dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
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. ..

prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · next

jseymour
join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI

jseymour to tshirt

Member

to tshirt

Re: I don't believe...

said by tshirt:

Let the sports nuts pay for THEIR own entertainment.

Hear, hear!

Jim

n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

2 recommendations

n2jtx to Happydude32

Member

to Happydude32

Re: sports?

Regardless why should I have to subsidize your entertainment? I do not want nor expect you to pay for programs that interest me. And mine are a hell of a lot cheaper than a game.

stvnbrs
Premium Member
join:2009-03-17
Cary, NC

1 recommendation

stvnbrs to intok

Premium Member

to intok
I actually do pay, and still get blacked out. I subscribe to MLB.tv to watch the SF Giants here in NC, but have to deal with NL blackouts on weekends. The way to get around that? Pay for cable on top of MLB.tv. Considering that team stadiums are subsidized by taxpayer dollars, it is absurd that even when paying for a service you have to deal with blackouts unless you pay more.

thedragonmas
Premium Member
join:2007-12-28
Albany, GA
Netgear R6300 v2
ARRIS SB6180

thedragonmas to ITGeeks

Premium Member

to ITGeeks

Re: I don't believe...

said by ITGeeks:

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.

ah yes, they are, and they charge $159.99/yr for sports. »www.skyvision.com/progra ··· l#sports and they only have a handful of a la carte channels, ($6/mo for crapfy? really?) »www.skyvision.com/progra ··· rte.html
Happydude32
Premium Member
join:2005-07-16

Happydude32 to intok

Premium Member

to intok

Re: sports?

Not sure where you get this 'Most people couldn't actually give less of a shit', unless you're making it up, which you are. In the Fall what is the most watched thing on Monday nights? Monday Night Football. What is the most watched thing on Sunday nights? Sunday Night Football, with Football Night In America up there as well.

Tonight over 1/2 million Americans will make their way out to one of fifteen ballparks to watch an MLB game. 26 million Americans even watched the boring World Cup finale. In my market, 2 out of every 3 TV sets is tuned to hockey when the NHL is in season, our professional box lacrosse team draws 16-17K per game. In the south, NCAA football is a constant draw. So I'm really not sure where you get your information from, but you are clearly making it up.
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

1 recommendation

intok (banned) to TheTruth

Member

to TheTruth
Wrong, most people NEVER watch sports, even the so called sports fans I know, the only ones that actually sit there nd watch a game are the ones that are 50+ years old. Everyone else at most watches 5 mins of the game then gets bored and changes the channel. They could maybe tell you who the most popular players are on each team, but nothing beyond that.

The only people that I know that watch the whole game are the old relatives that sit there and obsess over stats so that they have something to argue with each other about later because they don't know how to have a conversation that doesn't revolve around sports.

Younger people don't care.

thedragonmas
Premium Member
join:2007-12-28
Albany, GA
Netgear R6300 v2
ARRIS SB6180

thedragonmas to 78036364

Premium Member

to 78036364

Re: I don't believe...

said by 78036364:

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

50 cents? really?

Broadcast Basic ....... 27.00
Local Broadcast Channel Surcharge ...... 2.57
HD DTA - Primary 1.99
Subtotal .......... 31.56
Taxes, Fees & Surcharges
Franchise Fee......... 1.89
Regulatory Fee ........... .09
Local Sales Tax ........... .15
State Sales Tax............ .20
Subtotal ......................... 2.33

Total......33.89

$33.89 for 29 channels 33.89 / 29 = $1.17/per channel (rouned up to nearest cent)

and look, i get these AMAZING channels.

2 ShopHQ*
3 WALB (NBC 10) Albany*
4 WFXL (FOX 31) Albany*
6 WSWG (CBS 43) Valdosta*
7 WSWG-DT2 (MyNet 44) Valdosta*
8 WABW (PBS 14) Pelham*
9 WALB-DT2 (ABC 10.2) Albany*
11 WSST (IND 55) Cordele*
13 QVC*
14 HSN*
15 Religious Access*
16 Local Government Access*
17 Local Access*
18 The Weather Channel*
19 Educational Access*
21 WGN America*
23 ION*
24 WSWG-DT3 (CW) Valdosta*
26 WALB 24/7 Weather *
28 C-SPAN*
85 Local Religious Access*
87 C-SPAN 2*
88 C-SPAN 3*
90 3ABN*
91 WFXL-DT2 Bounce TV*
94 EWTN*
95 TBN*
97 INSP*
230 Mediacom Local Sports*
Happydude32
Premium Member
join:2005-07-16

Happydude32 to n2jtx

Premium Member

to n2jtx

Re: sports?

said by n2jtx:

Regardless why should I have to subsidize your entertainment? I do not want nor expect you to pay for programs that interest me. And mine are a hell of a lot cheaper than a game.

That's how it works, deal with it!

I pay for the extra Sports Tiers and Time Warner Cable and DirecTV, subscribe to NFL Sunday Ticket, NHL Center Ice, MLB Extra Innings and purchase the UFC fights that feature matchups I'm interested in. The rest of you can pay for my ESPN and NFL Network.

Flyonthewall
@206.248.154.x

Flyonthewall

Anon

Separate package on cable

As long as they aren't lumping those sports networks with other offerings forcing non sports watchers to subsidize those that do, I'd say all is fair. I'll never agree that people who don't use something should help pay for it, except for universal health care and the streets and army, and some other social benefits. Those need to be there in case you DO need them.

But sports on the television? This is not a requirement for having a life. If anything, something other than television IS required to have a life.

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

maartena to thedragonmas

Premium Member

to thedragonmas

Re: I don't believe...

said by thedragonmas:

said by 78036364:

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

50 cents? really?

Broadcast Basic ....... 27.00
Local Broadcast Channel Surcharge ...... 2.57
HD DTA - Primary 1.99
Subtotal .......... 31.56
Taxes, Fees & Surcharges
Franchise Fee......... 1.89
Regulatory Fee ........... .09
Local Sales Tax ........... .15
State Sales Tax............ .20
Subtotal ......................... 2.33

Total......33.89

$33.89 for 29 channels 33.89 / 29 = $1.17/per channel (rouned up to nearest cent)

and look, i get these AMAZING channels.

2 ShopHQ*
3 WALB (NBC 10) Albany*
4 WFXL (FOX 31) Albany*
6 WSWG (CBS 43) Valdosta*
7 WSWG-DT2 (MyNet 44) Valdosta*
8 WABW (PBS 14) Pelham*
9 WALB-DT2 (ABC 10.2) Albany*
11 WSST (IND 55) Cordele*
13 QVC*
14 HSN*
15 Religious Access*
16 Local Government Access*
17 Local Access*
18 The Weather Channel*
19 Educational Access*
21 WGN America*
23 ION*
24 WSWG-DT3 (CW) Valdosta*
26 WALB 24/7 Weather *
28 C-SPAN*
85 Local Religious Access*
87 C-SPAN 2*
88 C-SPAN 3*
90 3ABN*
91 WFXL-DT2 Bounce TV*
94 EWTN*
95 TBN*
97 INSP*
230 Mediacom Local Sports*

90% of those channels you can probably get for FREE using a roof antenna. (and probably a lot more, too such as all the sub channels that you don't get on cable) C-SPAN is available online for free, and the only channel you may not get.... is that Mediacom Local Sports channel.

Now unless that Local Sports channel is really worth almost $400 a year..... I suggest you get a roof antenna, disconnect the incoming cable to your house, and connect the roof antenna to it, and save yourselves a shitload of money you could use for other things. Like a Netflix account.

Just a hint: In the Los Angeles market I get over a 100 channels for free out of the air. About 40-45 are in English though (the rest in Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Mandarin, Japanese and a variety of other languages, its a melting pot out here).

AnonNoPay
@173.227.18.x

AnonNoPay

Anon

You mean I could be saving...

My gosh! I don't watch any Dodger games on TV, but this $3.84 is forced upon us Los Angelenos. That's around $48 per year more or less. Money is money. I wish TWC and others make this optional. Sigh!
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

1 recommendation

intok (banned) to Happydude32

Member

to Happydude32

Re: sports?

No, you just refuse to change the buisness model because you can't afford your boring sports shows without everyone else coughing up to cover for it.

Overpriced sports are a large part of the cost of TV service. From what I hear the UFC now offers their fights online, sounds like something the rest of the sports leagues should catch up on.

It's like the crap coverage of the Olympics, the few things that I would actually watch are never on TV and the online coverage was nonexistent.
intok

intok (banned) to thedragonmas

Member

to thedragonmas

Re: I don't believe...

said by thedragonmas:

said by 78036364:

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

50 cents? really?

Broadcast Basic ....... 27.00
Local Broadcast Channel Surcharge ...... 2.57
HD DTA - Primary 1.99
Subtotal .......... 31.56
Taxes, Fees & Surcharges
Franchise Fee......... 1.89
Regulatory Fee ........... .09
Local Sales Tax ........... .15
State Sales Tax............ .20
Subtotal ......................... 2.33

Total......33.89

$33.89 for 29 channels 33.89 / 29 = $1.17/per channel (rouned up to nearest cent)

and look, i get these AMAZING channels.

2 ShopHQ*
3 WALB (NBC 10) Albany*
4 WFXL (FOX 31) Albany*
6 WSWG (CBS 43) Valdosta*
7 WSWG-DT2 (MyNet 44) Valdosta*
8 WABW (PBS 14) Pelham*
9 WALB-DT2 (ABC 10.2) Albany*
11 WSST (IND 55) Cordele*
13 QVC*
14 HSN*
15 Religious Access*
16 Local Government Access*
17 Local Access*
18 The Weather Channel*
19 Educational Access*
21 WGN America*
23 ION*
24 WSWG-DT3 (CW) Valdosta*
26 WALB 24/7 Weather *
28 C-SPAN*
85 Local Religious Access*
87 C-SPAN 2*
88 C-SPAN 3*
90 3ABN*
91 WFXL-DT2 Bounce TV*
94 EWTN*
95 TBN*
97 INSP*
230 Mediacom Local Sports*

Thats a shitload of channels that never air anything I want to watch. Sell me the individual sesies I want and nothing more.
intok

1 recommendation

intok (banned) to Happydude32

Member

to Happydude32

Re: sports?

said by Happydude32:

Not sure where you get this 'Most people couldn't actually give less of a shit', unless you're making it up, which you are. In the Fall what is the most watched thing on Monday nights? Monday Night Football. What is the most watched thing on Sunday nights? Sunday Night Football, with Football Night In America up there as well.

Tonight over 1/2 million Americans will make their way out to one of fifteen ballparks to watch an MLB game. 26 million Americans even watched the boring World Cup finale. In my market, 2 out of every 3 TV sets is tuned to hockey when the NHL is in season, our professional box lacrosse team draws 16-17K per game. In the south, NCAA football is a constant draw. So I'm really not sure where you get your information from, but you are clearly making it up.

Your ratings are false, they are only an estimation of potential viewers as gauged by Nielsen ratings and not actual viewers as even thoguh the cable companies number would be closer to reality they have no way of knowing for sure if you where actually watching the TV, you could have left it on that channel and left the house.

Sports takes over all local network channels irregardless of what would have otherwise aired.

Last I checked there was 313+ million Americans and growing, and as you say, at least half of them don't give a shit about sports.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

1 recommendation

tshirt to intok

Premium Member

to intok

Re: I don't believe...

It'll get there eventually, but I doubt it will be much cheaper, most of those channels are free or actually pay to be on, probably hits break even for the must carries after the BASIC "cable reaches your door fee" (base price) anything interesting is going to be noticeable pricy per channel (can't see most channels wanting to go full ALA CARTE down to the show/episode level. their is only so far that is practical for BROADCAST.
IPTV is happening more and more but think towards a $10-15 movie, $2+ episode for most, a lot higher for some, and several subsriptions (Netflix/amazon) for the rest.
fine grain individual choice is a more expensive service option.

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

fg8578

Member

A la carte is not good enough

Even if cable providers offered a la carte pricing, that wouldn't be good enough.

Soon people would whine: "But I want to pay for only those shows I actually watch!" So you would soon have about the same crowd crying for individual show pricing. And while that sounds like a good thing, in theory, I suspect in the aggregate you'd end up paying more in total for your package of shows, than if the cable provider "bundled" those shows into a "channel" and then "bundled" several "channels" into the various package tiers they sell today. Be careful what you wish for.

Who would pay for Internet access that way? A separate micro charge for every website you visited?
fg8578

fg8578 to luster

Member

to luster

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

Who is John Wheeler? I once had a physics professor by that name, but I doubt if you are referring to him.
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned) to intok

Member

to intok

Re: sports?

said by intok:

Last I checked there was 313+ million Americans and growing, and as you say, at least half of them don't give a shit about sports.

That would mean 156 million that do. That's more people than than 234 of the 242 countries on the planet.
78036364

78036364 (banned) to n2jtx

Member

to n2jtx
said by n2jtx:

Regardless why should I have to subsidize your entertainment? I do not want nor expect you to pay for programs that interest me. And mine are a hell of a lot cheaper than a game.

And I subsidize yours. and that way were are not paying $5 per channel or having even MORE commercials or even worse ads shows while the content is on.
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

1 recommendation

intok (banned) to 78036364

Member

to 78036364
As I said, the Nielsen very highballed estimations are where the "half" numbers come from.

Take the Nielsen numbers with a box of salt.
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned) to fg8578

Member

to fg8578

Re: A la carte is not good enough

said by fg8578:

Even if cable providers offered a la carte pricing, that wouldn't be good enough.

Soon people would whine: "But I want to pay for only those shows I actually watch!"

You have that now with Amazon and iTunes. But people don't want to pay $4 per episode for a show in HD and commercial free. Some people won't be happy until everything is free because life owes them something.

luster
join:2009-03-28
Salisbury, MD

1 edit

luster to fg8578

Member

to fg8578

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

Oops, meant Tom. My bad.
The point is that the FCC has better things to do then step outside of their authority and monkey sports content.
Happydude32
Premium Member
join:2005-07-16

Happydude32 to intok

Premium Member

to intok

Re: sports?

said by intok:

said by Happydude32:

Not sure where you get this 'Most people couldn't actually give less of a shit', unless you're making it up, which you are. In the Fall what is the most watched thing on Monday nights? Monday Night Football. What is the most watched thing on Sunday nights? Sunday Night Football, with Football Night In America up there as well.

Tonight over 1/2 million Americans will make their way out to one of fifteen ballparks to watch an MLB game. 26 million Americans even watched the boring World Cup finale. In my market, 2 out of every 3 TV sets is tuned to hockey when the NHL is in season, our professional box lacrosse team draws 16-17K per game. In the south, NCAA football is a constant draw. So I'm really not sure where you get your information from, but you are clearly making it up.

Your ratings are false, they are only an estimation of potential viewers as gauged by Nielsen ratings and not actual viewers as even thoguh the cable companies number would be closer to reality they have no way of knowing for sure if you where actually watching the TV, you could have left it on that channel and left the house.

Sports takes over all local network channels irregardless of what would have otherwise aired.

Last I checked there was 313+ million Americans and growing, and as you say, at least half of them don't give a shit about sports.

Yep, the ratings are false, but yet you speak for the entire country based on a handful of people you know, and you make up some bullshit stat like no one under 50 watches sports What a joke

And sports programming is the only thing on network TV worth a damn, so it's good they over take whatever useless rendition of Law & Order or CSI they otherwise would have aired. OTA network TV programming is the biggest joke around with piss poor programming, so at least the network affiliates make use of the undeserving FCC licenses a few hours a week with sports. And it will only get better with CBS getting half of the Thursday Night Football schedule and NBC getting the second half of NASCAR.

Keep making shit up, it amuses me, kinda like reading posts on here from anti-corporate kooks who are against Time Warner-Comcast Merger that is going to happen shortly, and rightfully so, or the paranoid privacy freaks. Sports haters are just another group on this wonderful site that I laugh at.
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

1 recommendation

intok (banned)

Member

Yeah, reality shows are so worth watching... Ooo, another crappy cop show... Sounds great...

And yeah, go look it up, Nielsen ratings are an estimation, they have absolutely no way of knowing what people are actually watching without putting a camera on the TV and watching the viewers. So they high ball the numbers.

So yeah, as someone who is friends with people from all walks of life from burnout stoners and convenience store clerks up to surgeons and lawyers and union reps I see a pretty wide swath of the population, the younger someone is, the less likely they care about sports and the only bracket that I know of that routinely cares is 50+, with most of them being all but impossible to tear away from the TV if a game is on.
Happydude32
Premium Member
join:2005-07-16

Happydude32

Premium Member

Since no where near 100% of the US population are Neilson households, wouldn't that mean more people then those participating in any given week will be watching? But hey, who am I to throw logic in the discussion, when nothing matters but what the fine folks in your life do and watch. Again, your a joke!
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

1 recommendation

intok (banned)

Member

It's a logic fail on your part. They can only tell what channel a TV was left on, not if the TV was even on.

Watched the local news that morning and now theres a baseball game on? It gets counts you as having watched it even if you weren't even home.

thedragonmas
Premium Member
join:2007-12-28
Albany, GA
Netgear R6300 v2
ARRIS SB6180

thedragonmas to maartena

Premium Member

to maartena

Re: I don't believe...

considered it, im legally blind so i have to have some one come out and install it (and the realty place requires they be licensed/insured so cant just hire some neighbor kid to string a cable).

and of course, if i drop basic they raise the internet by $15/mo (an "internet only fee") which i could rant for hours about. (not to mention the data cap that would rule netflix out unless i paid out the rear for a higher net tier)

in all honesty the only reason ive kept basic is for dad (72, and dont like change) other wise id drop it. because out of "all" of that i personally only watch walb (local news) and maybe wgn or ion if im in the mood for a "repeat marathon until you memorize the script" kind of mood...

i dont think ive even watched "primetime" in 5+ years, its all reality tv junk.

kyler13
Is your fiber grounded?
join:2006-12-12
Annapolis, MD

kyler13 to intok

Member

to intok

Re: sports?

said by intok:

I and everyone I know don't get the appeal of sitting around watching something for 3 hours for 5 mins of actual entertainment.

Sounds like most movies out of Hollywood these days, minus the 5 minutes of entertainment. I don't get that appeal either, but to each their own. Personally, I'm fine with paying a la carte for sports, but why stop there. There are a huge number of channels in my line up that are worthless, yet I'm stuck paying for them. I mean, why should I pay extra for something I deem valuable, yet be required to pay for all the drivel being pumped into my cable box? Seems hypocritical to me.
kyler13

kyler13 to 78036364

Member

to 78036364

Re: A la carte is not good enough

$4 for an episode is ridiculous pricing, along the lines of $15 to see a movie in the theater that's now front loading ads for more revenue. Throw the commercials back in and charge me 50 cents instead. Besides, networks are wising up with in-show brand placement instead of running external commercials. Redbox is the only service that got it's pricing right. $1.70 per HD movie is properly valuing most of the plot recycling coming out of Hollywood these days.

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

fg8578 to luster

Member

to luster

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

said by luster:

The point is that the FCC has better things to do then step outside of their authority and monkey sports content.

Agreed!
prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · next