A couple of interesting columns regarding Comcast and the Comcast-TWC merger. My only comment is to note that neither Direct TV or Dish has Comcast Sports, even though it is available to them. Too expensive I guess. and Cable TV Will Soon Resemble a Sushi Menu Written by: Rocco Pendola02/25/14 - 9:08 AM EST NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- What's the biggest complaint of cable and satellite customers? I have to pay all of this money for a whole bunch of channels I don't even watch. That era's about to come to an end after approval of the Time Warner Cable/Comcast deal. http://business-news.thestreet.com/philly/story/cable-tv-will-soon-resemble-a-sushi-menu/12442712
I'd agree--except what if, as the second article notes, a la carte sales are not enough to keep some channels alive. That's a real possibility for some of the niche channels mentioned. And, let's face it, soccer is still a bit of a niche in the US. One reason we have all of the EPL games on alternates right now is that NBC carries a lot of weight and can get folks to carry it. But make that channel with the EPL a la carte, who knows?
Ultimately content should drive success. Good content = more viewers, bad content and perhaps need to rethink. I understand where you are coming from but if people don;t want to watch it why should they pay for it? Big Ten network was a gripe of mine at the time - my rate goes up for a channel I will never watch.
It's not so much where I am coming from as where the cable companies will be coming from. We like individualized things--but they do tend to cost more to assemble (or int his case to keep track of). Will a cable company give a chance to a new network if they are not sure how it will work out? How do you price a la carte? You might be willing to try a new channel every now and then if it's part of a package--and you might be less likely to try one if it's hanging out there alone. Should prove interesting to see how this works out. The technology may actually free things up so that individual choice is not as expensive as it once was. Things like streaming video and Netflix seem to indicate that the time is approaching. That said, I can see where @Lucky Day may well end up being correct in his view.
I watched the game at Studio 35 and stayed after for the post-game show. Complete waste of time. I mean, it's cool that they have it I suppose, but it felt like 5 minutes of content stretched out over 1/2 an hour. Definitely won't be staying after again until I hear it has improved.
That's actually a pretty good point. If it's true a la carte, I would probably never try a new channel. And I doubt that will happen. As lucky said, they've been talking about it for at least 15 years now. I will say that I am a WOW customer. There have been advertisements on there the last couple days about possibly losing Viacom. Does anyone know if that's true? After looking at what Viacom offers... there was a time I would have absolutely hated to lose comedy central. Now... if WOW really might drop Viacom channels, I'd say good riddance. I don't need/want MTV, CMT, BET, VH1 and all their variants. Though I suppose my wife would miss seeing Teen mom 2. I should look into this and write WOW and tell them I'm happy to drop Viacom if it means a reduction in rates. Back on point. It almost seems like Viacom could be it's own little secondary tier/subscription. You pay "a la carte" for their package. I could see that happening.
It's a good thing the cable companies didn't run the Cold War. They *like* MAD. Seems to be the only way they negotiate.
Somewhat television related... I was standing in line at a store today (a rarity for me). I saw a Roku player on one of those shelves near the checkout counter. On the Roku box, MLS was one of the handful of featured "channels." Major League Soccer. Very cool.
Not anymore, they used to. Now Viacom is basically the MTV stable (MTV/VH1/BET) plus Nickelodeon and Comedy Central. They have raised their demands for fees from the cable companies a ton in the last few years. Each time one of the providers contracts expires this happens. Time Warner has had two disputes with them in the past 5 years, and once it went past the deadline and they didn't make a deal until a few hours after. Wow is part of a group of a lot of smaller providers that aren't ok with the higher prices and some of them have already been blacked out.
The app does not. On a PC or laptop you can watch MLS Live in a Chrome browser, and cast that to the TV, but the quality was absolute garbage last time I tried that.
They have said they are working on it. The SDK was released too late to get it in before the 2014 season release date of the mls app. My hope is midseason.
The ability to watch individual channels will work. Those new channels will give them away in order to build an audience or they will give something away to draw viewers. MLS would probably give enough cash to a desirable cable company to get their product on while an audience is being built. Some channels will cost more than others. Some cable channels don't deserve to exist because there is no audience. They can still have their niche online. It is a changing world. If the cable companies don't change. People will get the content that they want somewhere else.
A lot of the ability to do this/use this kind of equipment will depend on if the FCC or other government authority will allow the ISPs (many of which are also entertainment and media providers) to throttle their service--or prevent that. Frankly, I have no idea which way this will sort itself out.
Point of clarification on the Roku..... If one were to purchase one of these Roku thingies..... Would one still need to subscribe to MLS Live and the other services? My presumption is "Yes", but I don't know. Asking for a friend.
Yes, you would. The Roku is just the streaming hub for the TV that it is hooked up to. You'll have your MLS Live subscription through the MLS Channel, your Netflix, Hulu, etc...
Yes, you still need to subscribe to MLS Live (or other services that have apps for Roku that you want to use). Roku is a device the plays content, but you still have to pay the content. The good news is that Roku doesn't require you to use them as a middle man and take a cut of the content fees like some others (*coughcoughApplecoughcough*).