Pass the buck At least they're honest about the charge, justified or not. At the end of the day, when content providers are charged more, the buck is passed onto the consumer. Always has and always will. I'd say there's little one can do but go elsewhere and vote with their wallet. The typical "if you don't like it speech".
mobOn the next level..Premium
Sports need to be treated like movies It's time for the forced slavery of consumers by big sports and big broadcasting to be stopped.
Send all sports coverage to pay channels - watch cable rates plummet.
People will complain but pay anyways There will be a few people who will complain about the fee but will end up paying it in the end because they need their sports. As long as people continue paying all these fees, the more the programming companies are going to think they have the green light to add more fees. How much more are you willing to pay before you say you had enough?
reply to mob
Re: Sports need to be treated like movies At the very least sports should be on their own package with their own subscription fee. I don't understand why consumers that don't watch something are still forced to pay for it.
danawhitakerSpace...The Final FrontierPremium
Unless I'm Reading This Wrong... ...you're still stuck paying this fee whether you *watch* the regional sports channels or not. Which still doesn't help you if you don't care about sports channels at all and live in an area with more than one regional sports network. It's a step toward breaking out sports costs, but unfortunately still punishes people who don't watch them. It would be like giving everyone HBO or another premium network, but charging everyone for it whether they watched it or not, and making it mandatory to have.
If there were an option to opt out of these channels (and paying for said channels) completely, it would certainly be interesting to see if this would be a game changer. I suspect if all the people like myself who subscribe to a middle-range cable or satellite package who never watched the pure sports channels were given the option to opt out, the sports industry would have to scramble because the revenue coming in would drop significantly. I get tired of subsidizing what is repeatedly considered the most expensive portion of cable TV these days without any sort of perk for doing so. What would hopefully happen is a return to more reasonable rates for *everybody* across the board. I respect people who enjoy watching sports of all kinds, and I feel like they all get ripped off by ridiculously high fees too.
You're watching Sports Night on CSC so stick around...
What about part time channels? Why do I get the feeling that they will try to put this fee on markets that run a part-time "Plus" channel.
It's also convenient that is about the same price MSOs had to pony up to start carrying TWC Sports Los Angeles or miss the stellar season the Lakers are having.
reply to danawhitaker
Re: Unless I'm Reading This Wrong...
said by DirecTV Website :I read it the same way you did. This isn't an extra fee being pushed on people who watch sports, or on those who subscribe to sports packages. The fee will apply to everyone subscribing to any package in an area that happens has a Regional Sports Network. And even DTV admits that is "most" markets.
These local RSN(s) are included in most base packages, but there are some that do not include RSNs and are not subject to a Regional Sports Fee
reply to mob
Re: Sports need to be treated like movies Agree, but it would require government intervention. The networks demand inclusion in the base package as part of contract negotiation. If DirecTV didn't agree to that, their customers would be denied the content altogether.
That's exactly the sort of issue that causes those negotiations to drag on forever. Networks demand big money AND essentially demand that they cannot be offered a la carte.
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
This is already the case in the New York DMA ...where DirecTV is charging the $3 fee because it has to carry the expensive team-specific channel YES. (Yankees Entertainment and Sports)
In LA, the new channel created by Time Warner will primarily broadcast only LA Laker games.
If you're not a sports fan, the clear option is Dish Network. The pricing is cheaper there because they won't carry either of these networks, MSG network, or SportsNet New York.
reply to jc100
Re: Pass the buck This is why overseas, you tend to buy various packages.
I'm not interested in funding sports channels, multimillionaire athletes, and Teen moms on MTV. Even if the amount of my bill stays the same, I'd rather it be spent on the programming I like, and programs that typically do not kill braincells.
reply to djrobx
Re: Sports need to be treated like movies well what about a sports basic pack??
Or a pack with all the main sports channels + your local RSN + TNT/TBS + Trutv + Fx + and other main cable channels or at least the ones that show sports a good deal of the time.
mobOn the next level..Premium
reply to djrobx
I voted with my dollars. I shut off cable TV, and kept internet access.
reply to AZ_OGM
Re: What about part time channels? Plus channels are just overflow feeds.
The fee is for areas where is multi zone over laps.
or places like NEW York where you have lot's of different RSN's SNY, MSG/MSG+ / YES.
Now what about useing this to add pac-12 in market??
reply to djrobx
Re: Sports need to be treated like movies
said by djrobx:I'm not one who is generally in favor of more laws and more government intervention, but this sounds like an area where a little more intervention could perhaps yield favorable results for the consumer.
Agree, but it would require government intervention. The networks demand inclusion in the base package as part of contract negotiation. If DirecTV didn't agree to that, their customers would be denied the content altogether.
I'm a believer in paying for content, and also a believer in freeing up content from draconian and useless rules artificially created by entertainment networks. Government intervention will be the only thing that will ever allow this.
Case in point: I live in Washington, DC. I'd like to receive local channels for Pittsburgh, PA instead, and would even be willing to pay a little extra (say $5/month) to get them, either in addition to or in place of the Washington, DC locals. But I can't - because of the way that laws are set up and contracts are negotiated.
Case in point 2: Over the past year or so, I've casually tracked the channels I watch and record programs from. There are really only a handful of non-network stations (say a maximum of 10-12) that I even watch more than a small handful of times throughout the year. I'd venture to guess that there are a lot of others like me too.
Why are we forced into the chains of what I like to call "entertainment socialism", where the "free market" is prevented from rewarding good channels with good shows and punishing bad channels with bad shows? Consumers should be forced into only buying bundles of channels, and supporting mediocre things which are of no consequence to them? Is it really fair that to subsidize home shopping channels and the like with revenue from stations which are actually successful? I think I'd prefer to see things move more toward the "PBS model" of things - all channels should be "supported by viewers like you", though revenue generated from subscriptions.
I know this is becoming a long-winded post here, so I'll try to wrap things up quickly. What I'd like to see is someone - a company, our government, likely a combination of the two - become a "game changing force" here. Establish contracts with content generators which allow for a fixed per-subscriber fee calculated and paid monthly on each channel individually. Then offer up a service to consumers which allows them to create their own entertainment package with just the channels they want, with various fees for various channels calculated by taking the content generator's rate and adding a fixed percentage fee on top to cover infrastructure costs, administrative costs, and a reasonable profit. Leverage the "Netflix model" for content delivery and offer it up all as an IPTV-based solution.
This solution should stretch across all content generators and providers, and offer true choice. People get to vote with their wallets by subscribing to the channels they like while not buying the channels they don't. People like me who would rather see the news in Pittsburgh instead of DC or elsewhere get to do so. People who want to buy an "NFL Season Ticket Lite" version for just one team per season have the ability to do that, too. And what a wonderful world that would be.
reply to Joe12345678
Why do people who don't like sports even subscribe to cable? Can't you get 90% of that content on a mish mash of cheaper subscriptions through Netflix, Hulu Plus, and Amazon on demand? Who cares if you are 1 season behind if you save hundreds, if not thousands per yer?
reply to Camelot One
Re: Unless I'm Reading This Wrong... Just another price increase, marketed as a separate fee to fool the customer.
reply to lakerfan82
Re: Sports need to be treated like movies This is the very reason sports channels need to be put in there own package.
reply to Telco
Re: Pass the buck I couldn't agree more, but I doubt DirectTV is going to give customers the option to unbundle. It'd be nice if they did have a package that exempts sports, but I doubt they'll traverse that path.
Credit? Cool. Can I get a $3.00 CREDIT if I ask to have NO SPORTS channels?