More Cable Channels are about to end due to cord cutting

[Bruce]

They're airing the same crap you can get on Pluto for FREE!

That is one of my problems with the bundle, the majority of content is reruns, now those same reruns are everywhere for free.

The Bundle is the greatest example of Socialism, where the many pay for the few.

Not trying to get political , just providing a example.

 

[MikeD-C05]

That is one of my problems with the bundle, the majority of content is reruns, now those same reruns are everywhere for free.

The Bundle is the greatest example of Socialism, where the many pay for the few.

Not trying to get political , just providing a example.

So cable bundle socialism.

 

[mwdxer1]

That is one of my problems with the bundle, the majority of content is reruns, now those same reruns are everywhere for free.

The Bundle is the greatest example of Socialism, where the many pay for the few.

Not trying to get political , just providing a example.

Those cable channels need to join the roster of free channels and sell ad money rather than going away.

 

[telstar_1]

 

[telstar_1]

So cable bundle socialism.

Well, sure it is- smaller, newer or otherwise lesser-known channels wouldn't stand much of a chance of getting into a service sub's alacarte pick list, were said sub allowed to alacarte from all ch's. Also, very pricey ch's like ESPN would be left off too many such pick lists by non-sports viewers and others not seeing value in a ch that adds $10 to their bill just by itself and would thus on fewer viewers have to raise its price as an alacarte, causing to lose even more viewers and raise even more until it can no longer get enough takers to operate.

Actually, it's more like communism- from each according to ability (to pay skyrocketing sat/cable bills), to each according to need (to purchase outrageously expensive sports rights, etc.).

 

[ncted]

Well, sure it is- smaller, newer or otherwise lesser-known channels wouldn't stand much of a chance of getting into a service sub's alacarte pick list, were said sub allowed to alacarte from all ch's. Also, very pricey ch's like ESPN would be left off too many such pick lists by non-sports viewers and others not seeing value in a ch that adds $10 to their bill just by itself and would thus on fewer viewers have to raise its price as an alacarte, causing to lose even more viewers and raise even more until it can no longer get enough takers to operate.

Actually, it's more like communism- from each according to ability (to pay skyrocketing sat/cable bills), to each according to need (to purchase outrageously expensive sports rights, etc.).

The problem is those smaller channels all got scooped up by big media companies. At least the early ones did. The later ones were launched by big media companies. I was just thinking the other day about how our current stage of capitalism has some striking similarities to communism (scarcity, poor quality controls, reduced productivity, etc.).

 

[chiodo]

If only some of those channels would show better programming, SyFy could use better shows, but NBCU thinks that Wrestling is what SyFy fans want. FXX and FXM need better shows, FoxSports2 I watch or Record my Aussie Rules footy on but most of the matches they show are with unpopular teams, and not the Prime Time matches, which I get now on stream from the Land Down Under, then there's AHC which is basically the RV Channel. Smithsonian has better content On Demand than they show live.

This is what happens when corporations own 500 channels and show nothing but crap, just to keep the lights on so they can milk the carriage fees from TV Providers.

 

[Bruce]

If only some of those channels would show better programming, SyFy could use better shows, but NBCU thinks that Wrestling is what SyFy fans want. FXX and FXM need better shows,

As I wrote before, most of the cable channels that had some new programming can no longer afford to produce them, because of the loss of per sub fees and advertising.

If a channel received $1 per sub, with the loss of over 30 million sub, that is $30 million they are no longer receiving, $360 Million a year, if the per sub fee is half that, $180 million a year.

This is what happens when corporations own 500 channels and show nothing but crap, just to keep the lights on so they can milk the carriage fees from TV Providers.

And like I said before, Broadcasters and Providers share the blame in this.

Broadcasters could not have made so many channels to milk subscribers, providers could of put their foot down and said we do not need more rerun channels.

Now it is two late, Cable/Satellite is in a death spiral, not helping is 2 rate hikes in a year with even less new programming.

Both sides had a chance to fix this, but they choose to keep ripping off the customers.

 

[navychop]

Maybe ESPN should try something new- like Combat Curling.

 

[Howard Simmons]

Maybe ESPN should try something new- like Combat Curling.

Or maybe grenade cornholing.

 

[chuckster_dude]

Here are just a few links. Do some homework, there are many, many more out there. Good grief they've fired people for political commenting, they've restricted what they can and can not say, and they've been sued in court by ex employees.


Is ESPN too liberal? New poll finds 60 percent think network leans left

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/ESPN/comments/8eegzi/espn_is_more_about_political_agendas_than_it_is/

ESPN's rough week shows its decay at the hands of liberal politics

How athletes have forced ESPN and other networks to change their game plan on mixing politics and sports

One of those is a right leaning outlet so it's not surprising what they came up with.

If people can't handle messages of inclusiveness and diversity within a sports broadcast, then they have plenty of places they can go for messages of divisiveness and non-inclusivity (aka, right wing media). To each their own......

 

[Bruce]

Here are just a few links. Do some homework, there are many, many more out there. Good grief they've fired people for political commenting, they've restricted what they can and can not say, and they've been sued in court by ex employees.


Is ESPN too liberal? New poll finds 60 percent think network leans left

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/ESPN/comments/8eegzi/espn_is_more_about_political_agendas_than_it_is/

ESPN's rough week shows its decay at the hands of liberal politics

How athletes have forced ESPN and other networks to change their game plan on mixing politics and sports

One of those is a right leaning outlet so it's not surprising what they came up with.

If people can't handle messages of inclusiveness and diversity within a sports broadcast, then they have plenty of places they can go for messages of divisiveness and non-inclusivity (aka, right wing media). To each their own......

Ok, I will make this as un-political as possible.

What is going on with ESPN is due to cord cutting, not to any type of ideology .

They have lost over 30 Million subscribers, ESPN gets $9 a month per sub, ESPN Two $2.

So at $11 times 30 million is $330 a month, $3.96 Billion a year they are no longer getting, if cord cutting never happen, no one would say anything about ESPN.

But it is increasing every year, this year 7-8 million leaving, next year, 8-10 million, so, roughly, another billion gone in money every year now.

The other problem is advertising, which has been switching to online, for cheaper rates and targeted ads, that is why ESPN ( and all the other channels) are discounting their ad shots.

Now, no more politics here.

 

[savarese04]

That is one of my problems with the bundle, the majority of content is reruns, now those same reruns are everywhere for free.

The Bundle is the greatest example of Socialism, where the many pay for the few.

Not trying to get political , just providing a example.

I view this in the same light as the DTV Newsmax dispute. If you come to me and say "hey, you need to pay for this thing, but we're also going to stream it for free on the internet to everyone." I'd be the first to say no, I don't think I will pay for it.

I think the cable companies need to say the same thing to the big providers too. "If you're gonna make me pay $1 for a channel that's entirely Pluto reruns, why should I offer it to my customers?" I think the initial first response is that they'll keep doing that because they can pay $1 and pass $2 on to customers and keep doing that all day.

But in the end, if instead you take .50c and pass on $1 because you have half as many channels, the end result is: 1) less customer churn so more subs and overall dollars and 2) you're still pulling the same 2x profit. I know this is kind of a simplified way of looking at it, but you'd think in this new reality they'd think about a different model than leaning harder into the same failing thing. If for no other reason than trying something new, I kinda respect Cox for the new Disney deal.

 

[DirecTVFanSince2016]

I kinda respect Cox for the new Disney deal.

You mean Spectrum

 

[Bruce]

I kinda respect Cox for the new Disney deal.

You mean Charter, the deal was not that good.

All the channels they are keeping, the per sub fee for each went up, which offsets the loss of the per sub fee of the other channels that are no longer carrying.

Those channels were on the planned chopping block even before the deal, hence why they cancelled all future new programming to be made for them.

They do have some new content in inventory that was meant for those channels, so either it will air on them or be moved elsewhere.

The other myth about that deal was they get for free Disney+ and ESPN+, also untrue-

In the end, the situation was resolved with Charter agreeing to pay wholesale prices for Disney's ad-supported streaming services, which will be offered to Spectrum TV customers as part of their subscription, depending on their TV package. Charter also won a key concession from Disney that allowed it to permanently drop several channels, including Nat Geo Wild, FXM and Freeform.

DirecTV takes issue with WBD’s CNN Max distribution, report says

Executives at DirecTV have fired off a warning letter to their counterparts at Warner Bros. | The brewing situation between WBD and DirecTV is the latest involving a programmer that is trying to get content in front of streamers and distributors who are juggling the new world of ambitious...

www.streamtvinsider.com

 

[telstar_1]

Story in WSJ today, the mouse set to maximize profitability from theme parks & "experiences" as cord-cutting continues apace. Disneyland's lowest per-day price to remain $104, but more popular days are going up by >8% to $194, while a 5-day ticket is increasing by 16% to $480. Line-cutting going from $25 to $30, and Park Hopper also up 25% to $75. Also increases for parking and annual passes.

Some families have said that the parks have just gotten too expensive, and attendance at Disney World actually declined a bit this summer. "We are constantly adding new, innovative attractions and entertainment to our parks and, with our broad array of pricing options, the value of a theme park visit is reflected in the unique experiences that only Disney can offer."

Last week they rolled out limited-time kids' ticket promotions unlike past offers, industry analysts said. "Disney has generally resisted discounting in the past." Adjustments come as they prepare to plow some $60B (!) in investments into parks & cruising over the coming decade, roughly doubling outlays over the past 10 years. Iger says parks & experiences represent a "key growth engine" for the mouse. Says he has always believed they need to be more accessible and that they may have gone too far overboard (no pun intended) with some increases. Some fans were critical of strategies to maximize per-person profits.

Pandemic wrought reservations will now no longer be needed to visit parks and park hoppers won't have to wait until 2.

 

[chuckster_dude]

Ok, I will make this as un-political as possible.

What is going on with ESPN is due to cord cutting, not to any type of ideology .

They have lost over 30 Million subscribers, ESPN gets $9 a month per sub, ESPN Two $2.

So at $11 times 30 million is $330 a month, $3.96 Billion a year they are no longer getting, if cord cutting never happen, no one would say anything about ESPN.

But it is increasing every year, this year 7-8 million leaving, next year, 8-10 million, so, roughly, another billion gone in money every year now.

The other problem is advertising, which has been switching to online, for cheaper rates and targeted ads, that is why ESPN ( and all the other channels) are discounting their ad shots.

Now, no more politics here.

I believe that more as the reason ESPN has lost viewers than because of an "agenda" or boycott because of a supposed agenda. Thanks for sharing that.

 

[ncted]

Story in WSJ today, the mouse set to maximize profitability from theme parks & "experiences" as cord-cutting continues apace. Disneyland's lowest per-day price to remain $104, but more popular days are going up by >8% to $194, while a 5-day ticket is increasing by 16% to $480. Line-cutting going from $25 to $30, and Park Hopper also up 25% to $75. Also increases for parking and annual passes.

Some families have said that the parks have just gotten too expensive, and attendance at Disney World actually declined a bit this summer. "We are constantly adding new, innovative attractions and entertainment to our parks and, with our broad array of pricing options, the value of a theme park visit is reflected in the unique experiences that only Disney can offer."

Last week they rolled out limited-time kids' ticket promotions unlike past offers, industry analysts said. "Disney has generally resisted discounting in the past." Adjustments come as they prepare to plow some $60B (!) in investments into parks & cruising over the coming decade, roughly doubling outlays over the past 10 years. Iger says parks & experiences represent a "key growth engine" for the mouse. Says he has always believed they need to be more accessible and that they may have gone too far overboard (no pun intended) with some increases. Some fans were critical of strategies to maximize per-person profits.

Pandemic wrought reservations will now no longer be needed to visit parks and park hoppers won't have to wait until 2.

What matters in the parks is average revenue per visitor, at least at current attendance levels. If attendance is down some, it isn't that big a deal because ARPV is way up. Also, the parks are so much more profitable than anything else, they feel like they can afford to double-down on price increases to keep their struggling streaming and TV businesses afloat. That said, I won't be going back any time soon. The price increases, together with the removal of theming from restaurants and hotels, and the ruining of EPCOT has pretty much eliminated Disney from my list of possible vacation destinations. Universal, on the other hand, is doing a much better job and is way more affordable.

 

[Jimbo]

View attachment 165782

More like 157 Channels and Nothing On ...

 

[Bruce]

Universal, on the other hand, is doing a much better job and is way more affordable.

Been to Universal twice since moving here, but they really need to expand, if not busy, can pretty much do everything in less then a day.

Glad they are opening a new park.

Going to Disney’s Hollywood Studios this year when family comes, mostly for the Star Wars stuff, stayed away because of the stupid reservations requirement.