# ESPN Accounts For More Than $6 Of Your Cable Bill; Could Soon Top $8



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

From Consumerist:

*ESPN Accounts For More Than $6 Of Your Cable Bill; Could Soon Top $8*


> In recent years, cable companies and broadcasters have squared off in nasty, public spats that sometimes result in blackouts for millions of viewers. The broadcasters say they aren't being paid properly and the cable companies claim they're on our side, trying to keep costs down (though we always end up paying more). These battles will likely only get worse, with analysts predicting that the cost of content will continue to increase.
> The Wall Street Journal reports that the average amount of our cable bill that goes to pay carriage fees to broadcasters is expected to increase 36% by 2018, according to estimates by media research firm SNL Kagan.


FULL ARTICLE HERE


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

The Sports Tax.

It's a direct subsidy from the NonSports Fan to the Sports Fanatic.

Unfortunately, too many PayTv subscribers are OK with it.

Or at least we're OK with it.

If I were DirecTv, not only would I demand that the Dodgers take part in mediation (not arbitration).

I would demand that ESPN be part of the mediation as well.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I think most customers don't know how high the fee is. They just see their total cable bill and say it's too high, only get mad at the provider.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> I think most customers don't know how high the fee is. They just see their total cable bill and say it's too high, only get mad at the provider.


Well it is up to the provider , after all we as customers have no say in what the providers pay.

If both the provider and networks weren't trying to rob us blind, they would provide the facts to their customers for dispute, and or vote on prices.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Jocks need their athletic supporters.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

damondlt said:


> Well it is up to the provider , after all we as customers have no say in what the providers pay.
> 
> If both the provider and networks weren't trying to rob us blind, they would provide the facts to their customers for dispute, and or vote on prices.


And say either DirecTV or Dish became the first one to drop all ESPN channels. How many customers would they lose?

No one wants to go first.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

If only ala carte options were available for Sports, Both Directv and Dish would remove it from their lower tier packages and keep it at the highest one, And have a add on for ESPN, Of course this would never happen, at least for years to come


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I don't know why this keeps coming up and why ESPN keeps being singled out. All the channels cost something... and if you don't like and don't watch the channel then you can consider it wasted money for you. There are a LOT of channels I never watch and if I add the cost of those up I'm sure it is more than the cost of ESPN. We are all paying for channels we don't watch.

How did it get this way?

In the beginning we had a la carte and people wanted discounts for bundling channels... "we want a discount if we buy more channels" the people demanded... and they got tiers... discounts for buying a group of channels as opposed to buying them individually... and over time this was the preferred way people subscribed to paytv!

So now, when people want to not pay for channels they don't watch or want a la carte... I don't think they realize what that would mean. You wouldn't end up with lower prices. You would end up paying the same for less choices of channels... and your favorite channels might be some that go away.

TV is a luxury... complaining about the cost of pay TV is like complaining about the price of gold jewelry... if you can't afford it, you don't have to have it.

My payTV bill is usually around $60-$80 per month depending on what packages I'm subscribed to at any particular time... even if I was paying $100 per month, it would be not much more than $3 per day for 24/7 entertainment options on hundreds of channels from which I can choose whatever I want... and DVR things and skip commercials if I want and watch things on my own time.

I defy people who think paytv is too expensive solely because of ESPN to find another cheaper way to get ALL that is offered through paytv options for even $5 per day.

One movie costs $10+ in most parts of the country at a movie theater... see just one movie each week and you're about halfway to the average paytv bill... if you have a family, you're already well past the cost of paytv...

I find paytv to frankly be one of the most affordable ways to entertain myself out there today.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't know why this keeps coming up and why ESPN keeps being singled out. All the channels cost something... and if you don't like and don't watch the channel then you can consider it wasted money for you. There are a LOT of channels I never watch and if I add the cost of those up I'm sure it is more than the cost of ESPN. We are all paying for channels we don't watch.
> 
> How did it get this way?
> 
> ...


I second that. Even though my bill is usually $130 a month and alot of other people that live where I live think I am crazy, I get to see what I want to see and that is fine with me. Its not that expensive. If could probably only go to the movies twice in a month as a family for the same price and that would get me what 4-6 hours of entertainment for a month. No thanks. I will take it this way. It will be a long time if ever before I would even be willing to consider cutting the cord. There are just not good alternatives out there that really cover all the needs a paytv provider covers.

While DirecTV does not have everything I want, they have more than anyone else offers in my area. I am a very happy customer who does not plan on moving away from DirecTV at anytime in the foreseeable future.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

joshjr said:


> I second that. Even though my bill is usually $130 a month


$6-8/month out of $100 plus may not seem like much if you watch any programs at all on those channels.

But it's a significant chunk of $30/month when you don't watch any of it at all. There is no reason at all I should have to pay that amount.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

SayWhat? said:


> $6-8/month out of $100 plus may not seem like much if you watch any programs at all on those channels.
> 
> But it's a significant chunk of $30/month when you don't watch any of it at all. There is no reason at all I should have to pay that amount.


I would rather pay in a bundle like now and see stations I dont normally watch that I might try and love in the future then not. My take is we would pay a similar amount but just have less channels and we would probably all lose some channels we care about currently. Not to mention how would any new channel ever launch if it was a la carte?


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Not to get back into the whole bundling issue again, but I only want two things.

>> To split ESPN from Disney/ABC channels. Two bundles instead of one. Might even increase revenue to them.

>> To be able to 'subscribe' to any given network/bundle direct for streaming without having to have a pay TV account with any provider.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SayWhat? said:


> Not to get back into the whole bundling issue again, but I only want two things.
> 
> >> To split ESPN from Disney/ABC channels. Two bundles instead of one. Might even increase revenue to them.
> 
> >> To be able to 'subscribe' to any given network/bundle direct for streaming without having to have a pay TV account with any provider.


How would unbundling ESPN from Disney/ABC increase revenue? On average, they'd have to charge each customer the same as they're paying now for the bundle just to break even. I'll assume you're talking about what the providers can buy from Disney, not actually offering end customers a ESPN bundle and a Disney/ABC bundle similar to how they can separately choose HBO or Showtime.

Providers would love to be able to offer a cheaper package for the cord cutters leaving due to price, and offering a package without ESPN would be a great way to do that. This means the price to the providers of any package which includes ESPN would have to go up to make up for the revenue lost from the people who go without ESPN - just to be revenue neutral, let alone increase revenue.

So either providers jack up the price of their higher end packages that include ESPN to make up for that revenue, or ESPN is not included in any standard package and is sold only as a separate package (either standalone or as part of the sports pak) and really jack up the price - there are, after all, many people who take a high end package for stuff like AMC, movie channels or whatever but aren't sports fans so they'd would no longer get ESPN leaving even more revenue to make up. Sports fans are pretty price insensitive, and perhaps they might be willing to pay $20-$30/month for ESPN. After all, just about any sports fan, whatever sport, considers ESPN a must-have.

It would be a very risky move, in case they're wrong and people decide they really don't need to see the Sunday Night football game, Thursday/Friday rounds of a major golf championship, World Cup matches, and so on, and would go to a friend's house or a bar (or "borrow" a friend's WatchESPN password) when something they really really want to watch is on ESPN.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Actually the cost of Disney, ESPN, and ABC programming has been estimated at over $25 per month for the average customer.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

No provider wants to go too far in a fight with The Mouse.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

But why single out ESPN? The argument "I don't watch it so I don't want to pay for it" applies to most channels, frankly... every channel out there has a large chunk of people who don't watch that channel most of the time... you can't unbundle just ESPN unless you're willing to unbundle everything... and when you do that, it's every channel for itself... and most of them will fail horribly under that model... and the few that survive will do so because they are the most popular and as the last remaining popular channels they know they could name their price and you would pay it to get them once choice is gone.

There's really nothing good to the consumer that would come from pulling at the thread and unraveling things like this.

Some channels cost more than others... we are all paying for channels we don't want.. and because we do that, a lot of niche channels can exist and charge minimal amounts because they are in a tier that most customers get... and if you start stripping that configuration away, you will not like where it ends up... ESPN will probably be one of the last-standing channels and while you will no longer have to pay for it, you will not want to pay for too much of what else would be left either.

I've said before... think of paytv like a buffet. You pay $10 for the all-you-can-eat buffet and then you choose what you eat. I don't like mushrooms, but I don't go complain to the manager that I don't want to pay for mushrooms since I'm not eating them. I pay the agreed upon price and choose from whatever is on the buffet that day to enjoy.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

No one would be bothered by paying for channels we don't want, if they're was a sence of balance. 
And there is no balance. 

Maybe congress needs to step in , maybe the providers need to gang up on networks.
Because you may think ESPN is worth $10, but maybe others don't. So what then? So the channels you like cost way more than what I like, Thats fair? 

I'm not speaking for myself, I'm just speaking in general. 

Popular or not, shouldn't come at a premium. 
People want it they will pay for it.
Providers and Networks choose for the customers how we are going to pay for it. And that's not right.

There should be caps, and The provider should choose where they want the channels, not the networks.
If I'm buying a van to start a taxi service, the dealer isn't going to tell me how much I can charge and where I can buy my gas.

TV is the most ass backwards companies.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Stewart Vernon said:


> But why single out ESPN? The argument "I don't watch it so I don't want to pay for it" applies to most channels, frankly... every channel out there has a large chunk of people who don't watch that channel most of the time... you can't unbundle just ESPN unless you're willing to unbundle everything... and when you do that, it's every channel for itself... and most of them will fail horribly under that model... and the few that survive will do so because they are the most popular and as the last remaining popular channels they know they could name their price and you would pay it to get them once choice is gone.


ESPN is singled out because it costs BY FAR the most of any channel that comes as part of the standard packages most people get. The WSJ article shows it as more than 4x as much as the next highest channel (TNT, likely getting that price because of the many basketball games carried on that network)


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

damondlt said:


> No one would be bothered by paying for channels we don't want, if they're was a sence of balance.
> And there is no balance.
> 
> Maybe congress needs to step in , maybe the providers need to gang up on networks.
> ...


Your use of the word balance is perfect. That is the issue, there's no balance, sports money has skyrocketed far higher and faster than any other type of programming. If it was all easing up at a nice rate that stuck along with inflation and such we'd complain a heck of a lot less imho.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It is easy to attack the most successful companies ... and ironic that we aspire to be successful while attacking those who have obtained the goal we seek.

Who gets to decide when a company is to successful to continue? While we're pondering rules to cap the profits of TV networks why not look at the services that are pulling in 20%+ in profits while complaining that their prices are going up because ESPN is charging too much. Sure, ESPN has moved from $4 to $6 and is likely to move from $6 to $8 per month over the next few years ... but how much has DirecTV's profits increased?

While people are complaining about ESPN charging $6 per month (revenue not profit) per subscriber where are the complaints about DirecTV making $21 per month (profit not revenue) off of each subscriber? People have a choice ... why don't DirecTV's 20 million subscribers leave for a company that only makes $5 per month per subscriber? Because those subscribers are WILLING to pay whatever they are asked to get what they want.

Keep complaining about ESPN charging $6 (total, not just profit) ... but don't forget that they are only a part of what we voluntarily pay for TV each month.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> It is easy to attack the most successful companies ... and ironic that we aspire to be successful while attacking those who have obtained the goal we seek.
> 
> Who gets to decide when a company is to successful to continue? While we're pondering rules to cap the profits of TV networks why not look at the services that are pulling in 20%+ in profits while complaining that their prices are going up because ESPN is charging too much. Sure, ESPN has moved from $4 to $6 and is likely to move from $6 to $8 per month over the next few years ... but how much has DirecTV's profits increased?
> 
> ...


Calling them the most successful is a bit over reaching. They are sure, but it's their success in other areas that has back ended their ability to over bid and give massive contracts to sports teams that then push them to ask for even bigger deals to then try and recoup their money. and they all know they will simply pass along the costs to someone else now that they have the power to do so. But they had to have the backing first.

Look at the ridiculous price twc paid for the Dodgers. They claim they did it because they where tired of the escalating costs of Rsns from fox.

You just can't defend this... It's not about being successful or the profits they are getting. It's about the fact they are overbidding without care. They could have made the same percentage of profiles, heck probably even the same dollars and yet paid less for all their contracts...

They don't get balance. And I in part blame the sports leagues. A big part...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Calling them the most successful is a bit over reaching.


If required base tier carriage at $4+ per month is not successful what is? Does any other channel get that?
I was not intending to call ESPN *the* most successful, but the numbers are pretty convincing.



inkahauts said:


> You just can't defend this... It's not about being successful or the profits they are getting. It's about the fact they are overbidding without care.


If a sports network doesn't bid enough they lose content. ESPN and TNT are leaving NASCAR because someone else (Fox and NBC) bid more to carry the races. There is a balance ... but ESPN manages to get enough content to stay in business (although I may not find a need for them after Homestead).

The single team or conference sports channels such as SportsNet LA, Longhorn and SEC may "overbid" for content. SportsNet LA seems to be the worst "overbid". But they wouldn't be a network without the content - and while TWC would be in a better position financially if DISH or DirecTV would pay them $5 per month per subscriber, having the content gives them an exclusive they can use to sell full package subsciptions - similar to DirecTV's use of NFL Sunday Ticket.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> It is easy to attack the most successful companies ... and ironic that we aspire to be successful while attacking those who have obtained the goal we seek.
> 
> Who gets to decide when a company is to successful to continue? While we're pondering rules to cap the profits of TV networks why not look at the services that are pulling in 20%+ in profits while complaining that their prices are going up because ESPN is charging too much. Sure, ESPN has moved from $4 to $6 and is likely to move from $6 to $8 per month over the next few years ... but how much has DirecTV's profits increased?
> 
> ...


The profit of a provider is irrelevant. People compare providers by what they cost, what they have, and people's assessment of them (i.e. the "I hate Comcast" factor) No one chooses their provider by how much profit they make. Should they dump Directv and choose Dish simply because Directv makes a lot of money and Dish makes little? If the prices are roughly equal for a given customer, why should he care if Directv is more profitable? Maybe Directv is better run, or maybe most of that profit comes from customers different than him (i.e. maybe a lot of that profit is from public viewing customers, not residential)

The issue with ESPN isn't for sports fans who value its content. Many people are willing to pay a lot for what they want, far above the cost to make it. Otherwise the "luxury" market would exist. The issue with ESPN is how much that non sports lovers have to pay for TV, and how ESPN and other sports related content (i.e. sports is why TNT was the #2 ranked network by price in that WSJ article) is driving up the cost of TV for them. When cord cutting changes from a trickle to a flood, it will be the greed all the way up and down the sports chain, from players to owners to networks to providers, who are responsible for killing their golden goose.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

And if it was just espn people would care as much. But it's not. There's at least 13 sports channels I pay for right now. And everyone that comes online thinks they should be priced the same as the others even though all they did is steal content from one of the others.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I believe ESPN is only 'successful' in having a large subscriber base because they are forced on everyone. If we had a choice, I see their numbers dropping by close to half. That's not success, that's extortion. Success ala Capone. You gots no choice ya' see?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> The profit of a provider is irrelevant.


It shouldn't be. Everyone who is ticked at ESPN charging $6 for content (price not profit) should get their head straight and pay more attention to the profit their provider is making. Especially when their provider is virtually claiming poverty ... we're not going to pay $5 for the Dodgers ... we're not going to pay the market rate Pac-12 wants ... but we are going to make an average $21 in profit per subscriber while saying we're keeping their bill lower with our tough stance on negotiations.

People are upset that they are paying ESPN $6 for content but not upset that they are giving DirecTV $21 in profit? Perhaps Forbes needs to write an article about where that 20% of the average bill is going.

Think about it this way: If ESPN cut their price to $1 subscribers would save $5 per month. If DirecTV would cut their profits to $1 subscribers would save $20 per month. Yet ESPN is evil?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

ESPN charges $6 per subscriber (or $8 or whatever) to every provider. If you argue that Directv's customers shouldn't be allowed to complain because Directv makes too much money, what about Dish's customers? They're paying a lot for ESPN also, maybe more than Directv does per customer, and making little or no profit. Can their customers be upset at least, or do you have some excuse why they should just shut up and take it?


Once again, my point is that people who don't want to watch sports are paying a ton for ESPN and other sports rights whether they like it or not. They have to pay this "sports tax" whether they subscribe to a profitable provider like Directv or a cable company on the verge of bankruptcy.


Anyway, you don't know where Directv is making this money, so complaining about it is a bit premature. What if most of it comes from commercial customers (if you think Directv charges too much you should see my bill - I pay them five figures a year, easy) What if because of their size, they're able to negotiate lower per subscriber prices for some content? Should they be required to pass that savings on to their subscribers?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

damondlt said:


> No one would be bothered by paying for channels we don't want, if they're was a sence of balance.
> And there is no balance.
> 
> Maybe congress needs to step in , maybe the providers need to gang up on networks.
> Because you may think ESPN is worth $10, but maybe others don't. So what then? So the channels you like cost way more than what I like, Thats fair?


Why should there be balance? Why should every channel cost the same? Is everything you buy the same price? Does bread cost the same as water? Do sodas cost the same as candy? Is your power bill the same as the phone bill?

When you say "balance" I hear "price-fixing"... and that only ends one way, with all the prices going up...



slice1900 said:


> ESPN is singled out because it costs BY FAR the most of any channel that comes as part of the standard packages most people get. The WSJ article shows it as more than 4x as much as the next highest channel (TNT, likely getting that price because of the many basketball games carried on that network)


What difference does that make? If there are 20 other channels that I don't want and they all together cost the same as ESPN... then I would have the same right to demand I don't have to pay for those channels as you would to say you don't want to pay for ESPN. It's the same argument... I'm paying for channels I don't want... and once you strip everything away, prices will go up on every channel for them to makeup the revenue they lose when the tiers go away... and then people will be begging for bundle-discounts again or their favorite channels will go away.

Think you don't like paying $6 for ESPN? Ok... today your favorite channel is only 50 cents... but with ESPN stripped away and your channel now also having to stand on its own... your channel has to raise its rates to $5 to make up the difference.



SayWhat? said:


> I believe ESPN is only 'successful' in having a large subscriber base because they are forced on everyone. If we had a choice, I see their numbers dropping by close to half. That's not success, that's extortion. Success ala Capone. You gots no choice ya' see?


Maybe... but if I had a choice, then I would drop all those other channels I don't watch.... and they are probably channels you like... but their subscribers would drop by more than half too... and those channels couldn't survive without significantly raising their rates.

This will never end anywhere but badly for consumers. Consumers spoke and that's why we are where we are.

The notion that tv is forced on us is a strange one... because if most people didn't feel they were getting value for their paytv bill, most people would cancel their paytv.

You pay $10+ a pop at a movie theater to watch whatever movie you want... you pay for that convenience to only spend on what you want to spend... whereas that same $10 (ok $15 probably) gets you HBO all month and while your choice of new movies might be cut down a little, you have a 24/7 movie offering on multiple channels.

You pay $20+ for one ticket to one sporting event... or you pay $6 for ESPN and get lots of sporting events all month...

And bottom line... the paytv bill is still one of the cheapest ways to get entertainment all month long. Is it too high? Maybe... but compare it to other ways you would enjoy yourself in a similar way... like going to a movie or a concert or a sporting event, and you can pay for your paytv a lot easier.

We are "forced" to pay for channels we don't watch because we wanted it that way. We choose Dish over DirecTV because they have more channels... or switch to DirecTV when Dish loses a channel we like... and we want bundle discounts for buying a lot of channels... I do not want to revert to a one-to-one pick all my channels and pay for each individually option because there's no way that saves me money and likely ends up with less content.

You want ESPN pulled out because you don't watch it, fine... but I want all the channels you like pulled out too because I don't watch them... and then the whole thing implodes and we are left with a couple dozen surviving channels charging as much as we are paying now for hundreds... and not easy for a new niche channel to launch under those conditions.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Maybe... but if I had a choice, then I would drop all those other channels I don't watch.... and they are probably channels you like... but their subscribers would drop by more than half too... and those channels couldn't survive without significantly raising their rates.
> 
> This will never end anywhere but badly for consumers. Consumers spoke and that's why we are where we are.


I think it is going to end badly, but just for consumers, because those who don't want sports are the ones most likely to cut the cord. Sports is responsible the vast majority of the price inflation in people's cable bills, and the more prices go up the more people who will cut the cord. The more non-sports viewers cut the cord, the more prices need to go up to support the contracts and expectations currently in place. It will quickly become a vicious cycle.

The price increases we keep seeing are unsupportable in the long or even medium term, and are going to end badly for a lot of players/owners/colleges/networks that plan their finances around ever-increasing piles of money extracted from cable/satellite subscribers. Look at how the battles between players and owners already look to the average fan, greedy millionaires battling with greedy billionaires, with the increases given to the millionaires paid for by the sports fan, not by the billionaires. To use the latest catch-phrase from political news the "optics" of this look really bad to the average sports fan.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> ESPN charges $6 per subscriber (or $8 or whatever) to every provider. If you argue that Directv's customers shouldn't be allowed to complain because Directv makes too much money, what about Dish's customers?


Every provider (or nearly every provider) makes a profit. I just happen to have figures for DirecTV and DISH. DISH's profits are lower (about $5 per subscriber). I am not saying that DirecTV subscribers or anyone else cannot complain ... it just seems odd that so much focus is put on ESPN for charging what others are making in profit.

My satellite/cable bill would not be as high if I did not have to pay the "ESPN Sports Tax" ... yet we're paying the DirecTV or DISH profits tax and reading complaints about a company less of our money is going to than the provider.



slice1900 said:


> Anyway, you don't know where Directv is making this money, so complaining about it is a bit premature. What if most of it comes from commercial customers (if you think Directv charges too much you should see my bill - I pay them five figures a year, easy) What if because of their size, they're able to negotiate lower per subscriber prices for some content? Should they be required to pass that savings on to their subscribers?


Are you claiming that ESPN is charging more per subscriber than DirecTV is making in profits? I assume you understand that subscriber counts for DirecTV (and DISH) are adjusted to take commercial accounts into account. (In general, the gross revenue for commercial accounts is divided by the average revenue for residential subscriber to create an equivalent number of subscribers which is added to the residential subscriber count to create the reported "subscriber count".) $10,000 per year is roughly 8 subscribers - not one.

The complainers seem to want ESPN, because of their size, to take as little profit as possible or even operate at a loss to lower their subscriber's bills. Why is there a double standard for the providers?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> I think it is going to end badly, but just for consumers, because those who don't want sports are the ones most likely to cut the cord. Sports is responsible the vast majority of the price inflation in people's cable bills, and the more prices go up the more people who will cut the cord. The more non-sports viewers cut the cord, the more prices need to go up to support the contracts and expectations currently in place. It will quickly become a vicious cycle.
> 
> The price increases we keep seeing are unsupportable in the long or even medium term, and are going to end badly for a lot of players/owners/colleges/networks that plan their finances around ever-increasing piles of money extracted from cable/satellite subscribers. Look at how the battles between players and owners already look to the average fan, greedy millionaires battling with greedy billionaires, with the increases given to the millionaires paid for by the sports fan, not by the billionaires. To use the latest catch-phrase from political news the "optics" of this look really bad to the average sports fan.


How are these price increases any more unsupportable than other price increases?

Almost everything has gone up in price over my lifetime... if all price increases are unsupportable, then everything should have collapsed already, no?

Compare the cost of paytv to the cost of similar ways to entertain yourself... Buy a concert ticket, a sporting event ticket, a movie ticket... all these things cost proportionally more expensive than the equivalent content on paytv. Also, at those venues you generally are not allowed to bring your own refreshments, and while there IF you buy a drink or a snack it costs WAY more than you can buy snacks to have in your home.

I hate price increases as much as anyone... but it's hard for me to argue I'm not getting my money's worth out of paytv.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

I remember when I was on AT&T Broadband before Comcast took over, I was able to add channels individually but they were crazy expensive.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

slice1900 said:


> ESPN is singled out because it costs BY FAR the most of any channel that comes as part of the standard packages most people get. The WSJ article shows it as more than 4x as much as the next highest channel (TNT, likely getting that price because of the many basketball games carried on that network)


Just to be specific.... E$PN is the most expensive of the nationally-distributed basic channels, but the Regional $ports Networks (R$Ns) also are quite expensive. What drives me up the wall is that E$PN delivers the ratings, and and a result, Darth Maus (Disney) is able to use it as leverage when it comes to carriage for other channels. It's all in the name of "potential eyeballs".

I am the end viewer. Yet, I find that the content that I want to watch in comparison to the price I pay is so severely out of whack that I want to cancel subscription television. Especially when I find more compelling content on MeTV with shows long cancelled than on subscription TV. (No, I don't subscribe to premium channels because the movies that I would want to watch I own on DVD or BluRay).


----------



## ground_pounder (Aug 15, 2014)

dish is just as bad a cable it seems when it comes to raising rates


----------



## ground_pounder (Aug 15, 2014)

I kept hearing years ago that the FCC was gonna pass a law to where the consumer could pick out the channels that they wanted to pay for and not have to pay for 400 channels of crapola. I wish they would hurry up and make this law if there ever going to. but then again how cost effective would it be for the consumer??


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

ground_pounder said:


> I kept hearing years ago that the FCC was gonna pass a law to where the consumer could pick out the channels that they wanted to pay for and not have to pay for 400 channels of crapola. I wish they would hurry up and make this law if there ever going to. but then again how cost effective would it be for the consumer??


It will not be cost effective. People will pay the same price they pay now and get 10 channels instead of 400 (actually will be more than 10 as the Shopping Channels will still pay the MVPD to put them on, but I digress).


----------



## lee635 (Apr 17, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't know why this keeps coming up and why ESPN keeps being singled out. All the channels cost something... and if you don't like and don't watch the channel then you can consider it wasted money for you. There are a LOT of channels I never watch and if I add the cost of those up I'm sure it is more than the cost of ESPN. We are all paying for channels we don't watch.
> 
> How did it get this way?
> 
> ...


Well, we had cable back in the late 70's and never had an a la carte option. in fact in those days, there was one basic cable package for everyone. When they added HBO, if you didn't want to pay the extra for the HBO, they had to roll a truck to put a little metal thingy on your cable to block that channel. In the 90's we moved to E*, but they didn't offer a la carte when we signed up. The closest thing Dish had was a deal where you could pick 10 channels out of a limited buffet list.

Therefore, I don't think that there has ever been widespread a la carte subscription TV service in the US. Maybe a few niche or boutique services, but no widespread cable tv a la carte, ever.


----------

