nanog mailing list archives
Re: Broadcast television in an IP world
From: Seth Mattinen <sethm () rollernet us>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 09:25:33 -0800
On 11/20/17 9:09 AM, Luke Guillory wrote:
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.
It's certainly possible for the cost of those rights to go down if ESPN financially implodes and nobody else will pick it up at the NFL's asking price, but probably not likely.
Current thread:
- RE: Broadcast television in an IP world, (continued)
- RE: Broadcast television in an IP world shawn wilson (Nov 17)
- Re: Broadcast television in an IP world Luke Guillory (Nov 17)
- Re: Broadcast television in an IP world Jean-Francois Mezei (Nov 17)
- Re: Broadcast television in an IP world Wayne Bouchard (Nov 18)
- RE: Broadcast television in an IP world Matthew Black (Nov 20)
- RE: Broadcast television in an IP world Luke Guillory (Nov 20)
- RE: Broadcast television in an IP world Matthew Black (Nov 20)
- RE: Broadcast television in an IP world Luke Guillory (Nov 20)
- RE: Broadcast television in an IP world Matthew Black (Nov 20)
- RE: Broadcast television in an IP world Luke Guillory (Nov 20)
- Re: Broadcast television in an IP world Seth Mattinen (Nov 20)
- RE: Broadcast television in an IP world Tom Carter (Nov 21)
- Re: Broadcast television in an IP world Mike Hammett (Nov 23)