Hacker News Reader

Comment by bronbron | Hacker News Reader

It's worth considering that he's with ESPN, and sports is an unusual case.

Television shows and movies don't have nearly the timeliness factor sports broadcasting has. If I see guardians of the galaxy a week after it comes out it doesn't really matter, but there's very little point in watching 'the game' even a day after the fact (unless there's some exceptional reason to).

So in some regards, they do have kind of a stranglehold and are holding out hope that they can capitalize on that. It's funny talking to cable subscribers < 40, because (obviously anecdotal) the majority of the reasons given are 'how else am I going to watch sports?'

View on HN

Outside the US, expats (or anyone, I just mostly know expats who use it) who follow US sports can subscribe to streaming packages that are far superior to watching it over broadcast.

I think you can even switch between different commentators as well as a few other options.

As for myself, I'm sure plenty of money from my local taxes, once I move back to the US, will go to subsidizing pro sports teams. I don't particularly feel like doing so with a cable subscription as well.

If you're someone who doesn't watch sports, you also might think about how much a cable subscription subsidizes those who do. If sports franchises ever start moving off cable, the cable industry is in for a pretty rapid readjustment. I assume the sports franchises know and leverage this in their negotiations with cable companies.

The whole LA Dodgers fiasco may be a leading edge indicator of a breakdown between franchises and cable operators. There have to be some conversations within sports teams wondering if they would make more money going direct to fans. On the other hand, it might make both sides more resolved to cooperate for a bit longer in negotiations.

I recognize that I'm in the minority, but tape delay is the only way that I'll watch sports. I don't really mind the commercials, but fast forwarding through them let's me watch a 3 hour game in 2 hours -- that's significant. It also makes it easier to avoid the dreadful commentators like Don Cherry.

That doesn't really change your point though. I typically start watching after about an hour -- I'm highly unlikely to watch the game if I've already seen the score in the newspaper.

Paying >$100 a month to watch a couple of games a month sure is expensive, though. It'd be cheaper to watch them live, if watching them live wouldn't require plane tickets most of the time...

And watching live sports is often a social experience - big games are fun to watch with friends and family. Sometimes it's just fun to watch with strangers who are also invested in the game's outcome. I've never had cable, but often I've gone to bars alone to watch a big game like a gold medal hockey game or the world series; Grab a few beers, order a pizza or something, and it's a lot of fun.

Sports is indeed, far and away, the biggest driver of cable subscriptions. Sports is also the reason why most cable packages are so expensive. Licensing sports costs a fortune, and networks who license sports turn around and charge big fees to cable companies. Their parent companies also bundle their other networks with the sports network, so as to raise rates for all of their networks. This is why ESPN is the most profitable network on all of TV (broadcast or cable), and one of the most important jewels in Disney's crown. Disney would probably sell off ABC before it would sell off ESPN.

I like that I can buy my two sport channels, Eurosport 1 & 2, for £3.99 a month. I can watch with a 15 second delay from the tv version (which means no tv license - £150 per year I think), I can watch up to three hours delayed, it's in HD (which is extra on cable) and I can watch on my PC, phone, tablet, xbox and more.

I don't watch anything else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com