dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9526
share rss forum feed

nfotiu

join:2009-01-25
reply to knarf829

Re: New TV Package: Select HD

The problem is the handful of sports channels are totaling about $20-$30 a month in carriage fees, whereas the rest of the hundred or so channels together are probably less than 5 bucks.

Also complicating things is the government is already involved, and in many cases forcing the cable companies to carry sports networks they don't want to carry, and to carry them in their basic tier.

Vertical integration is the other factor that is taking away from the competitive balance.

Not saying that government intervention is necessarily the answer, as I think this model will come crumbling down on its own.

This whole system though is distributing wealth in a way that is probably not the healthiest though. LA Dodgers are now making $350 million a year on a tv deal. Considering an average of only 50,000 people watch those games, it is siphoning a hugely disproportionate amount from cable tv subscribers to baseball players, owners and others getting their cut along the way.

For the record, I am a sports fan, and would subscribe to the channels of my teams. I just think this whole sports business model is bordering on corruptness and needs to be changed one way or the other.

knarf829

join:2007-06-02
kudos:1
said by nfotiu:

For the record, I am a sports fan, and would subscribe to the channels of my teams. I just think this whole sports business model is bordering on corruptness and needs to be changed one way or the other.

Guess what - once you guys successfully jettison sports channels to pricey a la carte status, something else is going to be "the most expensive content" and calls to excise that content to its own package will commence.

It will end as it did in my example, with maybe some lonely single dude somewhere who hates sports paying less than he does now, but families of members with diverse interests paying much more. The majority of cable subscribers are families with members of diverse interests. They'll lose.

nfotiu

join:2009-01-25
I think that there are more than just a couple lonely people who don't watch sports. Only one out of a hundred people paying $60 a year for the new Dodger's deal actually watch Dodger's game.

The easy thing to do is legislate any channel with a carriage fee over 50 cents or a dollar must be offered a la carte, and treat them the same as HBO, Showtime, etc. By my last research, I think that would only include ESPN, RSNs, TBS and TNT.

No reason they shouldn't be treated the same when they are now charging more than some of the premium channels.

knarf829

join:2007-06-02
kudos:1

1 edit
said by nfotiu:

I think that there are more than just a couple lonely people who don't watch sports. Only one out of a hundred people paying $60 a year for the new Dodger's deal actually watch Dodger's game.

The "lonely single" aspect was to represent that his packages wouldn't need to include anything other than his specific one-man narrow interests because he has no family. Not that only lonely people don't like sports.

You are aware that there are teams other than the Dodgers and sports other than baseball, right? And not all of them take place in one of the largest and most expensive TV markets.

said by nfotiu:

The easy thing to do is legislate any channel with a carriage fee over 50 cents or a dollar must be offered a la carte, and treat them the same as HBO, Showtime, etc. By my last research, I think that would only include ESPN, RSNs, TBS and TNT.

No reason they shouldn't be treated the same when they are now charging more than some of the premium channels.

Oh, goody. More government.

nfotiu

join:2009-01-25
There are examples across the board in all sports in all areas. Fact is that a hundred million people are paying 200-300 dollars a year to sports programming they don't watch, and are forced to pay it if they want cable tv.

And you are ignoring the fact that the government is not already hip deep in this, and has played a pretty big part in creating this mess. Look up the FCC forcing North Carolina cable companies to carry MASN even though not enough people were watching it to even register in the ratings.


matcarl
Premium
join:2007-03-09
Franklin Square, NY
reply to opinionmine
said by opinionmine:

I was writing personally.

CNBC, for one example, is indispensable to me.

But that's not the point. We watch maybe 10 cable channels in total but pay for hundreds we never watch. That's the way it is and everyone accepts that fact.

Here specifically Verizon is attempting to sell this package as a package without sports. Something that to me, at least, would be attractive. But, that's not what it is, it's a package without sports and so much more. Why take Comedy Central and financial networks out of that package unless your are engineering the package to seem attractive to non sport fans but in actuality make sure it becomes less attractive for other reasons.

It's true though, this package is being promoted as if it just excludes the sports channels. There are several others missing. They should have made two new packages then.

knarf829

join:2007-06-02
kudos:1

3 edits
reply to nfotiu
said by nfotiu:

And you are ignoring the fact that the government is not already hip deep in this, and has played a pretty big part in creating this mess. Look up the FCC forcing North Carolina cable companies to carry MASN even though not enough people were watching it to even register in the ratings.

So when the government screws something up the answer is more government? I'm sure they'll get it right this time.

Classic.

No one is paying any amount for any programming except HBO, Showtime, etc. Cable TV customers are paying for a service, not for content. You're paying for access.

Man, I went to that concert and paid $70 for songs I don't like and only $10 for songs I do like. What a ripoff.

said by matcarl:

It's true though, this package is being promoted as if it just excludes the sports channels. There are several others missing.

This I'll agree with. They should not market it as their sports-free solution. They should market it as a budget package stripped of the most expensive content.

opinionmine

join:2006-03-10
That's patently absurd.

If one was not paying for content there would not be different tiers.

More absurd is the seeming arbitrary randomness of that content in the first couple of tiers.

knarf829

join:2007-06-02
kudos:1
said by opinionmine:

That's patently absurd.

OK prove me an idiot and post the PDF of your bill for CNN, FX and Discovery HD programming. Or Cartoon Network (either SD or HD will be fine). Or MTV (again 1,2,Hits, Jams, whichever).

opinionmine

join:2006-03-10
Seriously? You need proof?

You are not aware that one pays more for one tier then another?

You're not aware that the difference between tiers is content not "service"?


TitusTroy

join:2009-06-18
New York, NY

1 recommendation

reply to matcarl
cable companies will never fully tier your channels based only on what you want to watch...then it would almost be an a la carte service...they need you to pay for channels that you don't watch...that's how they make $$

knarf829

join:2007-06-02
kudos:1
reply to opinionmine
said by opinionmine:

Seriously? You need proof?

You are not aware that one pays more for one tier then another?

You're not aware that the difference between tiers is content not "service"?

So just go ahead and show me the charges broken out for the individual content and we'll be all set. Show me your Music channel charge and your home improvement channel charge and your news channel charge. Show me individual channel charges.

And, if this is true and you're already charged based on content and not access, exactly what's the problem your crying to the government to rush in and solve? Individual line-item charges? Seriously?

opinionmine

join:2006-03-10
You're obviously confused, and I will respond no further to you.

Where did I seek Governmental intervention?

I look at this issue through two conflicting eyes. As a consumer and as an investor. I've owned stock in Comcast for a couple of years. The games these companies play has benefited me financially much more then I would pay in service in many many decades, and that's all good.

As a consumer I dislike what they do.

nfotiu

join:2009-01-25
reply to knarf829
You can spout all your libertarian ideologies you like, it doesn't mean you are right. I see the government's role to prevent anti competitive practices that threaten free commerce. When all suppliers work together to ensure you can only get cheap products if you buy the much more expensive ones then to me that is anti competitive.

knarf829

join:2007-06-02
kudos:1
There are already laws against anti-competitive behavior. If you feel your rights have been violated in this respect, bring action against those who have violated them.

Back here in the real world, I'm having trouble thinking of an industry that is more competitive than home delivery of entertainment video. You have two satellite companies. You have a cable company. A lot of places have more than one "cable" type company. You have Hulu Plus. You have Netflix. You have Amazon Instant Streaming. For movies there is Vudu.

Cable and satellite companies have the challenge of bringing people the content they want using the technology they prefer at a price they're willing to pay. This model developed because this is the model that best delivers that.

Acct101
Premium
join:2011-09-20
Bensalem, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS
·T-Mobile US
reply to matcarl
Do places really have more then one type of cable serve offered to them? Remember, there are places, for a variety of reasons, that people cannot get satellite service. I'm in that situation because I have trees in my yard which block the line of sight. Other people can not because of the rules in their development.

I do have C* in my area, and since Verizon came around in 2009, their customer service I am told, has gotten better. But when you look at the pricing, it's about the same.

I liken the cable industry to the gasoline industry where you can have three stations on the same intersection and all three offer the same prices. It's imperfect competition.

urkelOs

join:2008-03-02
reply to knarf829
Pricing structure is not purely based on service either; otherwise, VZ would charge extra for HD vs. SD feeds of identical content.

knarf829

join:2007-06-02
kudos:1

1 edit
reply to Acct101
said by Acct101:

Other people can not because of the rules in their development.

Not true:
»www.fcc.gov/guides/installing-co ··· e-dishes

said by Acct101:

I liken the cable industry to the gasoline industry where you can have three stations on the same intersection and all three offer the same prices. It's imperfect competition.

...or they're providing a similar product with similar costs and are pricing the product to sell to a similar demographic in a similar location.


rtcy
FACTS only please
Premium
join:1999-10-16
Norwalk, CA

2 edits
reply to nfotiu
said by nfotiu:

I really like the idea of this, but they are ditching at least 20 dollars of carriage fees by taking out those sports channels, probably closer to 30.

It should really be at least 20-30 dollars cheaper than Prime.

that's my real concern. my subscription is up, according to me and the web site(long story last time I called in and bitch they gave me a discount of 5 until may this year and according to the CSRs my plan is not up until may ? )

so anyway, it looks like my prime plan is going up 15.00 dollars 5.00 for the first 3 months and the rest after.

so I see a new article by accident about this new plan, go check it out(thier web site won't let me look at it as long as I'm logged in, figures) and notice it's 5.00 cheaper than my current OLD price but they dropped some channels that are not spot related, and one or 2 are my wife's "like" channels

so I'm totally confused, I also waited online with a tech to turn off my multi room feature as I'm going to send back 2 more boxes, when he hung up it was supposed to send me back to the original lady that was going to give me a discount. so that probably went out the window. now need to ck if they really dropped the multi room

remaining just as confused and pi--- at Verizon as ever.

they took out CSPAN is that not a free must carry channel for public service?

comedy central like it
spike once in a while it's ok
tnt """""""""""""""""""""""""""
travel so-so
vh1 classic & soul like it
we wife likes it


Shadow

@verizon.net
reply to matcarl
I would like VZ to offer an HD only package. I live in the VHO8 area and never watch anything other than HD.... with the exception of TCN (ch99) on RARE occasion. I'm not sure this would save me a few bucks, but the SD channels are worthless to me.


bohratom
Jersey Shore is back again.

join:2011-07-07
Red Bank NJ
reply to matcarl
I do appreciate Verizon offering a FIOS package that does not include sports... That is a good start for families that do no require them.


aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
reply to matcarl
But now if they would have a non sports package that included more channels that people want. Every package omits certain popular channels which is why I subscribe to the Ultimate HD tier. Even though I can do without the sports channels and the premium channels. Although the RedZone channel is nice.