dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-07-21 16:51:34: Could the FCC soon have the ability to stop a large amount of regional sports network blackouts? Regional Sports Network (RSN) prices are out of control. Time Warner Cable wants every cable subscriber in Los Angeles to pay $3. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · next

78036364

join:2014-05-06
USA

1 recommendation

Yawn

Until they stop MLB, NBA and NHL from blacking out locals teams from online streaming even when they are on the road, who cares?


fiosultimate

join:2014-06-09
San Antonio, TX

6 recommendations

sports?

Who cares?sports are stupid, go outside and get some excercise , the couch needs a break

Hellrazor
Bah Humbug

join:2002-02-02
Abyss, PA

3 recommendations

whatever

I am in the Philly area. Who can I bribe to permanently blackout the phillies and sixers?


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

4 recommendations

I don't believe...

...the FCC has the authority to control price negotiations for content.
This would be a better case if fielded by the FTC or AG/DOJ,
If anything force the cableco's to separate the total cost of the non public sports channels from BASIC tv so that local only SUBS pay NOTHING to the sports cabal that builds team wealth and income on the public dollar, but returns less and less to the host cities every year.
Let the sports nuts pay for THEIR own entertainment.

And I can say that coming from a city with the seahawks, superbowl winners (who I watch some) and the sounders, MLS leaders (who I watch some) the mariners (who stay above .500 most years and I see occasionally) seattle storm and other quality teams. but I can live without paying them one thin dime as long as long as people are homeless, and parks are unsafe, and schools are struggling, and people are starving.

78036364

join:2014-05-06
USA

1 recommendation

said by tshirt:

...Let the sports nuts pay for THEIR own entertainment.

Well I don't watch jesus channels, women's channels, gay channels, hispanic channels or black channel so I shouldn't have to pay for those either then.


jchambers28

join:2007-05-12
Alma, AR
+1

ITGeeks

join:2014-04-20
Cleveland, OH
reply to 78036364
Call up the content company and tell them that, or better yet- CBAND still gives you the option to pay for what you want. And yes, they are STILL around.

Rakeesh

join:2011-10-30
Mesa, AZ
Reviews:
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·Cox HSI

1 recommendation

reply to 78036364
said by 78036364:

said by tshirt:

...Let the sports nuts pay for THEIR own entertainment.

Well I don't watch jesus channels, women's channels, gay channels, hispanic channels or black channel so I shouldn't have to pay for those either then.

This. Honestly I hate that if you pay for TV, you MUST pay for these stupid causes.

biochemistry
Premium
join:2003-05-09
92361
reply to 78036364
You don't pay for Jesus channels. They are either free to your cable company or paying your cable company to air them.
--
The harvest is nigh past, the summer is nigh ended. Are you saved? bibleprophecytruth.com


WhyADuck
Premium
join:2003-03-05
kudos:1
reply to ITGeeks
I believe you are mistaken about C-Band, but if not you should post the details. I'm aware of what you're referring to, since at one time you could have a big C-band dish and order specific channels ala carte through a national subscription service of some kind. But I was under the impression that those channels went away when everything went to high-definition digital, because the older analog receivers with the VideoCipher cards would no longer receive those signals. And to the best of my knowledge, there's nothing up there in analog anymore, except maybe one or two of the religious channels that no one in their right mind would watch (essentially loops of old analog content that probably hasn't been updated since 1995).

If there were any way to purchase high-def cable channels ala carte, I'm sure that would be mentioned from time to time in the various satellite forums. I realize that the moderators of some of those forums (none of which are in any way affiliated with this site, thankfully) are at times extremely anal about what they allow to be posted in their little online dictatorships, but still I can't believe they would all ban any mention whatsoever of such a service. But if you have evidence to the contrary, please feel free to post it.
--
I refuse to believe that corporations are people until Texas executes one.

78036364

join:2014-05-06
USA
reply to biochemistry
said by biochemistry:

You don't pay for Jesus channels. They are either free to your cable company or paying your cable company to air them.

No such thing as a free lunch.

78036364

join:2014-05-06
USA
reply to Rakeesh
said by Rakeesh:

said by 78036364:

said by tshirt:

...Let the sports nuts pay for THEIR own entertainment.

Well I don't watch jesus channels, women's channels, gay channels, hispanic channels or black channel so I shouldn't have to pay for those either then.

This. Honestly I hate that if you pay for TV, you MUST pay for these stupid causes.

Yeah I much rather pay $3-$10 per channel than the 10 cents to 50 cents I'm paying now /sarcsam.


fiosultimate

join:2014-06-09
San Antonio, TX
reply to 78036364

first world problems

Dont watch tv, there issue resolved


WhyADuck
Premium
join:2003-03-05
kudos:1
reply to biochemistry

Re: I don't believe...

I think that these are mostly a result of the fact that cable came of age in the late 70's/early 80's and back then there were still a few large religious feeds that actually had audiences. But that was before so many of the people behind those networks got caught up in scandals of various kinds, or turned into raving lunatic hate-mongers. Point is that back then, a cable company would carry the religious channels because it was something what would induce the church folk to subscribe to their service, but I doubt that's nearly as true today as it used to be, since most people nowadays (even religious folks) are very turned off by those guys. So now the few channels that remain have to pay the cable companies to carry them, or are carried for free because they've been on that system forever and there are still older subscribers that would drop their cable service if those channels were dropped.

So, Grandma sends a chunk of her social security check to these silver-tongued devils, and maybe they send a small portion of that back to the cable company. The cable company includes that channel in their channel count in their promotional materials. If people had to pay to get those channels individually, I daresay 99% of them would be off the air within a month.
--
I refuse to believe that corporations are people until Texas executes one.

AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
reply to tshirt
The FCC can't do anything about the contract negotiations per se, but the FCC (or really the states more so, tbh) can regulate how consumers are billed for items like you have mentioned. I doubt most people realize exactly how much of their monthly bill goes to things they never realized they were paying for.

This would initially hurt the sports "industry", but in the long term it will make it a much more healthy, financially.


maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:3

Cord cutting.

It's a BIG factor in my decision to cut the cord. With 8 major league teams in the Los Angeles area, and the Lakers charging about $4 as well as the Dodgers, I started doing research and adding up the costs. Angels are about $3 to watch, both NHL teams about $2 for their respective channels, ESPN is almost $5, there are several other sports networks such as NBC Sports, Fox Sports, etc..... I came up with a number between $30 and $35 a MONTH just on sports alone.

But do they let me pick my ONE team I would like to watch? No of course not.... you have to pay for TWO MLB teams, TWO NBA teams, TWO NHL teams, and (although a lot less money) TWO MLS teams, and some of those are big rival teams. Same is going to be true for New York, Chicago, and other big markets. You are paying through the NOSE if you are just a fan of one or two teams.

I wasn't watching a great deal of television anyways, so the decision was between $1,000 a year savings, or..... sports. It wasn't a hard call. I'll go to a game now and then if I really want to see it, or to a sports bar.

It's getting out of control, the price we have to pay for sports. Most people don't realize it, and keep forking over money for sports they don't watch, just to get the one team the do. Or those 10-15 channels out of that package of 200+ channels. When it really comes down to it, you probably only watch about 10% worth of your cable bill, channel wise.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"


maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:3
reply to 78036364

Re: I don't believe...

said by 78036364:

said by tshirt:

...Let the sports nuts pay for THEIR own entertainment.

Well I don't watch jesus channels, women's channels, gay channels, hispanic channels or black channel so I shouldn't have to pay for those either then.

This is why I became a cord cutter. Why pay for 200 channels if I only watch 10 of them?

No cable company is going to allow a-la-carte, so I beat them at their own game. Why complain about a-la-carte channels, if I can just go all the way and go a-la-carte for programs. I just watch Netflix, Hulu, Amazon and with Smart DNS a whole bunch of international stuff.

Money saved a year: Just under $1,000.

Wasn't a hard sell, that one, to the wife.

I still get all the locals with a roof antenna, and my central media server has a TV card in it so I can record programming off of that. For FREE, what a concept. (And actually better HD quality then what I had on the same channels on DirecTV).
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"


maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:3

1 recommendation

reply to Rakeesh
said by Rakeesh:

said by 78036364:

said by tshirt:

...Let the sports nuts pay for THEIR own entertainment.

Well I don't watch jesus channels, women's channels, gay channels, hispanic channels or black channel so I shouldn't have to pay for those either then.

This. Honestly I hate that if you pay for TV, you MUST pay for these stupid causes.

Actually, in the case of religious channels its the other way around. They pay your carrier for carriage, so they don't add to the cable bill. Same with home shopping networks such as QVC.

The BIG money is in sports. And after that, the forced package deals. Want to watch Discovery channel? Great, please pay for these OTHER 12 channels we own too.

Subscription television has become the BIGGEST rip off known to man. But most people are so addicted to their flat screens and would panic to have to entertain their kids in another manner, they will gladly keep on forking over money, often more then $100 a month, to a company that feeds you the same crap television that hasn't improved in over a decade. Oh, we get to watch crap in HD now. Whoop. Dee. Doo.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

reply to 78036364
said by 78036364:

Well I don't watch jesus channels, women's channels, gay channels, hispanic channels or black channel so I shouldn't have to pay for those either then

neither do I but all those together are a few cents, half a dozen sports channels,, some supposedly FREE is what makes the bill $40 plus, let's dump the expensive ones first and see what the cost is.


maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:3
reply to 78036364
said by 78036364:

said by biochemistry:

You don't pay for Jesus channels. They are either free to your cable company or paying your cable company to air them.

No such thing as a free lunch.

Correct. The people that donate to those television churches end up footing that bill. Believe in Jesus, and donate half your salary! Amen.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
reply to ITGeeks
If I remember correctly there isn't a true HD option for 4DTV and you need at least a 7.5 foot dish which is not feasible in many places.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.

Happydude32
Premium
join:2005-07-16
kudos:1

3 recommendations

reply to fiosultimate

Re: sports?

Judging by ratings and stadium attendance, I'd say millions and millions and millions of people in America care about sports. Sorry, but you sports haters are in the vast minority, even though you all like to cry, bitch, whine and moan about it on this site with your fellow sports haters., you are such a small minority, your opinions don't even count.

grabacon9

join:2013-08-21

Should have the option to remove all of the sports channels.

Should have the option to remove all of the sports channels since they are nuts in the pricing.


luster

join:2009-03-28
Salisbury, MD

John Wheeler/the FCC has more important items on it's plate...

The FCC should concentrate their efforts on something more within their scope.., like forcing Verizon to comply with it's own EULA on bandwidth delivery to their customers.


intok

join:2012-03-15

3 recommendations

reply to Happydude32

Re: sports?

If you want sports pay extra for them. Most people couldn't actually give less of a shit.

Watching sports is something my dad used to do, I and everyone I know don't get the appeal of sitting around watching something for 3 hours for 5 mins of actual entertainment.

The only sport I even half gave a shit about was MMA back when it started, back before everyone just started blue balling each other for submissions. But even the the time between fight was absolutely excruciatingly boring as irritating announcers droned on and on about stats and figures when all anyone actually wants to see is the fight.
--
You think theres no games for Linux? »desura.com »gameolith.com »humblebundle.com »playdeb.net »ubuntuvibes.com

Check out »youtube.com/user/TheBigPictureRT/videos »freespeech.org and »democracynow.org


intok

join:2012-03-15
reply to 78036364

Re: I don't believe...

for once we agree on something. I don't even want whole channels, I want JUST THE INDIVIDUAL SHOWS that I want to watch, nothing more.

Make the pilot EP and give it away for free, if theres interest, make and sell the series, if not trash it.


intok

join:2012-03-15
reply to Rakeesh
It's not the causes, it's the broadcast channels, over a year there are only a total of 12 shows I watch spread out across 9 channels that I'd have to pay $75/month to have those shows if I didn't just pirate them because unless one of those shows has a new episode on the TV sat off.

I have no issue with buying my shows directly, but I'm not going to pay hundreds of dollars for the actual months when theres absolutely nothing I want to watch on TV and thus never turn it on.
--
You think theres no games for Linux? »desura.com »gameolith.com »humblebundle.com »playdeb.net »ubuntuvibes.com

Check out »youtube.com/user/TheBigPictureRT/videos »freespeech.org and »democracynow.org


intok

join:2012-03-15

1 recommendation

reply to 78036364
tell that to the multimillionaire televangelists and their religious tax exemptions, which they constantly violate the terms of by preaching about who people should vote for.


intok

join:2012-03-15

1 recommendation

reply to maartena
the "church" is getting a free lunch on not paying taxes.


TheTruth

@108.249.20.x

-1 recommendation

reply to intok

Re: sports?

"If you want sports pay extra for them. Most people couldn't actually give less of a shit."

You are truly clueless if you believe that "most people couldn't actually give less of a shit" about sports.

The numbers prove you wrong millions of times over.