dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7
share rss forum feed


jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to fifty nine

Re: Tennis Channel really?

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
kudos:2

1 recommendation

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

reply 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
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO

1 recommendation

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
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1

1 recommendation

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
reply to jmn1207
canada is like that.


Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA
kudos:2
reply 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.
--
I speak for myself, not my employer.


dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4
reply 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.
--
Oh YES! let me drop everything i'm doing regardless of who it affects to deal with your petty little problem!

rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

1 recommendation

reply 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.