Cable providers consider cutting out sports to lower your TV bill
- Thread starter Poke
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 21
- Views 3K
-
WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!
If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!
While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!
Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
According to the article, aside the NFL, only 4% of viewers watch sports. Sorry, I don't believe that.
AT&T instead wants to offer the pricey sports network a la carte, giving customers the option to pay only if they want to. But CSN Houston — along with other regional sports networks — isn't interested. Because television networks earn a small monthly fee for every subscriber, being bundled into a standard cable package would mean a far more substantial earnings for the network.
And I say whats wrong with that!!!!
The Tennis Channel recently ended a court dispute with Comcast over that very issue. The channel sued because it was offered on a separate sports tier rather than as part of a standard cable bundle, leaving the network out of a massive pool of subscribers who would have had to pay whether they wanted it or not. Comcast won the dispute, but the Tennis Channel has already filed to appeal the decision.
They must have the same business outlook as the big fat rat does. Which is how to rob as much money as possible for the paying consumer.
I'm glad to see other companies are starting to wake up besides Dish.
And I say whats wrong with that!!!!
The Tennis Channel recently ended a court dispute with Comcast over that very issue. The channel sued because it was offered on a separate sports tier rather than as part of a standard cable bundle, leaving the network out of a massive pool of subscribers who would have had to pay whether they wanted it or not. Comcast won the dispute, but the Tennis Channel has already filed to appeal the decision.
They must have the same business outlook as the big fat rat does. Which is how to rob as much money as possible for the paying consumer.
I'm glad to see other companies are starting to wake up besides Dish.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...+wsj/xml/rss/3_7011+(WSJ.com:+What's+News+US)
from the WSJ:
There are a lot of people that I know that only watch the NBA/MLB/NHL playoffs and not watch the rest of the year.
from the WSJ:
There are a lot of people that I know that only watch the NBA/MLB/NHL playoffs and not watch the rest of the year.
ESPN had a Cross Fit 2012 marathon on last Saturday. Along with cheerleading,that's pretty riveting TV,I can't imagine why nobody would watch. I do miss the good ole days of ESPN when they showed Australian Rules Football,T-Ball championship,& darts(ok,I made up the last two......as far as I know).
If you believe the numbers in the WSJ article, it says we pay nearly $15/mo/subscriber for sports. That meant I was subsidizing the sports junkies for that much each month. I am positive that the sports junkies weren't subsidizing my programming by nearly that much.
And there lies the fallacy of package deals. Give me a non-sports package with an accompanying bill reduction, and I might come back.
And there lies the fallacy of package deals. Give me a non-sports package with an accompanying bill reduction, and I might come back.
?I dont buy that at all either. I do believe that there is alot of stuff on those channels that people do not have any interest in however. It could be condensed somewhat.
Makes sense: offer packages with and without sport programming. OR remove sports all together, and with the savings, offer Sunday Ticket, League Pass, Centre Ice at a more affordable rate...
Cheers, K
Half a dozen years ago, the general manager of a large senior retirement community temporarily took over the responsibilities of overseeing the operation of the private cable system there. He noticed that ESPN cost about as much as a dozen lesser channels, and so he sent out a survey asking the residents if it would be OK to drop ESPN and add half a dozen channels they might be interested in, like National Geographic and Discovery Health without changing their monthy bill. He told me that not one resident objected. I went ahead and implemented the change, and that evening, he got inundated by calls to his home by irate residents who wanted to watch the tennis game that was carried on ESPN that evening. I switched it back that night.
I used to like watching America's Cup at 3:00 AM. Even back then, I didn't much enjoy full contact karate or the tractor pulls.
Don't buy it for a second. Id be fine with say a general programming package (locals, Discovery, History, Cooking, etc...), a sports package (ALL sports channels) and then the premiums as they are now. Id sub to all, but with the sporting fee's required now for tv rights, aint gonna happen.
The WSJ article is of course much longer than what I quoted from it. The problem for the sports networks now is that people claiming to watch lots of sports are now monitored by their cable/DBS boxes. AT&T and DIRECTV elected not to pick up the new Houston sports network. AT&T specifically stated that they used their set top data to verify viewing habits.
I enjoyed the heck out of ESPN's full-karate/kick-boxing broadcasts back in the early-to-mid 80s...Bill "Superfoot" Wallace, Joe Lewis, Don "The Dragon" Wilson, Rob Kaman, etc. The major sports need to be on broadcast TV and funded by sponsors IMO.
Regardless, as much as support moving Sports to a Sports Tier or a la carte, this will only work if Cable/DBD/Telcos do this en masse.
Its about time. I have absolutely no use for sports. I can count on one hand the number of hours of televised sports I've watched IN MY LIFETIME. I would love to have a package that doesn't contain sports, but includes other things that my family and I watch.
I'd probably feel the same way in reverse if they would offer it. I could get my locals ota for free, and spend a few bucks a month for Netflix/amazon.
I'd love for there to be a sports only offering.
Posted Using The New SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Which is exactly why these types of channels need to be separate. Let people subscribe to the programming they enjoy, not have to subsidize programming they don't.
I don't disagree. I just see that ala cart won't happen. Even a more divided interest package is a lost cause.
It is what it is. I assume someone could come along, start their own company and change the business.
I guess I could. I know I won't. I'll pay my sat bill, and then bitch about it and the packages.
If they get way too high though, look out.......
Posted Using The New SatelliteGuys Reader App!
It is what it is. I assume someone could come along, start their own company and change the business.
I guess I could. I know I won't. I'll pay my sat bill, and then bitch about it and the packages.
If they get way too high though, look out.......
Posted Using The New SatelliteGuys Reader App!
I dont think al carte is the answer, but as many sports channels as they have, I dont see why they couldnt not pack em all in one with RSN's. Thats a lotta crap. Offer that, one with the normal cable channels, then one combined.
For sure, I could come up with a better sports channel model from a subscriber point of view.
From the sports channel perspective however... If it didn't work, and the cable/sat companies refused to pay, then they would quit.
That alone tells me that the article numbers are wrong, or at least misunderstood. .
Let's be real, any cable or sat company that doesn't offer access to sports is dead in the water.
No, you don't have to offer chess darts, but the superbowl, ncaa major sports, nba, and mlb will ensure that these channels make big money.
Even if the channels don't pull in huge ratings every day, just look at the highest rated programs historically.
People do watch sports, and those that want to are more rabid than the watchers of fx/ect.
Posted Using The New SatelliteGuys Reader App!
From the sports channel perspective however... If it didn't work, and the cable/sat companies refused to pay, then they would quit.
That alone tells me that the article numbers are wrong, or at least misunderstood. .
Let's be real, any cable or sat company that doesn't offer access to sports is dead in the water.
No, you don't have to offer chess darts, but the superbowl, ncaa major sports, nba, and mlb will ensure that these channels make big money.
Even if the channels don't pull in huge ratings every day, just look at the highest rated programs historically.
People do watch sports, and those that want to are more rabid than the watchers of fx/ect.
Posted Using The New SatelliteGuys Reader App!
