 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Tennis Channel really? can't really blame the carriers this time. The tennis channel should be lucky it's gets carried AT ALL. They have hte nerve to ask for ANY money. |
|
 n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY | said by BF69:can't really blame the carriers this time. The tennis channel should be lucky it's gets carried AT ALL. They have hte nerve to ask for ANY money.
I agree. Watched it once or twice and was bored to tears. the Tennis Channel should have to PAY to be carried. Either that or it should be an ala carte channel that only interested parties subscribe too.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. |
|
| reply to BF69
said by BF69:can't really blame the carriers this time. The tennis channel should be lucky it's gets carried AT ALL. They have hte nerve to ask for ANY money.
Obviously they must have some content that people want to watch otherwise there would be no contact dispute. |
|
| said by fifty nine:said by BF69:can't really blame the carriers this time. The tennis channel should be lucky it's gets carried AT ALL. They have hte nerve to ask for ANY money.
Obviously they must have some content that people want to watch otherwise there would be no contact dispute. And this brings in the discussion about ala carte channels. If the people of Tennis Channel think they have a product, they can make it a pay by the month channel like HBO, Showtime, etc. My guess is that they simply want more money and know that not many people want to watch it to make it profitable unless they are part of the "expanded basic" service. |
|
|
|
MadtownPremium
join:2008-04-26
Madera, CA | reply to BF69
Who cares, I don't watch tennis anyways, and no one I know watch tennis anyways, so it not anyone in the world cares anyways. |
|
| reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy:And this brings in the discussion about ala carte channels. If the people of Tennis Channel think they have a product, they can make it a pay by the month channel like HBO, Showtime, etc. My guess is that they simply want more money and know that not many people want to watch it to make it profitable unless they are part of the "expanded basic" service.
Then in that case the problem is self correcting. If many people don't watch, they can simply tell them to go away and they will either agree to a smaller rate increase or none at all, or simply be dropped.
Or, it could very well be that there are significant numbers of people watching the channel and the cable company will have to come to an agreement with the channel that may include a significant rate increase. |
|
 trparkyApple... YUMPremium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:2 | reply to BF69
I think all the people in this thread will agree with me in saying that there's no loss in losing this channel. |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | reply to fifty nine
The problem is that the Tennis Channel is demanding to be placed on a basic subscription tier. This leaves no room for the TV provider to recover the increased cost through more expensive tiers or even a sports package. The only way to get more money is to charge everyone higher rates, and not just those 6-10% of their customer base that actually wants this channel.
They really need to restructure and package channel types within more distinct genres. Cartoons and children's programming should be on a separate tier. Sports belongs on another. Science and nature stuff can go into their own group. This would still allow for smaller, niche channels to survive, but it could keep the cost reasonable and allow customers to have a bit of control in the market, other than the all or nothing use it or lose it "choice" that is currently forced upon us.
The current business model is not going to last at the rate it is going. Something better be done soon. |
|
| They can demand all the want. If there isn't significant viewership they don't have the upper hand and the cableco can tell them to pound sand. |
|
 QuiglagGod is LovePremium
join:2004-09-19
Ontario, CA | reply to trparky
Even as a tennis fan, I have no problem loosing the tennis channel. All of the majors are shown on basic cable channels anyways. Watching the game now on ESPN2.
--
Tool Reviews |
|
| reply to trparky
A lot of people care, including me. I am dropping FIOS and going to Directv because of this fiasco. |
|
jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | said by Tennis Fan :A lot of people care, including me. I am dropping FIOS and going to Directv because of this fiasco.
Sadly, it is the Tennis Channel that is just as much to blame for this mess, if not more so than the TV provider. Unfortunately, your actions only strengthen and embolden the content provider's position. Next year it will be DirecTV in negotiations and asking you to pay an additional $5 on your bill. It will never end until somebody finally stands up to these media giants.
It is too bad that FiOS does not have enough viewers to make a significant dent in the Tennis Channel's viewer base. Comcast and DirecTV could seriously influence these constant rate increases if they stood firm and refused to play along. We will hit that point soon, as the customers that pay the TV providers are not going to be able to keep up with the rate hikes. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to n2jtx
In my opinion all of them should be ala carte. In fact, they should be "on demand" ala carte. Why pay for a whole month of any channel if once a month there happens to be something of interest? |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to jmn1207
Yeah but if lumped into a sports package, how many football fans watch tennis? I know that we all pay for ESPN and there's quite a cross section of folks that don't care much for ANY sports programming and this probably doesn't seem fair to those folks and they would support having a "sports free" package.
I don't have anything in particular against tennis. There are courts in my subdivision and for pure recreation I play every now and then with my kids. However, I don't follow it and lumping it in with a sports channel package seems unfair.
I might buy a sports package for basketball, football, baseball and hockey but IMO, tennis is fringe. I suppose it depends on how much the Tennis Channel wants per month, per subscriber. My guess is that's part of the problem. It could be significant unless it's lumped into the millions of basic service subscribers. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to Madtown
I have similar feelings but if they succeed in demanding to be part of the basic package, that puts more pressure on the rate everyone pays for the channels most of us do enjoy. |
|
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY | reply to rradina
said by rradina:In my opinion all of them should be ala carte. In fact, they should be "on demand" ala carte. Why pay for a whole month of any channel if once a month there happens to be something of interest?
I am all for ala carte. There are perhaps 15 channels total I would subscribe to, excluding broadcast basic.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. |
|
| reply to jmn1207
I don't care who is to blame. I don't like having the channel I watch the most cut off in the middle of the most important tennis tournament in North America. It has opened my eyes to what Directv is offering now, which are some good offers such as free NFL Sunday ticket also. |
|
trparkyApple... YUMPremium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:2 | Yeah... but you're doing exactly what the media giants want. More money!
We need to start putting the screws to the media giants and tell them no more rate hikes. |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·VOIPo
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·PHONE POWER
| reply to rradina
We need the gubbermint to step in and prohibit content providers from bundling channels. ESPN gets ransom deals because its parent (ABC) can threaten to pull the main network feed if demands aren't met.
Until that happens there is no chance for us to have ala carte or tiers that make rational sense. |
|
jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | reply to Tennis Fan
Yes, the reason this happened is precisely because customers like you run to the next TV provider, or the TV provider caves during negotiations and we all see higher bills.
This scenario will play out in the near future with DirecTV. Eventually it will impact one of your favorite channels again. Maybe next time it will be a channel you don't care at all about, but DirecTV will raise your rates to keep the channel around for the vocal minority that do watch it?
The practice of having the customer switch providers to get the channels they want to see is driving the prices artificially high, and this is only a short-term solution that will eventually come crashing to a halt. It is not a sustainable business and it is destined to fail in the end.
Look around, it is already begun.
»gigaom.com/video/cord-cutters-q2-2011/ |
|
