dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2013-04-23 12:27:15: As noted last week, there is a renewed pressure on broadcasters to either finally offer a la carte channels, or at least channel bundles that are a little more consumer friendly and economical. ..

prev page · 1 · 2 · 3 · next


Antenna_

@rr.com
reply to buzz_4_20

Re: Does This Mean

If cable doesn't embrace ala carte, they will go the way of the railroads. Kids don't want sports or news.

averagedude

join:2002-01-30
San Diego, CA

What's missing

What's missing in this discussion is why ESPN is so expensive in the first place? Where is all this money going?


ESPN_Without

@bhn.net

Cost= Waste of money and could do without

When was the last time ESPN had games on it like it used to.

Why pay to hear some commentators give you their opinion when you get get scores and games on other channels or get the sports package, even check the web to get the latest stats and game progress.

ESPN= Overpriced and could do without on my bill.-Period!

Papageno

join:2011-01-26
Portland, OR

Yeah, F the sports channels

The ESPN channels, and the Food Network, and Home and Garden, and Bravo, and MTV and VH1, since they don't show music videos anymore for the last 20 years. I literally NEVER watch any of that crap, but I HAVE to have it to get my Comedy Central, my FX, my AMC etc., AKA channels that are actually worth watching. Sure would be nice to save some coin.

ESPN

join:2003-02-22
Allentown, PA

Fees

ESPN is a cash machine. They make over $5.00 per subscriber.
With FOX Sports launching their own network soon, guess who is footin the bill?

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY
reply to IowaCowboy

Re: I'm ready to go...

Yeah it's called SelectHD from Verizon. He's probably right.
I would have done just broadcast, but believe it or not the 2-play was 10 less for SelectHD, so I got it.

My bill went from $105 to $79 (inc CC) when I went from Extreme to SelectHD and that INCLUDES 50/25 unlimited. And no regional sports fee. So savings over $35 each month. If they were smart they would have PPV sports like boxing, etc. But they are happy with the status quo today.

Cost to provision is not a problem the problem is that we still have channels. If you go a la carte, go a la carte. You pay for what you consume. Think of how the cell guys charge. Base fee + you pay for consumption. Works well there. Yes some people will pay more, some will pay less but the point is it's a personal decision, and if content providers (which should want it all out there) want to condition us to ration, then they will lose.

My take is that these guys need to stop signing billion dollar contracts otherwise yes, ESPN will cost $20.

firedrakes

join:2009-01-29
Arcadia, FL
reply to averagedude

Re: What's missing

its Disney owned. what you expect


PaulHikeS2

join:2003-03-06
Fitchburg, MA
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to elefante72

Re: I'm ready to go...

said by elefante72:

Cost to provision is not a problem the problem is that we still have channels. If you go a la carte, go a la carte. You pay for what you consume. Think of how the cell guys charge. Base fee + you pay for consumption. Works well there. Yes some people will pay more, some will pay less but the point is it's a personal decision, and if content providers (which should want it all out there) want to condition us to ration, then they will lose.

Sounds silly. Would i have to turn off the TV to use the bathroom? If I turn off the TV during a commercial will my bill increase?
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet???


SysOp

join:2001-04-18
Douglasville, GA

no one is making you pay

Calm down internet. You have the option of not paying for any tv.

TransitJohn

join:2009-05-08
Littleton, CO
reply to averagedude

Re: What's missing

Have you seen the size of media rights contracts college athletics conferences and professional leagues are getting?

jagged

join:2003-07-01
Boynton Beach, FL
reply to tpkatl

Re: What is more likely to happen

true they all try to increase the ARPU. However given that we watch 5-7 channel I doubt i'd be paying $137 per month.

I see them offering channels in tiers, ie Sports package, Family package, Movie package etc

uberjon

join:2010-02-10
Kane, PA
reply to tshirt

Re: I'm ready to go...

said by tshirt:

...espn free.
Let the sports junkies buy their own crack.

EXACTLY why should we make it cheaper for the jocks when we don't want it.

beavercable
Premium
join:2008-05-11
Beaverton, OR

Dont just blame the networks, as the sports leagues as well.

How much do you think the NFL, NBA, NCAA, MLB, NHL, and the rest of the sports associations charge networks for broadcasting rights?


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
reply to elefante72

Re: I'm ready to go...

Or make sportscasts Pay Per View only so I'm not paying for sports I don't watch. The big sports leagues charge a lot of money for broadcast rights and if they go PPV only, then our pay TV bills would be a lot lower.


PaulHikeS2

join:2003-03-06
Fitchburg, MA
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to buzz_4_20

Re: Does This Mean

said by buzz_4_20:

I could save $20 by dropping that channel?

No. Economics of scale. Currently it's $4-$5 per subscriber for ESPN. If only 25% of current subscribers choose ESPN as a subscription, then theoretically the price would be $16-$20/month for ESPN to get the same revenue.
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet???

antennaman19

join:2010-01-18
Painesville, OH
reply to SysOp

Re: no one is making you pay

On that note, we're done talking here!

m33crob

join:2013-02-06
Phoenix, AZ

The Fall of Paid TV

Products are only worth what people are willing to pay for them. If a la cart plans push the price up to $20/month, people WILL start thinking about the cost and decide whether it is worth it or not. It's possible even that this mode would knock the Disney Corp off of their pedestal and bring prices into an acceptable range.

wkm001

join:2009-12-14

I have bad news for ESPN...

There wouldn't be many people willing to pay that much for all of the ESPN channels.

I'm curious how this would trickle down to player's salaries. How much of a team's revenue comes from TV contracts? Players get paid WAY too much anyway.


buzz_4_20

join:2003-09-20
Limestone, ME
reply to PaulHikeS2

Re: Does This Mean

True.
But they better slap a flat cost on that.
How pissed would people be if you only save $5 to drop it but it costs $20 to add it.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

OR they could get cheaper....

because ESPN won't be able to just offer $xxxx million dollars for exclusive rights and then raise rates.

tommy2text0

join:2011-05-24
Stratford, CT
reply to Antenna_

Re: Does This Mean

Go the way of the railroads?? Millions of people in larger metro / urban areas take trains and subways everyday to commute to work, etc.


tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to joebear29

Re: I'm ready to go...

said by joebear29:

That's fine as long as they can buy only the sports channels. Making them pay for everyone else's crap and then pay extra for sports is unfair.

Last I checked, the most expensive stations are the sports stations. Easily. Most evidence points to non-sports-watchers subsidizing the rest of our sports-watching habits. If you're watching sports and don't want to pay for "everyone else's crap", then you *might* save about 10% off of what you're paying. Maybe. It's not like you're actually paying for BET, Lifetime and Oxygen... They're getting throwin in with A&E and MTV...

Frankly the only non-sports stations on Cable which can command much at all are Discovery, A&E, MTV, and Comedy Central. Possibly FNC and CNN.

ESPN, Big10, CBS, NBC, FOX, NFL, NBA, NHL sports networks are all expensive anchors during network negotiations where the Cable Companies frankly have no bargaining power. They're the reason why Cable is expensive. And you're sorely mistaken if you watch sports and think a-la-carte will be some magical way to cut your cable-viewing costs by heaps.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to IowaCowboy
It would be all automatic. You could do it from your remote control, or your phone app, your web browser or even a touch tone telephone system if you're a luddite.

Would actually be cheaper overall after the initial development.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

mdlund0

join:2011-08-02
Lawrence, KS
reply to tiger72
Maybe we'll all end up paying the same amount, albeit for different reasons (Sports because they're in high demand, other crap because it's expensive to produce for a small audience). Why don't we go ahead and find out... I'd be willing to take even a modest savings when buying my sports packages if it meant losing Lifetime, FNC, CNN, Oxygen, BET, MTV, CMT, etc.

15444104
Premium
join:2012-06-11
reply to KrK

Re: OR they could get cheaper....

I frankly think ESPN and those related sports networks are
SCARED of what will happen when folks have a choice. I think a LOT of folks will not bother subscribing especially at 15-20 /mo.

I hate ESPN and the other sports networks. I agree why would anyone want to pay big bucks to watch overpaid adults play games?

Perhaps some of these arm chair quarter backs might actually go outside and play the game themselves when they realize how expensive the pay service is.

I'd be thrilled to see tv service that would be a la carte.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Don't get me wrong. Sports have value. Athletes have value.

Sports programming have value.

It's just our current system is much OVERVALUING them.

If Sports Networks have to start scaling back their payments in order to control costs, then that's a step of a market correction beginning.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

biochemistry
Premium
join:2003-05-09
92361

Good. Drop ESPN. (And I like sports)

There are no more than 10 channels that I spend 95% of my time watching. I'm sure that's the same for most people here. I don't watch ESPN outside of my team playing Monday Night Football. That's not much football for $20 a month. People dropping ESPN en masse would be a very good thing. ESPN is spending a jazillion dollars on all their sports rights agreements because they know they can pay it off by simply jacking up their rates on cable customers. Maybe ESPN wouldn't be so expensive if they had a lot fewer viewers and weren't able to splurge our money.

Cyron

join:2002-09-24
Charlotte, NC

Blame Advertisers, not ESPN

It's always funny when these stories come out here, and everyone dumps on ESPN. If there's anyone to blame for expensive programs, it's the advertisers who pay billions to air their commercials during live sports events.

The $$$ Networks make from Cable/Dish companies is a small percentage compared to the money they make advertising. And the reason they make so much, is because so many people watch sports, which is why Cable/Dish companies are willing to pay so much to license their content.

By the way, I would pay $20 to watch ESPN, and would be happy not to subsidize MTV/VH1/Oxygen/Bravo/Lifetime.

pjlahaie

join:2009-03-14
Ottawa, ON
reply to PaulHikeS2

Re: Does This Mean

said by PaulHikeS2:

said by buzz_4_20:

I could save $20 by dropping that channel?

No. Economics of scale. Currently it's $4-$5 per subscriber for ESPN. If only 25% of current subscribers choose ESPN as a subscription, then theoretically the price would be $16-$20/month for ESPN to get the same revenue.

And anyone that thinks they'll see saving of $4-5 per subscriber are nuts. They'll just pull the ESPN package out of basic, make it pay and keep the same rate and then charge $20-25/mo to subscribers for ESPN. Bills will not be reduced by how much they pay per subscriber for ESPN.


cousintim

join:2004-10-10
Dallas, TX

A Simple Start to À La Carte

I believe that ESPN's current cost/sub is +/- $5.00. I assume that is after a package discount.

My rule: Any channel that costs a provider more than $5.00/sub must be offered à la carte. For perspective, HBO has always been offered à la carte and its cost to providers had to be less than $5.00/sub in its early years.