Craig Birkmaier wrote: > They are not losing eyeballs because of inflating prices > for MVPD service. They are losing eyeballs because of a > fundamental shift in technology, Okay., let's see if I can word it in a way that you won't knee-jerk contradict: They are losing eyeballs because network technology has made other options available to consumers, for obtaining TV content. So that the increasing prices of the old MVPD/walled garden model have caused many households, in the millions, to re-evaluate their options. There is no doubt that ever higher prices are having an impact, Craig. > ESPN is in a completely different position. They are one > of the last bastions of ad supported appointment TV, and > will continue to prop up the extended basic bundle because > of the value proposition they represent, based on the > content they license and control. That sounds like the double-talk of marketers, Craig. ESPN can also transmit ad supported live streams over the Internet, direct to consumers. Your two points, i.e. that ads and live streams lead ESPN to remain in "the bundle," are one big non-sequitur. You DO NOT need walled garden "bundles" for "ad supported appointment TV." Nor do the sports leagues depend exclusively on ESPN, or need to any longer, to get their content out. > PVRs do not make large libraries of content accessible, And the opposite situation applies here, wrt HBO. Cable companies have had their own, proprietary, pay-extra-for-it, VOD service too. So just as ESPN can send live streams over the Internet, HBO can provide VOD over cable systems, sans Internet Protocol intervention. > Selling HBO direct to a consumer still requires dealing with > a MVPD. You are still talking about something on the order of > $50/mo for a broadband connection and the cost of the HBO > service. You need to deal with an ISP, yes, but NOT with a walled-in network. Your choices are not determined by the ISP, Craig. > Stop the rationalization. Your numbers are wrong. > http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/08/23/list-of-how-many-homes-each-cable-networks-is-in-cable-network-coverage-estimates-as-of-august-2013/199072/ This is really simple. The WSJ claims that as of October 2014, ESPN lost 4.5 percent of households, compared with 2010. That's the bottom line. Your link says that in Aug of 2013, ESPN covered 85.58 percent of households. So this means in 2010, ESPN has to have covered at least 90.08 percent of households. Either way, they lost 4.5 percent, as did TNT. How does that help your cause? A drop is a drop, no matter how you slice it. Bert ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.