dslreports logo

    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


how-to block ads

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



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!

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.

Allentown, PA


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?


Douglasville, GA

no one is making you pay

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

Painesville, OH

Re: no one is making you pay

On that note, we're done talking here!
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?

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.


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.

Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
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.

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.

Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Tulsa, OK

Re: OR they could get cheaper....

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

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.

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.


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.

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.

hey hey hey


Funny no one watches ESPN

Really ratings say otherwise.

Question is....

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


Saint Clair Shores, 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