http://thebiglead.com/2014/10/05/nb...year24-billion-tv-contract-with-espn-and-tnt/
NBA media payments go to $2.66 billion annually from $930 million, quite an increase.
http://thebiglead.com/2014/10/05/nb...year24-billion-tv-contract-with-espn-and-tnt/TNT just signed a new blockbuster NBA deal.....someone is going to pay for that. Charlie is saying its not him.
So? The new Turner/Dish contract would be for at least 5 years. Turner is going to make sure their new deal is covered by enough subscription revenue increase.That new deal doesn't start until the 2016-17 season....
I like the idea. My only concern is I could easily end up paying the same amount each month, but actually have less to watch. My kids will watch the Disney/Nick channels as much as we let them. I bounce around to whatever looks interesting. That could be sports, movies, sitcoms, documentaries, reality shows.There is a obvious way to end most of these carriage disputes: Mandate Ala-Carte.
-Satellite and Cable providers would charge basic service / dvr fees.
-Each channel could be purchased individually and the channel provider would set the price. The channel owner could offer a discount to subscribers who want to buy a whole group of their channels. The satellite or cable company would get a very small percentage of the programming revenue as an incentive to market these channels.
-Channels that are entirely advertiser supported and charge no programming fees would be guaranteed to be carried and included as part of the basic service - as long as they have a set minimum number of viewers each month. (It would be up to the discretion of the cable/satellite company whether to carry channels that fall below the minimum viewership level, and channels that fall below the minimum could pay the provider for carriage.)
Sure, some channels would not survive in this environment, but it would end the practice of subscribers having to pay for channels they never watch or don't want. This would also make cable/satellite much better positioned to compete with internet delivered TV - where (at least at this point) everything is ala carte, and that is one of the key things that cord cutters like about it.
Sports Media! Helping you help us be the exclusive provider of sports content.http://thebiglead.com/2014/10/05/nb...year24-billion-tv-contract-with-espn-and-tnt/
NBA media payments go to $2.66 billion annually from $930 million, quite an increase.
I like the idea. My only concern is I could easily end up paying the same amount each month, but actually have less to watch. My kids will watch the Disney/Nick channels as much as we let them. I bounce around to whatever looks interesting. That could be sports, movies, sitcoms, documentaries, reality shows.
Its exactly the same in the restaurant business, a buffet can offer many many options, including less popular dish's at a low cost versus ordering from a menu (a la carte) where a dish may not even make the menu due to rarely being ordered and of course is usually more expensive. TV is no different.I have the same thought. I would end up paying the same if not more for fewer channels. I prefer paying what I pay now for a wide variety of channels.
I have the same thought. I would end up paying the same if not more for fewer channels.
At least one tv runs espn in my home 24/7, if my ESPN went away well lets just say I would be looking for another provider, I dont care if I get heavily discounted dish programming.
Providers like the bundling too... do you think channels like TCM and other niche channels would make it.. no way.. they wouldn't get a enough subscribers and the channel would go under... by bundling it with more popular channels CNN, Cartoon network etc the channel lives on.You guys should both listen to my argument, which is of course very persuasive.If channel providers thought they could make the same money providing fewer channels, don't you think they'd jump at the chance? Of course they would. They would be even happier to get you to pay more, so the argument is even stronger in that case. They're the experts; it's their job to extract the maximum amount from our wallets every chance they get. The fact that all providers fight tooth and nail to keep the present bundled regime going for as long as possible means that at least these channel providers think they'll be making less, and possibly much less, if they had to sell channels a la carte. I side with the channel providers' expertise and have to believe that the cost would be less. Not the same, and not more, but less. DO NOT SWALLOW THE CHANNEL PROVIDER LIES on this topic. They will continue fleecing us for as long as they possibly can.
I think everyone thinks that a la carte would work something like....
(example) AT200 = $69.99 for (200) channels (currently the actual number is 240)
$69.99 / 200 = $0.35/channel
Let's see.... ESPN, Discovery, NatGeo, local channels (4) = $0.35 x 7, my bill will be $2.45/month
Providers like the bundling too... do you think channels like TCM and other niche channels would make it.. no way.. they wouldn't get a enough subscribers and the channel would go under... by bundling it with more popular channels CNN, Cartoon network etc the channel lives on.
I rather spend $45 to $50 for five channels (NBCSN, TCM, Cartoon Network, Cooking, TNT-like channel) and a 722k than $85 for all the channels in Top 200 and a 722k.I have the same thought. I would end up paying the same if not more for fewer channels. I prefer paying what I pay now for a wide variety of channels.
I somewhat agree, but not all niche channels are like that, TCM is a good example.Of course some niche channels would go under, as they should. In the last few years, channel providers buy fewer and fewer new or expensive programs, and spread that content out on as many different channels as possible, putting that programming in a loop. It's all a successful ploy to fleece us for as much as possible, while paying as little as possible for the content. This is why so many channels are endless reality programs (cheap) in a loop. If people had the choice among channels, they'd pick a channel that was actually worth watching for more than 1 program/week, niche or not.
I guess you didn't see the RT part
I get more coverage on RT and aljazeera than CNN, I just like unbiased live coverage.
It don't even have to be live is not like CNN gets exclusive like they make you believe,
And sometimes I watch on websites or Roku first and have breaking news before CNN decides to finish their tabloid news and report that same news as first time breaking news
I rather spend $45 to $50 for five channels (NBCSN, TCM, Cartoon Network, Cooking, TNT-like channel) and a 722k than $85 for all the channels in Top 200 and a 722k.
I believed you the first time.
No matter how you slice it or dice it FAR more people, something like 4 or 4.5 to 1 watch FOX news over CNN. So much so that FOX was actually the most watched basic cable channel - of them all not just news channels.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser...network-in-primetime-for-full-quarter_b240637
FOX news is the channel DISH does not want to lose.
You guys should both listen to my argument, which is of course very persuasive.If channel providers thought they could make the same money providing fewer channels, don't you think they'd jump at the chance? Of course they would. They would be even happier to get you to pay more, so the argument is even stronger in that case. They're the experts; it's their job to extract the maximum amount from our wallets every chance they get. The fact that all providers fight tooth and nail to keep the present bundled regime going for as long as possible means that at least these channel providers think they'll be making less, and possibly much less, if they had to sell channels a la carte. I side with the channel providers' expertise and have to believe that the cost would be less. Not the same, and not more, but less. DO NOT SWALLOW THE CHANNEL PROVIDER LIES on this topic. They will continue fleecing us for as long as they possibly can.
You think wrong.I think everyone thinks that a la carte would work something like....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?