help equalize those costs a bit, but not without downsides.
What will be really interesting to watch over the next 5 years is how major sports leagues continue to create their own media platforms (think NFL Network or Big Ten Network) and then, eventually, start experimenting with delivering that content over the Web as well as broadcast, cable, and satellite platforms. Is it crazy to think that the NFL, for example, might eventually take the "NFL Sunday Ticket" and just put it all online using? If enough homes had broadband (and knew how to connect their computer to a larger display) then this scenario becomes very attractive to the owners.
So, interesting days are ahead and it's not at all clear how we will be watching sports programming a decade from now. Keep in mind, however, that the economics of sports and sports programming is a very unique world. It's like no other type of programming since:
(a) It is the most time-sensitive of all forms of media. The demand to view a particular sporting event drops dramatically in proportion to how long you delay it. That's why a pay-per-view boxing match is $60 bucks live but then free on the TV the next weekend.
(b) People are fanatical about sports and demand to see their local teams in action. This creates a strong incentive for owners to get sports programming placed on mass media platforms.
Ryan Radia
· 11 months ago
OTA broadcast TV is free and you can usually get it with a sufficiently powerful antenna if you're within 100 miles, so the only sports programming pertinent to the a la carte debate is content that's available only on cable sports channels like Comcast SportsNet, ESPN, Big Ten Network, etc.
There have been several major moves toward a la carte sports programming--for the past few seasons, MLB has streamed every single game online for a couple hundred bucks per season. You can also now stream all NHL games online. Even the NFL streams games online, albeit only for DirecTV customers for now.
DTV-Guru
· 11 months ago
Tim Schneider wrote: "But what about sports?" Now sports from ESPN is also availalbe on the Xbox, PS3, Popcorn Hour and other UPnP video players using a small server application that runs on your PC. The product from themediamall.com is called PlayOn. In addition to ESPN, it also offers Hulu, CBS and YouTube on the Xbox. It even offers Netflix from your Xbox without requiring the Xbox Live subscription!
All Comments
This is something that a la carte _could_ address.
As you probably know, in many ways, the a la carte debate is being driven by sports programming. Many people don't like paying for a bundle of television programming that includes expensive sports channels that may drive up the aggregate cost of service. Of course, it is also true that if we stripped sports programming out of the mix and required it all to be purchased on a per-event basis, we could witness a serious escalation of live televised sports programming. (Look what pay-per-view boxing and MMA already costs for an indication). So, bundles help equalize those costs a bit, but not without downsides.
What will be really interesting to watch over the next 5 years is how major sports leagues continue to create their own media platforms (think NFL Network or Big Ten Network) and then, eventually, start experimenting with delivering that content over the Web as well as broadcast, cable, and satellite platforms. Is it crazy to think that the NFL, for example, might eventually take the "NFL Sunday Ticket" and just put it all online using? If enough homes had broadband (and knew how to connect their computer to a larger display) then this scenario becomes very attractive to the owners.
So, interesting days are ahead and it's not at all clear how we will be watching sports programming a decade from now. Keep in mind, however, that the economics of sports and sports programming is a very unique world. It's like no other type of programming since:
(a) It is the most time-sensitive of all forms of media. The demand to view a particular sporting event drops dramatically in proportion to how long you delay it. That's why a pay-per-view boxing match is $60 bucks live but then free on the TV the next weekend.
(b) People are fanatical about sports and demand to see their local teams in action. This creates a strong incentive for owners to get sports programming placed on mass media platforms.
There have been several major moves toward a la carte sports programming--for the past few seasons, MLB has streamed every single game online for a couple hundred bucks per season. You can also now stream all NHL games online. Even the NFL streams games online, albeit only for DirecTV customers for now.
Now sports from ESPN is also availalbe on the Xbox, PS3, Popcorn Hour and other UPnP video players using a small server application that runs on your PC. The product from themediamall.com is called PlayOn. In addition to ESPN, it also offers Hulu, CBS and YouTube on the Xbox. It even offers Netflix from your Xbox without requiring the Xbox Live subscription!