Cable companies mull ditching sports stations to cut customers


Recommended Posts

in reality what will happen...... You like science channel..... discovery will see it as losing money compared to their main network Discovery Channel.... they will merge the content... then run off trying to launch a new test network to see if anyone wants it (kinda like OWN is now) spend all the money on that have it fail... repeat until something sticks

 

Discovery network channels are retailed at 4 cents a channel upwards to 20 cents a channel. I wouldn't mind paying 2.00 a month to have them package everything and still earn more than what cable-cos charge. This argument is nonsense because consumers don't have the choice to package as they wish and to be honest, if we got to see the real rates channels charged we would be more than happy to group what we want because we generally support more of what we want.

 

Expecting that discovery would fail without it being forced on every carrier is hogwash, imagine how much discovery channel/network could succeed if people actually got to pay into it on their own free will.  Maybe programming would IMPROVE because they have to compete for their purpose and maybe channels like the "The Learning Channel" wouldn't turn to total BS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in reality what will happen...... You like science channel..... discovery will see it as losing money compared to their main network Discovery Channel.... they will merge the content... then run off trying to launch a new test network to see if anyone wants it (kinda like OWN is now) spend all the money on that have it fail... repeat until something sticks

 

I suppose that's how it really should be.  In a capitalistic world, companies that fail to adapt or innovate will die out.  In the hypothetical situation I laid out above, what that would do--I think, is force companies like discovery to adapt to where the money is flowing instead.  If they see that there is high demand for programming based on science and nature, it would suicide for them to not make more documentaries/shows based on what the people want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would've never guessed, "the fact that the audience for sports stations amounts ?to about 4% or less of households on average.?

 

I watch some sports but most of it isn't on ESPN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't a lot of you realize that an "a la carte" system would effective destroy the entire TV business. True most of the crap channels would instantly disappear (a good thing), but the good channels would be hit hard by it as well. They may not completely disappear, but almost every one of them would see a huge loss in ad revenue (their major source of revenue) and an extreme loss in affiliate sales.

 

Those channels would produce less, and we would end up with even more generic crap than we already have. We would never again have amazing series like "Life" on the Discovery Channel or huge action shows like LOST or 24.

 

And, most importantly we would probably end up paying MORE for cable than we do now. Even for less channels.

 

I don't think it would destroy the entire TV Business.  Broadcast channels (in the US) like NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox and etc. get rebroadcast fees so they will always be there.  The other channels might dwindle down and I'm ok with that; I watch too much TV as it is :D

 

Personally do we need all the channels that the cable companies provide?  TLC is a complete waste with all the horrible reality shows they broadcast; how can they call themselves The Learning Channel with all that crap (tangent).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it would destroy the entire TV Business.  Broadcast channels (in the US) like NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox and etc. get rebroadcast fees so they will always be there.  The other channels might dwindle down and I'm ok with that; I watch too much TV as it is :D

 

Personally do we need all the channels that the cable companies provide?  TLC is a complete waste with all the horrible reality shows they broadcast; how can they call themselves The Learning Channel with all that crap (tangent).

TLC hasn't been called the learning channel in ages, that's why they are just "TLC" now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TLC hasn't been called the learning channel in ages, that's why they are just "TLC" now

 

Show's you how much I pay attention to that channel and shows my age :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose that's how it really should be.  In a capitalistic world, companies that fail to adapt or innovate will die out.  In the hypothetical situation I laid out above, what that would do--I think, is force companies like discovery to adapt to where the money is flowing instead.  If they see that there is high demand for programming based on science and nature, it would suicide for them to not make more documentaries/shows based on what the people want.

you have seen the path of the science channel lately haven't you? it's less science and more Syfy..... we are starting to flood the channel with shows like Fringe... Teranova.. etc... stuff they in the past would NEVER put on that channel....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you have seen the path of the science channel lately haven't you? it's less science and more Syfy..... we are starting to flood the channel with shows like Fringe... Teranova.. etc... stuff they in the past would NEVER put on that channel....

 

That's terrible.  The last time I subscribed to the science channel was several years ago.  I mostly watch the documentaries I like on YouTube, and there's hardly any commercial interruptions :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you have seen the path of the science channel lately haven't you? it's less science and more Syfy..... we are starting to flood the channel with shows like Fringe... Teranova.. etc... stuff they in the past would NEVER put on that channel....

Well we need a channel that will play SciFi shows the other channel is useless.  SyFy is more reality based shows than scripted and the cheesy movies like 'Sharknado' doesn't count as SciFi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't a lot of you realize that an "a la carte" system would effective destroy the entire TV business. True most of the crap channels would instantly disappear (a good thing), but the good channels would be hit hard by it as well. They may not completely disappear, but almost every one of them would see a huge loss in ad revenue (their major source of revenue) and an extreme loss in affiliate sales.

 

Those channels would produce less, and we would end up with even more generic crap than we already have. We would never again have amazing series like "Life" on the Discovery Channel or huge action shows like LOST or 24.

 

And, most importantly we would probably end up paying MORE for cable than we do now. Even for less channels.

survivial of the fittest then, as i see it.

 

lets face it. humans dont need tv, so we shouldnt spend our precious time watching crap shows (we're all guilty of it)

 

i havent had cable for 4 years now and i dont need it. when we had it, i'd find myself watching mindless reality shows on Discovery, or food shows on Food Network. Now, i have antennas for OTA stuff, and Netflix. problem solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm down for this. That means that sports channels would be forced to use their own method of delivery, like online streaming, then I could stop wishing I had cable just to get some sports and dump it entirely. I'd love it if ESPN would do an online subscription at a reasonable price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

survivial of the fittest then, as i see it.

 

lets face it. humans dont need tv, so we shouldnt spend our precious time watching crap shows (we're all guilty of it)

 

i havent had cable for 4 years now and i dont need it. when we had it, i'd find myself watching mindless reality shows on Discovery, or food shows on Food Network. Now, i have antennas for OTA stuff, and Netflix. problem solved.

Sigh. It's not as simple as "survival of the fittest".

 

An a la carte system would make individual channels end up costing so much that it would be worse than what we have now.

 

Such a system would immediately and drastically reduce the affiliate's profits, the broadcaster's affiliate sales revenue, universe, and impressions for programs on that broadcaster's channel. Affiliates would make less money from customers. Broadcasters would make less upfront money from affiliates, and significantly less money from ad sales.

 

Assuming you think these channels are going to continue to offer the same programming at the same quality, broadcasters will start charging providers more per channel, and in turn, affiliates will charge customers more. Customers will then be charged tens of dollars per month per channel.

 

The more likely scenario is that broadcasters will cut back on production values and stop investing in new series. We will end up with less programming, more reruns, more reality shows (they're cheap), and worse production values.

 

And that's not even accounting for the other economic reactions like less investment in infrastructure and more expensive internet.

 

I can't really explain it any better than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is excellent, because it will force sports networks to lower their carriage fees, of course one of the reasons for the high fees is the high prices Major League Sports charge for broadcasting rights.

which dribbles down to team/league profit and player salaries. Do we really need to subsidize pro sports players multi million dollar salaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't a lot of you realize that an "a la carte" system would effective destroy the entire TV business.

 

Works damned well here in the UK...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh. It's not as simple as "survival of the fittest".

 

An a la carte system would make individual channels end up costing so much that it would be worse than what we have now.

 

Such a system would immediately and drastically reduce the affiliate's profits, the broadcaster's affiliate sales revenue, universe, and impressions for programs on that broadcaster's channel. Affiliates would make less money from customers. Broadcasters would make less upfront money from affiliates, and significantly less money from ad sales.

 

Assuming you think these channels are going to continue to offer the same programming at the same quality, broadcasters will start charging providers more per channel, and in turn, affiliates will charge customers more. Customers will then be charged tens of dollars per month per channel.

 

The more likely scenario is that broadcasters will cut back on production values and stop investing in new series. We will end up with less programming, more reruns, more reality shows (they're cheap), and worse production values.

 

And that's not even accounting for the other economic reactions like less investment in infrastructure and more expensive internet.

 

I can't really explain it any better than that.

sounds about right, unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

over here, you can choose wether you want sports packages in your cable/satellite sub. and then you pay extra for it if you do... seems like a rather obvious concept...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh. It's not as simple as "survival of the fittest".

 

An a la carte system would make individual channels end up costing so much that it would be worse than what we have now.

 

Such a system would immediately and drastically reduce the affiliate's profits, the broadcaster's affiliate sales revenue, universe, and impressions for programs on that broadcaster's channel. Affiliates would make less money from customers. Broadcasters would make less upfront money from affiliates, and significantly less money from ad sales.

 

Assuming you think these channels are going to continue to offer the same programming at the same quality, broadcasters will start charging providers more per channel, and in turn, affiliates will charge customers more. Customers will then be charged tens of dollars per month per channel.

 

The more likely scenario is that broadcasters will cut back on production values and stop investing in new series. We will end up with less programming, more reruns, more reality shows (they're cheap), and worse production values.

 

And that's not even accounting for the other economic reactions like less investment in infrastructure and more expensive internet.

 

I can't really explain it any better than that.

 

FUD...

 

The cable co's want you to believe this, but thee is absolutely no truth to the merit.  In fact, in this day and age, I should be able to subscribe to cable channels without cable - I should be able to use IPTV services to get the channels I want.

 

Even if it cost more per channel, I would only buy the channels I care about thus saving money in the long run.  I'd still only rather pay 20-30 bucks a month for what I watch vs 60/month for absolute crap and lots of sports..

 

all that being said, I cancelled cable years ago and won't go back as long as its "packaged"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great because I don't watch ESPN and all those. I get my Yankees and Giants via Fox and NBC/CBS :) all local stations so no need to be paying extra $15/month for something I don't watch.

What abut Monday night football or Thursday night games on nfl network? Or do you only watch giants games ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

customers would be very happy with an 'a la carte' system. Just pay for the channels you want to watch. No one's watching 90% of the cable channels anyway, so why force customers to pay for them? (rhetorical)

 

They have tried a la carte systems over here, the terrestrial providers still does it. 

 

problem is, it's not worth it. once you pick 6 channels you've passed the price for the smallest package of 25+ channels, which includes all the 6 you just picked. so very few choose it. 

 

so the terrestrial provided more or less dropped the full a la carte system for a new system where you can pick 8 favorites, a package noone picks as it' not worth it compared to the big package. and the biggest cable provided has a system where you get 25 mandatory channels, and can pick 15 or so from a list of optionals on their smallest package. 

 

since I get partner price I have the biggest satellite package personally though, but not the sports package, since I don't need it. though I'm considering going down to the middle package since I rarely use the film channels which is what separate the total package from the middle package. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cable companies wants to reduce cost for customers? How about they look in the mirror? :pinch:

I pay $105 (non contract) every month inclusive of taxes for a TV + Internet package from FiOS, which is their cheapest HD package. The truth is, I haven't watched TV shows/movies delivered by Cable for more than 10hrs in last 6 months.

I have TV service because Verizon pretty much forces me to get bundled service as my internet only option will cost the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh. It's not as simple as "survival of the fittest".

 

An a la carte system would make individual channels end up costing so much that it would be worse than what we have now.

 

Such a system would immediately and drastically reduce the affiliate's profits, the broadcaster's affiliate sales revenue, universe, and impressions for programs on that broadcaster's channel. Affiliates would make less money from customers. Broadcasters would make less upfront money from affiliates, and significantly less money from ad sales.

 

Assuming you think these channels are going to continue to offer the same programming at the same quality, broadcasters will start charging providers more per channel, and in turn, affiliates will charge customers more. Customers will then be charged tens of dollars per month per channel.

 

The more likely scenario is that broadcasters will cut back on production values and stop investing in new series. We will end up with less programming, more reruns, more reality shows (they're cheap), and worse production values.

 

And that's not even accounting for the other economic reactions like less investment in infrastructure and more expensive internet.

 

I can't really explain it any better than that.

 

Lets face it TV is a dying medium with more and more people cutting cable these networks are loosing revenue as it its.  If the networks want to cut back and run reruns and reality shows, customers will not subscribe to them and they will die.

 

Take channels like TNT, USA, TBS, Discovery; they are pretty much available on all cable providers in the US with about what 60 million customers (and decreasing) what is an expectable amount to charge for these channels?  I understand the premium channels will cost more.  I have no problem going from 200+ channels to 10-40.

 

The good old days when cable boxes had 3 rows of 13 channels to choose from :)

320px-Push_button_cable_box.jpg

 

The entertainment industry needs to change drastically when it comes to cost.  IMHO actors should not be paid the amount of money they get today.  Reduce their salary in turn reduces the cost of the series to an extent.  For movies, the actors/directors/writers should get paid in a percentage of the movie's total gross (ticket, DVD/BluRay, OD and broadcasts).  Currently TV cannot sustain its current model much longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell is that, and I think you mean 3 rows of 12. 

That was what was used to watch channels on cable back in the 80's.  Larger version, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Push_button_cable_box.jpg/1280px-Push_button_cable_box.jpg

 

Correct 3 rows of 12, I forgot then numbers started off at 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What abut Monday night football or Thursday night games on nfl network? Or do you only watch giants games ...

Only Giants games :) Not that big of a football fan yet, i'm used to soccer :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.