|
Pass the buckAt 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". |
|
mob (banned)On the next level.. join:2000-10-07 San Jose, CA |
mob (banned)
Member
2012-Dec-14 8:58 am
Sports need to be treated like moviesIt'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. |
|
viperpa33sWhy Me? Premium Member join:2002-12-20 Bradenton, FL |
People will complain but pay anywaysThere 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? |
|
Dodge Premium Member join:2002-11-27 |
Dodge to mob
Premium Member
2012-Dec-14 9:10 am
to mob
Re: Sports need to be treated like moviesAt 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 Frontier Premium Member join:2002-03-02 Thorndale, ON |
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. |
|
AZ_OGM join:2007-01-12 Phoenix, AZ |
AZ_OGM
Member
2012-Dec-14 9:16 am
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. |
|
|
to danawhitaker
Re: Unless I'm Reading This Wrong...said by DirecTV Website :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 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. |
|
djrobx Premium Member join:2000-05-31 Reno, NV |
djrobx to mob
Premium Member
2012-Dec-14 9:52 am
to mob
Re: Sports need to be treated like moviesAgree, 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. |
|
SpaethCoDigital Plumber MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN 1 edit |
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. |
|
1 recommendation |
to jc10098
Re: Pass the buckThis 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. |
|
|
+1 |
|
|
to djrobx
Re: Sports need to be treated like movieswell 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. |
|
mob (banned)On the next level.. join:2000-10-07 San Jose, CA
1 recommendation |
mob (banned) to djrobx
Member
2012-Dec-14 10:16 am
to djrobx
I voted with my dollars. I shut off cable TV, and kept internet access. |
|
|
|
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?? |
|
|
to djrobx
Re: Sports need to be treated like moviessaid by djrobx: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 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. 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. |
|
|
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? |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
to Camelot One
Re: Unless I'm Reading This Wrong...Just another price increase, marketed as a separate fee to fool the customer. |
|
|
to lakerfan82
Re: Sports need to be treated like moviesThis is the very reason sports channels need to be put in there own package. |
|
|
to Terabit
Re: Pass the buckI 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. |
|
holocron Premium Member join:2004-06-28 Mount Vernon, NY |
holocron
Premium Member
2012-Dec-14 11:28 am
Credit?Cool. Can I get a $3.00 CREDIT if I ask to have NO SPORTS channels? |
|
elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA |
to djrobx
Re: Sports need to be treated like moviessaid by djrobx: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 simply not true. Directv could "hold out" as long as it takes, to sever the mandatory bundling. If that means their customers go without certain content, so be it. Eventually, the networks would realize (feel) the loss and come back with a better offer. If you've ever been to NAB or CES or met with cable, satellite and broadcast executives, you'd understand why they are so eager to cave and force all subscribers to subsidize ESPN. There is a substantial Sports bias in the boardroom. |
|
|
to lakerfan82
said by lakerfan82: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? Lot easier to pay Verizon 1 bill for all my entertainment than a little to Netflix, little to Hulu, and Amazon. And I've got a Free DVR for life from Verizon so I can record in HD, skip commercials and be done with it. And I'd not want to be 1 season behind when talking with friends about the stuff we watch. I say put all sports on a package and let them (sports fans) pay for it. If some teams and leagues fold, so be it.... |
|
|
to elray
By as long as it takes I assume you mean until their competitors use this against them to take enough of their subs that they finally give in.
It will take all content providers to do it at the same time to hurt the content owners enough to cause them to rethink their model. Which is exactly why the owners negotiate contracts with long terms and with much different end dates.
The government could easily resolve this by simply stating that all contracts will be paid as agreed until X date and no new contracts can go beyond this date. That x date could be until the last big one expires (Say Comcast is the last to expire in 2/15). They can then couple this with a set mandatory expiration date for those that try to beat the deadline for when this rule comes into effect or if their contracts are already set to far out. Say 12/17 which would then provide all parties (content owners, sports leagues, productions companies) an opportunity to adjust their forecasted revenues and make the needed changes. Then ALL must be renegotiated with a la carte packaging for ALL channels along side of small, medium and large bundles. They can do bundles based on # of channels picked, content owners, themes or any other combination they see fit. |
|
|
to itguy05
I guess we are subsidizing eachother then, so its six of one, half a dozen of another... I pay for 100s of channels I don't want just to get the 10 or so sports channels I want. If I could get my local teams online I would happily do that and drop my cable package. I agree that putting them all in their own little bundles would be great as long as I'm not forced to pay for Disney channel, MTV, and the 100s of other channels full of garbage I don't want. A la carte is clearly the answer but the least watched channels will be the ones that go under, not the sports channels. There is a reason ESPN can charge $4/month. |
|
myosh join:2001-05-03 Cupertino, CA |
to AZ_OGM
Re: What about part time channels?I wonder if they're going to try this in the San Francisco Bay Area? We currently have two RSNs... Comcast Sportsnet Bay Area and Comcast Sportsnet California. CSNBA carries the Giants and Warriors while CSNCA carries the A's, Sacramento Kings and the San Jose Sharks (if the NHL doesn't implode). |
|
|
to holocron
DirecTV is a RIP OFF!PAY TV today is a rip off!
When you consider the quality of the content of cable and satellite today I have a hard time believing that ANYONE would want to pay what they are asking for it.
I don't care for sports programming anymore than "bread and circuses". LOL
And the rare time when there are worthwhile programs on the number of interruptions from commercials is INSANE and makes even quality programs unwatchable without using a DVR (more money!)
I voted with my wallet as well. I dumped DirecTV years ago and now only have OTA and the internet. |
|
IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA |
Opt-outI am considering the idea of switching back to DirecTV but I am undecided if it is cheaper to just keep my bundle through Comcast.
If I do go with DirecTV, I would gladly ask them to block the sports channels as I don't watch them. As for Comcast, I have to buy a so-called Sports Entertainment Package to get Turner Classic Movies and Fox Movie Channel (which I think is B/S as I my mother only watches those two channels and that is the reason I subscribe to those). |
|
|
to djrobx
Re: Sports need to be treated like moviessaid by djrobx: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. And this VERY same thing is happening on many cable systems, that are now tacking on a similar surcharge for local, broadcast stations, that demand payment for their (already FREE) OTA signal - & which subs CANNOT opt-out of, either. I'm actually surprised either satellite service hasn't done this same thing. (yet) These are all above-the-line rate increases, pure & simple - since these providers are NOT going to absorb these higher prog costs any longer, of course they're going to pass them to their subs. But this way, these same providers CAN continue to advertise those "teaser-rates", just like phone & cell companies do... |
|
|
to elray
said by elray:That's simply not true.
Directv could "hold out" as long as it takes, to sever the mandatory bundling. If that means their customers go without certain content, so be it. Eventually, the networks would realize (feel) the loss and come back with a better offer. I agree in theory, but not in application. While there would be some like me who would probably not leave DirecTV over holding out like this, there are many who would not be as willing to stay. As an example consider parents of young children who suddenly might find themselves without programming like Nickelodeon or the Disney Channel if something happened around those networks. Depending upon the channel, this could cost DirecTV a bunch of revenue. (What if it was something like ESPN, or TBS, or TNT, that draws a lot of viewers?) One also need consider that DirecTV's objective in holding out wouldn't be the same as yours or mine. At the end of the day, their focus is money (maximizing bottom line profit) and not altruism (working to achieve a cause for the betterment of others). Thus, in holding out, DirecTV would be likely to fold if offered a smaller price increase - so the scenario that both you and I dream of isn't likely to ever be held out as a serious bargaining chip. What we really need is for an established company like DirecTV to be willing to take a large financial risk and change its operating model entirely. Unfortunately, I wouldn't hold my breath - as "established company" and "large financial risk" don't go well together these days. Maybe a smart start-up could try to do this (it would be a more likely scenario), but they're not likely to have successes against the content providers since they won't have much bargaining power. |
|
|
to jc10098
Re: Pass the buckI have Dish and if they started charging me for something I don't watch or want, I would dump them faster then the dropping gas gage on a F450 pulling 20,000lbs up hill with a head wind. (that's fast for those who have never experienced it) Now I would pay extra to drop 1/3 of all those channels that try to sell me a wonder bra, give me buns of steal or make my 70 year old mom look 24. But sports? I'm with the rest, I'm not paying extra they should pay me to view some of it's drivel. I'll divert my cash and get faster internet. |
|