They did, when they broke out the RSN fees. If Fox sports was still there, folks in those areas would be paying more for the broken out RSN fees.
I have had this argument before. Do you really think that the extra $1 or so being charged in some areas covers the entire cost of their RSN (or in some cases, multiple RSN's)? It is much more likely that the bulk of the cost for the RSN's is already included in the base package price, and is spread out across the entire country, whether you are receiving your market's RSN's or not. Then, the areas with the more expensive RSN's (or that still have RSN's at all) get hit with the extra fee to finish covering the "extra" cost associated with continued carriage of those channels. It still doesn't change the fact that subscribers across the rest of the country are still paying a rate that includes an extra cost for channels that are no longer being received, even if they are still being charged at the "old" (pre-removal) rate, rather than whatever new rate would be required to actually carry the channels. These disputes have been going on long enough that the new rates (reflecting the RSN removal) should have been factored into the 2020 rates, instead of making us wait until 2021. Instead of getting a smaller than normal rate increase as would otherwise be expected, we got hit with an increase of the same amount as previous years when the RSN's were still being carried. It is just that areas with RSN's got another small increase on top of that, due to the new fee. This is further compounded by the overall lack of live sports programming in general this year. So, even if the RSN's had continued to be carried (and further fantasy, if they had continued to be carried at the old rates) then the price would still be a rip-off.Yup. That’s what pays for the RSNs. Separate from the regular channels.