dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
136

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

jmn1207

Premium Member

Pop!

The heated battles are becoming more prominent between the TV and content providers with each new contract negotiation, and the latest news suggests that some providers are already scrambling to cut costs by dropping channels where they can.

Without any direct consumer control of the market with regards to pricing, and with no regulation in sight, this is going to get ugly and eventually the entire traditional market will collapse upon itself. This is simply not sustainable and the peak has been reached.

I expect the number of cord cutters to dramatically rise as this is the only viable option for an ever increasing sector of the population. That is, unless somebody wants to relinquish some power or take a pay cut.
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

1 recommendation

elefante72

Member

The first provider to create a separate sports tier wins. These sports contracts are way out of control and now more than 50% of your cable bill is going to it.

The problem is that once they do that regular people will be paying $40 a month, and sports folks $160 which is a good thing because we should not be forced to pay.

What will come of that obviously is a two tier system where you have the all in package (like they already do for many sports), and PPV if say you want to watch one game.

This bundling has cause two very perverse issues in our society:

1. TV actors made a "living" in the 80's and commercials were 10 minutes. Now it is not unusual for a 2nd tier TV actor to make $1m per episode and commercials are hovering close to 20 min/hour. Cheap reality TV is like the 40's again with live entertainment TV...

2. Sports in general are now only for the rich. Spend a day at Yankee stadium and watch the hundreds disappear. This is being fueled by local tax breaks, local taxes forced on lodging,etc, and these TV contracts that are way out of control. Now broadcast TV is stuck also, so "free" OTA will disappear. Look at yesterday Comcast wanting to charge $25 for FREE OTA channels. Well you get QVC too

The result of this will eventually be a standoff, and the model will collapse by itself. No government interaction needed. These squabbles are just what the industry needs to piss consumers off.

Cable/Telco have already bet the farm on IPTV and internet. The margins are staggering. Sooner of later their fixed plant costs will allow them to drop cable because they will just be loosing to much money. TWC, Comcast, Cablevision big loosers here unless they figure out how to monetize their networks.

Note: This is probably 5-10 years out. The warning flares are up, this is by no means an emergency.

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

jmn1207

Premium Member

No TV provider has any real option to place sports channels exclusively in their own package. The content providers will simply take their ball and go home if the TV providers do not capitulate to their greedy demands.

Dish Networks, in a recent dispute with AMC, saw thousands of defectors migrate to a competitor. A competitor, no doubt, offering a splendid 2-year contract supported by the existing customers through the regularly scheduled rate hikes on equipment and channel packaging.

Disney will not allow dozens of their channels to be placed on a specialized niche tier when negotiating with the TV providers, and this includes many of the ESPN family of sports channels. So far, the content providers simply need to wait for a while until the TV provider eventually caves. Then we all get to "enjoy" a sizable rate increase in some clever form or another in the near future.

This model can't collapse soon enough. You are right, sports is for the wealthiest elite nowadays, and this is quickly spreading to TV, and not just at the stadiums.
itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA

itguy05

Member

said by jmn1207:

Dish Networks, in a recent dispute with AMC, saw thousands of defectors migrate to a competitor. A competitor, no doubt, offering a splendid 2-year contract supported by the existing customers through the regularly scheduled rate hikes on equipment and channel packaging.

Disney will not allow dozens of their channels to be placed on a specialized niche tier when negotiating with the TV providers, and this includes many of the ESPN family of sports channels. So far, the content providers simply need to wait for a while until the TV provider eventually caves. Then we all get to "enjoy" a sizable rate increase in some clever form or another in the near future.

Had Dish been smart and looking long term they could have won the war. Yes they lost subscribers in the short term but had they stuck up to AMC they could have been rewarded with lower programming costs and therefore lower rates for their subscribers. And sent fear into the broadcasters. I'm sure there are plenty of households like ours that could care less about AMC as we watch 0 shows in it.

All we need is one smart company to say F-you to these broadcasters. And mean it. Similar to how we need to see 1 or 2 people beat down the RIAA/MPAA and you'll see things get better.

I for one would stay with FIOS if they ditched ESPN/Disney. No kids and we don't watch sports so it would make no difference for us. The only thing we may miss is the ABC/ABC Family but we have a local ABC affiliate so I think we'd be fine there.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Listen everyone says the pay TV companies should stand up to the content providers, but when they do like Dish did with AMC looks what happens. these same people that made the demand left Dish for another company that gave into the content providers that paid the higher rates. So what does that tells Dish and any other pay TV provider? That customers don't have your back so why bother trying. if you're going to demand that your pay T provider stand up to the content providers then don't bail on them when you lose channels when they do.

So at the end of the day the reason why Dish's attempt to stand up to the content providers failed is because of the CUSTOMER and so in the end its the CUSTOMERS fault for higher prices.
itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA

itguy05

Member

said by 88615298:

Listen everyone says the pay TV companies should stand up to the content providers, but when they do like Dish did with AMC looks what happens. these same people that made the demand left Dish for another company that gave into the content providers that paid the higher rates. So what does that tells Dish and any other pay TV provider? That customers don't have your back so why bother trying. if you're going to demand that your pay T provider stand up to the content providers then don't bail on them when you lose channels when they do.

So at the end of the day the reason why Dish's attempt to stand up to the content providers failed is because of the CUSTOMER and so in the end its the CUSTOMERS fault for higher prices.

If I remember, nobody knows what Dish and AMC settled for. As with most of the settlements, the terms are never made public.

Yes, Dish lost customers, but I wonder how long that would have continued after the first couple of weeks. Given ratings of AMC, I'd think not many care about them.

If any of these companies were smart, they would do a Comcast and buy a network. That way they could say "yes we got rid of AMC, but here is XYZ to replace it".

I know I could care less if probably 1/2 of the channels were not there, including AMC, ESPN, and MTV...
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

said by itguy05:

said by 88615298:

Listen everyone says the pay TV companies should stand up to the content providers, but when they do like Dish did with AMC looks what happens. these same people that made the demand left Dish for another company that gave into the content providers that paid the higher rates. So what does that tells Dish and any other pay TV provider? That customers don't have your back so why bother trying. if you're going to demand that your pay T provider stand up to the content providers then don't bail on them when you lose channels when they do.

So at the end of the day the reason why Dish's attempt to stand up to the content providers failed is because of the CUSTOMER and so in the end its the CUSTOMERS fault for higher prices.

If I remember, nobody knows what Dish and AMC settled for. As with most of the settlements, the terms are never made public.

Yes, Dish lost customers, but I wonder how long that would have continued after the first couple of weeks. Given ratings of AMC, I'd think not many care about them.

Couple of weeks? This went on for a few months
itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA

itguy05

Member

said by 88615298:

Couple of weeks? This went on for a few months

Wow - didn't think it was that long - but a little Googling said it was July - Oct. I still wonder what the defections due to AMC were after the initial wave. In the article I read, it said Dish was about 13% of AMC's viewer base. That is a decent chunk to miss.

It would be interesting to see who gave first and how close the numbers were. Sadly we will never know.

I did find this that it hurt AMC's financials:
»online.wsj.com/article/S ··· 934.html

So maybe playing hardball is in the content deliverer's favor. After all what good is content if your distribution is limited? Not everyone has their TV's hooked up to the Internet and most will not watch shows on their laptops or even tablets.