dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
21
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

1 recommendation

moonpuppy (banned) to fifty nine

Member

to fifty nine

Re: Tennis Channel really?

said by fifty nine:

said by 88615298:

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.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

1 recommendation

fifty nine

Member

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.

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

1 recommendation

jmn1207

Premium Member

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.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

1 recommendation

fifty nine

Member

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.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

1 recommendation

rradina to jmn1207

Member

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.

djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV

1 recommendation

djrobx

Premium Member

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.

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

1 recommendation

jmn1207

Premium Member

said by djrobx:

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.

The saddest part of this whole mess is that the prices will continue to soar year after year as the greedy parties keep making ludicrous demands. Eventually, the customer base will dwindle as we simply can't afford it anymore, and our corrupt government will most likely use my tax money to pay for a bailout that only adds fuel to the fire, as this money will surely go to the elite top as an award, while the working stiffs will take the brunt of the punishment in layoffs and reduced benefits.
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL

Joe12345678 to jmn1207

Member

to jmn1207
canada is like that.

Anonymous88
Premium Member
join:2004-06-01
IA

Anonymous88 to fifty nine

Premium Member

to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:

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.

And that's what Mediacom did. This channel disappeared on Sep 3. Permanently. As in 'we won't carry it anymore' and not 'we are trying to work out some things'

Every person so far reacted like this

'Huh? There was a tennis channel?'

I hope golf channels are next.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536 to fifty nine

Premium Member

to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:

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.

this channel would just die out if we had true ala carte.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

1 recommendation

rradina to jmn1207

Member

to jmn1207
Don't put it past the government to let them fail and then pump more money into PBS. All part of their plan to create state-run media and control information.

OK -- I know that sounds like a 9/11 conspiracy theorist but I think we need to get rid of PBS and not ever rescue failed businesses. There's a reason species survive on this planet. Billions of predecessor species died. Interfering with this natural selection process is dangerous...

I also think we need to reinstate the regulation that stops content creators from being owned or owning content delivery. It troubles me that Comcast bought NBC/Universal and the "gubbermint" rubber stamped it.