Is Angelos quietly shopping the Orioles?

[Birds of B'more]

What is interesting is that HBO seems like a logical network to stream independently. Yet they say they aren't planning to do anything that isn't associated with a cable subscription.

I haven't subscribed to HBO since The Wire ended. But they do have other shows that I still watch on DVD, even though it's a year behind. If I ever do ditch DirecTV, and HBO were to offer an independent online subscription for the same rate they charge on cable, I'd probably do it.

[BaltimoreTerp]

That's where I think these channels and cable companies need to take heed and learn a lesson from what happened to the music industry. Like someone said earlier' date=' if someone doesn't feel like spending $15 for an album in which they only want 1 or 2 songs, they'll find a way to just get those songs. The producers/distributors can either figure out a way to offer consumers a means to buy those two songs (without charging $7.50 for each one) and still profit, or people will find "other means" to get them and they'll begin to hemorrhage revenues.[/quote']

I have a sneaking suspicion that, were Steve Jobs alive and in good health, he'd be heading in this direction as his next great project. Especially with Apple TV just sort-of sitting there with little to do, much like the first iPods.

[Birds of B'more]

What is good for the consumer or what the consumer wants is a LOT different than what Comcast, Cox and the Time Warners of the world want. Guess who has the real power.

Ultimately the consumer does. But consumers can only exert their influence in large numbers....and even then these businesses are often slow to respond.

[geschinger]

Bundling isn't going away anytime soon; not unless you want to see a drastic decrease in the number of cable channels due to insolvency. There's plenty of articles out there written from an independent/consumerist point of view detailing why "? la carte" programming will actually hurt consumers. "Cable cutters" are in reality just exchanging one expensive bundle (Cable TV) for a less expensive bundle (Hulu/Netflix); Hulu and Netflix are cheap now because their subscriber base at the time the streaming contracts were written were relatively small; Hulu and Netflix and the like are only going to get more expensive as time goes on, just look at the numbers Netflix is starting to deal with going from paying 180 million to studios in 2010 to somewhere around 1.98 billion in 2012; eventually that's going to trickle down to the subscriber, and in fact already started to last year when netflix hiked their fees. Remember during all this, netflix lost all the starz content because it was too expensive. Hulu right now has the benefit of being the child of CBS and FOX; which both are trying desperately to get out of; although they've shelved the plans to sell it off for now.

Basically if the RSN's were to take online streaming at the expense of their forced subscription base, the cost of that online streaming will probably be prohibitively expensive to a lot of the cord cutters who likely left cable tv due to the expense. Also, while cable companies are losing subscribers, both Dish (although they took a beating last year) and Directv have added subscribers, as have AT&T and Verizon; so the number of cable cutters is extremely overstated

Here's a good article detailing why bundling isn't going away:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2010/01/25/100125ta_talk_surowiecki

Interesting article but we've already seen things change dramatically since this was written (Jan 2010). Since early 2010 cable companies like Time Warner and Comcast have lost somewhere between 1.5-2m subscribers. I haven't seen final numbers for 2011 but the latest I saw indicated that satellite subscriber counts would drop for the first time ever. Customers are getting fed up with the existing system and it's getting easier and easier to go elsewhere.

You are correct that the cost on streaming will rise. However I see a pricing reset for the video business much like we see with music. The days of the $15 bundle of 10-12 songs we used to call an album is still available and I suspect there will always be some bundles out there but users won't stand for having to take 95% dreck to get to the 5% they want. What we have now is a system that is out of control. If you have enough money to start an RSN whether customers have any interest or not they whole lot of them are forced to pony up. God forbid the rare occurrence where a cable company try to do right for their customers and put the RSN in a value add tier so that only the people who care about it are forced to take it and they find themselves getting sued.

The changes will lead to lots of channels being killed off but I don't see that as a bad thing. And yes some channels will be pricey but overall it's better for the consumer and may even lead to better advertising revenues if the market isn't overly fragmented. With an RSN they would still have to keep prices low enough to get enough subscribers to maximize their revenues. Would it really be so bad if the revenues of these RSNs shrunk as a result and they could only pay MLB teams 20-25m a year instead of upwards of $75m a year that supposedly SD is getting. The only reason they can offer fees that high is that they are raping subscribers with forced subscriptions priced well beyond what they should be and would be in a fair market system.

[geschinger]

What is interesting is that HBO seems like a logical network to stream independently. Yet they say they aren't planning to do anything that isn't associated with a cable subscription.

My guess it has more to do with being owned by Time Warner (large cable co) than it does that the business case doesn't support something like making HBO2GO available to anyone willing to pay.

[Sports Guy]

http://jabbyburns.com/2012/02/15/free-birds-peytons-plans-and-im-all-lin/

I found this interesting.

Some of you are going to ask, who is this guy blogging and why should we listen to him?

Well, first of all, he is a friend of mine...he used to work with the Orioles when I did. He also does a Sunday morning radio sports talk show.

He does know some people, who exactly I am not sure but I do know he knows some people who could be reliable.

Anyway, he is obviously hinting at Kevin Plank and Under Armour getting involved here...He is someone who has been mentioned in the past, along with mason and Bisciotti, as someone who go after the team.

Anyway, just passing this along. Josh does a good job with his site and he isn't the type of person who would just say something to get people to read it...If he says it, its because he is hearing it from people....how reliable are those people? Who knows...but this info does kind of go with what we are hearing and have heard.

[Birds of B'more]

My guess it has more to do with being owned by Time Warner (large cable co) than it does that the business case doesn't support something like making HBO2GO available to anyone willing to pay.

Good point there. The fact that many channels are actually owned by cable operators themselves will slow a sea change in content delivery (since they will stubbornly resist and will almost certainly resort to litigation at first) but won't stop it.

[EddieMurrayfan]

I don't really agree. HBO has been around for over 30 years and has never been a part of any basic package I've seen on cable or satellite. They survive because they offer premium programming that their viewers like and are willing to pay an extra 10-15 dollars a month to see.

Just my personal opinion' date=' but I think a huge decrease in the number of cable channels due to insolvency would be a good thing. It would bring an end to these channels that are being subsidized by every subscriber, most of which probably never watch it, and through consolidation the ones that consistently offer programming that people want will thrive. Who knows, maybe it would bring an end to the crap that passes for entertainment these days and raise the bar for TV programming.....one can hope.[/quote']

I agree, Most of what you get on those basic packages is crap. For example, the History channel used to have some decent stuff to watch if you like history. Now it has crap like Ice Road Truckers and othe BS. A & E used to have some decent stuff but now you get the tattoo shows and pawn shop shows.

And you do not need hulu or netflix to watch what you want. You can find pretty much anything you want online for free if you are willing to search for it. You will still have a certain amount who dont want to put in the time or effort to do online searching but it seems inevitable that more and more people will cut out paying all the $$ for TV. As more and more people talk to those who are doing it more will take the step.

I just bought a new 60" Plasma 2 weeks ago. The salesman was asking about my TV provider. I told him I do it all thru the internet and pay no more for crap programming. He said, "you are the man, that is the way to go. I'm jealous." He said he had been thinking of doing the same type of thing.

Cable/Satellite will have to change at some point. It all depends on how many consumers will wake up from their slumber and cause the change.

I fully expect internet providers to at some point charge for data usage. If they do it could actually help the TV providers.

[apollod]

I don't really agree. HBO has been around for over 30 years and has never been a part of any basic package I've seen on cable or satellite. They survive because they offer premium programming that their viewers like and are willing to pay an extra 10-15 dollars a month to see.

Just my personal opinion' date=' but I think a huge decrease in the number of cable channels due to insolvency would be a good thing. It would bring an end to these channels that are being subsidized by every subscriber, most of which probably never watch it, and through consolidation the ones that consistently offer programming that people want will thrive. Who knows, maybe it would bring an end to the crap that passes for entertainment these days and raise the bar for TV programming.....one can hope.[/quote']

Here's an amazing article on why HBO is so successful; and particularly why HBO will not do on-demand programming at this time. The movie channels have always been 'a-la-carte' in a sense; but they're sold on-top of existing bundles which absorb some of the cost to the provider for providing HBO.

http://www.economist.com/node/21526314

You're very much right in that going to "a-la-carte" and/or on-demand programming will make the cream rise to the top, but at the expense at a-lot of the content and tv overall will become much more expensive. I'd suspect a typical household might subscribe to 5 or 6 channels on-top of the basic ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX/etc.. at $15 on avg a pop (what HBO currently charges, while being thrown on-top of existing bundles which may or may not be absorbing some of the cost to the provider) you're paying $75-$90 easily for 5 or 6 additional channels. That's already pretty close to what most people pay for 300+ channels; I mean, I pay $99 with FiOS and I have everything but HBO/Cinemax/Starz/Showtime/Etc.

edit:

And as stated in the economist article, and an opinion I tend to agree with. The move to on-demand programming will start outside of the US due to how distribution in those countries is handled differently; eventually it'll make its way here.

[eddie83]

http://jabbyburns.com/2012/02/15/free-birds-peytons-plans-and-im-all-lin/

I found this interesting.

Some of you are going to ask, who is this guy blogging and why should we listen to him?

Well, first of all, he is a friend of mine...he used to work with the Orioles when I did. He also does a Sunday morning radio sports talk show.

He does know some people, who exactly I am not sure but I do know he knows some people who could be reliable.

Anyway, he is obviously hinting at Kevin Plank and Under Armour getting involved here...He is someone who has been mentioned in the past, along with mason and Bisciotti, as someone who go after the team.

Anyway, just passing this along. Josh does a good job with his site and he isn't the type of person who would just say something to get people to read it...If he says it, its because he is hearing it from people....how reliable are those people? Who knows...but this info does kind of go with what we are hearing and have heard.

I think last year there was some article saying how John Angelos wasn't around as much and then this year Duquette mentioned Lou Angelos in his press conference with no mention of John. i always thought John was the one around the team not Lou.

The only thing with Plank is if he would buy the Orioles would that kill any chance UA could be involved with official MLB merchandise, uniforms, etc?

[weams]

John Runs MASN

I think last year there was some article saying how John Angelos wasn't around as much and then this year Duquette mentioned Lou Angelos in his press conference with no mention of John. i always thought John was the one around the team not Lou.

The only thing with Plank is if he would buy the Orioles would that kill any chance UA could be involved with official MLB merchandise, uniforms, etc?

So I suspect he is busy.

[eddie83]

John Runs MASN So I suspect he is busy.

I know I saw something this past year where John wasn't as involved as much, it might of had to do with Angelos not keeping the Ravens on MASN, I will have to research it.

[Birds of B'more]

You are correct that the cost on streaming will rise. However I see a pricing reset for the video business much like we see with music. The days of the $15 bundle of 10-12 songs we used to call an album is still available and I suspect there will always be some bundles out there but users won't stand for having to take 95% dreck to get to the 5% they want. What we have now is a system that is out of control. If you have enough money to start an RSN whether customers have any interest or not they whole lot of them are forced to pony up. God forbid the rare occurrence where a cable company try to do right for their customers and put the RSN in a value add tier so that only the people who care about it are forced to take it and they find themselves getting sued.

Although it isn't an RSN, that's exactly what happened at first with NFL Network. Many cable companies balked at putting it on basic tiers for what the NFL wanted to charge per subscriber. But the NFL held firm, thinking that the cable companies would cave because their subscribers would exert enormous pressure on them if they missed 8 live games a year. But the NFL overplayed its hand there, since many of the games featured on the network aren't really marquee matchups, plus the fact that the games are also simulcast OTA in the home markets of the participating teams. Of course for the cable companies it wasn't so much about the cost per month, but more so the fact that they wanted an end to DirecTV's exclusive rights to Sunday Ticket in exchange for carrying NFL Network. IIRC, the compromise was that the NFL decided to produce its own version of the Red Zone Channel and offered that to cable carriers in exchange for carrying NFL Network, which many of the big companies accepted, although some still haven't (like Cablevision).

[Birds of B'more]

I fully expect internet providers to at some point charge for data usage. If they do it could actually help the TV providers.

And since in many cases the internet providers and TV providers are one-and-the-same, that's where I think we're headed. Which is fine by me, since paying tiered pricing for the bandwidth you use still means that you're only paying for what you want to watch for the most part.

[Can_of_corn]

John Runs MASN So I suspect he is busy.

How much work is there with running MASN, aside from suing cable companies to force them to air the programming?