# Rate increases coming, could be worse



## ChicagoBlue (Apr 29, 2011)

Comcast had their second price increase in a year announced this weekend to Atlanta and other customers. DISH will be raising prices a good chunk this year considering their earnings were so below the mark this year, margins ate them up.

http://www.ajc.com/news/business/comcasts-cable-rates-rise-for-second-time-this-yea/nR6fN/

DTV certainly will have to raise prices to offset Viacom, local channel increases and all the built in escalator rate increases from the HBO, ESPNs, etc of the world.

Simply a matter of how much.


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

The rates go up every year around February/March.

I expect no different this year.


----------



## lokar (Oct 8, 2006)

I am hopeful that the rates rise to the point where there will be mass defections from all cable/satellite providers and then the rates will fall. It is ridiculous that rates rise far higher than inflation every year and it's all because of no a la carte.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

I see a la carte mentioned a lot as the solution for the costs going up. If it was an option, I don't think it would actually end up being the solution people think it would be.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"lokar" said:


> I am hopeful that the rates rise to the point where there will be mass defections from all cable/satellite providers and then the rates will fall. It is ridiculous that rates rise far higher than inflation every year and it's all because of no a la carte.


Because of no a la carte? Not exactly. Be thankful we don't have a la carte. You'd be paying more for far less.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

*lokar*, you want to blame somebody, blame ESPN. They set their rate high because no service provider can survive being without them. They get their asking price. Every other network then falls in line.


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

Thank god for bitmetv!


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Here is an analysis of the typical cable/satellite customer's bill. For some folks, a quarter of their bill is just for ESPN and ESPN2. Wowsah!


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

HarleyD said:


> The rates go up every year around February/March.
> 
> I expect no different this year.


Indeed.

This year, we have seen:

- Tribute Dispute.
- Viacom Dispute.
- Local LLC dispute.
- NW Broadcasting dispute.
- Several other local disputes.

We are currently experiencing:

- PAC12 dispute. (Or not really a dispute, but still price negotiations).

We will see:

- TWC Sports Net Los Angeles negotiations.
- Discovery Communication contract renewal.
- CBS contract renewal.

And there are probably quite a few negotiations that have been done silently, where they came to terms quickly.

The new station additions mean more money. And the disputes almost always mean more money. I would EXPECT a increase, as much as $5 per package per month.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

lokar said:


> I am hopeful that the rates rise to the point where there will be mass defections from all cable/satellite providers and then the rates will fall. It is ridiculous that rates rise far higher than inflation every year and it's all because of no a la carte.


A la carte will most definitely INCREASE your monthly bill.


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

Instead of following the crowd, it would be nice if a content provider just held the line in what they charge. It seems like they just raise their rates because they can and the customers just accept it. 

Although a-la-carte sounds like a solution, it would raise your costs as Hoosier said above.


----------



## n3vino (Oct 2, 2011)

What happens is that all broadcaster raise their prices. The problem with that is that if any provider let's those channels go, subrscribers will jump ship. We have no one to blame but ourselves.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

Ala Carte is a double edged sword. If you really only want just a few channels, it will probably work out fine for you. If you like a variety though, chances are your bill would go up.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"kevinturcotte" said:


> Ala Carte is a double edged sword. If you really only want just a few channels, it will probably work out fine for you. If you like a variety though, chances are your bill would go up.


Would probably depend on who owned those channels as well. If one was owned by Viacom as an example, it might not work out as well.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Carl Spock said:


> *lokar*, you want to blame somebody, blame ESPN. They set their rate high because no service provider can survive being without them.


ESPN is kind of like HBO used to be before the sum total of their offering was two or three original series. I think people will start learning to survive without ESPN when the average monthly DIRECTV bill tops $100 (I'm predicting the Fall of 2013).

With ESPN having to compete with new NCAA conference nets and new RSNs as well as the other incumbents, they're going to struggle mightily to justify the rates.

Being the "Sports Leader" is going to be an exceedingly costly proposition.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Perhaps Directv could offer some ESPN-less packages at proportionally lower rates (e.g., why is it included in the Entertainment package?)


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

"maartena" said:


> Indeed.
> 
> This year, we have seen:
> 
> ...


CSN-Houston too.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

maartena said:


> A la carte will most definitely INCREASE your monthly bill.


+1


----------



## ChicagoBlue (Apr 29, 2011)

bobnielsen said:


> Perhaps Directv could offer some ESPN-less packages at proportionally lower rates (e.g., why is it included in the Entertainment package?)


Not going to happen. ESPN requires 85% to 90% penetration for the entire subscriber base. They get it because they can. Which means, if DTV offers a package without ESPN and it sells too well, they are in breach of contract. This is across the industry. Fox is the same way, because they can.

This is why you see very few packages in cable, telco, satellite that exclude ESPN. Those packages that do, they are very lightly penetrated.

So your solution, while admirable, is not possible and the industry knows it.


----------



## ChicagoBlue (Apr 29, 2011)

maartena said:


> A la carte will most definitely INCREASE your monthly bill.


It is not even a subject of debate. You would pay a lot more for a lot less. It is happening as we speak in Canada.

There is also political reasons why it won't happen. Think about channels like BET that serves the African American audience. If that was no longer just included in your base package, how many people would buy it? 15% of the population? 20%? Let's be generous and say 30%. No way they could survive that way, they would go belly up. Now, tell a politician that and watch the sparks fly. Now gov't starts to pick winners and losers again (which they do all so well :nono2: ) and will demand some channels are still carried for political reasons while others have to survive via the market and a la carte. It is a disaster in the making.

Far less options, higher prices = pure a la carte model. It has been studied many times. Will not work.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

So few channels are worth a spit… I say save bandwidth and let 80% of the crap just go away.

As more and more people pull the plug and go online with streaming we get closer and closer to A la carte by way of Net Flix, Hulu, Apple TV etc. Sure the cost will shift to pay for Internet service but I think we’ll still be ahead.

I do believe A la carte is the future – just not through the typical means… Especially not with DirecTV. I personally don’t see much of future for the current model. At the current rate of increases the average bill will be $200 and there will be even more channels that few people watch but are forced to pay for.

I can buy a lot of programming from Amazon, Hulu, NetFlix etc for $200 a month.

I hope DirecTV is preparing for the likely defection of customers who don’t put such high value on crap programming….


----------



## MattScahum (Oct 27, 2010)

Its not just programming costs though. People want their equipment to do more and more but expect their bill to stay the same. Never gonna happen. Also providers holding strong on rate increases isn't going to happen, see dtv vs viacom amd dish vs amc


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Television viewing remains stronger than ever. 97% of American HH's watch television. They may be augmenting with other services, but TV is still the king. Americans are watching over 35 hours of television per week, some demographics over 50 hours per week. Many more are watching on a 2nd device, but still getting that service from a television operator.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> So few channels are worth a spit&#8230; I say save bandwidth and let 80% of the crap just go away.
> 
> As more and more people pull the plug and go online with streaming we get closer and closer to A la carte by way of Net Flix, Hulu, Apple TV etc. Sure the cost will shift to pay for Internet service but I think we'll still be ahead.
> 
> ...


It will just shift the pricing over there, then. The content rights owners get most of their money from the distributors. If people shift to Netflix, Hulu, etc, then you can bet your bottom dollar (pun intended) that the providers will demand huge sums of money from Netflix, Hulu, etc. They have to get their money to pay for things like NFL Monday Night football rights, production of HBO series, production of FOX, CBS, ABC series, etc, etc. Huge amounts of money for development costs, sports rights fees, etc. At the end of the day, that has to be paid for one way or another.


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

lokar said:


> I am hopeful that the rates rise to the point where there will be mass defections from all cable/satellite providers and then the rates will fall. It is ridiculous that rates rise far higher than inflation every year and it's all because of no a la carte.


Especially when THE QUALITY OF PROGRAMMING doesnt get any better!


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

Dude111 said:


> Especially when THE QUALITY OF PROGRAMMING doesnt get any better!


Exactly! And it's all "Reality" tv now. I thought "Reality' tv was supposed to be cheaper to produce than scripted shows? Show production cost and quality goes down, price to watch it go up-Problem lol


----------



## thomas_d92 (Nov 29, 2004)

I just bought a Tivo Premiere XL for $315 with lifetime service and when my contract is up I am cancelling DTV. I find too many of the channels are showing reality junk instead of the programing they use to have. Some times I go thru the guide twice to see if I could find a show to watch. The channels are becoming almost the same instead of different. The price goes up and the value goes down. The Tivo is so much better then my HR20-200. It is super fast changing channels ,the ota brings in all sub channels that the HR20 cannot get. The recordings never breaks up like the HR20. Every five minutes the picture on the HR20 breaks up when watching a recording. There are no audio drop outs with the Tivo compared to the HR20. The HR20 is a piece of junk compared to the Tivo. I am not going to keep paying $90 a month to watch reality junk.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Why are you even waiting until your contract is up, thomas_d92? 

Whatever time you have remaining on your contract, paying $20 a month to get out of your contract has got to be less than spending $90 a month on DirecTV.

If you are this unhappy with both the hardware and the programming, why don't you leave right now?

I would.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Satelliteracer said:


> It will just shift the pricing over there, then. The content rights owners get most of their money from the distributors. If people shift to Netflix, Hulu, etc, then you can bet your bottom dollar (pun intended) that the providers will demand huge sums of money from Netflix, Hulu, etc. They have to get their money to pay for things like NFL Monday Night football rights, production of HBO series, production of FOX, CBS, ABC series, etc, etc. Huge amounts of money for development costs, sports rights fees, etc. At the end of the day, that has to be paid for one way or another.


I'd gladly pay Showtime $20 a month and stop paying DirecTV the $14 a month I pay if they'd just steam it directly to me and skip DirecTV in the middle. I don't need to pay for ABC, CBS, NBC or FOX programming - I have an antenna. I'd also pay more directly to the content creators for channels like History Channel, Comedy Channel, AMC and a few others&#8230; All at the cost of worthless channels like fake music channels like MTV and VH1. When was the last time you saw something related to music on MTV anyway?

Live sporting events are DirecTV's only hope if you ask me&#8230; But I can't even get PAC12 network from them (sadly I need Comcast or Dish Network for that!). Maybe an online pay-per-view kind of thing would work.

I already pay for the Internet infrastructure why should I pay DirecTV to duplicate what could be done on the Internet?

Let's face it - pay-tv costs are out of control and the pay-tv industry is in serious trouble if it doesn't change.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

maartena said:


> A la carte will most definitely INCREASE your monthly bill.


Maybe, maybe not. I would go with locals and probably no more than 6 or 8 cable channels.

The sky wouldn't fall. Take a look north of the border in Canada and how their packages works, works quite well. Have an old buddy who moved there recently, told he how surprised he was that the TV was so cheap...


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Most of the channels you claim as a favorite would very likely cease to exist and you'd be paying a lot more for that pleasure. Sub dollars from retrans agreements dry up and then advertisement dollars dry up. It doesn't work. It never has.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> I'd gladly pay Showtime $20 a month and stop paying DirecTV the $14 a month I pay if they'd just steam it directly to me and skip DirecTV in the middle. I don't need to pay for ABC, CBS, NBC or FOX programming - I have an antenna. I'd also pay more directly to the content creators for channels like History Channel, Comedy Channel, AMC and a few others&#8230; All at the cost of worthless channels like fake music channels like MTV and VH1. When was the last time you saw something related to music on MTV anyway?
> 
> Live sporting events are DirecTV's only hope if you ask me&#8230; But I can't even get PAC12 network from them (sadly I need Comcast or Dish Network for that!). Maybe an online pay-per-view kind of thing would work.
> 
> ...


In theory, sounds great. The reality is much different. The internet can't deliver four simultaneous HD streams to a house let alone the entire neighborhood, etc. Not yet, it will be quite while before that happens and a VERY long time when it happens in rural America. The speed isn't there right now for that much disparity.

You mention AMC, and other channels like that. Remember that right now you may be paying a small amount for those channels as part of your overall bill, but now look at their ratings and parse them out over those costs. In other words, to keep those channels on an a la carte basis rather than bundled today, a customer would be paying 5 to 20 times what they pay today on a per channel basis. Now, that may lower your overall bill, but you'll be paying far more on a per channel basis for far fewer options. That's exactly what is happening in Canada right now.

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/07/20/canadian-tv-viewers-to-have-more-choice-but-at-a-cost/

When AMC and those others don't get that support from subscribers, they can't sustain and they go away.

I like choice, I like the fact I pay about $3 per day for 200+ channels 24/7/365 that gives me entertainment, news, sports, drama, etc. My Starbucks fix gives me joy for 10 minutes and costs more. I pay more than that for my wireless service. It all comes down to what people want, but at $3 a day considering what you get...there is tremendous value.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Satelliteracer said:


> In theory, sounds great. The reality is much different. The internet can't deliver four simultaneous HD streams to a house let alone the entire neighborhood, etc. Not yet, it will be quite while before that happens and a VERY long time when it happens in rural America. The speed isn't there right now for that much disparity.
> 
> You mention AMC, and other channels like that. Remember that right now you may be paying a small amount for those channels as part of your overall bill, but now look at their ratings and parse them out over those costs. In other words, to keep those channels on an a la carte basis rather than bundled today, a customer would be paying 5 to 20 times what they pay today on a per channel basis. Now, that may lower your overall bill, but you'll be paying far more on a per channel basis for far fewer options. That's exactly what is happening in Canada right now.
> 
> ...


I agree that right now the Internet can't just replace the old model but it sure seems headed that way and they more the cost goes up the quicker I think it will happen. It could for me - at least come pretty darn close to replacing DirecTV!

Truth is, in my selfish world, I don't need 4 simultaneous streams and the only live TV I need is some basic sports... Even those sports could be streamed (and are if you're a Comcast subscriber).

I'd be happy to pay 5 to 20 times for the channels I want and considering the few channels I want I'll still come out way ahead. If the channels I want can't convince enough people to watch and to stay in business then so be it. Showtime and HBO don't seem to have any trouble staying in business and they have some of the best programming available. Aren't Showtime and HBO 'a la carte' today and since the beginning?

I'm all for choice and channel selection but I'll have to disagree on the 'tremendous value'. I, and I think many others, watch very few of the 200+ channels but we all have to pay for them.

Remember this is TV not healthcare or Police protection. TV isn't all that important and as the cost continues to explode many people are just going to say 'screw it'.


----------



## ronsanjim (Mar 19, 2008)

In an effort to curb my TV expenses, I signed up with the local cable, they have really upgraded their system, very much improved over the previous provider. I still retained Direct as I have 10 months left.

Just wanted to compare the two, and both were pretty even. This cable service lasted 7 days, before I had to cancel cable.

Just one mistake after another with their call center. Their General Manager had to step in and get things corrected. But the call center's last mistake was the deal killer, and I just cancelled.

Directv looks mighty impressive now.... I really don't mind paying $5 more in the coming (2013) rate hike.


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

WebTraveler said:


> Maybe, maybe not. I would go with locals and probably no more than 6 or 8 cable channels.
> 
> The sky wouldn't fall. Take a look north of the border in Canada and how their packages works, works quite well. Have an old buddy who moved there recently, told he how surprised he was that the TV was so cheap...


Yeah, T.V. is cheap in Canada, if you take a few of the bundles, but they seem to mix the bundles up, so you can't get everything you want in one or two. Add to that, almost all of the local channels are playing the same thing at the same time, except the time shift option. There is not near as much HD programming, as well. However, they do have east and west U.S. locals, in HD, from Detroit and Seattle. Is it an option, as opposed to Directv? Fewer choices and God awful simsubbing of U.S. programming makes it sometimes unwatchable.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> I agree that right now the Internet can't just replace the old model but it sure seems headed that way and they more the cost goes up the quicker I think it will happen. It could for me - at least come pretty darn close to replacing DirecTV!
> 
> Truth is, in my selfish world, I don't need 4 simultaneous streams and the only live TV I need is some basic sports... Even those sports could be streamed (and are if you're a Comcast subscriber).
> 
> ...


Curios, what channels would you be willing to pay for? I am curios about the number of them? If its more than 10, and one is ESPN, then you'd probably pay as much or more for those 10 than you do today for all the channels you get.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

I think that in the long term ESPN has a problem. Every team, league, conference and association want a bigger piece of the broadcasting revenue pie. As a result, they are starting their own channels. Over the next few years less and less event coverage will available to ESPN, and they will have to pay more and more for what they do get.

This is unsustainable. Sooner or later the money spent for events, like the baseball World Series, will start to take away from the money available for original programming, like Sportscenter. Their original programming, no matter how popular, can not sustain a network when the actual events are seen elsewhere. Of course, as these team/league/conference owned channels make more money, their original programming will also improve.

This is exactly what has happened to the broadcast networks and scripted dramatic series (and the corresponding proliferation of cheap "reality" programming).

Right now there is a power imbalance between the provider, the packager, the distributor, the advertiser and the viewer, with the packager (ESPN) holding a disproportionate amount of power. Eventually, the market will correct itself.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Sooner or later all sports will have to be in its own premium package, like HBO and Showtime.


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

The cable-television model doesn't serve well those who have to really budget and find the subscription costs out of line with their personal, economic posiition. So, when they say, "Let's do a la carte!" I cannot blame them for feeling this way. It's to say, "Screw them! They've done it to themselves. I'm more interested in my, and my family's, survival." Sounds dramatic; but it's real enough.

I don't side with a la carte. Economically, it would be worse. But I do think the amount of individual channels became so out of hand over the last 10 years-plus. I'm referring to the primary progammers' offspring channels and the multiscreens. The expansion has been so rapid, it justified the likewise rapid programming costs.

I recommended DirecTV to a relative of mine who resides in a separate state. This was in December 2004. She signed up and has been a subscriber since January 2005. At that time, the basic-cable package (before HD came in), with the plus, had cost around the mid-$40s. It now costs 50 percent more. (Anyone who can correct me on the numbers is welcomed to do so. And, undoubtedly, will.) It was not a mistake; given DirecTV had more individual channels than her cable-ready system provided for the same cost [in late-2004].

_For those who find cable-television subscription no longer affordable: Who deserves credit for this?_ 
Blame the model for that provides us with cable-television programming services. That would be the _entire_ system.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Titan25 said:


> I think that in the long term ESPN has a problem. Every team, league, conference and association want a bigger piece of the broadcasting revenue pie. As a result, they are starting their own channels. Over the next few years less and less event coverage will available to ESPN, and they will have to pay more and more for what they do get.
> 
> This is unsustainable. Sooner or later the money spent for events, like the baseball World Series, will start to take away from the money available for original programming, like Sportscenter. Their original programming, no matter how popular, can not sustain a network when the actual events are seen elsewhere. Of course, as these team/league/conference owned channels make more money, their original programming will also improve.
> 
> ...





TheRatPatrol said:


> Sooner or later all sports will have to be in its own premium package, like HBO and Showtime.


Titan25 and TheRatPatrol, what two insightful ways to start off my day! I'm going to have a couple of cups of coffee to think about what you wrote but you two seem so right on.

My only initial question is what remains on either the traditional broadcast networks or a general sports channel like ESPN? If the PGA is selling a golf package through the Golf Channel, will The Masters still be on CBS? If the Pac12, ACC, Big 10 and SEC all have their own cable/satellite channels, for which I pay a premium, does ESPN still show the Duke/Michigan St. basketball game? If the two teams are #1 and #2 in the polls, where would I find the Alabama/LSU football game? On the SEC Network or on ABC?


----------



## lokar (Oct 8, 2006)

Carl Spock said:


> *lokar*, you want to blame somebody, blame ESPN. They set their rate high because no service provider can survive being without them. They get their asking price. Every other network then falls in line.


I do blame ESPN. If the world was a la carte, ESPN could not get away with what they get away with now. I think ESPN's highest ever recorded rating was somewhere around a 10.0, meaning that 90% of people probably don't care about ESPN yet are paying a high price for it every month.



Mike Greer said:


> Truth is, in my selfish world, I don't need 4 simultaneous streams and the only live TV I need is some basic sports... Even those sports could be streamed (and are if you're a Comcast subscriber).
> 
> I'd be happy to pay 5 to 20 times for the channels I want and considering the few channels I want I'll still come out way ahead. If the channels I want can't convince enough people to watch and to stay in business then so be it. Showtime and HBO don't seem to have any trouble staying in business and they have some of the best programming available. Aren't Showtime and HBO 'a la carte' today and since the beginning?
> 
> I'm all for choice and channel selection but I'll have to disagree on the 'tremendous value'. I, and I think many others, watch very few of the 200+ channels but we all have to pay for them.


I completely agree with all of this. Add in the fact that channels like A&E, History, Bravo, etc. have abandoned their original missions and gone to reality TV crap which makes the choice of which channels I would keep even easier. I would like a package that would give me the following: NBCSN, BEIN Sports, USA, Sci-Fi, Cartoon Network, NHL Network, BBC America, TNT, Discovery Science and my locals in HD. I occasionally watch ESPN but could live without it just fine. If the above came to $50-$60 a month with a la carte I would be surprised but would be OK with it.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Carl Spock said:


> My only initial question is what remains on either the traditional broadcast networks or a general sports channel like ESPN? If the PGA is selling a golf package through the Golf Channel, will The Masters still be on CBS? If the Pac12, ACC, Big 10 and SEC all have their own cable/satellite channels, for which I pay a premium, does ESPN still show the Duke/Michigan St. basketball game? If the two teams are #1 and #2 in the polls, where would I find the Alabama/LSU football game? On the SEC Network or on ABC?


Exactly the issue. Right now, the only thing ESPN can deliver to, say, the Yankees that they can't get via their own YES channel is a national audience. So, for a "big" game (like a late season game between teams in a division title race) they turn to ESPN. But that could easily change. There was a time when MLB Extra Innings was available only on DirecTV. Now most viewers have at least 2 options, some have 3. Soon, Extra Innings and every other sports package (with the possible exception of Sunday Ticket) will be as available to viewers as CBS or HBO. How long do you think any sports league or college association will watch ESPN collect $4 or $5 or more per household without thinking they should be getting $2 or $3 themselves. After all, without the athletes, what does ESPN have to sell? If ESPN won't pay it, they'll eliminate the "middleman" and sell it themselves.

I can't predict how long it will take, but eventually Rat Patrol is 100% correct - every sports event will be on a premium subscription channel. It won't happen overnight, and that is ESPN's downfall. Gradually their content will erode, and their value will decline. Then they will have a huge overhead with diminishing revenue.

Long term, sports will look like the current landscape of entertainment programming. Dozens of channels, each of which have 1 or 2 or 3 good shows (or, in a sports context, events) all fighting for enough subscriber and advertising revenue to survive. It's not pretty, but I think it is inevitable.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

lokar said:


> ..I would like a package that would give me the following: NBCSN, BEIN Sports, USA, Sci-Fi, Cartoon Network, NHL Network, BBC America, TNT, Discovery Science and my locals in HD. I occasionally watch ESPN but could live without it just fine. If the above came to $50-$60 a month with a la carte I would be surprised but would be OK with it.


You would be surprised. Take SyFy...

SyFy collects an average of $0.21 per subscriber (slightly higher than the industry average of 20 cents), and is currently available in 98 million homes. That's roughly $20 million dollars per month. Meanwhile, SyFy gets about 1.2 million viewers. To break even, if offered a la carte, and purchased only by people that watch it, they would need to collect over $16 per month.

If we use that value as an average, your "package" of 9 cable channels and 4 locals would cost you well over $200 per month.


----------



## tomski35 (Sep 7, 2007)

What I don't understand is how the cable companies and satellite providers ended up paying the broadcasters for content. The cable channels had no way to get their content out without the providers. Viacomm, et al should be paying DTV, Cablevsion, TWC, etc to get access to their households. Let them make their money off the commercial air time they sell. Lord knows the two political parties and their PACs are spending enough.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

Titan25 said:


> You would be surprised. Take SyFy...
> 
> SyFy collects an average of $0.21 per subscriber (slightly higher than the industry average of 20 cents), and is currently available in 98 million homes. That's roughly $20 million dollars per month. Meanwhile, SyFy gets about 1.2 million viewers. To break even, if offered a la carte, and purchased only by people that watch it, they would need to collect over $8 per month.
> 
> If we use that value as an average, your "package" of 9 cable channels and 4 locals would cost you $107 per month.


To generate $20m from 1.2m subs would require $16.67/month. Or am I missing part of the math?


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

tomski35 said:


> What I don't understand is how the cable companies and satellite providers ended up paying the broadcasters for content. The cable channels had no way to get their content out without the providers. Viacomm, et al should be paying DTV, Cablevsion, TWC, etc to get access to their households. Let them make their money off the commercial air time they sell. Lord knows the two political parties and their PACs are spending enough.


It is all just a supply chain. The content providers (producers for entertainment, teams, leagues, associations, etc. for sports) are the manufacturers. They make the content we want to see. The broadcasters (both OTA and cable) front the money for the manufacturing process. They then collect all of the resulting product and bundle it for distribution. The cable and satellite operators deliver it to the retail consumer.

In the days before cable, advertisers paid the broadcasters to insert their advertising inside the "desirable" content and the broadcasters delivered it all to the viewers. Cable just added another layer to the supply chain...they and the satellite companies invested the money to build broadband distribution systems that could deliver many more channel choices than OTA broadcasting. To make money, they needed content the viewers could not get elsewhere.

At first, it was exactly as you describe - the viewer paid for the service of multichannel delivery and cable operators simply rebroadcast the channels. Very quickly, however, the broadcasters realized that they had a valuable commodity and, in the free enterprise spirit, demanded to be paid for it. Once viewers had more than one option (i.e. once satellite starting competing with cable) no one could afford to not carry certain channels for fear of viewers switching providers.

So, originally, power was balanced between the broadcasters and the producers. Producers shopped their shows around for the best deal, and broadcasters competed to provide the most desirable (most watched) content, so as to earn the highest ad rates. The multi-channel operators (MCO) unbalanced this equation. They now faced the viewer and the broadcaster became a sort of middleman. They could now get paid directly from both sides...from the advertiser on the front end and the MCO on the back end. They are simply exploiting the market.

The real point is that without the MCOs, we would all still be watching a handful of OTA channels. The 200 plus channel world we live in is a direct result of the same circumstances that allows ESPN to get $4 per subscriber per month. You couldn't have one without the other.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

mreposter said:


> To generate $20m from 1.2m subs would require $16.67/month. Or am I missing part of the math?


Oops...you are correct. That's what happens when I do division in my head.

Corrected my earlier post.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

tomski35 said:


> What I don't understand is how the cable companies and satellite providers ended up paying the broadcasters for content. The cable channels had no way to get their content out without the providers. Viacomm, et al should be paying DTV, Cablevsion, TWC, etc to get access to their households. Let them make their money off the commercial air time they sell. Lord knows the two political parties and their PACs are spending enough.


so 20 minutes of show and 40 minutes of paying commercials?


----------



## celticpride (Sep 6, 2006)

I would also agree with ratpatrol ,but that will never happen because disney wouldnt allow it. they would say if you want ESPN then you also have to pay for the disney channels and ABC networkl!I wish they would allow us to pay for up to 3 out of market channels,Although in my case i would only want comcast sportsnet new england.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"lokar" said:


> I do blame ESPN. If the world was a la carte, ESPN could not get away with what they get away with now. I think ESPN's highest ever recorded rating was somewhere around a 10.0, meaning that 90% of people probably don't care about ESPN yet are paying a high price for it every month.
> 
> I completely agree with all of this. Add in the fact that channels like A&E, History, Bravo, etc. have abandoned their original missions and gone to reality TV crap which makes the choice of which channels I would keep even easier. I would like a package that would give me the following: NBCSN, BEIN Sports, USA, Sci-Fi, Cartoon Network, NHL Network, BBC America, TNT, Discovery Science and my locals in HD. I occasionally watch ESPN but could live without it just fine. If the above came to $50-$60 a month with a la carte I would be surprised but would be OK with it.


You have to be careful with espn when you look at numbers. ,they likely have more unique viewers in a day than any other station. Why? They probably have x million for each different game, but it's highly possible that not to many of those people are the same from one sport to the next, possibly even for the same sport but different teams. You are more Likely to have the same groups of people at least in some large % watching the different show on other networks like USA. So while others may have higher ratings, I doubt that many others have more unique viewers overall, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if more different people watch espn over the course of a month as a % to the channels total viewers for any one game, than any other channel for any one show. I'm sure the numbers are out there, but I'm not going to look for them. But it makes some sense, as many people only watch certain sports and certain teams.


----------



## lokar (Oct 8, 2006)

Titan25 said:


> You would be surprised. Take SyFy...
> 
> SyFy collects an average of $0.21 per subscriber (slightly higher than the industry average of 20 cents), and is currently available in 98 million homes. That's roughly $20 million dollars per month. Meanwhile, SyFy gets about 1.2 million viewers. To break even, if offered a la carte, and purchased only by people that watch it, they would need to collect over $16 per month.
> 
> If we use that value as an average, your "package" of 9 cable channels and 4 locals would cost you well over $200 per month.


Interesting numbers but I think you should say "maintain their current subscriber income" instead of "break even" since we don't know what their profits are and they are getting money from commercials as well. If they have to lower their price to remain competitive and maybe produce a few less Sharktopus movies per year to stay within their budget, I am OK with that.

HBO shows that you can be a la carte and successful. All I know is a world where sports networks pay escalating sums of money for rights fees that they expect MSOs to then take out of everyone's pockets is eventually doomed to failure. I heard on the news that the number of cable/satellite subscribers continues to drop and while the percentage is still high, I am sure it will continue to drop as rates keep increasing. I think D* is realizing this too as they are becoming slow to add new sports nets like the Pac-12 and the new TWC Lakers channel. Sports at least need to be a la carted immediately and I say this as a sports fan. If ESPN is going to charge HBO like subscriber fees, then they need to be a la carted the same way.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

maybe not full la carte but at the very lest we can move sports to a HBO like add on pack.

Sports is a big part of the costs and maybe my makeing that a add on you can pick people who are willing to pay for TV but not all the big sports channels that they do not want to have.

Also maybe even have some sports only packs + TBS / TNT and the CNBC / MSNBC / FX / trutv / WGN / other main channels that some time show big sports events on them.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

JoeTheDragon said:


> maybe not full la carte but at the very lest we can move sports to a HBO like add on pack.
> 
> Sports is a big part of the costs and maybe my makeing that a add on you can pick people who are willing to pay for TV but not all the big sports channels that they do not want to have.
> 
> .


Easy to say, very difficult to do.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"lokar" said:


> Interesting numbers but I think you should say "maintain their current subscriber income" instead of "break even" since we don't know what their profits are and they are getting money from commercials as well. If they have to lower their price to remain competitive and maybe produce a few less Sharktopus movies per year to stay within their budget, I am OK with that.


Actually, they do get money from commercials, so with fewer eyeballs per month, their income there diminishes as well. They can charge more per eyeball as they are self-choosing customers but if their potential audience drops to a fraction, so does their ad revenue. And don't expect the ratings to mean much. If I watch one show on TVLand because I already get it, unless it is my favorite show, I would not pay a whole month for that one show. Viewership would drop.

As for income versus break even. Unless a third party who viewers pay (like now, which does what we have now with the added expense of tracking, billing, ordering, troubleshooting a more complex system) does the distribution, the channels costs go UP because they have to provide the delivery mechanism themselves or via a third party. So, saying break even makes the price go even higher.

Only the most popular and must have channels work a la carte.

You use HBO. What is the price of HBO? Use it for your model. It is not the pennies you pay for channels like the Viacom channels.

There is not a scenario that a la carte is cheaper on a per unit basis. It would only work for the very select few that really don't watch much tv.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

JoeTheDragon said:


> maybe not full la carte but at the very lest we can move sports to a HBO like add on pack.
> 
> Sports is a big part of the costs and maybe my makeing that a add on you can pick people who are willing to pay for TV but not all the big sports channels that they do not want to have.


That's exactly what Directv is trying to do

http://www.insidesocal.com/tomhoffarth/archives/2012/09/going-forward-d.html

Of course, that brings out a number of customers that don't care about the cost and want it no matter what. Puts Directv and every other distributor in a tough spot.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Sooner or later all sports will have to be in its own premium package, like HBO and Showtime.


We will agree to disagree on this. The sports channels are a product of many things, including huge salaries for players, etc. They need eyeballs for ad revenue and subscribers to drive ratings for that ad revenue. On the flip side, they also need high subscription fees to pay for the rights fees that pay for the salaries, etc.

Many distributors right now are trying to put Pac 12 into a "premium" package, or a sports tier, same with Longhorn Network, etc. You see what happens as a result. No matter what, someone isn't going to be happy. The sports fan that feels all sports should be included and costs be damned, or the non sports fan that could not care less about sports and has to bear huge portion of their monthly bill to support the very sports they do not want. Where's the middle ground?


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Satelliteracer said:


> We will agree to disagree on this. The sports channels are a product of many things, including huge salaries for players, etc. They need eyeballs for ad revenue and subscribers to drive ratings for that ad revenue. On the flip side, they also need high subscription fees to pay for the rights fees that pay for the salaries, etc.
> 
> Many distributors right now are trying to put Pac 12 into a "premium" package, or a sports tier, same with Longhorn Network, etc. You see what happens as a result. No matter what, someone isn't going to be happy. The sports fan that feels all sports should be included and costs be damned, or the non sports fan that could not care less about sports and has to bear huge portion of their monthly bill to support the very sports they do not want. Where's the middle ground?


But what if all providers stood up to these high priced sports channels and said enough is enough, sports needs its own package, wouldn't that help the cause? Movie stars have high salaries too, yet movie channels can be put together in their own package.

The true sports fans are willing to pay to get their sports. I know I would pay more to get the Pac 12 Network, as well as many others on here.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

JoeTheDragon said:


> maybe not full la carte but at the very lest we can move sports to a HBO like add on pack.





Satelliteracer said:


> That's exactly what Directv is trying to do





TheRatPatrol said:


> Sooner or later all sports will have to be in its own premium package, like HBO and Showtime.





Satelliteracer said:


> We will agree to disagree on this.


Wait a minute, *SR*. Maybe I need a third cup of coffee but aren't you arguing for two completely contradictory positions? What is it? Should sports channels like the PAC 12 be a separate tiered package? That's what the article you linked to seems to say DirecTV's position is. Or are they part of the base package? You seem to be telling *TheRatPatrol* that must be the case.

Please tell me what I'm missing here.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Satelliteracer said:


> We will agree to disagree on this. The sports channels are a product of many things, including huge salaries for players, etc. They need eyeballs for ad revenue and subscribers to drive ratings for that ad revenue. On the flip side, they also need high subscription fees to pay for the rights fees that pay for the salaries, etc.
> 
> Many distributors right now are trying to put Pac 12 into a "premium" package, or a sports tier, same with Longhorn Network, etc. You see what happens as a result. No matter what, someone isn't going to be happy. The sports fan that feels all sports should be included and costs be damned, or the non sports fan that could not care less about sports and has to bear huge portion of their monthly bill to support the very sports they do not want. Where's the middle ground?


well it's sports pack out of market on the distributors.

Big ten on Directv is only RSN like sports channel that is not in a sports pack on a wide base.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Also there have been hints of a "NEW" sports pack / tear dating back to when VS was taken down.

Now maybe we need a choice ultimate with sports channels and not Movie channel and encore.


----------



## kick4fun (Aug 9, 2006)

TheRatPatrol said:


> But what if all providers stood up to these high priced sports channels and said enough is enough, sports needs its own package, wouldn't that help the cause? Movie stars have high salaries too, yet movie channels can be put together in their own package.
> 
> The true sports fans are willing to pay to get their sports. I know I would pay more to get the Pac 12 Network, as well as many others on here.


I nominate you the President!


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

Not gonna happen. The first provider to drop ESPN will be committing suicide. Sports drives the TV bus.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Mike Greer said:


> So few channels are worth a spit&#8230; I say save bandwidth and let 80% of the crap just go away.
> 
> As more and more people pull the plug and go online with streaming we get closer and closer to A la carte by way of Net Flix, Hulu, Apple TV etc. Sure the cost will shift to pay for Internet service but I think we'll still be ahead.
> 
> ...


I think this is a pretty narrow minded view. One reason I choose DirecTV is that I want a provider that covers all of my needs. DirecTV is the only option that does that. I have a DVR that records 5 shows at once (cant get anywhere else) I have NFL Sunday Ticket (cant get anywhere else) I get all the channels I want, etc. Why would I want to go to the internet and sign up for multiple services to watch the shows? Why would I want to get rid of my DVR that is more convenient for me then watching stuff on the internet? While I agree the internet is an option it is not for everyone. I for one will NOT be leaving DirecTV anytime soon.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

thomas_d92 said:


> I just bought a Tivo Premiere XL for $315 with lifetime service and when my contract is up I am cancelling DTV. I find too many of the channels are showing reality junk instead of the programing they use to have. Some times I go thru the guide twice to see if I could find a show to watch. The channels are becoming almost the same instead of different. The price goes up and the value goes down. The Tivo is so much better then my HR20-200. It is super fast changing channels ,the ota brings in all sub channels that the HR20 cannot get. The recordings never breaks up like the HR20. Every five minutes the picture on the HR20 breaks up when watching a recording. There are no audio drop outs with the Tivo compared to the HR20. The HR20 is a piece of junk compared to the Tivo. I am not going to keep paying $90 a month to watch reality junk.


Okay so you are comparing a newer TiVo product to DirecTV's oldest HD DVR? That is like comparing the HR34 to the TiVo 10-250. Its just not fair or right. If you had a HR24 and were saying the same things then I might say okay I see where you are coming from. With that old of a HD DVR the box itself might be part of your issues or you could need new cabling. Good luck with your decision. I for one think its an uneducated decision but I do hope it pays off for you.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Mike Greer said:


> I'd gladly pay Showtime $20 a month and stop paying DirecTV the $14 a month I pay if they'd just steam it directly to me and skip DirecTV in the middle. I don't need to pay for ABC, CBS, NBC or FOX programming - I have an antenna. I'd also pay more directly to the content creators for channels like History Channel, Comedy Channel, AMC and a few others&#8230; All at the cost of worthless channels like fake music channels like MTV and VH1. When was the last time you saw something related to music on MTV anyway?
> 
> Live sporting events are DirecTV's only hope if you ask me&#8230; But I can't even get PAC12 network from them (sadly I need Comcast or Dish Network for that!). Maybe an online pay-per-view kind of thing would work.
> 
> ...


Thats great, so far if I understand you correctly you will probably have a Netflix account that isnt free, a Hulu account that isnt free, may want some kind of a DVR setup that wont be free at least up front and your talking sports PPV's online. Good luck with that. I will stick with the company that already has all that together and removes the headache from me.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Satelliteracer said:


> In theory, sounds great. The reality is much different. The internet can't deliver four simultaneous HD streams to a house let alone the entire neighborhood, etc. Not yet, it will be quite while before that happens and a VERY long time when it happens in rural America. The speed isn't there right now for that much disparity.
> 
> You mention AMC, and other channels like that. Remember that right now you may be paying a small amount for those channels as part of your overall bill, but now look at their ratings and parse them out over those costs. In other words, to keep those channels on an a la carte basis rather than bundled today, a customer would be paying 5 to 20 times what they pay today on a per channel basis. *Now, that may lower your overall bill, but you'll be paying far more on a per channel basis for far fewer options. * That's exactly what is happening in Canada right now.
> 
> ...


Not to mention how is a new channel ever gonna launch? Hope they can afford for free for a year and that people decide they want to sub.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Mike Greer said:


> I agree that right now the Internet can't just replace the old model but it sure seems headed that way and they more the cost goes up the quicker I think it will happen. It could for me - at least come pretty darn close to replacing DirecTV!
> 
> Truth is, in my selfish world, I don't need 4 simultaneous streams and the only live TV I need is some basic sports... Even those sports could be streamed (and are if you're a Comcast subscriber).
> 
> ...


So a few channels are able to get away with it and you think its practical for all channels to do this? I think not.


----------



## lokar (Oct 8, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> You use HBO. What is the price of HBO? Use it for your model. It is not the pennies you pay for channels like the Viacom channels.
> 
> There is not a scenario that a la carte is cheaper on a per unit basis. It would only work for the very select few that really don't watch much tv.


My point in bringing up HBO is that they are successful and from what I have seen in charts on here only charge $1 or so a month more than ESPN per subscriber to MSOs, yet HBO is its own tier and ESPN is forced on everyone. I fully admit that a lot of smaller channels would probably go out of business under a la carte, but I think there are way too many channels anyway and most all of them have gone to reality crap so it is no big loss. I think a 200 channel world sounds good in theory but has turned out a lot of quantity with little quality in practice.

I would also like to see DirecTV or some MSO start signing contracts so that if a channel changes its focus i.e. History showing Pawn Stars 24 hours a day that that channel would be in breach of its contract and could be removed immediately.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

lokar said:


> Interesting numbers but I think you should say "maintain their current subscriber income" instead of "break even" since we don't know what their profits are and they are getting money from commercials as well. If they have to lower their price to remain competitive and maybe produce a few less Sharktopus movies per year to stay within their budget, I am OK with that.
> 
> HBO shows that you can be a la carte and successful. All I know is a world where sports networks pay escalating sums of money for rights fees that they expect MSOs to then take out of everyone's pockets is eventually doomed to failure. I heard on the news that the number of cable/satellite subscribers continues to drop and while the percentage is still high, I am sure it will continue to drop as rates keep increasing. I think D* is realizing this too as they are becoming slow to add new sports nets like the Pac-12 and the new TWC Lakers channel. Sports at least need to be a la carted immediately and I say this as a sports fan. If ESPN is going to charge HBO like subscriber fees, then they need to be a la carted the same way.


I of course meant "break even" on top line revenue, not bottom line profits. But since you brought up advertising revenue, if SyFy were suddenly delivered to only 1.2 million homes instead of 98 million, their advertising value would be diminished. While current ad rates are based upon viewer ratings, some shows draw more than the average share, other less. In an a la carte scenario NO show can draw more than the number of subscribers. In other words, that 1.2 million includes occasional viewers that watch SyFy now because it is there, but wouldn't want to pay $16 for it.

Bottom line, a la carte pricing is a sure fire way to drive at least half, perhaps as much as three quarters, of all currently operating channels into oblivion.

Here are the top 20 cable channels for 2011, based upon total primetime viewers:


```
Channel                  Millions of viewers
1. USA                   3.165
2. Disney Channel        2.647
3. ESPN                  2.342
4. TNT                   2.232
5. History               1.987
6. Fox News              1.883
7. TBS                   1.614 
8. A&E                   1.561
9. FX                    1.532 
10. ABC Family           1.462 
11. Nick At Nite         1.344 
12. SyFy                 1.330
13. Discovery            1.288
14. Adult Swim           1.237
15. HGTV                 1.205
16. MTV                  1.189
17. AMC                  1.182
18. Food Network         1.177
19. Comedy Central       1.006
20. Bravo                0.926
```
If you favorite channel is not on this list, it might not survive in an a la carte world.


----------



## MarkG21 (Jan 4, 2010)

If you really want a la carte pricing (And NOT a sports fan), why not just ditch cable/sat and get an ota antenna for local channels and news and going the iTunes/amazon route and buy your shows individually? 

Am I missing something here?? Is it more complex than that? I can see if you don't have high speed Internet in your area. What other road blocks are there?


For me, I like direct tv's model. I'm a huge sports fan. Watch espn constantly. (thank you everyone for subsidizing espn and all the other sports channels for me).


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"MarkG21" said:


> If you really want a la carte pricing (And NOT a sports fan), why not just ditch cable/sat and get an ota antenna for local channels and news and going the iTunes/amazon route and buy your shows individually?
> 
> Am I missing something here?? Is it more complex than that? I can see if you don't have high speed Internet in your area. What other road blocks are there?
> 
> For me, I like direct tv's model. I'm a huge sports fan. Watch espn constantly. (thank you everyone for subsidizing espn and all the other sports channels for me).


There is a lot of programming not available via streaming yet. Or costs a lot more that way. Or you have to wait for it.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

joshjr said:


> I think this is a pretty narrow minded view. One reason I choose DirecTV is that I want a provider that covers all of my needs. DirecTV is the only option that does that. I have a DVR that records 5 shows at once (cant get anywhere else) I have NFL Sunday Ticket (cant get anywhere else) I get all the channels I want, etc. Why would I want to go to the internet and sign up for multiple services to watch the shows? Why would I want to get rid of my DVR that is more convenient for me then watching stuff on the internet? While I agree the internet is an option it is not for everyone. I for one will NOT be leaving DirecTV anytime soon.


I'd agree if not for the ever increasing costs. There is a price point where it just isn't worth what you get. You're obviously willing to pay more and that's great. I just don't put some much value in a few TV channels...


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

joshjr said:


> Thats great, so far if I understand you correctly you will probably have a Netflix account that isnt free, a Hulu account that isnt free, may want some kind of a DVR setup that wont be free at least up front and your talking sports PPV's online. Good luck with that. I will stick with the company that already has all that together and removes the headache from me.


Again, I do agree - it just comes down to price. Obvisouly, at least for now, DirecTV is easier.. But for many of us it means paying $25+ per month per channel considering how few channels we watch.

Your milage may vary!


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

joshjr said:


> So a few channels are able to get away with it and you think its practical for all channels to do this? I think not.


I don't think it is practical for all channels - obviously the bulk of channels can't/wouldn't survive. I'm just saying I'm good with that. Watched any MTV lately? Me either!:lol:


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Titan25 said:


> Here are the top 20 cable channels for 2011, based upon total primetime viewers:
> 
> 
> ```
> ...


Ok, I'll bite - keep these channels and get rid of the rest!:lol:


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

lokar said:


> I am hopeful that the rates rise to the point where there will be mass defections from all cable/satellite providers and then the rates will fall. It is ridiculous that rates rise far higher than inflation every year and it's all because of no a la carte.


1. If there were mass defections rates could not fall. The amount paid to the channels is by contract.

2. Price per channel would be much higher with A La Carte. No savings there unless you only wanted 2 channels.


----------



## goinsleeper (May 23, 2012)

lokar said:


> HBO shows that you can be a la carte and successful.


HBO and sports are not even remotely comparable in this manner. If you live in New York and like the Yankees, chances are you'll see them on local or regional programming. Another large portion of revenue is tickets sold for fans to sit at the game. The more people you allow to watch the game at home, the less money the team makes from tickets. Eventually even the hot dog vendors lose their jobs.

Now take HBO. They have contracts with studios and do not pay for the creation of 99% of the programming you see. They have costs for their own investments and they do pay the studios for the rights to show their movies but they do not pay the $x millions directly for the filming of those movies.

HBO is also not governed by the FCC is the same manor as regional sports. The reason for any sports subscription is the ability to get around the FCC. Being on the west coast and wanting to watch an east coast team creates problems with basic programming. Being able to pay for a subscription directly for MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL... is the work-around and is basically the al a carte that you are refering to.

The overall difference here is HBO is one type of programming(for the most part), movies and original series. Sports is much more vast. What part of the country are you in? What type of sports are you looking for? Is it college, pro or high school? Do you need to pay for the channel or is it on a local affiliate? Even if you pay for the Sunday Ticket, if a game is being shown on your local or regional channel it will be blacked out on the NFL package. This is so the game can be sold twice, once to a channel holder and again to the nation.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

goinsleeper said:


> ...This is so the game can be sold twice, once to a channel holder and again to the nation.


Not quite...the game is not being sold, you are. The real business of broadcast television (any channel that runs advertising) is the sale of viewers to advertisers. Your are not the customer, your are the product.


----------



## goinsleeper (May 23, 2012)

Titan25 said:


> Not quite...the game is not being sold, you are. The real business of broadcast television (any channel that runs advertising) is the sale of viewers to advertisers. Your are not the customer, your are the product.


Are you differentiating between local affiliate and RSN? Otherwise agreed with the side note that the rights are still sold with the idea of making the money back and then some with advertising costs. If you buy the rights to show a game, your advertising goes up for that selected time. The Superbowl being the obvious example.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Mike Greer said:


> Ok, I'll bite - keep these channels and get rid of the rest!:lol:


Ok, here we go:


```
Channel                Number of viewers     Monthly Revenue    a la carte Price
                          (millions)           (millions)       (revenue neutral)
====================   ===================   =================  =================
1. USA                 3.165                 $ 48.4              $ 15.30
2. Disney Channel      2.647                   87.1                32.90
3. ESPN                2.342                  405.9               172.90
4. TNT                 2.232                   99.0                44.30
5. History             1.987                   18.7                 9.40
6. Fox News            1.883                   59.2                31.50
7. TBS                 1.614                   48.5                30.00
8. A&E                 1.561                   15.0                 9.60
9. FX                  1.532                   40.3                26.30
10. ABC Family         1.462                   18.1                12.40
11. Nick At Nite       1.344                   44.9                33.40
12. SyFy               1.330                   20.6                15.50
13. Discovery          1.288                   24.3                18.90
14. Adult Swim         1.237                   16.8                13.60
15. HGTV               1.205                   13.7                11.40
16. MTV                1.189                   27.1                22.80
17. AMC                1.182                   22.3                18.90
18. Food Network       1.177                    7.9                 6.70
19. Comedy Central     1.006                   13.7                13.60
20. Bravo              0.926                   16.7                18.00
                                                                 =========
                                                      Total:      557.40
```
The current Monthly Revenue is calculated using the number of households in which the channel is available (as stated on the channel's website) and the 2009 per subscriber costs (so current revenue is undoubtedly higher now). The a la carte monthly price is rounded to the nearest 10 cents. The AMC numbers do not take into account the loss of Dish Network viewers.

Obviously, with only 20 channels, the number of viewers for each channel would probably go up. But even if the montly a la carte costs were 25% of the above values, many subscribers would not save much, if any money, at the cost of over 150 channels.

This idea that a la carte pricing would lower costs is based upon the mistaken assumption that the per subscriber cost would remain what it is today under the current tier model. A la carte pricing simply won't work the way its advocates think it will.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

goinsleeper said:


> Are you differentiating between local affiliate and RSN? Otherwise agreed with the side note that the rights are still sold with the idea of making the money back and then some with advertising costs. If you buy the rights to show a game, your advertising goes up for that selected time. The Superbowl being the obvious example.


All I was saying is that the game is not being sold twice because it isn't being sold at all. The viewers are being sold...the local viewers to the local advertisers, the national viewers to the national advertisers.


----------



## RD in Fla (Aug 26, 2007)

Those doubting the sustainability of ESPN need to read this article.
http://www.businessweek.com/printer...dium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Maoxian+(Maoxian)


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Titan25 said:


> Ok, here we go:
> 
> Obviously, with only 20 channels, the number of viewers for each channel would probably go up. But even if the montly a la carte costs were 25% of the above values, many subscribers would not save much, if any money, at the cost of over 150 channels.
> 
> This idea that a la carte pricing would lower costs is based upon the mistaken assumption that the per subscriber cost would remain what it is today under the current tier model. A la carte pricing simply won't work the way its advocates think it will.


But.... You're assuming that the viewers of the channels that went away would just go away. I don't think that's the case. How many viewers were around when there was only 3 or 4 channels to watch? But it doesn't really matter.... Something will have to change. People seem to be getting closer and closer saying 'screw it!'&#8230;.

I can afford to pay $200 or $300 a month for TV but I won't do it. I'll go back to broadcast TV with a Tivo before I hit $200 and I don't think I'm alone.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Mike Greer said:


> But.... You're assuming that the viewers of the channels that went away would just go away. I don't think that's the case. How many viewers were around when there was only 3 or 4 channels to watch? But it doesn't really matter.... Something will have to change. People seem to be getting closer and closer saying 'screw it!'&#8230;.
> 
> I can afford to pay $200 or $300 a month for TV but I won't do it. I'll go back to broadcast TV with a Tivo before I hit $200 and I don't think I'm alone.


No, as I said, the viewership for each of the remaining channels would go up. But even if each viewer subscribed to, say, half of the remaining channels, they would end up costing about $40 to $50 once you add in the distributor's margin (remember these are the costs to the cable and satellite operators...your cost would be somewhat higher).

$40 for 10 or so channels...show how that's better than what we have now.


----------



## crkeehn (Apr 23, 2002)

Mike Greer said:


> Originally Posted by Titan25
> Here are the top 20 cable channels for 2011, based upon total primetime viewers:
> 
> Code:
> ...


What?????
No BBCA??????
What will I do for My Top Gear and Graham Norton fixes?

Sorry for the awkward post, couldn't get multi-quote to work.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

RD in Fla said:


> Those doubting the sustainability of ESPN need to read this article.
> http://www.businessweek.com/printer...dium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Maoxian+(Maoxian)


I have many a friend and colleague that work there. They aren't going anywhere. They are the 800lb gorilla and they know it.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

TheRatPatrol said:


> But what if all providers stood up to these high priced sports channels and said enough is enough, sports needs its own package, wouldn't that help the cause? Movie stars have high salaries too, yet movie channels can be put together in their own package.
> 
> The true sports fans are willing to pay to get their sports. I know I would pay more to get the Pac 12 Network, as well as many others on here.


Thing is, they won't and everyone knows it. You can't work together, that's collusion and illegal. As soon as someone stands up, another one goes for a short term win and signs them up to try and lure customers away from the one that doesn't have it.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Carl Spock said:


> Wait a minute, *SR*. Maybe I need a third cup of coffee but aren't you arguing for two completely contradictory positions? What is it? Should sports channels like the PAC 12 be a separate tiered package? That's what the article you linked to seems to say DirecTV's position is. Or are they part of the base package? You seem to be telling *TheRatPatrol* that must be the case.
> 
> Please tell me what I'm missing here.


Not at all. I talking about what is desired and what is reality. I'm showing that many customers who don't like sports want it to be tiered. Fair point. D* tries to do that with Pac 12 and what happens? Those that don't care about cost want it no matter what. Again, puts a distributor in a very difficult position. Trying to manage insane cost increases, mostly at the hands of sports, while also delivering a product that SOME people (very passionate) want without impacting everyone.

Very difficult. My point with HBO is that you simply will not see sports in a HBO time a la carte format any time soon, in my opinion. Despite the fact the distributors would love to see that happen to control costs and despite the fact many customers would love to see that, the economics won't allow for it.

The sports channels are often backing into a number based on over reaching on what they promised the team and\or league. Let's take the Lakers channel for example. They grossly overpaid for that product for the next 20 years. Now they have to monetize it across all these distributors. Everyone has to pay a ton of money to make them whole so they can make the Lakers whole. If that channel was only on a sports tier or a la carte as the poster suggested, the channel would be about $50 a month for that one channel in order for TWC to deliver the same revenue to the Lakers. That is because the number of people truly interested in the channel is far far far less than the required distribution the network needs. That's why I say that the HBO model won't work there. It's hard enough to get sports channels into a sports tier (ironic statement, don't you think), but putting them solely a la carte I don't see happening due to the economics at work.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Satelliteracer, I really appreciate your replies and participation. Thumbs up to you! :righton: 

The service providers are in a bad position. I certainly wouldn't want to be DirecTV in a fragmenting market.

It would be interesting if someone would try a premium subscription for a limited market channel. But then, I bet the market research has been taken and there just wouldn't be enough subscribers to make this work. You'd need a broader base to support the network. I could see a sports pack consisting of all of these college sports channels popping up. That I would buy. If the package was diverse enough to be a nationwide draw, including people who are simply fans of college sports and not just the alumni of a particular conference, maybe it would work.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Satelliteracer is exactly correct. Just look at the numbers for ESPN...if split off into a premium it would be prohibitively expensive - something around $200 per month for the subscriber. There are lots of reasons for this situation, from player salaries to league excesses to channel demands, but you can't unring the bell.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"Mike Greer" said:


> Again, I do agree - it just comes down to price. Obvisouly, at least for now, DirecTV is easier.. But for many of us it means paying $25+ per month per channel considering how few channels we watch.
> 
> Your milage may vary!


The average bill is around $100. You only watch 4 channels?????

If you do, you are a complete outlier.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

Titan25 said:


> Not quite...the game is not being sold, you are. The real business of broadcast television (any channel that runs advertising) is the sale of viewers to advertisers. Your are not the customer, your are the product.


So, we're sort of like dairy cows - here to be milked... ?
Moooo


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

mreposter said:


> So, we're sort of like dairy cows - here to be milked... ?
> Moooo


Keee-rect! Cows to the left, sheeple to the right.... But at least we in CA are told our herds are happy herds! :sure:


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Titan25 said:


> No, as I said, the viewership for each of the remaining channels would go up. But even if each viewer subscribed to, say, half of the remaining channels, they would end up costing about $40 to $50 once you add in the distributor's margin (remember these are the costs to the cable and satellite operators...your cost would be somewhat higher).
> 
> $40 for 10 or so channels...show how that's better than what we have now.


Even if the prices don't go down at least we could take the money wasted on channels that nearly no one wants and spend that on real programming...

I know what you're saying - I don't think it is quite as bad as you do but again... If something doesn't change there won't be as many subs 5 years from now....


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

tonyd79 said:


> The average bill is around $100. You only watch 4 channels?????
> 
> If you do, you are a complete outlier.


I'm not sure what you mean by 'a complete outlier' but 4 channels isn't too far off if you don't count my locals (that I don't need to pay for anyway) and showtime.

Discovery, SyFi, Comedy Central and History Channel are pretty much it. I guess I do watch ESPN once in a while but could live without it....

Bottom line - I pay way too much of the convenience of DirecTV...


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Mike, I just think you are more honest than most about how few TV stations you actually watch. I know for me, 75% of my watching is from maybe half a dozen stations, and that includes my locals.

We want the smorgasbord, and will occasionally grab a plate of food that we rarely eat, but most of the time we feed from the same basic food groups.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Carl Spock said:


> Mike, I just think you are more honest than most about how few TV stations you actually watch. I know for me, 75% of my watching is from maybe half a dozen stations, and that includes my locals.
> 
> We want the smorgasbord, and will occasionally grab a plate of food that we rarely eat, but most of the time we feed from the same basic food groups.


We should have a poll.  I just counted, and I watch 35 basic cable channels...HBO, Showtime, Starz,...random RSNs for sports packages...and 6 networks.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Carl Spock said:


> Mike, I just think you are more honest than most about how few TV stations you actually watch. I know for me, 75% of my watching is from maybe half a dozen stations, and that includes my locals.
> 
> We want the smorgasbord, and will occasionally grab a plate of food that we rarely eat, but most of the time we feed from the same basic food groups.


My favorites list only has 22 Channels. Of those, 90% of my viewing is on 10 channels (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, ESPN, TBS, TNT, USA, HBO, SHO)


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

I only watch consistantly:

FOX News
AMC
NBCS
Regional Sports Channel
My CBS Affiliate
TV Land
Hallmark
The Weather Channel
Palladium
MGM

If I could just have these, for $20.00 a month, I'd drop the rest!


----------



## davidpo (Apr 6, 2006)

I'd say in another 10 yrs ,if the current trend of rate increases continues or increases. I would not be surprised to see a mass exdous of subscribers,and the providers will just have to lower their prices or go poof. When the avg bill goes over $100 or higher there will be alot of people going back to ota. Same goes for ticket prices to sporting events at some point people will stop going especially, if the economy keeps going down the tubes.

Then again humans are a dumb lot sometimes,and some just amaze me. I know as far as I'm concerned once the bill hits over $100. I will be going back to 4 channels and netflix or something.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

davidpo said:


> Then again humans are a dumb lot sometimes,and some just amaze me. I know as far as I'm concerned once the bill hits over $100. I will be going back to 4 channels and netflix or something.


Directv's average customer bill is in the low $90s (I think $92 was mentioned in the last quarterly report.) And with average annual March price increases of around $4-5 dollars, they'll hit that magic $100 average in about two years.

However, Directv plays at the higher-end of the subscription TV market, so most dish and cable subscribers are spending less per month. The complicating factor is that many cable subs bundle, so their monthly bills include internet and phone, pushing their total monthly bills into the $150+ range.

From the reports I've read there are only a few true cord cutters, mostly at the fringes of the market. But there appears to be a growing trend among young adults that are choosing not to subscribe in the first place. In college they don't subscribe, or use their parent's service and get much of their "tv" entertainment off the web. Once they've graduated and get jobs of their own they just never sign up for cable or sat. Their smartphones are far more important to them than their TVs.

If this trend is real and continues to grow, that's when you'll see real changes in the industry. My own guess is that within 10 years cable/sat will be dominated by sports and news and that more and more people will stream their general entertainment. This will lead to a collapsing down of regular networks, so they'll only be one History channel, one Lifetime, etc, etc.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

Carl Spock said:


> Mike, I just think you are more honest than most about how few TV stations you actually watch. I know for me, 75% of my watching is from maybe half a dozen stations, and that includes my locals.
> 
> We want the smorgasbord, and will occasionally grab a plate of food that we rarely eat, but most of the time we feed from the same basic food groups.


The smorgasbord is the best description of TV viewing I have seen. I am in the same position, I can count on one hand the channels (other than locals) that I watch regularly - Speed, Syfy, Comedy Central, TNT, and Fuel. NBC Sports gets a once a week viewing in the summer for motocross, and while I do watch Monday Night Football the only games I really care about are also on a local.

I seriously considered dropping DirecTV last winter but after analyzing the costs of what I would need instead (DVR, streaming subscriptions, series I would have to buy on disc) and what I would give up (all motorcycle racing except MotoGP) I just cut back all the extras and have one HR24 and Total Choice plus. However if prices keep going up I will have to revisit this.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

davidpo said:


> I'd say in another 10 yrs ,if the current trend of rate increases continues or increases. I would not be surprised to see a mass exdous of subscribers,and the providers will just have to lower their prices or go poof. When the avg bill goes over $100 or higher there will be alot of people going back to ota. Same goes for ticket prices to sporting events at some point people will stop going especially, if the economy keeps going down the tubes.
> 
> Then again humans are a dumb lot sometimes,and some just amaze me. I know as far as I'm concerned once the bill hits over $100. I will be going back to 4 channels and netflix or something.


To each their own.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Carl Spock said:


> Mike, I just think you are more honest than most about how few TV stations you actually watch. I know for me, 75% of my watching is from maybe half a dozen stations, and that includes my locals.
> 
> We want the smorgasbord, and will occasionally grab a plate of food that we rarely eat, but most of the time we feed from the same basic food groups.


Excellent point with the smorgasbord comment!

I just went through my series manager and I do have to add Travel and TVland to my list.

So officially if all the channels other than my locals, Showtime, Discovery, SyFi, Comedy Central, History Channel, TVLand and Travel Channel went away today I wouldn't notice!

Wow, maybe it is getting closer to cord-cutting time&#8230;.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> We should have a poll.  I just counted, and I watch 35 basic cable channels...HBO, Showtime, Starz,...random RSNs for sports packages...and 6 networks.


Holy @#$^$%@#! How many hours a day do you watch TV?

I can see why you'd be against changing the current pricing model....


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> Holy @#$^$%@#! How many hours a day do you watch TV?
> 
> I can see why you'd be against changing the current pricing model....


About 8 hours... I'm somewhat homebound due to disability. I know I'm not the average viewer.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Mike Greer said:


> Holy @#$^$%@#! How many *hours a day *do you watch TV?





sigma1914 said:


> About *8 hours*... I'm somewhat homebound due to disability. I know I'm not the *average viewe*r.


Maybe not far from average either....but at least we know you're *much smarter *than the average Bear.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> About 8 hours... I'm somewhat homebound due to disability. I know I'm not the average viewer.


Ah, I wonder what the average is anyway?

I do watch a lot of TV but the majority of it comes form CBS, ABC, NBC and Showtime.

I don't think I can even name "35 basic cable channels" without looking!


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> Ah, I wonder what the average is anyway?
> 
> I do watch a lot of TV but the majority of it comes form CBS, ABC, NBC and Showtime.
> 
> I don't think I can even name "35 basic cable channels" without looking!


According to a NYT article dated May 3, 2012, viewing was about 153 hours and 19 minutes a month, which is over 5 hours a day. This article cites a decrease of about 30 seconds a day from the previous year. (Dates were 4Q of 2011 and 2010).

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/nielsen-reports-a-decline-in-television-viewing/

Also from a VideoMind article from December 2011:

"Meanwhile, on a weekly basis, the number of channels watched has increased slightly to 16 from 11."

http://videomind.ooyala.com/blog/forget-bundle-consumers-have-appetite-choice

I really think people watch more channels than they think they do. And if you are sports watcher, your numbers go way up. Especially if you have out of market sports on satellite or cable.


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

I would like to see D* make local channels optional. The reason is not that I would want to delete them from my package but rather that this would help to put a brake on the retransmission requests/demands by the networks. If subscribers in big cities like LA and NY where over the air broadcasts are plentiful and available in high quality are charged separately for locals, there might be a big push to install antennas to eliminate the extra fee. Lower subscriber levels might temper the requests by the programmers.


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

Yeah, price increases. The price we pay, for watching Viacom's hatchet jobs on their programming. I wish that they had held the line on this, during the Viacom dispute. I would have gave them no increase, because of their jamming of commercials, into their programming.


----------



## stoutman (Feb 8, 2003)

"DirectMan" said:


> I would like to see D* make local channels optional. The reason is not that I would want to delete them from my package but rather that this would help to put a brake on the retransmission requests/demands by the networks. If subscribers in big cities like LA and NY where over the air broadcasts are plentiful and available in high quality are charged separately for locals, there might be a big push to install antennas to eliminate the extra fee. Lower subscriber levels might temper the requests by the programmers.


That is not how the business works. Local channels are in the base packages for a reason. The revenue to a local channel is their life blood now. Free over the air with advertising and network support is from an era in the past. ESPN, RSN or locals are not leaving the base without a bloody fight in which the provider might lose. Dish provides wonderful case studies.


----------



## usnret (Jan 16, 2009)

Titan25 - at the $16+ per sub one can assume that 1,900,000 people aren't gona pay that amount, even though they like the channel. I would assume 1/2 would stick with it, thus making it $32+ per sub. Or am I getting something wrong here with my assumption?


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

I would think that is a reasonable assumption.


----------



## bills976 (Jun 30, 2002)

I'd be pleased as punch if I could just subscribe to...

OTA stations (Free)
NFL Sunday Ticket
NHL Center Ice
DVR service for OTA

I really don't need anything else. I pay $80/mo for a base package that I might use once or twice a week outside of OTA networks, NFL, and NHL. I'm a huge sports fan and ESPN gets little to no play in my house.

I also think many in this thread are discounting the impact young adults (25-35 or so) are having on subscriber counts. I am one of those adults and have a tech job where I make over six figures, and work with many other people in the same income bracket. All of us can easily afford TV at this price, but I'm the only idiot paying this much for TV, and the only reason I'm doing it is because I have to have Sunday Ticket. The rest of them are using Crackle, Netflix, lifeline cable from their internet subscription, and Redbox with some that are "splurging" on Hulu Plus. No one _has_ to have TV. It'll just be replaced with other forms of mindless entertainment like Sporcle, YouTube cat videos, and posting on message boards like this.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

usnret said:


> Titan25 - at the $16+ per sub one can assume that 1,900,000 people aren't gona pay that amount, even though they like the channel. I would assume 1/2 would stick with it, thus making it $32+ per sub. Or am I getting something wrong here with my assumption?


Every dollar the price bumps up the less people who are going to pay. At some point the provider will need to accept a price that would be a loss compared to the current 20c for everyone pricing structure - or cease transmission.

Operating at a loss means finding cheaper programming. Like it or not "reality" is fairly cheap. And for some reason people watch it ... so channels airing "reality" shows can sell those viewers and make money to cover their losses.

I hate to think of the number of channels I actually watch out of my subscription ... but then I remember that it is more channels than I would watch if my subscription were a la carte. If I had to decide in advance to subscribe to a channel before watching the content there I probably wouldn't bother with most channels. Even if the linear channel or its content were easily available "on demand" for instant purchase it would be easier to pass than pay ...

For example, how much is watching Steven Colbert on OWN worth? As part of my monthly subscription I get OWN and "never" watch it. But this weekend OWN aired an interview of Colbert and I could watch it at no extra cost (over what I already pay). Would I have paid $5 for that interview? I am glad I did not have to make the choice.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

James Long said:


> Every dollar the price bumps up the less people who are going to pay. At some point the provider will need to accept a price that would be a loss compared to the current 20c for everyone pricing structure - or cease transmission...


Exactly...and what many a la carte advocates don't realize is that most would be forced to the second option: cease transmission. We would be left with perhaps 10 general interest channels.

But, on the bright side, they'd all have terrific picture quality.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

bills976 said:


> I'd be pleased as punch if I could just subscribe to...
> 
> OTA stations (Free)
> NFL Sunday Ticket
> ...


well I think on cable under the old 1992 law you can get limited basic and add stuff like HBO to it.

Now maybe we need the same law for sat and stuff like NFL Sunday Ticket
NHL Center Ice do fall under addon channels packs like how HBO is.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

JoeTheDragon said:


> well I think on cable under the old 1992 law you can get limited basic and add stuff like HBO to it.
> 
> Now maybe we need the same law for sat and stuff like NFL Sunday Ticket
> NHL Center Ice do fall under addon channels packs like how HBO is.


In my home town to do this requires a digital box which is $10 a month even if you dont get any additional channels. Not to mention most cable DVR's dont have crap for recording space.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

joshjr said:


> In my home town to do this requires a digital box which is $10 a month even if you dont get any additional channels. Not to mention most cable DVR's dont have crap for recording space.


can also get a cable card for less then $10 a month.


----------



## Bambler (May 31, 2006)

One thing I don't see being discussed in all of this is the typical advertisement revenue shared by the operator (i.e., DirecTV) and source provider or "cable/satellite" channel.

There's a big misconception that if a channel gets added at, for example, $1.00 per subscriber, that DirecTV automatically has to increase rates that much to maintain the level of revenue they take in. Not true, but it's something DirecTV is definitely spinning to their advantage. 

I have no idea how the model exactly works, but DirecTV, like any cable operator, will sell you ad space. 

The amount of money gained by this revenue stream (and split in who knows what way between the channel and DirecTV) is significant. That is not to say that carriage fees can be entirely offset by the amount of revenue gained through ads, and some costs might have to burdened by the consumer (or maybe it is enough, who knows), but it's definitely not the "parity" situation DirecTV is playing.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Titan25 said:


> Exactly...and what many a la carte advocates don't realize is that most would be forced to the second option: cease transmission. We would be left with perhaps 10 general interest channels.
> 
> But, on the bright side, they'd all have terrific picture quality.


Maybe 10 plus the broadcast networks.....

I'd be good with that!


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

Some cable channels need to die. Bundling is a lifeline to those channels that don't deserve a place on the dial.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Bambler said:


> One thing I don't see being discussed in all of this is the typical advertisement revenue shared by the operator (i.e., DirecTV) and source provider or "cable/satellite" channel.
> 
> There's a big misconception that if a channel gets added at, for example, $1.00 per subscriber, that DirecTV automatically has to increase rates that much to maintain the level of revenue they take in. Not true, but it's something DirecTV is definitely spinning to their advantage.
> 
> ...


Eh, I see where your going with that, but, they already have that money coming in, and I doubt that they are getting as much more every year by any stretch as what they are being asked to pay in increases. SO I would say they likely have to cover the full value of the increase, or at least close to it.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

JoeTheDragon said:


> can also get a cable card for less then $10 a month.


If you look at what devices support CableCard anymore, it is only cable boxes. TVs no longer come with CableCard support and only a relatively small percentage of TVs supported it when it was the order of the day.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Mike Greer said:


> Maybe 10 plus the broadcast networks.....
> 
> I'd be good with that!


My fear is that 8 of them would be reality shows only, one would be non-stop infomercials, and the 10th one would be Fox News. :eek2:


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Titan25 said:


> My fear is that 8 of them would be reality shows only, one would be non-stop infomercials, and the 10th one would be Fox News. :eek2:


Yikes - when you put it that way.... Maybe I should reconsider!

That would just leave me with the broadcast networks.

Maybe we should decide what the 10 channels are.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

For Optimum, DVR service is $10.95 month and each cable box is $6.75 a month. Each CableCard is only $2.

So I returned my cable DVR and got a TiVo Premiere for free with a 2-year activation and got a CableCard, and I've been saving money, even with TiVo's $13.95 a month fee.


----------



## Jon J (Apr 22, 2002)

Titan25 said:


> Exactly...and what many a la carte advocates don't realize is that most would be forced to the second option: cease transmission. We would be left with perhaps 10 general interest channels.


I seem to recall something called the law of supply and demand and this may relate to that somehow. If we general interest subscribers stop subsidizing the niche channels they would go away. Would that be a bad thing? :lol:


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Jon J said:


> I seem to recall something called the law of supply and demand and this may relate to that somehow. If we general interest subscribers stop subsidizing the niche channels they would go away. Would that be a bad thing? :lol:


Depends on what you define as niche. If we consider anything below the top 10 cable networks as potentially niche channels, that would include Nickelodeon (#11), SyFy (#12), MTV (#16), AMC (#17) and Comedy Central (#19) based on their 2011 primetime ratings.

There are a lot of popular channels that didn't even make the top 20 - Speed, NFL Network, CNN, BBCA, Lifetime, etc.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

I am surprised (and saddened) that Fox News is on the list. Also surprised with MTV even being in the top 300! Makes me afraid for the future.

Other than those two - I'd be good with the top 20 and to dump the rest! How soon can we make this happen?


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

Mike Greer said:


> I am surprised (and saddened) that Fox News is on the list. Also surprised with MTV even being in the top 300! Makes me afraid for the future.
> 
> Other than those two - I'd be good with the top 20 and to dump the rest! How soon can we make this happen?


Why so sad about FOX News on the list? I think that it's a good thing, that FOX News is doing so well. Who's going to balance off the mainstream media's biased coverage, if FOX News doesn't?

I'm also pleased to see Nick At Night's ratings tank. It wouldn't have anything to do with their desire to over jam the commercial content and make their shows almost unwatchable now, would it?


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Fox News is totally biased towards the right. MSNBC is totally biased towards the left. Everybody else falls somewhere in between.

Almost makes you want to go read a paper...for as long they last.

That's what has me worried about the future.


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

mreposter said:


> Directv's average customer bill is in the low $90s


Ours is $49.95!!! (When i signed up it was $29.95 and not much worse then)

I cant believe how high it is now AND FOR BASICALLY CRAP!!


----------

