Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11
    Senior Member Mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 13, 2012
    Posts
    1,186

    lets just be blunt with the networks

    abc/disney/espn owns VT rights as well as monday nite nfl football. They are saying if YOU viewer want to see any sports on ESPN, including the BCS and college basketball you cable company must purchase the entire suite. ARE YOU PREPARED TO See no VT sports or NFL monday nite or college football. or ABC prime network.

    YOU know that Roth and the VT network is operated by CBS. They purchased the rights from VT including the scoreboard etc.



    Y;862176]i think that's the point of this whole conversation. (live) sports are in such demand that they will keep the current pay for television models alive and well for a long time. (Edit: nevermind, i read your post out of context, we're on the same page afterall...my bad!)

    i would add that convenience is a big piece, too. i also have a Roku, but nothing is as simple/easy as turning on the TV and browsing with my cable box remote. i can't imagine a day where i would have to manage a separate streaming subscription for every sports property i follow. convenience is king, and i, as most others, am willing to pay for it.

    now what i would love, and i'm guessing it is a ways out, is for FiOS/Xfinity/DTV, etc to form content partnerships to allow channels like ESPN3, NBC SportsExtra, and all the various "season pass" properties for all the major sports properties to create one or more "OnDemand" channels that work directly through my cable box. FiOS has apps on their cable box, it seems creating an ESPN3 App would be a simple transition. it's the multiple device management and lack of simplicity/quality for watching on a 60" TV that is killing me.[/QUOTE]

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by 33laszlo99 View Post
    A step further: Why should I have to buy all of the programming on any particular channel? That's bundling. I don't want the morning feel good shows, I don't want the soaps, the court tv, the "Wheel" or the amateur local news. I want three hours of Prime Time programming unbundled . Bundling is bundling. And bundling keeps prices down.
    Does it always keep the price down? Or is that just a marketing ploy the cable/dish companies use to convince people that the $200-$300 they pay per month for the premium sports package is a "good deal?" If you think about it, the cable and dish companies have a oligopoly over the industry. In most cases an oligopoly is not good for the consumer because there is no real competition to drive the prices down. In most (if not all) cases, cable companies have a monopoly over a particular region. So if consumers looking at alternatives, then their only choices are Fios (if available in the area) or satellite TV. Since all use the bundling method to package their products, then they aren't really alternative choices; just the same thing repackaged differently.

  3. #13
    BUGGZY's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 15, 2002
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    13,709
    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    Does it always keep the price down? Or is that just a marketing ploy the cable/dish companies use to convince people that the $200-$300 they pay per month for the premium sports package is a "good deal?" If you think about it, the cable and dish companies have a oligopoly over the industry. In most cases an oligopoly is not good for the consumer because there is no real competition to drive the prices down. In most (if not all) cases, cable companies have a monopoly over a particular region. So if consumers looking at alternatives, then their only choices are Fios (if available in the area) or satellite TV. Since all use the bundling method to package their products, then they aren't really alternative choices; just the same thing repackaged differently.

    ESPN is charging $5.00/mo to the cable companies on average (estimated/rounded) based on guaranteed subscriber numbers in the millions. say Xfinity negotiates with ESPN based on 25M subscribers to their basic package which includes ESPN. that's $125M in carriage fees. if bundling goes away, and only 10M people want ESPN, ESPN isn't going to take less money, so Xfinity would have to charge $12.50 for ESPN. by the time you get people subscribing to all their sports content alone, the carriage fees would almost certainly exceed the current bundled fees which include many more channels.
    "This no more resembles that than something unlike something else resembles that." - Loosely quoting PHNC

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by BUGGZY View Post
    ESPN is charging $5.00/mo to the cable companies on average (estimated/rounded) based on guaranteed subscriber numbers in the millions. say Xfinity negotiates with ESPN based on 25M subscribers to their basic package which includes ESPN. that's $125M in carriage fees. if bundling goes away, and only 10M people want ESPN, ESPN isn't going to take less money, so Xfinity would have to charge $12.50 for ESPN. by the time you get people subscribing to all their sports content alone, the carriage fees would almost certainly exceed the current bundled fees which include many more channels.
    I understand, but is more channels necessarily a good thing? What is the point of getting all those channels if no one in your household watches them? When you are trying to decide whether to upgrade to the next package so you can get those 2-3 channels you want to watch, the customer service rep does not say "for the additional $200 monthly charge you are buying the 3 channels you want and get 97 free channels." Instead they market it as "you are getting 100 channels at $2.00 per channel per month." If companies make their money off only certain channels (which should mean the rest are essentially "free"), then they should not market that all the channels were used to determine the bundling price.

  5. #15
    BUGGZY's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 15, 2002
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    13,709
    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    I understand, but is more channels necessarily a good thing? What is the point of getting all those channels if no one in your household watches them? When you are trying to decide whether to upgrade to the next package so you can get those 2-3 channels you want to watch, the customer service rep does not say "for the additional $200 monthly charge you are buying the 3 channels you want and get 97 free channels." Instead they market it as "you are getting 100 channels at $2.00 per channel per month." If companies make their money off only certain channels (which should mean the rest are essentially "free"), then they should not market that all the channels were used to determine the bundling price.

    it's just an evaluation of value....$75/mo for the 20 channels i want, or $75/mo for 500 channels i may or may not ever want to watch, but the option is there for the same price.
    "This no more resembles that than something unlike something else resembles that." - Loosely quoting PHNC

  6. #16
    Edgeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach
    Posts
    49,228
    Quote Originally Posted by BUGGZY View Post
    it's just an evaluation of value....$75/mo for the 20 channels i want, or $75/mo for 500 channels i may or may not ever want to watch, but the option is there for the same price.
    If you are a sports fan, the comparison is probably closer to: $150/month for the channels you want, vice $75/month for 500 channels you might never watch. It's the people watching those other channels that are subsidizing the expensive sports channels, not the other way around.
    "You start a conversation you can't even finish it
    You're talkin' a lot, but you're not sayin' anything
    When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed
    Say something once, why say it again?"
    - David Byrne

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Frozen Hokie View Post
    That al a carte is available, it is called Roku. The only thing holding me back from cutting the cord is the need for sport programming.
    It didn't hold me back. Now I walk up to the bar down the street to watch Tech games. Granted, I'm feeling a bit disconnected this football season, but that feeling will pass, I guess.
    No trees were harmed in the making of this post. However, billions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by 33laszlo99 View Post
    And bundling keeps prices down.
    Unless SO much is bundled and thrown together that you end up having to take WAY more than what you want in order to get what you want. If all I want is the occasional Tech game, having to pay for a whole cable subscription does not keep prices down. Well, it does, because getting the occasional Tech game has no lower price. But the "bundling keeps prices down" argument only applies to everybody that wants a critical mass of programming. It does not work for those who want less than that.
    No trees were harmed in the making of this post. However, billions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by BUGGZY View Post
    ESPN is charging $5.00/mo to the cable companies on average (estimated/rounded) based on guaranteed subscriber numbers in the millions. say Xfinity negotiates with ESPN based on 25M subscribers to their basic package which includes ESPN. that's $125M in carriage fees. if bundling goes away, and only 10M people want ESPN, ESPN isn't going to take less money, so Xfinity would have to charge $12.50 for ESPN. by the time you get people subscribing to all their sports content alone, the carriage fees would almost certainly exceed the current bundled fees which include many more channels.
    Right, but if all I wanted were ESPN, I would gladly pay $12.50 (or $15.00 or whatever) instead of the $100+/month for everything.
    No trees were harmed in the making of this post. However, billions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

  10. #20
    BUGGZY's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 15, 2002
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    13,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Edgeman View Post
    If you are a sports fan, the comparison is probably closer to: $150/month for the channels you want, vice $75/month for 500 channels you might never watch. It's the people watching those other channels that are subsidizing the expensive sports channels, not the other way around.
    100% true. i was just making a point that for most people, (even non die hard sports fans who may only want ESPN or their local SN), the bundles work out better than an a la carte system would unless they truly only want 3-5 channels no one else wants...in which case a la carte would likely lead to the demise of those channels anyway. bundles allow for variety. the idea of a la carte in principal sounds nice, but the reality of what it would cost is not a good thing for anyone.
    "This no more resembles that than something unlike something else resembles that." - Loosely quoting PHNC

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •