| reply to bohratom
Re: Regional Sports Network fees coming for Midatlantic region.. Complain all you want. The teams are the ones reaping the money rewards, because the regional's pay them big bucks. Reason is that they get ratings! Regional sports are not available on the internet, for the most part, and people want to watch them. Every time a provider tries to play hard ball, the fans start crying. They cry to politicians, who then attack the providers. When YE$ Network was created, Cablevision refused to take them without directly charging subscribers, like the old Sports Channel. Well, Yankee fans screamed and cried like babies, and then the town officials threatened to cancel CV's franchise agreement. |
|
| Is this something non sports fans are going to be able to opt out of? (and presumably lose the 1-2 local sports networks? |
|
| reply to Greg2600
It's not ratings. It is the fact that the people who want them, really want them, and will switch providers to get them combined with favorbably legislation that keeps this model going.
Take the LA Dodgers for example, 350 million per year!!! »espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/stor···4-report
You know how many people watch an average Dodger's game. 50,000!!
So, the 5 million households in the Dodger's market are going to be paying 70 dollars a year for 50,000 of them to watch their games.
Either the Dodger's or Time Warner would go bankrupt over night if RSNs were forced to a la carte. If they were to get that same revenue from only people watching their games (which is the way it should be), they'd have to charge $7,000 a year for their new network!
This model is a scheme that will not last much longer. And hopefully the Dodger's deal is the straw that makes it all come crumbling down. |
|
| reply to bohratom
Here in the NYC area, we have:
MSG
MSG+
MSG2
MSG2+
YES
SNY |
|
| Cable companies should start all over,1st add all the regional sports channels to every system no matter where you live, that way i can get comcast sports new england in california,or you can get the lakers time warner cable in new york, then you just pay1 price if yo want 1 rsn from out of state ,another price for your local rsn(if you want it) or 1 price if you want all the regional sports package like directv does. IN other words i want comacst sports new england in southern california and would gladly pay $5.00 a month for it,are you listening verizon?. |
|
| Around here, it's only through a quirk in the law that we were able to get Comcast Sportsnet Philly on Verizon at all. |
|
Mac973
join:2009-05-18
West Orange, NJ | reply to bohratom
In the NYC area, Dish does not carry YES Network or SNY because they did not want to pay the carriage fees. So, has anyone compared Dish's prices to Verizon's? My guess is Dish is not any cheaper even without carrying the RSN's. And if they actually are cheaper, by how much? |
|
thetick
join:2009-06-22
White Plains, NY | I had Dish a few years back. If one just looks at TV prices Dish is certainly cheaper. Factor in the HUGE discount on triple pay with Verizon and never losing service because of a few rain clouds/excessive foliage. For same money the Verizon services together are much better than what one can get if individuality buying TV, internet and phone. |
|
kes601
join:2007-04-14
Virginia Beach, VA
kudos:2 | reply to bohratom
Saw a FiOS commercial yesterday and they've now added the + RSN Fee to the end of the Triple Play Pricing.....so I'm assuming that fee will vary by location? |
|
crgauth
join:2004-05-18
Glen Burnie, MD | reply to nfotiu
said by nfotiu:Take the LA Dodgers for example, 350 million per year!!! »espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/stor···4-report
You know how many people watch an average Dodger's game. 50,000!!
So, the 5 million households in the Dodger's market are going to be paying 70 dollars a year for 50,000 of them to watch their games.
Either the Dodger's or Time Warner would go bankrupt over night if RSNs were forced to a la carte. If they were to get that same revenue from only people watching their games (which is the way it should be), they'd have to charge $7,000 a year for their new network!
This model is a scheme that will not last much longer. And hopefully the Dodger's deal is the straw that makes it all come crumbling down.
Couple of comments:
I did some looking and found that the Dodgers averaged a 1.94 rating last year.
Also saw where LA market has near 13M viewers. So that means that the Dodgers averaged 252K viewers/game. That would be near $1400/viewer/year.
But when you average that out to all households, it drops dramatically. And it doesn't count the ad revenue they get as well.
Doesn't seem too hard to me to make money.
All of that being said, I see it as a never ending spiral.
Players want more money. Teams say they need more money. TV rights pay them more money. Cable fees (and ticket prices go up).
Players see the team making more money and then want more.
Repeat. |
|
|
|
| reply to kes601
If we have to pay RSN fees now, I will call to demand local and national sports channels in HD. We still don't have MSGplus2 , CSN, etc.
If they don't listen , then I'll call my Congressman, or whomever will be willing to hear me out.
If this gets too out of hand, I will def cancel FiOS completely. Who knows, maybe I'll move to Kansas City and sign up for Google Fiber. Internet at least. |
|
 bohratomJersey Shore will rise again
join:2011-07-07
Red Bank NJ | said by Webcobbler :Who knows, maybe I'll move to Kansas City and sign up for Google Fiber. Internet at least.
That made me laugh, which I think we all need atm, with prices going up...  |
|
| reply to crgauth
I thought I had read 50,000. I see from here it is 67,000 households. »www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour···ngs.aspx
111,000 in better years
»www.halosheaven.com/2009/7/16/95···tings-in
Still, I believe my point stands, that only 1-2% of the population will be watching the new Dodger's only channel, that is charging at least 60 dollars per year in carriage fees.
A tv viewer is worth about 10 cents per hour. If 100,000 people are watching a game, that is about $30,000 per game in advertising revenue they are getting. So they probably get in the neighborhood of 5 million in advertising revenue for a Dodgers season. The other 345 million is covered by carriage fees for the new network which is being paid by all subscribers, even though 98% of them are not watching their games. |
|
| reply to bohratom
Or sign up for new FiOS TV select package that doesnt include sports channels |
|
kes601
join:2007-04-14
Virginia Beach, VA
kudos:2 | reply to bohratom
I did a pretend renewal of my bundle today (trying to figure out how to save money) and just an FYI, the regional sports fee in my area is $2.42..... |
|
OwlSaverOwlSaverPremium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA | reply to anonanon
said by anonanon :Or sign up for new FiOS TV select package that doesnt include sports channels
But that package does not include Comedy Central - hardly a sports channel. |
|
OwlSaverOwlSaverPremium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA | reply to bohratom
The only sport I want to watch is Soccer and am happy to pay a lot to see it. I already pay about $15/Month for Fox Soccer Plus and about $80 a year for MLS Direct Kick. But, this fee just annoys me. I do not watch College Sports, Baseball, Football, Basketball or Hockey. This needs to be fixed. Either a completely ala carte model where I pay for each channel or a bundle where every channel is included. But having Verizon or Comcast decide what I need to watch and pay for does not work. I think the end is near for Cable TV as we know it. |
|
| reply to OwlSaver
Anyone have any theories on why that channel is not included. Seems that most exclusions are the channels that networks are trying to bundle with their sports properties. Ie. a lot of ABC/Disney stuff, Fox, etc. But I don't know that Viacom is really in the sports game at all. CBS college sports is the only one I can think of. |
|
Mac973
join:2009-05-18
West Orange, NJ | reply to OwlSaver
said by OwlSaver:But having Verizon or Comcast decide what I need to watch and pay for does not work. I think the end is near for Cable TV as we know it.
As I already mentioned, it's not the cable companies that are making these decisions. It's the sports networks that demand their network be carried on the lowest tier of service. So Verizon has 2 options: carry the sports networks and charge all customers, or don't carry the sports networks at all. Clearly they are finding that option 1 is better. They would likely lose more customers by not carrying the sports networks at all, than they would lose from people who don't want sports networks cancelling the service.
Ultimately, as a customer you have the final say. If you feel your cable company is not giving you good value, then you can leave and find other options. Many will threaten to cancel. Few will actually do it. |
|
OwlSaverOwlSaverPremium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA | said by Mac973:said by OwlSaver:But having Verizon or Comcast decide what I need to watch and pay for does not work. I think the end is near for Cable TV as we know it.
Ultimately, as a customer you have the final say. If you feel your cable company is not giving you good value, then you can leave and find other options. Many will threaten to cancel. Few will actually do it. You make good points. I also have the option of petitioning my elected officials and the regulatory agency to enforce change. As it is now, I could leave Verizon but Comcast realistically only offers similar options as Verizon. I actually applaud Verizon for creating the Select tier to give their customers an option.
What I would really like to see is a separation of delivery from content. Imagine if Comcast owned NBC (oh, wait, they do) and Verizon owned CBS (not yet). They could each refuse to offer the content to each others subscribers. So, I would have to have both Comcast and Verizon to get NBC and CBS. |
|
