Time Warner, Verizon Dropping Low-Rated Channels Time Warner Cable Drops Their Only Dedicated Arts Channel Companies like Time Warner Cable and Verizon are now ditching less viewed channels in the hopes of countering soaring programming costs. As the Los Angeles Times notes, Time Warner Cable said it was dropping the arts channel Ovation (the only dedicated arts channel in their lineup) because of low ratings. Similarly, Verizon says they're dropping a slew of under-performing networks as well, including Youtoo, Blackbelt TV, Blue Highway, and MAV TV. The Times blames bandwidth conservation and ESPN costs for elbowing out less-expensive fare: Beyond the ratings, there are myriad reasons that big pay-TV distributors are trying to cut smaller channels. The biggest is the rising cost of programming, particularly sports. Though Youtoo, Ovation and the other channels being dropped are less than 10 cents per-subscriber, per-month, every penny counts if ESPN costs more than $5 per-month, per-subscriber. Also, there is a bandwidth issue. Pay-TV distributors are adding more high-definition versions of popular channels and that eats up channel capacity. Some Time Warner Cable customers inform us that the notice they received announcing the dropping of Ovation insists they're dropping channels to lower prices, yet the same e-mail notifies customers of looming price hikes. You might recall that one of the criticisms of a la carte pricing (buying individual channels instead of bundles) was that smaller, more niche channels wouldn't survive such a pricing shift, and the move would drive up prices. That now appears to be happening anyway.
|
  skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Clear Wireless
| Elbow out ESPN on to its own tier Along with all the other sports channels instead of having them rely on channel welfare for money. If HBO can do it, Disney can. Let those who actually watch World's Strongest Man, Poker and Australian dick wrestling on the deuce pay for it.
--
In a nation of spoiled children, Santa Claus always wins. | |
|  |  TSWYOPremium
join:2003-05-03
Cheyenne, WY | Re: Elbow out ESPN on to its own tier Hey I use that Australian dick wrestling on the deuce to show my girlfried it could be worse.... | |
| | | | | Re: Elbow out ESPN on to its own tier I did find a video of Colin Farrell and he is definitely hung  . | |
| | | | |
| Reviews:
 ·Callcentric
·Comcast
| said by skeechan:Along with all the other sports channels instead of having them rely on channel welfare for money. If HBO can do it, Disney can. Let those who actually watch World's Strongest Man, Poker and Australian dick wrestling on the deuce pay for it.
+1 to that! But then they might need a bailout! | |
| | Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL | It's a vicious cycle. ESPN bids more for the NFL each time the contract is up. So Disney charges more to the providers for ESPN each contract renewal, and the providers pass on the increase to their customers, rinse and repeat. | |
| | |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Re: Elbow out ESPN on to its own tier said by Zoder:It's a vicious cycle. ESPN bids more for the NFL each time the contract is up. So Disney charges more to the providers for ESPN each contract renewal, and the providers pass on the increase to their customers, rinse and repeat. You're going to pay for it no matter who shows it.
The national networks don't want it. ABC gave it up because it was losing money on the deal. NBC has SNF which is the more lucrative slot. CBS and FOX already have deals for afternoon games. If any of the national networks would take it over again, they are going to have to have the advertising revenues to support it, so they are going to charge advertisers more to show during that slot. Guess who ultimately the costs get passed on to...the public who buys their products.
Not much has changed since ABC was losing money, so whoever the new network would be, it's probably going to have to subsidize MNF with other programming's advertisers. And guess who ultimately the costs of that advertising get passed on to...the public who buys their products.
The national network could raise rates for affiliates who show MNF. They are just going to passes it on for the local advertising and retransmission consent fees. And guess who ultimately those costs get passed on to...the public.
The only way that sports programming is going to cost less is if everyone puts their foot down and says no more. And that isn't going to happen. | |
| | | |
1 edit | Re: Elbow out ESPN on to its own tier There's only one way to "stop the cycle": outlaw advertising during sports broadcasts. No more millions of dollars going into the pocket of each "star" player (or the organization behind him--NFL/NBA/etc franchise, university athletic programs, whatever). So, if anyone wants to see some bozo run around a field or court playing with a ball, then he or she will have to pay what it's worth to him or her. Yeah, I can see those 7 and 8 figure "salaries" dropping down to 5 figures overnight... why, these multi-billion dollar businesses might even become "sports" again... there goes double-digit inflation... where will it all end? (OK, time to wake up now...)
[Edit: syntax check]
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!" | |
| | | | | | | Re: Elbow out ESPN on to its own tier What really burns my spurs is that the NBA and the NFL are registered as Non-Profit organizations and as a result, they pay NO TAXES!!!! | |
| | | | | |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: Elbow out ESPN on to its own tier said by rectigulus:What really burns my spurs is that the NBA and the NFL are registered as Non-Profit organizations and as a result, they pay NO TAXES!!!!
But individual teams do pay taxes. Just not the leagues.
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. | |
|
| | | Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL | said by cdru:You're going to pay for it no matter who shows it.
The national networks don't want it. ABC gave it up because it was losing money on the deal. NBC has SNF which is the more lucrative slot. CBS and FOX already have deals for afternoon games. If any of the national networks would take it over again, they are going to have to have the advertising revenues to support it, so they are going to charge advertisers more to show during that slot. Guess who ultimately the costs get passed on to...the public who buys their products.
Not much has changed since ABC was losing money, so whoever the new network would be, it's probably going to have to subsidize MNF with other programming's advertisers. And guess who ultimately the costs of that advertising get passed on to...the public who buys their products.
The national network could raise rates for affiliates who show MNF. They are just going to passes it on for the local advertising and retransmission consent fees. And guess who ultimately those costs get passed on to...the public.
The only way that sports programming is going to cost less is if everyone puts their foot down and says no more. And that isn't going to happen.
This is all assuming the NFL is entitled to these massive increases each year. Right now, the entire customer base outside of limited basic subsidises NFL fans. At some point, something has to give. | |
| | | | | cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Re: Elbow out ESPN on to its own tier said by Zoder:This is all assuming the NFL is entitled to these massive increases each year. Right now, the entire customer base outside of limited basic subsidises NFL fans. At some point, something has to give.
Not meaning to nitpick, but the increases aren't coming down from the NFL each year. CBS, NBC, Fox, and ESPN all have contracts through 2022. It's not like each year the NFL is saying "Holy crap, we can charge more because we're more popular this year. Tell ESPN they need to pay us another billion this year". | |
|
| LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by skeechan:Along with all the other sports channels instead of having them rely on channel welfare for money. If HBO can do it, Disney can. Let those who actually watch World's Strongest Man, Poker and Australian dick wrestling on the deuce pay for it.
All the low rated junk channels that only are watched by very small groups of people should be yanked from the lineups and moved to Youtube, or Hulu, or Netflix, etc. That could remove several dozen channels from each cable company's lineups. Even if these channels are only costing them $.10/customer, dumping them could chop several dollars from the monthly bill.
And putting all the sports channels in optional premium tiers would really make a dent in the bill.
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. | |
| | | skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | Re: Elbow out ESPN on to its own tier And then use all that channel space for a fat HSI speed increase of course it is probably all SDV garbage anyway that would be dumped.
--
In a nation of spoiled children, Santa Claus always wins. | |
| | | | | said by Linklist:...dumping them could chop several dollars from the monthly bill.
Yeah, 'cause when a provider does something to save itself money, the money saved naturally gets passed along to the customer. (hahaha)
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!" | |
| | | |  jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Elbow out ESPN on to its own tier said by NotTheMama:said by Linklist:...dumping them could chop several dollars from the monthly bill.
Yeah, 'cause when a provider does something to save itself money, the money saved naturally gets passed along to the customer. (hahaha) Right, any savings probably just goes to bonuses that mid-level employees and below will never see. | |
|
| | | | said by Linklist:And putting all the sports channels in optional premium tiers would really make a dent in the bill.
All TV providers would put the sports channels on a sports tier if they could. But I thought everyone knew by now, after all these years of this talk, that it is not up to the TV providers. The channel owners dictate that the channels, namely ESPN and NFL Network, must be on the standard tiers and they must be paid for every customer that the cable/satellite/telco has.
If the TV providers refuse this, they don't get the channel period.
And since contracts for the different providers don't end all at the same time, there is no way for them to all stand up against ESPN or NFL and make any demands. Because ESPN or NFL will just let it drop and advertise for the other TV providers that still have it.
But no, let everyone continue to blame the TV providers and not the content providers for this nonsense. | |
| | | | cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Re: Elbow out ESPN on to its own tier said by skuv :All TV providers would put the sports channels on a sports tier if they could. But I thought everyone knew by now, after all these years of this talk, that it is not up to the TV providers. The channel owners dictate that the channels, namely ESPN and NFL Network, must be on the standard tiers and they must be paid for every customer that the cable/satellite/telco has. Except NFL Network isn't in the lowest "standard" tier, at least around here. That's for Comcast, Frontier FiOS, Dish, and DirecTV. ESPN isn't in the very lowest two "value" tiers for Dish but it is in the lowest mainstream package for the 4. And if the channel isn't in the package, you can be damn sure the cable company isn't going to be paying a subscriber fee for someone who subscribes to that package...and similarly, if they pay a fee for all subscribers, there is no reason not to have that channel in that package.
The networks can the cable companies negotiate the terms of the contracts for retransmission. The cable companies can't force the networks to give them the content no matter what. And the networks can't force the cable companies do put their channel in the lowest tier, essentially making every subscriber pay. Channels like ESPN seem to have carte blanche power, but the cable network can say no. Doing so will piss off many subscribers, but they always have that option. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Elbow out ESPN on to its own tier They have tried it already and espn wouldn't agree and without espn millions would go to other providers and I could just see the ads from dish network and directv about Comcast not carrying espn/abc/Disney as you know they will cut off all Disney/abc/espn programming. | |
|
| | |
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Actually its contracts that prevent this. a company like Disney(who owns ESPN) likes to from what I understand, weasel their contracts that to get the other channels they own with the exception of ABC you must have ESPN in the primary tier.
*I say with the exception of ABC because as a network Disney cannot state that Comcast cannot have ABC because they negotiate that with the local affiliate.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | | | Re: Crooked business practices 1) Older people do enjoy their movies
2) 56 is elderly? I'm guessing you are very very young.
56 is Middle Aged not elderly. You make someone that age appear to be an invalid. My mom is in her 60s and if my dad were alive, the mid 60s. Grandparents are approaching 90. Lifespan is a lot longer and trust me bud, 56 isn't "elderly".
Set in their ways and having not grown up with technology? - Possibly. However, by no means elderly.
Now you want elderly, check out folks in their 80s+ and then you'll definitely have the demographic you're referring to. | |
| | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: Crooked business practices said by jc100:1) Older people do enjoy their movies
2) 56 is elderly? I'm guessing you are very very young.
56 is Middle Aged not elderly. You make someone that age appear to be an invalid. My mom is in her 60s and if my dad were alive, the mid 60s. Grandparents are approaching 90. Lifespan is a lot longer and trust me bud, 56 isn't "elderly".
Set in their ways and having not grown up with technology? - Possibly. However, by no means elderly.
Now you want elderly, check out folks in their 80s+ and then you'll definitely have the demographic you're referring to.
My uncle is 91 and is on Facebook almost every day and uses a smartphone. So even some of the "elderly" stay up somewhat on latest technology. But he is probably an exception. My dad is 90 and he has mastered a cable remote control. But that is the extent of his being able to deal with technology.
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. | |
| | | | | | Re: Crooked business practices My grandfather is 88 and uses Email and basic browsing. My cousin has helped my 89 year old grandma use skype.
However, we're talking EXCEPTIONS to the general rule. I'd say a large majority the WWII Era generation (80 plus) aren't abreast with computers.
Of course, computer literacy increases with each prior generation. Individuals my mother's age (60+) or say 50-70 are moderately to mildly proficient. Again, we're generalizing but you've got a lot of diversity within this subset.
30-49 I'd say are pretty proficient though some segments aren't connected. I fall into this category. I've got friends who can't do more than email and basics, but own smartphones, and so on. Others are a lot more tech savvy than I. The large majority know computers to some degree.
29 and Younger I'd say are proficient and grew up with technology. Depends on what Generation Expert, 29 and younger are Millennial. Population Census Bureau lists anyone 1983+ as Gen Y (1982 is a Cusp Year with Some listing it as "X" and Others "Y"). All agree 1983 is Gen Y. Kids in this group other than the oldest have had technology their whole life and run laps around the above. | |
| | | | |  IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
·Comcast
·Verizon Broadban..
| Re: Crooked business practices My mother (56 years old) is pretty proficient using a Mac and surfing the web. She likes to play computer games and go on forums (she is not on DSLR as she does not share the same interests that I have). She knows the operation side of computers but does not know much about the technical side. She has a basic phone (Samsung Convoy II) on my Verizon ShareEverything plan and she knows how to operate that. She uses her cell phone for her primary phone but uses the home phone to locate her cell phone as she is notorious for misplacing it in the house. I use the home phone at home and my iPhone 5 on the go and the home phone (Comcast digital voice) also feeds the burglar alarm dialer.
I am 29 years old (born 1983). | |
| | | | | | | | | | | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: Crooked business practices because those people are not calling into tech support.
Younger generations are actually very poor with computers. They might be better at facebook than me(im 32). But most do not even know what a router is. when i was working Comcast Tech support I would get people who I could tell where in college and they did not even know how to power cycle a router or how to hook the cable box to the TV set.(even worse when its HDTV, the HDMI cable is not rocket science.)
Better at tech my ass.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Broadban..
| Re: Crooked business practices said by PX Eliezer:said by Kearnstd:Younger generations are actually very poor with computers....
Better at tech my ass.
You are correct. When my daughter started college last fall, we needed to visit the IT department because of a specific glitch getting her computer on their LAN. I was astounded to see college kids down there who had NO IDEA how to do easy tasks such as updating their Windows software (which was a requirement for getting online with the college). If I were in college, I would obtain Internet service through a commercial provider (using a mobile broadband card if necessary) as I would not want the college snooping on my Internet usage. | |
|
| | | | | | | | And being we fall into the 30-49 Age range... Id say we've seen technology quite a bit. However, I'm 30 and I didn't own a personal computer (not counting the Atari) until I was 16. I taught myself much of what I know. i have friends nearing a few years older than I that are using smartphones but are pretty limited on their understanding of computers.
I'd put it this way. Kids growing up now are connected from birth. Whether they know the fundamentals is a bit tricky. Most are younger so while they know Facebook at 12 or 13, we can't surmise what 15 or 20 years brings. Kids understand their phones, browsing, etc.
Certainly, kids today have no clue about DOS. I took Dos in high school and I forget just about every bit of it. I also despise Linux (ya ya string me up). I know some but nothing to brag. However, I can set up a router, build a computer, troubleshoot, get file sharing going, etc etc. I'm sure a lot kids today don't know.
However, they are still young and we're second guessing their abilities once they reach adulthood.
Remember folks, the first time 50 percent of the U.S. owned a home computer wasn't until the year 2000 and internet hit the 50% mark in 2001.
Census Bureau Source on Computer Ownership | |
|
| | | | | | | PX,
With your subset, I know a large many of people who know computers and a large many of people who can barely power on the device. The 50-70 age range is extremely diverse. The younger batch 50-60 are far more likely to integrate than their older counterparts. None the less, there are more than plenty who fear computers. Again, I stated this is a generalization.
Yet, you can be sure that you are neither the normal nor the exception. You're the Median. It's a very large bell curve. Your generation might have invented the computer, but your generation excluding the engineers, lacked technology growing up. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Crooked business practices What do you mean by "technology"?
When I was a kid, we had a hand-wound 78 RPM record player, and radio. I got my first one-speaker 45-LP record player at 12 -- and that was used. Got my first stereo at 16 -- and that was used. Got my first Quadraphonic (derived) at 22-ish -- and built it myself. Next was a high-end Quad I built myself.
All of that is technology.
I've been online since mid-1986 -- before the "Internet" was publicly-accessible -- beginning with a 300 baud modem. At that time we answered email online. In time we downloaded a ZIPPED file with our email, then answered those with offline readers, then uploaded the email.
All of that was dial-up. All of that was technology.
I preferred DOS, and was a late "convert" to Windows because by ISPs to switch.
Until the explosion in "devices" I was always ahead of the curve on the latest electronic technology. It is the portable phones, the cell phones (which few young people know how to use without over-amping and garbling themselves), the tablets -- all that stuff, most of which are too expensive to buy let alone learn to use.
How much repetition do we need? How many ways do we need to send email? How did the pioneers in covered wagons ever survive without "texting"? And did they have as limited a conversational ability as to find "Tweeting" acceptable?
"Facebook"? Untrustworthy; and Zuckerberg is a greedy jerk.
As for the switch from DOS to Windows: "everyone" knows how to use a GUI (Graphics User Interface); it's what goes on behind it of which they are ignorant. They are, in a word, superficial. I've built not only stereos but also computers.
What the young don't know -- they'll have to be "old" before they get it -- is that the older one becomes, the more -- not less -- one tends to know. Not being up to speed on the latest duplicative handheld electronic gadget is not spelled "stupid". | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Crooked business practices Hmm... My response didn't post for some reason? Either pc is caching the page or what the heck happened.
Well a quick rewrite as it's late.
Technology is relative to the generation. People of the early 1900's were amazed by the advent of photography, industrial age, the radio, and television. All forms of these technologies while existing in their basic forms are far from representative of their original design. If you took a person from 1940's and stuck them in 2012/2013, they'd be at a loss.
How can a camera be the size of a pinhole? A television project 3d? A radio be portable? For these folks, black and white television, a Victrola, rudimentary automobiles, etc were the norm.
My point? Growing up with a specific technology doesn't guarantee one stays abreast or had access. There is always a segment, and while narrowing as generations become more tech savvy, that are scared of change. Usually, folks 50-60 plus are where you begin to see the "I might break it" attitude.
Yes, you are an exception to the norm. Your generation of the 50-70 has a wide variance between those who fear and those that embrace.
I'm 30 and people my demographic didn't own home computers either. The U.S. census listed 2000 as the first time 50 percent of Americans owned a computer and 2001 as the first time internet surpassed 50 percent, too. All and all, I didn't own a real personal computer until 1998. I had an Atari 800 as a kid, but played games versus any computing power. Good old 5.25's.
I give Kudos to knowing dos. Dos is the foundation of operating systems as is Unix. I know basic dos from courses I took in school. I don't remember much as I'm not much of a command line fan. Linux skills are on a need to know basis, too.
That being said, duplicating skills and technology isn't the problem. Having modern versions of an item is still crucial. You telling me that a 20 year old cell phone weighing 5 pounds and resembling a Walkie Talkie is still relevant? Times change and so do early adopters. If you don't keep up, you do lose the skills. | |
|
| | IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Broadban..
| said by jc100:1) Older people do enjoy their movies
2) 56 is elderly? I'm guessing you are very very young.
56 is Middle Aged not elderly. You make someone that age appear to be an invalid. My mom is in her 60s and if my dad were alive, the mid 60s. Grandparents are approaching 90. Lifespan is a lot longer and trust me bud, 56 isn't "elderly".
Set in their ways and having not grown up with technology? - Possibly. However, by no means elderly.
Now you want elderly, check out folks in their 80s+ and then you'll definitely have the demographic you're referring to.
I am not saying my mother is elderly (she is middle aged and she comes from the baby boomer generation, whom are rapidly approaching retirement) but they do play a lot of the movies from the '60s and '70s on there. She just enjoys the older movies as her viewing preference. She also likes Law & Order (as long as the episode has Jerry Orbach in them).
What I was saying that those channels are popular among the older generation. The point to my post is to address the fact they charge extra for channels popular among the older generation (many of them on fixed/low income). There was controversy a few years ago when Comcast wanted to move EWTN (which costs Comcast nothing in carriage costs) to the expanded basic from limited basic and that channel is popular among elderly viewers as well and basic is $5.32 per month whereas expanded basic is $60 per month. The mayor of Holyoke (MA) where the controversy was taking place even offered to forfeit a PEG channel but Comcast would not budge. Comcast made some lame excuse. Milking elderly or disabled customers is not an ethical business practice.
Comcast and Time Warner should bring on the carriage disputes with ESPN and drop them if necessary to get ESPN to cave in with lower fees. Comcast seems to never have carriage disputes but Time Warner is famous for carriage disputes. | |
| | | | | | Re: Crooked business practices Unfortunately,
T.V. Stations know their demographics and how to monopolize on revenue. Public outcry en masse is the only way to enact a reversal of policy. A few people complaining is overlooked as a couple of unhappy individuals. The good thing about truly old people is if you mess with their stubborn ways, they do speak out. | |
| | | |  Steve MehsGun Control Is Using A Steady HandPremium
join:2005-07-16 | quote:
Comcast and Time Warner should bring on the carriage disputes with ESPN and drop them if necessary to get ESPN to cave in with lower fees. Comcast seems to never have carriage disputes but Time Warner is famous for carriage disputes.
That would be the dumbest move ever. Care to guess what is by far the highest rated cable TV event of the week, every week from the beginning of September to the end of December? That would be Monday Night Football on ESPN. Despite what sports haters wish to believe, sports on TV and sports in general is insanely popular.
--
iPhone: 4” 1136 X 640 Display, 1.30 GHz Dual Core Processor, 1 GB RAM
MyPhone: 5” 1920 X 1080 Display, 1.50 GHz Quad Core Processor, 2 GB RAM
So tell me, why is exactly is the iPhone so great?
Droid Does What Jobs Won’t Let You Do.
| |
| | | | | IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Broadban..
| Re: Crooked business practices said by Steve Mehs: quote:
Comcast and Time Warner should bring on the carriage disputes with ESPN and drop them if necessary to get ESPN to cave in with lower fees. Comcast seems to never have carriage disputes but Time Warner is famous for carriage disputes.
That would be the dumbest move ever. Care to guess what is by far the highest rated cable TV event of the week, every week from the beginning of September to the end of December? That would be Monday Night Football on ESPN. Despite what sports haters wish to believe, sports on TV and sports in general is insanely popular. Think of the revenue they'd get if ESPN was on a premium tier. They'd be rolling in even more cash if Monday Night Football was on Pay Per View.
I pay a boatload for my cable subscription. Why should I be paying for for a channel I don't watch (especially since it cost them $5 out of the $199 per month on my triple play). They need to roll over and get tough on programming costs to cut down on cord cutters.
The only interest I have in Sports is hoping the Chicago Cubs win the World Series in my lifetime and I sport a Chicago Cubs hat when I go out (at least it keeps me out of the heat of the Yankees vs Red Sox debate. I also like minor league baseball and my favorite team in minor league is the Cedar Rapids Kernals. | |
| | | | | | Steve MehsGun Control Is Using A Steady HandPremium
join:2005-07-16 | Re: Crooked business practices said by IowaCowboy:said by Steve Mehs: quote:
Comcast and Time Warner should bring on the carriage disputes with ESPN and drop them if necessary to get ESPN to cave in with lower fees. Comcast seems to never have carriage disputes but Time Warner is famous for carriage disputes.
That would be the dumbest move ever. Care to guess what is by far the highest rated cable TV event of the week, every week from the beginning of September to the end of December? That would be Monday Night Football on ESPN. Despite what sports haters wish to believe, sports on TV and sports in general is insanely popular. Think of the revenue they'd get if ESPN was on a premium tier. They'd be rolling in even more cash if Monday Night Football was on Pay Per View. I pay a boatload for my cable subscription. Why should I be paying for for a channel I don't watch (especially since it cost them $5 out of the $199 per month on my triple play). They need to roll over and get tough on programming costs to cut down on cord cutters. The only interest I have in Sports is hoping the Chicago Cubs win the World Series in my lifetime and I sport a Chicago Cubs hat when I go out (at least it keeps me out of the heat of the Yankees vs Red Sox debate. I also like minor league baseball and my favorite team in minor league is the Cedar Rapids Kernals. Never going to happen. The NFL has the strictest TV broadcast rights among all of the major sports leagues. They would never allow what has become an American tradition for decades to be available on a PPV basis only. People on here seem to think us sports fans are some type of minority. That couldn’t be more untrue. Look at football stadiums, the vast majority of games are sold out every week, if you don’t count Jacksonville. When the NHL isn’t lockedout look at the arenas in hockey hotbed areas like Minneapolis, Detroit and Buffalo. It was reported a while back that the Yankees sell something like 3-3.5 million tickets a year. On TV, NFL Sunday Ticket is the crown jewel of DirecTV and draws big every Fall, the UFC has no problem getting a TV audience at $50 a pop. During hockey season, here in the Buffalo market, 3 out of every 4 TVs are tuned into Sabres telecasts. When we’re in the playoffs, not only is the Arena jam packed with 19K fans but there is another estimated 10-12,000 people outside the Arena, last night the Arena was sold out for a minor league hockey game, making it the fourth largest crowd in AHL history. The Super Bowl is the biggest TV event of the year, the Daytona 500 brings in the ratings. People love this stuff, people want this stuff.
I don’t understand why sports is so polarizing. I don’t give a damn about Lifetime, MTV, BBC America and others but I don’t complain. Even though I subscribe to Showtime, outside of Homeland, Californication and the sports programming, Showtime has become utterly pathetic and a waste of bandwidth since CBS and Viacom split. You don’t see me on here crying about how I pay for Showtime and watch it for at most 2 ½ hours a week. People need to learn to shut up and stop crying about this stuff.
--
iPhone: 4” 1136 X 640 Display, 1.30 GHz Dual Core Processor, 1 GB RAM
MyPhone: 5” 1920 X 1080 Display, 1.50 GHz Quad Core Processor, 2 GB RAM
So tell me, why is exactly is the iPhone so great?
Droid Does What Jobs Won’t Let You Do.
| |
|
| | | | cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | said by Steve Mehs:That would be the dumbest move ever. Care to guess what is by far the highest rated cable TV event of the week, every week from the beginning of September to the end of December? That would be Monday Night Football on ESPN. Despite what sports haters wish to believe, sports on TV and sports in general is insanely popular. MNF is also just a single "episode" (usually) each week. Look at the ratings usually for #2-20 for cable tv programming. Spongebob Squarepants, WWE Wrestling, and History/Discovery channel "reality tv" programming like Pawn Stars and Storage Wars almost always dominates. Many people would definitely would be pissed if ESPN was dropped. I bet however even more would be pissed if their 3 year old demon spawn didn't have their daily spongebob or they regularly missed their Swamp Pawn War Restoration Picker episodes. | |
|
| | | | While 56 is certainly not elderly, it is also clearly not middle aged either.
The expected lifetime of someone in the US is not 100+ years.
Middle age is around 40. | |
| | | | |
| | DUMP G4 What a waste of a channel | |
| | Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL | Re: DUMP G4 G4 is dead. Being rebranded the Esquire channel. »G4 is dead | |
| | | Reviews:
·VOIPo
·Callcentric
| Re: DUMP G4 Awesome. Tech TV was excellent and the core people (Leo Laporte) have since moved on to podcasts and being online exclusively. Turned out quite nice for them and probably have more of an audience now. The same can happen for these other channels and if people want them, they will survive.
--
+++ATH0 | |
|
bn1221
join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY | seems simple drop ETWN and WE and Oxygen and ESPN and put them on a $12.00 premium tier. | |
| | | | | Re: Dump Current Current ala the Al Gore channel needs to be dumped. I don't even know if they register on the ratings scale. | |
| | | | | Re: Dump Current Then they should dump you! | |
| | | | | | Re: Dump Current  Imbecilic statements of such cease to amaze me. | |
| | | | | | -1
In response to lv66vette | |
| | | | | |
OwlSaverOwlSaverPremium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA | Change the model Allowing the pipe owners to direct the content or even own the content is a bad model. The pipe owners should only deliver service to our homes. Then, we can buy whatever content we need directly. | |
| | | | Re: Change the model said by OwlSaver:Allowing the pipe owners to direct the content or even own the content is a bad model. Why is this?
said by OwlSaver:The pipe owners should only deliver service to our homes. Then, we can buy whatever content we need directly.
So we pay a delivery charge to the pipe owner, and seperate charges to the content providers? Kind of sounds like calling a taxi for pizza delivery. More expensive and less efficient.
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet??? | |
| | | OwlSaverOwlSaverPremium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA | Re: Change the model The concept is that vertical integration is a bad thing. Also, it is a waste of resources to have multiple providers of some services to every home in the US (e.g., Telephone, Electricity, etc.).
Everyone says it is too expensive to lay fibre to every home in the US. Verizon started it but has put a hold on it. Google is performing a test, but will they roll out across the US?
So, let's grant a right for one company to provide Fibre to the Home in a limited geographic area. We could grant them rates to recover the capitol cost of doing this. Historically, this has worked for Telephone and Electric service.
But, there is no reason they should provide the higher layers like TV, Phone, and Internet. That should be offered in a competitive market where ESPN, NBC, CBS, AMC, and so on can all compete to offer service.
I think it is the best of both possible worlds. We get Fibre to every home in the US and we get competitively priced services over that Fibre.
Allowing Comcast to own NBC Universal was a big mistake. If they want to, they can deny NBC access to Verizon, AT&T, TWC, and other customers. That would be like only being able to call people on Verizon if you have Verizon service. | |
|
| | TW Arts channel dropped. Depends on what they mean by "Arts." Looking for anything really in that category on TW is like searching for church services in a house of ill repute. | |
| nkf321
join:2010-12-20
Riverside, RI | Channels Most of these channels they are dropping could be offered on a VOD basis or through IPTV distribution freeing up more space for quality HD content. They could even earn ad revenue through the use of targeted ad technology like what Google uses. As far as sports go they should cap the player’s salaries. How much money do you need to earn to play sports? | |
| |  ThespisI'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.Premium
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX | Re: Channels said by nkf321:As far as sports go they should cap the player’s salaries. How much money do you need to earn to play sports?
Who is "they"?
How much do you make? If I think that's too much, do I get to cap your salary?
See where this can go?
--
Fast. Cheap. Safe.
Pick two... | |
| | | Reviews:
·Bright House
| Re: Channels I don't watch ESPN and would like Sports Channels moved to a premium tier. If this happened, I doubt we'd see our bills go down but hopefully a few years without price increases would be nice.
I'd like to see more channels bundled in packages. (Viacom package for $X.XX, etc ...) Consumers would have a better choice of what they want to watch. (Or have a Cartoon Bundle, Essential Bundle which includes USA, TNT, etc ...)
--
B-Movie DVDs | |
|
| | Time Warner Cable Dropping Their Only Dedicated Arts Channel I can access the news shows that I regularly watch, the art and music shows that are carried on broadcast ETV, and movies and documentaries via Netflix, all without any need for cable. Ovation is the only programming that I regularly watch that requires me to subscribe to cable. If Time Warner drops Ovation, I will drop Time Warner. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·
.
