Broadcast television in an IP world

Luke Guillory lguillory at reservetele.com
Mon Nov 20 17:09:10 CST 2017


ESPN thought they could get away with it and are now feeling the push back that the end users are fed up with it. Of course being forced into the expanded basic tier meant they were part of the last group to feel it though. 

I don't think the current model is cruel as much as the rising price of programing has been which is only getting worse. In the end going direct will cost the end user more in the long run.  ESPN has lost 100s of thousands of customers, being that 80% of their revenue comes from subs leaves a grim picture of their business model. Hell they pay 1.9B a year just for  their NFL rights with a total of 7.3B a year in rights and production. Of course this doesn't drop in price as they bleed customers which also could cause an issue for advertising since I believe they have a min eyeball clause in their contracts.

And unfortunately we're not able to state specifics when it comes to programing, they make sure to state that in our contracts so we can't inform customers. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Black [mailto:Matthew.Black at csulb.edu] 
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 10:55 AM
To: Luke Guillory; nanog at nanog.org
Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

No problem, and thanks for the apology. Cable TV bills get most of us heated. 100% ala carte pricing may not be the solution, but the current model is pretty cruel to subscribers who aren't sports fans. It's likely that a premium sports package may have to charge upwards of $50-100 per month since they can no longer charge everyone. ESPN subscriber fees have skyrocketed because they can get away with charging more, just like HBO. The cable TV industry should be much more transparent about costs.


-----Original Message-----
From: Luke Guillory [mailto:lguillory at reservetele.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 8:40 AM
To: Matthew Black; nanog at nanog.org
Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

I missed the et al, sorry about that. 



-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Black [mailto:Matthew.Black at csulb.edu] 
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 10:30 AM
To: Luke Guillory; nanog at nanog.org
Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

I wrote ET AL. ESPN costs $9 per month. Throw in Fox Sports and other regional sports franchise fees to get $20 a month. And then ESPN double dips by airing advertising. HBO and Showtime are commercial free.

http://www.businessinsider.com/cable-satellite-tv-sub-fees-espn-networks-2017-3



-----Original Message-----
From: Luke Guillory [mailto:lguillory at reservetele.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 8:10 AM
To: Matthew Black; nanog at nanog.org
Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

ESPN's programing fees aren't anywhere near $20 a month, they're not even $10 a month. HBO on the other hand is pretty much what the end user pays in terms of programing cost. 



-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Black [mailto:Matthew.Black at csulb.edu] 
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 9:11 AM
To: Luke Guillory; nanog at nanog.org
Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

Right now only 25% of cable subscribers watch sports channels like ESPN. But 100% pay up to $20 a month for ESPN et al. in their monthly subscription fees. HBO and Showtime subscribers pay for those premium services. It is well past time for sports enthusiasts to pay for their very expensive content in a sports premium package.


-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Luke Guillory
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:02 PM
To: Jean-Francois Mezei; nanog at nanog.org
Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

This use to be the case.

While it might lower OPX that surely won't result in lower retrans, will just be more profit for them.

We're down as well on video subs, this is 99% due to rising prices.

This is where it's heading for sure, in the end it will cost more as well since each will be charging more than the per sub rates we're getting charge. They'll have to in order to keep revenue the same.

When ESPN offers an OTT product I have no doubt it will be near the $20 per month, for 5 channels or so?



Luke Guillory
Vice President – Technology and Innovation

Tel:    985.536.1212
Fax:    985.536.0300
Email:  lguillory at reservetele.com

Reserve Telecommunications
100 RTC Dr
Reserve, LA 70084

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Disclaimer:
The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. .



More information about the NANOG mailing list