Cable companies mull ditching sports stations to cut customers

[V-Tech]

 

Believe it or not, cable companies are actually trying to think of ways to lower their customers? bills. The Wall Street Journal reports that cable providers have started listening to customer complaints that their cable bills are being driven up by heavily subsidized sports stations that they never watch. The reasons cable providers are considering abandoning sports networks are fairly obvious: As the Journal notes, ?sports channels such as ESPN and regional sports networks account for 19.5% of fees paid by cable and satellite operators,? despite the fact that the audience for sports stations amounts ?to about 4% or less of households on average.? With cord cutting becoming an increasingly prevalent phenomenon, it?s not surprising that cable companies are trying to get more creative in their ways to retain pay TV customers and sports stations look like a good early candidate for the chopping block.

 

 

http://bgr.com/2013/07/16/cable-companies-sports-channels/

[Nagisan]

I say do it, I don't watch sports so it would only be a savings to me. They can add it as additional channels with their own cost respective to how much dropping them lowers the standard cable bill.

[V-Tech]

I say do it, I don't watch sports so it would only be a savings to me. They can add it as additional channels with their own cost respective to how much dropping them lowers the standard cable bill.

Give people more choice is always better. Make a "slim" package with basic channels for a price of X and after that you can add any channel/package you want for additional cost.

This way i dont need to pay for something i dont want anyway.

[Roger H. Veteran]

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.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

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)

[Steven P. Administrators]

Channels should have an idiot rating, if watching it makes you stupider cut it. :p Example: http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/07/15/pbs-fake-commercials/?hpt=hp_t3

 

Also in The Netherlands my provider cut TCM, Discovery World and another one I can't think of right now in favor of crappy reality tv and for the extra Discovery channels you have to pay extra.

 

It would be a start if they ensured basic packages had quality programming.

[Hum]

good -- Sports channels = crap

[+primortal Subscriber²]

Verzion might have a nice idea if it gets off the ground, http://gizmodo.com/5991033/verizon-wants-to-give-you-more-channels-but-only-pay-for-what-you-watch

[Steven P. Administrators]

Pay for what you watch would be perfect!

[V-Tech]

Pay for what you watch would be perfect!

It would, it's just a question of how it will be done.

If i get to the channel by mistake for 2 seconds do i need to pay for it?

 

I guess protecting it with your password will be required and you pay only after watching it for few min or something.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

It would, it's just a question of how it will be done.

If i get to the channel by mistake for 2 seconds do i need to pay for it?

 

I guess protecting it with your password will be required and you pay only after watching it for few min or something.

no, it'd be handled the exact same way as premium stations like HBO are handled. What happens when you try to watch HBO w/o a subscription?

 

So if you arent subscribed to ESPN, then you'll just see a generic message on the screen about how you can subscribe.

[trag3dy]

I thought most sports channels were optional anyways? I guess not.

[V-Tech]

no, it'd be handled the exact same way as premium stations like HBO are handled. What happens when you try to watch HBO w/o a subscription?

 

So if you arent subscribed to ESPN, then you'll just see a generic message on the screen about how you can subscribe.

I guess there are few way to do it. One is the way you said it and the other is pay for how much you watch.

Split the payment for let's say you opened the channel today so you get access for 24 hours and pay X.

Or open the channel for a week and pay Y. 

 

You can even make it per hour.

 

 

Let's say per hour will be expensive, per 24 hours will be less expensive, per week will be less and the best option will be to open it for a month.

[Roger H. Veteran]

Cablevision recently added on a "sports package" fee of like $2.95 even if you DON'T have ANY sports channels (just TV services). That way they spread the costs of all the sports channels across ALL customers instead of just the ones that want it otherwise they probably couldn't afford to pay for it (in terms of a la carte).

 

no TV services here so I don't pay that fee but still bull **** that people gotta pay that much money for something they might not even care about.

[vcfan]

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)

 

the problem with that is, networks sell their channels to the cable companies in bundles,so to get good channels,the cable company has to eat the crappy channels that come with it.

[Steven P. Administrators]

I remember now, it was Zone Horror that was removed and the explanation was that it would cost each subscriber ?1 extra on top of the extra HD and other channels package to keep it.

[spacer]

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.

[Steven P. Administrators]

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.

Why? If a customer isn't watching that channel ever, why should that customer be forced to pay for it? It's an ancient system like most of the entertainment business.

I don't see people complaining about iTunes giving people the choice to buy what tracks they want instead of the whole album?

[neufuse Veteran]

If they cut ESPN, Disney would just jack up the rates on the other channels like ABC Family and such to make up the loss.... ESPN is ridiculously overpriced as it is thanks to Disney using their market position to get what they want... heck I don't watch sports, I wish I didn't have to pay for them

Why? If a customer isn't watching that channel ever, why should that customer be forced to pay for it? It's an ancient system like most of the entertainment business.

I don't see people complaining about iTunes giving people the choice to buy what tracks they want instead of the whole album?

in the end we will end up paying more for less... content providers will jack up the rates on single channels to make up for losses on channels no one watches or rarely watches...

 

hypothetical...

 

Disney charges 50 cents for ESPN in their Disney package which costs $2 per sub right now

 

Cable co's refuse ESPN as part of the package...

 

Disney says fine, but now ESPN will cost non-subs $1 per channel, and their package deal will also go up $1 without ESPN... now you are paying $3 for a few less sports channels... you saved nothing and ended up with less

 

the rates are made up, but the idea is real, they've threatened this in the past (the content providers like Disney)

[MandateOfHeaven]

I haven't been a cable customer for years, and it was mostly due to the exorbitant pricing.  Paying almost $100 for maybe five channels that I really watch is ridiculous.  Going to an a la carte model makes more sense from a consumer perspective.  Perhaps the reason the way things are now is because people keep paying into it, and because they're continuing to support it, it makes the cable companies unwilling or reluctant to change.

 

an a la carte model would definitely kill off the stations that people rarely watch, but after sometime, cable companies would start seeing trends and where the money is flowing, and should invest according to popular demand.  That's how it really should be.  

[Steven P. Administrators]

an a la carte model would definitely kill off the stations that people rarely watch, but after sometime, cable companies would start seeing trends and where the money is flowing, and should invest according to popular demand.  That's how it really should be.  

Sounds about right to me :)

[MandateOfHeaven]

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 respectfully disagree.

 

Despite the high cost of cable nowadays, people are still willing to pay just to watch maybe 5-10 channels regularly.  Those same people would still pay in an a la carte system.  I don't think it'll break the destroy the TV business, but it'll force it to change.  I personally like educational channels like the Science Channel among several others; imagine all the money funneling directly into these channels instead of being divided among useless stations.  Because channels like the Science Channel will be getting money more directly, they would be able to work with a much greater budget--which would almost certainly mean better and better programming.

[spudtrooper]

Sports is *THE* most expensive part of cable packages, accounting for over 40% of the average bill rate.  Imagine if your cable bill was all the sudden nearly 50% cheaper because you dropped sports package.

 

ESPN should go the way of the do-do, I can't believe internet companies have to pay for that crap as well..  if my internet was  few bucks cheaper because I don't watch "espn3" I would be happier too.

 

BTW, according to this rate card, I could watch all the shows I want to watch for about 2 bucks a month

 

http://allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why/

[neufuse Veteran]

I respectfully disagree.

 

Despite the high cost of cable nowadays, people are still willing to pay just to watch maybe 5-10 channels regularly.  Those same people would still pay in an a la carte system.  I don't think it'll break the destroy the TV business, but it'll force it to change.  I personally like educational channels like the Science Channel among several others; imagine all the money funneling directly into these channels instead of being divided among useless stations.  Because channels like the Science Channel will be getting money more directly, they would be able to work with a much greater budget--which would almost certainly mean better and better programming.

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

[episode]

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.

 

Yankee games appear on YES. Well, 95% of them. Thats not a local.