Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Obviously, anything SEC is going to mean more, so they put their best efforts on that.  All the top tech is developed down here anyway, you know, like the cotton gin. . . .

Invented by a Yankee, of course.

Great question, @utee94 

I don't see a great reason for ESPN to do that. They need to pay large sums to secure the rights to content, and then turning around and providing it free I don't think helps them much... 

In fact, the lack of ESPN content was one of the biggest hindrances to cord-cutting or cord-shaving [not having cable/satellite but streaming live TV]. It was only with the introduction of Sling that ESPN started even engaging with streaming live TV. 

The networks mostly own NFL content [outside of DirecTV Sunday Ticket], which is one way that the networks have been so strong at getting the streaming live TV providers to carry them. ESPN already is strong enough to get the streaming live TV providers to carry them.

But if ESPN was available OTA for free, I'd immediately cancel Hulu Live TV. I wouldn't need it. Thus for ESPN to do it they'd dilute their subscriber base with people who are willing to pay for it but are getting it free.

As for the commercial-supported model, they're already selling commercials on their broadcast. I'm guessing that the value they can charge for commercials doesn't change much by going OTA, so the subscriber revenue loss isn't mitigated by "new" commercial revenue... 

I think as the cable/satellite model gets fractured, they're more likely to offer a standalone streaming service rather than offer it free OTA. 

ESPN is just one of the major players that understand what they have today, don't know exactly what they will have in the future with streaming or ala carte offerings, they can predict, but aren't sure of the revenue stream.

So, they dig their heals in with the FCC to keep the current "CATV" model alive.

now, if Netflix were to purchase rights to sports programming........

I'd like to see more Australian Rules Football.

I've heard rumors that Amazon may get the Sunday NFL ticket. The reality is there since they are already showing Thursday games. Still, imagine the cash grab on that one, "you're game is blacked out? Well for 4.99 you can watch it live." I am a chord cutter and I do miss watching college games but if the trend will be to have them on Amazon, I am all for it. I will also say that since I cut the chord, I save over 100 per month since, like someone else said, I already had Netflix and Amazon Prime. Also keep in mind, I am older than most so listening on iHeart radio is not a lot different than when I had to listen to them on the radio back in the day. Sometimes it's even better, I can always catch the highlights later. 

How much will this cell phone "5G" thing change anything?

How much will this cell phone "5G" thing change anything?

Agreed with @FearlessF -- except if residential 5G becomes a thing.

Right now the only feasible way to get home internet is cable, DSL, or fiber. The problem there is that the infrastructure of wiring to every house makes it hard to have competition. Once a neighborhood is wired up with one vendor, other vendors don't want to invest the money to wire up that neighborhood knowing that they're going to have to compete on price for home broadband. So in my area, for example, I have ridiculously expensive cable internet through Cox, or I have 3 Mbps (yes, that's SLOOOOW) DSL through AT&T. Which means I only have Cox as a choice. 

The goal with 5G is that because it's higher bandwidth, it may be feasible to put a single cell site in a neighborhood and be capable of serving ALL the homes in that neighborhood with broadband. Thus fixed costs are reduced, and ROI goes up. At that point it might be feasible for someone to come in to my neighborhood and compete with Cox. 

That said, as it relates to TV? I don't think it'll change much. I don't think 5G residential internet will be cost-effective in the rural areas which are today underserved by broadband, so I don't think it'll meaningfully increase broadband adoption, which nearly everyone already has. And it's a competitor to cable broadband, but not necessarily to cable TV, so it may damage cable companies ability to bundle and/or punish people like me who won't bundle. 

But I think the effects on the TV market are secondary to the effects on the broadband market.