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

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.

chances14

join:2010-03-03
Michigan
reply to tiger72

Re: I'm ready to go...

said by tiger72:

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.

Regardless, people who only watch sports channels are paying for those channels that non sports fans are watching on a regular basis, even if it is a smaller amount than those who don't watch sports channels.

chances14

join:2010-03-03
Michigan
reply to The Antihero

Re: Buh-Bye

said by The Antihero:

Same here. I never understood the appeal of watching other people play games, and I never understood why I should have to subsidize the people who do watch sports. I like watching movies, but I don't expect other people to subsidize my movie channels.

It's the same reason why people love to watch overpaid actors. It's called entertainment.


NotHereNow

@verizon.net
reply to joebear29

Re: I'm ready to go...

unfair : payback <> to-may-to : to-mah-to

Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

A La Carte coming one way or another.

A few more cable TV subscribers everyday are starting to realize that traditional cable TV with its outrageous price hikes is no longer a good value. Some consumers already have al a carte and others will demand it at a value price in the not too distance future or they will cut the cable TV cord and find other sources for their entertainment.


NotHereNow

@verizon.net
reply to chances14

Re: I'm ready to go...

Well, that's the whole point of having bundles, isn't it--so that the providers can get their pound of flesh (which they send part of back up to the producers of crap "content"); ESPN and Disney are simply the most egregiously bad about it. Everybody pays for what everybody else watches, but those who don't watch ESPN and the other crap sports channels pay the most for the stuff they never watch. (This is why I don't get "cable"--so I don't have to pay for everything I don't have any interest in. If they don't want to just sell me what I want to buy, then they'll get nothing from me.)


hey hey hey

@charter.com

Funny no one watches ESPN

Really ratings say otherwise.

nysports4evr
Premium
join:2010-01-23
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to Antenna_

Re: Does This Mean

said by Antenna_ :

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

What a ridiculous sweeping generalization.


tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
reply to chances14

Re: I'm ready to go...

said by chances14:

said by tiger72:

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.

Regardless, people who only watch sports channels are paying for those channels that non sports fans are watching on a regular basis, even if it is a smaller amount than those who don't watch sports channels.

Maybe. But the content companies aren't stupid. Disney owns ABC Family, but it also owns ESPN. It owns Lifetime, but it also owns A&E.
Same goes for Viacom.
And Fox
Really, have a look: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney%E2%···on_Group
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_as···networks
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation#TV

If Disney feels that it's going to lose money due to no longer being able to dump Lifetime and ABC Family in a package deal for ESPN, then they're simply going to charge more for ESPN and give Lifetime away for free (which is what they're doing anyways). News Corp will charge more for their FOX RSN's, Big10 Network and FNC.
Viacom will charge more for Comedy Central and MTV.
They'll make up the losses - Content companies will not accept losing money over a-la-carte.

The only way you will pay less is if you cut out content from an entire content company. If you want to cut out ABC, I hope you don't like ESPN.
If you want to cut out FOX, I hope your local sports aren't delivered by Fox Sports Networks.
If you want to cut out Viacom (probably the easiest if you only watch sports), I hope you don't watch Comedy Central.

Let's get real here, the cable companies don't want to hear you complain about price increases. They're just the middlemen and aggregators. They're probably more than happy to just charge you a $10 or $15 access fee and let you deal with the content companies yourself. It would cut their support costs, and they'd only need to set up a proper automated station provisioning system (which wasn't possible 30 years ago).

It's the content companies that like the system as it is. They charge the cable companies whatever they want, and everyone gets mad at cable for price increases or blackouts rather than the content companies which are the cause of the price increases in the first place.
--
"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

15444104
Premium
join:2012-06-11

Question is....

Will they still watch ESPN when they realize how much they will have to pay when it becomes a la carte


tc1uscg

join:2005-03-09
Clinton Township, MI

They are affraid

When you think about it. They should be concerned. Right now, they charge/get X amount from cable and SAT providers. If they went standalone, they wouldn't have enough 20 dollar somethings jumping onboard to make up the difference. Yep, they don't want to go stand alone because they would loose their butts. I wish cable/SAT providers would just offer "packages" and group SPORTS into one (including ESPN) so those of use could care less about watching a baseball game from the 80's can waist our time watching soaps from the 70's. Just sayin