OT-ESPN in Big $$$ Trouble

[Knight Shift]

Good.
Wonder what it means for BTN.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-shows-espn-trouble-2-180012377.html
According to a recent consumer survey conducted by the marketing firm Civic Science and highlighted in a note by BTIG, more than half of cable subscribers would be happy to drop ESPN to save $8 a month.

Recent estimates have ESPN charging providers more than $6 a subscriber to carry the network.

.....
Essentially, Greenfield's view is that ESPN's roughly $9 billion in annual revenue is largely a vestige of old cable agreements that require not only that ESPN be included in most bundles but that ESPN charge cable providers a significantly higher price than peers.

Recent estimates have ESPN charging providers more than $6 a subscriber to carry the network. The next-highest cable networks, for example, command charges of less than $1.50 a month.

 

[MikeR0102]

Okay, but my brother cancelled all but the lowest of cable tv packages to save money and I would pay $30 a month for streaming access, so take that fwiw.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

I don't like some things about ESPN, but I would rather pay the $8/mo. additional and get the coverage. Market forces are what they are and will eventually eat further into their share and profitability, so we'll see where it goes. They need to re-vamp their business model and approach to covering their properties.

 

[anon_ivydyf0amkzay]

I happily gave up all of cable 2 years ago...have not missed it one bit...wish i had done it earlier!

 

[krup]

I don't like some things about ESPN, but I would rather pay the $8/mo. additional and get the coverage. Market forces are what they are and will eventually eat further into their share and profitability, so we'll see where it goes. They need to re-vamp their business model and approach to covering their properties.

That is not going to be your choice. Since at best a small fraction of the populace will pay for a subscription to ESPN versus their getting 100% of cable households now, people will need to pay $30-40 a month for ESPN.

 

[krup]

Good.
Wonder what it means for BTN.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-shows-espn-trouble-2-180012377.html
According to a recent consumer survey conducted by the marketing firm Civic Science and highlighted in a note by BTIG, more than half of cable subscribers would be happy to drop ESPN to save $8 a month.

Recent estimates have ESPN charging providers more than $6 a subscriber to carry the network.

.....
Essentially, Greenfield's view is that ESPN's roughly $9 billion in annual revenue is largely a vestige of old cable agreements that require not only that ESPN be included in most bundles but that ESPN charge cable providers a significantly higher price than peers.

Recent estimates have ESPN charging providers more than $6 a subscriber to carry the network. The next-highest cable networks, for example, command charges of less than $1.50 a month.

This does not have much relevance to the BTN. ESPN is screwed because they have to pay the NBA and NFL $3 billion a year for those bad contracts. Their profitability is based on getting money from every household.

The BTN only made a total of $240 million of revenue in 2011 and still had $80 million in profit to distribute to conference members. The BTN will do fine under a subscription model.

 

[Upstream]

The article talks about the economic ramifications of a la carte cable for ESPN. But the same ramifications hold for every other cable channel. Every cable subscriber currently pays about $0.70 per month for HGTV & Food Network. If they went a la carte, they would have to charge about $3 per month to make the same revenue, since most cable subscribers would happily give up those channels to save a few bucks off their cable bill.

The enticement of a la carte is that the subscriber thinks they'll save a few bucks here and there by giving up rarely watched channels, and the sum of all those savings would result in a huge reduction of their cable bill.

But the reality is the subscriber will have to pay a lot more for the channels they do watch. So the end result will be a cable bill that is the same, but with half the channels available. The subscriber won't save money, but will end up with fewer choices. You'll no longer have the ability to watch something on HGTV 3 times a year, since you don't pay for it.


The real change will be people who "cut the cord", getting their cable TV delivered by streaming internet, rather than traditional cable. Right now it is cheap, since it is a novelty. But once it becomes commonplace, the economic variables will change. You still need internet access (which is probably provided by a company that also provides cable TV services). And at some point you'll have to pay for the content. And the way to avoid high-priced a la carte subscriptions is to pay for content through an aggregator (which is essentially what your cable company does now).

So at the end, the economic bundling won't change, just the delivery mechanism. Someone will still have to pay for content and pay for delivery.

 

[MozRU]

I'd pay $X a month for the B10 and $X for the SEC network.

Can't watch to get rid of ESPN. Garbage company that has destroyed sports.

 

[sherrane]

Good.
Wonder what it means for BTN.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-shows-espn-trouble-2-180012377.html
According to a recent consumer survey conducted by the marketing firm Civic Science and highlighted in a note by BTIG, more than half of cable subscribers would be happy to drop ESPN to save $8 a month.

Recent estimates have ESPN charging providers more than $6 a subscriber to carry the network.

.....
Essentially, Greenfield's view is that ESPN's roughly $9 billion in annual revenue is largely a vestige of old cable agreements that require not only that ESPN be included in most bundles but that ESPN charge cable providers a significantly higher price than peers.

Recent estimates have ESPN charging providers more than $6 a subscriber to carry the network. The next-highest cable networks, for example, command charges of less than $1.50 a month.

I don't see the impact on the BTN. ESPN is in another galaxy with their carriage fees. They've paid to carry Monday Night Football, which doesn't add great value because of the NFL demands to allow local stations to carry games involving local teams. ESPN is essentially just the national provider for MNF. I only watch ESPN 3 months every year while they take a significant portion of my TV bill. The BTN is "free" compared to ESPN.

 

[mullerpesq]

I'd pay $X a month for the B10 and $X for the SEC network.

Can't watch to get rid of ESPN. Garbage company that has destroyed sports.

Yup and in a few years people will simply buy any individual games they want to watch for $0.99. Personalized choice pay per view for sports is where it's all going to end up.

 

[Crazed_RU]

I've said before - if you are a big sports fan that likes to watch the sports that ESPN has coverage of, then you should like the status quo. Keeping the cable bundle and having Aunt Sally help cover the costs is in your interests. Break the model and you'll get a la carte pricing for ESPN and all regional sports packages, including B10, that you are not going to like.

 

[PSU_Nut]

Good.
Wonder what it means for BTN.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-shows-espn-trouble-2-180012377.html
According to a recent consumer survey conducted by the marketing firm Civic Science and highlighted in a note by BTIG, more than half of cable subscribers would be happy to drop ESPN to save $8 a month.

Recent estimates have ESPN charging providers more than $6 a subscriber to carry the network.

.....
Essentially, Greenfield's view is that ESPN's roughly $9 billion in annual revenue is largely a vestige of old cable agreements that require not only that ESPN be included in most bundles but that ESPN charge cable providers a significantly higher price than peers.

Recent estimates have ESPN charging providers more than $6 a subscriber to carry the network. The next-highest cable networks, for example, command charges of less than $1.50 a month.

Of course they would be happy to drop ESPN and save $8 a month. In reality it would not work that way. If you could pick and choose individual channels the savings would be eaten up by the channels you do watch. For example if lifetime channel is $1 and Oprah is $1 and people are allowed to drop them to stay in business those channels would have to start raising their prices. So drop ESPN and save $8 but now lifetime and Oprah is $5 each so you save nothing.

 

[PSU_Nut]

I've said before - if you are a big sports fan that likes to watch the sports that ESPN has coverage of, then you should like the status quo. Keeping the cable bundle and having Aunt Sally help cover the costs is in your interests. Break the model and you'll get a la carte pricing for ESPN and all regional sports packages, including B10, that you are not going to like.

The same goes for non sports fans. ESPN charges so much because so many people watch it. The other networks charge less because of less demand. So while Aunt Sally beloved Lifetime and HGTV may only be $2 there are far more people who don't watch it subsidies if it then ESPN.

 

[Rhuarc]

I've said before - if you are a big sports fan that likes to watch the sports that ESPN has coverage of, then you should like the status quo. Keeping the cable bundle and having Aunt Sally help cover the costs is in your interests. Break the model and you'll get a la carte pricing for ESPN and all regional sports packages, including B10, that you are not going to like.

I wish more people realized this. Each time ESPN reports that they lose money, the chances of a 40 million dollar a year league payout grows smaller and smaller.

 

[Scarlet16E]

The same goes for non sports fans. ESPN charges so much because so many people watch it. The other networks charge less because of less demand. So while Aunt Sally beloved Lifetime and HGTV may only be $2 there are far more people who don't watch it subsidies if it then ESPN.

This is the same thing several others have said in this thread and I agree, but I will add one more thought:
Since the ala carte model will really be just as expensive to consumers while offering less choice, some provider(s) will still offer a bundled package like we have now, and it should prove out to be the choice for the largest chunk of the market.

 

[krup]

I wish more people realized this. Each time ESPN reports that they lose money, the chances of a 40 million dollar a year league payout grows smaller and smaller.

Not really. Unless you think ESPN is just going to give up and fold, and recognizing that it is the NFL and NBA deals that bloat their cost structure, ESPN needs to fight like hell to preserve the current model. The best way to do that is to lock up the one type of content that is difficult to obtain when one cuts the cord, live sports.

Or, to put it another way, even if ESPN gave the B1G $30 million a year per team (almost triple the current deal), ALL of their college sports content (including the cfb playoff), which provides them thousands of hours of live programming, does not add up to what they are paying the NFL for 17 crappy MNF games.

 

[TheB1GTerp]

Good.
Wonder what it means for BTN.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-shows-espn-trouble-2-180012377.html
According to a recent consumer survey conducted by the marketing firm Civic Science and highlighted in a note by BTIG, more than half of cable subscribers would be happy to drop ESPN to save $8 a month.

Recent estimates have ESPN charging providers more than $6 a subscriber to carry the network.

.....
Essentially, Greenfield's view is that ESPN's roughly $9 billion in annual revenue is largely a vestige of old cable agreements that require not only that ESPN be included in most bundles but that ESPN charge cable providers a significantly higher price than peers.

Recent estimates have ESPN charging providers more than $6 a subscriber to carry the network. The next-highest cable networks, for example, command charges of less than $1.50 a month.

I would gladly cancel cable if I only had to be for ESPN/BTN for what $10.

 

[ruready4somefootball]

Any minute now, we should have our resident expert on "carriage fees" chime in.

 

[RUJohnny99]

Good.
Wonder what it means for BTN.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-shows-espn-trouble-2-180012377.html
According to a recent consumer survey conducted by the marketing firm Civic Science and highlighted in a note by BTIG, more than half of cable subscribers would be happy to drop ESPN to save $8 a month.

Misleading statistics. Especially if it was a scientific sample of both men & women.

If you polled my house, my wife would be happy to drop ESPN to save $8/month. I would not. Of my 3 kids, 2 of them would be happy to drop ESPN to save $8.

According to statistics, 60% of my house would be happy to drop ESPN to save $8.

 

[Caliknight]

Good with Fox Sports and BTN. Don't care about Espn anymore. Outside of live programming, there isn't a thing to watch on that channel.

Hopefully Espn has no rights to B1G properties when this next deal gets signed. I'd watch it even less.

 

[Knight Shift]

I'm a little bad at math, but isn't 50% "more than half" as I quoted from the story?

 

[Knight Shift]

The only thing ESPN is good for in our house is bowl games and the college football playoff.

 

[Knight Shift]

Of the cable channels I spend time watching: 90% is VH1 Classic for That Metal Show, BTN and SNY for the Mets. Don't watch any news channels or special interest channels like HGTV or History Channel or National Geographic. Other 10% is catching a movie on AMC or a similar channel, but I could simply pay for those movies or buy the DVD and not bother.

 

[RUChoppin]

Question is whether this impacts the negotiations for Tier 1 rights for the Big Ten.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

That is not going to be your choice. Since at best a small fraction of the populace will pay for a subscription to ESPN versus their getting 100% of cable households now, people will need to pay $30-40 a month for ESPN.

If they go this route, it will kill their company unless they've amortized all their assets and then cut costs by 80%. Companies that continue raising prices when other product is available are like airplanes that are having trouble getting lift that increase the angle of attack--they eventually stall and plummet.

 

[theRU]

That is not going to be your choice. Since at best a small fraction of the populace will pay for a subscription to ESPN versus their getting 100% of cable households now, people will need to pay $30-40 a month for ESPN.

20$ a month on amazon fire stick, sling tv app gets you live ESPN, ESPN2 and handful of other channels including AMC.

20$, Plus 8 for hulu, throw in amazon prime for about 10 per month and i'm at 38 bucks and not skipping a beat.

and i hear with KODI on firestick you can watch movies for free....[banana]

 

[Scarlet16E]

20$ a month on amazon fire stick, sling tv app gets you live ESPN, ESPN2 and handful of other channels including AMC.

20$, Plus 8 for hulu, throw in amazon prime for about 10 per month and i'm at 38 bucks and not skipping a beat.

and i hear with KODI on firestick you can watch movies for free....[banana]

These prices exist now, but don't expect them to remain.
At some point the cable companies will just charge more for internet access.

 

[krup]

20$ a month on amazon fire stick, sling tv app gets you live ESPN, ESPN2 and handful of other channels including AMC.

20$, Plus 8 for hulu, throw in amazon prime for about 10 per month and i'm at 38 bucks and not skipping a beat.

and i hear with KODI on firestick you can watch movies for free....[banana]

Those prices only exist because ESPN still gets $6 a month from every cable household whether they like sports or not. If the current cable model goes away and ESPN gets only 25% of households to subscribe to ESPN instead of 100% (which is wildly, wildly over- optimistic) the price for ESPN subscribers needs to go up to $25 a month for them to equal current revenue.

Things like the Amazon package, Sling TV,etc are only cheap until the current model goes away.

 

[rutgersguy1]

I've basically said the same as Upstream many times here. If you think the behemoth ESPN has trouble what do you think all the other networks will feel who don't have nearly the viewership. I could turn this question around and say how many channels would you cut and probably save more than the cost of ESPN and I bet the percentages of people cutting those channels would be higher.

I don't ever see myself getting rid of the bundle because in the end I'll likely be paying about the same for a lot less. I also don't think these media companies will get rid of them completely either. I think you'll have a variety of offerings from the same old bundles, to slim down bundles, to stand alone to pay per view. I also don't expect 99 cent games, it'll be more than that. You don't even get iTunes songs for 99 cents anymore. It'll likely be a few bucks at least and a larger premium over that for pay per view of bigger events like playoffs or top tier games.

As to the 20-38 bucks mentioned above, that doesn't include what you pay for broadband. If more people switch, expect the model for broadband usage to change and prices will likely go up unbundled. It might be charged by usage like you see with cell phones now. You close one window, they'll come in another that's all companies not just these media/cable guys. The banks did it too after the government limited fees they could charge for some things. They just started charging fees for other things they weren't before.

You also assume that the Hulus, Netflixes, Amazons of the world will remain stagnant in pricing as well. As they produce more original content someone is bearing the burden of those costs. It ain't commercials like the regular networks, it's their subscription fees. The last time we had this conversation I said the same thing and literally the next day Netflix came out with an announcement of an increase on their subscription fee. Prime has gone up and so has Hulu. They've all done it and will continue to do so. Acquiring and creating the content isn't free and someone is paying it and that someone is us. As those costs go up so will the fees.

So as I've said before, in the end unless you're really cutting back on viewing habits then I don't see any significant cost savings.

 

[Randal7]

Help me understand this. Everybody on this board is a sports fanatic, at the very least a targeted fanatic of Rutgers, but I'd guess wider rooting interests for most. And, with this "fanatical" spirit in mind, we are concerned about how ESPN will commercialize their product?

Listen -- i'm willing to pay GAME BY GAME for content. I really am. If I see Alabama-Auburn is available for $2.99 (the price of a freakin latte in bourgeoise NYC), you bet your ass I'm buying that. There are so many ways to monetize this thing. The fact that we have the bundle and unlimited viewing is probably more of an ASSET to us viewers than a liability. They could monetize the hell out of the games. I'd like to see the NFL start doing that. Charge game by game for out of market games so I can see my freakin team play each week without purchasing the whole damn sunday ticket package.

Sports content is non-negotiable to me from a "demand" perspective. I need to have it. My demand is also highly inelastic as a result. I'd pay out the nose for content. I love sports, man. And live, appointment TV content is the freakin best. And ESPN has both. I'm not too worried.

 

[cicero grimes]

Question is whether this impacts the negotiations for Tier 1 rights for the Big Ten.

This exactly.

 

[Nosoj]

Question is whether this impacts the negotiations for Tier 1 rights for the Big Ten.

I don't think it will. I think the expectation is a split rights agreement anyway, between Fox and ESPN. But, there's quite a few reasons the Big Ten will still command premium dollars.

Also, I think that this is a pretty apt comparison: http://frankthetank.me/2015/12/03/the-connection-between-star-wars-and-big-ten-tv-rights/

 

[FanuSanu52]

i know it's very fashionable to hate ESPN here, and in some ways it deserves it, but the current setup is as good as it gets for rabid cfb fans. At least with pro sports, you can get a full league pass. What are you gonna do if you want to watch all the big Saturday match ups - order streaming packages for every conference? Sure, maybe you'll be able to order individual games at some point- but not for 99 cents, lol. It costs like $25 to do that with cable. You'll quickly end up spending way more and/or getting fewer games.

ESPN is also hands and feet above competitors for on-demand archiving.

 

[Nosoj]

As for ESPN, I'd happily drop them 8 months of the year. But I'm a college football junkie and I want ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, BTN, FS1...I want every game I can get my hands on. If I could buy a "College Football Package" for $30 or even $40/month for 4 months, I'd do that in a heartbeat and we'd drop 2-3 tiers down on our cable subscription.

EDIT: Or basically, what FanuSanu just said!

 

[rutgersguy1]

Question is whether this impacts the negotiations for Tier 1 rights for the Big Ten.

There could be some marginal impacts but I'd still expect the overall deal to be a big increase. I've always thought it would be split between ESPN/Fox and I still think that. ESPN aggregates content, they're not an originator so they need a piece of these sports properties specifically top tier ones like B10.

Without them ESPN goes the way of the dodo and they have to make it worthwhile enough so these individual sports properties don't say screw this we don't need ESPN we can go off on our own and distribute the content ourselves.

Also if they have issues now while they have such a monopoly and stranglehold on the market, just imagine what they might feel if other players start getting pieces of their kingdom. How much tougher will it be for them to charge the premium prices they do now?

So while I think there could be some marginal impacts, things like this are their lifeblood and they need to keep a finger in most pies specifically ones like the B10. I could envision Fox taking the lion's share of the package though if ESPN doesn't want to fork over as many dollars. But again then, they'd be letting one of their competitors get a little bit stronger too. I see a split between the 2 but how it gets shared for sure I don't know and I think the numbers will still be at a strong premium. Maybe not as much as a couple years ago but still very good.

 

[FanuSanu52]

You also assume that the Hulus, Netflixes, Amazons of the world will remain stagnant in pricing as well. As they produce more original content someone is bearing the burden of those costs. It ain't commercials like the regular networks, it's their subscription fees. The last time we had this conversation I said the same thing and literally the next day Netflix came out with an announcement of an increase on their subscription fee. Prime has gone up and so has Hulu. They've all done it and will continue to do so. Acquiring and creating the content isn't free and someone is paying it and that someone is us. As those costs go up so will the fees.

So as I've said before, in the end unless you're really cutting back on viewing habits then I don't see any significant cost savings.

Besides "look at me I was right," what is your point? Amazon Prime is $99, and it added a music streaming service since the bump up from $79. It's still considered the best deal in tech and and Amazon offers regular price drops on it, including one coming up this weekend that makes it cheaper than it was originally.

Does your cable bill never go up in price? Do you expect that it won't in the future? Congrats for calling that services will go up in price over time, but it holds true for the alternatives. Netflix and the like could quadruple price overnight and still be a better deal for (non sports) viewers.

 

[BeKnighted]

First, Rich Greenfield is a very smart guy, so in general I would not bet against him. (I've interacted with him for work, and found him to be very perceptive and to know what questions he should ask to get to the real issues.) He does have a bit of a bulldog tendency to pick a thesis and stick with it no matter what, but it usually serves him well. For instance, he was one of the first people to say that the Comcast-Time Warner deal was in trouble.

That said - and even if he's right about a lot of this - there's huge uncertainty in what the long-term model for video distribution looks like. Bundles have real advantages and, as at least one person has noted, just because one person in a household wouldn't pay for ESPN doesn't mean everybody else with a say in the matter agrees. In the long run, I think that there still will be a lot of bundles out there, but that we'll have more choices about how to get them - it won't be just the cable operator/FiOS/DirecTV/Dish, but a dozen or more options. Some of the bundles will be tailored to specific audiences and some will be more general. The real question is which programmers survive in that environment, which actually means that it becomes more important to get premier programming like the NFL and the NCAA basketball tournament, and what programmers pay for those things could keep going up, at least until the market shakes out. And that could be a decade or more from now.

 

[rutgersguy1]

Besides "look at me I was right," what is your point? Amazon Prime is $99, and it added a music streaming service since the bump up from $79. It's still considered the best deal in tech and and Amazon offers regular price drops on it, including one coming up this weekend that makes it cheaper than it was originally.

Does your cable bill never go up in price? Do you expect that it won't in the future? Congrats for calling that services will go up in price over time, but it holds true for the alternatives. Netflix and the like could quadruple price overnight and still be a better deal for (non sports) viewers.

Will the cable bill go up as much or as frequently as these new players. No I don't think so. You realize how much of Amazon is subsidized by Amazon Web Services. They regularly report quarters where they lose money, if and when others start honing in on that web services/cloud business all these subsidies Amazon has for other parts of its business will go away and they'll be charging even more. IIRC Prime jumped from 79 to 99 that's a pretty big jump I don't recall my cable bill ever jumping 25%. Netflix went up a couple bucks too in the last few years and on a subscription that was costing 7 bucks or so that's also around a 25% increase in the bill. Cable bill isn't going up that much in percentage terms and if anything they'll be keeping it under control to stay competitive will all these new players. I've had FIOS for about 7 years as soon as it was available in my area and the cost has been pretty much the same. The biggest change from the past is those damn cable boxes because of the move from analog to digital. I get pissed off about that more than the cost of the triple play I get. Nothing analagous to the cable ready tv of the old days just plug the coax into the back and that's it. There could be a time that get rid of those as well, I hope so. I've read players like Apple and Intel may get into that space, not sure.

The point isn't look at me I was right, the point is those thinking they're going to be saving tons of dollars by cutting the cord are mistaken unless they are severely curtailing their habits. People act like all these costs are fixed and they're not and that includes broadband which is how all these new services are coming to you. The cost increases you see on the newer services are likely to be more than you'll see for cable. Cable needs to stay competitive and there's a much harder ceiling on them as opposed to the new guys.

 

[Nosoj]

Will the cable bill go up as much or as frequently as these new players. No I don't think so. You realize how much of Amazon is subsidized by Amazon Web Services. They regularly report quarters where they lose money, if and when others start honing in on that web services/cloud business all these subsidies Amazon has for other parts of its business will go away and they'll be charging even more. IIRC Prime jumped from 79 to 99 that's a pretty big jump I don't recall my cable bill ever jumping 25%. Netflix went up a couple bucks too in the last few years and on a subscription that was costing 7 bucks or so that's also around a 25% increase in the bill. Cable bill isn't going up that much in percentage terms and if anything they'll be keeping it under control to stay competitive will all these new players. I've had FIOS for about 7 years as soon as it was available in my area and the cost has been pretty much the same. The biggest change from the past is those damn cable boxes because of the move from analog to digital. I get pissed off about that more than the cost of the triple play I get. Nothing analagous to the cable ready tv of the old days just plug the coax into the back and that's it. There could be a time that get rid of those as well, I hope so. I've read players like Apple and Intel may get into that space, not sure.

The point isn't look at me I was right, the point is those thinking they're going to be saving tons of dollars by cutting the cord are mistaken unless they are severely curtailing their habits. People act like all these costs are fixed and they're not and that includes broadband which is how all these new services are coming to you. The cost increases you see on the newer services are never going to be as much as you'll see for cable. Cable needs to stay competitive and there's a much harder ceiling on them as opposed to the new guys.

Only 300% between 2000 and 2010. No biggie. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/30/cable-tv-bills-_n_1176266.html

You're right, it's not as much in percentage terms. But it's more in real dollars: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/cable-satellite-tv-costs-will-climb-again-2016-n484531

 

[rutgersguy1]

Only 300% between 2000 and 2010. No biggie. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/30/cable-tv-bills-_n_1176266.html

You're right, it's not as much in percentage terms. But it's more in real dollars: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/cable-satellite-tv-costs-will-climb-again-2016-n484531

You can't compare when they had a monopoly on the business to now. Look at Verizon/ATT now that T Mobile/John Legere have come into play and been a distruptor in the industry. They're moving closer towards T Mobile to stay more competitive. ATT just reintroduced their unilmited data plan for customers who carry their tv service. They've gotten rid of their subsidies for phones and contracts.

Now that there's competition for the cable companies they can't raise prices so much, they have to stay competitive the same way ATT/Verizon have. But the new guys are still in their nascent stage for the most part and have room to grow and they will be raising prices as they do at a much bigger clip than the old players.

BTW those price increases mentioned in those articles, I'm not sure are they real actual increases in the sense that can customers avoid them with contracts and such. FIOS may have raised prices in the 7 years since I've had them but at the end of each contract I ask for and get the same price I've been paying all along but I have to be in a 2 year contract. If they don't do that a lot of people just jump back and forth and get the introductory deals that all the cable companies offer. So it may be an increase but in real practical terms are they fairly easily avoidable?