dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1805

andyross
MVM
join:2003-05-04
Aurora, IL

andyross

MVM

[Price] Get ready for a massive price increase

NBA extends television deals
»espn.go.com/nba/story/_/ ··· espn-tnt
(WARNING: contains auto-start video)

From another story I read, it went from about $900M/yr to $2.66B/yr. Given that ESPN and TNT are already the most expensive non-premium channels, you know who's going to ultimately pay for it!

camper
just visiting this planet
Premium Member
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT

camper

Premium Member

[Price] Re: Get ready for a massive price increase

said by andyross:

...Given that ESPN and TNT are already the most expensive non-premium channels...

 
So I'm paying for the two most expensive sets of channels, and I don't even watch them.

Tell me again how a la carte programming is bad for consumers.

TV Dupe
@69.245.244.x

TV Dupe to andyross

Anon

to andyross
said by andyross:

you know who's going to ultimately pay for it!

Yes, the willing dupes that subscribe to those channels.
Comcast Guy
join:2008-01-16
Harrisburg, PA

Comcast Guy to andyross

Member

to andyross

Re: [Price] Get ready for a massive price increase

said by andyross:

NBA extends television deals
»espn.go.com/nba/story/_/ ··· espn-tnt
(WARNING: contains auto-start video)

From another story I read, it went from about $900M/yr to $2.66B/yr. Given that ESPN and TNT are already the most expensive non-premium channels, you know who's going to ultimately pay for it!

Well the "good" news is that every TV provider will feel the pinch and pass on the increase to their subs. Problem is, they always seem to gouge Comcast for more than the others (looking at you, Mark Cuban...)

camper
just visiting this planet
Premium Member
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT

1 edit

camper

Premium Member

said by Comcast Guy:

Problem is, they always seem to gouge Comcast for more than the others...

 
Probably because Comcast is less willing to fight for its customers because it has little competition. It's a situation that will get worse, not better, if the merger goes through and Comcast controls more of the cable-TV market.

It appears that Comcast would rather just pass along the price increases than playing hardball in the price negotiations with ESPN and others.

wolf
@74.121.100.x

2 edits

wolf

Anon

A lot of things will get worse for consumers if that merger goes through. Just look at historical precedent when major corporations merge & create monopoly-like market situations. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict what will happen next.

Mod Note: Please keep the political comments (removed) out of this forum. Politics are welcome only in the Red Room or Blue Room. Sunny See Profile
RalphKramden
join:2007-01-10
Newtown, PA

RalphKramden to camper

Member

to camper
said by camper:

Probably because Comcast is less willing to fight for its customers because it has little competition. It's a situation that will get worse, not better, if the merger goes through and Comcast controls more of the cable-TV market.

It appears that Comcast would rather just pass along the price increases than playing hardball in the price negotiations with ESPN and others.

Why would Comcast fight for it's customers? Customers should fight for themselves instead of blindly forking over money because they can't imagine life without hundreds of channels.

YOU need to play hardball with Comcast.
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL

3 recommendations

Joe12345678 to camper

Member

to camper

Re: [Price] Re: Get ready for a massive price increase

ESPN should be premium

telcodad
MVM
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ

telcodad

MVM

said by Joe12345678:

ESPN should be premium

Unfortunately, ESPN's contracts with cable companies require that it be carried on their most popular programming tier. That way they get the most eyeballs on it in order to achieve maximum ad revenue.

See:
Why cable operators don't have choice to carry ESPN on a sports tier
By Steve Donohue, FierceCable - February 9, 2012
»www.fiercecable.com/stor ··· 12-02-09

Then there are also those who argue that if you do that, "the sky will fall":

Placing ESPN On Sports Tier Would Harm Pay-TV Ecosystem: Analyst
Needham's Martin Says Unbundling Would Raise Sports Rates, Resulting In Those Subs Dropping Entertainment Packages

By Mike Reynolds, Multichannel News - July 16, 2013
»www.multichannel.com/new ··· t/358064
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to camper

Premium Member

to camper

Re: [Price] Get ready for a massive price increase

Which makes no sense at all, Because if they fought for lower rates they could make tons of profit simply by not lowering rates.

from a numbers standpoint Comcast is in a good position to fight, They can tell a content owner that we have well over 20 million video customers... Your move.

FureverFurry
RIP Daphne: 3/12/05 - 6/19/12
Premium Member
join:2012-02-20
49xxx
Zoom 5341J
ARRIS WBM760
Vonage VDV-21

FureverFurry

Premium Member

said by Kearnstd:

from a numbers standpoint Comcast is in a good position to fight, They can tell a content owner that we have well over 20 million video customers... Your move.

Yeah, except the Comcastic corporate logic is: give US a good deal; we WON'T pass the savings on to our subscribers.

MrJitters
join:2003-11-29
East Montpelier, VT

MrJitters to andyross

Member

to andyross
I wish channel selection was a la carte. Pick and choose the channels one actually watches. I would not need these channels in my viewing list.

telcodad
MVM
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ

telcodad to andyross

MVM

to andyross
On the FierceCable site this morning:

NBA deal will raise average pay-TV bill 'couple dollars a month,' report says
By Daniel Frankel, FierceCable - October 10, 2014
»www.fiercecable.com/stor ··· 14-10-10
quote:
Disney and Time Warner Inc. paid through the nose to lock up an additional nine years of NBA rights and secured access to one of the most coveted assets in what is now the Sports Age. But according to research company The Diffusion Group, the $24 billion deal left pay-TV--and consumers--vulnerable.

"The fact that incumbent operators were not involved in this arrangement is especially important," TDG notes in its latest report, titled "Hoop Dreams." "It means they will pay for these massively expensive new rights. And when TNT and ESPN charge operators these increased fees, operators will in turn increase the monthly fees paid by their subscribers. In fact, this NBA deal alone could raise the average American's pay-TV bill by a couple dollars per month. Add to this increased costs associated with NFL, MLB, and college sports rights and you have a disastrous scenario, which could fuel direct-to-consumer OTT offerings from major networks and lead to greater incumbent subscriber loss." ...

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

IowaCowboy to andyross

Premium Member

to andyross
Other TV providers will bring on carriage disputes with blackouts in the process. DirecTV and Dish are notorious for carriage disputes and being the two national satellite providers they have leveraging power. ESPN doesn't see this coming. Other TV providers may follow suit.
rody_44
Premium Member
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA

rody_44 to Comcast Guy

Premium Member

to Comcast Guy
They dont gouge comcast anymore than others. If anything comcast has it easier than the others. Every cable company is going to feel it. Comcast has the advantage of being the biggest and fact is you dont pick your fight with your biggest revenue source. You pick the fight with your smaller revenue sources and go from that. The fact that comcast is the biggest source of revenue to broadcasters is what gives comcast a free pass when it comes to broadcasting fees and the black outs of subs. Think of how any company operates. You dont raise the price on your highest paying customer. You start on the bottom and let it trickle up.
clocks11
join:2002-05-06
00000

clocks11 to Joe12345678

Member

to Joe12345678

Re: [Price] Re: Get ready for a massive price increase

said by Joe12345678:

ESPN should be premium

This! No reason everyone with cable should be helping to pay an NBA players $50M salary. Make it a premium channel like HBO. They will probably get males 20-40yo to pay for it. Most other people will be free of the associated costs.

Streetlight
join:2005-11-07
Colorado Springs, CO

Streetlight to andyross

Member

to andyross

Re: [Price] Get ready for a massive price increase

One way to deal with this rather than a paradigm of total ala carte subscriptions is for Comcast or any provider to just drop these channels from their current tier and put them in the Sports Entertainment Package (SEP), then increase the price of that package to recover the costs plus some profit. With the various sports leagues in bed with ESPN as part of the Disney-ABC conglomerate and Time Warner, there will be hellish screams from some of Comcast's customers who are sports addicts but let them pay for their addiction. One would hope that the fee for the current packages containing ESPN and TNT sports would drop. One problem with TNT is that it's not sports all the time. Non sports TNT stuff could still be available as usual, but as soon as a sports event shows up there TNT programming would be switched to those who have the SEP and otherwise blocked.

Somewhere I thought I read that ESPN/Disney costs subs something like $12 per month and I'm estimating the cost of this single NBA deal is about $2.70 per month vs. about $0.90 per month for the old deal spread between ESPN and TNT. This might mean the SEP would cost subs somewhere between $15 and $18 per month if everyone now getting sports packages bought it. But if only 10% of subs bought the SEP it might go to $150 to $180 per month! In addition, ESPN recently picked up the USGA US Open, added a lot of tennis to the menu and likely is looking for other deals. Could the World Series, more baseball, more NFL, the Super Bowl be in their sites? Likely. They want ALL the sports broadcasting leaving none to over the air TV. How much will the SEP cost subs? The sky's the limit.

caster
@198.41.85.x

caster

Anon

NFL games on cable must be on local channels in the teams areas.

also the Super Bowl is a big ad seller so that can't be taken off of free tv.
lorennerol
Premium Member
join:2003-10-29
Seattle, WA

lorennerol to andyross

Premium Member

to andyross
The rich get richer and the middle class continue to be squeezed, fee'd, tax, etc. out of existence.

camper
just visiting this planet
Premium Member
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT

camper to andyross

Premium Member

to andyross
 
said by andyross:

From another story I read, it went from about $900M/yr to $2.66B/yr. Given that ESPN and TNT are already the most expensive non-premium channels, you know who's going to ultimately pay for it!

 
According to BloombergTV, the fees are:

  NBA $2.6B/yr
  NFL $5B/yr
  MLB 1.5B/yr

Streetlight
join:2005-11-07
Colorado Springs, CO

Streetlight to caster

Member

to caster
said by caster :

NFL games on cable must be on local channels in the teams areas.

also the Super Bowl is a big ad seller so that can't be taken off of free tv.

The NFL has rules about what games can be shown when and where. It's very complicated:

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na ··· levision

I'm not sure this is perfectly up to date considering the recent changes regarding black outs for games not fully sold out. The article talks about 2014 rules, so it's reasonably up to date.

On Sunday afternoon there are likely four games on broadcast TV: two from Fox, two from CBS. Sunday evening NBC has a "National" game and same for Monday night on ESPN and Thursday night from NFL/CBS network. At any location only one of these seven games may be local. Also, if the local team plays Monday night I don't think it's on free broadcast TV. I'm not sure what "local" means for some teams. The other six games could be taken over by ESPN if they pay the NFL enough. Same thing with the Super Bowl (or am I required to call it "the big game.") Given enough money, ESPN could win the contract for all the non local games. They got the contract for the US Open golf - a big sporting event - away from NBC, even though that surely didn't cost any where near as much as the broadcast nets paid for the SB.

In all the situations regarding programming decisions by pay and broadcast TV companies money is the issue. Payment to the league, player salaries, profits by teams and carriers, fees paid by subscribers, etc. One thing that could happen is if the cost to consumers becomes unaffordable folks will abandon pay TV and thus pay TV sports coverage. Even if only 10% of subs are willing to pay for an expensive SEP paradigm, if it become available, that percentage may fall as costs climb. It's controversial whether cable cutting is real, but it looks real to me. The cost of the entertainment may just not be worth it. I and many others don't want to pay for something we don't watch. We also won't pay too much for things we might like to watch.

Wrong
@68.42.244.x

Wrong

Anon

If a team plays on Monday Night then the game is still showed locally. It is broadcast on both ESPN and your local ABC station.

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

IowaCowboy to andyross

Premium Member

to andyross
Put all the sports on pay per view, problem solved. If people are willing to pay $49.99 to watch Mike Tyson bite off Evander Holyfield's ear, then they'll pay $9.99 (added to their cable bill) for to watch the Green Bay Packers take on the Minnesota Vikings. Think of the $$$ the NFL would rake in and it could be commercial free.

The cost of a WWF pro wrestling match back in the '90 was the equivalent of a monthly cable bill.
campyguy
join:2014-09-08
portlandia

campyguy

Member

I'm not an NBA fan, and don't watch much of the NFL/NHL, but I do watch college football and men's/women's basketball, European soccer and road cycling/cyclocross, the latter two of which are hard to get here in the US. Don't laugh about watching cyclocross, as you'll find most of Belgium glued to seats and bar stools watching races when they're on...

I'll take your proposal and revise it, a great idea for what it is - I would pay for a la carte sports packages like you're proposing, but without the rest of the cable packages. I have no interest in the likes of Duck Dynasty or Naked and Afraid et al. I'd also pay for a box or subscription through an Apple TV or Tivo to get what I want to watch. I'd have to spend $200+ per month just to get the package on DirecTV to watch Universal Sports - Comcast doesn't carry it at all and I've got trees in the way so no dish for me.

Yeah, I'd pay to keep my wants met, but I'm paying for crap I've never been interested in the first place and there's nothing I can do about either. I'd also pay a premium if I could just get IPTV just the way I want it...